The Big Bad Question.

Evidence for evolution is everywhere.

Take agriculture for example. Every single agricultural animal or plant is completely man made. Man has shaped agricultural animals and plants into the form that suits him in a very short time.

Look at 200 year old paintings of dairy cows. They look completely different to today. Dogs have been bred into 1000's of completely different looking breeds.

Best example I see is grain crops. Man has selected grain to hang on the head indefinately. Grain will hang there until it's shot. It's lost it's chance to reproduce. In nature, grain should drop from the head as soon as it's ripe, in order to reproduce.



If man has changed animals and plants so much in just generations, why is it so hard to think that nature couldn't do the same in millions of years?

See ya's.

TC,

You probably wont like this reply, but please dont hold it against me (I remember you got upset with me another time). I love your farm posts. Just bought a farm myself.

In regards to the dogs, cows etc. We agree totally there is a lot of breeding, but at the end of the day, all the different dogs (tall dog, short dogs, hairly dogs, short haired dogs, etc etc) are still dogs. The same with cows. Many types and sizes...........but all still cows. About the only instance I know of two animals creating a different animal is a mule (horse crossed with donkey) and they cant reproduce.

So in my lifetime, I have never seen anything change into anything else other than what it orginally was.

I get given examples of evolution, like a crow living in the city. A bush bird has evolved so it can survive in the city. At the end of the day, its still just a crow.

I know people pull fossils out of the ground and say this turned to this. If anyone wants to believe them, thats fine. I just try and base my conclusions on simple things I can experience,witness, and see for myself.

Cheers
mono
 
I just try and base my conclusions on simple things I can experience,witness, and see for myself.

Wow! I just can't imagine what it would be like to truly live like that.

So you don't believe any history at all? Because obviously you can't experience,witness, and see it for yourself?
 
Wow! I just can't imagine what it would be like to truly live like that.

So you don't believe any history at all? Because obviously you can't experience,witness, and see it for yourself?

Not sure how you get that from what I said. I believe in commonsense, and try to find evidence that supports or dispells beliefs.

History has plenty of evidence to support it, so I have no trouble believing it, unless I ever come across something which makes me question it.
 
another long reply - sorry, but the question was asked.

Hi Bill, actually yes...

this is going to rock your socks - most creation scientists agree with most of Darwin's hypothesis in regards to both of those examples.

you see, what he was talking about there is selection - not evolution.

selection is a very important part of the theory of evolution, but it is not evolution. One of Darwins most strident modern day followers, eminent biologist L. Harrision Matthews spoke about the peppered moths in the foreword of the 1971 edition of the Origin of the Species. He states that the Peppered Moths observation showed natural selection, but NOT evolution in action.

Non-evolutionary scientists have long followed the process of natural selection. Edward Blyth (a noted creationist) discussed these concepts of natural selection some 25yrs before Darwin.

If you really want to push the moth barrow - you will note that the moths changed from light to dark then back to light again. this means that there is no net change in the species, just a local adaptation to current surroundings.

The finches are the same...this is a somewhat simplistic example but say some finches ended up on islands in which there was a shortage of seeds, but many grubs were living under tree bark. In a population with much variation, some will have longer, some shorter, beaks than average. Those birds carrying more of the ‘long-beak’ information could survive on those grubs, and thus would be more likely to pass the information on to their descendants, while the others would die out.

Princeton zoology professor Peter Grant in 1991 published some results of an intensive 18-year study of all the Galápagos finches during which natural selection was observed in action. For example, during drought years, as finches depleted the supply of small seeds, selection favoured those with larger, deeper beaks capable of getting at the remaining large seeds and thus surviving, which shifted the population in that direction. While that is not very surprising, nor profound, the speed at which these changes took places was most interesting. At that observed rate, Grant estimates, it would take only 1,200 years to transform the medium ground finch into the cactus finch, for example. To convert it into the more similar large ground finch would take only some 200 years.

please note that none of the described features creation of new genes by mutation (evolutionary theory) it is simply an adaptation of species that is demonstrated to occur over a few centuries, not millions of years.


hope this helps some...please note that well read Christians/Creationists generally don't deny the scientific knowledge or person that was Charles Darwin - he was an eminent naturalist, geologist and explorer. We just completely disagree with one aspect - take out his evolutionary works and you are left with a genius of a man whose writings are perhaps unparalleled in most fields of biology and geology etc.


cheers
UC:D
 
Not sure how you get that from what I said. I believe in commonsense, and try to find evidence that supports or dispells beliefs.

