Thread: Some personal reasons I don't believe Evolution

This is to be my last post in R/S. Possibly forever. If not forever, then for a very long time. I cannot continue here. There is simply to much to do, and too much to respond to. I have some things I would like to pick up, and it would be very nice to drop my debating here. However, as promised, here is my thread on things that I find disturbing in Evolution.

This will not list each and every fall in the theory, obviously, but to prove that I have reasons to find Evolution unscientifically sound, I have made this thread. If I were to post every complication the the theory poses, I would be going on for a very very long time.

I will not be around to respond, so please do not be alarmed when you do not receive one.

Missing Fossils

Evolution. When the scientific voodoo is removed from the equation, it's basic fibers go to tune of: A one celled creature to a multi-trillion celled human. Naturally, this all took a great deal of time. Seventy trillion cells were added to the package in only 700 million years. Those were the days when genetic mutations occured at 100,000 positive genetic mutations per year, which is 260 per day! The Earth was a very busy place back then. Of course, the factories have slowed down considerably since then. Pity too, because now we can't see all the glorious creatures that would take rise from the process. So, what can we do? Well, naturally, we can search for fossils. If we can't see Gorrilas turn to humans, then we can at least go look for them underground. And, that's exactly what we do. In our visits underground, we have unearthed many natural wonders. Such as Dinosaurs, extinct fish, and even plants. We have also unearthed many un-natural wonders. Such as, the ancient city of Pompeii, and Solomon's Temple. In these excavations, many new creatures have been discovered that we would never have known about otherwise. Things die, and get buried under the earth. Some of the luckier specicmens get the chance to become fossils, so that future generations may take them and observe their ancient and natural beauty. Of course, fossils don't easily or quickly occur. It takes time, and chance to fossilize any creature. (unless, of course, super extreme circumstances are involved) But, we have seven hundred million years to work with, so that's no problem. An ancient race of half humans and half apes once roamed the earth, a hybrid of natural processes. Through the countless eons and decades they survived. Creating the first cave paintings, and intentional fires to provide light and warmth. Many lived on to bring about more offspring - some weren't so lucky. Many unfortunate cave men died. Whether it was by some starved animal who happened upon the relatively defensless bunch, or whether it was by some gale that cought the the poor half-man off guard. However it happened, many bodies were left to fate under the ancient sun, or to sink under water or tar. Most would rot, or get eaten by other animals. Some would decompose to provide fertile soil for plants to come. But, others were chosen by circumstance to be fossilized like the many other plants and animals that came before them. And, considering the large sums of time they had to do it, there had to be a HUGE ammount of fossils.

And now, we come to our own day, where we excavate in almost every country in the world. Our mission is to find these many ancestors who came before us. But, a mystery has puzzled many scientists for years - where are they??? With all the ancient animals we have unearthed, why can't we find our prehistoric cousins? Afterall, we have found the fossils of creatures who came long before them. Science believes it may have found the first life to tread our wonderful planet under hundreds of feet of rock and soil. The ones that came hundreds of thousands, and even millions of years before the first primates began to tread soil. So where are the hybrids? Where are the animals that connect humans to apes? Where lie their fossils and bones? Why have we not found them? Nature has freely yielded many secrets of the times that came before us, and yet, our ancient ancestors remain nigh unfindable. Why are they so elusive? Now, this is problematic. We can't find any shreds of ancient evidence that suggests our forefathers are apes.

Well, as frustrating as it may be, another question is even more disturbing:

Where are any of the hybrids?

Where are the legged fish which brought our kind from sea to dry land? Where are the apes that look like humans, and the humans that look like apes?

Well, obviously, there have been beliefs in the past that these HAVE been found. Almost every creationist and Evolutionist knows of the many "missing links" that have been thought to show the piece that links us with the apelike creatures that Evolution suggests we came from. But, there is not one that has not exhibited one of the following traits:

(a). It was a fraud
(b). It WAS an ape/chimpanzee
(c). All aspects of the creature were found to be human in every manner, so, that pretty much destroys their credibility of being a "missing link".

The missing link argument has gained infamy due to the very heated conflict that remains between Creationists and Evolutionists on the matter, and occasionally Scientists suggest that they may have found it yet again, and the same cycle repeats itself.

