Theory of Evolution Should have never been a part of this game!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Caligastia
If thats the case, then you have to admit that you dont know if there is an afterlife or not.

That's why I'm agnostic, but I do believe it's highly unlikely for there to be one, and treat my life accordingly.

Call it Asher's Wager. Chances are there is no afterlife, so don't count on there being one and live your life now how you want to do it, and not how "God" wants you to do it.

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Their is no fossle evudens of evlushun. Its a mith made up by the libral jewish media. Creationism is a proven sinetific FACT that doesn't get publishd in sintefic jurnols becuz there biesed. Anybody who believes in evolushunism is going to HELL!

ROFL!

Excellent summary, KH.

[Arrian]

*nods* Pretty much how I see it, Asher.

Krazyhorse.

-Arrian

[Draco aka Se7eN]

Ok where is this TONS of evidence?

Please show me

I am growing tired of arguing with Hypocrits.

Show me evidence of evolution. Then i will show you evidence that disproves it. There is far more evidence that disproves evolution that supports it.

[Adm.Naismith]

So you are trying to throw out many years of scientific study down the toilet, aren't you?

Man, I never found a pile of silly creationism words as big as is. I'm happy to live in a place a bit more realistic, still inside a strong religious population (Italian)

I only like to mention the Catholic Church and its Pope accept scientific method since many years, as the general concept of Evolution.

Roughly simplified, they simply believe the origin of the life come from God, while the evolution obey to His general rules, but free to act inside them.
So, anyone can believe what he/she like about the source of the first "big bang" of the universe (in a loose sense of start, I mean), but from that real start of everything to today it's a field for scientific method, who is so strong to always accept to discuss itself and consider better theory, if any is proven more effective to match the scientific evidence.

Remenber, not every scientific theory can be proven in full as common mathematics problem: simply they fit with scientific, experimental results better than any other suggested theory. Leave the game and apolyton forum for some days and read some good book about science. It can't damage your brain, you know.

[ranskaldan]

Poor silly humans. A temporarily stable pattern of matter and energy stumbles upon self-cognizance for a moment, and suddenly it thinks the whole universe was created for its benefit.

Whoa.
I'm going to quote that in my signature.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
LOL PROVOST HARISON
Thats all you need to prove evolution once and for all. But here is the thing. There is no fossle evidence. You can come up with all the hypothisises and idea's you want. But that would make you know better than creationists. However creationists do have proof on their side. If we did not evolve from a single celled organism then how did we get here? if there is no fossle evidence of one creature evolving into another then how did we get to be who we are? If you look at the fossle records every species found has always existed in its original form. IF that is the case then logically Creation scientifically holds true.

The reason for this is that new species evolve suddenly as opposed to gradually.

quote:

The story of man's ascent from seaweed to the lordship of earthly creation is indeed a romance of biologic struggle and mind survival. Man's primordial ancestors were literally the slime and ooze of the ocean bed in the sluggish and warm-water bays and lagoons of the vast shore lines of the ancient inland seas, those very waters in which the Life Carriers established the three independent life implantations on this planet.

Very few species of the early types of marine vegetation that participated in those epochal changes which resulted in the animallike borderland organisms are in existence today. The sponges are the survivors of one of these early midway types, those organisms through which the gradual transition from the vegetable to the animal took place. These early transition forms, while not identical with modern sponges, were much like them; they were true borderline organisms--neither vegetable nor animal--but they eventually led to the development of the true animal forms of life.

The bacteria, simple vegetable organisms of a very primitive nature, are very little changed from the early dawn of life; they even exhibit a degree of retrogression in their parasitic behavior. Many of the fungi also represent a retrograde movement in evolution, being plants which have lost their chlorophyll-making ability and have become more or less parasitic. The majority of disease-causing bacteria and their auxiliary virus bodies really belong to this group of renegade parasitic fungi. During the intervening ages all of the vast kingdom of plant life has evolved from ancestors from which the bacteria have also descended.

The higher protozoan type of animal life soon appeared, and appeared suddenly. And from these far-distant times the ameba, the typical single-celled animal organism, has come on down but little modified. He disports himself today much as he did when he was the last and greatest achievement in life evolution. This minute creature and his protozoan cousins are to the animal creation what bacteria are to the plant kingdom; they represent the survival of the first early evolutionary steps in life differentiation together with failure of subsequent development.

