There is no "who" and there is no "plan".PetriFB said:
Is the theory of evolution true?
- Thread starter PetriFB
- Start date
So many errors of fact in PetriFBs 'summation', that I cannot address them all here.
Does he have some other explanation? He certainly seems to believe in ancient life (dinosaurs that lived millions of years ago) in one breath, and then apparently that everything is actually very recent in another.
Apparently, he has not bothered to read the many excellent posts in biology here in sciforums (or any real science textbook), or he would have seen the posts by Valich and others pertaining to the recent find of a fossilized fish with front legs instead of fins that could raise its head out of water, and the progression of fossils giving rise to tetrapods from fish.
Valich and I have also had posted excellent information on the changes from prokaryotes to eukaryotes, inferred by cellular chemistry, etc. [And no, they do not make good fossils because they have no hard parts, so one would not expect to find fossils].
But, just to humor Petri, he might wish to ponder on 'why' the laws of physics are exactly as they are, which allowed for the development of a solar system wherein evolution was possible, giving rise to sentient beings including people, 'created' by evolution in a rather pleasing (or, at least to my eye) image, which many say is the image of the 'creator'.
Does he have some other explanation? He certainly seems to believe in ancient life (dinosaurs that lived millions of years ago) in one breath, and then apparently that everything is actually very recent in another.
Apparently, he has not bothered to read the many excellent posts in biology here in sciforums (or any real science textbook), or he would have seen the posts by Valich and others pertaining to the recent find of a fossilized fish with front legs instead of fins that could raise its head out of water, and the progression of fossils giving rise to tetrapods from fish.
Valich and I have also had posted excellent information on the changes from prokaryotes to eukaryotes, inferred by cellular chemistry, etc. [And no, they do not make good fossils because they have no hard parts, so one would not expect to find fossils].
But, just to humor Petri, he might wish to ponder on 'why' the laws of physics are exactly as they are, which allowed for the development of a solar system wherein evolution was possible, giving rise to sentient beings including people, 'created' by evolution in a rather pleasing (or, at least to my eye) image, which many say is the image of the 'creator'.
At first sit down and think .....how natural selections succeed to build up seeing eyes and hearing ears, without intelligence and plans and Creator who put things together?
Secondly evolution science uses words like assumption and estomation and about ......no fact there, but only assumptions.... how brightly thinking man can believe assumptions?
There needed much more faith to believe evolution theory than the Bible ...
Secondly evolution science uses words like assumption and estomation and about ......no fact there, but only assumptions.... how brightly thinking man can believe assumptions?
There needed much more faith to believe evolution theory than the Bible ...
According to those who believe to evolution theory:
All plants and animals are result of slow development. By accident from dead material born initial cell happened copying faults, thanks to cell database grew and million years later diversified. Stronger cells ate weak cells and like this better survived to increase and to diversify. In some phase was born original form of plants, after every fern phases formed various increase alternatives and finally also basic form of apple and so on. At the same time by accident developed other kind of living organisms. For those developed by way of accident and mutations senses and to moving necessary limbs. In some phase they noticed by accident for colourful changed blossom of plants and knew by accident tempting fragrance, which plants spread. Developed ecological system of apple plant and insects co-operation.
Difficulty to evolution is, that researchers have not found any intermediate form for indication about development of millions different plants and species of animals. Known fact is, that assumed development events are among other things against following law of nature: law of thermodynamics, law from the birth of life and law from information (increasing of information by itself). Cell activity regulating Dna-program does not accept addition of information, which comes from outside, which is to evolution theory also large difficulty. It, that over 99% from observed mutations are harmfuls, and yet any improving competitiveness individual mutation have not found. Evolution believers say that this shouldn't shake to believe to evolution. Also not it, that nature selection doesn’t improve kinds, but selection is directed only already existing kinds.
Despite from all conflicts they wanna believe, that accident, mutations and nature selection are efficient elemental force, which had been ability and skill bring about this beautiful world, in which we live. Fossils, all living marks and natural phenomenons would come to explain thus, that they support evolution theory and this belief would come to move also all possible ways to next generations.
So we see how some people believe to deception and things which are impossible ......
But everybody can choose his way and he is in charge of about his life ... and one day he has to face his Creator ...
All plants and animals are result of slow development. By accident from dead material born initial cell happened copying faults, thanks to cell database grew and million years later diversified. Stronger cells ate weak cells and like this better survived to increase and to diversify. In some phase was born original form of plants, after every fern phases formed various increase alternatives and finally also basic form of apple and so on. At the same time by accident developed other kind of living organisms. For those developed by way of accident and mutations senses and to moving necessary limbs. In some phase they noticed by accident for colourful changed blossom of plants and knew by accident tempting fragrance, which plants spread. Developed ecological system of apple plant and insects co-operation.
