Is the theory of evolution true?
- Thread starter PetriFB
- Start date
You know it is! now stop acting like a fool and accept time has moved on since bible explanation was incepted.Petri said:
Don't you get your women to clean your graffiti in your village Borat?
imaplanck. said:You know it is! now stop acting like a fool and accept time has moved on since bible explanation was incepted.
Don't you get your women to clean your graffiti in your village Borat?
The most important proofs of Darwin from evolution were eg. Finches of Galapagos-islands, whose beak form had changed with years. Development of those birds has now followed over 100 year. In research has been stated, that as dry period their beaks thicken and its size grows. As moist period beaks return as before, because soft food is so plenty of that dry seeds do not need to use. From this returning of beak never talk anything, because it cancels beliefs of evolution. Nobody tell also it that finches have remain as finches. Of these is not developed new bird kinds.
And for example is taken research for support of evolution from butterflies (Biston betularius), which live in England. Dark individuals of kind can be seen against light trunks in so way, that birds found them and ate. Light individuals were preserved to continue to akin. When trunks came dark as a result of air's pollutants was destiny of light individuals that bird ate them and by that way now dark individuals increased.
Science magazine The Scientist 3 published from the beginning of year- 99 an article, in which was exposed, that for supporting of evolution is continually set up props. Because those mentioned butterflies don't naturally rest on the trunks (they move in the branches) and therefore butterflies are not visible to birds, researchers glued those butterflies to the trunks. Then they photographed these butterflies, for proof that light butterfly can be seen better against dark trunk and dark ones are in safety because of their protective colouring. For support of evolution theory Theories is often built faked stages and faked proofs. Makers of textbooks (supporting evolution) don't tell, that butterflies remain as butterfly, even though colour sometimes changes. Is used " only expression "evolution". Those proofs are not proofs developing of kind to another kind (macro-evolution) but inside of kind happening variation (micro-evolution).
This kind of deception and lie don't give reliable picture about evolution science, but shows to us that it is ready to make fake, that it can hold on to false beliefs... and makes about it science!
Planned refining work
As proof of evolution Darwin used also refining of domestic animals. Was claimed, that because man can refine from same basic form various races and conditions of the nature can change form of finches beak, and then developing of kind during hundred million years for another kind is not to accident and nature selection difficult challenge.
According to evolution microevolution (changing of butterfly colour for other) proves on behalf of macroevolution, in other words developing of kind for another kind (example developing of cloven-hoofed animal for whale. Because of this supporters of evolution don't want to speak about two different evolutions. Both prove same according to evolutionist.
Dog races is methodically refined over thousands years. Proofs from this have been found in connection with archaeological discoveries. For example nowadays popular Afghan hound is described in Egyptian papyrus scroll, which has timed for years 4000-3000 BC. But in dogs refining comes very well into view that dogs in refining remain as the dogs. New species of animal has not been create. In the question is microevolution variation, where kind remains as its own kind.
Scientific facts indicate however to us, that in animal refining even though it has practised over 4000 year has not succeeded to make new species of animal. Horse has remain to be as horse and dog as dog. Results of the animal refining function as strong proof against evolution theory. On the basis of experience during millenniums we can hold as sure matter it that kind can't by way of hard effort change for another kind. In refining of the animals (on the micro-evolution), is not anything to do with macro evolution (changing of kind for another kind).
So evolutionists live in a big lie ..........
You'll have to try make a coherent argument.
One point I did pick out though is that a butterfly changes colour so therefor wont be able to survive because it's no longer camouflaged? Have you not even considered that the new colour came about because a change of environment required it rather than the other way round? i.e a species migrated to a different niche where a different colour would preval over the old one, therefor generations randomly mutated with the new colour will eventual take over entirely after successive generations of competition.
One point I did pick out though is that a butterfly changes colour so therefor wont be able to survive because it's no longer camouflaged? Have you not even considered that the new colour came about because a change of environment required it rather than the other way round? i.e a species migrated to a different niche where a different colour would preval over the old one, therefor generations randomly mutated with the new colour will eventual take over entirely after successive generations of competition.
