Evolution - Possibly Not True

Evolution - Possibly Not True

Graeme

#1Jun 13th, 2006

So, if evolution really happened, then

1.) how did it happen over a period of only 3-3.5 Billion years
2.4-2.9 Billion of which were spent evolving in to the SIMPLEST form of animal life, Then only 420 Million to get to the Oldest form of dinosaur and then an amazing 180 Million years to develop in to humans. It seems the more complicated the changes got the faster they happened... this seems a little counter intuitive doesn't it. Especially seeing that over the past 65000 years (using the same dating methods for everything else) there has been no change in ANY species, including humans, when there should be a change of at least 0.0361% the difference of the very first dinosaurs and humans, and actually more considering the rate of acceleration of evolution.

2.) Where are all the transitional species. Really there should be a continuous line of transitional species, in the order of 1000's of times more numerous than obviously distinct species, and yet we have a clumps of very distinct species. And no transitional forms.... something doesn't seem right here either.

Now those were the easier ones to argue away.

3.) Natural selection before there was something to select. If there was a primordial goop of amino acids, how in the world did they naturally and randomly combine to form even the simplest DNA, which is REQUIRED to replicate. More over, how did the proteins get created without the DNA guiding their creation. Proteins which the cell and DNA depend on to live let alone divide. Never mind the other mechanical devices required to create the proteins.

The fact is evolution doesn't have an answer and really can't answer these questions.

Informational Video on how Cell Division works: --

Kreskin

RE: Evolution - Simply Not True

Jun 13th, 2006

As opposed to creationism whereby the world is 6000 years old and everything was created by magic.

Graeme

RE: Evolution - Simply Not True

Jun 13th, 2006

I didn't say that

why don't you just read, and watch the video, and decide for yourself, if you think it is still so plausable

Kreskin

RE: Evolution - Simply Not True

Jun 13th, 2006

I think it is more plausible than Noah putting 50,000 species on a 450 ft boat.

Graeme

RE: Evolution - Simply Not True

Jun 13th, 2006

lol at least that is conceivable, as opposed to impossible.

but again I didn't say anything about Christianity.

this is not a discussion on Christianity PLEASE, if you want to have that discussion start a thread in the proper forum.

this is about the plausability of evolution.

FiveParadox

RE: Evolution - Simply Not True

Jun 13th, 2006

Hm, that's a good point, Kreskin.

However, I think I'd need a more elaborate description of the ark, and to know, in fact, which type of apple of which Eve partook, in order to come to an informed decision. (An interesting read, Graeme, but I don't agree with the suspicious premise under which the points above are analyzed.)

Kreskin

RE: Evolution - Simply Not True

Jun 13th, 2006

I would like to know where they stored all the food for those animals and who the poor sods were that carried the shovels.

Kreskin

RE: Evolution - Simply Not True

Jun 13th, 2006

So Graeme, if this is not plausible, what is?

Graeme

Re: RE: Evolution - Simply Not True

Jun 13th, 2006

Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadox

(An interesting read, Graeme, but I don't agree with the suspicious premise under which the points above are analyzed.)

The only premise is that evolution couldn't have done those things, it is an obligation of science to analyze the facts and when a theory does not explain the outcome you must either modify the theory or scrap it.

FiveParadox

#10

RE: Evolution Theory

Jun 14th, 2006

Perhaps the development of technology has somewhat "stunted" the evolution of humans? With more advanced technology at our fingertips, it may not be as necessary for humans to evolve, since our technology could be deemed to be a "substitute" for evolution in our case.

Graeme

#11

RE: Evolution - Simply Not True

Jun 14th, 2006

I don't know Kreskin. I am not here to enter the debate about what did happen for us to exist. I am simply raising the huge problems with the widely and blindly accepted theory of how it happend.

