It is impossible to believe in Evolution and not be a racist

[Zantetsuken]

So basically you want to witness magic? If we witnessed one species magically turn into another in our short lifetime then the theory of evolution is wrong. Evolution takes many many many generations. We have seen the same species of lizard spread and evolve until they can no longer breed. Is that still considered the same species?

Do you accept plate tectonics? they have never been witnessed.
Did you accept the existence of atoms before they were observed?


So basically if there is a crime scene where a murder has taken place, we have finger print evidence, DNA, murder weapon etc. Should we dismiss all the evidence because we didn't OBSERVE the murder taking place?

Evolution has DNA, Embryo, Fossil, Gene and MORE evidence to support the theory. Yet that is not enough for you, you want to witness a MIRACLE!

Absolutely it is the same species. And your crime analogy makes no sense in the context of this discussion. In your murder case, you've already collected all the evidence needed. In evolution, the most important piece of evidence is still missing.

The fossil record contains an event known as the Cambrian Explosion. It's a sudden, unexplainable appearance of a great number of groups of animals. Darwin wrote about this phenomenon in The Origin of Species. "If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory to descent with slow modification though natural selection". So I cannot accept the fossil record as support for the theory of evolution.

Darwin says such an event would kill his theory, yet it happened. How do you reconcile that? If evolution happens over many many many generations, how can so many groups of animals come into existence in the same period? All I'm trying to do here is dispel the myth that evolution is founded on science and fact. You said it yourself. Providing the key piece of evidence that would prove Darwin's theory would be a miracle, so it takes just as much faith for you to believe in evolution as it does for me to believe in God.

[Zantetsuken]

you can disagree with evolution after you understand what the evidence is.

A ridiculous response. I am giving you specific, indisputable instances where the theory of evolution breaks down and you are giving me a list of words and calling it evidence.

DNA: How exactly does DNA support the theory of evolution? How does the existence of DNA disprove the existence of God?
Fossil: I already debunked that one.
Embryo: What does this even mean?

I'll make the effort to understand the evidence when you do.

[Palem]

Absolutely it is the same species. And your crime analogy makes no sense in the context of this discussion. In your murder case, you've already collected all the evidence needed. In evolution, the most important piece of evidence is still missing.

The fossil record contains an event known as the Cambrian Explosion. It's a sudden, unexplainable appearance of a great number of groups of animals. Darwin wrote about this phenomenon in The Origin of Species. "If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory to descent with slow modification though natural selection". So I cannot accept the fossil record as support for the theory of evolution.

Darwin says such an event would kill his theory, yet it happened. How do you reconcile that? If evolution happens over many many many generations, how can so many groups of animals come into existence in the same period? All I'm trying to do here is dispel the myth that evolution is founded on science and fact. You said it yourself. Providing the key piece of evidence that would prove Darwin's theory would be a miracle, so it takes just as much faith for you to believe in evolution as it does for me to believe in God.

The Cambrian Explosion wasn't numerous species all starting into life at once. The evolutions did happen rapidly, but such rapid evolution has been seen at other times in history and usually after mass extinctions, which makes sense in terms of evolution.

[Zantetsuken]

The Cambrian Explosion wasn't numerous species all starting into life at once. The evolutions did happen rapidly, but such rapid evolution has been seen at other times in history and usually after mass extinctions, which makes sense in terms of evolution.

Do you have a link or something about other instances of rapid evolution after mass extinction? I can't find any good sources. But the Cambrian Explosion, and resulting rapid evolutions do make perfect sense if you consider that it was caused by the flooding of the Earth chronicled in Genesis. In such a rapidly changing global environment, rapid adaptations would be necessary for survival.

But this argument can be settled instantly if someone here provides a single observed example of one species evolving into another. Without that piece of evidence, evolution should not be accepted as fact, nor should it be considered to be founded on science. The fact is, evolution has never been anything more than a theory, one that has not been sufficiently proven in the last 150 years. People claiming that evolution is fact do so purely out of faith, not science.

EDIT: Let me be clear. I absolutely subscribe to evolution in the sense that species adapt over time to survive in changing environments. But I cannot subscribe to the kind of evolution discussed in this thread, that humans (and all other animals) evolved from single-celled organisms. Nobody in this thread has provided sufficient evidence to that end, and scientific study has yet to provide this evidence in the last 150 years. So if you believe that life as we know it evolved from single-celled organisms, you do so out of faith that one day we'll discover that evidence. You do not do so in the name of facts and science.

