Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

kiefers

kiefers

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/100#post_3490611
Or religion is born in the concept of life after death. Either way, evolution creates nothing, it only selects for advantageous traits that have already appeared.
Natural selection played a big role in evolution. Natural selection acts to preserve and accumulate minor advantageous genetic mutations. Evolution does create, it creates mutation in bacteria, it allows for the strong to survive and thrive.
Some years ago, the astronuats returned to the moon to explore again. They took a camera that was left there a few flights before. Somewhere in this camera, a scientist or engineer sneezed in the styrofoam of the cameras casing. (This was prior to the camera going to the moon).
When the astronauts bought this camera back home to earth, the scientists opened the casing and found these "spekals" (sp) all over the casing. The microbiologist took these and put them in a petri dish and incubated the sample. A few days later, he found the bacteria in the petri dish and they were alive. I was from the sneeze a couple of years earlier. The bacteria had gone into hybernation and awoke when there environment was just right again.
If nature throws a curve ball at an organism, it will do one odf two things. Evolve, or die. (Natural selection) and of coarse gene morphology.
 
flower

flower

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiefers http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/120#post_3490676
Natural selection played a big role in evolution. Natural selection acts to preserve and accumulate minor advantageous genetic mutations. Evolution does create, it creates mutation in bacteria, it allows for the strong to survive and thrive.
Some years ago, the astronuats returned to the moon to explore again. They took a camera that was left there a few flights before. Somewhere in this camera, a scientist or engineer sneezed in the styrofoam of the cameras casing. (This was prior to the camera going to the moon).
When the astronauts bought this camera back home to earth, the scientists opened the casing and found these "spekals" (sp) all over the casing. The microbiologist took these and put them in a petri dish and incubated the sample. A few days later, he found the bacteria in the petri dish and they were alive. I was from the sneeze a couple of years earlier. The bacteria had gone into hybernation and awoke when there environment was just right again.
If nature throws a curve ball at an organism, it will do one odf two things. Evolve, or die. (Natural selection) and of coarse gene morphology.
That is not evolution. The bacteria did not morph into a higher organisim, it morphed into an ability to survive it's environment. If you lift boxes all day for work...the first day your hands will be sore and blister...after a few days calluses appear because your body adapted. That isn't proof of evolution.
The theory of evolution claims that creatures morph into a higher on the scale critter, a more adaptable creature and eventually developes into something else. Everything in life can adapt to a certain point to help it survive, but the creature is always true to it's creation. A dog may be a spinoff from the original creature the wolf...but it is always canine...
I don't doubt that every creature had an anchient ancestor and that over the years it adapted and somewhat changed. Darwins theory claims bacteria developed into higher organizims and morphed into fish... that fish morphed into a creature that went on dry land...and that creature morphed into another creature and so forth ..so in the end... that creature was an ape and over time the monkey became a human being.
There is and has never been any proof that creatures change into another totally different DNA creature. The so called missing link that showed the split from ape to human has never been found and that includes the Lucy bones. The DNA is simular but not human.
I think Darwin was CLOSE. We did indeed adapt, but the creature that adapted didn't morph into another creature, it adapted into a creature more capible of survival as the world around it changed. Humans have always "resembled" apes but humans have a different DNA. All creatures are true to their DNA (the original created creature) We may indeed have creatures sharing the planet with simular DNA... such as the chimp, but the chimps are not morphing into humans, and humans are not morphing into something else either. We do change, but not into something else.
So there is an early man that adapted into the modern man...but it was not ever a monkey that changed into a man.
 
beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
If no evolution, then you believe in a religious answer, intelligent design or such. If humans were always human, then somehow we got here on planet earth.
The current use of DNA studies seems to support evolution. We share DNA similarities with other species. Chimp and human DNA are 96% the same. This says that we are genetically related to chimps, and came from a common ancestor. To me, its hard to keep believing that we somehow popped up from nothingness (or dust) in the face of the the obvious. I don't believe God defies science. God is the maker of science and has no need to pull rabbits out of hats. Are their potholes in our understanding? Sure. But we'll get there.
Also, evolution is not just mutations of lessor species into higher forms. It is the science of adaptability. Survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest means that a species evolves and survives based on its ability to adapt to its environment. Human adaptability far exceeds all other animals. Except maybe bugs and micro-organisms.
 