Kreskin

#12

Re: RE: Evolution - Simply Not True

Jun 14th, 2006

Quote: Originally Posted by Graeme

Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadox
(An interesting read, Graeme, but I don't agree with the suspicious premise under which the points above are analyzed.)
The only premise is that evolution couldn't have done those things, it is an obligation of science to analyze the facts and when a theory does not explain the outcome you must either modify the theory or scrap it.

Scrap it for what? Name any science theory that has all the answers? There aren't any. Do they all get scrapped?

Graeme

#13

Re: RE: Evolution Theory

Jun 14th, 2006

Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadox

Perhaps the development of technology has somewhat "stunted" the evolution of humans? With more advanced technology at our fingertips, it may not be as necessary for humans to evolve, since our technology could be deemed to be a "substitute" for evolution in our case.

What about all of the other species?

Although I must say I would agree with that possibility, but probably not to the extent of whole 0.0361% of the difference between original dinosaur and original homosapien.

and it really doesn't account for the other problems.

FiveParadox

#14

RE: Evolution Theory

Jun 14th, 2006

However, at this time, the evolution theory is the most probable — and if we were to reject that theory, then we would be left with the assertion that humans were created through "magic", and I don't think that anyone (other than very religious persons) would be prepared to accept that.

Graeme

#15

Re: RE: Evolution Theory

Jun 14th, 2006

Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadox

However, at this time, the evolution theory is the most probable — and if we were to reject that theory, then we would be left with the assertion that humans were created through "magic", and I don't think that anyone (other than very religious persons) would be prepared to accept that.

I don't know about "magic" but you are right in saying the only competing theory right now would be either a creator ie. God, or maybe Aliens from another Universe as Aliens in this Universe would have the same problem as us. Although that would still beg the question of how did they come to be.

Now there is always the option of simply stating "I Don't Know"
we say that about a lot of things. For instance if the Big Bang Happend How Did Something Come Out of Nothing.. the only answer is "I don't know".

Graeme

#16

RE: Evolution - Simply Not True

Jun 14th, 2006

Just because it is something we don't understand... doesn't make it Magic.

Graeme

#17

Re: RE: Evolution - Simply Not True

Jun 14th, 2006

Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin

Quote: Originally Posted by Graeme
Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadox
(An interesting read, Graeme, but I don't agree with the suspicious premise under which the points above are analyzed.)
The only premise is that evolution couldn't have done those things, it is an obligation of science to analyze the facts and when a theory does not explain the outcome you must either modify the theory or scrap it.
Scrap it for what? Name any science theory that has all the answers? There aren't any. Do they all get scrapped?

No we scrap it not because it doesn't have answers but because it has been proven to be false due to certain impossibilities.

Kreskin

#18

Re: Evolution - Simply Not True

Jun 14th, 2006

Quote:

Once isolated, geographically separated groups of individuals become genetically differentiated as a consequence of mutation and other processes, including natural selection. The origin of a species is often a gradual process, so that at first the reproductive isolation between separated groups of organisms is only partial, but it eventually becomes complete. Scientists pay special attention to these intermediate situations, because they help to reconstruct the details of the process and to identify particular genes or sets of genes that account for the reproductive isolation between species.
A particularly compelling example of speciation involves the 13 species of finches studied by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands, now known as Darwin's finches. The ancestors of these finches appear to have emigrated from the South American mainland to the Galápagos. Today the different species of finches on the island have distinct habitats, diets, and behaviors, but the mechanisms involved in speciation continue to operate. A research group led by Peter and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University has shown that a single year of drought on the islands can drive evolutionary changes in the finches. Drought diminishes supplies of easily cracked nuts but permits the survival of plants that produce larger, tougher nuts. Droughts thus favor birds with strong, wide beaks that can break these tougher seeds, producing populations of birds with these traits. The Grants...
Quote has been trimmed

Graeme

#19

RE: Evolution - Simply Not True

Jun 14th, 2006

Intraspecies development is NOT evolution. People have gotten taller over the past 200 years, that doesn't make us a new species.

and regardless, that really doesn't address any of the problems I pointed out.

