questions about people

[Jokerman]

if evolution takes millions and millions of years, then how the hell did species survive by waiting millions of years to evolve?

Individuals that had a trait which conferred an advantage to survival and reproduction within a species, survived and reproduced best. Hence, that trait, over millions of years, became more and more common. That doesn't mean that it was impossible for individuals to survive or reproduce until the entire species had acquired that trait. Any evolutionary change merely promoted survival and reproduction, not made it possible.

Also everything initially was a cell, take humans for example. How the hell did a cell 'sense' that there were things out there for it to see, hear, touch, taste and smell. If there was no knowledge to the cells and no way of obtaaining knowledge of any kind of surroundings due to the cells inability to sense anything why and how did it evolve?

Natural selection. Cells are already at a stage of development where they, like all forms of life, have a need to survive and reproduce. Mother Nature performs random experiements and creates variations in cells. Most variations fail. The ones that promote reproduction and survival naturally take hold. Since there were things to see, hear, smell and touch out there, and being able to see, hear, smell and touch them did promote survival and reproduction, they were naturally selected by our genes.

By the way, evolution doesn't have to be physical change. There's cultural evolution and evolution of consciousness. These two types of evolution are very active today and are not taking millions of years. Acquiring language in the last 10,000 years is evolution at work. In other words, natural selection.

However, thanks to advances of genetics and molecular biology underway, hereditary change will soon depend less on natrual selection than on social choice. Possessing exact knowledge of its own genes, collective humanity in a few decades can, if it wishes, select a new direction in its evolution and move there quickly.

 

[TecK NeeX]

for starters evolutino is SLOW and takes millions upon millions of years

umm no, if that is true not only is the ape-man link missing but indeed no other intermediate species or transitional forms in the long (imaginary) chain of evolution, starting from the simplest protozoa, could be identified. not a single intermediate fossil found among the billions of fossils in the fossil record, and dont count on finding any in the near future. fact IS the remains of these creatures should be present in the fossil record.

If evolution was ever possible, we should have now on earth billions of intermediary species, both in types and numbers. like i said before if such mutations ever occurred in ancient times, paleontologists should have found among the billions of fossils collected countless traces of intermediary species. Paleontologists failed to find any. On the contrary, the oldest fossils of the Cambrian age earth strata proved that a wide variety of living organisms, that represent almost all basic animal divisions (phyla), appeared simultaneously, with no primitive predecessor.

there should have lived in the past some half-fish/half-reptile creatures which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile/bird creatures, which had acquired some avian traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already possessed. where are the fossils of these so-called transitional form species? how come we dont see any today? or how come we cant find a single trace or fossil of these millions of species also called 'transitional forms'? why is that? this leaves me to one answer, species do NOT evolve, they ARE Created!.

Even Darwin himself was aware of the absence of such transitional forms. He hoped that they would be found in the future. Despite his optimism, he realized that these missing intermediate forms were the biggest stumbling-block for his theory.

but darwin put forward the following argument: "Right now there are no transitional forms, yet further research will uncover them."

a biochemist named Michael denton said the following

The billions of existing fossil record will surely answer this question. Billions of fossils have been uncovered all around the world. Despite the abundance of fossil sources, not a single transitional form has been uncovered, and it is unlikely that any transitional forms will be found as a result of new excavations

Natural selection. Cells are already at a stage of development where they, like all forms of life, have a need to survive and reproduce. Mother Nature performs random experiements and creates variations in cells. Most variations fail. The ones that promote reproduction and survival naturally take hold. Since there were things to see, hear, smell and touch out there, and being able to see, hear, smell and touch them did promote survival and reproduction, they were naturally selected by our genes.

natural selection cannot explain irreducible comlexity. Complex living cells, not to say complex species, cannot form from their elements or components by mere chance; nor can they transform to higher-order species by random mutation. Chemically, amino acids and other basic compounds cannot be artificially organized into the smallest unit of DNA. DNA, unique for each type of a living species, cannot be manipulated to produce the DNA of another species. Any such manipulation could only interfere with its functioning but not with its identity. hence, genetically, evolution is basically impossible.