Before long the early single-celled animal types associated themselves in communities, first on the plan of the Volvox and presently along the lines of the Hydra and jellyfish. Still later there evolved the starfish, stone lilies, sea urchins, sea cucumbers, centipedes, insects, spiders, crustaceans, and the closely related groups of earthworms and leeches, soon followed by the mollusks--the oyster, octopus, and snail. Hundreds upon hundreds of species intervened and perished; mention is made only of those which survived the long, long struggle. Such nonprogressive specimens, together with the later appearing fish family, today represent the stationary types of early and lower animals, branches of the tree of life which failed to progress.

The stage was thus set for the appearance of the first backboned animals, the fishes. From this fish family there sprang two unique modifications, the frog and the salamander. And it was the frog which began that series of progressive differentiations in animal life that finally culminated in man himself.

The frog is one of the earliest of surviving human-race ancestors, but it also failed to progress, persisting today much as in those remote times. The frog is the only species ancestor of the early dawn races now living on the face of the earth. The human race has no surviving ancestry between the frog and the Eskimo.

The frogs gave rise to the Reptilia, a great animal family which is virtually extinct, but which, before passing out of existence, gave origin to the whole bird family and the numerous orders of mammals.

Probably the greatest single leap of all prehuman evolution was executed when the reptile became a bird. The bird types of today--eagles, ducks, pigeons, and ostriches--all descended from the enormous reptiles of long, long ago.

The kingdom of reptiles, descended from the frog family, is today represented by four surviving divisions: two nonprogressive, snakes and lizards, together with their cousins, alligators and turtles; one partially progressive, the bird family, and the fourth, the ancestors of mammals and the direct line of descent of the human species. But though long departed, the massiveness of the passing Reptilia found echo in the elephant and mastodon, while their peculiar forms were perpetuated in the leaping kangaroos.

Only fourteen phyla have appeared on this planet, the fishes being the last, and no new classes have developed since birds and mammals.

It was from an agile little reptilian dinosaur of carnivorous habits but having a comparatively large brain that the placental mammals suddenly sprang. These mammals developed rapidly and in many different ways, not only giving rise to the common modern varieties but also evolving into marine types, such as whales and seals, and into air navigators like the bat family.

Man thus evolved from the higher mammals derived principally from the western implantation of life in the ancient east-west sheltered seas. The eastern and central groups of living organisms were early progressing favorably toward the attainment of prehuman levels of animal existence. But as the ages passed, the eastern focus of life emplacement failed to attain a satisfactory level of intelligent prehuman status, having suffered such repeated and irretrievable losses of its highest types of germ plasm that it was forever shorn of the power to rehabilitate human potentialities.

Since the quality of the mind capacity for development in this eastern group was so definitely inferior to that of the other two groups, the Life Carriers, with the consent of their superiors, so manipulated the environment as further to circumscribe these inferior prehuman strains of evolving life. To all outward appearances the elimination of these inferior groups of creatures was accidental, but in reality it was altogether purposeful.

Later in the evolutionary unfolding of intelligence, the lemur ancestors of the human species were far more advanced in North America than in other regions; and they were therefore led to migrate from the arena of western life implantation over the Bering land bridge and down the coast to southwestern Asia, where they continued to evolve and to benefit by the addition of certain strains of the central life group. Man thus evolved out of certain western and central life strains but in the central to near-eastern regions.

In this way the life that was planted on this planet evolved until the ice age, when man himself first appeared and began his eventful planetary career. And this appearance of primitive man on earth during the ice age was not just an accident; it was by design. The rigors and climatic severity of the glacial era were in every way adapted to the purpose of fostering the production of a hardy type of human being with tremendous survival endowment.

[Kirel]

Slight enhancement

Well, there are a few arguments going on here, I'll see what I can make of them:

