Re: Evolution
 

well if there's no such thing as evolution..how can a 2mm long "cell" (sperm) turn into a 6ft tall Complex human with all of these organisms? That is total MAJOR evolution there.

Re: Evolution
 

heart is a very good example of evolution , right from annelidans (earthworms) where a primitive heart like apparatus is present to the four chambered heart in mammals is a great example of evolution . read biology for further info

Re: Evolution
 

I'm an astrophysics student, so I know a bit about the universe, and I can say there certainly was a big bang, and the Cosmic Microwave Background (a small "leftover" signal detected from every direction in the sky) is proof of that. The signal from that Background is approximately 13-14 billion years old. Also, the universe is expanding, so if you trace it back then you see it was once at a single point.

As for evolution, it stands to reason plants and animals will change over time. For example, humans didn't have red hair until a few thousand years ago. Little changes like this are sometimes passed on, and over time build up until eventually an organism is completely different from its ancestor.

Re: Evolution
 

[QUOTE=Nordicvs]XC, evolution is a fact. You can study it, document it, test it. It's called "The Theory of Evolution" because it's a scientific premise.[QUOTE]

If that were the case there wouldn't be the need to find the 'missing link', and it would be called the 'Fact of Evolution' surely? The only odd thing i find with the theory is that where the hell are all the fossil records of the 'inbetween' stages of evolution? But yeah i do believe it occurs, albeit not as drastically as Darwin puts it.

If his theory is 100% correct then I guess you can expect to see apes and monkeys walking down the high street at some point in the future - although they won't be the same right!? :eek: Oh, that's assuming we've not managed to decimate our planet and make them extinct first.

Re: Evolution
 

As yod@ said: "heart is a very good example of evolution". Here is some info (theory...) about how the hearts of humans (vertebrates) have evolved:

http://www.24hourscholar.com/p/artic...09/ai_61524423

IMO the evolution theory explains perfectly what it was designed for: the evolution of species. But not how the universe was created. THIS is a typical hen and egg problem.

Although I (being an agnostic) don't believe in a god I don't see that the evolution theory has to be a contradiction to religious beliefs (if people don't try to believe the Bible literally - a collection of scrolls written and edited by humans).

I think !moof is a very good example for a religious but rational person.

Re: Evolution
 

Well pretty much the creation argument has been blown out of the water here.

Look, if you study biology, even basic biology, the logic should come to you with ease. There is no way, whatsoever, that animals were created by God in the context of the bible. That he just 'made' us. If a God exist, he had to make us the hard way, which takes billions of years.

Re: Evolution
 

not in comparison to humans.

Re: Evolution
 

:agreed u are so right

Re: Evolution
 

And why do whales have rudimentary legs? The evolution of the whales had long been criticized by creationists because there had not been enough fossils to prove it. But during the past years the collection of transitional vertebrate fossils has grown and the (creationist) criticism isn't substantiated anymore (if it had ever been).

Here are some pictures of transitional fossils:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/beasts/evidence...chus_large.jpg

http://vbeaud.free.fr/Sciences/Biolo...akicetus_2.jpg

http://www.kp-art.fi/taustaa/taustaa2/img/02_5_7.jpg

http://www.cas.cz/ziva/cisla/0405/17.jpg

http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/U...ocetidaeA5.jpg


I suggest you follow this link to get the whole story:

http://afarensis.blogsome.com/2005/0...-whales-tales/

Re: Evolution
 

I like when creationists ask questions like, well how come monkeys are still around? Or, How come the fossils aren't there to prove it? And then the evolutionists provide links to prove there point. I have not seen one creationist link, or factual information in this post besides opinionated material. I don't know, it just seems to me that creatinism doesn't hold too much water anymore.

Re: Evolution
 

I think it explains alot (but just for now).. Man has evolved to a specie that has grown alot of curiosity, so its only logical that man is destend to find out how we did come to the point of "existance". The evolution theory seems to me a good one and only the most logical one for the moment. And Darwin proved that "old" species do evolve into "new" species. So yeah, the poll's clear to me :)

Re: Evolution
 

To settle this, read Genome, Chapter 1. Explains EVERYTHING.

