Evolution is a religion and not based on science!

It doesn't prove evolution 100% because science never deals with absolutes, and that's why science is so fucking awesome! They always leave the door open a little bit for possible alternative theories in the future. (Except for the field of mathematics, which does deal with absolutes, fyi.)

Religion of course never does this, religion only deals with absolutes...absolutes with no backing evidence.

Anyways, saying that the evidence only "suggests" evolution is putting it lightly. There is no other competing alternative theory at the moment. Creationism isn't even a scientific theory because it hasn't offered any actual evidence. Creationism is merely a guess, and not an educated one at that, it's just a simple blind guess.

I'll take a scientific theory backed by good evidence over a blind guess any day of the week.

Evolution goes back to before the ancient greeks.

Yes it most certainly is a religion. It is a mystical creation mythology.

Real science came about by experiments.

Prominent men were writing mystical poetry about the major tenets of Evolution BEFORE they began looking for "evidence" for it.


I've yet to come across an evolutionist on GLP that even understands their own theory. Evolutionists are generally clueless... they burp "FOSSIL RECORD" "DNA" without even understanding what they're talking about.

Howdy,
I'll admit, I haven't read the entirety of this thread... But I'm curious, what issues do you have with the fossil record? Do you not like how incomplete it is? How much is favors organisms with hard body parts, selectively not preserving soft tissues? Or is the "taxonomy" problem of the biological definition of species? You know, the one solved by using cladistics to model closeness of relation based on morphological similarities?
If I did not name your concern, please let me know what yours personally is. I'll be the first to admit the fossil record is limited, but I'd love to discuss why it is still useable, if you'd like.
Regards,
Hydeman

Totally incorrect...FLAT OUT INCORRECT.
Scientists can take fossilized skulls and make plastic molds inside the cranium, so they can see how large or small the brains were, and how they differed.

The Australopithecus skulls had smaller brains than modern homo sapiens, and were most definitely less intelligent, at least in the intellectual sense.

Neanderthals actually had bigger brains than homo sapiens, but more of their brain space was devoted to physical abilities, such as eye-sight. For instance Neanderthals had larger eye-sockets, and this indicates that they had a larger visual cortex area in their brain. They probably had incredible vision compared to modern humans.

These differences in brain size definitely suggest that they were entirely different species, not merely different members of the same species.

But other differences such as bone structure should also be taken into account. Neanderthals had thicker and stockier bones than modern homo sapiens do.

Also, Caucasians do share like 1% of their DNA with Neanderthals, so if you happen to see a man with Neanderthal looking traits, then that is not out of the realm of possibility. Some inter-mixing did occur long ago, before Neanderthals were wiped out.

And just because they could inter-mix, that doesn't suggest they are the same species. It's possible to breed Bonobo's with Chimpanzees, even though they are a separate species yet part of the same genus. It's a similar situation with homo sapiens and neanderthals. Although they were separate species, they were still close enough genetically to have hybrid offspring.



What flood? (I hope you aren't going to say Noah's flood)



Soft tissue can survive for long periods if it is preserved in the right environment. Think of Woolly mammoths buried in ice. Or an ancient dragon fly fossilized in tree sap. I'm not sure what the circumstances were in the one dinosaur unearthed in Montana that still had a tiny amount of soft tissue inside one of it's bones. Something obviously prevented the natural decomposition process from fully taking hold.

Evolution is the same fairytale as in Bible. Evolution "evidence" is beyond absurdity. Toys for adult man. U are too stoopid to investigate such things.

#1. The limited nature of the fossil record is not an issue. It is the PATTERN of the same general group of body plans continuously emerging. And a PATTERN of non-existence of fossils that would 'bridge' the major anatomical systems and body plans we know of.

This problem is so bad for evolution that evolutionists had to invent an ad-hoc explanation in the 1970's to save their theory: Punctuated Equilibrium. (Rapid change followed by stasis.) Before that, evolutionists were predicting they would find basically gradual transitions between most everything. This fossil prediction failed in spectacular fashion.

Apart from that, nothing in the fossil record is very strongly in support of Evolution. Fossils could be rearranged in many different orders and still be accommodated into evolution. For instance, leading evolutionists once proposed that Mammals evolved from Amphibians. It could have easily swung that way if need be. They mostly just make it up as they go along.