History has plenty of evidence to support it, so I have no trouble believing it, unless I ever come across something which makes me question it.

I must have misunderstood what you wrote. You seemed to be saying that you only believe what you can personally see and experience, so that would be quite limiting imho. Your subsequent post clarifies your position.
 
hope this helps some...please note that well read Christians/Creationists generally don't deny the scientific knowledge or person that was Charles Darwin - he was an eminent naturalist, geologist and explorer. We just completely disagree with one aspect - take out his evolutionary works and you are left with a genius of a man whose writings are perhaps unparalleled in most fields of biology and geology etc.

It seems to me that the basis of the Christian disagreement is due to the fact that it contradicts the bible. It would appear to me that no matter what evidence is presented that Christians would never be able to acknowledge it because to do so would be to admit that they have lived a false belief.

As a side point does anyone know the positions of other religions in relation to evolution, eg buddhism, hinduism etc.

The best thing about the scientific method Over religion is that it does evolve. It doesn't get to a point where it says that "hey, now we know everything" which is what I see happening with religions based on a particular text. The text, whether it be the bible, koran or even dianetics, becomes the one and only source of information for all time. Personally I don't believe that people knew more or were better off thousands of years ago.
 
Hi all,

UC, you seem to be arguing for evolution.

Natural selection is only part of the longer term picture.

The following is from Dr. Robert Rothman
Department of Biological Sciences
Rochester Institute of Technology

who describes what is happening with the Galapagos (Darwin's) finches very well.

The difficulty in identifying the finches is rooted in precisely what makes them so interesting and important - the evolutionary process. If we believe that two species share a common ancestor, then as one traces the species back in time, they should become closer and closer in form. At the branch point, the species should become ambiguous. That is precisely the point at which we find the Darwin's finches. They are in the process of separating, but they haven't completely done so at this point in time. The definition of the term "species" includes the presence of a fertility barrier between individuals of different species. In the case of Darwin's finches, those barriers are not completely formed yet, and there is a certain amount of documented hybridization between species. This also contributes to the ambiguity of the birds.

Comprehensive studies over the past 20 years by the Grants (reviewed in a more palatable, layman form in "The Beak of the Finch") has revealed many interesting lessons about the evolutionary process. Our current understanding of evolution is that new species are born when the population of the ancestor species is split. Once the gene pool is separated, the two populations may be subject to different natural selection pressures, and hence, evolve in separate ways. The splitting of a population followed by subsequent evolution is known as allopatric speciation. At some point, the populations may come back together again, that is, they may become sympatric. A variety of possibilities arise when two populations, born in allopatry become sympatric;

1). If the two populations have not diverged too greatly, then they can simply merge back into a single population
2). The two populations may compete, one eventually becoming extinct.
3). The two populations may avoid competition by specializing. In this case, they would continue to diverge in sympatry.

Evolution takes time, the example of both the pepper moth and Darwins finches are short term changes taught to school children so they can understand the concepts. Multiply those short term changes over eons of time and it becomes easy to understand how the dinosaurs became birds through millions of generations and vast changes in climate and environment.

bye
 
hang on - just going back to that txt website re: the finches - the winds formed by La Nina could EASILY carry a finch 900 miles. some birds fly non-stop from siberia to the persian gulf. NON STOP!

