Creationists

[Woyzeck]

I would like to try and reason with you evolutionist.

If by your theory over time things get better and through natural selection we pass on things that would better help us survive why did we lose certain abilities that would aid us in survival.

Examples, superior land speed,superior eyesight,superior strength,a superior sense of smell ?

Traits can be lost for a variety of reasons. You use it or lose it. If we had no more need for better eyesight to survive, we wouldn't continue having them. The reason is, if something like that isn't being used, then it isn't worth for the cells to continue to invest time and energy to develop such biological structures but also maintain it. Cells have economies, they are not post-scarcity economies. They have finite resources and time to work with, so they must spend it wisely and accordingly or else the organism they make up won't survive.

To be honest I'm pretty sure humans never had any of those traits, particularly all of them at once. Not to mention, they are relative, and at that they would have been relative to the nearest predator. The larger point still stands, however. What we do have that separates us from the rest of our cousins is a far superior brain (which are enormously expensive in terms of cell economies) and thumbs.

Not to mention such subjective terms of traits raise questions like: superior to what? You only need to be better at surviving, and procreating.

Would these not be abilities that natural selection would have kept in our gene pool to aid us in survival ? but yet these abilities were left in the animals we evolved from would this not be evolution in reverse?

Well, I'm not so sure humans had any of those skills, so the question is fairly irrelevant. You don't seem to understand how something can lose a trait.

Let's say you had good running skills, and you could outrun a predator that was also good at running. If that predator dies off, and you don't need to run at a high speed to run anymore, are you going to keep that trait? Nope, you won't. There's no need to devote the resources to develop and maintain the muscles and other associated structures that allow you to run so fast, if there isn't a reason to run that fast anymore. This will happen over time, as previously you had to have good running skills to survive, but now that isn't required, so those that couldn't run, will now survive and procreate.

It's a pretty generalized and basic example, but that's how losing a trait works.

Is it rational to believe in evolution that evolution would start from small to large why do we we see it go from small to very large back to small is this evolution in reverse or macro-evolution ?

Evolution is change in organisms, and that change is in terms of survival. One of the silliest and most annoying lines of thinking is assuming there are more 'evolved' forms and 'un-evolved ' forms. In nature, it isn't about a linear progression of better and better organisms each one better (which is a very subjective and human term) than the last. All that matters is survival and how a mutation helps (or doesn't help) an organism survive. A gaining of a trait is not automatically positive and a loss of a trait is not automatically negative. What constitutes that is the degree it allows the organism to survive.

 

[FactFinder]

Creationists

There is only One.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I would like to try and reason with you evolutionist.

If by your theory over time things get better and through natural selection we pass on things that would better help us survive why did we lose certain abilities that would aid us in survival.

Examples, superior land speed,superior eyesight,superior strength,a superior sense of smell ?

Traits can be lost for a variety of reasons. You use it or lose it. If we had no more need for better eyesight to survive, we wouldn't continue having them. The reason is, if something like that isn't being used, then it isn't worth for the cells to continue to invest time and energy to develop such biological structures but also maintain it. Cells have economies, they are not post-scarcity economies. They have finite resources and time to work with, so they must spend it wisely and accordingly or else the organism they make up won't survive.

To be honest I'm pretty sure humans never had any of those traits, particularly all of them at once. Not to mention, they are relative, and at that they would have been relative to the nearest predator. The larger point still stands, however. What we do have that separates us from the rest of our cousins is a far superior brain (which are enormously expensive in terms of cell economies) and thumbs.

Not to mention such subjective terms of traits raise questions like: superior to what? You only need to be better at surviving, and procreating.

Would these not be abilities that natural selection would have kept in our gene pool to aid us in survival ? but yet these abilities were left in the animals we evolved from would this not be evolution in reverse?

Well, I'm not so sure humans had any of those skills, so the question is fairly irrelevant. You don't seem to understand how something can lose a trait.

Let's say you had good running skills, and you could outrun a predator that was also good at running. If that predator dies off, and you don't need to run at a high speed to run anymore, are you going to keep that trait? Nope, you won't. There's no need to devote the resources to develop and maintain the muscles and other associated structures that allow you to run so fast, if there isn't a reason to run that fast anymore. This will happen over time, as previously you had to have good running skills to survive, but now that isn't required, so those that couldn't run, will now survive and procreate.

It's a pretty generalized and basic example, but that's how losing a trait works.

Is it rational to believe in evolution that evolution would start from small to large why do we we see it go from small to very large back to small is this evolution in reverse or macro-evolution ?

Evolution is change in organisms, and that change is in terms of survival. One of the silliest and most annoying lines of thinking is assuming there are more 'evolved' forms and 'un-evolved ' forms. In nature, it isn't about a linear progression of better and better organisms each one better (which is a very subjective and human term) than the last. All that matters is survival and how a mutation helps (or doesn't help) an organism survive. A gaining of a trait is not automatically positive and a loss of a trait is not automatically negative. What constitutes that is the degree it allows the organism to survive.

