Thread: middle east again...

Which fault argument would that be?

*sigh* Evolution is a theory that no one has proven, it is not based on fact, but on an idea a fellow named Charles Darwin came up with 150 years ago.

This is quite a game eh?

For evolution to be true, animals would have to evolve into different species...it has been proven that animals can be altered (the hundreds of dog types for example) but no matter how hard you try that animal will still be the same species, a dog can not evolve into a cat, a dog will always be a dog.

Originally posted by Clyde
"lack of proof doesn't disprove the existance of God"

True, in the same way that the lack of proof for some giant invisable floating sheep does not disprove them.

There was long a lack of proof for dinosaurs and meteorites, to name two examples. Nevertheless, they existed (or used to, for dinosaurs)

"As an aside, there's a recent alternative theory to the Big Bang that hypothesizes an oscillating universe with no beginning or end"

That theory is no longer believed by physicists, the universe is expanding and it's mass is not enough to ever cause it to contract.

See this link , from about a week ago. Proven, no, hypothesized recently, yes

>> For evolution to be true, animals would have to evolve into different species.

What? Where? Huh? Where _does_ this stuff come from??? I'm about 1 second from throwing up my hands and giving up.


>>Oh that site is bad, BAD.

BAD barely begins to describe it. Just when you think people are getting smarter....

My one second is up. *throws up hands* I give up.

<"2 - Evolution Operates Irreversibly - But scientists well-know that actions in nature can reverse and go in either direction"

- Not just ignorant but a plain LIE, you NEVER EVER EVER, get one species turning back into the species it used to be. Thats not to say that specific TRAITS cannot fluctuate with the environment. >

It did not say species, it said "actions in nature" therefore you are just repeating what it stated.



< "1 - Evolution Always Operates Upward, Not Downward - In other words, evolution always has positive effects. Yet, because it is supposedly totally random, half its effects would have to be negative"

- an example of the truly amazing ignorance displayed on that site. 99% of all mutations are "negative" in so far as they are not beneficial to the organism, BUT those genes get filtered out of the gene pool because the organisms with them are less likely to mate and hence pass the genes. Mutations that are benefical on the other hand will in all likelyhood spread throughout the entire population. >

So, out of 100 dogs 1 would be born with a mutation gene that will be benifitial. And that one dog will go on to have more puppys with that exact same good mutated gene. At least this is in "all likelyhood." In dog breeding the breeds out there that have been alterered genetacally all have health problems. Beagles are supseptable to weight gain, dalmations are almost always born deaf......the bad genes don't get breed out, they just go on and stay.

Okay so i lied about giving up. I could resists this one:

>>the bad genes don't get breed out, they just go on and stay.

In DOG BREEDING. That would be human intervention. In the natural course of things the genes that produced negative results would _naturally_ result in a decreased likelyhood of the creature surviving. Creatures that have been eaten have been scientifically proven to produce less offspring.

>> For evolution to be true, animals would have to evolve into different species.

What? Where? Huh? Where _does_ this stuff come from??? I'm about 1 second from throwing up my hands and giving up. >

I stated this for the reason that scientists say that people came from monkeys, two totally different species. Monkeys are not evolving into people,and never have, we are not evolving into monkeys.

I know golf, but I have not been in a good discussion for so long that I simply can not leave.

Actually, I think I shall for a moment, dinner must be made.

Originally posted by Malcar Morab
>> For evolution to be true, animals would have to evolve into different species.

What? Where? Huh? Where _does_ this stuff come from??? I'm about 1 second from throwing up my hands and giving up. >

I stated this for the reason that scientists say that people came from monkeys, two totally different species. Monkeys are not evolving into people,and never have, we are not evolving into monkeys.

Scientists do not say that people came from monkeys. Scientists say that humans and the various monkey species evolved from a common evolutionary predecessor.

<Scientists do not say that people came from monkeys. Scientists say that humans and the various monkey species evolved from a common evolutionary predecessor.>

I read that man evolved from an ape, but then why are there still monkeys about? And who was the predecessor "we" came from? Another monkey?

>>I read that man evolved from an ape, but then why are there still monkeys about?
>>And who was the predecessor "we" came from?

I believe salvelinus answered your questions: "common evolutionary predecessor". To simplify (rather drastically):

'Common Evolutionary Predecessor' = 'Same Creature'

The point made is that both current-day monkeys/apes/homo sapiens have evolved from a common creature. If the same creatures were placed in two different parts of the world, requiring different physical skills to survive, said creatures would evolve differently.

Evolution is based on need. 'Survival of the fittest' is not merely a saying. For instance, there is no pressing need for humans to be able to run as speedily as a cheetah. Should some situation arise where it was greatly benefitial to their survival for humans to run faster, you would begin to see faster humans in later generations. The reason for this is simple; The humans that ran faster, would survive longer, thus increasing their chances to reproduce. The humans that ran slower, would die sooner, thus deceasing their chances to reproduce.

Originally posted by Malcar Morab

I read that man evolved from an ape, but then why are there still monkeys about? And who was the predecessor "we" came from? Another monkey?

Well, I read that Dorothy returned to Kansas by clicking her ruby slippers together and repeating "There's no place like home" three times, but it's never worked for me. Of course, I don't have ruby slippers, and have no desire to go to Kansas.

>>the bad genes don't get breed out, they just go on and stay.

<In DOG BREEDING. That would be human intervention. In the natural course of things the genes that produced negative results would _naturally_ result in a decreased likelyhood of the creature surviving. Creatures that have been eaten have been scientifically proven to produce less offspring.>

That's because they were, um, eaten.

With the moths in England,I'm sure you have all heard of this, how the light ones were being eaten so only the darker moths were surviving, that was just a trait adaption, the moth did not evolve into another moth. Why didn't the moth suddenly become poisonous? Or have babys that were too big for the birds to eat? The adaptations are so subtle that they disprove the theory about natural selection evolution.

>> That's because they were, um, eaten.

LOL! You've hit the nail on the head.


>>that was just a trait adaption

You're not thinking on a long enough timeline. Now what would happen if the Moths did start producing larger offspring as well. Then those started to develop afformentioned poisons. At what point do you stop saying: "Thats not a different species, its just a different version of the same thing." Technically we're all just a collection of cells with different traits.

>>The adaptations are so subtle that they disprove the theory

Again; Its the timeframe. That was an infintesimally small period of time in the "grand scheme of things".

"Evolution is based on need. 'Survival of the fittest' is not merely a saying. For instance, there is no pressing need for humans to be able to run as speedily as a cheetah."

Wouldn't Africans have evolved this "running fast" ability to keep from being killed by lions? They are still a human species, they might run faster, but I would need proof to that claim. They would only run faster if they changed their physical structure but that only be if we practiced running. Why do you think so many runners have legs the size of my torso? Running fast would not be a genetic carry on, it is something learned. Base ball players arn't genetically experts, they practiced and practiced at the sport.

"Should some situation arise where it was greatly benefitial to their survival for humans to run faster, you would begin to see faster humans in later generations. The reason for this is simple; The humans that ran faster, would survive longer, thus increasing their chances to reproduce. The humans that ran slower, would die sooner, thus deceasing their chances to reproduce."

The people that ran slower would be protected some how. people have a group nature, we don't often go off by ourselves. If there are any weak or hurt the others would take care of them. Building houses off the ground, building fences...people have minds and can think, we arn't animalistic.