But, the problem summarized is this: Why is it that we can find SO many different animals burried beneath the soil (some that apparently appeared millions of years before any primates) and yet cannot find more than a few debunked fossils that link supposedly Evolutionary related animals together; specifically primates?

A bad answer: A bad answer that is often used to this problem is that Evolution occurs in "growth spurts". There are extended periods of inactivity that do not appear in the fossil record due to their short lived span, which makes it appear that there is a skip from one generation to the next. I.E, directly from humans to apes.

1. There is no Scientific reason to believe this. No mechanism should suddenly be able to trigger a huge increase of genetic mutation in a species.

2. This makes Evolution all the more unrealistic; In the first paragraph, we see the bare minimum of POSITIVE genetic mutations that would be necessary to create a human being in a span of seven hundred million years, which is about 100,000 a year and 260 a day. Keep in mind that while mutations occur relatively frequently, they rarely ever induce results, much less positive results. Considering that the current rate of genetic mutation is around fifty a day, there would have to be at least 260 a day back then in order for Evolution to be possible. For it to be realisitc, there would have to be on beyond a thousand genetic muatations a day. I can only IMAGINE how agonized those poor creatures were. Because, if you're having 260 positives, your bound to have well over a hundred negatives. Seems like extinction would be inevitable. But, anyways: with reduced periods of time, that only means that the genetic mutations would have to work even FASTER. In the end, it gets reallllyyy messy, so this answer only further demonstrates another fallacy of Evolution, which is the rate of genetic mutation.

Irreducible Complexity

Irreducible complexity has gained infamy for it's human eye argument, which people have decided to belittle. As such, I won't bother to pain you with it. I shall only breifly mention it, as the problem speaks for itself. The people reading this already understand Evolution, so I sahll not re-explain the whole messy process of natural selection. However, specifically, the aspect of natural selection that shows things becoming gradually better and better on a microscopic scale is the issue here. The human body is a delicate, yet durable thing. Obviously, the human body can endure physical sport and injury, yet is balanced on a very delicate momentum that if disturbed, can prove fatal to the entire body. Everything in the body is dependent on eachother. The body depends on oxygen, which depends on the lungs, which depends on the blood, which depends on the heart, which depends on the pace maker. Everything works together to safely run the body. One shifted clockwork can result in an entire system failure. If the heart stops, the rest of the body is dead. If the lungs stop, likewise. If the stomach stops working, then again, everything is doomed. However, Evolution states that each organ individually evolved. It would be a miraculous coincidence if a tiny organism had been evolved with cropped down versions of EVERY dependency in the human body. Even more miraculous that almost every creature runs in a very similar way, what with the respiratory system, the brain, etc.

The fallacy is also evident in sexual reproduction in mammals. Many creatures reproduce asexually. Why should sexual reproduction that require complex processes in both the male and female to be finely tuned. Organs, sperm, eggs, etc. It is all so complex and dependent on so many factors, that it certainly does NOT seem that sexual reproduction should have been favored over asexual reproduction.

So, in short, the problem is, how did genetic mutation create organs that depend on other organs?

Nothing's New

Right, so, Evolution happens, right? Well, why has it not been observed in anything? On rare occasion, natural selection has benefited bacteria (a fact that any creationist will not be allowed to forget) but where are the new things? Take fruit flies. Fruit flies are a favorite toy of scientists, because they are easy to study: They spawn a new generation every nine days. Now, fruit flies are wierd things. They are often being born with genetic mutations. There is much variation of fruit flies through there many generations, and they have been bred for many many years now.

Question: Where are the vegetable flies? Why are there no new creatures that have stemmed up from the whole messy business of breeding fruit flies? Afterall, a generation every nine days is forty generations a year, which is four hundred five generations in a decade. That is the equivalent of about 13,000 human years. Surely SOMETHING should be different in the fruit flies. Maybe a tweaked nose? Maybe larger wings? More attractive face? But, no. Still fruit flies, and pretty much the same as they were fifty years ago.

The same goes for bacteria. We see immuned bacteria, but nothing new. It's still the same immuned bacteria as was found in frozen bodies hundreds of years older than the first antibiotics.


Now, I shall procede to briefly list some of many opposing factors of Evolution:

The mind boggling complexity of protein cells

Trees running through layers apparently millions of years old.

Repeated patterns in nature (E.g, Fibonacci in sunflowers, galaxy spirals, and even molecules; such patterns have no reason to be evolved through a random process like Evolution; on the contrary, things like plants should be disorderly)

Non-living things never turn to living things - doesn't happen, and never has happened in all the countless experiments which attempted to duplicate such a process.


Right, now as said before, I could keep this thread going on for quite a long time, but do not intend to.

Good bye R/S!

There are plenty of hybrid fossils. Alopatric speciation is one way well established which evolution could be sped up. There are no examples of irreducible complexity. Evolution of new species with new metabolisms has been observed. There's no such thing to my knowledge as a 'protein cell'. Patterns are repeated because they are efficient and benefit their organisms. Abiogenesis requires millions of years.

I think that addresses every coherent point. Good luck with your further education, and goodbye.

Do some research into the fruit fly business. There have been many documented cases of speciation, and the differences observed usually pertain to different populations with different diets that are not able to interbreed.

Not everything that dies fossilizes... conditions have to be pretty much perfect for it to happen... so OF COURSE there are big gaps in the fossil record!

*sigh* must I actually say this?

ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE


... I feel so dirty now.

Missing Fossils

Because the process of fossilisation is a rare one. To have detailed step by step movements in the evolutionary chain would require the entire planet to be made of fossils.

The funny thing is, is that if someone does find the missing link, people like you will also assert that there are twice as many gaps now.

which people have decided to belittle

Because it's a hallmark of creationism: ignorance, stupidity, lack of curiosity, blind assertions.

Nothing's New

If only people on this forum had already provided countless examples of speciation, which is also a simple google search away.

The rest of your post can be responded to with "do some proper research" and "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

Your problem Noogah is that you go along to your idiotic and biased Christian sources, and you read stuff there. Sometimes it might be on Evolution (or rather a hilariously wrong version of it with basic errors that should be known by 12 year old science students), sometimes it's on other subjects. And you buy in to it hook line and sinker. If that shitty source says X, it must be true. And you waddle off and start spouting it yourself, regardless of how many people take time out of their day to inform you that it is wrong, and why.

Your problem is you don't know anything to know that these sources are terrible, nor do you actually know how to identify a good source. Neither do quite a few people here on DV actually, given that plenty link to any old crap and start using it to back up their claims.

This thread should be titled 'Some personal reasons why I don't understand anything about Evolution'

would there be any other reason to post in this thread except to make one feel better?

Although. Unless I skipped something in the mass of words and videos, might I pose a thought? Unless you can recite the evolutionary process from memory, there are things about it you don't know. Yet you still believe that evolution is true. What, then, is the term used to describe "accepting what is unknown"?

Faith. Believing it's correct. Assuming it's the correct solution.

Hate to say it, but you need to have faith that everything about evolution can be fully backed up, even when you don't know the evidence to back up every little nuance. Us theists don't put our faith in evolution (most of us, anyway). We put it in our deity (or deities for those religions with multiple gods).

We rational types dont rely on faith so much... we have confidence in the self-correcting and constantly updating process called science. It's not necessary for each one of us to actually BECOME scientists and rediscover every step along the way (it would take many lifetimes to do that). Those steps have already been taken.. the evidence gathered and evaluated, the conclusions drawn, and the results recorded for other scientists to challenge or verify. See, that's what makes science so different from religious dogma... scientists submit their reports to the scientific community where other scientists hungrily pore over it and try like crazy to find even one chink in the armor... disproving evolution after all would make some scientists' career if he could do it!! But so far no-one has been able to do it. The evidence is clear.

When's the last time Christian dogma was submitted to be weighed and checked against known facts to make sure there are no flaws in it? Oh wait... that's right... christian dogma asserts that the world is only a few thousand years old, is flat, and that we were made from a ball of mud! At least the fundie version does.

It's funny to hear people who are willing to believe stories like this LITERALLY talking about how the theory of evolution isn't factual...

Originally Posted by youssarian

Hate to say it, but you need to have faith that everything about evolution can be fully backed up, even when you don't know the evidence to back up every little nuance. Us theists don't put our faith in evolution (most of us, anyway). We put it in our deity (or deities for those religions with multiple gods).

Great... according to you, everything one can ever think of has the same level of probability of truthfulness? If that is so, how amazingly pragmatic.

