Open Debate: Evolution.

scibetel said:
I'm sure we're being set up here, but the answer is a qualified Yes. Just remember that the evolution of a species is not a straight line: there are all kinds of branches, blind alleys, and plateaus.

If you really want a better insight into the workings of natural selection, read this: http://www.sjgarchive.org/library/text/b16/p0089.htm
For some reason, the site does not link to subsequent pages, so the complete text has to be paged manually:
http://www.sjgarchive.org/library/text/b16/p0090.htm
http://www.sjgarchive.org/library/text/b16/p0091.htm
http://www.sjgarchive.org/library/text/b16/p0092.htm
http://www.sjgarchive.org/library/text/b16/p0093.htm

Or skip the above, and believe what you like. That's certainly the easier path.

Hmmmmmm so how the flipin heck do you explain this:

untitled2yv.jpg


Has evolution gone to sleep? or maybe theres no goddamn thing as evolution nothing but a materialistic atheist philosophy.
 
invert_nexus said:
Muslim, the term you're looking for is called punctuated equilibrium. And, yes, it is postulated by some that evolution does occur in gasps and starts at times. While other times it moves along steadily and slowly.

How exactly does this prove your point?




Every animal alive doesn't make it into the fossil record. In fact, the series of events which leads to fossilization is quite rare. Especially in certain areas.

Which leads me to a point you tried to make earlier about Africa. The fossil record is actually quite sparse in Africa. At least for the crucial time period when early hominids began to form. This is one of the problematic areas in learning more about the origins of humans.

So. I don't know where you got your information about Africa being the motherland of fossils, but you're wrong.


Hay look at me I found a "dinosaur skeleton", but I can't find a species in transitional form, my argument, hmmm its a "rare proses".

And I never said, Africa being the motherland, I was talking about Mitochondrial DNA.
 
valich said:
You really seem to have a very limited knowledge of evolution and the diversity of species in the world. Present day lung fish, as the name implies, can breathe in or out of the water. Also, coelacanths are an ancient species of fish that paleontologists widely study as a possible common ancestor. Coelacanths give birth to live young. There are also other species of modern day fish that are able to swim in the water or crawl on land. There is no problem in understanding this transition; nor can it be debated.

I suggest that you begin by researching these and other species and read a bit more on paleontology and evolution to gain more depth and insight before you just jump in and say that these are weak arguments without having any background in the field. There's a lot of info out there that you can learn from without just bickering back-and-forth about a subject that you apparently know very little about. I am not trying to belittle you as I openly admit that I know very little too. But I am always eager to learn, and continuously try to learn more. These new discoveries are fascinating and are the best explanations we have to understand the factual basis and the accumulated evidence that we have gathered over the last few centuries of the science of evolution - nothing makes better sense to explain all the evidence.


Unlike you I'm not into reading materialistic propaganda. Everyone knows scientists have lied, and still lie, remember "skull measurements"? white man is superior to rest of the world. Funnily enough all this came about the same time Darwin was propagating his crap about "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection"
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
Oh come on guy! Do you even read newspapers, or just holy books? We don't need a fossil record to understand that transition.

There is a fish from Asia called the "Northern Snakehead" that has been turned loose in the northeastern USA. Its range is spreading prodigiously for the precise reason that it is able to "breathe" when out of the water. Gills work that way. If you keep them wet enough, respiration can continue after a fashion even if the only thing that stands between the fish and a gaseous atmosphere is a thin layer of water in his gills. You'd have to be living in a biosphere with no outside contact to not have heard of the Northern Snakehead. It's got the entire nation petrified because it could destroy all of our riparian ecosystems. It's a ferocious predator and wipes out the native species of fish everywhere it goes. And it goes everywhere because it can wriggle its way over land. That's no stretch, it's pretty much the way snakes locomote.

Catfish have also been observed doing the same thing. They crawl from one pond to another, "breathing" through their gills.

If a species does that for a few million years, natural selection will kick in and the ones with the most advanced ability will become dominant. This is not one of evolution's more difficult conundra.


Getting random bones and joining them up as you want doesn't constitute as evolution in my book. We all know, these little guys get random pieces of bones and and start to clue them up, and say hay look I found a "dinosaur skeleton" or "fossil which proves evolution" those are not proper fossils dude.


GUYS KEEP YOURS POSTS SHORT, CONCISE AND TO THE POINT!
 
Dr Hannibal Lecter said:
Don't worry, Muslim. Evolution is not true.

Everything was created a millisecond ago by a giant invisible fire ant, and all of our memories are fabricated.

Go troll in some other thread.
 
scorpius said:
gets very boring though especialy when you dont have a clue wtf you are talking about
it would help if you actualy got some scientific education before debating
you could start here www.talkorigins.org

for origins of life search ABIOGENESIS
evolution is about biological changes in lifeforms over time!
two completely different things ;)

Why does every person give me the link to talk origins? why give me a link to a pro evolutionist website? :bugeye: they will try their best to prove evolution. I get my information from natural sources.
 
Muslim said:
Getting random bones and joining them up as you want doesn't constitute as evolution in my book. We all know, these little guys get random pieces of bones and and start to clue them up, and say hay look I found a "dinosaur skeleton" or "fossil which proves evolution" those are not proper fossils dude.
Really? You know all about what archeologists do out in the field? You've been to an excavation site? You know all about which bones really belong to which? You're an expert?

Why does every person give me the link to talk origins? why give me a link to a pro evolutionist website? :bugeye: they will try their best to prove evolution. I get my information from natural sources.
Stop complaining and read about science sometime.

Muslim said:
Honestly you guys are brainwashed.
Is that the best you can do?
 
Muslim,
what is the motivation for concocting this, as you see it, fairy tale of evolution? Why have generations of scientists conspired to promote it? Why have none of them 'blown the whistle' on the lies? Why have they tens of thousands of them devoted their entire professional lives to expanding the lie? Doesn't this strike you as a teeny weeny bit odd?
 
Ophiolite said:
Muslim,
what is the motivation for concocting this, as you see it, fairy tale of evolution? Why have generations of scientists conspired to promote it? Why have none of them 'blown the whistle' on the lies? Why have they tens of thousands of them devoted their entire professional lives to expanding the lie? Doesn't this strike you as a teeny weeny bit odd?
its foolish to even try and reason with him
 
Muslim said:
Has evolution gone to sleep? or maybe theres no goddamn thing as evolution nothing but a materialistic atheist philosophy.
You call us materialist? Harsh words ... I am stung to the quick ... I must commit sepuku to regain my honour...
 
muslim said:
“Originally Posted by Fraggle Rocker: Oh come on guy! Do you even read newspapers, or just holy books? We don't need a fossil record to understand that transition. There is a fish from Asia called the "Northern Snakehead" that has been turned loose in the northeastern USA. Its range is spreading prodigiously for the precise reason that it is able to "breathe" when out of the water. Gills work that way. If you keep them wet enough, respiration can continue after a fashion even if the only thing that stands between the fish and a gaseous atmosphere is a thin layer of water in his gills. You'd have to be living in a biosphere with no outside contact to not have heard of the Northern Snakehead. It's got the entire nation petrified because it could destroy all of our riparian ecosystems. It's a ferocious predator and wipes out the native species of fish everywhere it goes. And it goes everywhere because it can wriggle its way over land. That's no stretch, it's pretty much the way snakes locomote. Catfish have also been observed doing the same thing. They crawl from one pond to another, "breathing" through their gills. If a species does that for a few million years, natural selection will kick in and the ones with the most advanced ability will become dominant. This is not one of evolution's more difficult conundra.”

Getting random bones and joining them up as you want doesn't constitute as evolution in my book. We all know, these little guys get random pieces of bones and and start to clue them up, and say hay look I found a "dinosaur skeleton" or "fossil which proves evolution" those are not proper fossils dude.

GUYS KEEP YOURS POSTS SHORT, CONCISE AND TO THE POINT!
To the point? Do you follow your own rules? What earthly connection is there between the above response and my original post to which you claim to be "responding"? You completely sidestepped the argument. Here's compelling, live evidence for the evolution from water-breathing to air-breathing. Come to Maryland and I can drive you over to a river that is teeming with Northern Snakeheads that were originally dumped into a rainwater pond behind some guy's house just three years ago. He had ordered them live from China for some local Asian herbalist who didn't want them after all, and he didn't have the heart to kill them. As a result they're going to change the whole North American ecosystem, just like the House Sparrows did after that idiot from England imported a few dozen of them 120 years ago and turned them loose in New York City. Just like the rabbits did to Australia after that other idiot from England imported them. At least this time the idiot was from China, we can't blame the English. Those fish crawled over land from one body of water from another, a trip which took hours. They survived by breathing air through their gills. This is not some report buried in an arcane university journal that you can hide behind your bible and say you choose not to believe because "scientists lie." This is a major news story with thousands of witnesses who are still alive and live all around me. I answered your question and you pretend that the discussion never happened because it doesn't fit your hypothesis.

This is not science you are practicing, it is religion. This is not a debate as you titled it, it is evangelism for your point of view when you don't even respond to the other guy's posting. This thread should be moved to the Religion forum.
 
This is not science you are practicing, it is religion. This is not a debate as you titled it, it is evangelism for your point of view when you don't even respond to the other guy's posting. This thread should be moved to the Religion forum.

for as many debates on "evolution" that we've had around here, this one fits the cesspool.
:rolleyes: :D
 
Muslim said:
Honestly you guys are brainwashed.
i don't think so muslim.
if you want to ask questions why not ask them about how life arose on this planet. that's the stumper, that's the brain burner.

a little common sense will tell you that evolution is a reality.

i have search the web for some unbiased sites on how life arose and i can not find any, none. they are all pro abiogenesis or pro creationism.

i cannot find any sites that claim science has created life from the elements.
the problem is one of technecality or definition i don't know which.

what i would like to see is some ubiased sites, not pro this or that, but an honest ojective analysis that a layman can understand
 
What’s with this abiogenesis chip on your shoulder which you’ve been whining about for some time now? :eek:

leopold99 said:
i have search the web for some unbiased sites on how life arose and i can not find any, none. they are all pro abiogenesis or pro creationism.
Science seeks to use quantifiable evidence and data to formulate naturalistic mechanisms to explain the world we live in. Natural mechanisms! So by definition, a scientific analysis of how life arose from inanimate matter will be pro-abiogenesis. There is no such thing as a ‘scientific anti-abiogenesis’ or ‘scientific creationist’ analysis. Those phrases are oxymorons (oxymora?). If you want to scientifically investigate the origin of life, then you must proceed on the basis that life arose naturally from inanimate matter. Otherwise it’s not science, it’s something else.

Get it? Are we learning yet?

leopold99 said:
i cannot find any sites that claim science has created life from the elements...
I am not aware of any instance where science (ie. humans) have created life. Nature certainly has.
 
leopold99 said:
Yes, really.

It is probably quite correct to state that: “All living organisms alive today on Earth have arisen directly from other living organisms”. But that’s not saying very much. Given that there are no individual organisms that are 4 billion years old, that statement has nothing to do with abiogenesis (but rather evolution) and is further demonstration that you are very confused about this whole area. The hypothesis that life on Earth arose <I>de novo</I> from inanimate matter is not mutually exclusive of that statement.
 
so in essence you are saying that there is no fundamental difference between you and the chair you are sitting on. is that what you are saying?
 
Are you saying there's no fundamental difference between a chair and a car because they're both non-living? Have you tried using a chair in heavy traffic recently? :p
 
Back
Top