If it was truly Survival of the fittest it would not be humans at the top of the food chain. We were designed to be at the top of the food chain just as the bible states.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You truly have absolutely no idea what evolution is, do you.

That's not even a question, I'm making a statement of pure fact here.

Oh boy,you are saying chimps evolved from us ?

If you could hear my sigh as I read that...


You can stop with the being dishonest thing now, you know full well evolution is very clear about us not evolving from any modern day animal.

That includes chimps.

I agree 100 % we didn't evolve from anything. A human has always been a human and always will be.

But to suggest chimps and humans share a common ancestor what are you saying ?

What are you saying we diverged from the chimp and the chimp is our cousin ?

So what you are saying is that humans and chimps or an apelike creature had to cross breed.

 

[Youwerecreated]

As usual, let me preface this by saying I am a layman when it comes to evolution; I make no claims of extensive knowledge or education on the subject.

That said, I wonder if you are reading too much into the use of the term beneficial. Sometimes you seem to try and impart an intelligence upon natural selection which, as far as I am aware, is not part of the theory of evolution. If something is better, as far as selection is concerned, it just means that the animals with that trait were better able to survive and reproduce than others without it. It does not follow that everything about the animals is superior to the others. So, as an example, an animal with less speed might survive and reproduce more efficiently that one with more speed, if the animal with less speed had more intelligence and was better able to find hidden food, or hide from predators, etc. The animal with less speed but more intelligence survives better, breeds more, and over time, dominates the area and perhaps even pushes the faster but less intelligent animal into extinction.

As to small to large and back again, again I wonder if you are imparting features to natural selection which are not part of the theory of evolution. Evolution is not supposed to be a direct line from single-celled organisms up through modern day to eventually reach some kind of perfect creature. It is supposed to work based on the environment involved; so where in some times/places/situations bigger animals may thrive, in others smaller animals may do so. I'm not sure what you are referencing with this smaller to bigger to smaller argument.

Not sure what theory of evolution you subscribe to but yes many believe natural selection is part of evolution.

There has been many scientist who said evolution makes things better. As we become better adapted does that not make us stronger and better with things being added to help us adapt better ?

So what you're saying by random chance humans got bigger brains ? but lost the ability of superior sight,superior strength,superior land speed,superior sense of smell ?

You misread my statement. What I said is not part of the theory of evolution is the intelligence you seem to think drives natural selection, not natural selection itself.

Once again, better in terms of evolution does not necessarily mean better in terms of what humans might want. In terms of selection, what is better is not known until after the fact. Is it better to be stronger, or faster, or more elusive? That depends on the environment. And since evolution is not based on an intelligence directing things, the idea that it must lead to creatures with all of the features you consider positive or beneficial is incorrect.

I don't know if you are asking if human intelligence is random chance based on evolution or the existence/lack of a creator. It could have been random in the sense there was no guarantee intelligence to our extent would develop. It would not be random in the sense that our intelligence was a positive survival/reproduction trait.

As far as losing senses, I honestly don't know. I don't know how acute the senses of the animals we descended from were, nor how strong they were, nor how fast; I don't know if there is some reason those senses or musculature would be incompatible with the features that allow us to have our intelligence.

But look at it throught the eyes of common sense. There are limits to adapting to our enviornment,why ?

If the enviornment forces change there should be no limits.

Look at the giraffe that sucker could have starved out by the time it took for that neck to get longer. Or it could be extinct and easy pray if the sponge in the brain didn't develop quickly because when it went to get a drink of water it would have passed out and been eaten by predators.

The theory makes no sense at all. Genetics and the fossil record is a problem for the theory.

 

[Woyzeck]

I would like to try and reason with you evolutionist.

If by your theory over time things get better and through natural selection we pass on things that would better help us survive why did we lose certain abilities that would aid us in survival.

Examples, superior land speed,superior eyesight,superior strength,a superior sense of smell ?

Traits can be lost for a variety of reasons. You use it or lose it. If we had no more need for better eyesight to survive, we wouldn't continue having them. The reason is, if something like that isn't being used, then it isn't worth for the cells to continue to invest time and energy to develop such biological structures but also maintain it. Cells have economies, they are not post-scarcity economies. They have finite resources and time to work with, so they must spend it wisely and accordingly or else the organism they make up won't survive.

To be honest I'm pretty sure humans never had any of those traits, particularly all of them at once. Not to mention, they are relative, and at that they would have been relative to the nearest predator. The larger point still stands, however. What we do have that separates us from the rest of our cousins is a far superior brain (which are enormously expensive in terms of cell economies) and thumbs.

Not to mention such subjective terms of traits raise questions like: superior to what? You only need to be better at surviving, and procreating.



Well, I'm not so sure humans had any of those skills, so the question is fairly irrelevant. You don't seem to understand how something can lose a trait.

Let's say you had good running skills, and you could outrun a predator that was also good at running. If that predator dies off, and you don't need to run at a high speed to run anymore, are you going to keep that trait? Nope, you won't. There's no need to devote the resources to develop and maintain the muscles and other associated structures that allow you to run so fast, if there isn't a reason to run that fast anymore. This will happen over time, as previously you had to have good running skills to survive, but now that isn't required, so those that couldn't run, will now survive and procreate.

It's a pretty generalized and basic example, but that's how losing a trait works.

Is it rational to believe in evolution that evolution would start from small to large why do we we see it go from small to very large back to small is this evolution in reverse or macro-evolution ?

Evolution is change in organisms, and that change is in terms of survival. One of the silliest and most annoying lines of thinking is assuming there are more 'evolved' forms and 'un-evolved ' forms. In nature, it isn't about a linear progression of better and better organisms each one better (which is a very subjective and human term) than the last. All that matters is survival and how a mutation helps (or doesn't help) an organism survive. A gaining of a trait is not automatically positive and a loss of a trait is not automatically negative. What constitutes that is the degree it allows the organism to survive.

If it was truly Survival of the fittest it would not be humans at the top of the food chain. We were designed to be at the top of the food chain just as the bible states.

That's nice and all, but that had nothing to do with my post. I guess you finally understand how evolution can result in a gain of traits and a loss of traits.

 

[Montrovant]

I would like to try and reason with you evolutionist.

If by your theory over time things get better and through natural selection we pass on things that would better help us survive why did we lose certain abilities that would aid us in survival.

Examples, superior land speed,superior eyesight,superior strength,a superior sense of smell ?

Traits can be lost for a variety of reasons. You use it or lose it. If we had no more need for better eyesight to survive, we wouldn't continue having them. The reason is, if something like that isn't being used, then it isn't worth for the cells to continue to invest time and energy to develop such biological structures but also maintain it. Cells have economies, they are not post-scarcity economies. They have finite resources and time to work with, so they must spend it wisely and accordingly or else the organism they make up won't survive.

To be honest I'm pretty sure humans never had any of those traits, particularly all of them at once. Not to mention, they are relative, and at that they would have been relative to the nearest predator. The larger point still stands, however. What we do have that separates us from the rest of our cousins is a far superior brain (which are enormously expensive in terms of cell economies) and thumbs.

Not to mention such subjective terms of traits raise questions like: superior to what? You only need to be better at surviving, and procreating.



Well, I'm not so sure humans had any of those skills, so the question is fairly irrelevant. You don't seem to understand how something can lose a trait.

Let's say you had good running skills, and you could outrun a predator that was also good at running. If that predator dies off, and you don't need to run at a high speed to run anymore, are you going to keep that trait? Nope, you won't. There's no need to devote the resources to develop and maintain the muscles and other associated structures that allow you to run so fast, if there isn't a reason to run that fast anymore. This will happen over time, as previously you had to have good running skills to survive, but now that isn't required, so those that couldn't run, will now survive and procreate.

It's a pretty generalized and basic example, but that's how losing a trait works.

Is it rational to believe in evolution that evolution would start from small to large why do we we see it go from small to very large back to small is this evolution in reverse or macro-evolution ?

Evolution is change in organisms, and that change is in terms of survival. One of the silliest and most annoying lines of thinking is assuming there are more 'evolved' forms and 'un-evolved ' forms. In nature, it isn't about a linear progression of better and better organisms each one better (which is a very subjective and human term) than the last. All that matters is survival and how a mutation helps (or doesn't help) an organism survive. A gaining of a trait is not automatically positive and a loss of a trait is not automatically negative. What constitutes that is the degree it allows the organism to survive.

If it was truly Survival of the fittest it would not be humans at the top of the food chain. We were designed to be at the top of the food chain just as the bible states.

Why would humans not be at the top of the food chain? Why isn't intelligence (and opposable thumbs) good enough to put us there?

 

[Montrovant]

Not sure what theory of evolution you subscribe to but yes many believe natural selection is part of evolution.

There has been many scientist who said evolution makes things better. As we become better adapted does that not make us stronger and better with things being added to help us adapt better ?

So what you're saying by random chance humans got bigger brains ? but lost the ability of superior sight,superior strength,superior land speed,superior sense of smell ?

You misread my statement. What I said is not part of the theory of evolution is the intelligence you seem to think drives natural selection, not natural selection itself.

Once again, better in terms of evolution does not necessarily mean better in terms of what humans might want. In terms of selection, what is better is not known until after the fact. Is it better to be stronger, or faster, or more elusive? That depends on the environment. And since evolution is not based on an intelligence directing things, the idea that it must lead to creatures with all of the features you consider positive or beneficial is incorrect.

