Too much for evolution

[john5746]

It can be explained if you think about how it was caused by God, who has unlimited power. By believing in someone with unlimited power, you can believe in anything. However, evolution doesn't make sense because it says unrealistic things can happen without someone with unlimited power. It says the universe just magically appears and begins creating itself.

 

This is the kind of argument that defies logic, because you cannot disprove or prove it. I could just as easily say that the Grand Canyon is too beautiful and intricate to have been cut randomly by water.

 

I guess when you look at the fossil record, and life around you - air breathing mammels in the ocean, birds with wings that can't fly, so many extinct species, etc. It's kind of like looking at a beautiful manuscript that has eraser marks and misspelled words. You wouldn't think it was written by God.

 

When you start talking about what caused the big bang, hey anything goes. It could have been someone sneezing in another universe.

[Hellbender]

One planet collides with other planet, one breaks the other not, it survives. Now imagine the planet changes somehow and reproduces and you are done with evolution.

 

can you clarify what this means?

[Hellbender]

....However, evolution doesn't make sense because it says unrealistic things can happen without someone with unlimited power.

 

actually it does make sense, you are just not letting it make sense to you. We have explained how evolution happens and the mechanisms involved ad nauseum. No one said it was a simple, easy to fathom process. Its what happens, and whether it agrees with the Bible or not is irrelevant. It is certainly not unrealistic, only your creationist strawmans of evolution are unrealistic.

 

....It says the universe just magically appears and begins creating itself.

 

What does the this have to do with evolution? This is a strawman of the big bang theory, not evolution theory. The link between the two is tenuous at best.

[Cadmus]

According to The Bible, the Earth did exist before God started creating things. It said that the Earth was dark and empty. There were no plants, animals, water, or light.

According to your bible, the earth has existed forever?

 

I read the New International Version. The exact phrase was, "the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground" I guess that is the same thing as dirt.

I think that the exact phrase is not worth much when it is a very loose translation.

[Cadmus]

It can be explained if you think about how it was caused by God, who has unlimited power. By believing in someone with unlimited power, you can believe in anything.

Without thought, no less.

However, evolution doesn't make sense because

it requires thought.

 

You use the word someone, which is a pronoun that refers to people. Do you think that god is a person?

[swansont]

For example, if you don't clean your house, things will keep getting messier until you get organized and clean up. There would be trash on the floor until you pick it up. The trash would never automatically go into the trash can. The point of this example is that everything becomes less organized until something intelligent makes it organized.

 

This is demonstrably false. One example: Take a can of mixed nuts. Shake it. The nuts will not be randomly distributed. And not with the large nuts on the bottom, as one might think would be caused by gravity. They will preferentially be on top.

[swansont]

By the way, a creationist web site said that the Earth can only be a few million years old. It said that there would be much more salt in the ocean water if Earth was older.

 

And herein lie the problems of depending on a creationist site to learn science - they like to lie, and don't know much science. The residence time of salt in the ocean is ~60 million years. But that doesn't make it the age of the earth.

 

The salt removal rate is lowballed by the creationists to make it look like it's not in equilibrium. More

[swansont]

It can be explained if you think about how it was caused by God, who has unlimited power. By believing in someone with unlimited power, you can believe in anything.

 

Absolutely. You can believe in anything. Even things that aren't actually true. That's a problem with going with belief instead of evidence.

 

 

However, evolution doesn't make sense because it says unrealistic things can happen without someone with unlimited power. It says the universe just magically appears and begins creating itself.

 

Unrealistic by your measure. Evolution makes no prediction about the creation of the universe or generation of life. Those are separate theories.

[Molotov]

If you can't see the resemblance between humans and chimpanzees then you are either blind or in denial. And the modern bible is a load of crap thrown together by certain Roman's who wanted better control over society.

[Hellbender]

great posts, swansont.

[Hellbender]

If you can't see the resemblance between humans and chimpanzees then you are either blind or in denial. And the modern bible is a load of crap thrown together by certain Roman's who wanted better control over society.

 

I agree. The similarites from any perspective are staggering. I challenge anyone who won't accept the fact that humans are apes to go to a zoo and look a chimp or other ape in the eyes. you will be surprised, even moved by how human they seem.

[herme3]

If you can't see the resemblance between humans and chimpanzees then you are either blind or in denial. And the modern bible is a load of crap thrown together by certain Roman's who wanted better control over society.

 

After reading some of these replies, I now see the resemblance between humans and chimpanzees!

 

LOL. Just kidding...

 

If evolution is true, wouldn't we see species that are between apes and humans? I think that there is too big of a gap between apes and humans. Both apes and humans are alive today. I don't think an ape would give birth to a human, then go back to giving birth to apes again.

[Cadmus]

If evolution is true, wouldn't we see species that are between apes and humans? I think that there is too big of a gap between apes and humans. Both apes and humans are alive today. I don't think an ape would give birth to a human, then go back to giving birth to apes again.

In the face of this powerful argument, I suggest that all non-creastionsts just give up.

[Hellbender]

If evolution is true, wouldn't we see species that are between apes and humans? I think that there is too big of a gap between apes and humans. Both apes and humans are alive today. I don't think an ape would give birth to a human, then go back to giving birth to apes again.

 

we do, lots of them, but they are extinct. Do your research. Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, Paranthropus, Homo erectus etc. are all considered "transistional" or traditionally apelike human ancestors.

 

Both apes and humans are alive today (something that may not continue if we keep it up) becasue we are not the same species. We occupy different niches in the ecosystem and generally do not come into conflict, which could lead to the extinction of one or the other. Do your research

 

I don't understand your "apes giving birth to humans" statement. It is becasue it is such a twisted strawman of hominid evolution that I can't comprehend it. If you mean that we propose that an ape simply went into labor and popped out a fully-modern human, then I would say do your research. Its not that simple. There is a well-accounted fossil record that shows apes getting evolving and ending up more and more like Homo sapiens. It didn't simply "happen" one day.

[Skye]

If evolution is true, wouldn't we see species that are between apes and humans? I think that there is too big of a gap between apes and humans. Both apes and humans are alive today. I don't think an ape would give birth to a human, then go back to giving birth to apes again.

In the time that humans have been evolving into humans, chimps have been evolving into chimps. We have diverged from a common ancestor species that was different to us both. So there's no reason to think there should be intermediates between us and chimps. Of course, there should be intermediates between humans and the common ancestor species, and seperate intermediates between chimps and that common ancestor species. These are all dead and gone though.

[herme3]

we do' date=' lots of them, but they are extinct. Do your research. [i']Ardipithecus[/i], Australopithecus, Paranthropus, Homo erectus etc. are all considered "transistional" or traditionally apelike human ancestors.

 

Both apes and humans are alive today (something that may not continue if we keep it up) becasue we are not the same species. We occupy different niches in the ecosystem and generally do not come into conflict, which could lead to the extinction of one or the other. Do your research

 

I don't understand your "apes giving birth to humans" statement. It is becasue it is such a twisted strawman of hominid evolution that I can't comprehend it. If you mean that we propose that an ape simply went into labor and popped out a fully-modern human, then I would say do your research. Its not that simple. There is a well-accounted fossil record that shows apes getting evolving and ending up more and more like Homo sapiens. It didn't simply "happen" one day.

 

If this was true, wouldn't the apes have died out and only humans be alive? According to natural selection, the mutations occur, then the ones that survive are the ones that multiply. Humans and apes are both multiplying, but the only species between a human and ape is Bigfoot.

[Mokele]

Imagine a population of apes. A small group of that population somehow crosses a barrier, such as a river (most apes don't like swimming). As time goes on, conditions on one side of the river remain the same, while conditions on the other side change. The apes living in the same conditions will be subject to stabilizing selection, in which evolution pretty much keeps them as they are. In contrast, the apes living under now-different conditions are under selective pressure to evolve to suit their new habitat. Unlike the other population, evolution changes the gene frequencies, fixes mutations, etc. Because of it's smaller size, this population can evolve more rapidly.

 

After a while, that population has adapted to the new evnironment, but, as a consequence, cannot breed with the original population. They are a new species. But both species still exist, and neither wipes the other out, because they are each adapted to their own particular environment. Apes from location A are apated to location A, and vice versa. Apes from location A would fare poorly in location B, and vice versa.

 

Thus, with allopatric speciation, you can get a species living alongside it's ancestor. (However, in all reality, there would be some changes in the ancestor population too, just probably not as many since the environment has remained the same for them).

 

See?

 

Mokele

[herme3]

the apes living under now-different conditions are under selective pressure to evolve to suit their new habitat.

