Evolution

[mks]

here...here's your transitional creature..it's called amphibian

<iframe src="/forum/video.php?url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Hb5UPxbEuI&feature=related" frameborder="0" style="overflow:hidden; height:auto; max-width:540px"></iframe>

Reminds me of these guys...

[Dub_freak]

I really can't stress this enough, a horse is a horse is a horse; a butterfly is a butterfly is a butterfly and so on. There is not a single shred of evidence to suggest one species changing into another. I know we couldn't observe this BM but surely the fossil record would provide answers?

Look at an ape , now look at a human. similar aren't they? Thats because there's a 98% DNA between us and them, we share a common ancestor that we both evolved from.

Show me some evidence of the transitional phase of any creature changing species (like your sea animals outside of water example. There isn't any evidence for it. It is completely and utterly a hypothesis that has not nor ever will be tested or proved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatfish

Flatfish have been cited as dramatic examples of evolutionary adaptation. For example, Richard Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker, explains the flatfish's evolutionary history thus:
…bony fish as a rule have a marked tendency to be flattened in a vertical direction…. It was natural, therefore, that when the ancestors of [flatfish] took to the sea bottom, they should have lain on one side…. But this raised the problem that one eye was always looking down into the sand and was effectively useless. In evolution this problem was solved by the lower eye ‘moving’ round to the upper side.[2]
In 2008, scientists discovered that "50-million-year-old fossils have revealed an intermediate species between primitive flatfishes (with eyes on both sides of their heads) and the modern, lopsided versions, which include sole, flounder, and halibut."[3] The research concluded that "the change happened gradually, in a way consistent with evolution via natural selection—not suddenly, as researchers once had little choice but to believe.

[Dub_freak]

Was going to post mudskippers but BM beat me to it.

[deadly_habit]

what came first the chicken or the egg? science tries to answer this question, creationism says don't question, they both just exist

[snypadub]

but or horse looks like a dog yeah? I can tell the difference but when you consider all the possible forms they have way more in common than not. almost the same think honestly. limbs, digits, eyes. they all work the same way, do the same thing.

you seem to be looking at this like cats morphing into mountain goats or something when what evolution stresses is that a common ancestor evolved (adapted itself) into what we call a cat and a mountain goat. It's just life doing it's thing and we our theory on this mechanism is evolution.




you avoided the my question btw..
if you said that we cannot see into the mind and motives of god i'll accept it
but you have to admit that lots of critters look very similar for being different and unique species
also, what do you make of the universality of DNA?
it's just life, in different forms, perpetually changing, evolving, adapting



o ja, the mudskipper! ^^^^^

speaking in rudimentary terms, a horse might be said to resemble a dog but; the differences between the two species is obvious and plentiful enough. Of course we cannot see into the mind and motives of God, but I like to try and address questions posed at me as thoroughly as I can without resorting to the, 'God is beyond our comprehension' answer. God is waaaaaaaaaay above our comprehension and there are things out there that can never be explained other than to say God is awesome and above us all.

Explain what you mean by the universality of DNA? If you are referring to the fact that horse DNA, fish DNA and lizard DNA (as well as every other species' DNA) all boil down to the same basic code rearranged then I make of it what it is.

There is a standard set of rules that govern everything. From how gravity affects the motion of the hypothetical, 'Ith particle' through to how light behaves in a prism onwards to the coding of DNA. There are universal laws for everything, it is true and irrefutable but, if anything, they support the idea of an intelligent creator as opposed to denying it.

[Dub_freak]

Watch the whole series

[snypadub]

Look at an ape , now look at a human. similar aren't they? Thats because there's a 98% DNA between us and them, we share a common ancestor that we both evolved from.

True, we share DNA.

Lets use an analogy shall we:

Take any pre 2007 dubstep track you like (providing it is at 140). Compare it to a 140 skrillex track.

Now, they are pretty similar in that, they are both at the same tempo, both use computers to produce. Perhaps even the same production techniques. But both tracks will be completely different things regardless of how similar they may be under the hood. You assume the reason we are so similar is because we share a common ancestor but this is just an assumption. Show me the common ancestor.

Flatfish have been cited as dramatic examples of evolutionary adaptation. For example, Richard Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker, explains the flatfish's evolutionary history thus:
…bony fish as a rule have a marked tendency to be flattened in a vertical direction…. It was natural, therefore, that when the ancestors of [flatfish] took to the sea bottom, they should have lain on one side…. But this raised the problem that one eye was always looking down into the sand and was effectively useless. In evolution this problem was solved by the lower eye ‘moving’ round to the upper side.[2]
In 2008, scientists discovered that "50-million-year-old fossils have revealed an intermediate species between primitive flatfishes (with eyes on both sides of their heads) and the modern, lopsided versions, which include sole, flounder, and halibut."[3] The research concluded that "the change happened gradually, in a way consistent with evolution via natural selection—not suddenly, as researchers once had little choice but to believe.

http://www.icr.org/article/national-geo ... alls-flat/

National Geographic posted the story1 based on Chicago paleontologist Matt Friedman's research on the "incomplete orbital transit" of two flatfish fossils found in northern Italy.2 One of the fossilized fish, Heteronectes, has one eye in the middle of one side of its skull and the other eye near the top of the other side. Some scientists believe that the finds represent evolutionary transitions from fish with eyes on either side of their heads to flatfish such as the flounder. [...] Friedman's research reveals additional reasons why these fossils may not represent transitional forms. In Nature, Freidman refers to "the sudden appearance of anatomically modern pleuronectiform [flatfish] groups in the Palaeogene period."2 Thus, these newly-discovered forms were found in the same rock layers with the fish they allegedly evolved into! If they were transitional, they should be in rock layers above regular fish but below flatfish.

[snypadub]

Watch the whole series

Will do.

I know people itt have said Hovind is a moron (I think Dawkins is a bit of a prick personaly but still give him a fair chance) watch his series of seminars on creation, fascinating stuff covered there.

I watch your stuff you watch mine right.

http://www.drdino.com/category/type/vid ... -seminars/ There's seven videos all together covering loads of topics. The guys is fascinating to hear despite your opinions. My atheist house-mate loves watching this guy when we get stoned together as he thinks he puts together a very strong and persuasive argument (that is not to say my house-mate is persuaded).

[tuckerlinen]

didn't someone bring up the appendix earlier?
why do whales (mammals) have feet, in in their skeletons anyway?
um, dinosaurs?
[as in address these if you would]


how can you subscribe to the possibility of little adaptations and not of little adaptations over immense periods of time? What mechanism drives these micro adaptations of yours and how does this mechanism not work in a macro sense?

You're not saying that evolution doesn't make sense. You're saying you don't believe it because it contradicts other beliefs you have
turn your back on evolution and get ostracized on internet forums
turn your back on the Bible and eternal damnation

I don't understand what you mean when you say 'I make of it what it is'
so do I, and it doesn't correlate into the same thought as yours
I take what we know about the function of DNA to mean that life is singular and takes many forms
seems different, is the same



^^^ they're both dubstep tho right? at least we agree on what really matters....

[tuckerlinen]

show me god

[bRRRz]

I'm just getting incredibly depressed from reading this thread and coming to the conclusion that we STILL have to fucking argue about that stuff.

[snypadub]

didn't someone bring up the appendix earlier?
why do whales (mammals) have feet, in in their skeletons anyway?
um, dinosaurs?
[as in address these if you would]


how can you subscribe to the possibility of little adaptations and not of little adaptations over immense periods of time? What mechanism drives these micro adaptations of yours and how does this mechanism not work in a macro sense?

You're not saying that evolution doesn't make sense. You're saying you don't believe it because it contradicts other beliefs you have
turn your back on evolution and get ostracized on internet forums
turn your back on the Bible and eternal damnation

I don't understand what you mean when you say 'I make of it what it is'
so do I, and it doesn't correlate into the same thought as yours
I take what we know about the function of DNA to mean that life is singular and takes many forms
seems different, is the same



^^^ they're both dubstep tho right? at least we agree on what really matters....

I'm off to bed now, really need some sleep. I will address this post specificaly tomorrow as well as the others that will inevitably crop up.

As for bRRRz's post:

Don't read the thread if it depresses you. I'm not forcing my opinion on you. Of course there is still an argument, there always will be. As is the nature of free will.

[IC0N]

Can someone explain to me how we developed a moral compass through evolution?

[deadly_habit]

Can someone explain to me how we developed a moral compass through evolution?

because man is a pack animal and like it or not we behave pretty much like any other group of animals
just because we can vocalize/write/communicate these "morals" doesn't mean we don't behave like other animals
it's more natural instinct that is learned over years of trial and error as survival as a species

[knell]

feel like this thread needs this classic video.

[jrisreal]

In light of the above post, I don't cherry pick at all. I believe the bible is the infallible word of God.

Every christian is cherrypicking because the bible is filled with an incredible amount of contradictions.

erm...no. and I wasn't cherrypicking. I was just interpreting what the Bible says a bit differently.

[IC0N]

Can someone explain to me how we developed a moral compass through evolution?

because man is a pack animal and like it or not we behave pretty much like any other group of animals
just because we can vocalize/write/communicate these "morals" doesn't mean we don't behave like other animals
it's more natural instinct that is learned over years of trial and error as survival as a species

So basically you're saying that whether stealing is good or bad was key to our survival?

[tuckerlinen]

take it to the extreme
can't you see how murder is detrimental to a group of people trying to survive together?
one less person means you're one person weaker
that's one big reason not to do it
morality

[ketamine]

Houses & Buildings are all made of similar materials. Wood, mortar, steel, brick and stone. They are also designed similarly with certain attributes: windows, doors, roofs, stairs... Does the fact that these structures share 90% similar characteristics mean that they evolved from one structure hundreds of years ago? No. Their designer built each one, but they may have similar needs and functionality.

That DNA is similar across species and almost everything has eyes, and legs and teeth and bone does not mean they had to branch off from literally the same animal. The Designer made them independently from the same materials and with the functions necessary. Birds with wings. Fish will gills. Mammals with fur.

If human design can be efficient and yet display brilliant differences and beauty within those limits, then it should be obvious that The Creator of the Universe and Life on Earth can use, and did use, the same process.

It's as foolish to believe all life evolved from nothing by itself as it would be to believe all buildings built themselves simply because they look similar to your spectacularly DESIGNED eyes.

[ketamine]

Also the Bible does not say that the Universe was created in 7 literal days.

In fact, the Book of Genesis is not even talking about the Universe. It’s talking about God preparing THIS ONE PLANET for Life/Human habitation.

Further, the hebrew word translated as “day” in english, means simply a period of time. As in, an Epoch. These were many thousands of years long, perhaps hundreds of thousands of years.

For example, at 2 Peter 3:8 it reads "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

So even if we took the above verse as literal (which it is not, its simply saying that Time from man’s standpoint is not the same with God), then the 7 “days” in Genesis would STILL be thousands of years long.

> The Bible Agrees with Science.