Hate to say it, but without this "faith of science" you wouldn't be using the computer right now, proboably many of us wouldn't even be alive.

There is a massive difference between the "leap of faith" we all take which is: Reality exists, we can define it with science; and the subsequent useless leaps others like to take, like: There is a Flying Spaghetti monster.

I know people like to defend their beliefs by taking a hard core agnostic stance on everything that exists and then saying that we all have to put faith in something, basically to equalize everything people can believe in. The only problem is that playing these games has no practical value whatsoever, other than perhaps in philosophy and of course as a defensive mechanism for those who have irrational beliefs. No matter how many times you say how we all have faith, "our" faith will be advancing our civilization, while yours will delay its progress.

If you really have to say that I have faith in the fact that the moon exist after I see it, then have fun with that.

Originally Posted by youssarian

Although. Unless I skipped something in the mass of words and videos, might I pose a thought? Unless you can recite the evolutionary process from memory, there are things about it you don't know.

The principle behind evolution is very simple, this fact is something creationists tend to skip/ignore.

We know for a fact that species pass down their characteristics (DNA) to the progeny, we also know that there is a slight variation of those characteristics in the progeny (mutations in the DNA, etc). It's also a fact that those more apt to survive are also more likely to pass down their characteristics, which in turn will vary again in their progeny, and so the cycle repeats. The end result of this is the species gradually changing, with the direction that change takes being dictated by the environment the species lives in.

Originally Posted by youssarian

Although. Unless I skipped something in the mass of words and videos, might I pose a thought? Unless you can recite the evolutionary process from memory, there are things about it you don't know. Yet you still believe that evolution is true. What, then, is the term used to describe "accepting what is unknown"?

Faith. Believing it's correct. Assuming it's the correct solution.

Hate to say it, but you need to have faith that everything about evolution can be fully backed up, even when you don't know the evidence to back up every little nuance. Us theists don't put our faith in evolution (most of us, anyway). We put it in our deity (or deities for those religions with multiple gods).

Evidence.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Originally Posted by youssarian

Although. Unless I skipped something in the mass of words and videos, might I pose a thought? Unless you can recite the evolutionary process from memory, there are things about it you don't know. Yet you still believe that evolution is true. What, then, is the term used to describe "accepting what is unknown"?

Faith. Believing it's correct. Assuming it's the correct solution.

Hate to say it, but you need to have faith that everything about evolution can be fully backed up, even when you don't know the evidence to back up every little nuance. Us theists don't put our faith in evolution (most of us, anyway). We put it in our deity (or deities for those religions with multiple gods).

Storm to her credit despite my derision
Keeps firing off clichés with startling precision
Like a sniper using bollocks for ammunition

“You’re so sure of your position
But you’re just closed-minded
I think you’ll find
Your faith in Science and Tests
Is just as blind
As the faith of any fundamentalist”

“Hm that’s a good point, let me think for a bit
Oh wait, my mistake, it’s absolute bullshit.
Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.
If you show me
That, say, homeopathy works,
Then I will change my mind
I’ll spin on a fucking dime
I’ll be embarrassed as hell,
But I will run through the streets yelling
It’s a miracle! Take physics and bin it!
Water has memory!
And while it’s memory of a long lost drop of onion juice is Infinite
It somehow forgets all the poo it’s had in it!

You show me that it works and how it works
And when I’ve recovered from the shock
I will take a compass and carve "Fancy That" on the side of my cock.

Welcome, new fundie target.

First of all, it is incredibly disingenuous to just drop a bunch of propositional arguments and then just run away.

It is the equivalent to saying, "You suck, haha" and taking off.

Why shouldn't I just lock and delete this thread on that consideration alone? You made this thread for what purpose? To deliberately piss people off?

I hope you see the immaturity in this action or at least show me how I am wrong about it.

I will only give a clear and concise response to your post because, why should I delve any deeper if you or no one else is going to respond?

Originally Posted by Noogah

Evolution.
...
And now, we come to our own day, where we excavate in almost every country in the world. Our mission is to find these many ancestors who came before us. But, a mystery has puzzled many scientists for years - where are they??? With all the ancient animals we have unearthed, why can't we find our prehistoric cousins?

This is completely wrong. Here are many sources to prove it.

Toward a Phylogenetic Classification of Primates Based on DNA Evidence Complemented by Fossil Evidence
+ A highly resolved primate cladogram based on DNA evidence is congruent with extant and fossil osteological evidence. A provisional primate classification based on this cladogram and the time scale provided by fossils and the model of local molecular clocks has all named taxa represent clades and assigns the same taxonomic rank to those clades of roughly equivalent age. Order Primates divides into Strepsirhini and Haplorhini. Strepsirhines divide into Lemuriformes and Loriformes, whereas haplorhines divide into Tarsiiformes and Anthropoidea. Within Anthropoidea when equivalent ranks are used for divisions within Platyrrhini and Catarrhini, Homininae divides into Hylobatini (common and siamang gibbon) and Hominini, and the latter divides into Pongina forPongo(orangutans) and Hominina forGorillaandHomo. Homoitself divides into the subgeneraH.(Homo) for humans andH.(Pan) for chimpanzees and bonobos. The differences between this provisional age related phylogenetic classification and current primate taxonomies are discussed.
+ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...fa51501d644eaa

Human Origins
+ New discoveries combine to indicate that all the major steps in human evolution took place in Africa. Skeletal analysis of oldest human forbears around 3 million years ago reveal many anatomical similarities to African Great Apes. These and biochemical resemblances indicate a common ancestry for humans and apes, perhaps only a few million years earlier. Enlarged knowledge through recent recovery of skeletons of several successive stages in the line leading to modern peoples shows that many attributes or skills by which we define humanity arose much more recently in time than heretofore believed.
+ http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../245/4924/1343

The Fossil Record and the Early Evolution of the Metazoa
+ http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&l...idence&f=false

Skull Fossil Evolution Chimps vs Humans
+ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comd.../hominids2.jpg

DNA Tracing of Species
+ http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vo...16_238_F1.jpeg

Human vs Chimp DNA Comparison
+ http://www.wired.com/news/images/ful...himp_dna_f.jpg

Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion
+ We have identified two allelic genomic cosmids from human chromosome 2, c8.1 and c29B, each containing two inverted arrays of the vertebrate telomeric repeat in a head-to-head arrangement, 5'(TTAGGG)n-(CCCTAA)m3'. Sequences flanking this telomeric repeat are characteristic of present-day human pretelomeres. BAL-31 nuclease experiments with yeast artificial chromosome clones of human telomeres and fluorescence in situ hybridization reveal that sequences flanking these inverted repeats hybridize both to band 2q13 and to different, but overlapping, subsets of human chromosome ends. We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2.
+ http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051.abstract

African Populations and the Evolution of Human Mitochondrial DNA
+ The proposal tha tall mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) types in contempoary humans stem from a common ancestor present in an African population seom 200,000 years ago...two hypervariable segments of mtDNA were sequence from 189 people of diverse geograph origin... Geographic specificty was obesrved in that identical mtDNA types are share within but not between populations. A tree relating these mtDNA sequences to one another and to a chimpanzee sequence has many deep branches leading exclusively to African mtDNAs. An African origin for human mtDNA is supported by two statistical tests. With the use of the chimpanzee and human sequences to calibrate the rat eof mtDNA evolution, the age of the common human mtDNA ancestor is placed between 166,000 and 249,000 years. These results thus support and extend the African origin hypothesis of human mtDNA evolution."
+ http://tigger.uic.edu/labs/bios/robi...HumanmtDNA.pdf

Human Genome Shows Proof of Recent Evolution, Survey Finds
+ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...evolution.html

Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters
+ http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-What...5559914&sr=8-1

EVOLUTION, BY PBS, NARRATED BY LIAM NEESON (4-DVD SET)
+ https://www.skeptic.com/Merchant2/me...egory_Code=OTH

Afterall, we have found the fossils of creatures who came long before them. Science believes it may have found the first life to tread our wonderful planet under hundreds of feet of rock and soil. The ones that came hundreds of thousands, and even millions of years before the first primates began to tread soil. So where are the hybrids? Where are the animals that connect humans to apes?

See above.

Where lie their fossils and bones? Why have we not found them? Nature has freely yielded many secrets of the times that came before us, and yet, our ancient ancestors remain nigh unfindable. Why are they so elusive? Now, this is problematic. We can't find any shreds of ancient evidence that suggests our forefathers are apes.

Well, as frustrating as it may be, another question is even more disturbing:

Where are any of the hybrids?

Where are the legged fish which brought our kind from sea to dry land? Where are the apes that look like humans, and the humans that look like apes?

+ Tiktaalik
- http://boojum.as.arizona.edu/~jill/N...ature04637.pdf

Research more before making preposterous propositions. You obviously know nothing of which you are speaking and pontificate as though you have debunked it.

Well, obviously, there have been beliefs in the past that these HAVE been found. Almost every creationist and Evolutionist knows of the many "missing links" that have been thought to show the piece that links us with the apelike creatures that Evolution suggests we came from. But, there is not one that has not exhibited one of the following traits:

(a). It was a fraud
(b). It WAS an ape/chimpanzee
(c). All aspects of the creature were found to be human in every manner, so, that pretty much destroys their credibility of being a "missing link".

All of the above sources I have provided are not fraudulent and prove what you are asking for. This quote is digressive and incorrect.

The missing link argument has gained infamy due to the very heated conflict that remains between Creationists and Evolutionists on the matter, and occasionally Scientists suggest that they may have found it yet again, and the same cycle repeats itself.

The missing link argument is derived from peoples willful ignorance to read.

You don't want to accept the facts.

They are undeniable.

You weasel out of them to make yourself feel better.

They are still true.

Live with it.

But, the problem summarized is this: Why is it that we can find SO many different animals burried beneath the soil (some that apparently appeared millions of years before any primates) and yet cannot find more than a few debunked fossils that link supposedly Evolutionary related animals together; specifically primates?

Wrong.

A bad answer: A bad answer that is often used to this problem is that Evolution occurs in "growth spurts". There are extended periods of inactivity that do not appear in the fossil record due to their short lived span, which makes it appear that there is a skip from one generation to the next. I.E, directly from humans to apes.

Wrong.

Illustrates your ignorance of natural selection and survival of the fittest. Do some reading for a change.

1. There is no Scientific reason to believe this. No mechanism should suddenly be able to trigger a huge increase of genetic mutation in a species.

There is more scientific evidence for evolution than gravity.

2. This makes Evolution all the more unrealistic; In the first paragraph, we see the bare minimum of POSITIVE genetic mutations that would be necessary to create a human being in a span of seven hundred million years, which is about 100,000 a year and 260 a day. Keep in mind that while mutations occur relatively frequently, they rarely ever induce results, much less positive results. Considering that the current rate of genetic mutation is around fifty a day, there would have to be at least 260 a day back then in order for Evolution to be possible. For it to be realisitc, there would have to be on beyond a thousand genetic muatations a day. I can only IMAGINE how agonized those poor creatures were. Because, if you're having 260 positives, your bound to have well over a hundred negatives. Seems like extinction would be inevitable. But, anyways: with reduced periods of time, that only means that the genetic mutations would have to work even FASTER. In the end, it gets reallllyyy messy, so this answer only further demonstrates another fallacy of Evolution, which is the rate of genetic mutation.

This ought to make you feel more lucky and understand how gradual evolution is.

But, let us keep in mind that the above quote is coming from someone who believes the Earth is less than 10k years old.

Irreducible Complexity

This is derived from a Michael Behe argument which I highly doubt you know anything of.



However, unfortunately for you, Michael Behe's argument for Irreducible Complexity has been proven wrong, over and over again, by scientific peer review boards.

It is simply wrong.

Nothing's New

Right, so, Evolution happens, right? Well, why has it not been observed in anything?

Wrong.

Even your birthing process is the proof of evolution of sperm.

Need I provide more instances of observed evolution?

E coli has been proven in the Lenski experiments.

But you will cite your pseudo-intellectually bias Christian institutions to "debunk" it. However, these sites use improper understanding and, in fact, do not disprove anything! You have tried it before, and the sources you used were wrong.

The mind boggling complexity of protein cells

What of them? Trying to reach for Michael Behe again?

Trees running through layers apparently millions of years old.

How old is the world again?

Right, now as said before, I could keep this thread going on for quite a long time, but do not intend to.

Good bye R/S!

Enjoy your willful ignorance and non-thinking.

~

the legged fish aren't even extinct! How dumb can you get?