Thermodynamically, all matter, if left alone, tends to get more disorganized. Hence, chemical molecules could not, on their own, combine to form the more complex organized structures such as a single DNA molecule. Similarly, the living cells of a species cannot spontaneously evolve into a more complex organized species.

secondly society is structured that weaker individuals (read: stupid people, idiots, etc) are able to survive and maintain and reproduce, which is the key to a species survival, so we arent weeding out the weak links. note when a species evolves, the weak individuals die, and the strong ones live on. in our society, that simply doesnt happen, so evolution among humans has become stagnant, so to speak.

yes maybe that was the belief of a man who lived some 150 years ago, but further research done in the 70's-90's by V. C. Wynne-Edwards, a British zoologist concluded that

"there was no struggle for life in nature as Darwin had postulated. As a result of extensive research into animal groups, living things balance their population in an interesting way, which prevents competition for food. Animal groups were simply managing their population on the basis of their food resources. Population was regulated not by elimination of the weak through factors like epidemics or starvation, but by instinctive control mechanisms. In other words, animals controlled their numbers not by fierce competition, as Darwin suggested, but by limiting reproduction

 

[Glockmatic]

Creationism also has its skeptics, ruling out evolutionism because certain things aren't discovered yet doesn't make it false

 

[not really ken]

^^ yeah but taken into account the millions of transitional forms that theoretically sohuld be fossiled. It must a trillion to one chance that none have been discovered.

 

[Glockmatic]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

they have found transitional fossils

 

[Story]

umm no, if that is true not only is the ape-man link missing but indeed no other intermediate species or transitional forms in the long (imaginary) chain of evolution, starting from the simplest protozoa, could be identified. not a single intermediate fossil found among the billions of fossils in the fossil record, and dont count on finding any in the near future. fact IS the remains of these creatures should be present in the fossil record.

If evolution was ever possible, we should have now on earth billions of intermediary species, both in types and numbers. like i said before if such mutations ever occurred in ancient times, paleontologists should have found among the billions of fossils collected countless traces of intermediary species. Paleontologists failed to find any. On the contrary, the oldest fossils of the Cambrian age earth strata proved that a wide variety of living organisms, that represent almost all basic animal divisions (phyla), appeared simultaneously, with no primitive predecessor.

there should have lived in the past some half-fish/half-reptile creatures which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile/bird creatures, which had acquired some avian traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already possessed. where are the fossils of these so-called transitional form species? how come we dont see any today? or how come we cant find a single trace or fossil of these millions of species also called 'transitional forms'? why is that? this leaves me to one answer, species do NOT evolve, they ARE Created!.

Even Darwin himself was aware of the absence of such transitional forms. He hoped that they would be found in the future. Despite his optimism, he realized that these missing intermediate forms were the biggest stumbling-block for his theory.

but darwin put forward the following argument: "Right now there are no transitional forms, yet further research will uncover them."

a biochemist named Michael denton said the following

The billions of existing fossil record will surely answer this question. Billions of fossils have been uncovered all around the world. Despite the abundance of fossil sources, not a single transitional form has been uncovered, and it is unlikely that any transitional forms will be found as a result of new excavations



natural selection cannot explain irreducible comlexity. Complex living cells, not to say complex species, cannot form from their elements or components by mere chance; nor can they transform to higher-order species by random mutation. Chemically, amino acids and other basic compounds cannot be artificially organized into the smallest unit of DNA. DNA, unique for each type of a living species, cannot be manipulated to produce the DNA of another species. Any such manipulation could only interfere with its functioning but not with its identity. hence, genetically, evolution is basically impossible.

Thermodynamically, all matter, if left alone, tends to get more disorganized. Hence, chemical molecules could not, on their own, combine to form the more complex organized structures such as a single DNA molecule. Similarly, the living cells of a species cannot spontaneously evolve into a more complex organized species.



yes maybe that was the belief of a man who lived some 150 years ago, but further research done in the 70's-90's by V. C. Wynne-Edwards, a British zoologist concluded that

"there was no struggle for life in nature as Darwin had postulated. As a result of extensive research into animal groups, living things balance their population in an interesting way, which prevents competition for food. Animal groups were simply managing their population on the basis of their food resources. Population was regulated not by elimination of the weak through factors like epidemics or starvation, but by instinctive control mechanisms. In other words, animals controlled their numbers not by fierce competition, as Darwin suggested, but by limiting reproduction

weve had this discussion before, darwins idea is still the popular and accepted belief in science, i wont get into this anymore.

secondly explain why we have certain species of animals now, that didnt exist years ago?

evolution of species, which is why you see a correlation between todays modern birds, and terror birds of the past, which were essentially giant reptile/birds with wings but no flight...