S

saltymac2012

Guest
Ancient aliens? Anyone? Made us in their image. Charriots of the gods. Every culture in the world has some form of a "god" the came down to them, with noise, fire smoke. Weapons of super power. No? In China they rode dragons, India was 8 armed flying thing. All the Greek gods. ETC...............
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
Quote:
There is and has never been any proof that creatures change into another totally different DNA creature. The so called missing link that showed the split from ape to human has never been found and that includes the Lucy bones. The DNA is simular but not human.
True, there is no proof. But there is evidence. There is an absence of wolf fossils older than 50 million years. There are fossils of mammals that are similar but they are not wolves. From 48 million years ago to present there are fossils that appear to be wolves. This is not proof but it is strong evidence.
There are no human bones older than Lucy in the fossil record. Lots of younger human fossils. Where did the wolves and humans come from if they didn't evolve from an earlier animal?
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member

True, there is no proof.  But there is evidence.  There is an absence of wolf fossils older than 50 million years.  There are fossils of mammals that are similar but they are not wolves.  From 48 million years ago to present there are fossils that appear to be wolves.  This is not proof but it is strong evidence.
There are no human bones older than Lucy in the fossil record.  Lots of younger human fossils.  Where did the wolves and humans come from if they didn't evolve from an earlier animal?
They were clones of another species from another galaxy.
Darth (explains Roswell) Tang
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/120#post_3490683
If no evolution, then you believe in a religious answer, intelligent design or such. If humans were always human, then somehow we got here on planet earth.
The current use of DNA studies seems to support evolution. We share DNA similarities with other species. Chimp and human DNA are 96% the same. This says that we are genetically related to chimps, and came from a common ancestor. To me, its hard to keep believing that we somehow popped up from nothingness (or dust) in the face of the the obvious. I don't believe God defies science. God is the maker of science and has no need to pull rabbits out of hats. Are their potholes in our understanding? Sure. But we'll get there.
Also, evolution is not just mutations of lessor species into higher forms. It is the science of adaptability. Survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest means that a species evolves and survives based on its ability to adapt to its environment. Human adaptability far exceeds all other animals. Except maybe bugs and micro-organisms.
I humans and apes had a common CREATOR wouldn't it stand to reason the DNA would be very similar? Just stirrin the pot :)
 
flower

flower

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bang Guy http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/120#post_3490686
True, there is no proof. But there is evidence. There is an absence of wolf fossils older than 50 million years. There are fossils of mammals that are similar but they are not wolves. From 48 million years ago to present there are fossils that appear to be wolves. This is not proof but it is strong evidence.
There are no human bones older than Lucy in the fossil record. Lots of younger human fossils. Where did the wolves and humans come from if they didn't evolve from an earlier animal?
Well.....LOL that is the whole discussion isn't it.
Like I said, my PERSONAL stand is that there were earlier versions of the creatures and humans we have today. That they certainly evolved from those fossils that have been found. There is an early man, there is an early wolf like creature, there is an early horse...these fossiles have been found...elephants evolved from the wooly mammoth. Not Darwins theory that humans evolved from a bacteria that turned into a fish, that turned into a fish with feet, that turned into an amphibian, that turned into a monkey, that turned into an ape, that turned into a man.
As to where wolves and humans came from...God formed the man from the dust, and breathed life into him and he bacame a living being. He created all creatures and told them to multiply and be fruitful. God brought them before the man, and whatever he named them, that was the name of that creature. Also man was the last creature created.
So I PERSONALLY take the stand that, the scriptures and science kiss. There is indeed evidence that all the creatures that are around today evolved from an earlier version of THAT animal. There is absolutely no evidence that any creature evolved from a totally different creature such as a fish. They have found fish with legs and they have found snakes with what looks like used to have legs. All that proves is that creatures do evolve. We evolve from our envirnment too, such as the example of how we develope calluses. How people in Africa developed darker skin to protect them from the hot sun...we did indeed evolve... but not from a monkey. We had early man and he evolved into modern man.
The so called missing link to prove Darwin's theory of a monkey in the transition of monkey-man has never been found. The closest they can come to is what they call Lucy. The fossilized bones of a small humanoid creature...well it's a fossil, and it could very well be a childs body of early man...that does not make it the missing link of a little monkey-man. They don't have a full skeleton, they have a few bones. It is so old they don't know if it's from a childs body or an adult. Somehow with testing they have determined it could be human fossil remains...nothing more.
Folks are very determined to disprove there is a God by proving Darwins theory. Well, for those who believe no proof is needed, and for those who do not believe, no amount of proof will convince them to change their minds. This is true whether you believe in evolution or God.
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
Quote:
There is absolutely no evidence that any creature evolved from a totally different creature such as a fish.
Well, yes there is, a lot of evidence.
There is nothing in the fossil record two billion years ago except Cyanobacteria. Again, this isn't proof of anything, just strong evidence that all lifeforms on Earth either evolved from Cyanobacteria or were clones of space aliens planted here sporatically over time.
I see no reason why accepting Survival of the Fittest means abandoning Intelligent Design or God.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
 
As to where wolves and humans came from...God formed the man from the dust, and breathed life into him and he bacame a living being. He created all creatures and told them to multiply and be fruitful. God brought them before the man, and whatever he named them, that was the name of that creature. Also man was the last creature created.
i am going to stir the pot myself and pose another question.
Doesn't the bible indicate man was made in God's image? If this were the case...how does this tie in with the change from cro magnun man to present day man. No change should be required one would think.
 