Graeme

#20

RE: Evolution - Simply Not True

Jun 14th, 2006

Learn how to have a discussion Kreskin, PLEASE. You bore me with your bantor.

Kreskin

#21

Re: RE: Evolution - Simply Not True

Jun 14th, 2006

Quote: Originally Posted by Graeme

Interspecies development is NOT evolution. People have gotten taller over the past 200 years, that doesn't make us a new species.

and regardless, that really doesn't address any of the problems I pointed out.

Do you deny that genetic mutation exists?

Kreskin

#22

Re: RE: Evolution - Simply Not True

Jun 14th, 2006

Quote: Originally Posted by Graeme

Learn how to have a discussion Kreskin, PLEASE. You bore me with your bantor.

That type of response means your losing the argument.

Graeme

#23

Re: RE: Evolution - Simply Not True

Jun 14th, 2006

Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin

Quote: Originally Posted by Graeme
Interspecies development is NOT evolution. People have gotten taller over the past 200 years, that doesn't make us a new species.

and regardless, that really doesn't address any of the problems I pointed out.
Do you deny that genetic mutation exists?

absolutely not, I have seen deformities ( the development of the finches is not genetic mutation btw)

science has never observed a positive mutation.

Kreskin

#24

Re: RE: Evolution - Simply Not True

Jun 14th, 2006

Quote: Originally Posted by Graeme

Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin
Quote: Originally Posted by Graeme
Interspecies development is NOT evolution. People have gotten taller over the past 200 years, that doesn't make us a new species.

and regardless, that really doesn't address any of the problems I pointed out.
Do you deny that genetic mutation exists?
absolutely not, I have seen deformities ( the development of the finches is not genetic mutation btw)

science has never observed a positive mutation.

It doesn't need to observed. The fact that genetic mutation is a part of life is a better explanation that magic.

Graeme

#25

RE: Evolution - Simply Not True

Jun 14th, 2006

it still wouldn't account for the problems I listed though. NONE of them, so really it is a lost leader anyway.

I am going to bed. I will be happy to continue the discussion tomorrow

Good night

Kreskin

#26

RE: Evolution - Simply Not True

Jun 14th, 2006

Are you denying that life forms have become increasingly more complex with time?

Graeme

#27

RE: Evolution - Simply Not True

Jun 14th, 2006

I am finishing my tea, and denying you the obvious avoidance of facing the problems I raised with the theory of evolution.

the caracal kid

#28

RE: Evolution - Simply Not True

Jun 14th, 2006

read "the self organizing universe" by erich jantsch if you can find a copy.

Kreskin

#29

Re: Evolution - Simply Not True

Jun 14th, 2006

Life Form - Millions of Years Since First Known Appearance (Approximate)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Microbial (procaryotic cells) 3,500
Complex (eucaryotic cells) 2,000
First multicellular animals 670
Shell-bearing animals 540
Vertebrates (simple fishes) 490
Amphibians 350
Reptiles 310
Mammals 200
Nonhuman primates 60
Earliest apes 25
Australopithecine ancestors of humans 4
Modern humans 0 .15 (150,000 years)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

or you believe all forms of life simply arrived at the same time. What other explanation is there?

Graeme

#30

Re: RE: Evolution - Simply Not True

Jun 14th, 2006

Quote: Originally Posted by the caracal kid

read "the self organizing universe" by erich jantsch if you can find a copy.

while I may still read it, the book was written in 1980,

There have been many discovers since then, including protiens required by DNA which can not be created by randomly mixing the proper chemicals, or via any known method with the exception of being created using RNA sequencing.

Similar Threads

Possibly Moving to Saskatoon
by scotts_girl | Mar 3rd, 2007

Possibly even odder than HR Puffinstuff
by Reverend Blair | Jun 7th, 2005