certain plants as well

perhaps youd like to disprove the endosymbiont theory
or proof that shows mitochondria and chloroplasts were "adopted" by cells which brought about eukaryotes, when its proven that they were in fact adopted


ill tell you why

evolution

it isnt random chance, the specie types, that have a predisposition(read:genetic makeup) that differs from other animals of the same species, that gives them the hand up in survivng in a particular enviroment, will reproduce thus passing along that genetic information and genetic makeup, while the "weakers" will die off...its not CHANGING ALL TOGETHER, you dont know what your talking about, and stop quoting these guys that no one ever heard of, off the internet it shows that you have no clue what you speak of

another example, there have been fossils of giraffes found with short necks, from thousands of years ago, around the time the plant and vegatation on earth changed to high plants, with very little ground vegetation, there were mutants (genetically), like in any species (think of midgets in our own human kind0) that had a long neck, these were the ones able to eat, and thus reproduce, and those that couldnt reach food, died off, the reproduction of giraffe with long necks slowly but surely led to what we have today...

u constantly bring up one or two articles saying darwin is bs, and that hes been disproved, but its the total opposite, darwin is the basis of modern evolutionary science (i study it so dont tell me what my professors state is wrong and your right but those articles are like teh ones saying hiv isnt transmitted sexually, they are bullshit. darwin is and was the most accepted idea in science and still is, and slowly but surely hes being proved.

and yes transitional fossils have been found

pz

 

[Story]

by the way u want an avian/reptile transitional fossil

Archaeopteryx


and answer me this, where did modern species that didnt exist years ago come from?

did someone wave a magic wand

 

[TecK NeeX]

by the way u want an avian/reptile transitional fossil

Archaeopteryx

you are right Archaeopteryx was believed to be a transitional form....a 100 years ago!.. since than this belief has lost a great deal of its validity. It has been realized that this creature was a flying bird, possessing a flawless flight mechanism. attempts to compare Archaeopteryx to a reptile have failed entirely.

As Alan Feduccia, one of the leading ornithologists in the world, has stated

"Most recent workers who have studied various anatomical features of Archaeopteryx have found the creature to be much more birdlike than previously imagined," and "the resemblance of Archaeopteryx to theropod dinosaurs has been grossly overestimated."

Another problem regarding Archaeopteryx is that the theropod dinosaurs, which many evolutionists suggest were Archaeopteryx' ancestors, actually emerge after it in the fossil record, not before it. This, of course, leaves no room for any "evolutionary family tree" to account for the origin of birds. "The evolution of birds", like other claims made by Darwinism, is no more scientific than a fairy tale.

and answer me this, where did modern species that didnt exist years ago come from?

did someone wave a magic wand

its simple dinosaurs and other prehistoric species lived in a world without mercy, "a freakish, hellish nightmare world drenched in the blood and gore of violence, death and destruction" inhabited by "abnormal, grotesque creatures and monstrosities" hellbent on destruction as one puts it. God wiped them out and created much smaller and less destructive creatures in order for humans and animals to co-exist, which just happens to prove why we havent and never will discover any transitional fossils.

and stop quoting these guys

i quote the most recent scientific evidence and discoveries regarding this myth aka evolution, what do you bring? a flawed belief over a 150 years old? plz man we're in the 21st century not the 19th

 

[TecK NeeX]

here is a good article for you

LATEST EVIDENCE: OSTRICH STUDY REFUTES THE DINO-BIRD STORY

The latest blow to the "birds evolved from dinosaurs" theory came from a study made on the embryology of ostriches.

Drs. Alan Feduccia and Julie Nowicki of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill studied a series of live ostrich eggs and, once again, concluded that, there can not be an evolutionary link between birds and dinosaurs. EurekAlert, a scientific portal held by the American Association for the The Advancement of Science (AAAS), reports the following:

Drs. Alan Feduccia and Julie Nowicki of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill... opened a series of live ostrich eggs at various stages of development and found what they believe is proof that birds could not have descended from dinosaurs"...

Whatever the ancestor of birds was, it must have had five fingers, not the three-fingered hand of theropod dinosaurs," Feduccia said... "Scientists agree that dinosaurs developed 'hands' with digits one, two and three... Our studies of ostrich embryos, however, showed conclusively that in birds, only digits two, three and four, which correspond to the human index, middle and ring fingers, develop, and we have pictures to prove it," said Feduccia, professor and former chair of biology at UNC. "This creates a new problem for those who insist that dinosaurs were ancestors of modern birds. How can a bird hand, for example, with digits two, three and four evolve from a dinosaur hand that has only digits one, two and three? That would be almost impossible." (i)

In the same report, Dr. Freduccia also made important comments on the invalidity-and the shallowness-of the "birds evolved from dinosaurs" theory:

"There are insurmountable problems with that theory," he [Dr. Feduccia] said. "Beyond what we have just reported, there is the time problem in that superficially bird-like dinosaurs occurred some 25 million to 80 million years after the earliest known bird, which is 150 million years old."