I don't know if you are asking if human intelligence is random chance based on evolution or the existence/lack of a creator. It could have been random in the sense there was no guarantee intelligence to our extent would develop. It would not be random in the sense that our intelligence was a positive survival/reproduction trait.

As far as losing senses, I honestly don't know. I don't know how acute the senses of the animals we descended from were, nor how strong they were, nor how fast; I don't know if there is some reason those senses or musculature would be incompatible with the features that allow us to have our intelligence.

But look at it throught the eyes of common sense. There are limits to adapting to our enviornment,why ?

If the enviornment forces change there should be no limits.

Look at the giraffe that sucker could have starved out by the time it took for that neck to get longer. Or it could be extinct and easy pray if the sponge in the brain didn't develop quickly because when it went to get a drink of water it would have passed out and been eaten by predators.

The theory makes no sense at all. Genetics and the fossil record is a problem for the theory.

You are looking at is as an all-or-nothing question. It doesn't follow that because a long neck was a positive survival/reproduction trait, a short neck would lead to a dying out of the species. Instead, consider the possibility that a short neck allowed for survival, but the long neck developed over time because it was better for survival/reproduction than the short neck.

 

[Woyzeck]

Not sure what theory of evolution you subscribe to but yes many believe natural selection is part of evolution.

There has been many scientist who said evolution makes things better. As we become better adapted does that not make us stronger and better with things being added to help us adapt better ?

So what you're saying by random chance humans got bigger brains ? but lost the ability of superior sight,superior strength,superior land speed,superior sense of smell ?

You misread my statement. What I said is not part of the theory of evolution is the intelligence you seem to think drives natural selection, not natural selection itself.

Once again, better in terms of evolution does not necessarily mean better in terms of what humans might want. In terms of selection, what is better is not known until after the fact. Is it better to be stronger, or faster, or more elusive? That depends on the environment. And since evolution is not based on an intelligence directing things, the idea that it must lead to creatures with all of the features you consider positive or beneficial is incorrect.

I don't know if you are asking if human intelligence is random chance based on evolution or the existence/lack of a creator. It could have been random in the sense there was no guarantee intelligence to our extent would develop. It would not be random in the sense that our intelligence was a positive survival/reproduction trait.

As far as losing senses, I honestly don't know. I don't know how acute the senses of the animals we descended from were, nor how strong they were, nor how fast; I don't know if there is some reason those senses or musculature would be incompatible with the features that allow us to have our intelligence.

But look at it throught the eyes of common sense. There are limits to adapting to our enviornment,why ?

If the enviornment forces change there should be no limits.

Look at the giraffe that sucker could have starved out by the time it took for that neck to get longer. Or it could be extinct and easy pray if the sponge in the brain didn't develop quickly because when it went to get a drink of water it would have passed out and been eaten by predators.

The theory makes no sense at all. Genetics and the fossil record is a problem for the theory.

The theory makes sense and genetics and the fossil record reinforce it, but your giraffe example shows you don't know much about natural selection.

 

[LOki]

Ruminating upon this some, it occured to me that this scenario I previously posted might be further illustrative of the character of Creation "scientists."

3. Only scientific theories can be called theories. Even a bad scientific theory is still scientific. Any theory espousing the divine, a creator, a supernatural extraterrestrial being some people like to call God is dogmatic in nature and cannot rightly be called a theory because the scientific method cannot be applied.

Well, yes. It's not as if Evolutionists (or any genuine scientist for that matter) do not hold themselves to that same standard. They're not picking on Creationists here, they are using a precise term in a precise manner. No intellectually honest Creationist has a problem with this.

And just to point out how invalid this complaint of John's is, imagine that someone presented this to a group of Creationists, ...

---IMAGE SNIPPED TO SAVE SPACE---​

... and then demanded based upon the faith paradigm that they validate his assertions that all of creation is the result of ancient condensation from the thawing of Niflheim, which begat the giant frost ogre named Ymir. The thawing also begat a cow called Audhumla from which 4 rivers of milk issued that fed Ymir. As Audhumla licked the salty ice blocks, she freed Odin's grandfather. Odin and his brothers killed and butchered Ymir, and from parts of his body created the heavens and the Earth.

I assure you that no Creationist would EVER validate such a story based upon the strength of the presenter's conviction of certainty, and his capacity to stolidly disavow every competing "theory" regardless of it's basis.

Yet imagine that by some twist of Supreme Court jurisprudence, Norse creation "science" was as rendered legitimate Judeo/Christian creation "science."

We would find ourselves in the situation where Dragon, Dr. Drock and I would not only be having this discussion with Youwerecreated, Koshergrl, and MarcATL; the six of us would also be engaged with Yngvarweiftael, Kaetilglr, MákrASG.

Powerful Stuff!

This brave warrior's son completely destroyed those dress wearing Creationists and feeble Evolutionist Poindexters!

