The Scientific Case Against Evolution

Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:39 pm » by **Seriouscitizen**

Poooooot wrote:Even under this very post, in related topics, is a case study:

Abyssdnb wrote:Tibetans live at altitudes of 13,000 feet, breathing air that has 40 percent less oxygen than is available at sea level, yet suffer very little mountain sickness. The reason, according to a team of biologists in China, is human evolution, in what may be the most recent and fastest instance detected so far. Comparing the genomes of Tibetans and Han Chinese, the majority ethnic group in China, the biologists found that at least 30 genes had undergone evolutionary change in the Tibetans as they adapted to life on the high plateau. Tibetans and Han Chinese split apart as recently as 3,000 years ago, say the biologists, a group at the Beijing Genomics Institute led by Xin Yi and Jian Wang. The report appears in Friday’s issue of Science.

If confirmed, this would be the most recent known example of human evolutionary change. Until now, the most recent such change was the spread of lactose tolerance — the ability to digest milk in adulthood — among northern Europeans about 7,500 years ago. But archaeologists say that the Tibetan plateau was inhabited much earlier than 3,000 years ago and that the geneticists’ date is incorrect.

fastest-case-of-evolution-recorded-t25912.html

And I even did you the favor of finding the original source article
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/02/scien ... .html?_r=0

I have to agree with truthdefender here and also RIK on a certain level, that even tho we and all species clearly EVOLVE, as in adapt to our enviroment. The 'original' species are still human. Are those Tibethan people, not still human? I could be off and we might come from apes. But i see MORE clear examples around me, in quantity, from species ADAPTING than actual species shifting into something completely different. Also hasn't Darwin based his whole study on the ADAPTATION of his doves to certain eviromental changes, trough reproduction. Werent the doves not still doves in the end?. I can see the likeness in certain so called 'in between' species as Deamonfoe posted, to different species. But There are still these links missing from that kind to the original one. I am just saying that there is no SURENESS in this. Because due to 'lack of quantity' scientist havent been able to track any of those 'more' inbetween species.

Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:48 pm » by **Poooooot**

Seriouscitizen wrote:I have to agree with truthdefender here and also RIK on a certain level, that even tho we and all species clearly EVOLVE, as in adapt to our enviroment. The 'original' species are still human. Are those Tibethan people, not still human? I could be off and we might come from apes. But i see MORE clear examples around me, in quantity, from species ADAPTING than actual species shifting into something completely different. Also hasn't Darwin based his whole study on the ADAPTATION of his doves to certain eviromental changes, trough reproduction. Werent the doves not still doves in the end?. I can see the likeness in certain so called 'in between' species as Deamonfoe posted, to different species. But There are still these links missing from that kind to the original one. I am just saying that there is no SURENESS in this. Because due to 'lack of quantity' scientist havent been able to track any of those 'more' inbetween species.

Evolution is not something that happens overnight. It is never stated that one species was born of another. You should check out this infographic:
http://evogeneao.com/images/Evo_large.gif

or even this one:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... fe_SVG.svg

(they are entirely too large to post here)

I'm sensing a clear lack of understanding on yours and truthdefenders part, of just how evolutionary biology works.

If you are choosing to believe your faith over science, that is your right, but you cannot sit here and claim that science is wrong just because it does not fit into your ideological beliefs.

Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:56 pm » by **Richc**

Seriouscitizen wrote:But i see MORE clear examples around me, in quantity, from species ADAPTING than actual species shifting into something completely different.

And to me that is evolution....

RIK

Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:05 pm » by **Poooooot**

Richc wrote:
Seriouscitizen wrote:But i see MORE clear examples around me, in quantity, from species ADAPTING than actual species shifting into something completely different.

And to me that is evolution....

RIK

Exactly!

Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:07 pm » by **Buzzsaw**

Personally I think the whole debate has become too polarized, with those for and against falling into two camps snarling at each other over the battlelines throwing increaslingly spurious arguments at each other. What bothers me is how the whole argument does need to be looked into as there are some serious flaws, but the moment you suggest this you get labelled a creatonist or a crazy. Being a gambler, I deal with odds and probabilities and in both arguments the odds strike me as far too high to be plausable. When I first told a bloke I didnt believe in evolution he got really angry, and I asked if it was compulsary these days to believe in it. I look at it from a Hegelian/Bauman/Foucaldian view, all knowledge is fluid and changing, and todays theories are tomorrows jokes. But just becaue I dont believe it doesnt make me crazy...

Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:14 pm » by **Poooooot**

Buzzsaw wrote:Personally I think the whole debate has become too polarized, with those for and against falling into two camps snarling at each other over the battlelines throwing increaslingly spurious arguments at each other. What bothers me is how the whole argument does need to be looked into as there are some serious flaws, but the moment you suggest this you get labelled a creatonist or a crazy. Being a gambler, I deal with odds and probabilities and in both arguments the odds strike me as far too high to be plausable. When I first told a bloke I didnt believe in evolution he got really angry, and I asked if it was compulsary these days to believe in it. I look at it from a Hegelian/Bauman/Foucaldian view, all knowledge is fluid and changing, and todays theories are tomorrows jokes. But just becaue I dont believe it doesnt make me crazy...

I don't think they're crazy.

It is yours, and their, right to believe or not believe, and I respect people beliefs, even if I don't share them. But, when someone lies and/or twists and manipulates facts in order to fit their agenda, that's where I have a problem. If you don't believe in evolution because your God tells you otherwise, then state that. Don't say "well a monkey didn't give birth to a human so evolution is not real."

Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:15 pm » by **Richc**

Buzzsaw wrote:I look at it from a Hegelian/Bauman/Foucaldian view, all knowledge is fluid and changing, and todays theories are tomorrows jokes..

In science yes.. Not in religion... That is the big difference and one of the reasons for the polarisation.

I don't believe i've seen a post from you before Buzzsaw... Pleased to meet you. :cheers:

RIK

Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:31 pm » by **Buzzsaw**

Pleased to meet you Rik, dont post often, just when something interests me, also I am a man with no answers, only more questions!

Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:36 pm » by **Richc**

Buzzsaw wrote:Pleased to meet you Rik, dont post often, just when something interests me, also I am a man with no answers, only more questions!

Ha, i hear ya buddy. :flop:

I am a man of many questions and many answers. But the answers rarely match the questions.... :lol:

RIK

Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:37 pm » by **Seriouscitizen**

Evolution is not something that happens overnight. It is never stated that one species was born of another. You should check out this infographic:
http://evogeneao.com/images/Evo_large.gif

or even this one:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... fe_SVG.svg

If you are choosing to believe your faith over science, that is your right, but you cannot sit here and claim that science is wrong just because it does not fit into your ideological beliefs.

Nor am i saying that one species is born out of another, am I? Please read carefully. I look into the links tho. And also I agree on that evolution is the same as ADAPTION to me.. My mother teaches biology in highschool and I have attented some readings on the subject. I'm just not convinced. Its in my nature to not create a personal belief dogma if something is off. Sorry. But it might as well change after i saw those links in that case i will comment on that. exciting