If one views a chicken skeleton and a dinosaur skeleton through binoculars they appear similar, but close and detailed examination reveals many differences, Feduccia said. Theropod dinosaurs, for example, had curved, serrated teeth, but the earliest birds had straight, unserrated peg-like teeth. They also had a different method of tooth implantation and replacement." (ii)

This evidence once again reveals that the "dino-bird" hype is just another "icon" of Darwinism: A myth that is supported only for the sake of a dogmatic faith in the theory.

 

[Glockmatic]

its simple dinosaurs and other prehistoric species lived in a world without mercy, "a freakish, hellish nightmare world drenched in the blood and gore of violence, death and destruction" inhabited by "abnormal, grotesque creatures and monstrosities" hellbent on destruction as one puts it. God wiped them out and created much smaller and less destructive creatures in order for humans and animals to co-exist, which just happens to prove why we havent and never will discover any transitional fossils.

Ya, humans are less destructive....

 

[TecK NeeX]

^ i never compared humans to earlier species, i compared the creatures we see today to the prehistoric ones, humans have the free will and capability to be THE LEAST destructive of all species.

 

[Glockmatic]

This "destruction" that dinosaurs lived in was called survival, its happening today as well. You may THINK that you're not harming anything but everytime you turn on an appliance you're creating pollution which kills, everytime you eat you're doing as much "destruction" as the dinosaurs did. Yes humans have free will, and if we wanted to be the least destructive species in the world we would just die out.

 

[Story]

darwin has NOT been disproven, where do continue to come up with something that is still taught in EVERY SINGLE major university throughtout this world, i dont understand.

a 100 years ago? i dont think so, do me a favor, go study this, first hand, at college, rather than pulling up some article on the internet, then we will have this conversation.

and you have yet to disprove the endosymbiont hypothesis, archaeoptyerix (whcih is still viewed as a transitional fossil)

and you havent answered why there are species of plants an animals now, that didnt exist millions or thousands of years ago,please explain. o wait you cant because all you can do is find a single article on the internet since you have zero knowledge on this topic, have done no hands on research of your own. and tell me something, is darwin has been proven as you say to be horse crap,why is he still taught all over the world today o ya, yet again you dont know, u listen to what one scientist says because you have no idea what your talking about.

until you give me a valid argument except "no one teaches darwin" which is absolute motherfucking horseshit and you knwo it, i wont have this discussion with you anymore. stop pulling up articles. i can find articles that say, "hiv doesnt lead to aids and is not sexually transmitted" but thats just somoene whose trying to get attention. sad this is what you post here as articles STILL is not taught because its not accepted, its a bs article from a scientist whose idea was simply crushed because no one believed it.

not to mention who is to say that intermediate organisms (transitional) are said to have to have gone extinct? no one. the fac tis transitional fossils have been found yet you creatinionsists dont want to believe it. you contstantly dodge what is say because you have no idead what your talking about teck. period. again, stop finding articles on the internet that no one ever cares about because they are done by scientists whose ideas never caught on because they were hammered away quickly. darwins theroy continues to stand, 200 yeras later. like it or not.

frankly put your out of your leauge, its funny to me how everything you type are someone elses words plaigariased.


pz

 

[Story]

list of some transitional fossils:

Fish to Amphibians
Hynerpeton
Acanthostega
Ichthyostega
Eryops
Densignathus rowei
Elignerpeton
Fish Similar to Sauripterus

-there were many arguments saying that there are no fossils of half evolved legs, which is not true because they are seen in a numbe rof the species i listed here above in this group, such as acanthostega and ichtyostega, some of these fish had both lungs and gills as they began to make the move to terrestrial life.

Amphibians to Amniotes (early reptiles)
Proterogyrinus
Limnoscelis
Tseajaia
Solenodonsaurus
Hylonomus
Paleothyris

Synapsid reptiles to mammals
Protoclepsydrops
Clepsydrops
Dimetrodon
Procynosuchus earliest Cynodont

Diapsid reptiles to birds
Coelophysis
Deinonychus
Oviraptor
Archeopteryx


anyhow teck im done talking to you because you dont know what your talking about here.

you refuse to answer my questions except with sarcasm and im tired of it. i aksed the same questions in a previous thread about 2 months ago and got no answer from you.

play nice kiddies.


pz

 