Difficulty to evolution is, that researchers have not found any intermediate form for indication about development of millions different plants and species of animals. Known fact is, that assumed development events are among other things against following law of nature: law of thermodynamics, law from the birth of life and law from information (increasing of information by itself). Cell activity regulating Dna-program does not accept addition of information, which comes from outside, which is to evolution theory also large difficulty. It, that over 99% from observed mutations are harmfuls, and yet any improving competitiveness individual mutation have not found. Evolution believers say that this shouldn't shake to believe to evolution. Also not it, that nature selection doesn’t improve kinds, but selection is directed only already existing kinds.
Despite from all conflicts they wanna believe, that accident, mutations and nature selection are efficient elemental force, which had been ability and skill bring about this beautiful world, in which we live. Fossils, all living marks and natural phenomenons would come to explain thus, that they support evolution theory and this belief would come to move also all possible ways to next generations.
So we see how some people believe to deception and things which are impossible ......
But everybody can choose his way and he is in charge of about his life ... and one day he has to face his Creator ...
Scientists have proved the principle of the thing. It would be interesting, but it's not necessary to find a fossilized representation of all intermediate forms. Scientists have found intermediate forms of human beings... ape-like creatures that were bipedal, but had small brains.PetriFB said:
It is unlikely for any living to fossilize at all, and it becomes increasingly more likely the longer a creature survives as a species. Intermediate forms are short lived, since when an animal discovers some new trick, that immediately confers an advantage, which increases it's number, which increases it's diversity and opportunity for further rapid evolution. For instance, once a bug started to use it's paddle-shaped limbs for flying instead of scooting across the water, in the blink of an eye, they spread out to fill ecosystems that were previously unavailable to them. The time spent inventing a new use for it's limbs was comparatively small.
Did you know that the bones of the inner ear were originally jawbones?
Why are there no fossil humans for most of the history of life on Earth? You only find them later than 3 million years or so.
Last edited:
Does not apply, since Earth is not a closed system. In the entire system of the observable universe, chaos is increasing. The order that life represents is so statistically small, that it doesn't upset the average.
What is that?
The difference between one species and another lies in relatively small percentages of change in DNA. Some sections of DNA code are protected to some degree by redundancy, they are the parts that generally lead to death if altered. Evolution is very, very dumb, but since it is slightly smarter than pure randomness, it accumulates.
If you are proposing that the rise of living things is too complex for anything but God to be the cause, then you are calling God an idiot.
Spidergoat:
That migration of jaw-bones to the inner-ear region is believed to have occurred even possibly before development of the amphibians. It is quite an interesting motion. Inclusion of those bones in a more primitive ear certainly would have increased the ability of the inner ear to transmit sound.
Of course, the creationists' "explanation" for everything is that there is no explanation, but it was just made that way, by magic. Light traveling through interstellar space magically appeared en-route, to make it appear as if it had been travelling for millions of years. Radioactive decays used for dating just magically appeared in the proper ratios to make it appear as if the ages agree with their accompanying fossils, etc. Extinct species with progressively more primitive traits (e.g. those extinct fish that had front legs and feet, but were still gill-breathing fish) appearing in progressively older layers of rock are but examples of a vast 'flood' that wiped out all of those species suddenly.
The creationists believe that their god set about to create a world that would fool everyone into believing that there can be an orderly explanation of things, when in fact their god is just 'testing' us to see if we will be fooled by the world in which we live, and our powers of logic to analyze that world. If we fail that test, and instead believe the world to be explainable by rational thought, then we are doomed to their god's hell, whatever they believe that to be.
Anyway, it is difficult to argue with closed minds who are unwilling to look at the vast body of evidence (not just biology, but geology, chemistry, astrophysics, etc.) that all fits quite well with evolution, and for which the only other explanation is magic, which we know is no explanation at all.
To my way of thinking, God is the journey, not just the destination, and the method of the journey is provided by rational thought.
P.S. Are you in a race with Q for the number of posts? He's ahead by 69!
That migration of jaw-bones to the inner-ear region is believed to have occurred even possibly before development of the amphibians. It is quite an interesting motion. Inclusion of those bones in a more primitive ear certainly would have increased the ability of the inner ear to transmit sound.
Of course, the creationists' "explanation" for everything is that there is no explanation, but it was just made that way, by magic. Light traveling through interstellar space magically appeared en-route, to make it appear as if it had been travelling for millions of years. Radioactive decays used for dating just magically appeared in the proper ratios to make it appear as if the ages agree with their accompanying fossils, etc. Extinct species with progressively more primitive traits (e.g. those extinct fish that had front legs and feet, but were still gill-breathing fish) appearing in progressively older layers of rock are but examples of a vast 'flood' that wiped out all of those species suddenly.
