Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,511 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 454,064
Pageviews Today: 635,691Threads Today: 193Posts Today: 3,655
06:03 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Scientist's who are skeptical of Evolution

 
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 23223519
United States
09/24/2012 08:50 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientist's who are skeptical of Evolution
bump
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 21738912
United States
09/24/2012 09:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientist's who are skeptical of Evolution
Bump cuz this is a fav topic of mine.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 12774541
Canada
09/24/2012 09:35 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientist's who are skeptical of Evolution
There's no absolute proof of evolution ... there's no absolute proof of God.

There are artifacts and remains all over the world (anyone can go see them for themselves) that are proof of ancient advanced civilizations and almost all of them display depictions of visitors from the stars (Gods) and legends of their intervention/manipulation in human, and possibly all, life forms here.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 23223519
United States
09/25/2012 12:04 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientist's who are skeptical of Evolution
There's no absolute proof of evolution ... there's no absolute proof of God.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12774541


There is no ***evidence*** for macro-evolution. And it is a completely absurd premise. (plants can change into humans over billions of years)


While there may not be "absolute proof" of God that you can put under a microscope, there is an endless amount of rational inferences that point to intelligent design as the only logical explanation.

That, and we all have the knowledge and awareness of God written into our consciousness.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 12774541
Canada
09/25/2012 12:20 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientist's who are skeptical of Evolution
There's no absolute proof of evolution ... there's no absolute proof of God.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12774541


There is no ***evidence*** for macro-evolution. And it is a completely absurd premise. (plants can change into humans over billions of years)


While there may not be "absolute proof" of God that you can put under a microscope, there is an endless amount of rational inferences that point to intelligent design as the only logical explanation.

That, and we all have the knowledge and awareness of God written into our consciousness.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


Is there any definite proof that plants can change into humans given billions of years or is that just theory?

Intelligent design wrought by GODS from the stars seems plausible given the abundance of artifacts and legends from ancient civilizations (all remarkably similar) spread over the earth. Which might also explain your last sentence.
Jam
User ID: 12230704
United States
09/25/2012 01:06 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientist's who are skeptical of Evolution
There's no absolute proof of evolution ... there's no absolute proof of God.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12774541


There is no ***evidence*** for macro-evolution. And it is a completely absurd premise. (plants can change into humans over billions of years)


While there may not be "absolute proof" of God that you can put under a microscope, there is an endless amount of rational inferences that point to intelligent design as the only logical explanation.

That, and we all have the knowledge and awareness of God written into our consciousness.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


There is evidence and proof Jesus was here 2000 years ago the Bible says is God and Creator. The Bible is then confirmed with a long history & sciences.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 12230704
United States
09/25/2012 01:10 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientist's who are skeptical of Evolution
Intelligent design wrought by GODS from the stars seems plausible given the abundance of artifacts and legends from ancient civilizations (all remarkably similar) spread over the earth. Which might also explain your last sentence.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12774541


Big bang has been debunked all over the nets. There are no other planetary systems. We are it.

NASA & SETI have been looking for life out there since the 1960s. So far, nothing. They claiming they put man on the moon and life is possible in harsh space.
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
09/25/2012 04:13 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientist's who are skeptical of Evolution
[link to english.pravda.ru]

......The emerging concept that homologous recombination is a highly regulated and controlled feature of the genome limited to specific hotspots contradicts the idea of random evolutionary processes being able to produce new genes.

We also know that the key regulatory parts of the genome that are critical for gene function are protected from recombination processes. This scientific discovery is a virtual death blow to any idea that recombination can serve as a random tinkering tool to create new genes and gene functions.


- Dr. Jeffrey Thomkins Phd
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


The man's an idiot.

Yes, the gene is protected and conserved, especially in key areas such as, say, the HOX genes (central to formation of the body plan.)

And yet, mutations occur. CANCER occurs, asshole!