Answers in the Eddas--Axes and War Hammers vs Logic and Lambs

Christians and Evolutionists are confused regarding how Ice Giants have indeed been expunged from Midgard (as taught by the Eddas); they have no explanation! Of course we know that Odin promised the end of all Ice Giants; to Christians and Evolutionists, it's INEXPLICABLE!

When will the geeks and grovelers accept that Odin is the ruler and archietect of heaven and earth; that he is the first and greatest of gods, warriors and men?

What? This is ludicrous! How can anybody take this superstitious retard and his fatuous fairy tale seriously?

No one with an atom of intellectual integrity would honestly demand an explanation for the absence of Ice Giants that never existed; or claim that the absence of such an explanation is evidence of confusion.

Fucking intellectually dishonest retards!

This article by a world famous expert on cud chewing hares and unicorns, proves that deoxyribonucleic acid, if it were real, could only harm cells--not control their growth.

"Richard Dawkins is the Devil" by Skeeter Pigknuckle Phd., Flat Earth Geology and Baraminology
Levitican Bible University of Creation Science, Truck-Stop, and Tractor Pull

--6,382 PAGES SNIPPED--​

I don't know why these Odin bashers are such dumb sissies.

LOki, you're just a stupid trickster, you prove you brush your teeth every day!

Youwerecreated, you cry like a girl ... why don't you go fish for some men?

HAHA! Kaetilglr, you are so right! But then, what else would you expect from perfumed ivory tower book learners and sheep herding boot-lickers? ROFL!

Yng, you're so dreamy ... lets have tall blonde babies together!

VALHALLA!!!!!1111!!!!one1111!!!!

 

[LOki]

The truth is there is no way non-life can produce life.

Is that really so? Enlighten us then; if your Creator is a living being, then please describe the mechanism by which His life was produced from non-life; if your Creator is not living, then by what mechanism did He bring about life?

There is no way a non-thinking process can create intelligence.

Well, I have to admit that you're strong evidence of this.

You want someone who is finite explain somone who is infinite. You want someone that at best may live 80 years to someone that has always been.

No. I don't. Please, don't explain your Creator; just don't claim He's an "explanation" for he origin of life. You see, I know you can't explain Him, but if you're going to claim your Creator "explanation" is not exactly the same as saying, "I don't know," then you must do better than to say, "My explanation is not explainable."

This is the exception we die God has no beginning and no end.

This is known as the logical fallacy of "special pleading."

You see,for someone to become intelligent they must first be able to think and reason.

More precisely, someone who is intelligent is able to think effectively and reason. Thinking effectively and reasoning require you to disabuse yourself of both emotional rationalizations and applications of logical fallacies.

 

[LOki]

I would like to try and reason with you evolutionist.

We'd like to reason with you as well. Seriously.

So, though I claim no special expertise nor special status as an authority, I will submit my best understanding to the questions you pose. I hope you'll accept that I'm just attempting to address your questions, and not submitting a comprehensive research paper on the subject. I also hope that you'll allow for correction if I have misunderstood your question or have myself, misspoken.

Fair?

The theory of evolution does not assert or predict that "over time things get better". The theory acknowledges variation (caused by several mechanisms) in genotype and phenotype within a population of individual organisms. The theory asserts that organisms with greater inheritable fitness to survive (i.e. advantaged) to reproduce in their environment, will more likely pass that fitness and their other heritable traits to their progeny; those less fit (i.e. disadvantaged) will be less likely to pass any inheritable traits.

Illustrative example: If under conditions of some kind of environmental hardship, increased problem solving capability (say, of survival) proved to be so great an advantage to survival that superior land speed, superior eyesight, superior strength, and superior sense of smell became less relevant to fitness, then those organisms less advantaged in problem solving capability are less likely to make relevant inheritable contributions to future generations--even such contributions as those you cite.

If, for say genetic or morphological, reasons the traits you cite (call them physical) are incompatible with the expression, heritability, or adaptive function of increased problem solving capability (call them reasoning), then the shift away from those physical traits will be dramatic in the population possessing the reasoning traits.

In any case, this is not to say that the population possessing the superior physical traits will necessarily disappear; it's not as if those (physical) traits have no survival value in any environment. Particularly in the cases of resource abundance or where competition is not a selective pressure in their environment. These two populations could continue to co-exist and never experience noteworthy divergence. But where less fit populations find themselves in direct competition for (scarce) survival resources with more fit populations, the less fit will suffer for it and their genetic legacy necessarily with them.

Is it rational to believe in evolution that evolution would start from small to large why do we we see it go from small to very large back to small is this evolution in reverse or macro-evolution ?