 

You make it sound like the ape said, "Ok, I'm going to have a baby ape that will be mutated and survive better in this new habitat." I don't think the apes would have any control over mutations of their baby apes. If they did mutate, it would be random. Then the ape would probably have something wrong with it and not survive. Whenever a human is born with a type of mutation, they are normally disabled. I've never heard of a mutated human that is better than other humans. What makes you think this happens to animals?

[Cadmus]

Whenever a human is born with a type of mutation, they are normally disabled. I've never heard of a mutated human that is better than other humans.

So, you do not understand the concept of a mutation?

[herme3]

So, you do not understand the concept of a mutation?

 

What I am saying is that a human with a mutation is normally mentally or physically disabled. There never seems to be major mutations in humans that benefit the person.

[Skye]

I've never heard of a mutated human that is better than other humans.

Here's some someone else put together.

 

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html

[Cadmus]

What I am saying is that a human with a mutation is normally mentally or physically disabled. There never seems to be major mutations in humans that benefit the person.

Like I said, you do not understand the concept of a mutation. Mutations occur all the time, and they are defnitely not all harmful. When you use the word "mutation", you seem to be thinking "congenital defect". These concepts can be somewhat related, but they are very different.

 

I think that if is obvious to everyone that you do not understand evolution very well. I wonder whether you are really interested in understanding the details or whether you are just trying to poke holes where your lack of knowledge is equated with flaws in evolution.

[Mokele]

Several humans have myostatin mutations that disable that protien. One of them is a 10 year old girl who can bench 420lbs. Another is a german toddler who already has the muscles of Schwarzeneger. That toddlers big brother can toss 500 lb stones around (he works some sort of job involving that) as if they were paper machie'.

 

Kenyans posses and unknown genetic mutation that makes them 10% more efficient that normal humans.

 

Sickle cell is merely the side-effect of a mutation that, in heterozygote form, renders the human immune to malaria. The same for Cystic Fibrosis and typhoid, iirc. Both are preserved by heterozygote advantage.

 

There is a human cell-surface receptor called CCR5 on the immune cells. This is the receptor that Yersinia pestis binds to, producing the wonderful little disease known to Europeans as the Black Death. People born without the receptor were resistant (heterozygote) or immune (homozygote). As a result, the loss-of-function allele for this gene is *still* at over 10% frequency in some parts of Europe, even centuries after the plague. And now it renders those lucky few immune to HIV, since that also binds to the CCR5 receptor.

 

No good mutations? I call simultaneous immunity to the greatest plague we ever had *and* to the current plague to be pretty damn good, don't you?

 

The idea that mutations are only detrimental is nonsense, caused by improper sampling. You notice when a person has a bad mutation, but when they have a good one, you chalk it up to luck, talent, practice, whatever. Nobody tests these things. Nobody looks at why, in a family of people who have no atheltic skill or potential, one kid suddenly is stronger and faster than all his or her siblings; don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

 

It's all sample bias. You only notice when something goes wrong, and don't question when it goes right. When full genetic test

 

Of course, the fact is that *most* mutations are neutral or nearly so. They happen in unused sections of DNA, or change a base pair in a way that doesn't alter the amino acid coded for, or even alter it, but in a way that preserves the structure and function of the protien.

 

Mokele

[Molotov]

You don't seem to be able to grasp the fact evolution moves in very small steps over very long periods of time. Take the early apes we evolved from for example. They evolved the ability to stand upright because of the necessity to travel long distances over the newly formed grasslands that replaced the jungle. But it didnt happen all at once. The apes with the ability to move faster and avoid grassland predators had a much higher chance of survival than the slower ape so their genes get passed on. Over thousands of years small mutations kept building an ever faster ape. And it just so happens that bipedal locomotion is natures prefered method to move very quickly over long distances so here we are today.

[nameta9]

I would add two points to this thread.

 

1) Complexity as we percieve it is probably just an "aesthetical" perception on our behalf. I mean just because something is geatly complex and intricate like brains and molecular biology doesn't give it any special status. For nature it has the same status of water or a vacuum. We humans assign a great status to complexity but in nature it doesn't mean absolutely nothing. We assign this status because we see ourselves as "complex" and are biased by this, but this is just our "aesthetical" bias towards ourselves, our mind assigns great importance to things which are indifferent from natures point of view. A microchip has the same value as a rock for nature.

 

2) Evolution is no longer operating for the human race, we now directly manipulate nature according to our mind, so we are now outside the blind forces of evolution.