#2 There are plenty of soft-bodied organisms that have been fossilized. This is a very weak and uninformed excuse for evolutionists apologizing for the Cambrian Explosion. The reason so many body plans suddenly appear with an extreme lack of anything that could be considered precursors is obvious: they did not evolve.

#3 Yes, "Species" is a fairly useless term, and so is "Speciation", it can mean a number of different things. Not sure what your point was, though.

#4 Cladistics was invented, again, as a response to the failure of evolutionary predictions. Evolutionists originally predicted they would discover actual ancestors and be able to measure actual ancestor-descendent relationships with phenetic diagrams.

In contrast, Cladistics most resembles Typology (Kinds), because all life on Earth falls rather neatly into the same Types of organisms. Nothing is blurred together as one might expect with gradualistic changes. All of life fits into very distinct groupings.

Nothing in Cladistics really supports Evolution theory, and there is no real objective methodology in Phylogenetics in general. Evolutionists don't even know how to distinguish homologies from homoplasies. It is highly subjective.

Most evolutionists do not understand this. They have a very superficial understanding of their own theory, because they've mostly just been exposed to the pro-Darwin propaganda mills.

It's not OUR theory.
Evolution is incredibly simple to understand, so I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

Evolution Simply Explained:

1. There is variation in every generation of organisms
2. Some of these variations make an organism better suited to survive and reproduce in its environment (Natural Selection)
3. These beneficial variations are passed on to the next generation
4. Over many generations, beneficial variations accumulate in the population
5. Over a long span of time, the accumulation of variations can give rise to new species.

To help interpret the above:

1. Variations are the result of genetic mutations and recombinations
2. Beneficial variations are passed on because they're beneficial to the organism in that environment (improves ability to survive or sexual reproduction) - i.e. Natural Selection
3. The beneficial variations that are passed on help the population become more adapted to its environment. We say it "evolves".

Genetic mutations and recombination exist. FACT
Mutations and recombinations create a wide variety of new variations. FACT
Natural Selection exists. FACT

All the major components of evolution are proven to be fact.



I fully understand what I'm talking about because I've read a ton of scientific literature on the subject, although I admit my attempts to express my views over the internet are limited, because I have to assume everyone else is familiar with the subject, and that they can deduce what I'm trying to convey via these very brief posts.

Way to go champ.

Yes, IF YOU ASSUME EVOLUTION (UNIVERSAL COMMON DESCENT) IS TRUE, then that is how it probably works.

Read it again and let it sink in for a few minutes.

You're committing the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.

EVERYTHING YOU JUST LISTED COULD ALSO BE TRUE IF UNIVERSAL COMMON DESCENT IS FALSE. That is the same processes you just listed could also be active from points of SEPARATE ANCESTRY. (Created Kinds)

Major logical fail on your part. Try again.

So you're saying that all the major components I listed for evolution could also be true if those creatures were created? Well those creatures were in fact created, they were created by the process of evolution, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

"Separate ancestry" doesn't exist. Our DNA clearly shows that living organisms are all related.

I hope I didn't misinterpret you in some way, if I did then please explain further.

Evolution is stupid.

I didn't expect you to follow it. You can't grasp the idea that life can change over time WITHOUT having to all share a common ancestor. You're adrift in your religious conviction of evolution. All you can do is equivocate change over time with UCA.

And yep, just like I said, there you go burping "DNA" as if it's an argument, following your bald assertion that universal common descent is true.