Your broken grammar makes it hard to understand, but what you are saying is that the new beaked finches are not a new species, correct? Yes, they are not a new species. Nobody said they were. New species develop after many small changes, not just a beak.PetriFB said:
Petri,
By the current definition, what makes a new species is that they cannot breed and produce viable offspring with their source population. Even if two butterflies that are almost identical but they can't breed, they are a separate species. Once this happens, the groups may continue evolving in similar ways, or they may evolve to be very different.
Given enough time, a species that "microevolved" initially, will change enough to be recognized as an entirely new kind of creature. This doesn't involve "new" information, only a change in the genetic code, which doesn't define the plans for a creature, but rather provide direction for growth, in cooperation with the outer environment.
Dogs were domesticated from wolves. The variety of dog types reveals the kind of rapid change that animals can undergo in a short time, given the right conditions. 4,000 years of dog domestication are still a blink of an eye compared to the hundreds of thousands of years that it usually takes for a new species to develop. Remember, as soon as dogs and wolves can no longer breed together, they are officially a new species. Sometimes only the fact that they don't breed is enough to declare a separate species.
Whales evolved from a hippo-like creature. This much can be seen in the DNA. In fact, whales have tiny vestigal hip bones inside them that are not attached to any other bones.
By the current definition, what makes a new species is that they cannot breed and produce viable offspring with their source population. Even if two butterflies that are almost identical but they can't breed, they are a separate species. Once this happens, the groups may continue evolving in similar ways, or they may evolve to be very different.
Given enough time, a species that "microevolved" initially, will change enough to be recognized as an entirely new kind of creature. This doesn't involve "new" information, only a change in the genetic code, which doesn't define the plans for a creature, but rather provide direction for growth, in cooperation with the outer environment.
Dogs were domesticated from wolves. The variety of dog types reveals the kind of rapid change that animals can undergo in a short time, given the right conditions. 4,000 years of dog domestication are still a blink of an eye compared to the hundreds of thousands of years that it usually takes for a new species to develop. Remember, as soon as dogs and wolves can no longer breed together, they are officially a new species. Sometimes only the fact that they don't breed is enough to declare a separate species.
Whales evolved from a hippo-like creature. This much can be seen in the DNA. In fact, whales have tiny vestigal hip bones inside them that are not attached to any other bones.
James gave good general description of the evolution of the eye. I did not know it had happen 40 times independently. I did (and do) know that Petri's God saved his best version for the octopus. Not only is it bigger in proportion to body and absolutely and thus has superior resolution capacity, it is also not so stupidly designed as the human eye. The retina of the human eye is "built backwards"* The photosensitive cells in the human eye only get the light that was not absorbed by the blood vessels which are between them and the incoming light. Not only this, but also all of the nerves, which spread out from the “blind spot”, are interposed in the light path, in two distinct layers. The eye of the octopus is well designed with the photo-sensitive cells up front and the support structure behind. The human eye also lacks the reflective layer behind the photo sensitive cells that double their sensitivity as God did provide for many night active animals, such as all the cats (That reflective layer is why cat’s eyes shine back at you when illuminated by flashlight at night.)
Evolutionists (what silly fools ) say that the difference between human and octopus eyes is because they evolved independently. The God’s truth is either:
(1) God was drunk when designing humans eyes,
OR
(2) God was still learning when designing humans and did not yet have the "eye design" problem well solved. (Obviously, God designed the octopus later.)
OR
(3) God thinks less of the humans than octopus and wanted to clearly show this.
Which do you think it is PetriFB? Or do you have some other explanation?
PS If memory serves me correctly, the Chambered Nautilus is a very old creature (among the complex ones) in the evolutionary scale. Its eye is at that stage of development where the light sensitive pit is deeply recessed and has closed down to make a pin hole camera, but it has no lens, and not even a transparent film covering over the opening (which could confer the benefit of keeping dirt out**, and then could later thicken to form a lens.) That is the sea water fills the interior of the Chambered Nautilus's eye.
I suspect that if humans keep throwing trash in the sea, including oil spills etc, then in a few million years or less the Chambered Nautilus that have survived the trash will at least have a transparent film closing their eye opening. Therefore, the motto for the day is:
Next time you are at the beach, throw some trash in the ocean to push evolution along.
----------------------------------
*Evolution has reason for this, related to fact retina is initially part of the brain and migrates away to its later location, preserving the brain’s general structure etc, but no point in telling this to Petri, because Petri BELIEVES (that God was stupid or drunk, etc. )
**Until quite recently the deep ocean, where the Chambered Nautilus lives, was very clean and the benefit of a protective film closing the eye was not worth the biological cost of evolving it. Any Chambered Nautilus that made this evolutionary step in eye development was selected against, but if we all throw more trash in the ocean, we can help them along! DO YOUR PART. :bugeye:
James:
Did you know that among the 40 different versions of eyes that have evolved there is a small (flea sized, I seem to recall) creature that has only a single photo sensitive cell in each of its eyes? This cell is on a small flexible stalk inside the eye and there are minute mussels attached that can move the sensitive cell around inside the eye. The creature literally scans the image by moving the sensitive cell around!
Glad the early ancestors of man went down the multiple-cell retina path instead, aren't you?
Evolutionists (what silly fools
) say that the difference between human and octopus eyes is because they evolved independently. The God’s truth is either:(1) God was drunk when designing humans eyes,
OR
(2) God was still learning when designing humans and did not yet have the "eye design" problem well solved. (Obviously, God designed the octopus later.)
OR
(3) God thinks less of the humans than octopus and wanted to clearly show this.
Which do you think it is PetriFB? Or do you have some other explanation?
PS If memory serves me correctly, the Chambered Nautilus is a very old creature (among the complex ones) in the evolutionary scale. Its eye is at that stage of development where the light sensitive pit is deeply recessed and has closed down to make a pin hole camera, but it has no lens, and not even a transparent film covering over the opening (which could confer the benefit of keeping dirt out**, and then could later thicken to form a lens.) That is the sea water fills the interior of the Chambered Nautilus's eye.
I suspect that if humans keep throwing trash in the sea, including oil spills etc, then in a few million years or less the Chambered Nautilus that have survived the trash will at least have a transparent film closing their eye opening. Therefore, the motto for the day is:
Next time you are at the beach, throw some trash in the ocean to push evolution along.
----------------------------------
*Evolution has reason for this, related to fact retina is initially part of the brain and migrates away to its later location, preserving the brain’s general structure etc, but no point in telling this to Petri, because Petri BELIEVES (that God was stupid or drunk, etc.
)**Until quite recently the deep ocean, where the Chambered Nautilus lives, was very clean and the benefit of a protective film closing the eye was not worth the biological cost of evolving it. Any Chambered Nautilus that made this evolutionary step in eye development was selected against, but if we all throw more trash in the ocean, we can help them along! DO YOUR PART. :bugeye:
James:
Did you know that among the 40 different versions of eyes that have evolved there is a small (flea sized, I seem to recall) creature that has only a single photo sensitive cell in each of its eyes? This cell is on a small flexible stalk inside the eye and there are minute mussels attached that can move the sensitive cell around inside the eye. The creature literally scans the image by moving the sensitive cell around!
Glad the early ancestors of man went down the multiple-cell retina path instead, aren't you?
Last edited by a moderator:
you are making the very same mistakes i have and that is talking about evolution and how life arose as if they are the same thing.PetriFB said:
lets keep this thread on topic and about evolution please.
okay, you have acknowledged that there are naturaly occuring chemicals that can alter genes.
do you understand that statement is the foundation of evolution?
now to answer your question.PetriFB said:
since you have acknowledged that gene structures can be altered naturaly this shouldn't be too much of a leap for you.
some genes will be altered, some not.
the genes that are altered will have varying degrees of alteration.
and of course more than one gene will be altered.
now given the above it is easy to assume that the next generation will incorporate the alterations to a varying degree. some will stand a better chance at surviving than others. we now have a generation that has been modified naturaly. can you see now how millions of years can produce the species of today? i have no problems with evolution, if you look at it objectivly you won't either.
Evolution is intelligent, just slightly more intelligent than total randomness. It has an IQ of about 1. But, it has a long, long, long time to build upon previous success. As soon as a cell formed a mutation that caused light sensitivity, that mutation would spread rapidly, as would later modifications to increase sensitivity and resolution.PetriFB said: