Evolution? That's crazy talk!!!

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Nice.


Religion = fail. In my book.
 
I saw a bunch of "perhaps", "similarity that adds to the argument", etc. I didn't see anyone want to go on a limb and say "Ha, you dumb non-evolutionary-believing freaks! This PROVES EVOLUTION!" But I won't go there.

I'll talk about the bellows lung one in number 6. One of the things that I (as a non-believer in the Darwinian evolution theory) am stuck on is that generally systems don't "evolve" from worse to better, but that mutations generally are destructive (think cancer). I mean, if what I'm reading is accurate, part 6 says that there was a dinosaur that "evolved" a bellows set of lungs. How did that happen? Its mom and daddy dinosaur had "regular" dino lungs, but there was a mutation in it's DNA that caused it to have a bellows set of lungs rather than the normal dino ones? And it was able to procreate with another dinosaur (also with normal lungs) and have its DNA be passed down to a bunch of baby dinosaurs who had this bellows set of lungs?

How many children do you know are born with a form of cancer that allows them to have gills? And then to pass it on? I'm not trying to be flip, but that's what you're asking me to buy into here, isn't it?
 
JE, are you saying that the only people who don't believe in evolution are religious advocates? Or was that a new topic?
 
  • Like
Reactions: JE
Meh. Didn't even glance at the article. Just getting my two cents out. :)
 
blazerboy30 said:
The article had nothing to do with religion. Many religious people also believe in evolution.

You = Fail.
Click to expand...

That is true. The arguements are not mutually exclusive. For instance, what if something made life, and then it evolved. Then you have a situation where they are not mutually exclusive. What is indicative though, is most folks who do believe in creationism, believe in something like the Bibles version of it, which does make it mutually exclusive. It all just matters how you see the world.
 
BrianFromWA said:
I saw a bunch of "perhaps", "similarity that adds to the argument", etc. I didn't see anyone want to go on a limb and say "Ha, you dumb non-evolutionary-believing freaks! This PROVES EVOLUTION!" But I won't go there.

I'll talk about the bellows lung one in number 6. One of the things that I (as a non-believer in the Darwinian evolution theory) am stuck on is that generally systems don't "evolve" from worse to better, but that mutations generally are destructive (think cancer). I mean, if what I'm reading is accurate, part 6 says that there was a dinosaur that "evolved" a bellows set of lungs. How did that happen? Its mom and daddy dinosaur had "regular" dino lungs, but there was a mutation in it's DNA that caused it to have a bellows set of lungs rather than the normal dino ones? And it was able to procreate with another dinosaur (also with normal lungs) and have its DNA be passed down to a bunch of baby dinosaurs who had this bellows set of lungs?

How many children do you know are born with a form of cancer that allows them to have gills? And then to pass it on? I'm not trying to be flip, but that's what you're asking me to buy into here, isn't it?
Click to expand...

If both parents have a dominant recessive trait it can manifest itself in later generations when the breeding is right, they have shown it in biology experiements. Secondly, your statment about not evolving from worst to better is also wrong. Medical journalist have documented that many people now are being born without wisdom teeth, which is a genetic improvement for humans, as wisdom teeth can cause a large variety of medical problems. It is a big enough trend that it has been noticed by the medical community.
 
this is gonna be a pretty tough sell for someone who doesn't believe in dinosaurs.
 
Well thanks for ANOTHER theory based on well THEORY....You can go all over the web and find Theory's about God, Revolution, Evolution an so on but guess what they have one thing in common they are all THEORY'S which is not fact on all counts.
 
BrianFromWA said:
I'll talk about the bellows lung one in number 6. One of the things that I (as a non-believer in the Darwinian evolution theory) am stuck on is that generally systems don't "evolve" from worse to better, but that mutations generally are destructive (think cancer). I mean, if what I'm reading is accurate, part 6 says that there was a dinosaur that "evolved" a bellows set of lungs. How did that happen? Its mom and daddy dinosaur had "regular" dino lungs, but there was a mutation in it's DNA that caused it to have a bellows set of lungs rather than the normal dino ones? And it was able to procreate with another dinosaur (also with normal lungs) and have its DNA be passed down to a bunch of baby dinosaurs who had this bellows set of lungs?

How many children do you know are born with a form of cancer that allows them to have gills? And then to pass it on? I'm not trying to be flip, but that's what you're asking me to buy into here, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Were any evolutionists going to help me out with this one? Someone brought up the "dominant recessive" theory...which I can only guess meant they thought having a bellows set of lungs might have been a recessive gene passed on.

I hadn't seen the "wisdom tooth evolution" topic before...I have to read up more on that. It seems very odd that things like the appendix haven't been "evolved" in however many millions of years we've been around, but that teeth we don't use did. How would that happen? Would the parent gene mutate into one that, instead of saying you're going to have 32 teeth, drop that down to 28? And that gets passed on?

And I said "generally worse to better". I can give you thousands of cancers that are destructive mutations of cell genes. You've brought up a relatively new topic about not having wisdom teeth, which you assume is better than having wisdom teeth. If I said to you that instead of the new being having 28 teeth instead of 32, it had 2...would that be "better"?
 
Last edited:
Want PROOF of evolution? Look in the mirror. Do you look the same as you did 20 years ago? Of course not. You evolved.

Nature evolves. Case closed.
 
You're right, Stevenson. The scar on my ear wasn't from a dog that bit me, it's from gene mutation. And my eyes haven't gotten bluer or grown in size, so they must not evolve with the rest of my body, which is curious...how does each body part know when to start and stop mutating?! Then there's my hair...it's shorter than it was in 1989, so by the "Stevenson Mirror Theory" I must have evolved shorter hair. Probably because of global warming. But how, then, did I grow more body hair? This is perplexing. Good think the case is closed. Too many questions.

I'll enjoy other, potentially more logical, cases better than yours, Stevenson. No offense.
 
Blazerfan22 said:
Well thanks for ANOTHER theory based on well THEORY....You can go all over the web and find Theory's about God, Revolution, Evolution an so on but guess what they have one thing in common they are all THEORY'S which is not fact on all counts.
Click to expand...

Ummm ... evolution is not a theory ... unless you consider "science" a theory.

-Pop
 
BrianFromWA said:
Were any evolutionists going to help me out with this one? Someone brought up the "dominant recessive" theory...which I can only guess meant they thought having a bellows set of lungs might have been a recessive gene passed on.

I hadn't seen the "wisdom tooth evolution" topic before...I have to read up more on that. It seems very odd that things like the appendix haven't been "evolved" in however many millions of years we've been around, but that teeth we don't use did. How would that happen? Would the parent gene mutate into one that, instead of saying you're going to have 32 teeth, drop that down to 28? And that gets passed on?

And I said "generally worse to better". I can give you thousands of cancers that are destructive mutations of cell genes. You've brought up a relatively new topic about not having wisdom teeth, which you assume is better than having wisdom teeth. If I said to you that instead of the new being having 28 teeth instead of 32, it had 2...would that be "better"?
Click to expand...

Brian, your line of thinking looks similar to mine regarding the thought of a "progressive" or "linear" evolution. I am not a creationist, first and foremost (to get that out of the way), but I also have a hard time seeing a linear chain of evolution as a realistic theory. How does that happen? If it is based on mutated genes or altered DNA, shouldn't there be unknown numbers of mutations (or evolution) in the fossil record that didn't survive? That's the fundamental flaw in the Darwinist argument IMO. Well, that and the actual creation of life, which also has never been duplicated in a controlled setting, but that's for another thread.

As you pointed out, many genetic mutations are destructive, as you pointed out with cancer cells. Shouldn't that also apply to evolution? If the case is that species inherently adapt to the positive in order to survive changing ecosystems, then why do some species become extinct? In my view, the thought of a linear evolutionary chain is almost as faith-based as a creationist's belief on some levels.
 
From the National Academy of Science:

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong.
Click to expand...

-Pop
 
Funny, then, how "gravity" is still a theory, but "evolution" needs no more testing to be a law. I hadn't seen the NAS promoting the "Scientific Law of Evolution" before.

I've seen a ball drop. I've seen feathers in a vacuum drop. I've done multiple experiments along the topic of gravity that seem to prove what I believe and have been taught. But it's still a "theory", b/c it's wrong in certain instances.

Unfortunately, since evolution's pretty tough to experiment with, then they'll just assign it the "fact" label and go from there.
 
Last edited:
BrianFromWA said:
Funny, then, how "gravity" is still a theory, but "evolution" needs no more testing to be a law. I hadn't seen the NAS promoting the "Scientific Law of Evolution" before.

I've seen a ball drop. I've seen feathers in a vacuum drop. I've done multiple experiments along the topic of gravity that seem to prove what I believe and have been taught. But it's still a "theory", b/c it's wrong in certain instances.

Unfortunately, since evolution's pretty tough to experiment with, then they'll just assign it the "fact" label and go from there.
Click to expand...

Didn't you hear that man-made global warming is a "fact"?
 
Perhaps it's because I trained in biochemistry and engineering at relatively hard schools that I find a lot wrong with what some segments of politically- or religiously-motivated academia come up with. Or maybe I'm the one with my head in the sand. It seems that a large portion of the population weren't educated to think for themselves, and those with power in the media or government are taking advantage of it.

We're getting a bit off topic, though. I'll go back--someone explain to me how MSNBC.com's part 6 of 9 about the bellows lung could conceivably be a genetic mutation that evolved from two non-bellows lung having dinosaurs, and it'll make me think there's something to this. I don't claim to be Mendel, but I did read his stuff, and I'm unconvinced (about evolution, not Mendel). But (going back to the "thinking for yourselves"), it seems that if MSNBC.com posts artists renderings of "similarities" that "perhaps" could explain a bird/dino link, then "religion = fail" and MSNBC is "proof" aren't in keeping with the Scientific Method or any logical state of discovery/research. :dunno:
 
BrianFromWA said:
Funny, then, how "gravity" is still a theory, but "evolution" needs no more testing to be a law. I hadn't seen the NAS promoting the "Scientific Law of Evolution" before.

I've seen a ball drop. I've seen feathers in a vacuum drop. I've done multiple experiments along the topic of gravity that seem to prove what I believe and have been taught. But it's still a "theory", b/c it's wrong in certain instances.

Unfortunately, since evolution's pretty tough to experiment with, then they'll just assign it the "fact" label and go from there.
Click to expand...

Does gravity pull you toward the center of the earth, or is the rest of the universe pushing you toward the center of the earth? How gravity works is a theory, but it is fact you are pushed or pulled toward the center of the earth. Ya know?
 
BrianFromWA said:
Perhaps it's because I trained in biochemistry and engineering at relatively hard schools that I find a lot wrong with what some segments of politically- or religiously-motivated academia come up with. Or maybe I'm the one with my head in the sand. It seems that a large portion of the population weren't educated to think for themselves, and those with power in the media or government are taking advantage of it.

We're getting a bit off topic, though. I'll go back--someone explain to me how MSNBC.com's part 6 of 9 about the bellows lung could conceivably be a genetic mutation that evolved from two non-bellows lung having dinosaurs, and it'll make me think there's something to this. I don't claim to be Mendel, but I did read his stuff, and I'm unconvinced (about evolution, not Mendel). But (going back to the "thinking for yourselves"), it seems that if MSNBC.com posts artists renderings of "similarities" that "perhaps" could explain a bird/dino link, then "religion = fail" and MSNBC is "proof" aren't in keeping with the Scientific Method or any logical state of discovery/research. :dunno:
Click to expand...

What makes you think that there was a big jump from one kind of lung to another? Evolution doesn't work that quickly... What's more likely is that two sets of lungs developed in the species over eons until one set was no longer needed.
 
Denny Crane said:
What makes you think that there was a big jump from one kind of lung to another? Evolution doesn't work that quickly... What's more likely is that two sets of lungs developed in the species over eons until one set was no longer needed.
Click to expand...


The fossil record tends to show dramatic leaps in terms of skeletal structure, however. Tissue unfortunately doesn't typically fossilize, so all we have is speculation sans replication in a lab. Not exactly proof, is it?

Is anyone going to try to answer the lack of imperfect mutations in terms of species, BTW?
 
Denny Crane said:
Does gravity pull you toward the center of the earth, or is the rest of the universe pushing you toward the center of the earth? How gravity works is a theory, but it is fact you are pushed or pulled toward the center of the earth. Ya know?
Click to expand...


Good questions, which is why, as Brian said, gravity is a theory. I'm not sure how your valid points strengthen the position that evolution is scientific law. At least in gravity, a result is observable and can be replicated in a controlled setting.
 
Last edited:
PapaG said:
The fossil record tends to show dramatic leaps in terms of skeletal structure, however. Tissue unfortunately doesn't typically fossilize, so all we have is speculation sans replication in a lab. Not exactly proof, is it?

Is anyone going to try to answer the lack of imperfect mutations in terms of species, BTW?
Click to expand...

Not exactly proof, but whenever scientists specifically look for this kind of proof, they find it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top