the premise of this post it laughable......for two reasons.
1. almost none of the questions deal with evolution, the changing of species' dna over a period of time to result in different physical attributes...
and
2. man has synthesized evolution for hundreds of years.....we have replaced natural selection with human selection to take a few progenerative species into many. Examples would include everything from livestock to dog breeds. I'll go with the latter as it's something I'm sure everybody can relate to.
Human beings for the past several centuries have taken the 4 naturally occuring species of dog and bred/imbred them over a long period of time to create over 150 breeds today. We have chosen specific animals with a genetic mutation and bred that mutation/imbred that mutation until the entire species has that mutation. We have then taken that mutated species and looked for further mutations to breed/imbreed to make entirely new breeds.
We have artificially reproduced the exact same cycle that occurs in nature via natural selection. The only change is that we humans selected the traits to be bred/imbred instead of letting nature select them through predatory survival and ecosystem tolerance.
Next time you pet your golden retriever, rotweiller or poodle remember that these animals did not naturally exist on this earth. They were changed from an earlier breed of dog, that was changed from an earlier breed of dog, that was changed from an earlier breed of dog, that was changed from an earlier breed of dog, that was changed from an earlier breed of dog, that was changed from an earlier breed of dog, that was changed from an earlier breed of dog that naturally existed.
Look at a human being.......look at a mountain gorilla.......vastly different in both appearance and behavior aren't they? Now look at a golden retriever and a coyote....also vastly different in both look and behavior. The first two share a common ancestor the same way the latter two share a common ancestor.
Originally posted by Evil Dead
the premise of this post it laughable......for two reasons.1. almost none of the questions deal with evolution, the changing of species' dna over a period of time to result in different physical attributes...
and
2. man has synthesized evolution for hundreds of years.....we have replaced natural selection with human selection to take a few progenerative species into many. Examples would include everything from livestock to dog breeds. I'll go with the latter as it's something I'm sure everybody can relate to
The questions posed are what they believe ID holds over Evolution, there theory has an answer as to where matter came from, and so on and so forth, (be it the answer is a three letter word, But an answer nether the less, Evolution only says that suff was around, then over a period of millions of years, NS created us.)
Most IDers agree with Evolution happening on the small scale, but they don't agree that the first dog came from that.
One of the questions at the beginning was where whales came from. I actually wrote my research paper for my evolution class on that topic. I wish I could find it to post some of it. There are some great sources out there on that topic. There was a book called Walking with Whales (I think that was the title, I don't remember the author).
I still say the biggest hole in evolution theory is chemical evolution and cellular evolution. the rest of it seems pretty sound.
The questions posed are what they believe ID holds over Evolution, there theory has an answer as to where matter came from, and so on and so forth, (be it the answer is a three letter word, But an answer nether the less, Evolution only says that suff was around, then over a period of millions of years, NS created us.)
yes, science does indeed say the "stuff" was around. science hasn't answered the question of where it came from because there is no possible way of knowing where it came from. If an answer is unattainable, better left blank than to make something up.
That seems to be the Christian way of answering all questions....."um, we don't know where matter came from so um....god made it!". I think it better to simply leave the question unanswered and say, "we don't know" than to say, "um....uh...an invisible man made it all out of nothing". I mean, there are many things in life we just don't have answers for. Just earlier today an ashtray in my living room fell into the floor with nobody even in the room. I certainly don't know the exact cause but I'm pretty sure it was not due to some invisible man running through my house and knocking it off my table because it was part of his intelligently designed plan.
I still say the biggest hole in evolution theory is chemical evolution and cellular evolution. the rest of it seems pretty sound.
I always thought that was the easiest part to grasp, the cellular anyway......millions of different molecular bonds forming over billions of years until the one molecular bond formed that sparked life, created a cell. Over time that particular bond, just as all life on this planet found a way to reproduce, mitosis........allowing for every multi-cellular life form on our planet to exist here today, billions of years later.
Well there is also the missing link thingie.
no offense Debbie but that sounds like something from 1910. There is no such thing as the missing link. Man did not go from purely ape to modern human with a disquinshable link between the two. Out of the hundreds of succesful and failed branches in the human evolutionary tree, which ONE could be considered a missing link? Is it the one with the slightly heavier jaw bone or the one with more massive femur that we consider to be THE missing link?
