Denial of Evolution VI.

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by garbonzo, Jun 4, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    790
    If the Big Bang created everything, what created the matter for the big bang to take place? And don't tell me that nothing exploded, that is unscientific, we have never observed nothing explode.

    And ha, if evolution is the best explanation you've got then you've got to get a better explanation. The evolution theory states that life came form non-life, which has not been observed pontifically. If you breed dogs, you will get a variety of dogs, but you will never see a dog produce a non-dog. Yet evolutionists believe that Humans came from rocks, if you go millions of years back.

    We couldn't have evolved from apes it is impossible. Multiple changes would have had to occur at once which has never been observed before. "Over a long period of time" wouldn't change anything some changes need to happen together.

    let me make this simple...

    a monkey for example,

    if a change were to occur over time that let it stand straight, would it be selected for in natural selection?

    a monkey also has a large front face kinda like a muzzle, so if it stood up straight it wouldn't be able to look down easily, so its face would have to change too.

    changes need to happen together
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 21, 2013
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Pretty much none of that is accurate descriptions of the two theories.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    I'd go further and say it's a completely inaccurate description.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    garbonzo

    First, there was no matter involved in the Big Bang, it was all energy at the beginning and for a considerable time afterward. Second, we do not know what conditions or physics were operative "before" the BB, time itself did not exist, space did not exist(there literally was no there there, no then then). Beyond the Singularity(or reasonable facsimile)is outside of the Universe and probably beyond our ability ever to know, though we can pick up clues by examining what came out of the BB. Just like a bomb, it no longer exists so that we cannot examine what came "before" the explosion(ie how it was made, the materials and configuration, etc.), but we can examine the pieces forensically to establish what can be known after the fact.

    From the POV of our Universe, the BB was the explosion of nothing into everything. We know nothing about what came before that event, we do not know if there are other Universes and we will probably know nothing about what caused it to occur, ever. The Big Bang is the description of events after the beginning of space/time, not what came before.

    Nothing in biology makes any sense without evolution, it is an observed fact that all living things change over time(they evolve), that changes that make an organism more successful(ie more populous)tend to survive while changes that cause trouble tend to be eliminated(Natural Selection). That is all that evolution is.

    No, it does not. Evolution can only occur in living things. Life is an end product of a long series of physical and chemical processes(governed only by the laws of physics and chemistry)that led to the first self replicating molecules, we call that process Abiogenesis. That is when evolution started, reproduction(with modification)and Natural Selection. Your beef is with chemists, not evolutionary scientists.

    If you breed wolf pups over thousands of years(and kill all the unruly ones)you will breed dogs, a few thousand more and you can breed both chihuahuas and Great Danes, the chihuahua is not a potential mate for the original wolf, it is a walking, yapping cocktail weenie. The Great Dane is well on it's way to evolving into a horse-like creature. Man has been breeding horses for much longer, the donkey and the horse were once the same breed. The horse and donkey can still produce offspring, but they are sterile(mules, jennys), therefore the horse and donkey have been bred into two species by man. Evolution is a fact.

    If the forest the creature lived in disappeared over a few thousand generations, replaced by a Savannah of grass with isolated copses of food trees separated by long walks, yes. Those among the populous who were better able to see over the grass(looking for lions, no doubt)and used less fuel walking between the scattered food sources survived better than those stuck with tree climbing bodies(who never saw the lions coming or who broke down halfway to the next food. Plus the upright stance leaves the hands free to carry the harvest back to camp for the children, wield rocks, sticks and limbs as tools and weapons of defense and hunting, further reinforcing the trend toward uprightness over time because of better survivability. The Peacock(a dinosaur akin to T-rex, by the way)did not get it's ridiculous tail overnight, but by a process of sexual selection by the females over thousands of generations. And broccoli, cabbage, Brussels sprouts and cauliflower are all artificially created varieties of the same plant.

    Grumpy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    The Big Bang actually did not create anything. There is (reportedly) an exact balance of matter and antimatter in the universe. All the bosons, leptons and quarks have an aggregate net mass and charge of zero.

    So all that happened is that the universe changed from being a place in which there was absolutely no order, into a place with a significant amount of order. This is, of course, simply a reversal of entropy.

    However, the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not tell us that entropy always increases. It only tells us that entropy tends to increase. Spatially and temporally local reversals of entropy are permitted, and in fact are quite common. For example, all living things are local reversals of entropy, as we increase our organization until we die.

    So the Big Bang was nothing more or less than a local reversal of entropy. Sure, it was a rather large one, but the Second Law places no limit on the magnitude of such a phenomenon. For that matter, who are we to say that it was "big?" How many other Big Bangs have occurred? Maybe some of them were so big that they make our universe look like a dust mite. We'll never know, of course, since they probably occurred so far away and so long ago that we'll never find any evidence of them.

    And the next "people" to come along, a hundred septillion light-years away and a googol years from now, won't be able to find any evidence of us either.
     
  9. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    790
    It didn't create everything. The big bang has failed to account for so many observations that it should have been discarded decades ago. It is based on two arbitrary assumptions: (1) the universe is boundless and (2) it has no center. These defy logic and common sense, but they are necessary principles for the big bang theory.
     
  10. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    That's mostly wrong too. At least you're consistent!
     
  11. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    790
    Monkeys can do that with a tail.
     
  12. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Wrong again. A monkey's tail is primarily used for balance, There's no grip to it.

    You're now at 3 out of 3.
     
  13. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i agree, but that's the nature of science isn't it, to find new and improved versions?
    what is commonly believed now is only partially correct, if that.
     
  14. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    790
    Wouldn't humans have evolved even slightly over the past couple thousand years?
     
  15. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Evolution acts over a much longer time range.
     
  16. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,465
    Just another ignorant creationist, trolling. I see no purpose in engaging someone at this level in a debate.

    (I love "pontifically" though. The argument seems to be that abiogenesis is impossible, as it has not been observed by the Pope!)
     
  17. IncogNegro Banned Banned

    Messages:
    210
    In the evolution of highly intelligent creatures you might want to consider the tools as part of it. We aren't exactly monkeys... Intelligence is a measurable quality in evolution and tools are the outcome of that particular brand of evolution. Both intelligence an tools cause a change in behavior as well as maybe an extension of average lifetime...

    So evolved in the past 1000 years? Only those who can think past themselves...
     
  18. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    yes, life adapts.
    whether that adaption process can be applied to lifes diversity has not been proven.
     
  19. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    leopold

    Yes, it has been shown to be true beyond a REASONABLE doubt(in science "proof" is a non-sense word outside of math and formal logic). Lifeforms adapt by a process that changes the content of their genes, they do not adapt after they are born, nor will any children they spawn inherit any changes an organism experiences during it's lifetime. You are looking at genes(DNA)as serving your interests or having you in mind when evolution started, they don't. All lifeforms are survival mechanisms for a certain set of genes, if being stupid(instead of aware)were a survival trait, none of us would be discussing this now. If remaining in the form of pond scum was the best survival strategy, then the whole world would be different forms of pond scum(in large part, it is). The fact is we exist only because our particular set of genes developed us through mutations tested by Natural Selection and we are one very good survival machine. Nature has only one criteria for life, survival. Our species may be the first that can survive the destruction of our planet, the definition of extraordinary survival. All due to the evolution of genetic support equipment.

    Grumpy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,799
    That's just a problem with your imagination. If life adapts, that is fairly conclusive evidence that it's the thing responsible for life's diversity.
     
  21. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,799
    They have.
     
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,755
    We have indeed observed "nothing explode." Google the Casimir Effect.

    We have observed organic molecules being created from non-organic molecules. Google Miller-Urey and the follow-on experiments.

    We have observed self-replicating molecules that can replicate themselves indefinitely in the lab. See here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090109173205.htm

    Give a breeder ten million years and he could create fish, birds and horses from dogs. (Or more accurately things that look just like fish, birds and horses.)

    Single celled life actually.

    And yet our DNA is almost identical to ape's DNA.

    No they don't. Monkeys can bend their necks. Even I can see the ground when I am wearing a respirator mask.
     
  23. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,799
    "pontifically"?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page