Anti-Evolution Theories?

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Dinosaur, Feb 1, 2017.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,320
    And where is the proof of that? A pretty picture. Perhaps the first humans had no genitalia either.
    Oh no, there is Da Vinci's picture of a nude Adam, tenderly touching the hand of God, and not a trace of dirt on him. Strange that his belly button is clearly visible.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Counter, you have no clue as the metaphorical meaning of Creationism.

    You may want to read up on the Pontifical Academy of Sciences which has come to the correct conclusion that Evolution is in fact true, as testified to by Pope Francis
    And rightly so.
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2017
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,186
    Counter:

    Why do you believe that?

    Very probably, human evolution didn't work in such a way that there was ever a "first two humans". Speciation doesn't typically work that way.

    It is highly likely that Homo sapiens evolved from a more ape-like ancestor. Apes have belly buttons, so it would be very odd if early humans didn't also have them. Humans are, after all, placental mammals.

    Are you working in a knowledge vacuum wherein you just believe stuff because it feels right to you? Or are you basing your belief on some knowledge?

    You can believe whatever you like, but if you're going to make scientific claims in the Biology and Genetics subforum here, it would be preferable if you had some facts to back them up.

    I find that usually people who say that turn out to know next to nothing about the theory of evolution.

    Which parts make little sense to you, exactly? And why?

    Just a note: the THEORY of evolution has a similar status in science to the THEORY of gravity, or the THEORY that inheritance is due to the action of DNA molecules. In science, a THEORY is a well verified finding about how the world works. Hypotheses in science have to work hard to earn the title "theory".

    It doesn't have to be radiation. With every cell division there's the possibility of copying errors.

    Also, be careful using that word "significantly". A tiny genetic difference can make a hugely "signficant" difference to an animal's chances for survival and reproduction.

    Your use of the word "deformity" suggests that you believe there is a "perfect" human gene template out there somewhere that gradually gets degraded by genetic mutations. If that's the case, where do you think that original, "perfect" template came from in the first place?

    In fact, genetic changes are often harmful, often neutral, and sometimes beneficial, in an evolutionary sense.

    What exactly do you mean by the "variability of genetics"? If human beings share more that 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees, is that an example of incredible variability?

    That's an example of natural selection, known as sexual selection.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,186
    Creationists hold that every "kind" was created individually by God. Some creationists allow for some variation within "kinds", which might allow for eohippus to become a horse, I guess. When pressed on what, exactly, a "kind" is, creationists have no workable answer, as far as I am aware. Oh, and they tend to insist on a separate, special, creation of human beings.

    As for the existence of the fossil record itself, young earth creationists put it all down to Noah's flood - an explanation that falls apart at the briefest examination, but there you have it.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Counter Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    385
    Hello again.

    With the word incredible I was referring to the theory genetics can be altered so easily, yet solid enough to allow inheritance.
     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,320
    Chemical interactions tend to be pretty reliable, as long as conditions are not too exotic.

    But on any planet, somewhat similar to earth, life most likely will emerge. See the Robert Hazen lecture on "Chance, Necessity, and Origins of Life"
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2017 at 4:54 AM
  9. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,548
    This is your opinion. There is no evidence that this is true. We have only 1 example of life in the universe, statistically speaking our sample is N=1. That is not a very big population to draw any useful conclusions.
     
  10. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,927
    The instance is one

    The chemicals of life throughout the Universe are numerous

    I would go with the abundance of chemicals giving life on other planets more than a something% chance of occuring

    I'm short of guessing the actual % because of lacking some details such as number of Earth equivalent planets

    I would rule out 0% and 100% with really only a statistical guesstimate

    Other %s are up for grabs

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,622
    ?? Computer programs can be altered very easily, but are solid enough to land a Space Shuttle, or beat any human at chess, or design an entire building.
     
  12. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,927
    I thought this to stupid to comment on

    I was wrong

    The only two humans who were considered not to have belly buttons were Adam and Eve because they were created not born

    Big full stop HERE

    Genes

    There are an estimated 19,000-20,000 human protein-coding genes

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genome

    Since each person is a combination of genes of the parents why the suprise at inheritance?

    The genes will act as genes and produce similar (not the same) results as previous gene sets because that's what genes do

    A manufacturer of cars when he builds a similar car plant in a new location expects to build and produce similar cars not packets of Cornflakes

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,186
    DNA is fairly robust, considering how often it is copied in the process of creating new cells. A lot of the variation seen in different organisms is not actually due to mutation or copying error. It is due to deliberate mixing, which is what sex is for.
     

Share This Page