Evolution

snypadub · Post by **snypadub** » Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:16 pm

Without Hijacking the Ron Paul thread I would like to explain my reasons for not believing in Evolution.

I believe in only one type of evolution, micro evolution.

I believe this phrase can be better described as adaptation. Each species of animal, of which there aren't a vast sum (yeah there's quite a bit but not a shit tonne), adapts over time into different 'kinds'.

From a wolf to a shitzu (not sure on spelling there) there are tonnes of, 'kinds' of canine but only the one species.

I find it difficult to believe we all come from rocks (Evolutionists: This is what you believe),

Creationism makes much more sense both logically speaking and the evidence is stronger.

Macro evolution has never been observed by science.

A genetic mutation is the loss of information and not the gaining of new genetic information.

Science has never observed an organ in a state of transition, they are always fully formed.

I have so many more reasons and would like to debate this but first would ask that this be handled maturely and not become a, 'let's bash the creationist' thread.

The main reason for this post is in response to knell's statement in the Ron Paul thread.

Debate away.

bRRRz · Post by **bRRRz** » Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:24 pm

snypadub wrote: 1. I find it difficult to believe we all come from rocks (Evolutionists: This is what you believe),

2. A genetic mutation is the loss of information and not the gaining of new genetic information.

3. Science has never observed an organ in a state of transition, they are always fully formed.

1. wrong, evolutionists do not belive that.

2. wrong, even the loss of information can lead to advantages in reproduction. (also it'ts not always the loss of information)

3. That's because those changes are too slow for the observation of science which hasn't been around long enough. Also, some organs are not "fully" (whatever that means) formed. Some organs don't serve enough of a purpose for a certain species to be formed more complex, which means that some organs are of course in a state of transition, as they could potentially grow more complex if it serves said species.

Creationism is a huge pile of reeking bullshit.

bjackman · Post by **bjackman** » Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:38 pm

How do you define a "state of transition"? Clearly the concept of evolution describes a continuum of forms not a transition between discrete forms. Arguably every organ is in a state of transision, according to the theory of evolution.

"A genetic mutation is the loss of information not a gain". I don't really know what you mean by that. There is no change in the amount of information encoded.

I think perhaps you are subconsciously viewing evolution as an intelligent move toward "better designs", rather than just an abstract phenomenom caused by a complex network of simple interactions (i.e. chemistry).

"Creationism makes more sense logically". Well if logic is the process of moving from axioms to propositions through relations, then assume your starting axiom is the existence of an intelligent, creative being. Your logic from this point may be acceptable, but then the "evidence" is nowhere to be seen.

Your comments about numbers of species seems ill-informed. Although the number is completely defined by the abritrary threshold taxonomists somehow set for the required level of difference for discretion of species, the number of species around is unimaginably enormous. I read on the internet a quote from a butterfly enthusiast saying that there are "between 2 and 100 million" species of butterflies.

edit: also "evolved from rocks"? Come on. I feel a little bit silly for replying now!

jugo · Post by **jugo** » Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:42 pm

bRRRz · Post by **bRRRz** » Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:53 pm

bjackman wrote: Clearly the concept of evolution describes a continuum of forms not a transition between discrete forms. Arguably every organ is in a state of transision

Exactly, as everything is. There is no such thing as standing still in this cosmos. Everything is moving and changing, including the atoms that make up the molecules that make up the cells that make you up.

jugo · Post by **jugo** » Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:55 pm

bjackman wrote: I read on the internet a quote from a butterfly enthusiast saying that there are "between 2 and 100 million" species of butterflies.

that was an estimate for total number of species of life alive now
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 103731.htm

Animal group Number of species

Vertebrates

Amphibians 6,199
Birds 9,956
Fish 30,000
Mammals 5,416
Reptiles 8,240
Subtotal 59,811

Invertebrates

Insects 950,000
Molluscs 81,000
Crustaceans 40,000
Corals 2,175

Others 130,200

Subtotal 1,203,375

Plants

Mosses 15,000
Ferns and allies 13,025
Gymnosperms 980
Dicotyledons 199,350
Monocotyledons 59,300
Green Algae 3,715
Red Algae 5,956

Subtotal 297,326

Others

Lichens 10,000
Mushrooms 16,000
Brown Algae 2,849

Subtotal 28,849

Total 1,589,361

in total they represent 1% of species that have existed at one time or another since life began, so that's a guestimate of 160 million species on life on earth in its history.

life is amazing

jameshk · Post by **jameshk** » Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:58 pm

and there was me thinking this would be about evolution sounds...

bRRRz · Post by **bRRRz** » Fri Oct 21, 2011 12:01 am

@jugo: and that didn't even include all forms of bacteria.
Life is truly amazing!

aquemini · Post by **aquemini** » Fri Oct 21, 2011 12:02 am

snypadub wrote: Creationism makes much more sense both logically speaking and the evidence is stronger.

could you explain this? i'd definitely like to know your definitions of logic and evidence

bRRRz · Post by **bRRRz** » Fri Oct 21, 2011 12:13 am

no hard feelings, just joking. ;P

jugo · Post by **jugo** » Fri Oct 21, 2011 12:23 am

bRRRz wrote:@jugo: and that didn't even include all forms of bacteria.
Life is truly amazing!

hadn't thought about that.
blimey!

"In 1998, an American microbiologist worked out that the number of bacteria on Earth at that time was five million trillion trillion."

wow

bright maroon · Post by **bright maroon** » Fri Oct 21, 2011 1:04 am

Just imagine a ancient proto-typical dog before it has mutated into species
..or sub-genuses or whatevers...or just different breeds...

One of them gets all fuckin' ballsy and decides to go after big prey...
The other sticks to digging for rats....

Just by chance-they have different hunting styles...propensities

Ballsy one...due to it's ballsy nature achieves his goal and eats an entire yak...
Gets more protien and energy to do it again...
Over time - that bad boy gets buff...
Gets his freak on with the girl most likely to keep up with his antics..

The Ratter shrinks...but as a result gets super snipey fast...and fits into logs...
Never gets as much protein...but as a result of him shrinking
...his meal takes make him - as strong as a small one could be...
but - he can only put it on the smaller girl ones at this point...

It's like mutable behaviors affecting potential gene expressions...

I knew this chinese girl who was adopted by a family in Vienna....
That girl grew to be 6'2 from eating veal and potatos...
She was like this massive asian fairy...

Her boyfriend was this tall thin black kid...
She wasn't really mating back down...

Phigure · Post by **Phigure** » Fri Oct 21, 2011 1:13 am

u dumb bro

From a wolf to a shitzu (not sure on spelling there) there are tonnes of, 'kinds' of canine but only the one species.

what are you trying to say? that dogs didn't evolve from wolves? there's pretty fucking clear evidence of that since it was humans who selectively bred them and brought about the various breeds. dogs are also a subspecies of canis lupus...

I find it difficult to believe we all come from rocks (Evolutionists: This is what you believe),

with this one statement alone you showed that you have absolutely no grasp of evolution. no wonder you don't believe it. there's not a single evolutionist who believes "we all come from rocks".

Creationism makes much more sense both logically speaking and the evidence is stronger.

Creationism is logical? Really? EVIDENCE? WHAT?!?!?

Macro evolution has never been observed by science.

it has been observed through evidence left behind, but it hasn't been directly observed during our lifetimes because it takes MILLIONS OF YEARS

A genetic mutation is the loss of information and not the gaining of new genetic information.

again, you show that you have no clue what you're talking about. genetic mutations are not strictly the loss of information, they are also the change and addition of genetic information.

Science has never observed an organ in a state of transition, they are always fully formed.

this is basically just the old "irreducible complexity" nonsense which has been disproved time and time again

noam · Post by **noam** » Fri Oct 21, 2011 1:26 am

snypadub wrote:Without Hijacking the Ron Paul thread I would like to explain my reasons for not believing in Evolution.

I believe in only one type of evolution, micro evolution.

I believe this phrase can be better described as adaptation. Each species of animal, of which there aren't a vast sum (yeah there's quite a bit but not a shit tonne), adapts over time into different 'kinds'.

From a wolf to a shitzu (not sure on spelling there) there are tonnes of, 'kinds' of canine but only the one species.

I find it difficult to believe we all come from rocks (Evolutionists: This is what you believe),

Creationism makes much more sense both logically speaking and the evidence is stronger.

Macro evolution has never been observed by science.

A genetic mutation is the loss of information and not the gaining of new genetic information.

Science has never observed an organ in a state of transition, they are always fully formed.

I have so many more reasons and would like to debate this but first would ask that this be handled maturely and not become a, 'let's bash the creationist' thread.

The main reason for this post is in response to knell's statement in the Ron Paul thread.

Debate away.

you've based your theory - a supporting argument for creationism - upon a falsification theory of evolution based on 3 weak points

can you provide a non-falsification theory in support of creationism?

i.e. can you provide any proof of creation by intelligent design or some such other, and also do you fully understand the repercussions of denying evolution??

do you even understand what evolutionary theory, in modern times, not just the Darwinian account, is based upon??

if the fundamentals of the universe are the bottom row of cards in a house of cards then then evolution is the top, in terms of science it isn't a theory which dies alone is what im saying.

ofcourse, what built the bottom layer of cards is a question no one can answer... faith can be applied equally to any idea that goes beyond human comprehension. In other words, its a null argument, sorry. If you want to argue and not preach, you have to use the rules of the game and those rules are logic and reasoning and unfortunately as has been proved by 1000's years worth of philosophy the religious argument is nowhere near getting closer to THAT particular truth than any other.

so i ask again, evidence, reason, proof... positive evidence, not a flimsy half formed falsification theory.

in other words, do better or sound silly.

aquemini · Post by **aquemini** » Fri Oct 21, 2011 1:31 am

actually, upon review i believe:

Shum · Post by **Shum** » Fri Oct 21, 2011 1:31 am

Evolution is real mate, case in point:

aquemini · Post by **aquemini** » Fri Oct 21, 2011 1:33 am

alakazam was so bad ass

bRRRz · Post by **bRRRz** » Fri Oct 21, 2011 1:44 am

Nice memeage here, I approve!

noam · Post by **noam** » Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:07 am

aquemini wrote:actually, upon review i believe:

yeh very possible

now i feel like a dick...

fuck.

bright maroon · Post by **bright maroon** » Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:17 am

I have another good example...is a true story...

In the realm of professional rock climbing...
the sport itself had reaches a sort of plateau in regards to...
performance increases....

meaning..that when advancements were made in the sport
...it was usually by 10ths of a second...at the highest levels...

Well - this 12 year old girl came into a competition...and in a single shot
trumped the world record by something like 18 seconds...
and it stunned the rock climbing world...
because not only did she shred in general...but people of her age were generally found...
not just on a learning curve - but on a physical capacity curve to be - incapable.

So national geographic studied her and they found some very interesting things in regards to...
developmental conditioning....

This girl - grew up some place tropical - south africa I think..
and when she was a baby - had a pet monkey
At a very young age, she started following this monkey up into the tree canopies..
and spent alot of her time there with them...

She had no fear of heights
Her arms grew proportionate not to that of a human..but to a monkey
and they detected a change in her metabolic systems...
- she processed energy - metabolically - different than most standard human beings

The scientist studying her believe - that the extreme conditioning she underwent
at such a volitile developmental stage - affected her development as a creature - structurally.

Evolution

Evolution

Re: Evolution

Re: Evolution

Re: Evolution

Re: Evolution

Re: Evolution

Re: Evolution

Re: Evolution

Re: Evolution

Re: Evolution

Re: Evolution

Re: Evolution

Re: Evolution

Re: Evolution

Re: Evolution

Re: Evolution

Re: Evolution

Re: Evolution

Re: Evolution

Re: Evolution

Who is online