The human eye and the garbage "evolutionists" clai
-
I do not see evidence for evolution
the fact that animals can go through very different stages is a good indicator of evolution. But i dont belive in random evolution, only random mutation.
Frogs is a good example, they breed underwater using geels, and then later develope lungs. This does not mean that they are without air for a period inbetween.is it evidence? not really, but then again, what is?
-
Hi,
Frog gills turning into lungs is genetically determined. Its just the shutting down of some genes (i.e. for gills) and turning on others (i.e for lungs).
Peace
excactly. what else would you think evolution or mutation is, if not just shutting down or turning on genes? We can observe how certain birds have longer beads within its own sepcies depending on the erea and need they have. this is mutation, and if mutation goes on for long enough, eventually the species will be so seperated from eachother that you can rightfully claim its a new species.
i know the relegion of evolutionism, and im no supporter of that either, but neither do i wish to blind myself into thinking that there are no such thing.
Its just their method. They find a dino fossil that has parts resembling a bird, and conclude they are one and the same. I dont know. but it is to me like claiming we come from the cave salamander as it has 5 fingers and toes that looks like their human counterpart.I have not made up my mind fully on this subject yet though
-
-
Hi Magi,
I am reproducing the following from "Reson and Revalation" I hope you find it useful.
A particular cellular function goes from DNA>RNA>mRNA>Protein. It does not go from the other way, such as Protein>mRNA>RNA>DNA. If evolution has to occur this has to be achieved, and its not. Why not? Because its not as simple as that; the DNA is translated faithfully by a machinery of proteins to a piece of RNA in the nucleus. It is then transported to the cytoplasm by a machinery of proteins through the pores of the nucleus. This RNA is processed by a machinery of proteins, were the Introns are removed and the Exons are jouined together. After joining it become mRNA (messenger RNA), which is edited further by a machinery of proteins, and a poly A tail is addded to its 3' end and its 5' end is Capped to stabalise it. This mRNA is then translated by a complicated machinery to produce protein, which at the same time pushed in to the ER by a machinery of proteins, where it take its functional shape in a split second! Some of these proteins are then further processed by a machinery of proteins, such as N-terminally blocking it, for stability.
What evolution is saying that all this has evolved, I want to know how? There is not a single scientific fact about it .
-
ok PULEEZ don't get into the we are from apes garbage. that is THE most outdated theory on evolution. It is believed in some circles that ALL life evolved form single celled organisms but it is NOT believed anywhere anymore, that humans are evolved from apes. It is accepted now that we are our own species and may have paralleled the primates but have never branched FROM them. if anything we are two different branches of something else. The first recognizable human is believed to be around Australopithecus (not quite human but an early ancestor NOT apes) It bothers the HELL out of me when creationists try to use the apes crap as an argument. Creationists are the ONLY ones to use that theory. just wanted to make that point. If you are going to argue against evolution at least use a reasonable argument.
-
the apes crap was assumed early based on similarities in physical structure, but has since been tossed out the window based on known dates of existence and over all basic physiology. it is now believed that humans and primates have evolved parralell but completely seperate. tere are some groups that believe other human like species had evolved from primates but failed.
-
the apes crap was assumed early based on similarities in physical structure, but has since been tossed out the window based on known dates of existence and over all basic physiology. it is now believed that humans and primates have evolved parralell but completely seperate. tere are some groups that believe other human like species had evolved from primates but failed.
Humans are primates, by the way. The similarities are too great--even the genetic mistakes are the same. For instance, all primates share a defective gene that in other mammals produce vitamin C. Most primates also have colour vision whereas all other mammals are colourblind.
If humans evolved separately, then the creator go to great lengths to mimic the common ape form while creating the human body, although this is supposedly not the case. I call that view the Deceiving Creator theory.
-
That is why I said PARALELL. We are not from but next to the primate. We may both come from teh same place but not from one another. See what I mean?
Sawtooth, it seems you are confused about some things. Taxonomically, I consider humans to be extinct and extant members of the genus Homo and Australopithecus. (I accept the definition of human as 'fully bipedal ape' so australopiths are human to me). 'Primates' is an order, Primata, which is a larger grouping that includes families like Cercopithecidae (Old World monkeys), Hylobatidae (gibbons) and Hominidae (great apes). So taxonomically, humans are apes (member of the family Hominidae) and also primates (order Primata) just like we are mammals (class Mammalia) and vertebrates (Vertebrata).
(By the way, the first person to propose that humans are primates was the great Carolus Linnaeus. Linnaeus lived some time before Darwin, that is, before people thought of the idea of evolution.)
You are right if you say humans don't come from other primates (monkeys and other apes) that live today. But if we trace the human lineage back to the past, there will be a point where human ancestors look like the apes of today.
-
I am not going to waste my time here. There is no evolution, as they claim. We do not know how we came here, but what we know is there is no Evolution (scientifically) shock
I reserve the right to be excluded from the 'we'. Peace be upon you.
-
That is why I said PARALELL. We are not from but next to the primate. We may both come from teh same place but not from one another. See what I mean?