I strongly believe in the theory of Evolution. Not Darwin's evolution though; he merely laid down the basic ideas such as natural selection and niche competition. That original theory has become a very, very strong case for the organization of life, the Modern Theory of Evolution. The Modern Theory has been bolstered by 20th and 21st century technologies such as genetics, computers, and improved scientific tools.
I have not seen one piece of evidence that goes against the modern theory. Evolution is happening all around us, right now. Case in point: you wonder why so many people have foot problems? That's because we're still evolving to walk upright! Homo sapiens has only been around about a million years; that's not a long enough time to go from tree-dwellers to upright walkers without problems.
Also, many people seem to think that evolution means creatures are evolving "up" a ladder toward the perfect organism. This is a huge misconception! We are not moving up the evolutionary ladder, we are moving out . Species evolve to adapt to whatever conditions they may encounter. Example: the evolution of Homo sapiens was most likely the creation of the East African Rift Valley. Prior to this cataclysmic event, our ancestors were content to stay in the trees, because that whole area was nothing but jungle! After the valley was formed, our predecessors had to adapt to survive on the grasslands and plains that had formed.
The antibiotic example mentioned above is a case of evolution in action that we can see happening! If you continue to expose organisms to the same stimuli, they will adapt to counter it, and so on.
Further elaborating, your fossil argument makes no sense. There cannot be a fossil of an animal turning into another animal because evolution doesn't work that way. Organisms do not spontaneously turn into other organisms that leave different fossils. Within the evolutionary theory, there are two schools of thought: gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. Gradualism follows the traditional model: organisms slowly develop enhancements and eventually turn into other species over a long period of time. I am of the second school (punctuated equilibrium): evolution proceeds in ebbs and flows; there are long periods of time where evolution occurs very slowly, punctuated by (relatively) short periods where lots of new species appear (usually due to a natural disaster or some other large event). As a result, the fossil record would go long periods of time with little change, punctuated by fossils of many species that had never appeared before. Seems to work for me!
Finally, on the whole "watchmaker" thing:
Those who claim the universe is a very complex thing are not wrong: you're just not looking at the big picture! The universe, by current estimates, is about 13-14 billion years old, the Earth is about 4.5 billion, and life has been around for about 3 billion (feel free to correct me if these numbers are wrong). Can you comprehend how long a period 3 billion years is? This complex system you see today did not arise overnight! It gradually developed over periods of time that our brains cannot comprehend. That's like looking at the Empire State Building and saying that God must have made it, because it couldn't have just sprung into existence! Like a building, the system of Life that we are entwined with has been building itself over billions of years, up from nothing but inanimate amino acids and chemical bonds. Most likely, all life on Earth is dervied from building blocks brought to the early planet from outer space. That's right, you and I may be the descendents of extraterrestial life!
I see the Universe as an evolving system running on the simple laws of probability and chance. Everything I've seen or read has either strengthened or at least not detracted from this view.
That's all.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Asher

That's why I'm agnostic, but I do believe it's highly unlikely for there to be one, and treat my life accordingly.

Call it Asher's Wager. Chances are there is no afterlife, so don't count on there being one and live your life now how you want to do it, and not how "God" wants you to do it.

But if you think there is no way to know if there is one or not then there is no reason to believe that its "highly unlikely" or not, all you can say (if youre being honest with yourself) is "I dont know".

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
Ok where is this TONS of evidence?

Please show me

I am growing tired of arguing with Hypocrits.

Show me evidence of evolution. Then i will show you evidence that disproves it. There is far more evidence that disproves evolution that supports it.

whoa
that's such an assertion

hmm okay
now debunk:

Fossils
- fossils of animals
- preserved leaves
- preserved mammoths
- dating methods
- transitional forms eg. Archaeopteryx
- strata
Continental Drift
- plate tectonics
- the way the continents fit together
- how the rocks closer to the middle of the Atlantic are younger
- distribution of fossils across oceans, eg. South America and South Africa
- formation of mountains trhough folding
the Big Bang
- why it's false
- also: craters on the Moon
- lava flows on the moon, despite the fact that it's geologically inactive
the Ice Age
- moraine etc. features typical of Ice advancing

I'm amazed that with geology, biology, physics, astronomy and chemistry fitting together like jigsaws to support evolution, some people still don't believe in it.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Caligastia
But if you think there is no way to know if there is one or not then there is no reason to believe that its "highly unlikely" or not, all you can say (if youre being honest with yourself) is "I dont know".

I don't know for sure, but there's zero evidence in favor of it and plenty of evidence against it.

Where would people go? Can spirits and souls move around freely without a body? Not that I know of.

It doesn't matter, though.

There's no proof of it, and if God really was all-powerful and he cared for me he would have done something to show me the way.

I already know if there is an afterlife I'm going to hell, so I'm hoping there's not and I'm living my life "in the now".

[Draco aka Se7eN]

Asher i wasnt saying i wasnt a teenager i was saying its foolish to assume that i know nothing because im a teenager.

And your remark about my grammer is also foolish. I am not arguing with one person, i am probably now arguing with 6 or 7 people trying to respond as fast as i can.

IF you cant understand that much then how can you understand much of anything?

Two words come to my mind when i think of evolutionists. Biased and denile

Please stop confusing my argument for an argument that religion is right. Im not here for that.

Im here to argue that Evolution is false. IF you were willing to be patient i could however put a rather long post together based on several books i have read.


I would like to add that Provest harrison said somewhere along the lines of that i have been brainwashed.

Well i am turning the tables, i am saying that EVOLUTIONISTS have been brainwashed.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
Im here to argue that Evolution is false. IF you were willing to be patient i could however put a rather long post together based on several books i have read.