Oh, just to clear it up since I'm not sure how that came off, It was directed at Noogah, not Onus

@ OP:




I love you O'nus ;;

and I love this thread.

@OP: Cool story bro. /thread

Originally Posted by Noogah

This is to be my last post in R/S. Possibly forever. If not forever, then for a very long time. I cannot continue here. There is simply to much to do, and too much to respond to. I have some things I would like to pick up, and it would be very nice to drop my debating here. However, as promised, here is my thread on things that I find disturbing in Evolution.

This will not list each and every fall in the theory, obviously, but to prove that I have reasons to find Evolution unscientifically sound, I have made this thread. If I were to post every complication the the theory poses, I would be going on for a very very long time.

I will not be around to respond, so please do not be alarmed when you do not receive one.

Missing Fossils

Evolution. When the scientific voodoo is removed from the equation, it's basic fibers go to tune of: A one celled creature to a multi-trillion celled human. Naturally, this all took a great deal of time. Seventy trillion cells were added to the package in only 700 million years. Those were the days when genetic mutations occured at 100,000 positive genetic mutations per year, which is 260 per day! The Earth was a very busy place back then. Of course, the factories have slowed down considerably since then. Pity too, because now we can't see all the glorious creatures that would take rise from the process. So, what can we do? Well, naturally, we can search for fossils. If we can't see Gorrilas turn to humans, then we can at least go look for them underground. And, that's exactly what we do. In our visits underground, we have unearthed many natural wonders. Such as Dinosaurs, extinct fish, and even plants. We have also unearthed many un-natural wonders. Such as, the ancient city of Pompeii, and Solomon's Temple. In these excavations, many new creatures have been discovered that we would never have known about otherwise. Things die, and get buried under the earth. Some of the luckier specicmens get the chance to become fossils, so that future generations may take them and observe their ancient and natural beauty. Of course, fossils don't easily or quickly occur. It takes time, and chance to fossilize any creature. (unless, of course, super extreme circumstances are involved) But, we have seven hundred million years to work with, so that's no problem. An ancient race of half humans and half apes once roamed the earth, a hybrid of natural processes. Through the countless eons and decades they survived. Creating the first cave paintings, and intentional fires to provide light and warmth. Many lived on to bring about more offspring - some weren't so lucky. Many unfortunate cave men died. Whether it was by some starved animal who happened upon the relatively defensless bunch, or whether it was by some gale that cought the the poor half-man off guard. However it happened, many bodies were left to fate under the ancient sun, or to sink under water or tar. Most would rot, or get eaten by other animals. Some would decompose to provide fertile soil for plants to come. But, others were chosen by circumstance to be fossilized like the many other plants and animals that came before them. And, considering the large sums of time they had to do it, there had to be a HUGE ammount of fossils.
Good bye R/S!

Why would Noogah go to the trouble of writing out all this, then close himself off to all discussion and debate?

Is this the traditional R&S format, or am I missing something here?

Originally Posted by SkA_DaRk_Che

Why would Noogah go to the trouble of writing out all this, then close himself off to all discussion and debate?

Is this the traditional R&S format, or am I missing something here?

Because after he wrote it he realized how ignorant his argument is.

Originally Posted by SkA_DaRk_Che

Why would Noogah go to the trouble of writing out all this, then close himself off to all discussion and debate?

Is this the traditional R&S format, or am I missing something here?

Oh that's just Noogah, don't mind him.

Originally Posted by SkA_DaRk_Che

Why would Noogah go to the trouble of writing out all this, then close himself off to all discussion and debate?

Is this the traditional R&S format, or am I missing something here?

It is very common with fundamentalists here. They have a hit and run debate style. They love to start threads with boasts about what extreme concepts they can prove or disprove, but when the questions start coming, the dodgeball games begin. The dodgeball games are always followed by really long or permanent departures.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It is very common with fundamentalists here. They have a hit and run debate style. They love to start threads with boasts about what extreme concepts they can prove or disprove, but when the questions start coming, the dodgeball games begin. The dodgeball games are always followed by really long or permanent departures.

it's much easier to live in ignorance if they post their beliefs then run away.

Noogah, if your popping in, just to see how your little thread goes, watch this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp1Ke-13dTc

It's relatively simplified, but you mind it helpful.