Originally posted by sithsaber408Oh gee,another arrogant bible buff trying to make all non religious folk sad they're going to hell. First off these questions are completely idiotic (How did matter get so perfectly organized?).Second,like any self righteous bastard,you know he'll just throw out any evidence just by saying "BUT GOD SAID THIS HEDON!!!" to any budding scientist.
Hey all, thought this would be fun.$250,000 Reward
Offered by Dr. Kent Howard to:
Anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.
(see h**p://www.drdino.com/Articles/Article1.htm.)
He gives 15 questions for an evolutionist to answer with proof(not theory/guesses) :
1.) WHERE did the universe come from?
2.) WHERE did matter come from?
3.) WHERE did the LAWS of the universe come from (gravity,inertia, etc.)?
4.) HOW did matter get so perfectly organized?
5.) WHERE did the ENERGY come from to do all the organizing?
6.) WHEN, WHERE, WHY, and HOW did life come from dead matter?
7.) WHEN, WHERE, WHY, and HOW did life learn to reproduce itself?
8.) With WHAT did the FIRST cell capable of reproduction reproduce?
wow.....a couple of those questions are just purely idiotic......I didn't even bother reading most of them but....
How did matter get so organized? matter isn't organized at all......99.999% of it is just floating aimlessly in space bumping into each other. That's just a retarded question based on lack of knowledge.
what did the first cell capable of reproduction reproduce? um......itself.......all cells reproduce themselves.....god damn that was just stupid.
Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss??? Can you show me evidence on this? Hah, thought not. That post was interesting, your a poet.
its not a lie till its proven, and your hatred of all things religious is clouding your judgement....
jk
but seriously, hating religion is affecting my judgment? wtf?
Originally posted by Evil Dead✅ the fact that they hate and are trying to disprove something they don't even understand or believe is just, laughable.
the premise of this post it laughable......for two reasons.1. almost none of the questions deal with evolution, the changing of species' dna over a period of time to result in different physical attributes...
and
2. man has synthesized evolution for hundreds of years.....we have replaced natural selection with human selection to take a few progenerative species into many. Examples would include everything from livestock to dog breeds. I'll go with the latter as it's something I'm sure everybody can relate to.
Human beings for the past several centuries have taken the 4 naturally occuring species of dog and bred/imbred them over a long period of time to create over 150 breeds today. We have chosen specific animals with a genetic mutation and bred that mutation/imbred that mutation until the entire species has that mutation. We have then taken that mutated species and looked for further mutations to breed/imbreed to make entirely new breeds.
We have artificially reproduced the exact same cycle that occurs in nature via natural selection. The only change is that we humans selected the traits to be bred/imbred instead of letting nature select them through predatory survival and ecosystem tolerance.
Next time you pet your golden retriever, rotweiller or poodle remember that these animals did not naturally exist on this earth. They were changed from an earlier breed of dog, that was changed from an earlier breed of dog, that was changed from an earlier breed of dog, that was changed from an earlier breed of dog, that was changed from an earlier breed of dog, that was changed from an earlier breed of dog, that was changed from an earlier breed of dog that naturally existed.
Look at a human being.......look at a mountain gorilla.......vastly different in both appearance and behavior aren't they? Now look at a golden retriever and a coyote....also vastly different in both look and behavior. The first two share a common ancestor the same way the latter two share a common ancestor.
Originally posted by Wesker
You slept through the part in school where they talk about natural selection and random mutation?
Nope paid attention I just disagree, natural selection has never been observed to produce new traits and mutations are always harmful one way or another. so how does Darwinism hold up?
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Nope paid attention I just disagree, natural selection has never been observed to produce new traits and mutations are always harmful one way or another. so how does Darwinism hold up?
No, you're just stupid.
Stop calling it 'Darwinism'. Any of his findings that were incorrect have been thrown out, and replaced with newer, more complete information.
I explained natural selection in the evolution thread, and no, mutations are not always harmful. Where did you hear that made up garbage?
Someone who has an extra finger has a mutation. Someone who has too many teeth has a mutation.
Mutations can be anything. There was a baby born who had a mutation which made his muscle density something like 10 times more dense than an average person's. They found that all the men in his family were unusually strong. Doctors say the baby is perfectly healthy otherwise.
Sounds like a pretty beneficial mutation.