Sure.
Go ahead.

[loinburger]

Well i am turning the tables, i am saying that EVOLUTIONISTS have been brainwashed.

Making baseless and nonsensical reversals of your opponents' assertions, eh? I'm glad to see that you're capable of arguing at a third-grade level.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
LOL PROVOST HARISON

How inteligent of you to assuem that im a teenage know nothing LOL

Judging by your intellectual grasp and sophistication of use of language and spelling, I'd say it was a fair conclusion.

I would also like to know how evolution at all helps with our knowlege of genetics and molecular bioligy.

Wrong way round boy. Our knowledge of genetics and molecular biology brings the knowledge of the importance of nucleic acids in organisms, and thus in evolution, and the significance of mutation in evolution in changing the characteristics of an organism. Basically.

I also find it amusing that you assume that i know nothing about this subject. You couldnt be more incorrect. I know more about this than you think. Im not going to insult you on the other hand. Im not going to claim that you are not intelligent. Obviously if you are a teacher at oxford you must be intelligent. However i ask of you to not assume that i lack intelligence because i do not believe what you believe.

Just a graduate, not a teacher, although I have been a PhD student in the biological sciences for some time now. I am assuming you have no knowledge of this field because you have not made the slightest attempt to bring any facts to this debate, just accusations, wild assumptions and spurious lies.

I have already called you out. Show me fossle evidence of evolution and i will believe in evolution.

Well it's damn hard to show fossils over the internet Besides this is all to do with the pathway of evolution, which is always up for a tweak here and a tweak there, although considerable fossil evidence has been used to demonstrate such evolution. You can find it with a quick internet search, trust me, but there is so much of it, I'm not going into it in any detail. But this isn't relevent to the modern neodarwinist theory of evolution. Evolution and natural selection can be observed in systems such as acquisition of antibiotic resistance in a bacterial system, say, for example, penicillin, which blocks glycopeptide transpeptidase - an enzyme important in peptidoglycan synthesis, essential in the construction of cell walls in bacteria. However a mutation which lead to a slight change in the structure of this enzyme's active site meant that penicillin no longer bound effectively, and thus the inhibitory, and thus antibiotic effect, was lost, and hence you have penicillin resistance.

Or shall we go into the example of clonal selection theory, expressed in B cells and plasma cells which synthesise antibodies. In the acquired immune system, a whole range of different B cells are generated each possessing different immunoglobulin structures and thus, each with different binding properties (of course those which react to the bodies own components are terminated). When they encounter an unidentified pathogen, they activate (with 'confirmation' from helper T lymphocytes) and proliferate, an example of selection of a particular type of cell with a particular property. But it doesn't end there, affinity maturation occurs. Random mutations are produced by the cell on the binding area of the immunoglobulin. Obviously most of these changes are deleterious and reduce the binding affinity of the immunoglobulin, so that line is discarded. However a few result in a higher binding affinity. This line continues, and further affinity maturation continues from this line. And after this process, the binding affinity of an immunoglobulin can be 10 000 times stronger than the original B cell.

Those are good examples of evolution at work on a small level. Of course for larger levels, we only need to look at the past thousands of years of crop breeding and selection, an example of selection, albeit 'artificial'. The principles are the same, just that we supply the selection pressure. Do you think wheat, a type of grass, is naturally the form it is? It isn't terribly efficient, but for our needs it is, as we have aimed for a higher yield and larger size of crop.

Thats all you need to prove evolution once and for all. But here is the thing. There is no fossle evidence. You can come up with all the hypothisises and idea's you want. But that would make you know better than creationists. However creationists do have proof on their side. If we did not evolve from a single celled organism then how did we get here? if there is no fossle evidence of one creature evolving into another then how did we get to be who we are? If you look at the fossle records every species found has always existed in its original form. IF that is the case then logically Creation scientifically holds true.

There is nothing 'logical' about creation, it is just written in some old book. Is that what you need as evidence? For me, my friend, it is woefully inadequate, and not worthy of consideration as a reasonable theory of life. There is plenty of fossil evidence as well.

And with regards to evolving from a singular celled organism. Are you familiar with the term 'abiogenesis', how life evolved on the molecular level? You see, there is no fossil evidence for a cellular organism because they don't leave fossils. But there is other evidence, although not quite as direct, but compelling nonetheless, looking at thermophylic bacteria which are closely related to some of the earlier organisms, analysis of genomes between different species, their similarities, looking at relative physiology, and if possible, fossil records. There is a lot more to this than simply finding a fossil my friend. A lot more.