All life is complex, no matter how simple it may seem. How long do you think it took a simple water microbe to become how it is today? 4.7 billion years right? But how do you think it became that way? Evolution has been proven. Humans contain genes of these 'simple' water microbes and use them in similar ways. What are we? A product of gene transitions. The same genes that exist within us exist in nearly every other species on this planet. THEY HAVE THE SAME FUNCTION. A species is meerly a collection of different genes, a combination of them. Put all the genes together, take out the neccessary genes, take out any unneccesary genes (eyesight, taste, hearing...[More like gene complexes]), provide all neccesarry materials, and poof. Youd get an organism. A seamingly random yet complex organism at that.

Evolution is the process of change when one species attempts to adapt more to its new environment. Why do monkeys still exist? This can be explained through a branching method of thinking. Species dont always live together and so they get seperated (meaning they live in different environments). Recall that Evolution is the process of change when one species attempts to adapt more to its new environment. Since the species of monkeys living in the warmer climate didnt need its fur, it lost most of its fur. Through this change, we can trace humans and chimpanzess back to one common ancestor.

And for the simplicity argument I have this to say: A single grain of rice contains over twice as many genes as the human. How is that simple? According to the logic that microbes arent complex, that makes us simple creatures.

As for the carbon dating argument. Carbon dating works but it doesnt give back a certain year. It gives back a range of years as to when the carbon in the organism was at 100% of its capacity (or whatever number is needed to sustain).

So please, dont attempt to argue with a theory which shows 1000000% more evidence than one which sustains that all species were created by a great being.

Re: Evolution
 

[color=black]

Hypotheses are formulated from observations, and theories develop from these hypotheses. Both theories and hyptheses are based on objective inferences.

Evolution can be observed--as a fact--in bacteria, insects, even mice--with dramatic changes to these organisms, reacting to changes in enviroment. With larger organisms, which have longer life spans, it is less obvious and harder to study.

There are gaps in fossil records (do you know how difficult it is to find an 80 million-year-old set of skeletal remains from an extinct species?) because it's a lengthy, difficult process. All that is required is time; more and more gaps will be filled in, as it has been for the last hundred years. Using objective inferences, we can ascertain in the meantime what course of evolution a species probably toke, based on hard science.


1. There are no percentages of accuracy in theories--is the "Theory of Gravity" 100% correct? No, because we still have no idea what exactly (precisely) gravity is, but we can scientifically measure its effect on things (here, in space, and on the moon). Yet it's pretty much accepted as a fact--what is a fact? A very generally accepted truth, arrived at by scientific methodology.

2. Why do apes have to turn into bipeds? Evolution has no plan for a life form. If at some point in the future a species of ape needs this ability, to walk upright on two legs, it will begin to develop this ability. If it doesn't need to change, it won't.

3. Extinction is a natural process on this planet--things have gone extinct far before we were here, things are going extinct now, and things will continue to go extinct long after we are gone. This is the order of life--life and death, one species disappears and another species fills that void. Life goes on.

Re: Evolution
 

Can creationism really be called a theory? It doesn't have any scientific background at all. In fact, I would even call it a hypothesis. It is just an idea.

Re: Evolution
 

Quick note: carbon dating cannot prove how old the earth/certain stones are, because it becomes highly after - what? - 50000 years? There are other methods: argon dating for example.

Re: Evolution
 

Creationism is as much a scientific theory as the idea that parking a plane in the WTC will bring you onto the highway to heaven where you receive infinite pleasure by 72 young virgins.

As long as we can't prove fundamentalists wrong (because they don't obey scientific methods and don't use theories that can be falsified) we have to accept their ideas. Wait... No.

Re: Evolution
 

WOW cheers :D . Those are some of the meanest looking critters i've ever seen! Wonder why the top one 'decided' it would be better off being aquatic though - it looks perfectly capable of looking after itself don't ya think?

Re: Evolution
 

Yeah, it's not very often that a species goes into the water--they're usually developing out of it and onto land.

It could be that its habitat was closed off and cilmatic conditions caused it to flood very often. Maybe tectonic activity was driving that bit of land underwater somewhere. Generally, an area growing wetter and wetter over generations would task this species to change, so it can survive in such an environment.

But I'm just guessing here.

Re: Evolution
 

I believe extra terrestrials seeded us into rapidly advancing our genetics. Other wise, why hasn't any other species that has thrived as long as us not taken their own steps into advancing as we have.

Re: Evolution
 

Just a theory I have, but I believe that at any given point in time, only one species can be dominant. We also have the advantage of highly developed brains.

Re: Evolution
 

But why has our brain developed farther than is needed for survival? Recorded history started some 10000 years ago, exactly what happened before that point it unknown. In the end everyone is left to their opinions, this is mine.

Re: Evolution
 

Maybe this is something I'm just not getting here... Why do people talk about evolution as if there is intent behind it? Why would you think monkeys decided to walk upright and lose their tails just to become another species? It's ridiculous.

Apparently, humans are the only animals that have a consciouness, ability to form complex abstract theories, etc... And yet, when a guy finds a wife and impregnates her, is he thinking about how the mixture of their genes will affect the human species on the whole? No. And if humans - the only things that could possibly be making that sort of contemplation - aren't doing it, then crocodiles and apes and dinosaurs sure as hell won't.

And this thing about the hearts (irreducable complexity, or something like that?)... Evolution does not mean that any organ that is not of great use to a species will be removed immediately on the advent of the next generation. If it meant that, what about the appendix thing in the human digestion system, for example? That's of absolutely no use to us now, and hasn't been for many generations, but it is still undeniably there. Evolution isn't trying to perfect all creatures. Evolution isn't trying a thing. Evolution has no consciousness, no intent, no point.

Voted on not having an opinion.

Re: Evolution
 

Evolution is real. It explains the origins of practically everything. All those religious versions are nonsense.

Re: Evolution
 

finaly somebody mentions it... well i dont believe that crap..

Re: Evolution
 

uh, my friend, you posted a pic of Andrewsarchus, which was after Ambliosetus and around the same time as Balisaurus. It's been basically ruled out as an ancestor to whales and has been more closely linked to goats and sheep (it's a hoofed carnivore) :confused:

Re: Evolution
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truce Maybe this is something I'm just not getting here... Why do people talk about evolution as if there is intent behind it? Why would you think monkeys decided to walk upright and lose their tails just to become another species? It's ridiculous.

Yes. Decision is not relevant--if the species needs to change, it does; if it doesn't need to change, it stays the same. The animals have no knowledge of the change.

The ant hasn't changed much for 400 million years--except getting smaller, as many insects have. Which makes sense--the more plants and animals on the planet, the less room there would be. Insects decreased in size as a result, and probably also to make better use of vegetation, to remain hidden and harder to see/eat.



Humans have what might be called an ultra consciousness--advanced reasoning, awareness of mortality--but all mammals seem to be able to dream, have basic reasoning ability, et cetera, a consciousness.



Well, yes, the old appendix. It's still being fought over.

This sums it up:

The scientific argument:

Quote:

The creationist argument:



If the appendix was meant for assisting digestion in some way, as it does in other mammals, the it serves no function in humans (in that regard).

If the appendix used to serve that function but now serves a different purpose, moreso in regard to immune system, then this is evidence that organs can adapt and change to serve other purposes.

Therefore, this does not support the creationist argument that nothing in humans in unnecessary; in fact, it weakens the overall argument, showing that while everything may seem to have a purpose, some purposes are no longer relevant, yet the human body has adapted to changing circumstances and found another use for the organ.

Re: Evolution
 

Since the begining of the primates, there have been numerous species of monkeys that decided to walk upright, possible for easier access to food. We have always had four fingers and a thumb. All primate species I believe have this.

Eventually when our ancestors began to stand up longer, they probably figured out how to make use of tools such as sticks and rocks to fend off from enemies. This is when our brains began to evolve. And I think it wouldn't have been possible if it weren't for our thumbs. Our thumbs hold the key to our success. Anyway, once we began to figure out the functions of tools, our brains over a period of a few million years started to adapt to make use of this knowledge. We become more proficient at using tools. Soon we begin to figure out more complex things, like using animal fur to keep us warm. This takes away the need to use fur over time.

You people against these ideas just think that this all happened over a period of a few thousand years or something. It took millions of years for the evolutionary changes to take place that make humans what we are today.

Re: Evolution
 

Thanks for the info, but you obviously didn't follow the link I provided http://forums.filefront.com/images/smilies/winkx.gif.

(http://afarensis.blogsome.com/2005/...d-whales-tales/)
Andrewsarchus is actually a relative of our familiar hoofed animals and a distant relative of the early whale, Basilosaurus.

Re: Evolution
 

and the reason I did not follow your link

And people were asking why the top creature decided to jump in the water, I just thought I'd point out, it didn't, it never turned into a whale. Hoofed animals don't get along well with water, messes up their equilibrium and they get really stupid and often drown.

Re: Evolution
 

Polar bears anyone?

If their main food source was in the water, and over a period of time they keep eating animals from the water, eventually they are going to make changes to allow them to manuever in the water better. Until, that is, they are in the water completely. You're hypothesis is easily blown out of the water by fifth grade biology.

Re: Evolution
 

Re: Evolution
 

HOOFED animals dippy, I know animals go in the water, this one did not, the author just even said it did not, it's not an ancestor of whales, it's a RELATIVE of whales, are you following this story yourself?

Re: Evolution
 

anyways only thing that the creationists do is try to disprove the evolutionary theory , there is no way they can prove that god created everything , only thing they have is their faith

Re: Evolution
 

because it's flawed. I'm not saying there is no evolution, I'm just pointing out errors. Evolution may be what God used as a means of creating life, I'm not debating that issue because I don't know for sure. If you really want some fun, go disprove God exists. Go dig up Sporky's old thread and have a hay-day with it yourself.

Re: Evolution
 

Forgot who posted this and sorry to bring it up so long after post, but it is pretty much proven that at the time of the dinosaurs extinction there was a meteor that hit and caused a thick layer of dust to form and cover the atmosphere. This led to a sever ice-age and did not allowed for plants to recieve sun for photosynthesis.

Pieces of the meteor have been discovered and aged to (around) the year of the exctintion of dinosaurs. The crater is on the Tunguska river in Siberia (i believe) and had the power of a 10-megaton bomb.

My thoughts on the whole evolution theory is that it does exist. Did we derive from apes? No. I believe that when the cells divided in early stages of evolution, two seperate but similar beings emerged. One of the ape, the other of the human. Perhaps God had planned this from the beginning in order to give faith in all non-deity believers and that it was made from his form. If God doesn't exist then it all relies on complete and factual history (aside from where the universe was created or what of).

As for our age, notice the increase of baldness. Date back to early times and pictures/paintings of older men. Not many are nearly as balding as today. In fact, women's balding has increased within the last 100 years. Perhaps fingernails and toenails were originally claws, maybe we did have use for tails, maybe we didn't walk on 2 legs until recently.

If you think about how long we have been around, we have evolved a significant amount compared to other creatures, perhaps that puts us in a whole other theory of evolution. Say the existance of Earth was put on a one year scale. Humans didn't come along until late in the day on December 31. We have evolved that much, of a single cell organism (possibly), to what we are today. Imagine what we will be like in another 5,000 or so years.

Re: Evolution
 

Hmm, a problem with your browser? I had no problem opening my link repeated in YOUR post, but anyway... Maybe just a temporal web server overload ;).

And I NEVER claimed that, again ("A transitional is not necessarily directly ancestral to the later organism").

You are right, Andrewsarchus is not a direct ancestor of the Basilosaurus. But in fact, their closest living relatives are the modern whales and cloven-hoofed animals. You obviously couldn't open the article, so I don't blame you.

Once again the link: http://afarensis.blogsome.com/2005/0...-whales-tales/

Re: Evolution
 

Actually, it hasn't. The more-developed humans killed off the less-developed human, an internal trigger that caused the evolution of the modern human brain.

The proces started with a massive wave of fire that killed a lot of stuff. Then the dust and the cooling and the famine.
Actually, the Tunguska Explosion happened in 1909(?) and there was no crater. The hypothesized location of the dinosaur-killing asteroid's (not a comet) crater is in and around the Yucatan Peninsula, a massive impact dating to about 65 million years ago.

Re: Evolution
 

thats what you people say prove god exists , prove evolution works

well, you say that god exists so prove it.

yeah and sporky is sorely missed here

Re: Evolution
 

Bacteria, viruses and insects evovle much faster than we do, its due in part to reproduction rate. Humans in 5000 years (if there are still humans in 5000 years of course...) will be different but the differences won't be as big as you thing (they will mostly differ because of a different diet and probably less physical activities). Medical science slows human evolution, has it can save many people who would have died without reproducing had they not received medical care (at birth or later). Of course in 5000 years we will have started since a long time to modify our gene pool by ourselves, so I guess what I said before won't be a problem.

Re: Evolution
 

Yes, it may not even be possibly to study human evolution (from two thousand years ago and beyond the present). We're the things we're studying, and we have the power to control our own genetics. This wouldn't be scientifically valid and would be quite biased.

All we can do is continue working on anthropololgy and archaeology, continue looking for clues to how humans can to be here from earlier proto-humans. As opposed to throwing our arms in the air and screaming: "God did it!"

Hard work, research, and using logic will pay off. There is still much to learn.

Re: Evolution
 

wow, now thats alot of posts in one night. Why do we only use 1/5 of our brain, why did our brain so excessively evolve, just to throw stones at each other or beat each other with sticks? Please explain the dating system, dating from the layer of rock it's found under is rediculous. All the time they find petrified wood stretching through millions of years of rock, some sideways or even upside down. Did Richard Leakey not find a full human skeleton dated under 212 million years of rock? Well before the apparant 3.5 million years lucy was found under. And to suggest the earth relatively kept it's climates for billions of years is rediculious, more than just a handful of meteors would have hit us. And the method of carbon dating would undoubtly have been effected or distorted by something over millions of years. There is no proving god does not exist, and there is no proving life existed before 10000-15000 years ago. All i see is the wonders of god's creation and it's immensly diverse species. Fossils explain nothing, except they used to live at one time.

There is evidence the universe began, big bang or not. And the only logical explaination is something that has always existed, that created the universe. This god could not have just appeared because that is impossible and illogical, he must have always existed or else we have to ask the 'hen or the egg' argument. The universe could not have just began because that is impossible and illogical. The string theory has absolutely 0 evidence. The universe will not implode, because it is accelerating it's rate of expansion. Therefore God creating the universe is the only logical explanation. That is evidence enough for me.

But this is about evolution not the big bang. This is all stuff off the top of my head. i guess i should start researching for a better argument. in the mean time i expect another 50 post rebuttal to my post, with still no evidence, just assumptions. Try explaining the first species to me then, how it came to be, and how it survived (single celled of course.) from the pre-biotic soup, just to refresh my memory.

Re: Evolution
 

We don't use only 20% of our brains--that's a myth. We use all of our brains, but not all at once and usually no more than 25% at one time (unless we're really multi-tasking).

Are you refering to "Turkana Boy?" If so, Turkana Boy was the nearly complete skeleton of a 9-year-old hominid who died 1.5 million years ago. The rock around or over him is of little consequence.

A landslide of much older rock could have covered the skeleton. Big deal

I'm not sure what point you have here.

Here's some info on radiocarbon dating:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating

Evolution is a biological science and doesn't give a shit about religions. Is Physics out to disprove God or Allah or even Zeus? No. Neither is evolution.

I think you just contradicted yourself--if fossils prove nothing, except that life existed a long, long time ago, then they do prove something, and they are evidence that life existed a long, long time ago.

Or he created himself. Or he doesn't exist at all. Or he died some time ago.

Sources, please.

Hey, good for you. Then why are you threatened by a discussion of evolution?

There ya go. Your mind is made up before even showing up :cya:

Re: Evolution
 

Still doesn't explain the need for such a large brain, i highly doubt throwing stones at things is such a mental excersize. Any answers to how the blowholes came in whales?

I guess i must be refering to that, remember it was a full human skeleton, not a transitional species, meaning we remained the same for 1.5 million years. exactly, dating by the layer of rock is very innacurate, very subject to change by even the slightest landslide, thanks for proving my point. Remember the trees i brought up. The only way of dating is just a Giant guess.
My point was the earth is constantly changing, especially if the earth is allegedly 4.6 billion years old, something would have destroyed life one way or another, especially meteors.
No it just proves they once existed, it does not show when or if any existed before or after another species. and there is still a huge lack of transitional species and huge leaps between current species. There would have to be 1000s if not more of transitional species fossils out there.

God must be almighty, and he must be above all the laws of this universe, or the idea of god is flawed. He must have always existed and he must always exist in the future or the idea of god is flawed. Nothing comes from nothing.

well i felt obligated to post my opinion due to childish posts comparing thiesm to being an idiotic/unscientific idea. I firmly stand that evolution has no facts and only brings more useless questions.

People keep listening to everything they are told in schools about evolution, they don't know the contradictions and they pass it all as fact. They just run around waving their hands in the air declaring 'evolution is fact' with out any proof. We'll see how long i can last against the army of evolution...

Re: Evolution
 

Obviously we were throwing more than stones, and walking upright required ancient humans to adapt their morphology to accommodate this bipedalism.

Anyway, arguments from ignorance are not real arguments; saying that some information is lacking does prove that a deity did it--where's the chain of evidence to that?
All that proves is that further study and research is needed. No scientist will say that human knowledge is complete--it is just beginning.
Blowholes in whales? No, I am unfamilar with whales in general.



What point of yours did I prove? They didn't date the skeleton on the basis of rocks on top of it.

Turkana Boy is classified as either Homo erectus or Homo ergaster--not Homo sapiens.



Why? It's very probable that meteors brought life to this planet. Do you have any idea how tenacious life is? A virus can lay dormant for thousands of years. Bugs can stay dormant or frozen for a long time and still survive--eggs, seeds, et cetera, can last for centuries. Life cannot be stopped or rarely even contained. It can survive at the bottom of the ocean or at the top of a mountain or frozen in Antarctica.

Besides, the atmosphere is much thicker than it used to be--most meteors never even break through it...they burn up. Long ago it was thinner, so many more got through.



If you had read a little further, past the first sentence, you would have found that it's one type of radiometric dating. Only one.

--The rubidium-strontium dating method is a radiometric dating technique that geologists use to determine the age of rocks.



--Potassium-argon or K-Ar dating is a method used by archaeologists and geologists to ascertain the date of ancient mineral deposits.

--Argon-argon dating is a radiometric dating technique similar to that of Potasium-Argon. In fact, Argon-Argon is a method to confirm the results of the K-Ar results by verifying how much Atomspheric argon was initially in the rock when it cooled, or if the rock has been reheated and "reset".

--Uranium-thorium dating, also often referred to as thorium-230 dating, uranium-series disequilibrium dating or uranium-series dating, is a radiometric dating technique commonly used to determine the age of carbonate materials such as speleothem or coral.

--Optically Stimulated Luminescence or OSL Dating is a method of establishing the age of soil sediments. It is used by archaeologists as an alternative to radiocarbon dating.

This last one is accurate to around 200,000 years.

Uranuim-lead dating is good at dating things older then that. Archaeologists have dated things from the early Permian period, and the beginning of the Triassic period, 252.6 million years ago. Give or take 200,000 thousand years.

And these are merely the radiometric ways to date things. Carbon 14 is not the only one employed--just the most famous.



Yes, there are gaps. The gaps, however, are not as wide as they were 80 years ago; and 80 years from now, they will even thinner.



Whether theism is idiotic or not is open to opinion; is it unscientific? Yes, it is. Faith holds it together and is its basis. It does not use scientific method.
However, this thread is not about religion, or about attacking it. The stickied religion thread is a good place for that. Or the Melee.


Army of evolution? I don't follow.

Evolution is a fact, in certain instances--studying bacteria, viruses, microbes, insects, even mice. Anything that has a short life span and breeds in large numbers.

How is it that so many varieties of dogs came to be? Did God do that? Or did humans breed those dogs, using applied genetics, to creates dogs with the traits they wanted. Evolution at work, bud.

Re: Evolution
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by crassus Still doesn't explain the need for such a large brain, i highly doubt throwing stones at things is such a mental excersize. Any answers to how the blowholes came in whales?

Having a nasal passage on the top of ones head is obviously an adaptation, as is a larger brain and being bipedal. The fossil record shows translation of nasal passages on aquatic mamals from the front to the top of different animals heads.



No, Potassium-Argon dating is the other way; it uses the same principle of Carbon Dating, only uses a different isotope which decays much more slowly, allowing effective dating in the hundreds of millions, even billions of years.

The oldest fossilized bacteria ever found is around 2 billions years old. Before that the earth was still a giant sphere of molten rock and metal. Life is surprisingly resilient, one of the more elegant aspects of the theory of evolution.

Quote:

No it just proves they once existed, it does not show when or if any existed before or after another species. and there is still a huge lack of transitional species and huge leaps between current species. There would have to be 1000s if not more of transitional species fossils out there.

Fossils are very rare because of the circumstances required to produce them. Transition can be observed on a wider scale. Prior to the Mesozoic era (age of reptiles [dinosaurs]), in the Paleozoic, reptiles first appear. In the last period of the era, mammal like reptiles appear and dominate the landscape. After the Permian extinction, in which 90% of all species died, the Mesozoic era began, noted by the dominance of Bird-like Reptiles (aka Dinosaurs). Towards the end of the Mesozoic we find that primitive mammals and primitive birds exist.

Re: Evolution
 

crassus, evolution does not have any facts, and neither does science. Science is not about learning facts. Science is about explaining how the universe works. Evolution is explaining the "origins of species".

I've said why we have bigger, more powerful brains. We are tool-users. Tool-users use their brains to invent tools. Better brains=better tools. More complex tools actually stimulate brain development, which means smarter humans. Smarter humans build better tools.

Wolf->Dog through evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
This link explains whale evolution quite well.

The oldest known Homo Sapiens specimen dates back 190,000 years, FYI.

Re: Evolution
 

All that brings me to my main point, (http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...17/i3/pigs.asp)that the method of dating used by scientists is highly innacurate and is always subject to change. Dating by the rocks from around the fossils is very innacurate which seems to be the only method of dating used. And most, if not all, of those dating methods u provided will almost always contradict each other, they will not all come up with the same answer. It is All circular reasoning after the 50,000 year point, which will then create much debate on every single thing found. I will not throw my money on the highly unstable theory of evolution. Where as the theory and longest standing scientific belief that god created all will never be proven wrong.
or wider, as more theories come, more unanswered questions arise.
The Scientific method i agree with completely, Macro-evolution has not been observed and therefor holds no fact through the scientific method. The simple fact that life/the universe exists, is evidence enough through the scientific mehod that creation can be a credible scientific fact.
i agree, so no more idiotic rants that creation has no evidence if evolution lacks any evidence.
Evolution is not a fact, it is all guessing and circular reasoning. All those dogs are just dogs, a dog can breed with a dog, it's still a dog. It's like saying a black person can't breed with a white person, that one evolved from the other, which is rediculious. Dogs are not evolving before our eyes, otherwise they would be super dogs of drastically different chapes and sizes within just a few million years, infact that proves the earth is no more than a few thousand years old. These minor changes are written in our DNA and does not make us a different species. and note the word written, u cant throw a bunch of nuts and bolts together in a box and shake it expecting a computer to come out. or that 747 in a junkyard argument.

Re: Evolution
 

crassus.

1. The Scientific method i agree with completely, Macro-evolution has not been observed and therefor holds no fact through the scientific method. The simple fact that life/the universe exists, is evidence enough through the scientific mehod that creation can be a credible scientific fact.

a. Macroevolution has been seen in microbiotic development.

b. The fact that the universe exists does not prove creationism, it proves that the world exists.

2. Okay on the dog breeds thing, what about wolves and dogs? They are diffferent species, yet they developed based on artificial selection, aka evolution.

Re: Evolution
 

Evolution in the present day is perfectly valid to me. It is completely observable and provable through testing in laboratories and the like. Thus I absolutely have no problems with micro-evolution, or, in essence, adaptation. My problem with the Theory of Evolution arises way back at the beginning of the universe.

First of all, the problem I have with the initial Big Bang Theory is that there is no good explanation for where the primeval fireball came from. Some people claim that the ball has always existed, while others say that there was no Big Bang and that the expanded universe has always existed. I don't like either of these theories, especially when they finish with, "But, of course, stating that a higher being has always existed is completely ludicrous," because I don't think that there is much of a jump between "The universe has always existed." and "God has always existed."

But I digress. This is not about the Big Bang Theory but about evolution, but I have a problem with the beginning of evolution as well. It is very similar to the first: Where did life come from? How did life originate? Unfortunately for the evolutionists, nobody I've heard of supports the notion that life has always existed, so that loophole isn't an option here. Dirt and rocks, even if they come together and form a planet, cannot evolve to form life.

Therefore my belief is that God created the universe. He set all the planets in motion, made the star systems, etc. He created life on Earth (humans included, or we lose our intrinsic value), with the special ability to adapt to our surroundings in an ever-changing world. That would also explain the presence of evolution and adaptation today.

So...what do you think? :D

Re: Evolution
 

This theory is no more or less plausible than the theory that certain molecules on our planet billions of years ago allowed prokaryotic cells to form. Actually, scientists have done tests with electricity and various other intruments and have created life inside labs. It was in my biology book, so I don't have a source. In my opinion, the theory of evolution holds far more water than the theory of creationism. Again, as has been repeated over and over, evolution is based on observations and many hypothesises that have been tested and proven to work. Not everything in evolution is for certain. That is why we are still learning.

But, how many tests have you seen that prove some invisible entity created all life? How much physical proof can you come up with to prove the existance of a God? All I see are historical writings by Nomads thousands of years ago. I will take the word of a scientist from today over the word of an ignorant nomad from thousands of years ago.