Howdy,
I think I see a general issue with your perception of science, so please do allow me to clarify a few things from my perspective of science...
Fossilization does not happen to every organism that has ever lived. Plenty of organisms have been preserved, and yes, even soft-bodied organisms in lagerstatten. Soft tissue preservation is not the rule, it is the exception, and only happens in usually anoxic conditions with rapid burial under sediment(and usually this soft tissue is entirely replaced by mineral species). Most often, only disarticulated hard parts are found fossilized. To lend evidence to this, look at places where soft organisms are preserved and you will see the hard bodied organisms also preserved. Look in most places, you only find hard parts and traces.
So, fossilization is rare in general due to the processes that need to occur. You need to have a depositional environment, not an erosional one. (Which is why there are more marine fossils than land fossils). You need some kind of quick burial or hard parts that can last until they are buried without predation or destruction. You then also need to preserve that rock, as sometimes erosional surfaces present themselves in the rock record, undoubtedly some fossil populations are lost.
Now, to punctuated equilibrium and the changes in science in general... It is legitimate to refute one theory and support a theory more substantiated by the available evidence. In fact, these acts of refinement are in response to newly observed data, and reflect the expansion of knowledge. The general idea of evolution hasn't changed, but the exact mechanisms have always been up for debate, even since Darwin's time (he had no idea of heredity, thinking aspects of Lamarckism were responsible). It does appear that more populations agree with punctuated equilibrium, but phyletic gradualism certainly explains certain groups, such as coelacanths and horseshoe crabs. So, contrary to what you stated, both models are useful in different situations. (You didn't think scientists thought it was one or the other, right? Nature isn't that simple...) Here's a source...
[link to www.sersc.org]
Now, when you see failures in the predictive models of evolution, I agree. I see them too. That's why those models change, that's why we see things like punctuated equilibrium, take favor in the scientific community. If nothing else evolves, the models certainly do in response to new information...
As for speciation, that was my point. Lots of different meanings, depending on the context of the discussion. You seem to understand that, so I'll move on.
Now, the fossil record is not the most compelling piece of evidence for evolution, certainly, but it is a piece of evidence in support of evolution. The fossil record shows a development of very simple life in the earliest parts (things like stromatolites) and it isn't until much later that you see the multicellular organisms. These organisms are also found in certain strata that are of certain ages and paleoenvironment. There are no fossils in rock sequences that cannot be explained by gradual change over time, but this is not strong evidence for evolution, I admit. Yet, one is left with the conclusion that either life evolved from one form to another, or a god magically created new taxa higher than the species level from time to time... (Of course this is a false dichotomy, but can you provide another plausible explanation, or do you deny the geologic record as well as the fossil record?)
As for the Cambrian Explosion, there are several hypotheses as to why the sudden(geologically speaking, as it took place over the period of some tens of millions of years) change to precipitation of calcite/phosphate hard parts in marine organisms. Responses to predation, changes in climate, sea water chemistry,... the list goes on. We may never know why exactly this happened, although it is a strong possibility that all of those factors and more had something to do with the changes...
That said, I agree. Nothing infuriates me more than an atheist without an answer, or rather, anyone without an answer for their beliefs. I respect that you can have a different belief, but I cannot respect unsubstantiated or at least completely unreasoned blind faith.
Regards,
Hydeman

Doesn't evolution theory believe that after the earth was created that after raining on rocks for millions of years came the first organism? Evolution theory would then presume that we all came from rocks...There has never been a proven missing link. There is only proof of variations within kind. There are many variations in kind. The genetic code is what determines this. Millions of on and off switches. Not evolution that everyone believes...

re·li·gion
riˈlijən/
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

i dont think it is OP

Exactly, mutations are a one-way ticket to extinction. The genome only degrades in quality over time.

Not only that but nearly neutral harmful mutations can't even be removed by natural selection until they've amassed in large quantities to produce a negative fitness signal.

Evolutionists think nature is magic and mutations can build increasingly complex animals over time. They refuse to look at the reality of population genetics.

It is all emotional, it makes them furious to think their religion might be wrong, and they might actually have to think about being accountable to a Creator.

You are correct in your first sentence...mutations are almost never beneficial.

99% of mutations are harmful and often result in the death of the organism. Harmful variations are quickly removed from the gene pool. But considering that evolution isn't a short process, it occurs over thousands and millions of years, then it shouldn't be any surprise that the infrequent beneficial mutations can add up over time and contribute to the rise of new species. And you're also leaving recombination out of the argument, which is also a HUGE part too.

You haven't fully explain your point. Please explain how you think living organisms evolved without common ancestors. That doesn't really make any sense.

There has to be a precursor to a living organism, unless that organism magically appeared out of thin air.

I will tell you my story. One night, I was asleep in bed and it was around 1:30 in the morning. I was woke up by a man who happened to be The Holy Spirit and He said, there's a man here to see you.

I sat up and there was a man standing in the doorway of my room and the light was shining through his hair and looked reddish. I thought it was this guy from up the street who I thought was a criminal, so I freaked out and planned to run past this guy and try to escape my room. I was really scared. As I fled, I said, "How did he get in here past my husband?" I was caught at the ceiling and the man says, I don't have to ask him to come in here.

I stopped and looked back. Then I stopped fighting cause there is only one man who can say that. I was pulled back down to the bed and it was Lord Jesus standing at the end of my bed. We were both in the Spirit-he wasn't physically there, just as a spirit. I was shocked because though I knew that He had been around me before and had even heard Him talk to me one time, I didn't think I would be allowed to see Him until I died.

I didn't say anything. I was pretty freaked out and having a lot of adrenaline and fear. He steps to the side of the bed and looks behind me and gets this upset look on his face. I didn't look at what He was looking at, so I didn't know why He was upset. He backs away from me to the end of the bed and He says, "I will never leave you." Then I am falling back on the bed and He is floating up through the roof.

Now, I know you have no reason to believe me. I hope that you will because I testify to you that this is the truth and this is what I witnessed in my own bedroom in the Winter of 2008.

My testimony is of consequence to you because if you can believe that I saw The Lord, then you have a responsibility to react to that belief. I beg you to accept Him as your Lord and Savior-ask Him into your heart and ask Him to forgive your sins and save your soul. He is very kind and loving and He helps me all the time. He will be there for you too.

It's wonderful that you are coming out of athiesm, OP. That is a lost and horrible place to be. I hope that you can believe in The Lord and be saved. I don't wish for you to be lost.

It was Lord Jesus who made the things that we see around us-the moon, the earth, the stars. It was Lord Jesus who created this creation with Father and Lord Holy Spirit. It is to Him that we owe our gratitude for the good things that He has provided for us to enjoy. I hope that you will see and hear Him too. You have to believe first. Belief like a little child. If you could believe what you were told by textbooks that lie, then believe me when I tell you the truth. Believe and Live, OP. That is my testimony.

Yes, they can measure the skull and see brain capacity. These skulls, again, fall within the range of normal humans. They do not prove evolution. Again, I could shows you a large sample size of modern human skulls and their brain capacity and there would be a large differential in the statistics. You are saying they have found transitional fossils and even a seasoned scientist would admit, no, they have found skulls and skeletal remains that fit into modern man's measurements.

There is an enormous amount of evidence for a worldwide flood. The problem is, you ignore it or discard it because it doesn't fit your theory.

You just parroted exactly what I used as an example. To suddenly say that obviously somehow soft tissue was in the right conditions to last 65 million years in certain fossils....they find soft tissue in a large percentage of dinosaur bones, from different parts of the world. It is not the conditions they were lying in, it is because they are not millions of years old. The scientific community knows this, but they are at a loss to explain it and so they don't address it.

As for Dawkins:

[link to www.theoligarch.com]


BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

Why on earth would someone who vehemently argues against the existence of God by quoting Occam's Razor talk about space aliens designing and seeding life on planet earth?! Well, Darwin's Theory, although still hugely popular with the scientific masses and the educated public, is coming under increasing attack. A few very eminent and very serious scientists, including Nobel Prize Winners, are arguing that Darwin's Theory just doesn't work

NO, that is completely incorrect.
Harmful mutations are weeded out of the gene pool, because they cause the organism's ability to survive or reproduce to be decreased.



If there is no negative fitness effect, then it isn't harmful, PERIOD.

Regardless, the healthiest specimens of a species are going to survive better and reproduce more, and their offspring will out number the more average members of that species over time.



Yes, genetic mutations and recombination can add more variation over time, why does that seem magical to you?



No emotion involved whatsoever. Just good evidence and rational thinking.

Emotion and faith are the realm of the religious.

Some examples of beneficial mutations please, and don't tell me color of moths.

Paragraphs please!!!

It is good that you can admit the fossil record is not particularly compelling evidence for evolution. Most evolutionists would rather die than admit the slightest weakness in their theory.