There are adverse wind conditions across Ecuador and Peru - we all know them as El Nino and La Nina. El Nino is destructive and haphazard in respect to currents and formations or current, La Nina restores some kind of balance. It is more than feasible that during a changover of conditions any bird could have flown with assistance to the Galapagos or even as far as the Clipperton Atoll.

but once again, in regards to the finches - humans are very impatient and short sighted. we expect to see results NOW - or be able to find examples of results. so, if finches take 1000 years to evolve into something slightly different, then does that dispel the proof that this doesn't happen for this generation of scientists...?

butterfly/tree effect again.
 
Hi all,

UC, you seem to be arguing for evolution.

Natural selection is only part of the longer term picture.


no mate - i am agreeing with many of the main points of Natural Selection - again, that is completely separate from evolution.

the finches and the moths don't change into dinosaurs or humans or anything else, they just display different characteristics WITHIN the same Genus.

remember the classification tree:
Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species


all you are demonstrating with these examples is variations within the lowest branch of the classification tree - at most you are describing the creation of a new species through breeding and natural selection. This is not evolution. Evolution attempts to evidence connections in the top two or three classifications through gene mutations etc.

Given that the missing link is still missing - they can't prove the theory. There is not one shred of evidence anywhere within the animal kingdom, nor has there ever been one fossil found that shows a link or change between two different animals. If there were billions of years of history and evolution is true - there should then be fossils popping up everywhere showing links between different classes of animalia.

even in the example you posted, which ironically refers to the same study as my post - does not provide any evidence of one animal turning into another - it is merely natural selection. at the end of the day they are all still finches - none of them become dinosaurs.


The problem is too many people seem to think that Natural Selection is Evolution...it is not. It is only a very small part of the evolutionary theory and does not provide any evidence that a lizard became a human. It only shows that through environmental factors and time, a species can ADAPT - not become an entirely new animal. This is where the science gets muddy...because natural selection is true - it MUST follow that one species can turn into something else??? again, show me the direct evidence.

If the finches or moths had turned into cats and dogs, then perhaps you may have some evidence.

there is no difference between these two examples and what dog and cat breeders do every day. But even they can't turn a cat into a horse.
 
Multiply those short term changes over eons of time and it becomes easy to understand how the dinosaurs became birds through millions of generations and vast changes in climate and environment.

Dinosaurs became birds? This is the sort of statement that would make me say........hang on a minute.......could that be right.

This evoultion idea seems to imply everything evolved perfectly. If a bird evolved with its wings not working properly quick smart, it would be toast. Everyone seems to think every creature evolved perfectly with 2 eyes, 2 ears, a mouth, 2 legs, 2 wings, a stomach etc. If a creature evolved with just one part missing, chances are it wouldnt survive. Anyway, I guess they all just evolved perfectly.

For the record, I believe in Dinosaurs, but dont beleive they evolved into anything else.

Cheers
mono
 
Last edited:
Im not religious in that sense, I believe in a 'higher power' and there is more to the universe than we might think, we are miniscule in the scheme of an ever expanding infinite universe, to me, religion creates wars, if there were none, I believe the world would be a better place, I think about priests assulting altar boys, in the early days they could get away with this by hiding behind their faith and instructing the children not to talk so to speak, burning innocent folk alive for being 'whitches' sink or swim? this would prevent people doing certain things by a different way of law.
The bible 'could've' been a novel written at the time, no one knows exactly, in that case, who would be the worlds most famous author of all time?

I dont knock my beliefs onto others, just saying what I think.

I believe life is what you make it, I dont talk to a higher being at dinner every night and thank him for what Ive been given.
 
Dinosaurs became birds? This is the sort of statement that would make me say........hang on a minute.......could that be right.

This evoultion idea seems to imply everything evolved perfectly. If a bird evolved with its wings not working properly quick smart, it would be toast. Everyone seems to think every creature evolved perfectly with 2 eyes, 2 ears, a mouth, 2 legs, 2 wings, a stomach etc. If a creature evolved with just one part missing, chances are it wouldnt survive. Anyway, I guess they all just evolved perfectly.

For the record, I believe in Dinosaurs, but dont beleive they evolved into anything.

Cheers
mono

have you seen the similarities between a Jurassic-era bipedal dinosaur skeleton and a bird skeleton? any joker can see the two are related - and can be proved through it's EVOLUTION right through the Cretaceous and Paleogene Periods right into the Neogene period where evidence of the first "bird" bird appeared.

the time between these two periods is approximately 180 million years.

butterfly/tree effect again.
 
Dinosaurs became birds? This is the sort of statement that would make me say........hang on a minute.......could that be right.

This evoultion idea seems to imply everything evolved perfectly. If a bird evolved with its wings not working properly quick smart, it would be toast. Everyone seems to think every creature evolved perfectly with 2 eyes, 2 ears, a mouth, 2 legs, 2 wings, a stomach etc. If a creature evolved with just one part missing, chances are it wouldnt survive. Anyway, I guess they all just evolved perfectly.

For the record, I believe in Dinosaurs, but dont beleive they evolved into anything.

Cheers
mono

I don't know where you got the perfectly idea from, the idea of perfection sounds like an idea out of the bible.

Loads of species have come and gone over the years. There is no such thing as a perfect species.
 
Side Point...

Ethann:
As a side point does anyone know the positions of other religions in relation to evolution, eg buddhism, hinduism etc.

Certainly not an expert, speaking only from my time in Thailand and self education of Buddhism and talking to Buddhist friends...I am at a very basic level.

My understanding is it, (Buddhism) is non theistic, (belief in God/Gods, revealed to humankind)...there is no desire/need for supreme being/creator....it does not refute or deny supreme being in one sense, just not in revelation form, if you can understand that.

The tin tacs of doctrinal view are more of ....ummm, side issue to the crux of the matter...suffering and how to suffer less.

There is an analogy that was given by Buddha, about the person who had been shot by a poisonous arrow, and was sticking into their body, should time be spent contemplating the origin of the arrow? what it was made from? where the poison was from (on the tip)? who had fired it! who was this person's family? where were they from?....and what should be done with this arrow!

Buddha said not to dwell on all the above, get the arrow out as soon as possible, preventing the poison tip arrow from spreading and flowing the poison through the body...

Removal of the arrow is said to be the substance of teachings of Buddha.

"Suffering I teach and the way out of suffering" (Buddha)

Four Noble Truths the condition, Noble Eightfold Path the treatment...

...and:



"Are you the Messiah?"..asked the student.

"No" ...answered Buddha.

"Then are you a healer?"...

"No" Buddha replied.

"Are you a teacher?"....the student persisted.

"No, I am not a teacher"

"Then what are you?" asked the exasperated student.

"I am awake". Buddha replied.


(Alan Cohen, Are you the Buddha).
 
I don't know where you got the perfectly idea from, the idea of perfection sounds like an idea out of the bible.

Loads of species have come and gone over the years. There is no such thing as a perfect species.

there is also no evidence of an imperfect species...there are no half this/half that species...half bird/half horse??? stuff of legend

any joker can see the two are related - and can be proved through it's EVOLUTION right through the Cretaceous and Paleogene Periods right into the Neogene period where evidence of the first "bird" bird appeared.
perhaps you should get that published in the scientific journals with your evidence...you would be a shoe in for next years nobel prize...

there is no evidence - i will keep coming back to the missing link - show me the hundreds upon thousands of fossils that show the evolution of that dinosaur into a bird...

on a side note, all the this periods and that periods are evolutionist concoctions to give weight to their millions of years theories. There is ample evidence around the world of humans co-existing with dinosaurs.


here is another way of looking at it in terms of the origin of life...

Probability of a DNA molecule forming by chance.
When we apply probability theory to the correct arrangement of a DNA molecule, a similar situation is seen, as per the following quotation:
‘When we come to examine the simplest known organism capable of independent existence, the situation becomes even more fantastic. In the DNA chain of the chromosome of the bacterium E. coli, a favourite organism used by molecular biologists, the [DNA] helix consists of 3-4 million base pairs. These are all arranged in a sequence that is ’meaningful’ in the sense that it gives rise to enzyme molecules which fit the various metabolites and products used by the cell. This unique sequence represents a choice of one out of 102,000,000 alternative ways of arranging the bases! We are compelled to conclude that the origin of the first life was a unique event, which cannot be discussed in terms of probability.’
Notice that this refers only to the correct arrangement of already formed bases. Harold J. Morowitz, Professor of Biophysics at Yale University, has taken into account the covalent bond energies required to actually form such a DNA molecule. He arrives at a probability figure for the spontaneous formation of one complete bacterium of Escherichia coli in the history of the universe, of less than one chance in 10 to the power 100 billion (which can be written 10-100,000,000,000).

Such numbers are far too large for most people to comprehend. However, the late Sir Fred Hoyle, who was Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University and was not a Christian, illustrated the point this way: ’Now imagine 1050 blind persons [that’s 100,000 billion billion billion billion billion people—standing shoulder to shoulder, they would more than fill our entire planetary system] each with a scrambled Rubik cube and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form.

You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling [random variation] of just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order. (Emphasis added.)

Another of Professor Hoyle’s very expressive analogies is that the chance that even the simplest self-reproducing life forms might have emerged in this way (i.e. by evolutionary processes) is comparable with the chance that ‘a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.
 
. There is ample evidence around the world of humans co-existing with dinosaurs.

Other than modern day crocodiles - if we define Dinosaurs as any of a group (Dinosauria) of extinct often very large chiefly terrestrial carnivorous or herbivorous reptiles of the Mesozoic era, please post links or copies of the 'ample evidence'

My understaning is that there was 65,000,000 years between the last dinosaur and the first humanoid. (defined as a being that has the characteristics of any species of primate mammals comprising of living persons and their ancestors; First Humans)

And for Monopy

see attached
 

Attachments

  • l_034_01_l.jpg
    l_034_01_l.jpg
    54.5 KB · Views: 55
mmm, Might have been a few failed flights there! Who would be a dinosour turning into a bird. Is this flying caper supposed to be easy?
 
no mate - i am agreeing with many of the main points of Natural Selection - again, that is completely separate from evolution.

the finches and the moths don't change into dinosaurs or humans or anything else, they just display different characteristics WITHIN the same Genus.

remember the classification tree:
Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species


all you are demonstrating with these examples is variations within the lowest branch of the classification tree - at most you are describing the creation of a new species through breeding and natural selection. This is not evolution. Evolution attempts to evidence connections in the top two or three classifications through gene mutations etc.

Given that the missing link is still missing - they can't prove the theory. There is not one shred of evidence anywhere within the animal kingdom, nor has there ever been one fossil found that shows a link or change between two different animals. If there were billions of years of history and evolution is true - there should then be fossils popping up everywhere showing links between different classes of animalia.

even in the example you posted, which ironically refers to the same study as my post - does not provide any evidence of one animal turning into another - it is merely natural selection. at the end of the day they are all still finches - none of them become dinosaurs.


The problem is too many people seem to think that Natural Selection is Evolution...it is not. It is only a very small part of the evolutionary theory and does not provide any evidence that a lizard became a human. It only shows that through environmental factors and time, a species can ADAPT - not become an entirely new animal. This is where the science gets muddy...because natural selection is true - it MUST follow that one species can turn into something else??? again, show me the direct evidence.

If the finches or moths had turned into cats and dogs, then perhaps you may have some evidence.

there is no difference between these two examples and what dog and cat breeders do every day. But even they can't turn a cat into a horse.

UC, thanks for the very interesting details.

I may add that evolutionists love laying out a lot of skeletons and show the subtle differences between them as proving their points that incremental evolution was in play, such as comparing the skeletons of apes, monkeys, chimpanzees with humans and saying there is 'closeness' and relatedness. There is also optimism from comparing DNAs of these animals with humans to show that they are close except for some small percentage of difference. Somehow evolutionists indulgently ignore the logical query; the animals are here where are the missing links between all these animals?

The fact is the slightest variation in DNA or molecular structure make a world of difference between organisms. Also, evolution by random natural selection seem to settle on stable biological forms and not others.
 
Back
Top