Sawtooth, it seems you are confused about some things. Taxonomically, I consider humans to be extinct and extant members of the genus Homo and Australopithecus. (I accept the definition of human as 'fully bipedal ape' so australopiths are human to me). 'Primates' is an order, Primata, which is a larger grouping that includes families like Cercopithecidae (Old World monkeys), Hylobatidae (gibbons) and Hominidae (great apes). So taxonomically, humans are apes (member of the family Hominidae) and also primates (order Primata) just like we are mammals (class Mammalia) and vertebrates (Vertebrata).
(By the way, the first person to propose that humans are primates was the great Carolus Linnaeus. Linnaeus lived some time before Darwin, that is, before people thought of the idea of evolution.)
You are right if you say humans don't come from other primates (monkeys and other apes) that live today. But if we trace the human lineage back to the past, there will be a point where human ancestors look like the apes of today.
I agree about the physical apearance and the kind of cousin relationship, just that one does NOT COME from the other. I see you are a student of evolution. I studied for a few years in college, but truth be told, my memory is good for concept TERRIBLE for exact words and number and i am too lazy to look the crap up just to make a point on a forum . I am guessing that you tend to get frustrated when the opposition to evolution focuses so heavily on the "from apes" theory?
-
I think I have given enough evidence to suppot that evolution is a lie. However you have not given me a single scientific fact yet. How can a cell evolve from a mixture of chemicals of "soup" and lightening? Let those who want to be ignorant follow evolution.
Andya you havn't given me any scientific evidence yet. Please let me know where on earth there is any enviromental (meaningful) stimulus (not carcinogenic etc) lead to a change in the genomic DNA of an organism to improve it, and that this caould be pass on to the next generation. If you can proof this I will believe in evolution and I will give you 5000 pounds. If you can't and I am sure you can't, so please stop wasting your time and my time lol .
-
You are right if you say humans don't come from other primates (monkeys and other apes) that live today. But if we trace the human lineage back to the past, there will be a point where human ancestors look like the apes of today.
I would refine this statement further.
If traced back, human ancestors will NOT look like the apes of today but rather they would look like the ancestors of the apes of today which were also undoubtedly different.
Regards.
-
Peace,
To be honest I still do not understand why this is raised as a contentious issue here.
The pro-evolution and anti-evolution people here both believe in the creative power and existence of the God.
In the real world, the battle for evolution is fought by atheists, and the case against evolution is fought by theists. The war is therefore actually between theism and atheism - with evolution used as the pawn between the two parties.
Here we have a different situation. We have the creationists vs the evolutionists. The creationists believe in supernatural means for species to come about, whereas the evolutionist here believes that the existence of humans is a part of the blueprint of the universe all controlled by the God.
Who cares really how it came about? It happenned, we are here. The God says that humans were created from dust, from water, from sperm etc. Why do the creationists here insist that this was a sudden process that materialised a man like a magic trick?
Aren't there signs enough around you that the way the entire universe has come about has taken aeons (large spans of time) - the creation of man from dust and water may (and I believe did) occur over a vast amount of time. Why is this incompatible with the reading?
Why is there any argument?
Regards.
-
Hi Truth,
The theory itself is formulated by Atheists, it just give them an alternative to creation. I have asked Professors of Biology who could not give me a clue about it but just saying that its a Theory, and believe me some say its a bad theory and other say they should exclude it from the textbooks.
Peace
-
Some light reading for ya...
http//www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/selection/selection.html
Natural Selection is the differential reproduction of genotypes.
Evidence of Natural Selection
Let's look at an example to help make natural selection clear.Industrial melanism is a phenomenon that affected over 70 species of moths in England. It has been best studied in the peppered moth, Biston betularia. Prior to 1800, the typical moth of the species had a light pattern (see Figure 3). Dark colored or melanic moths were rare and were therefore collectors' items.
Image of Peppered Moth
Figure 3. Image of Peppered MothDuring the Industrial Revolution, soot and other industrial wastes darkened tree trunks and killed off lichens. The light-colored morph of the moth became rare and the dark morph became abundant. In 1819, the first melanic morph was seen; by 1886, it was far more common -- illustrating rapid evolutionary change.
Eventually light morphs were common in only a few locales, far from industrial areas. The cause of this change was thought to be selective predation by birds, which favored camouflage coloration in the moth.
In the 1950's, the biologist Kettlewell did release-recapture experiments using both morphs. A brief summary of his results are shown below. By observing bird predation from blinds, he could confirm that conspicuousness of moth greatly influenced the chance it would be eaten.
Recapture Success
light moth dark moth
non-industrial woods 14.6 % 4.7 %
industrial woods 13 % 27.5 %Scroll down to natural selection as part of evolution. Evolution is when a species is able to USE genetic mutation and change iin the general gene pool to it's advantage and influence the greater population. In simple terms.
-
Hi phoenix1,
Bacteria evolve all the time, because it has got plasmid DNA apart from its genomic DNA. Plasmid can be transfer, which sometimes give bacteria resistant to other antibiotics. Give you an example, E. coli on your face remains E. coli for ever, it will never become another bacteria.
Peace
how do you know that something wouldn't change enough overtime that we would call it by a different name?
For example if an orange has a genetic mutation that makes its skin blue, wouldn't it become a 'blue' instead of an 'orange'?