People are born with two heads. Not often, but if numbnuts ever did the math, he'd realize that "not often" becomes "quite often enough" when repeated over 50 million years.


Plus, idiot is contradicting himself. First he says that parts of the gene are regulated and controlled, limiting most mutation to hotspots. THEN he goes on to describe mutation as a random process.

Hello! Anyone in there? If it is restricted and controlled, it is FUCKING NON-RANDOM.

And THIS is one of the basic lessons real scientists have been trying to get across to Creotards like him. That it isn't a wide-open free-for-all; that changes in gene and expression happen in statistically defined ways. Not all pathways are equal.

(Note the inclusion of "statistically" in there -- boffo up there confuses "rarely" with "never." Swapping entire chunks between chromosomes is not rare. Fusion is. But BOTH HAPPEN.)
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
09/25/2012 04:16 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientist's who are skeptical of Evolution
Is there any definite proof that plants can change into humans given billions of years or is that just theory?

Intelligent design wrought by GODS from the stars seems plausible given the abundance of artifacts and legends from ancient civilizations (all remarkably similar) spread over the earth. Which might also explain your last sentence.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12774541


Current thinking is that "plant" and "animal" are quite distinct early hybrids, each tapping into a different commensual partner (chloroplast for the plant, mitochondria for us).

We are, as well as any linkable ancestors, quite limited to what used to be called "animal" (and is now just one of a very large number of chemical strategies, although the vast majority of these variations are practiced by microbial life.)
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 24415093
United Kingdom
09/25/2012 04:18 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientist's who are skeptical of Evolution
The only proof in this thread, judging from the videos of the "scientists" is that science and creationism really doesn't mix.
Idiot Proof
User ID: 1585213
United States
09/25/2012 04:32 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientist's who are skeptical of Evolution
I lurk these boards for fun and entertainment and occasionally jump in to point out how ignorant some of the people here are. Evolution is obviously not something that you either believe in or you don't... its something you either UNDERSTAND or you DONT.

wall

The evidence for evolution: how do we know it is true? There is an overwhelming body of evidence for evolution. To roughly go over a few...

+The fossil record is one handy piece of evidence. Rocks lower down in the earth are ‘older’ (as more rock piles up over then, they get buried). In these older rocks, deeper in the earth, we find much simpler fossilised organisms, and can observe a change to more complex organisms in the higher up rocks. We know the rocks are older because we have many dating methods, which we can cross-reference when examining a rock. They give the same answer each time, which is strong evidence that the dating methods are accurate.

+Another way we know is by looking at DNA, the stuff that makes us us. Here's a triumphant example. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, but our closest relatives, the great apes - chimpanzees, gorillas and orang-utans - all have 24 pairs of chromosomes. This seems to suggest that the ancestor we all share had 24 pairs of chromosomes too (the great apes are not our ancestors - they are our cousins, like our 3 foxes above were cousins). Where did this chromosome go in humans? This would seem to put the theory of evolution in jeopardy, but no! We have mapped and understood all the chromosomes in both chimpanzees and humans and compared them and... what's this?? One of the pairs of chromosomes in humans is exactly the same as 2 of the chimp chromosomes but fused together! We can perfectly see the exact difference and mechanism by which human chromosomes became different from the other great apes - 2 of them joined together into a single chromosome.

+The life on Earth is evidence of evolution itself. We can see the different stages of evolution in different organisms. Take, for instance, the amazingly complex and clever eye. Our eyes are very well developed compared with most animals (save some birds of prey etc). How could such a complex thing have evolved? Well, we have a pretty good idea how, and we can actually see every stage of eye evolution in other organisms. An eye at its most basic is a light sensitive cell. We can find those in nature. Next is a patch of cells in such a shape that can detect direction of light. We can find those too. Next is a hole of cells creating a simple pin-hole. We see those in nature. And then we find the next step up, creatures with a lens. Then animals with a further step, muscles to focus the lens. Each ‘stage’ of the eye can be found in other animals. We can use this to trace the development of our own eyes.