Now you've said a lot of things about "maybe it was like this, or like this".. that's fine, but these are merely speculations. Maybe aliens made the cambrian biota. We can speculate all day long, but when it comes to evidence, we do NOT see it for evolution. The fossil record demonstrates extremely ANTI-evolutionary trends.

Now onto your argument about the fossil sequence supposedly being in perfect evolutionary order. This is probably the most bandied about claim of evolutionists, but I doubt most have bothered to really think it through. It is very wrong.

For example, we can take Mammals. Why did most major mammal groups have to wait to "evolve" until in the upper Mesozoic/Cenozoic. ???

IF these mammal groups were discovered in much lower rocks, such as the Permian or Jurassic, then evolutionists would argue that they branched off from a common ancestor co-evolved with reptile/dinosaur groups.

A lack of fossil transitions for this would be apologized for the same way you were apologizing for it now.

If "transitions" were out of order, they could be blamed on the randomness of fossilization. (ancestor groups did not happen fossilize until after descendent groups)

Other phylogenetic discrepancies could be blamed on rescued devices like Convergent Evolution.


Like I mentioned before, Mammals were once argued to have evolved from Amphibians (instead of synapsid/reptilian animals like is claimed today)

Birds have also been argued by evolutionists to share a more recent common ancestor with MAMMALS, then dinosaur groups, due to various morphological and molecular similarities.

What this means is that the supposed "order" of fossils could be rearranged in many different ways and still be *accommodated* by evolution theory. Evolution is like a jello that can be adjusted to fit around many different things.

In other words, this 'evolutionary order' of the fossils you speak of is an illusion.

You have to really sit back and think about it for awhile because you're going up against a lifetime of false evolutionary propaganda. I had to deprogram myself also.

Howdy,
If I may step in...
There is no evidence in the geologic record for a global flood. There is evidence of multiple transgressive/regressive sequences over large spans of geologic time. There is evidence of erosional surfaces, known as unconformities, of rocks being folded into anticlines and synclines, of metamorphosed rocks that must have underwent some precise P/T and fluid influences to produce the minerals seen, aeolian sand dunes preserved as rock... Global floods are not substantiated by the geologic record, I've seen enough of it to know...
As for soft tissue preservation, if you can find a scientific source that says the tissue was soft and not a fossil of soft tissue, I'd be willing to admit defeat... But no, the tissue was fossilized, likely permineralized, in that the pores were filled with minerals like calcite or quartz... Then those tissues were placed in a bath of acids to remove those minerals, leaving the soft parts... Yes, organics can survive for long periods of time when kept in anoxic conditions... Check out acritarchs for organics older than 65 my.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
These don't pose a problem for serious scientists.
Now, for the Ben Stein thing, watch the original video. It has a lot of cuts, doesn't it? Now look at the transcript. It certainly seems like Dawkins isn't directly answering the same question, doesn't it? I'm not an expert on that, so I'll let you decide for yourself...
Regards,
Hydeman

Richard Dawkin's was merely answering Stein's broad speculative question. Space aliens seeding Earth is definitely a more probable and rational guess than "God did it".

WTF is God?
How do you define God?
There is no consensus on what a "God" is.

People will say God is the "creator".

Well, the process of evolution can create new creatures over time. Maybe evolution is the creator you're looking for?

A hypothetically advanced species of Extraterrestrial could potentially be a "creator" and create new life through genetic engineering and seeding other planets.

I could claim God was a magical purple unicorn or a 4-armed blue skinned being named Shiva.

And that is ultimately the problem with so called creationists. They are arguing for a concept that has no basis in the material world. They are arguing for an intelligent creator but there is no consensus or evidence for what this hypothetical intelligent creator could be.

The color of moths could be beneficial if they help the moths camouflage themselves from predators.

Eyes. (allow a creature to detect potential harm or predators)
Bi-pedal locomotive legs. (helps humans travel long distances)
Hair (colder climates)
Lack of hair (warmer climates)

These traits mentioned above aren't the result of one single mutation or recombination of course, but are the end result of an accumulation of mutations/recombinations that occured over a long time.