The creationists believe that their god set about to create a world that would fool everyone into believing that there can be an orderly explanation of things, when in fact their god is just 'testing' us to see if we will be fooled by the world in which we live, and our powers of logic to analyze that world. If we fail that test, and instead believe the world to be explainable by rational thought, then we are doomed to their god's hell, whatever they believe that to be.
Anyway, it is difficult to argue with closed minds who are unwilling to look at the vast body of evidence (not just biology, but geology, chemistry, astrophysics, etc.) that all fits quite well with evolution, and for which the only other explanation is magic, which we know is no explanation at all.
To my way of thinking, God is the journey, not just the destination, and the method of the journey is provided by rational thought.
P.S. Are you in a race with Q for the number of posts? He's ahead by 69!
PetriFB said:
What 'order' do you refer? There are millions of species on the planet, with millions more now extinct, all quite diverse from each other. Your question does not make sense.
What 'fits together' perfectly? You need to clarify your questions.
The theory of evolution may not be entirely true. However, the basic theory has held up after being tested time and time again by scientists. That's why it's called a theory. 
There maybe be some details that are debateable, but they will be sorted out eventually.
Evolution itself, however, is true.
There maybe be some details that are debateable, but they will be sorted out eventually.Evolution itself, however, is true.
PetriFB:
Have you sat down and thought about this? Or have you just read some Creationist web sites and taken what they said as gospel?
Here's something you probably don't know about the evolution of eyes. Let me know if this helps you.
The eye is thought to have evolved from scratch over 40 times in the evolutionary history of the Earth. Even today, there are living creatures with many different kinds of eyes.
Things did not go from no eye to a full, complex eye like you have, in an instant. The evolution of the complex eyes takes place over many generations, with small beneficial changes gradually accumulating - as in all aspects of selective evolution.
The simplest possible "eye" consists of just a bunch of cells which are slightly light-sensitive. An animal with this kind of eye can't distinguish shapes or objects, but can tell the direction light comes from.
The next step is for the light sensitive cells to become recessed in a "pit" of some kind, in an animal's head - like an eye socket. Animals with this kind of eye have better ability to discern the direction of a light source.
The next step is for the pit to almost close over, so that the eye is now like a pin-hole camera. Animals with this type of eye have a crude imaging ability.
The final step is for the eye to develop a lens, which increases its ability to form sharp images.
There are examples of all these types of eyes in different living things which are alive today. So, we can see all stages of the evolution - we don't need to guess how things happen.
Is a "plan" or "Creator" needed for any of this? No. Suppose a species of animal has just light-sensitive cells. Now, just by chance some of those animals will be born with their eyes slightly recessed into their heads - just like human beings are born with faces that look different from each other.
If a slightly-recessed eye is just a bit better at ensuring an animal's survival than a mere light-sensitive patch, then animals with recessed eyes will, over many generations, come to dominate the population, since the animals which only have light-sensitive patches will die off. And so, we have gone from a situation where few animals have recessed eyes to one where most of the population has recessed eyes.
Can you start to see how evolution really works?
Have you sat down and thought about this? Or have you just read some Creationist web sites and taken what they said as gospel?
Here's something you probably don't know about the evolution of eyes. Let me know if this helps you.
The eye is thought to have evolved from scratch over 40 times in the evolutionary history of the Earth. Even today, there are living creatures with many different kinds of eyes.
Things did not go from no eye to a full, complex eye like you have, in an instant. The evolution of the complex eyes takes place over many generations, with small beneficial changes gradually accumulating - as in all aspects of selective evolution.
The simplest possible "eye" consists of just a bunch of cells which are slightly light-sensitive. An animal with this kind of eye can't distinguish shapes or objects, but can tell the direction light comes from.
The next step is for the light sensitive cells to become recessed in a "pit" of some kind, in an animal's head - like an eye socket. Animals with this kind of eye have better ability to discern the direction of a light source.
The next step is for the pit to almost close over, so that the eye is now like a pin-hole camera. Animals with this type of eye have a crude imaging ability.
The final step is for the eye to develop a lens, which increases its ability to form sharp images.
There are examples of all these types of eyes in different living things which are alive today. So, we can see all stages of the evolution - we don't need to guess how things happen.
Is a "plan" or "Creator" needed for any of this? No. Suppose a species of animal has just light-sensitive cells. Now, just by chance some of those animals will be born with their eyes slightly recessed into their heads - just like human beings are born with faces that look different from each other.
If a slightly-recessed eye is just a bit better at ensuring an animal's survival than a mere light-sensitive patch, then animals with recessed eyes will, over many generations, come to dominate the population, since the animals which only have light-sensitive patches will die off. And so, we have gone from a situation where few animals have recessed eyes to one where most of the population has recessed eyes.
Can you start to see how evolution really works?
