The Scientific Case Against Evolution

Writer
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 6:10 pm

PostMon Oct 08, 2012 1:20 pm » by peterxdunn


Species have evolved to fill ecological niches. In New Zealand and Australia: that became isolated from the rest of the world millennia ago (a long time before the world was created according to the Bible), the marsupials evolved to become dog like, cat like and quite a few other ?-likes simply because there was the 'ecological space' - with no competing species - available for them to do so.

Furthermore, there is no 'scientific case against evolution'. And you certainly haven't managed to present one here.

What is more - there are, indeed, instances of 'evolution in progress' to be found - you just haven't looked for them. In the south of England, for instance, frogs and toads are actually changing colour over successive generations: from dark green to bright yellow. You could also look at foxes born into the urban environment, and compare the colouration of their fur with that of their rural counterparts. Urban foxes no longer have the distinct red, black and white colour scheme of their country-side dwelling cousins.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 3085
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 4:35 pm

PostMon Oct 08, 2012 2:19 pm » by Poooooot


Please excuse my lack of responding over the weekend. I was feeling under the weather.

Regarding my comment about a human being born of a monkey, you said this:
Truthdefender wrote:I believe you were the one who stated this.

The reason I made that simplistic example was because of these:
Truthdefender wrote:Micro yes, adaptation. But this virus will still be in the same 'family' of viruses from which it originated before building up its own antibodies to to protect it from antibiotics, no?

and:
Truthdefender wrote:@ Poooooot, finches are finches, no matter the variety, yes?


Making statements like these makes it seem you feel that unless one species births another, then the argument for evolution is invalid. BUT, that is not how evolution works. I encourage you to check out this infographic: http://evogeneao.com/images/Evo_large.gif It shouws how billions of years ago, microogranisms branched off into other microorganisms, etc etc etc.

Daemonfoe explains it way better than I ever could, because I am not the most eloquent of speakers:
Daemonfoe wrote:Evolution is based only off one simple concept. Offspring are born with the majority of their genes matching their parent with a few tiny mutations. Those mutations slightly affect the survival and breeding rate of those offspring in their environment. The offspring that are able to survive long enough and breed, carry the majority of their genes on to the next generation, including the slight mutations that they had.

During this process there are other mutations that happened unregulated from the environment because they were moot during the process of weeding out mutations that ill-effected the survival/breed capabilities.

In an extreme environment change, these other mutations that were previously moot come into play. Some of them help or hinder the survival/breed rate in this new environment. An extreme environment change may be the loss of forestry, a change in temperature, newly introduced predators, extinction of a food source. An even more extreme change of environment may affect what an animal breathes to obtain oxygen. Look at amphibians. They are the perfect example of species that breath both air and water, able to branch off to either, and over time, could lose either the ability to breath air or water depending on the environment.




If you do not believe in evolution due to your religious beliefs, that is fine. That is something that you have the right to feel. BUT if you are going to come up with lies and fact manipulation to back this up, that's where the ridicule comes in. Just say "I do not believe in evolution because my bible tells me otherwise," and there will be no ridicule (from me). None. My "ridicule" comes from you trying to explain it with science, which is ridiculous. Ridiculous = ridicule. Get it?
Matthew 7
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 7659
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 7:14 am

PostMon Oct 08, 2012 4:33 pm » by 99socks


The effects of Natural Selection isn't a proof of evolution. It's a proof of natural selection.

If mutations with positive effects and advantages for an organism didn't appear at the right time and place, they would never become adopted by the organism.

I will argue, that yes, there is something a lot bigger than Darwin's theories going on.... It has been proven in labs, that if you take one colony (by definition, a cluster of bacteria with exactly the same DNA), isolate them in a new petri dish, and then make the intention to put antibiotic drops in the petri dish, the bacteria will simultaneously, spontaneously, acquire the DNA that enables them to survive the antibiotic. No, they did not acquire the genes from their parent cells; no, they did not pass the genes through their cell walls or through pili as the result of a stimulus. This is not the case of natural selection killing off the bacteria that didn't have the right DNA; this is a case of advantageous DNA appearing, apparently, out of nowhere.

And we thought we had done away with the medieval theory of "spontaneous generation." Lol.

Anyways, there is far more behind all of this than meets the eye. For instance, when has any of us witnessed a mutation that has been for the better? "Mutation" has a negative connotation, for a reason. Did you know, that in humans, the miscarriage rate is something like 1/6, and that the majority of these cases are because of something wrong with the fetus? Did you know, that bacteria have no less than THREE checking mechanisms to ensure accuracy on DNA replication? How then, are mutations in sexually reproducing organisms- usually recessive mutations nonetheless, which require that two separate organisms have exactly the same mutation within the same time frame and within a reasonable distance of each other- advantageous specifically for the environment they find themselves in? Mutations (in the evolutionary sense) seem to appear spontaneously in the right time, right place, and they aren't like what we witness as when there are DNA accidents- goats with legs coming out of their heads, human babies with skin that slough off, and three-eyed frogs? Certainly "natural selection" does away with the damaged goat, human, and frog, but it doesn't answer how the RIGHT MUTATION was created in the first place... always at the right time, the right place... for hundreds of millions of "evolutionary years."