[TecK NeeX]

and you have yet to disprove the endosymbiont hypothesis, archaeoptyerix (whcih is still viewed as a transitional fossil)

and you havent answered why there are species of plants an animals now, that didnt exist millions or thousands of years ago, yet have many similar characteristics with extinct species. where are the primitive humanoids, why havent they found a single human like ourselves thousands of years ago? please explain. o wait you cant because all you can do is find a single article on the internet since you have zero knowledge on this topic, have done no hands on research of your own.

lol yes i have refuted absolutely everything you brought up and all you came back with was an attack on my source that my friend i call the debate of a broken man. you are no different than all the other pro-evolution individuals, you simply bring a theory 150 years old and once someone intelligent dispproves this theory with factual 20th and 21st century evidence you break down and turn around and walk with your tail between your legs.

until you give me a valid argument except "no one teaches darwin" which is absolute motherfucking horseshit and you knwo it, i wont have this discussion with you anymore.

lmao if you really want this discussion to end this badly just simply say i dont have the answers to your points teck and i will gladly end it ..deal?

 

[Story]

lol yes i have refuted absolutely everything you brought up and all you came back with was an attack on my source that my friend i call the debate of a broken man. you are no different than all the other pro-evolution individuals, you simply bring a theory 150 years old and once someone intelligent dispproves this theory with factual 20th and 21st century evidence you break down and turn around and walk with your tail between your legs.




lmao if you really want this discussion to end this badly just simply say i dont have the answers to your points teck and i will gladly end it ..deal?

teck the fact is, noyou havent. if your evidence as you put it, is so great, why arent we being taught this? why .

YOU havent answered anything, youve posted some bs from a scientist no one even knows about or worries about because his results and his studies were never accepted by the science community and have been rendered moot about as quickly as he gets his results out.

where is ur answer about species today that didnt exist millions of years ago, or plants? where did they come from?

and the endosymbiont answer?

and heres another your telling me God created parasites that live by killing other creatures or cause cholera, or river blindness? i dont think so, these evolved their way of survival, how come there are no mention of these parasites in the bible during the story of creation?


i have yet to see answers to any of those. and im still waiting.

your "hellish world of blood and gore" is not an answer, its bullshit




dont make another post in this thread until you give a GOOD answer to all of these.


or cant you find any of that stuff on the internet either.


bye teckneeq, and take your weak fucking argument with you.

 

[Story]

another way to look at it is this, take a virus, which is a living entity, they evolve a immunity to certain medicines. same concept.

any rebuttles on this?

let me explain something about the scientific community, because someone publishes a report, doesnt make it true.

 

[TecK NeeX]

list of some transitional fossils:

Fish to Amphibians
Hynerpeton
Acanthostega
Ichthyostega
Eryops
Densignathus rowei
Elignerpeton
Fish Similar to Sauripterus

-there were many arguments saying that there are no fossils of half evolved legs, which is not true because they are seen in a numbe rof the species i listed here above in this group, such as acanthostega and ichtyostega, some of these fish had both lungs and gills as they began to make the move to terrestrial life.

Amphibians to Amniotes (early reptiles)
Proterogyrinus
Limnoscelis
Tseajaia
Solenodonsaurus
Hylonomus
Paleothyris

Synapsid reptiles to mammals
Protoclepsydrops
Clepsydrops
Dimetrodon
Procynosuchus earliest Cynodont

Diapsid reptiles to birds
Coelophysis
Deinonychus
Oviraptor
Archeopteryx


anyhow teck im done talking to you because you dont know what your talking about here.

you refuse to answer my questions except with sarcasm and im tired of it. i aksed the same questions in a previous thread about 2 months ago and got no answer from you.

play nice kiddies.


pz

do you know what a fucking fossil is? a 'fish to amphibians' aint a fossil, a 'Diapsid reptiles to birds' aint a fossil, a 'Synapsid reptiles to mammals' aint a FOSSIL.. look up the word fossil man

 

[Story]

endosymbiont hypthothesis is pretty much proven, modern day eukaryotes mitochondria and choloroplasts operate individual of the cell they live in and contain their own dna, unlike other organelles. also they are the same size roughly as ancient protists which show they were "adopted by the cells" leading to moder day eukaryotes.

example of proven evolution.

 

[Story]

do you know what a fucking fossil is? a 'fish to amphibians' aint a fossil, a 'Diapsid reptiles to birds' aint a fossil, a 'Synapsid reptiles to mammals' aint a FOSSIL.. look up the word fossil man

these are examples of transitional fossils for those particular types of animals genius, im showing u the species names, for example, the heading diapsids to reptiles is the category, and the subseqent names are of animals that are transitional fossils for that heading