Yes. The direction of evolution is not in any way defined by "big to small", "small to big", "slow to fast", "weak to strong", "stupid to smart", or any other hierarchy of value we place on such things; the direction of evolution is toward greater net fitness to successfully beget progeny. If environmental conditions (including the other organisms living in that environment) favor one size variant over another, for whatever reason--it does not have to have anything to do with size (maybe they can hide better, or maybe they're stronger, or maybe they're faster, or maybe have a better sense of smell, or maybe they are smarter)--such net fitness (and the inheritable traits of those who posses it) is more likely to prevail in later generations.

Helpful?

The lack of punctuation makes these questions a little unclear, so you'll have to just be patient if my responses don't address your intended requests.

So things don't get better with time we ended with the human did we get better then our ancestors ?

What do you mean, "get better with time"? Get better from what? Or get better how? And "things?"

What do you mean, "we ended with the human"? What end? what (which?) human?

What do you mean, "did we get better then our ancestors?" Better from the end(?), and then our ancestors got better from the end?

Maybe it's not just the punctuation but also perhaps an invalid presumption making the question confusing. A preconception you might be applying is that there's some kind of will to purpose included in the theory of evolution; that there's some kind of abstract goal or metaphysical purpose (like "perfection") that Evolutionists claim "getting better" serves--there isn't.

If we start with one cell and wind up with a dinosaur what just happened ?

Sounds like magic. Sounds like Creation. Sounds nothing like the theory of evolution.

There's nothing in the theory of evolution, or in what evolutionists claim that explains some circumstance where a single-celled organism just "poofs" into a dinosaur.

Again, the confusion might be your punctuation, of it might be an invalid preconception you're applying.

If we don't go from less complex to more complex why does your side say we did ?

This is a weird question. If the development of living organisms DID NOT generally progress from less complex organisms to more complex organisms, then I have no idea why Evolutionists would say that it did.

The thing is YWC, it's Creationists that actually claim that living organisms didn't generally progress from less complex organisms to more complex organisms.

The valid logic applied to the analysis of the verifiable evidence suggests that the development of living organisms DID generally progress from less complex organisms to more complex organisms; and the Claims of Evolutionists are consistent with that.

Was this helpful?

 

[LOki]

Not sure what theory of evolution you subscribe to but yes many believe natural selection is part of evolution.

There has been many scientist who said evolution makes things better. As we become better adapted does that not make us stronger and better with things being added to help us adapt better ?

So what you're saying by random chance humans got bigger brains ? but lost the ability of superior sight,superior strength,superior land speed,superior sense of smell ?

You misread my statement. What I said is not part of the theory of evolution is the intelligence you seem to think drives natural selection, not natural selection itself.

Once again, better in terms of evolution does not necessarily mean better in terms of what humans might want. In terms of selection, what is better is not known until after the fact. Is it better to be stronger, or faster, or more elusive? That depends on the environment. And since evolution is not based on an intelligence directing things, the idea that it must lead to creatures with all of the features you consider positive or beneficial is incorrect.

I don't know if you are asking if human intelligence is random chance based on evolution or the existence/lack of a creator. It could have been random in the sense there was no guarantee intelligence to our extent would develop. It would not be random in the sense that our intelligence was a positive survival/reproduction trait.

As far as losing senses, I honestly don't know. I don't know how acute the senses of the animals we descended from were, nor how strong they were, nor how fast; I don't know if there is some reason those senses or musculature would be incompatible with the features that allow us to have our intelligence.

But look at it throught the eyes of common sense. There are limits to adapting to our enviornment,why ?

If the enviornment forces change there should be no limits.

Look at the giraffe that sucker could have starved out by the time it took for that neck to get longer. Or it could be extinct and easy pray if the sponge in the brain didn't develop quickly because when it went to get a drink of water it would have passed out and been eaten by predators.

The theory makes no sense at all. Genetics and the fossil record is a problem for the theory.

This is the argument refuting Dr. Spetners "nonrandom evolutionary hypothesis" which, incidentally, also fails to "[Shatter] the Modern Theory of Evolution."

 

[Photonic]

I figure I would inject a little sanity into this thread if I may. I suggest taking a long look at this particular list of logical fallacies.


5 Logical Fallacies That Make You Wrong More Than You Think | Cracked.com

I know I've posted it in other places, but it's just so damn applicable.

 

[LOki]

But look at it throught the eyes of common sense. There are limits to adapting to our enviornment,why ?

This sounds like philosophy ... metaphysics. Evolutionists (and scientists in general) do no subscribe to the notion of a subjective reality, but rather an objective reality. An objective reality is fundamentally independent of one's perceptions and wishes. The practical implication of this is that in reality, things are not (un)real simply out of the strength of desire for them to be (un)real.

Illustrative example: When some sad fellow has it in his mind that he can in fact of reality fly unassisted from the top of a skyscraper, there is no mechanism of objective reality by which that act of will can manifest itself as unassisted human flight ... IOW, he will hit the pavement like so many jars of strawberry preserves.

So my response to the question of why there are limits to adapting to our environment, is that no amount of desire, or sincerity of belief will alter the objective reality that we are constrained to such a nature in reality. We can't wish ourselves into being angels simply by wishing wings on to ourselves.

