Denial of evolution III

Status
Not open for further replies.
John99 said:
i think you are seeing what you want to see.

then you have to ask yourself, why would god create all these (millions of them) closely related species? to me this seems like something occurring in nature and fairly random.
Click to expand...
Actually science forgot about all of these in their theories, Darwin was concerned.
Science is proud to show all of the similarities, in whales for example show differences but gradual placement of fins etc. But if you are going to create a million animals, and these are to fit certain places in the food chain, why not make a DNA sequence and be able to manipulate as you like. Very much like computer code.
The other big question about this is, why does all the changes been made from evolution stop at completed animals, why does it not continue on. So we should be seeing bit's of new kinds of legs for instance or unknown part parts, in this trial and error that evolution would do. Evolution doesn't know it should stop doing this. But we don't see this either. If evolution was correct we should be see all sorts of horrendous animals in all states of change, in the world right now.
One other thing is that when, a system for a leg for example, you need heart, lungs, kidneys , veins, nerves, blood, and all connected to the brain. What came first, in this system? You need the whole system at the same time for any of it to be useful. And how did evolution know what was needed to make working legs? Not only but the bones have to fit other bones, but not touch each other, but use other tissue to connect all of this. When your done it is not just some, awkward leg , it could be the legs of a cat. How did the brain get all the gaits of movement for the animals so that eyes , muscles, brain can move like that of a cat.? Science can't demonstrate this even in a lab.
The reason we don't see any of this is that it is impossible. Without creation to make it correct in the first place, there would not be anything.
 
spidergoat said:
Every time we look for fossils that must be there, they are found. That's what I call evidence. We have found intermediary species between ape-like creatures and humans. This is what one would expect to find if we evolved from an ape-like creature. If God made mankind from scratch, there would be no such fossils.
Click to expand...

Oh okay... the pattern can be attributed to something other than evolution too but anyways about the 'ape-like' fossils-

I need to study them so I can't comment on that yet but there is one thing:

Fossils can only fit to form morphological phylogenies..... Scientists have basically moved on to molecular phylogenies- some of these have made surprising changes. How will they fit under these is questionable- of course they will probably arbitrarily put them between apes and humans but that is like a self-fulfilling prophecy. I wonder if scientists have ever thought that traits that Humans have could have evolved independently many times during the course of evolution? That would complicate things even more-

Anyways I really hope to get a chance to study these- especially Ardi... Any of you know where complete images of these fossils can be found, hopefully in hi-res?

Peace be unto you ;)
 
The other big question about this is, why does all the changes been made from evolution stop at completed animals, why does it not continue on. So we should be seeing bit's of new kinds of legs for instance or unknown part parts, in this trial a error that evolution would do.
Click to expand...

an incomplete animal has to be able to survive but i dont know how you would recognize if an animal is complete or incomplete.

there are parts of animals, humans included, that are not even functional or a another variation would be more beneficial and even work better.
 
By the way the theory that evolution occurred by 'gradual' changes is practically dead- punctuated equilibrium is the way to go- so the theory continues :rolleyes:

"Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin was virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

By the way they did teach Punctuated Equilibrium in the Evolution Systematic class at UW- that's the first place I heard it.

Peace be unto you ;)
 
Last edited:
John99 said:
also remember- nature does not like a vacuum, if there is a place for life...there will be life.
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody knows :shrug: Or are you proposing something similar to Murphy's Law- there is probably one that focuses on the 'good' rather than the 'bad' already...huh

Peace be unto you ;)
 
and it is this tenacity, this tenacity life has for surviving that give me chills. look at the virus that changes and says 'i am gonna beat everything you throw at me'

'WHY? because i want to live' it says.
 
John99 said:
and it is this tenacity, this tenacity life has for surviving that give me chills. look at the virus that changes and says 'i am gonna beat everything you throw at me'

'WHY? because i want to live' it says.
Click to expand...

WTF- why're you bringing that in? Are you saying that living things want to live- for the sake of argument I can accept that- but then are you imply by your previous post that non-living things want to become living?- This idea is full of crap because most of the universe is non-living (not life).

Peace be unto you ;)
 
John99 said:
where did i say 'non-living things want to become living'? something not living cannot want anything.
Click to expand...

So what the hell was your point to bring up a virus?

I just made the connection from your previous post that 'there will be life' and then you said about a 'virus wants to live'-

Or are you just posting random bs?

Peace be unto you ;)
 
stereologist said:
This statement makes no sense to me. If it is directed, then it is not random.
Click to expand...

LOL!!!

Natural Selection selects non-randomly the randomness that exists due to mutation, genetic drift and so on .... That is why, as Dawkins says, Evolution is not completed a chance thing.... Natural Selection is non-random..... Godly Selection is likewise non-random selecting on the randomness of the other mechanisms.

Does it make sense now?

Peace be unto you ;)
 
Last edited:
John99 said:
an incomplete animal has to be able to survive but i dont know how you would recognize if an animal is complete or incomplete.

there are parts of animals, humans included, that are not even functional or a another variation would be more beneficial and even work better.
Click to expand...
Incomplete if it wasn't too extreme, could still live. But it also could be born dead, and would still be in the fossil record.
As for parts on humans or other animals, science does not know everything about all of this, they may learn new things.
 
hay_you said:
Incomplete if it wasn't too extreme, could still live. But it also could be born dead, and would still be in the fossil record.
Click to expand...

incomplete would be a defect and defects dont last in a hostile environment. fossils are hard to come by and not every creature that dies in nature creates a fossil that would show the intact specimen.

i am not the spokesperson for evolution so i dont want to give that impression.
 
John99 said:
incomplete would be a defect and defects dont last in a hostile environment. fossils are hard to come by and not every creature that dies in nature creates a fossil that would show the intact specimen.

i am not the spokesperson for evolution so i dont want to give that impression.
Click to expand...

The frequency of detrimental mutations is usually higher than beneficial ones- you would expect even the defects to be in the fossil record (if they possess the material to be fossilized)- I think this is what 'Hay you' is referring to..:shrug:

Peace be unto you ;)
 
first you have to recognize it as a defect. how would you do that and can you give some examples as to what you are referring to?
 
John99 said:
first you have to recognize it as a defect. how would you do that and can you give some examples as to what you are referring to?
Click to expand...

I don't know ask Hay You...lol...its his question afterall...I was simply offering a clarification....

This is interesting to think about though: If a defect was fossilized there is no way to tell...as you said... would scientists label it as a new specie or perhaps an intermediate because it would undoubtedly be similar to the 'normal'- if the defect was due to some 'rapid evolution', that is, that the defect presented some significant change- then probably that would be deemed a intermediate-

OR

Well another specie-

Shows the problem scientists face when dealing with the fossil record because clearly if it is a fatal defect then the organism probably won't survive to reproduce- and so couldn't act as an intermediate/ancestor for a future specie. But how will scientist know this? Its quite difficult because the fossilized specie could potentially 'function', because scientists are imaginative, but the internals of the organism, tissues that don't get fossilized, could be as such that it would be Naturally Selected against..... and not reproduce to act as ancestors or intermediates- how will scientists figure this out :shrug:

Peace be unto you ;)
 
but the point is, how do we declare what is a defect?

is a bird beak a defect? i dont know, it could be. would the bird be better off without a beak? i would assume so but i cannot say for sure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top