pezenfuego

pezenfuego

Active Member
I have four small things to add to this thread. I admit that I have not read the whole thing, but I really don't need to in this case.
1. I was watching Futurama last night and they did a pretty good job of explaining why we haven't "found the missing link." Each time we find new fossil evidence of a previously unknown humanoid species, two gaps are created in our fossil record. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxrxnPG05SU Sorry for the horrible quality, it was all I could find.
2. Sometimes people get hung-up on words like "theory," "law," and "hypothesis." The main argument you see with this is that, "If evolution were fact, it would be called the "law of evolution." or "It's just a theory." Well, as educated people know, the word "theory" has a completely different meaning in the realm of science. For an idea to get through the rigorous peer review process and gain the title of "theory," there has to be quite a bit of evidence. The word, "law" is reserved for those theories which are best established. But the problem is that this system is not meant to be quantitative and exact. Who decides to change a theory into a law? The answer is nobody. There is no panel to decide that a theory should be changed into a law. It is done with the general consensus of the scientific community. Here are a few examples of how this is flawed. You guys have heard of string theory, right? This goes by a few different names, but the basic concept is that matter consists fundamentally of tiny vibrating strings. There is mathematics to support these ideas (if you add dimensions), but there is absolutely 0 evidence to back up these ideas.Yet, we call it a theory. Another extreme is the theory of heliocentricity. This is the idea that the sun is the center of our solar system. This is a fact, but also a theory. Another, similar, example is the theory of relativity. If the theory of relativity weren't a fact, GPS wouldn't work. And laws aren't set in stone, like most people think. Laws can still be changed or completely disposed of, it just isn't as common. So don't get strung up on nomenclature, it doesn't usually mean much.
3. Science cannot prove anything. The very nature of science prevents this. This is just something to chew on.
4. Religion and Evolution are not mutually exclusive. I am an atheist, but I like to look at the world in this way: Evolution answers the how and religion answers the why. Is that really so bad?
My favorite book is "The Greatest Show on Earth." It's worth a read if this sort of thing interests you.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
I have four small things to add to this thread. I admit that I have not read the whole thing, but I really don't need to in this case.
1. I was watching Futurama last night and they did a pretty good job of explaining why we haven't "found the missing link." Each time we find new fossil evidence of a previously unknown humanoid species, two gaps are created in our fossil record. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxrxnPG05SU Sorry for the horrible quality, it was all I could find.
2. Sometimes people get hung-up on words like "theory," "law," and "hypothesis." The main argument you see with this is that, "If evolution were fact, it would be called the "law of evolution." or "It's just a theory." Well, as educated people know, the word "theory" has a completely different meaning in the realm of science. For an idea to get through the rigorous peer review process and gain the title of "theory," there has to be quite a bit of evidence. The word, "law" is reserved for those theories which are best established. But the problem is that this system is not meant to be quantitative and exact. Who decides to change a theory into a law? The answer is nobody. There is no panel to decide that a theory should be changed into a law. It is done with the general consensus of the scientific community. Here are a few examples of how this is flawed. You guys have heard of string theory, right? This goes by a few different names, but the basic concept is that matter consists fundamentally of tiny vibrating strings. There is mathematics to support these ideas (if you add dimensions), but there is absolutely 0 evidence to back up these ideas.Yet, we call it a theory. Another extreme is the theory of heliocentricity. This is the idea that the sun is the center of our solar system. This is a fact, but also a theory. Another, similar, example is the theory of relativity. If the theory of relativity weren't a fact, GPS wouldn't work. And laws aren't set in stone, like most people think. Laws can still be changed or completely disposed of, it just isn't as common. So don't get strung up on nomenclature, it doesn't usually mean much.
1. A cartoon?
2. This point has already been discussed and explained a couple times.
Darth (Reading the full thread saves others from wasting their time) Tang
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member

1. Yes
2. Have I done something to deserve this level of disrespect from you?
Disrespect?
explain.
You were the one that stated you didn't need to read the whole discussion. Which in a sense shows a disrespect to all that have contributed and implies your comment holds more value over their input.
i just pointed out, had you read the discussion you would have seen that point was made and accepted.
Will you vote without listening and reading about both candidates as well?
 
pezenfuego

pezenfuego

Active Member
All right. I was wondering why you were being disrespectful and you came back, not with an answer, but with more disrespect. If I did something to you, I apologize. I guess I'm done contributing on here since I apparently cannot do so well enough to meet your standards.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
All right. I was wondering why you were being disrespectful and you came back, not with an answer, but with more disrespect. If I did something to you, I apologize. I guess I'm done contributing on here since I apparently cannot do so well enough to meet your standards.
 
I gave you an answer.
Darth (kids these days) tang
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top