You're replacing an observed phenomenon which you refuse to accept with a very shoddy and extremely unscientific explanation of how each organism came to be the way it is today.PetriFB said:
First of all, you assume that a supernatural force exists without some sort of real evidence. Second of all, you build off this assumption before even attempting to find scientific evidence for it by further assuming that this supernatural force can deliberately control the natural universe, and futher, does deliberately control it. Third of all, you are assuming the existence of one very particular supernatural power whose very nature is very much debated. This is a very illogical way of thinking. You need to keep your explanations of the way things work simple, stupid.
That issue aside, you seem to think that the issue is whether or not the Earth's organisms evolve. Well, you missed that debate. It's long over. Both micro- and macroevolution have been observed by scientists. It's a fact of life that life evolves. What you should be debating is the validity of the explanation of how evolution happens. That is what the theory of evolution is.
Read about evolution. May I direct you specifically to the evidence of evolution and the common misunderstandings about modern evolutionary biology?
I would like to add, for those who need to know, that James R's explanation is an example of change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by the shifting allele frequencies of genes, which is powered by natural selection. And this is the very definition of evolution.James R said:
Weirdomandude
Registered Senior Member
so if God was the intelligent designer, then He set foot on this Earth forcing certain reptiles and eventually primates to breed to form the humans we have evolved to in this day? This intelligent design theory of Creationists doesn't hold. I think the natural selection sounds better than God breeding humanoids over millions of years.
Hei PetriFB,
In case you didn't realize I refuted the article you posted a link to already in my first post. I wonder why you didn't give a rebuttal. I showed the article was written by someone who didn't even have basic understanding of simple scientific principles, and moreover was totally wrong in about important facts.
Were you too busy to respond?
The article proposed that feathers couldn't have evolved out of the scales from lizards.
I corrected this by stating that nobody in the scientific community thinks birds evolved from lizards. They evolved from Dinosaurs.
Then i actually raised the rather embarrasing fact for you that dinosaurs existed with feathers.
Your job is now simple. Just refute the fact that dinosaurs didn't have feathers.
You can review the following article and destroy it with your creationists knowledge.
Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences
Vol. 33: 277-299
FEATHERED DINOSAURS
Mark A. Norell and Xing Xu
Recent fossil discoveries from Early Cretaceous rocks of Liaoning Province, China, have provided a wealth of spectacular specimens. Included in these are the remains of several different kinds of small theropod dinosaurs, many of which are extremely closely related to modern birds. Unique preservation conditions allowed soft tissues of some of these specimens to be preserved. Many dinosaur specimens that preserve feathers and other types of integumentary coverings have been recovered. These fossils show a progression of integumentary types from simple fibers to feathers of modern aspect. The distribution of these features on the bodies of these animals is surprising in that some show large tail plumes, whereas others show the presence of wing-like structures on both fore and hind limbs. The phylogenetic distribution of feather types is highly congruent with models of feather evolution developed from developmental biology.
Eagerly awaiting for you to show that these people are wrong. Because if they are not wrong you are. And your friends.
Just one article. That's all...Is that too much to ask for????
If you can't access it I will be happy to provide the PDF.
In case you didn't realize I refuted the article you posted a link to already in my first post. I wonder why you didn't give a rebuttal. I showed the article was written by someone who didn't even have basic understanding of simple scientific principles, and moreover was totally wrong in about important facts.
Were you too busy to respond?
The article proposed that feathers couldn't have evolved out of the scales from lizards.
I corrected this by stating that nobody in the scientific community thinks birds evolved from lizards. They evolved from Dinosaurs.
Then i actually raised the rather embarrasing fact for you that dinosaurs existed with feathers.
Your job is now simple. Just refute the fact that dinosaurs didn't have feathers.
You can review the following article and destroy it with your creationists knowledge.
Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences
Vol. 33: 277-299
FEATHERED DINOSAURS
Mark A. Norell and Xing Xu
Recent fossil discoveries from Early Cretaceous rocks of Liaoning Province, China, have provided a wealth of spectacular specimens. Included in these are the remains of several different kinds of small theropod dinosaurs, many of which are extremely closely related to modern birds. Unique preservation conditions allowed soft tissues of some of these specimens to be preserved. Many dinosaur specimens that preserve feathers and other types of integumentary coverings have been recovered. These fossils show a progression of integumentary types from simple fibers to feathers of modern aspect. The distribution of these features on the bodies of these animals is surprising in that some show large tail plumes, whereas others show the presence of wing-like structures on both fore and hind limbs. The phylogenetic distribution of feather types is highly congruent with models of feather evolution developed from developmental biology.
Eagerly awaiting for you to show that these people are wrong. Because if they are not wrong you are. And your friends.
Just one article. That's all...Is that too much to ask for????
If you can't access it I will be happy to provide the PDF.