Topic: 22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution - page 21. (Read 18771 times)

We should be able to observe mutations that are beneficial if evolution was an observable scientific theory even if natural selection had removed all of the "unfit" genes.  We still have more negative mutations passed on from generation to generation.  In fact, we are getting more mutations that are not beneficial as time goes on.

Again, I have provided you several times websites that explain all that stuff, you are simple mocking us by asking the same stuff again and again, can't you use Google or read the material we have provided you?

Of course most mutations are bad, probably 99.99% and that's how natural selection works, only the fittest survive, is that so hard to grasp?

I apologize that I am not "smart enough to understand" the complexities of our cell structure.  I assume you are an expert in molecular biology then by your statement.

Scientists are just beginning to scratch the surface of how complex our human bodies are.

Here is one quote:  I found this with a quick google search on this site: http://www.npr.org/2013/03/31/175858397/somewhere-over-the-brainbow-the-journey-to-map-the-human-brain

Furthermore, mutations in the human body, or any other living organism are most often not helpful.  There are some instances where there can be some accidental benefits but most mutations lead to things like Muscular Dystrophy or Downs Syndrome.  So any changes in the cell structure and how the human body was designed to operate is a negative thing.  

Evolution is based on mutation after mutation that leads to positive outcomes.  This is not observable in our world.  Chaos does not lead to order, ever.

No, it means you're not smart enough to understand it.

Are you swayed by arguments that aren't really arguments but are just "Maybe" followed by something silly followed by a question mark?

Maybe you should give me a million dollars perhaps? 

I think this quote says it all:

"At least hundreds, possibly thousands, of transitional fossils have been found so far by researchers"

So evolutionists believe that over 4 billion years, with millions of species "evolving" they only found hundreds of examples of this??? And what they call "transitional fossils" are usually no more than bone fragments. Go look at the actual physical evidence. It's just not there.

Also I wonder why some species decided to stop "evolving", like alligators?

Do you have parents?

Yes?

There you go! A "kind" changing into another "kind".
(BTW: "Kind" is a biblical term, and isn't widely used in evolutionary biology.)

It would be easier for you to understand evolution if you stopped thinking in terms of the "kind"/"species" labels and similar arbitrary mental prisons/boxes. Think of individuals (or even individual genes) instead, and you'll notice that evolution becomes more fathomable.

Here's a simple explanation of evolution for you:

1: There is heritability. (E.g.: My siblings and me have inherited certain traits from our parents.)
2: There are variants. (E.g.: My siblings and me are somewhat similar, but also somewhat different from one another.)
3: Some variants produce more offspring than other variants. (E.g.: My siblings have a couple of kids each. I have zero.)

Voila! That's basically all you need for evolution to occur. Notice how they're easily verifiable facts. And notice how there's no need to draw up an arbitrary, imaginary line between "macro-" and "micro-evolution". Such lines are figments of the creationist's imagination.

Do you perhaps deny the existence of heritability, variants and the fact that some variants produce more offspring than others?

And who designed that intelligent designer? Where did the designer come from?

You don't solve anything by postulating the existence of a god. You merely introduce a superfluous variable that, itself, needs to be explained. Nothing is explained by inserting imaginary gods/designers into the equation; the equation only becomes unnecessarily hard and is no longer backed by empirical data.

Stick with Occam's razor.

To understand something takes intelligence.  If our genetic code is so complicated that it is hard to understand then it should tell us something.  Maybe someone intelligent designed the genetic code perhaps?

I understand what you're saying, but in evolution there's no advancement, only change and adaptation, we are not superior or more advanced than a cockroach, we are different, and our intelligence may be an evolutionary disadvantage because we have the power to extinguish ourselves and cockroaches will still be here.


I have pointed you to some places where you can learn all you need, here's another: https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/evolution-and-natural-selection

Go visit museums, go back to school, do what you need to learn if you're willing to do so, but you can't expect that in a forum thread we explain you what took us years of our lives to learn and understand, but I suspect that you don't really wanna learn because it will probably go against your particular sect of Christianity and apparently ignorance is bliss.

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean god did it.

Genetics actually supports intelligent design.  The complexity of humans is such that it would be mathematically impossible for a human to evolve from a monkey by chance. Even for one small thing to change in a single cell causes the cell not to function properly.  How could something so advance in it's design just happen by chance?  Logic says it is not possible.  But the universal genetic code is far too complicated for me to even understand but here is a link for those that need something more to read on the subject matter: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/the-genetic-code-proof-of-intelligent-design-t25736.html

Of course, small changes within the human race is evident.  This is adaptation or micro-evolution.  We can observe that. I want evidence that supports macro-evolution.  The evolution that everyone puts so much of their faith into.  The evolution that we all just came from a big bang and evolved from some goo in the ground.  Where is that evidence?

Whenever I have these discussions it always comes back to "It just took millions of years" or "We do not have the evidence because it happened millions of years ago."  All this speculation about millions of millions of years is just a way to find any excuse so the theory of macro-evolution can be justified.

All that said, nothing I say here would every change anyone's mind regardless.  

And I still have not seen evidence of one kind changing to another.  It is all speculation with millions of years thrown in to back it up.  That is not observable science.  It is "faith" in a belief.  

I don't quite get that... Look no further than the human genome itself and its recorded evolution (in scenarios of mixed populations as well as scenarios of long times of isolation due to climate or geography).
Pretty self-evident.
Not sure how much these tests cost nowadays, but you can get your evolutionary "mix" analyzed by common genetic laboratories within a short time, naturally limited by today's available technology and scientific knowledge.

Also, many don't seem to be aware what little genetic evolution is required to result in rather drastic differences. It takes only 1% generic difference to have two entirely different (genetically/mating incompatible species) that just share similarities upon closer inspection. It's the difference between a small ape and a fully developed human. Add 1% more difference (more advanced genome than ours) and one can only speculate what kind of massive intelligence potential such a lifeform could have compared to us. Take it a step further and allow for a full 10% difference in advanced genome, these levels would simply be way beyond our current comprehension. Einstein, Hawking, Tesla and alikes would be like mentally handicapped cockroaches compared to that.

The issue with the fossils is that those are eons old, an extremely high percentage was destroyed by the environmental changes/erosion etc. over time, and that relatively few scientists are actively looking for them around the world - and this only since a very short time in human evolution (I don't have an exact figure but I reckon it's something like 150-250 years roundabout).
It's a common occurence that discoveries are rather random finds i.e. during construction, not long ago these finds were simply ignored (due to general lack of education) and they ended up being discarded/structures built upon or ended up completely disregarded in landfills. Who knows if our ancestors even had an eye for these things at all, probably not.
Additionally, it takes very specific conditions to create and preserve a fossil from an otherwise bio-degradable/erosive/consumable material that otherwise is left to its environment and other lifeforms to "work on", hence they are extremely rare especially for land-based ones.

Likely the best spots would be in beneath the sediments of our today's oceans, having the best chances of being untouched and not exposed to atmospheric erosion since a long time - but such efforts/possibilities are still very new, limited by technology and very expensive. I don't think I'll live to see the day our very own planet is actually being systematically searched for fossils/artifacts i.e. by affordable robots or anything like that (they'd have to dig/scan a mile deep on land as well as beneath the oceans).

To me what is happening today (even with all our technology) is something I like to compare to i.e. a Mars Exploration Rover. Despite being a milestone achievement, it merely scratches the surface on a few isolated spots and digs a few inches deep, not more. That leaves far more than 99.999999% of the remaining possible finds absolutely undetected. Basically right now this is all we have done, in 200 years on this planet. Technically speaking, we barely have investigated our own planet yet and know only tiny bits so far (just enough to once a while take a 2nd look and keep doing it at an oozingly slow pace with extremely limited efforts).

Things would probably look different if mandkind didn't toss so insanely much effort & resources at typical points of self-centered human interests like war, to name just one example. In that respect, humans are still very tightly connected i.e. to territorial shimpanzee populations - and unfortunately it shows. Sometimes the motives and behavioural differences are so small, it's plain shameful.

But who are really the robots?

Although I could be considered a "Jesus Freak" I try really hard to see all sides, study all religions and understand where people are coming from.

However, this is not the case for my point of view.  I get laughed at, ridiculed called "stupid" etc.

And still no one has shown me the one thing I have been asking for over, and over and over again.  Just ONE observable example of a KIND changing into another KIND.  Where is it?  If that can't be produced then who has really been brainwashed?  What is the truth really?  Maybe the entire culture has just decided to go along with what is now taught as good "science" when in reality it is faith in something without any proof at all.

The concept of the Prime Mover is very different from creationism, creationism is Christian propaganda or some type of American Christians propaganda, the Prime Mover is a philosophical hypothesis for the beginning of the universe, it has nothing to do with gods or creationism.

Don't know why, but these religious robots always make for the best jokes... Possibly because they really just don't get it and are absolutely authentic in that way

There just seem to be humans that are capable of progressively analyzing & understanding their environment - and there's the ones that can't (or don't want to).
I guess this has always been that way and is unlikely to change. Understanding complexity doesn't come by itself, it requires alot of effort and brainpower, so some opt for cheap easy options to find comfort or other irrational reasons.
One could easily live with that - my only concern there is the ratio of rational vs. irrational humans (nicely put), there's definitely room for improvement.

As the doctor would say :
I'm sorry, but there's no pill against stupid...

It's not "politically correct", but the lazy, the stupid and the irrationals have always been easy targets for religious infection. Harvesting & converting (= brainwashing) the sheeple has always been the prime task of clergymen. Limited effort by a small number of people, is successful allows for an entire army of autonomous but controlled drones = power & control. Business as usual amongst humans...

Yes. Some people beleive god created the big bang. A world that just "appeared" doesn't seem right to me. I beleive in got but no religion.

My point was that they can't.  Because there are strict scientific rules and order within kids/ How can one kind evolve into another kind if they mammals cannot mate with each other?  That was the point I was trying to make.

Even 2 year olds understand that dogs are dogs, cats are cats and fish are fish.  Where is the proof of one kind changing into another in our fossil record?

I think if you asked a bunch of 6 year olds to write down questions you'd get the same ones.  Did these people even attend High School?

Wow!

I have a 13 year old niece that's way more educated than you!

If you can't understand the basic concept of species or "why a dog can't mate with a cat" your school system/parents/educators/society/whatever has failed you.

I am totally open to any of these theories.  I am even open to the idea that there are no "kinds" as you say.  But I, unlike what is being taught as "science'' in our schools today, stick with the scientific method which requires some tests be put to theories.  

Can a dog mate with a cat?  Why not?  Why do kinds stay within their own kinds?  Why did we not evolve so that we could have cat/dog/human mixes?  If there are no "kinds" as you say then what caused the amazing order and structure within species that we see all around us and how would that just happen by chance?