+The last evidence for evolution I will mention here is observation. Evolution is an ongoing process - everything is still evolving and we can see it evolving. The easiest example is the bacteria and viruses that make us ill. These organisms live, die and reproduce so quickly that they evolve extremely quickly, too. Why do we need to have a new flu vaccination every year? Because the influenza virus evolves. Why do we need to finish a course of anti-biotics if they are prescribed? Because if we only use half of the anti-biotics, we only kill the weakest half of the bacteria making us ill. The strongest half lives on and reproduces even more (because they won't have competition from their weaker brethren). We'd be helping the bacteria to evolve. This experiment is an example of a way that we have actually observed evolution, including a new irreducibly complex adaptation — the ability to digest citric acid.

The mechanism for evolution - natural selection - is simple, logical and effective. The evidence is overwhelming (there is a lot more than what I mentioned above). In fact, there is more evidence for evolution than any other theory in science. Just remember: natural selection, natural selection, natural selection. Random good changes will help an organism have more babies thanks to their environment. Random bad changes will cause an organism to have fewer babies thanks to their environment. Nature naturally selects the best changes! From here it is a numbers game. Things die and things live. The genes of those who live long enough to reproduce are passed on.

rant
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 24415093
United Kingdom
09/25/2012 04:41 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientist's who are skeptical of Evolution
I lurk these boards for fun and entertainment and occasionally jump in to point out how ignorant some of the people here are. Evolution is obviously not something that you either believe in or you don't... its something you either UNDERSTAND or you DONT.

wall

The evidence for evolution: how do we know it is true? There is an overwhelming body of evidence for evolution. To roughly go over a few...

+The fossil record is one handy piece of evidence. Rocks lower down in the earth are ‘older’ (as more rock piles up over then, they get buried). In these older rocks, deeper in the earth, we find much simpler fossilised organisms, and can observe a change to more complex organisms in the higher up rocks. We know the rocks are older because we have many dating methods, which we can cross-reference when examining a rock. They give the same answer each time, which is strong evidence that the dating methods are accurate.

+Another way we know is by looking at DNA, the stuff that makes us us. Here's a triumphant example. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, but our closest relatives, the great apes - chimpanzees, gorillas and orang-utans - all have 24 pairs of chromosomes. This seems to suggest that the ancestor we all share had 24 pairs of chromosomes too (the great apes are not our ancestors - they are our cousins, like our 3 foxes above were cousins). Where did this chromosome go in humans? This would seem to put the theory of evolution in jeopardy, but no! We have mapped and understood all the chromosomes in both chimpanzees and humans and compared them and... what's this?? One of the pairs of chromosomes in humans is exactly the same as 2 of the chimp chromosomes but fused together! We can perfectly see the exact difference and mechanism by which human chromosomes became different from the other great apes - 2 of them joined together into a single chromosome.

+The life on Earth is evidence of evolution itself. We can see the different stages of evolution in different organisms. Take, for instance, the amazingly complex and clever eye. Our eyes are very well developed compared with most animals (save some birds of prey etc). How could such a complex thing have evolved? Well, we have a pretty good idea how, and we can actually see every stage of eye evolution in other organisms. An eye at its most basic is a light sensitive cell. We can find those in nature. Next is a patch of cells in such a shape that can detect direction of light. We can find those too. Next is a hole of cells creating a simple pin-hole. We see those in nature. And then we find the next step up, creatures with a lens. Then animals with a further step, muscles to focus the lens. Each ‘stage’ of the eye can be found in other animals. We can use this to trace the development of our own eyes.

+The last evidence for evolution I will mention here is observation. Evolution is an ongoing process - everything is still evolving and we can see it evolving. The easiest example is the bacteria and viruses that make us ill. These organisms live, die and reproduce so quickly that they evolve extremely quickly, too. Why do we need to have a new flu vaccination every year? Because the influenza virus evolves. Why do we need to finish a course of anti-biotics if they are prescribed? Because if we only use half of the anti-biotics, we only kill the weakest half of the bacteria making us ill. The strongest half lives on and reproduces even more (because they won't have competition from their weaker brethren). We'd be helping the bacteria to evolve. This experiment is an example of a way that we have actually observed evolution, including a new irreducibly complex adaptation — the ability to digest citric acid.

The mechanism for evolution - natural selection - is simple, logical and effective. The evidence is overwhelming (there is a lot more than what I mentioned above). In fact, there is more evidence for evolution than any other theory in science. Just remember: natural selection, natural selection, natural selection. Random good changes will help an organism have more babies thanks to their environment. Random bad changes will cause an organism to have fewer babies thanks to their environment. Nature naturally selects the best changes! From here it is a numbers game. Things die and things live. The genes of those who live long enough to reproduce are passed on.

rant
 Quoting: Idiot Proof 1585213


Stop talking sense!
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 23223519
United States
09/26/2012 02:40 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientist's who are skeptical of Evolution
[link to english.pravda.ru]

......The emerging concept that homologous recombination is a highly regulated and controlled feature of the genome limited to specific hotspots contradicts the idea of random evolutionary processes being able to produce new genes.

We also know that the key regulatory parts of the genome that are critical for gene function are protected from recombination processes. This scientific discovery is a virtual death blow to any idea that recombination can serve as a random tinkering tool to create new genes and gene functions.


- Dr. Jeffrey Thomkins Phd
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


The man's an idiot.

Yes, the gene is protected and conserved, especially in key areas such as, say, the HOX genes (central to formation of the body plan.)

And yet, mutations occur. CANCER occurs, asshole!

People are born with two heads. Not often, but if numbnuts ever did the math, he'd realize that "not often" becomes "quite often enough" when repeated over 50 million years.


Plus, idiot is contradicting himself. First he says that parts of the gene are regulated and controlled, limiting most mutation to hotspots. THEN he goes on to describe mutation as a random process.

Hello! Anyone in there? If it is restricted and controlled, it is FUCKING NON-RANDOM.

And THIS is one of the basic lessons real scientists have been trying to get across to Creotards like him. That it isn't a wide-open free-for-all; that changes in gene and expression happen in statistically defined ways. Not all pathways are equal.

(Note the inclusion of "statistically" in there -- boffo up there confuses "rarely" with "never." Swapping entire chunks between chromosomes is not rare. Fusion is. But BOTH HAPPEN.)
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


nomuse, I used to feel slightly intimidated by your intelligence, but the more you post, the more you reveal yourself as a bitter dogmatic naturalist reacting in hatred towards any perceived threat to your religion.

There is overwhelming scientific dissent to the claims of Macro-Evolution, and more scientists are stepping forward every day to testify to that.

It will be amusing to watch how long pseudo-skeptics like yourself can prop up this illusion that everyone who disagrees with Evolution is crazy.

History is going to remember you as more dogmatic and willfully stifling of discovery than the church of the dark ages ever was.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 23223519
United States
09/26/2012 02:44 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientist's who are skeptical of Evolution
Intelligent Design, Peer Review, Predictions, Dissenters

A candid discussion with Scientists that believe the data points to Intelligent Design. (Turn up your volume)

At the end we can see just how threatened the careers of these scientists are by the Naturlist Academic community, who would have them intellectually burnt at the stake for not subscribing to their dogma.