If the enviornment forces change there should be no limits.

I don't think there's evidence of a will to purpose that supports the notion that the environment forces anything.

Organisms must interact (even if passively) with the environment to survive. The success of those interactions (in terms of survival to reproduce) has a profound impact upon the likelihood that a survivor's heritable traits will be passed on to subsequent generations.

Any change in an organism's environment could be entirely lethal, or beneficial or irrelevant as far as individual organisms are concerned; these organisms have no control over the inheritability of their traits, or the adaptive value of those traits, or which traits are passed to their progeny--they can only fail or succeed in capitalizing upon their traits to achieve the end of surviving to reproduce.

Success means greater likelihood of adaptive traits being passed (along with everything else) to their progeny; failure means none of their traits are passed on.

Look at the giraffe that sucker could have starved out by the time it took for that neck to get longer.

Why?

This seems to suggest to me that you're of the impression that individual organisms evolve; gaining inheritable traits through effort of will. It wouldn't be the first time I've met a Creationist operating from this misapprehension of what evolutionists claim.

And as far as the animals starving is concerned; while it seems plainly obvious that longer necked individuals would likely enjoy some competitive advantage over shorter-necked members of the population, I see nothing that should prevent shorter necked animals from browsing the vegetation they could reach--unless of course, the longer necked animals ate all that vegetation as well; rendering the shorter-necked animals unlikely to survive to reproduce and pass their shorter-necked variant to subsequent generations.

Or it could be extinct and easy pray if the sponge in the brain didn't develop quickly because when it went to get a drink of water it would have passed out and been eaten by predators.

I'm not familiar with this "sponge" you reference, but the giraffe's circulatory system certainly exhibits a number of advantageous features that prevent various hydraulic failures that such a creature is likely to be subject to--so I'd say your hypothesis is strong; that the population of animals that passed out for lack of such features were less likely to pass that lack on to progeny for reasons (among others, I'm sure) you cite.

The theory makes no sense at all.

I am failing to see your logic; like I said, your hypothesis seems strong.

Genetics and the fossil record is a problem for the theory.

Untrue. Genetics and the fossil record entirely support the theory of evolution, and are rather problematic for those hypotheses resting upon notions that a will to purpose selected those traits organisms find adaptive.

 

[koshergrl]

You realize you ended that post with a logical fallacy. Evolution doesn't prove or disprove the theory that a being created evolution itself, or life, you nimrod.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No one is commenting on DNA found from a supposedly 70 million year old dinosaur knowing the decay rate for DNA that is a problem for many modern theories.

The lack of transitional fossils. There is no gradualism in the fossil record as has been admitted by evolutionist.

We know genetics from parents and Grand parents determine the offspring.

Variations in families can easily be attributed to interbreeding and information already present the same can be said for adapting that the ability was already present.

The only positive mutations that evolutionist point to only helps with biological issues helping in adapting not morphological changes.

Saying a mutation caused a morphological change is no different then saying God created it like that.

Every group of organisms exp mutations but we do not see new families arising.

There is no evidence that intelligence can arise from non-intelligence.

There is no evidence that non-life can produce life.

There is so much bacteria we should be seeing new species contantly arising.

If random mutations can cause positive morhological changes ,why can't we point to these positive morphological changes and why is there far more harmful mutations then positive mutations.

We see it time and time again that two parents produce what their genetics say the offspring will be.

Every family of organisms produce offspring like themselves. They only have genetic data to produce what they are. This has been observed through selective breeding. Through this selective breeding we can see change with the very first offspring from cross breeding as well.

There are no transitional fossils linking the precambrian to the cambrian. Fact is we see many fossils dating way back in time according to evolutionist but yet with all the mutations they exp they show no morphological changes at all with the same organisms today.

Gradualism has to be shown for macro-evolution to be a viable theory.

Because organisms have the ability to adapt does not mean they have the ability to over time change into a new destinct kind from the family they belong to.

Variations in families are simply due to either being created as they appear,or interbreeding from the genetic data that is already present and it can't be proven otherwise.

Breeders and farmers can rely on genetics to produce what they want, i don't understand why evolutionist can't see the obvious.

 

[Photonic]

You realize you ended that post with a logical fallacy. Evolution doesn't prove or disprove the theory that a being created evolution itself, or life, you nimrod.

Evolution is compatible with a deity, it ISN'T compatible however with bible literalism.

 

[Woyzeck]

No one is commenting on DNA found from a supposedly 70 million year old dinosaur knowing the decay rate for DNA that is a problem for many modern theories.

Why exactly is it a problem, precisely?

The lack of transitional fossils. There is no gradualism in the fossil record as has been admitted by evolutionist.

Lol, yeah okay buddy. We have a long list of transitional fossils. There are far more than that site shows, especially once you understand what conceptually constitutes a transitional fossil.

We know genetics from parents and Grand parents determine the offspring.

Okay...? Parental genetics having a hand in your own is not exactly a new idea in the field of biology. We all were taught punnet squares and the work of Gregor Mendel in high school biology class.

Variations in families can easily be attributed to interbreeding and information already present the same can be said for adapting that the ability was already present.

Except we know for a fact the information isn't present. Mutations are caused by errors in DNA code, when the DNA is replicating itself. That causes new sequences of DNA, ones that are only marginally different than the parent, but still different. If the same information was constantly floating around the gene pool, we'd end up with clones during reproduction.

The only positive mutations that evolutionist point to only helps with biological issues helping in adapting not morphological changes.

Wouldn't the appearance of bigger heads in our evolutionary past to accommodate bigger brains count as a 'morphological' change?

Saying a mutation caused a morphological change is no different then saying God created it like that.

Not really, we can see and study mutations, not so much for God. We know mutations cause change in organism, we can see DNA replication in action.

So I'm not sure why you want to throw in the God bit. It doesn't really fit in at all.

Every group of organisms exp mutations but we do not see new families arising.

What the devil is a 'family' precisely? We have in fact seen the rise of new species, both in nature and laboratory experiments.

There is no evidence that intelligence can arise from non-intelligence.

There is no evidence that non-life can produce life.

Your straying into abiogenesis, something which evolution keeps mum about. These two questions are essentially the same, because other organisms have some degree of intelligence as well, even if they may not be able to solve calculus or have some other human marker of 'intelligence.'

There is so much bacteria we should be seeing new species contantly arising.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. We do see new species arising at the cell and germ level. You've heard of superbugs, correct? Strong strains of diseases that can withstand medicine? That's natural selection in action.

If random mutations can cause positive morhological changes ,why can't we point to these positive morphological changes and why is there far more harmful mutations then positive mutations.

Well, we can. In fact I just gave an example. You just tend to ignore anything contrary to your view, and then give a flimsy reason to ignoring it. The other question has no relevance to what you're trying to get at, but it's good to note we call them errors in DNA transcription.

We see it time and time again that two parents produce what their genetics say the offspring will be.

Except their not exactly the same as your parents, in biology that's called a clone. You still don't seem to understand mutations or even how things evolve, or even the time it takes.

Every family of organisms produce offspring like themselves. They only have genetic data to produce what they are. This has been observed through selective breeding. Through this selective breeding we can see change with the very first offspring from cross breeding as well.

Like themselves, but not an exact copy. If you have set of parents A, and they have children B. Well, B is certainly very much like A, but B has it's differences in DNA as well. B has kids called C, and C certainly resembles B, but still has differences as well. Let's skip ten or twenty generations, all the way down to some descendents, we'll call them Z. Z certainly resembles its parents, Y, but have marked differences.

Now, how much resembles does Z have to A? This is how evolution and genetics work, the answer is they won't resembles each other, because the original DNA is slightly altered every time. Eventually it won't resemble what you started with, because so much has changed. This is why if you take a rabbit from now, and look at a rabbit from hundreds of thousands of years ago, they won't look quite the same. And if you could look at a rabbit from that many years into the future, it still wouldn't be an exact copy of a rabbit from today.

There's really good analogy a scientist filmed. He made a straight line, and then walked around the city he was in and found someone to trace the straight line. Then he asked someone else to trace the line the first guy he asked made. And then he found someone else to trace the line the second guy made. And so on and so on. Eventually by the end, the line didn't resemble anything close to the original straight line.

There are no transitional fossils linking the precambrian to the cambrian. Fact is we see many fossils dating way back in time according to evolutionist but yet with all the mutations they exp they show no morphological changes at all with the same organisms today.

There aren't many for a variety reasons, chief among them being that rocks from the Precambrian go through metamorphic changes.

Gradualism has to be shown for macro-evolution to be a viable theory.

Well, that or Stephen Jay Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium. Richard Dawkins is one of the people who take the side of gradualism.

Also, evolution is the theory as a whole, macro-evolution is just a large span of time. It's not an individual theory in itself. So your quaint little "it's either this or this!" doesn't really have any water.

Because organisms have the ability to adapt does not mean they have the ability to over time change into a new destinct kind from the family they belong to.

Speciation occurs, it has been proven. Stop wasting my time repeating the same buggery nonsense.

Variations in families are simply due to either being created as they appear,or interbreeding from the genetic data that is already present and it can't be proven otherwise.

Interbreeding as a theory doesn't hold up biologically, I've knocked it down before. Could you please stop being a broken record?

 

[koshergrl]

You realize you ended that post with a logical fallacy. Evolution doesn't prove or disprove the theory that a being created evolution itself, or life, you nimrod.

Evolution is compatible with a deity, it ISN'T compatible however with bible literalism.

Meh. Says you.