[chalsdk]

You obviously do not know evolution very well. Still waiting for those holes mate.

Of course creation is easier to believe. Our imaginations are far less complicated and interesting than the universe we live in. We are not wired to know quantum mechanics, because its hard to understand does that mean it doesn't exist because it is difficult?

Well Genders.. it makes no sence, and the BS you pulled backk there, if your gona pull a retard once more, save us all from replaying.

[Craigus]

Absolutely it is the same species. And your crime analogy makes no sense in the context of this discussion. In your murder case, you've already collected all the evidence needed. In evolution, the most important piece of evidence is still missing.

The fossil record contains an event known as the Cambrian Explosion. It's a sudden, unexplainable appearance of a great number of groups of animals. Darwin wrote about this phenomenon in The Origin of Species. "If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory to descent with slow modification though natural selection". So I cannot accept the fossil record as support for the theory of evolution.

Darwin says such an event would kill his theory, yet it happened. How do you reconcile that? If evolution happens over many many many generations, how can so many groups of animals come into existence in the same period? All I'm trying to do here is dispel the myth that evolution is founded on science and fact. You said it yourself. Providing the key piece of evidence that would prove Darwin's theory would be a miracle, so it takes just as much faith for you to believe in evolution as it does for me to believe in God.

You know the cambrian explosion is over a minimum of a 10 million year period? you try to make it sound like it happened in a day.

[Craigus]

Well Genders.. it makes no sence, and the BS you pulled backk there, if your gona pull a retard once more, save us all from replaying.

Genders do not make sense? please do not tell me you believe everything just popped into existence 6,000 years ago with Adam and Eve? if you are a young earth creationist then you are not worth talking to anymore.

The first organisms to reproduce sexually were bacteria like organisms. There are species today who can reproduce sexually and asexually. There are even animals who can alter their gender depending on what gives them the higher chance of reproducing.

So no, gender did not just "pop up" one day. It's a slow process but even today there are gender altering animals.

[Craigus]

A ridiculous response. I am giving you specific, indisputable instances where the theory of evolution breaks down and you are giving me a list of words and calling it evidence.

DNA: How exactly does DNA support the theory of evolution? How does the existence of DNA disprove the existence of God?
Fossil: I already debunked that one.
Embryo: What does this even mean?

I'll make the effort to understand the evidence when you do.

You gave me a BS example which proved nothing. I AM NOT trying to disprove god. God is IRRELEVANT in this conversation, Get it? you can believe in god and accept Evolution.

Observable examples of evolution taking place right now. Some Lizards are evolving to have longer legs, some are losing them. A reptile in Australia has been found to sometimes lay eggs or sometimes incubate the egg inside itself like mammals. It is using calcium to provide a protective layer around it's egg for protection like a mammal. Here is the link for some examples. http://www.cracked.com/article_19213...-our-eyes.html.

We share DNA with all living things on Earth. We share ~ 98 - 99% DNA with chimpanzees and they are our closest cousin today. We did not directly come from current apes but we came from a common ancestor millions of years ago. We have now evolved our separate ways, We have developed muscle precision compared to their muscle strength so we can handle tools much better than any other animal. Our muscles around our jaw are much smaller to apes which has allowed our skulls to grow bigger and brain size to increase.

Comparative Embryology, our embryo's show similarities with fish, birds and all sorts of animals. You can almost not tell the difference,our embryos have gills!

All living things bio chemistry are incredibly similar. For example: The sequence of amino acids in the haemoglobin of the chimpanzee and humans is identical, indicating a very close genetic relationship.

Anatomy of animals have a lot of comparisons. For example whales have hip bones and the genome which produces limbs, Limbs are also very similar in all living animals.


Fossils and foot prints have shown the slow changes which have taken place over millions of years. NOT ONE fossil has been found in the wrong era. This means a single creation event of all living things we see today is impossible.

We have a tail bone. Why would humans need a tail bone if we never previously have tails?


Was this all worth the effort? probably not.

[Palem]

Well Genders.. it makes no sence, and the BS you pulled backk there, if your gona pull a retard once more, save us all from replaying.

please don't insult other users

[Craigus]

But this argument can be settled instantly if someone here provides a single observed example of one species evolving into another.

Firstly, what do you consider a different species? I would like to think a different species is one who cannot reproduce with another. If that is in fact the case I have an observed example for you.


Speciation in action among Larus seagulls.

Gulls of the genus Larus form an evolutionary ring around the North Pole, which acts as a geographic barrier for their population. Although some have argued that this is technically not an example of a ring species(Liebers et al., 2004), it is certainly an example of speciation in action.


In the image above, one can see the "ring" the sub-species of gulls make around the pole. The herring gull can interbreed with its neighbor, the American herring gull, which can interbreed with its neighbor, the Vega gull, which can interbreed with its neighbor, Birula's gull, which can interbreed with its neighbor, Heruglin's gull, which can interbreed with its neighbor, the Siberian black-backed gull, which can finally interbreed with its neighbor, the lesser black-backed gull. (Image Source 4)


However, the populations of the herring gulls and the lesser black-backed gulls are genetically different enough so that, even though they now live in relatively the same area, they cannot reproduce together. Thus, they can not truly be the same species. As you move west around the pole, the genetic difference in each population becomes slightly greater and greater until the two ends meet, at which we have two separate species.

Examples such as the Larus gulls essentially show all the steps of speciation laid out in a ring. Each population is slightly different from the last, until the two ends meet and these populations are completely different species that will now continue to grow more and more genetically different. To the left you can see the two distinct species of gulls, the herring gull and the lesser black-backed gull. (Image Source 5)

Full Link = http://phylointelligence.com/observed.html

[chalsdk]

Firstly, what do you consider a different species? I would like to think a different species is one who cannot reproduce with another. If that is in fact the case I have an observed example for you.


Speciation in action among Larus seagulls.

Gulls of the genus Larus form an evolutionary ring around the North Pole, which acts as a geographic barrier for their population. Although some have argued that this is technically not an example of a ring species(Liebers et al., 2004), it is certainly an example of speciation in action.


In the image above, one can see the "ring" the sub-species of gulls make around the pole. The herring gull can interbreed with its neighbor, the American herring gull, which can interbreed with its neighbor, the Vega gull, which can interbreed with its neighbor, Birula's gull, which can interbreed with its neighbor, Heruglin's gull, which can interbreed with its neighbor, the Siberian black-backed gull, which can finally interbreed with its neighbor, the lesser black-backed gull. (Image Source 4)


However, the populations of the herring gulls and the lesser black-backed gulls are genetically different enough so that, even though they now live in relatively the same area, they cannot reproduce together. Thus, they can not truly be the same species. As you move west around the pole, the genetic difference in each population becomes slightly greater and greater until the two ends meet, at which we have two separate species.

Examples such as the Larus gulls essentially show all the steps of speciation laid out in a ring. Each population is slightly different from the last, until the two ends meet and these populations are completely different species that will now continue to grow more and more genetically different. To the left you can see the two distinct species of gulls, the herring gull and the lesser black-backed gull. (Image Source 5)

Full Link = http://phylointelligence.com/observed.html

A mouse adaps to new spot to live, and become A mouse.. THIS is not what he is asking for - its adaption, not Darwinian evolution.

A real had been a dog turned into a fish

[Craigus]

A mouse adaps to new spot to live, and become A mouse.. THIS is not what he is asking for - its adaption, not Darwinian evolution.

A real had been a dog turned into a fish

Mouse? you did not even read it! I posted about gulls!

You have no bloody clue about evolution if you think proof is to witness a dog turning into a fish. You clearly have no idea and you should stay out of this conversation and take your ignorance elsewhere until you actually read what I have to say or answer any of my questions.

[chalsdk]

Mouse? you did not even read it! I posted about gulls!

You have no bloody clue about evolution if you think proof is to witness a dog turning into a fish. You clearly have no idea and you should stay out of this conversation and take your ignorance elsewhere until you actually read what I have to say or answer any of my questions.

OR you shall go and have a look on your own link

[Craigus]

OR you shall go and have a look on your own link

So you ignored what I copy and pasted to make it easy for you and instead went to the link and read a different section which I didn't refer to just so you could say "it's still a mouse"?

Things people do in desperation when they cannot just simply admit they do not know.

[chalsdk]

So you ignored what I copy and pasted to make it easy for you and instead went to the link and read a different section which I didn't refer to just so you could say "it's still a mouse"?

Things people do in desperation when they cannot just simply admit they do not know.

You have to know.