[link to www.youtube.com]
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 23223519
United States
09/26/2012 02:46 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientist's who are skeptical of Evolution
EVOLUTIONIST ADMITS CURRENT EVOLUTION TEACHING IS BOGUS



[link to www.youtube.com]
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 23223519
United States
09/26/2012 03:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientist's who are skeptical of Evolution
bump
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 4953860
Canada
09/26/2012 03:18 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientist's who are skeptical of Evolution
i continu to say


the answer will be in this

[link to www.medicalnewstoday.com]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 4953860
Canada
09/26/2012 03:23 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientist's who are skeptical of Evolution
and i can add ...

we are been upgraded by a cilivisation that pass around when we are just animal

[link to www.telegraph.co.uk]


the anunaky story seam very logical with all the proof we have ... but how can be 100%% sur


... we cant so we continu to search for it and maybe i will die before we know it




i continu to say


the answer will be in this

[link to www.medicalnewstoday.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 4953860
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 4953860
Canada
09/26/2012 03:24 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientist's who are skeptical of Evolution
something changed the evolution ...


what ... its what we looking for
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 23223519
United States
09/26/2012 04:03 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientist's who are skeptical of Evolution
bump
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 23223519
United States
09/26/2012 04:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientist's who are skeptical of Evolution
Programming of Life



[link to www.youtube.com]
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 23223519
United States
09/26/2012 05:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientist's who are skeptical of Evolution
bump
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 23223519
United States
09/26/2012 06:11 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientist's who are skeptical of Evolution
Is there any definite proof that plants can change into humans given billions of years or is that just theory?

Intelligent design wrought by GODS from the stars seems plausible given the abundance of artifacts and legends from ancient civilizations (all remarkably similar) spread over the earth. Which might also explain your last sentence.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12774541


Current thinking is that "plant" and "animal" are quite distinct early hybrids, each tapping into a different commensual partner (chloroplast for the plant, mitochondria for us).

We are, as well as any linkable ancestors, quite limited to what used to be called "animal" (and is now just one of a very large number of chemical strategies, although the vast majority of these variations are practiced by microbial life.)
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


Yet, to the poster's original quesiton, there is no actual evidence that such mutations are possible, or even plausible, that the organism will not run up to any number of genetic barriers somewhere in between plant -> mammal, or plant -> 'anything' for that matter.

You have nothing more than 'say-so', assumptions, guesses, or as you put it: "current thinking", whatever that means...

While you may entertain ideas about this "current thinking", the actual science being done shows us that genetic mutations appear to be regulated to a loss or modification of existing genetic material.

The more we delve into the complex coordination of the inner workings of organisms, the more implausible the macroevolutionary belief system becomes.

And really, it is just an absurd and irrational idea to begin with. Obviously human consciousness did not evolve out of plants.

It has always been rational to assume an intelligence was behind things, and science continues to support that inference by demonstrating the ever-rising absurdity of an otherwise naturalistic random/dumb/unguided mechanisms of life.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 23223519
United States
09/26/2012 06:49 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientist's who are skeptical of Evolution
bump
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 23223519
United States
09/26/2012 09:59 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientist's who are skeptical of Evolution
The evidence for evolution: how do we know it is true? There is an overwhelming body of evidence for evolution. To roughly go over a few...

+The fossil record is one handy piece of evidence. Rocks lower down in the earth are ‘older’ (as more rock piles up over then, they get buried). In these older rocks, deeper in the earth, we find much simpler fossilised organisms, and can observe a change to more complex organisms in the higher up rocks. We know the rocks are older because we have many dating methods, which we can cross-reference when examining a rock. They give the same answer each time, which is strong evidence that the dating methods are accurate.
 Quoting: Idiot Proof 1585213


Yes fossils are handy evidence that organisms died.

What fossils also show us is a blatant lack of visible intermediates between any two fundamentally different organisms. Of the supposed millions of years of successive generations of slowly mutating species, we don't see a single trace of it.

Instead, out of the hundreds of billions(Trillions now?) of fossils, all we see are distinctly unique organisms, as Creation would predict. Isn't that strange?

There are also fossil events like the Cambrian explosion that defy Macro-Evolutionary predictions.


+Another way we know is by looking at DNA, the stuff that makes us us. Here's a triumphant example. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, but our closest relatives, the great apes - chimpanzees, gorillas and orang-utans - all have 24 pairs of chromosomes. This seems to suggest that the ancestor we all share had 24 pairs of chromosomes too (the great apes are not our ancestors - they are our cousins, like our 3 foxes above were cousins). Where did this chromosome go in humans? This would seem to put the theory of evolution in jeopardy, but no! We have mapped and understood all the chromosomes in both chimpanzees and humans and compared them and... what's this?? One of the pairs of chromosomes in humans is exactly the same as 2 of the chimp chromosomes but fused together! We can perfectly see the exact difference and mechanism by which human chromosomes became different from the other great apes - 2 of them joined together into a single chromosome.
 Quoting: Idiot Proof 1585213


What about DNA? The complex information coding and transcribing system that defies a random naturalistic origin? Yea, what a slam dunk for Macro-Evolution THAT is. It only shatters your entire Premise which is that life processes can only be dictated by dumb, unguided, natural mechanisms.

Now onto your Ape-Man story. Really? You are postulating that an ape-creature performed the natural miracle of transforming into a human over time based on a chromosomal similarity? Are you sure you would not rather show evidence that such a genetic mutation is even POSSIBLE ?

This is what amuses me about Naturalists... you make one small inference and it is suddenly Gospel, whereas EVERYTHING about Life points to an incredible complexity that could only rationally be inferred as to have originated with an Intelligence...

And that is when you invoke your "Nature of the Gaps" faith, proclaiming that there must be a naturalistic explanation, we just haven't found it yet.

+The life on Earth is evidence of evolution itself. We can see the different stages of evolution in different organisms.
 Quoting: Idiot Proof 1585213


Total speculation.

Take, for instance, the amazingly complex and clever eye. Our eyes are very well developed compared with most animals (save some birds of prey etc). How could such a complex thing have evolved? Well, we have a pretty good idea how, and we can actually see every stage of eye evolution in other organisms.
 Quoting: Idiot Proof 1585213


"Pretty good idea" meaning Total Speculation. Since when did the imagination become evidence?

An eye at its most basic is a light sensitive cell. We can find those in nature. Next is a patch of cells in such a shape that can detect direction of light. We can find those too. Next is a hole of cells creating a simple pin-hole. We see those in nature. And then we find the next step up, creatures with a lens. Then animals with a further step, muscles to focus the lens. Each ‘stage’ of the eye can be found in other animals. We can use this to trace the development of our own eyes.
 Quoting: Idiot Proof 1585213


What you're doing is no different that someone hypothesizing the order in which organisms were intelligently designed. You're looking at what is here, and speculating on its origin, using a naturalistic premise of which you have not shown to even be POSSIBLE, let alone feasible.


+The last evidence for evolution I will mention here is observation. Evolution is an ongoing process - everything is still evolving and we can see it evolving. The easiest example is the bacteria and viruses that make us ill. These organisms live, die and reproduce so quickly that they evolve extremely quickly, too. Why do we need to have a new flu vaccination every year? Because the influenza virus evolves. Why do we need to finish a course of anti-biotics if they are prescribed? Because if we only use half of the anti-biotics, we only kill the weakest half of the bacteria making us ill. The strongest half lives on and reproduces even more (because they won't have competition from their weaker brethren). We'd be helping the bacteria to evolve. This experiment is an example of a way that we have actually observed evolution, including a new irreducibly complex adaptation — the ability to digest citric acid.

The mechanism for evolution - natural selection - is simple, logical and effective. The evidence is overwhelming (there is a lot more than what I mentioned above). In fact, there is more evidence for evolution than any other theory in science. Just remember: natural selection, natural selection, natural selection. Random good changes will help an organism have more babies thanks to their environment. Random bad changes will cause an organism to have fewer babies thanks to their environment. Nature naturally selects the best changes! From here it is a numbers game. Things die and things live. The genes of those who live long enough to reproduce are passed on.
 Quoting: Idiot Proof 1585213


What we observe are genetic mutations that either subtract or modify existing genetic material. Viruses exhibit a LOSS of genetic function in order to become resistant to anti-biotics. Organisms are *not* evolving any new genetic traits that its ancestor did not previously possess. Current Science is pointing AWAY from Darwinian Macro-Evolution.

I'm sorry to break this to you, but what you've been led to believe is science, is actually a naturalistic belief system.

You really didn't believe human consciousness originated from slime through billions of years of dumb mutations, did you? It's Absurd, and you know it.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 23223519
United States
09/26/2012 10:36 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientist's who are skeptical of Evolution
bump
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 7926735
United States
09/26/2012 10:46 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientist's who are skeptical of Evolution
Bacterial plasmid transfer, allowing one species of bacteria to have resistance to antibiotics when previous generations didnt.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24115171


but they are still bacteria, DUHHHH
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 4961498
United States
09/26/2012 11:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientist's who are skeptical of Evolution
And a bumpa for ya
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 2045712
United Kingdom
09/27/2012 03:47 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientist's who are skeptical of Evolution
The evidence for evolution: how do we know it is true? There is an overwhelming body of evidence for evolution. To roughly go over a few...

+The fossil record is one handy piece of evidence. Rocks lower down in the earth are ‘older’ (as more rock piles up over then, they get buried). In these older rocks, deeper in the earth, we find much simpler fossilised organisms, and can observe a change to more complex organisms in the higher up rocks. We know the rocks are older because we have many dating methods, which we can cross-reference when examining a rock. They give the same answer each time, which is strong evidence that the dating methods are accurate.
 Quoting: Idiot Proof 1585213


Yes fossils are handy evidence that organisms died.

What fossils also show us is a blatant lack of visible intermediates between any two fundamentally different organisms. Of the supposed millions of years of successive generations of slowly mutating species, we don't see a single trace of it.

Instead, out of the hundreds of billions(Trillions now?) of fossils, all we see are distinctly unique organisms, as Creation would predict. Isn't that strange?

There are also fossil events like the Cambrian explosion that defy Macro-Evolutionary predictions.


+Another way we know is by looking at DNA, the stuff that makes us us. Here's a triumphant example. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, but our closest relatives, the great apes - chimpanzees, gorillas and orang-utans - all have 24 pairs of chromosomes. This seems to suggest that the ancestor we all share had 24 pairs of chromosomes too (the great apes are not our ancestors - they are our cousins, like our 3 foxes above were cousins). Where did this chromosome go in humans? This would seem to put the theory of evolution in jeopardy, but no! We have mapped and understood all the chromosomes in both chimpanzees and humans and compared them and... what's this?? One of the pairs of chromosomes in humans is exactly the same as 2 of the chimp chromosomes but fused together! We can perfectly see the exact difference and mechanism by which human chromosomes became different from the other great apes - 2 of them joined together into a single chromosome.
 Quoting: Idiot Proof 1585213


What about DNA? The complex information coding and transcribing system that defies a random naturalistic origin? Yea, what a slam dunk for Macro-Evolution THAT is. It only shatters your entire Premise which is that life processes can only be dictated by dumb, unguided, natural mechanisms.

Now onto your Ape-Man story. Really? You are postulating that an ape-creature performed the natural miracle of transforming into a human over time based on a chromosomal similarity? Are you sure you would not rather show evidence that such a genetic mutation is even POSSIBLE ?

This is what amuses me about Naturalists... you make one small inference and it is suddenly Gospel, whereas EVERYTHING about Life points to an incredible complexity that could only rationally be inferred as to have originated with an Intelligence...

And that is when you invoke your "Nature of the Gaps" faith, proclaiming that there must be a naturalistic explanation, we just haven't found it yet.

+The life on Earth is evidence of evolution itself. We can see the different stages of evolution in different organisms.
 Quoting: Idiot Proof 1585213


Total speculation.

Take, for instance, the amazingly complex and clever eye. Our eyes are very well developed compared with most animals (save some birds of prey etc). How could such a complex thing have evolved? Well, we have a pretty good idea how, and we can actually see every stage of eye evolution in other organisms.
 Quoting: Idiot Proof 1585213


"Pretty good idea" meaning Total Speculation. Since when did the imagination become evidence?

An eye at its most basic is a light sensitive cell. We can find those in nature. Next is a patch of cells in such a shape that can detect direction of light. We can find those too. Next is a hole of cells creating a simple pin-hole. We see those in nature. And then we find the next step up, creatures with a lens. Then animals with a further step, muscles to focus the lens. Each ‘stage’ of the eye can be found in other animals. We can use this to trace the development of our own eyes.
 Quoting: Idiot Proof 1585213


What you're doing is no different that someone hypothesizing the order in which organisms were intelligently designed. You're looking at what is here, and speculating on its origin, using a naturalistic premise of which you have not shown to even be POSSIBLE, let alone feasible.


+The last evidence for evolution I will mention here is observation. Evolution is an ongoing process - everything is still evolving and we can see it evolving. The easiest example is the bacteria and viruses that make us ill. These organisms live, die and reproduce so quickly that they evolve extremely quickly, too. Why do we need to have a new flu vaccination every year? Because the influenza virus evolves. Why do we need to finish a course of anti-biotics if they are prescribed? Because if we only use half of the anti-biotics, we only kill the weakest half of the bacteria making us ill. The strongest half lives on and reproduces even more (because they won't have competition from their weaker brethren). We'd be helping the bacteria to evolve. This experiment is an example of a way that we have actually observed evolution, including a new irreducibly complex adaptation — the ability to digest citric acid.

The mechanism for evolution - natural selection - is simple, logical and effective. The evidence is overwhelming (there is a lot more than what I mentioned above). In fact, there is more evidence for evolution than any other theory in science. Just remember: natural selection, natural selection, natural selection. Random good changes will help an organism have more babies thanks to their environment. Random bad changes will cause an organism to have fewer babies thanks to their environment. Nature naturally selects the best changes! From here it is a numbers game. Things die and things live. The genes of those who live long enough to reproduce are passed on.
 Quoting: Idiot Proof 1585213


What we observe are genetic mutations that either subtract or modify existing genetic material. Viruses exhibit a LOSS of genetic function in order to become resistant to anti-biotics. Organisms are *not* evolving any new genetic traits that its ancestor did not previously possess. Current Science is pointing AWAY from Darwinian Macro-Evolution.

I'm sorry to break this to you, but what you've been led to believe is science, is actually a naturalistic belief system.

You really didn't believe human consciousness originated from slime through billions of years of dumb mutations, did you? It's Absurd, and you know it.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


Anti-biotics have no effect on viruses at all.
Anti-biotics are used to kill bacteria which are very different organisms and indeed it is bacteria which mutate to become resistant to them and not viruses.
The fact you got such a simple but important fact such as that completely wrong certainly, in my eyes, casts doubt upon everything else you've said.
However it's still in keeping in how creationists use "facts" falsely to promote their own absurd beliefs so I suppose you're just being the dumb little sheep you'll always be.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 12421916
United States
09/27/2012 04:20 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientist's who are skeptical of Evolution
Anti-biotics have no effect on viruses at all.
Anti-biotics are used to kill bacteria which are very different organisms and indeed it is bacteria which mutate to become resistant to them and not viruses.
The fact you got such a simple but important fact such as that completely wrong certainly, in my eyes, casts doubt upon everything else you've said.
However it's still in keeping in how creationists use "facts" falsely to promote their own absurd beliefs so I suppose you're just being the dumb little sheep you'll always be.
 Quoting: Cahill


Whatever makes you feel secure in your little censored world. The thing is still a virus &/or bacteria and always will be. As long as it has been observed it has never been anything else thus proving -- no evolution.

[link to www.answersingenesis.org]