Think about it for a while.
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/obamas-doj-silent-as-new-black-panthers-leader-incites-violence-in-ferguson_082014








I can't speak about how much of the Constitution is in effect anymore... But thank God we still somewhat resemble a Republic and not a democracy!


Image

Super Moderator
User avatar
Posts: 15836
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 7:12 pm

PostMon Oct 08, 2012 4:55 pm » by Spock


EXCELLENT POST SOCK!

I believe in some aspects of evolution, as well as spontaneous changes (I guess that would be considered creation).

The volley on this subject has always been as mystifying as the chicken or the egg argument to me. I tend to look for explanations that make sense to me, just to put the mental battle at bay; and in general I do believe that God works within the framework of the laws of the universe that He created, whether or not we ever have the ability to figure those laws out or ever fathom they exist.

So, if objects are capable of changing outcomes, simply by the introduction of an impartial observer, I tend to think this scenario may play into what has been defined as evolution. Much like the petri dish experiment.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 3085
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 4:35 pm

PostMon Oct 08, 2012 6:00 pm » by Poooooot


The funny thing is, that if you believe in evolution, people automatically assume you don't believe in God. Or vice-versa. Au contraire, mon amie.

Image
Matthew 7
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Super Moderator
User avatar
Posts: 15836
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 7:12 pm

PostMon Oct 08, 2012 6:04 pm » by Spock


Poooooot wrote:The funny thing is, that if you believe in evolution, people automatically assume you don't believe in God. Or vice-versa. Au contraire, mon amie.

Image



No question. Good stuff right there - eerily.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 7659
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 7:14 am

PostMon Oct 08, 2012 6:37 pm » by 99socks


Spock wrote:EXCELLENT POST SOCK!

I believe in some aspects of evolution, as well as spontaneous changes (I guess that would be considered creation).

The volley on this subject has always been as mystifying as the chicken or the egg argument to me. I tend to look for explanations that make sense to me, just to put the mental battle at bay; and in general I do believe that God works within the framework of the laws of the universe that He created, whether or not we ever have the ability to figure those laws out or ever fathom they exist.

So, if objects are capable of changing outcomes, simply by the introduction of an impartial observer, I tend to think this scenario may play into what has been defined as evolution. Much like the petri dish experiment.




Lalalala... 8-)


Upload to Disclose.tv

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/obamas-doj-silent-as-new-black-panthers-leader-incites-violence-in-ferguson_082014








I can't speak about how much of the Constitution is in effect anymore... But thank God we still somewhat resemble a Republic and not a democracy!


Image

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 7659
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 7:14 am

PostMon Oct 08, 2012 6:37 pm » by 99socks


Poooooot wrote:The funny thing is, that if you believe in evolution, people automatically assume you don't believe in God. Or vice-versa.



Ain't that the sad, sad truth....
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/obamas-doj-silent-as-new-black-panthers-leader-incites-violence-in-ferguson_082014








I can't speak about how much of the Constitution is in effect anymore... But thank God we still somewhat resemble a Republic and not a democracy!


Image

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 3085
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 4:35 pm

PostMon Oct 08, 2012 7:25 pm » by Poooooot


99socks wrote:
Poooooot wrote:The funny thing is, that if you believe in evolution, people automatically assume you don't believe in God. Or vice-versa.



Ain't that the sad, sad truth....

It really is.

Image
:lol:
Matthew 7
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2184
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 6:21 pm

PostMon Oct 08, 2012 7:59 pm » by Daemonfoe


Nilm33 wrote:
Daemonfoe wrote:What category would I be in if I believed that evolution happens, but I'm basically agnostic toward anything trying to explain where life first came from?



My kind of category :flop:

But heed caution. Saying to people you believe in evolution will automatically presume that you believe evolution is responsible for the creation of life. So when people ask me I just smile :D

Makes you wonder why evolutionists even argue with creationists to begin with... One argues the origin, the other argues what happens after the origin.


Exactly. Which is why I always enter into the debate.To show that one can believe in evolution without being a threat to someone else's religious beliefs.
The two choices we have are something starting from nothing, or something existing infinitely. These are both paradoxes. The existence of everything is therefore a paradox. -daemonfoe


PreviousNext

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook