…so for those of you who believe in the theory of evolution, please explain this to me 
The way I understand it, the nitty gritty details of life origins are still not very well understood. Evolution deals mostly, like 99% or more, with what happened next. There are some things we know about the environment that fostered origins, but we don’t know nearly as much about origins as we do about how life evolved since then.
You’ll note the wikipedia article says almost nothing about origins:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
If you’re interested in what we know about the origins of life, the better search term is:
jesus made it 
Not really.
I`d recommend reading “Life on Earth” by David Attenborough
Well, if anything, evolution has been more or less proven to be false. If it was a fact, we’d have fossil records of “missing links” between every species and the next. For example, if the giraffe was really a descendant of the antilope, we would have fossils of intermediate forms with progressively longer necks. We haven’t found a single one of these, for any species.
Evolutionists concentrate on the “missing link” between apes and humans, when all they have is a handful of deformed specimens, which were probably diseased individuals to begin with. If these “ape-men” were more “fit” to survive than apes, then how come there are still apes, and not a single one of these ape-men?
Also, how did the first living cell come into existence? Even the simplest cell, such as the e.coli bacteria, is extremely complex. Next to it, the most advanced man-made computer is nothing but sticks and stones. Just take a look at how DNA works, which is present even in bacteria - a very complicated and powerful mechanism.
That’s just a few of the serious flaws in the theory of evolution. Also, if evolution is a proven fact, why do evolutionists still disagree about fundamental aspects of it?
The renoise devs did it. They used a secret pattern command to travel back in time before when gods popped into existance in the minds of people popping into existance. Most probably it was one of the cells that came off of taktik’s feet beim ‘füsse waschen’.
Organic molecules form in the cold desolate vacuum of interstellar space:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_formaldehyde
“Formaldehyde is believed to be the primary precursor for most of the complex organic material in the interstellar medium, including amino acids.”
Given a warm carbon rich atmosphere and 4,500,000,000 years to simmer its no surprise that complex molecules became capable of regulating their own internal chemistry with a fatty membrane to contain it all. This is called homeostasis and is the the first indication of organic life:
Ok, so certain very basic chemical components of amino acids etc. appear at random, even in space. It does not change the fact, that it is a scientific impossibility that a full living cell would appear out of inanimate matter, even in the span of 4.something billion years, even in the perfect living conditions.
Try this: Take all the components of a laptop computer: cpu, memory sticks, motherboard, screen components, hard disk, external chassis, screws, renoise etc etc etc… and put them all in a plastic bag. Now shake the bag, until you obtain a fully assembled laptop from the bag. Assuming the earth is, as you said it, 4.something billion years old, do you think you’ll obtain a fully assembled laptop even if you keep shaking the bag for 4.xx billion years? Well, this is a gross under-estimation of the problem. As mentioned above, even the most simple of living cells is much more complex than any man-made machine.
And, even IF by some miracle a living cell did pop into existence, this does not solve the problem of its environment. A single living cell would never be able to survive for very long in this big “mush pool” of lifeless matter - let alone live long enough to multiply. Even in the span of 4.xx billion years, even in the perfect living conditions.
I don’t know why I’m bothering to enter into a discussion like this, but a few things need to be said. I came from a very religious family, I’m familiar with all the creationist bullshit arguments because I’ve used them myself once upon a time. Funny thing happens though when you’re (I’m) confronted with evidence, proof, and facts, instead of cherry picked snippets of information and warped logic.
First of all, there is no thing called “the theory of evolution,” you’ll note the wikipedia article does not say “the theory of evolution,” it just says evolution. Saying “the theory of evolution” is a tactic often used, because it reduces the body of knowledge and evidence in evolutionary science down to a single refutable item. This also presents an opportunity to say “it’s just a theory, it hasn’t been proven.” This is absurd. There is no singular statement of the theory of evolution, evolution is a massive body of knowledge we have about how life develops. It’s a concept. The “theory” part does not mean hypothesis, it means something closer to “useful model.” Like music theory. Music theory is useful in explaining and understanding how a lot of music “works.” But it’s not a hypothesis, and obviously music exists. Theory means a model works well enough theoretically to be useful when applied to the real world.
Evolutionary science is way too large to summarize well enough in a forum post, there is simply too much evidence, and I would encourage you to seek it out rather than dismissing it. It’s not something that is up for debate, at all, it’s just science, supported by hard evidence, and decades of research. The only opponents are a fraction of some religious communities who see it as an attack on their faith. Outside of religion, there is no debate, there is only the scientific method repeating infinitely.
If it was a fact, we’d have fossil records of “missing links” between every species and the next. For example, if the giraffe was really a descendant of the antilope, we would have fossils of intermediate forms with progressively longer necks. We haven’t found a single one of these, for any
What? Why?
Look at these 10 pictures then come back to the thread.
Evolution isn’t growing a beard slowly. Evolution happens when a mutant is born, is an abomination, but everyone around them dies.
There’s no transition per say. It can be extremely volatile
If you have Netflix, the second episode of the new Cosmos series is really good at explaining evolution in a way most anyone can understand. It’s very well done. Entire series was great actually.
…so for those of you who believe in the theory of evolution, please explain this to me
Big topic. Huge topic. At first I didn’t really want to answer, but what the hell I’m bored and burned out from wrestling with the ambiguities between sustained chords and quartal harmonies.
I actually don’t really believe in evolution. It’s a plausible explanation of observed phenomena, but if someone comes up with a better, more useful, more plausible explanation tomorrow, I’m all ears.
OK, first a few basics:
Abiogenesis has no direct link, as a theoretical concept, with evolution. So that right there means that your initial question probably arose from a state of confusion. More on this later.
Evolution itself ranges in form and magnitude. Microevolution is actually directly observable in a laboratory, today, over the course of a few weeks if you’re interested. Attend any serious course in agricultural entomology, and you’ll get to see it. It’s up for about as much debate as the dangers of driving without a seatbelt.
Macroevolution has been tracked quite meaningfully throughout the fossil record, especially in better preserved fossils such as invertebrates in amber. The fact that we don’t have total knowledge of every species which ever existed comes down to the fact that most corpses simply decompose (or are outright consumed) quite quickly. Turning into a fossil is a rare event, statistically speaking. If you go into things like the punctuated equilibrium approach to evolutionary analysis, it’s no real surprise that our catalogue of intermediate stages is patchy. But not nonexistent!
As for the giraffe, take a look at the okapi for similarities. And if you really, genuinely want to look deeper, look up the concept of a `ring species’. There are specifications on continua right here, right now, living on earth, measurably so.
But evolution doesn’t depend on an explanation of abiogenesis for its validity. Evolution could have happened from any form of genesis, given imperfect transmission of attributes, and statistics. This is why computer scientists can evolve procedurally recombined algorithms. So let’s return to the concept of abiogenesis.
The question of abiogenesis comes down to what your threshold is for the definition of life. Self-replication? Organisation in chemistry? That has already been demonstrated in pure chemistry, on any number of levels. A eukaryotic cell? I suppose that lets a virus, and presumably a prokaryote out. Why? You might have your reasons. Maybe a prokaryote is living in your view, but not a virus? Why not? I don’t know. You’d have to be fairly specific in your definitions to make a distinction. Bear in mind that if your threshold is a eukaryote, and I can start with a prokaryote, I can put forward a number of theories including pointing to gradual development based on the characteristics of several prokaryotes already known to exist, with what you might call proto-eukaryotic features.
So maybe that’s too easy, and you want to know how we can get a protein (because protein replication has already been demonstrated in the lab).
At this point I have to throw up my hands and just say: we have lots of hypotheses, none of which will ever be proven to be what actually happened, especially since all of them have some degree of plausibility. All we can say is that at some level something happened, and there’s no particular reason to dismiss abiogenesis as a viable hypothesis.
As for the typical irreducible complexity arguments, bear in mind that intermediate stages of a number of complex features such as eyes have been found, and that shaking laptop parts in a bag is a lousy metaphor for what happens on the molecular level.
I hope that helps clarify the terms of the discussion to help you ask apposite questions.
Well, if anything, evolution has been more or less proven to be false. If it was a fact, we’d have fossil records of “missing links” between every species and the next. For example, if the giraffe was really a descendant of the antilope, we would have fossils of intermediate forms with progressively longer necks. We haven’t found a single one of these, for any species.
Evolutionists concentrate on the “missing link” between apes and humans, when all they have is a handful of deformed specimens, which were probably diseased individuals to begin with. If these “ape-men” were more “fit” to survive than apes, then how come there are still apes, and not a single one of these ape-men?
Also, how did the first living cell come into existence? Even the simplest cell, such as the e.coli bacteria, is extremely complex. Next to it, the most advanced man-made computer is nothing but sticks and stones. Just take a look at how DNA works, which is present even in bacteria - a very complicated and powerful mechanism.
That’s just a few of the serious flaws in the theory of evolution. Also, if evolution is a proven fact, why do evolutionists still disagree about fundamental aspects of it?
“proven to be wrong” hah, aliens did it! No seriously, the “missing links” are being found all the time, completing more and more of the puzzle. The chance for remains to become fossilized in the first place is pretty damn small, so of course we haven’t found every piece of evolutionary development in every animal ever existed, that would take an insanely huge amount of paleontologists and whatever to complete and still it wouldn’t be complete because some animals won’t die at places where fossilization is possible.
It’s not just evolution, self organisation seems to be a feature of our universe. Complex systems seem to emerge due to the nature of matter itself, if you consider this phenomena alongside evolution then it all seems to make more sense… Well it does to me…
Check out stuff like Conways Game of Life for a simple but powerful example example of order emerging out of chaos. Also this: http://neweconomist.ru/files/Synergy.pdf
Quote: “It has been asserted that “spontaneous,” autocatalytic processes, which are held to be inherent properties of living matter itself, may be responsible for much of the order found in nature and that natural selection is merely a supporting actor.”
Edit: Also this: http://www.wired.com/2008/02/complexity-theo/
Saying “the theory of evolution” is a tactic often used, because it reduces the body of knowledge and evidence in evolutionary science down to a single refutable item.
Calling evolution a “science” is a tactic often used, because it not only (falsely) states, but also reinforces the statement by implying that it’s a true fact. Why don’t they show us the evidence if they have it? We only have illustrations drawn by evolutionists trying to hammer the idea into the public’s mind - and sadly, widely succeeding at that. IIRC some time in the 1950’s or 1960’s, entire families of so-called human ancestors were invented and accepted as fact by evolutionists - based on a single tooth fossil… which they later found was from a pig. That just shows you the way of thinking in the evolutionist community. A few other times, skulls that were passed for “human ancestors” were proven to be a hoax, built from mixed human and monkey bones.
It’s easy for evolutionists to act like they’ve gotten it all figured out, even though the fossil evidence is extremely scarce. It’s easy for them to act this way because in the position they are, they can easily brand anyone who doesn’t believe in evolution as non-scientific, ignorant fools. That’s the only reason the belief in evolution is so popular. And it got that way because people want to believe in evolution.
First of all, there is no thing called “the theory of evolution,” you’ll note the wikipedia article does not say “the theory of evolution,” it just says evolution.
It started as an unproven theory with Darwin’s “origin of species” book, and it’s still an unproven theory. Like i said, the fossil records of intermediate forms between species are extremely scarce. Look at the smithsonian museum’s website, at the pictures of presumed missing links between apes and humans. No kidding, that’s ALL they have. A handful of deformed, incomplete fossils from what were probably freaks or seriously diseased individuals. /* edit */ I also like their claim about DNA testing on fossils, even though DNA decays after a few thousand years, not millions.
There was a National Geographic article in 2004 that compared the fossil records of so-called human evolution, to a movie in which 999 out of 1000 frames were lost on the cutting room floor. From the remaining few frames, assuming you had them in the right order, how could you hope to understand what happens in the movie? Would you be able to understand the main plot, let alone thoudsands and thousands of specific details, which evolutionists claim to have?
Look at these 10 pictures then come back to the thread.
Evolution isn’t growing a beard slowly. Evolution happens when a mutant is born, is an abomination, but everyone around them dies.
Are any of these mutations beneficial? Do they make the person more “fit” to survive? Regardless, if these individuals have kids, the kids will be humans. If these kids have kids, those kids will still be humans, and so on and so on. The “unusual” genes in fact are certain to disappear, this has been observed in the past. They won’t turn into a new species, no matter how many generations down the line.
On the same topic, if the homo erectus existed and were more fit to survive than apes, then why aren’t there any homo erectus around, but there’s still plenty of apes? Same with any other presumed ape-man ancestor of modern humans? They were more fit to survive than apes, but they ALL died off, while apes still remain?
This reminds me of the mutation experiments they did with x-rays on several millions of fruit flies (drosophila flies) for dozens of years, ending in the mid 80’s at aronund 600 generations of fruit flies – the x-rays multiplied the factor of mutation by over 100. Once removed from the x-rays, after a few generations, even heavily mutated fruit flies became… guess what: back to normal fruit flies.
The same has been observed in several types of bacteria: no matter how severely mutated some (or many) individuals become, a species is a species, and will NOT turn into something else. Adaptation is not evolution. Also, take a look at the “liger” (breeding a tiger and a lion) and similar attempts to interbreed different species. In almost all cases, the results are severely crippled and sterile specimens that cannot reproduce with either parent species.
There’s no transition per say. It can be extremely volatile
Ok, so this contradicts the “fact” that evolution happens gradually over a very long period of time, right? That’s another aspect that evolutionists still debate over, each side claiming to have “THE only scientific truth”. Fossil records indicate a “boom” of many types of species appearing suddenly, but for some reason this debate still goes on. btw Darwin himself admitted that such a discovery would completely destroy his theory.
As for the link about the origins of the first cells, all i see on that page is a bunch of speculation based on nothing, spiced up with 10-foot long names etc etc. to make everything look impressive and imposing. Many details of what they claim is true, but there’s still the fundamental flaw that it’s a scientific and mathematical impossibility that a living cell would pop out of lifeless matter.
A quick google search for other such theories led me to similar speculations. But the one on howstuffworks says something interesting:
_Could life arise spontaneously? If you read How Cells Work, you can see that even a primitive cell like an E. coli bacteria – one of the simplest life forms in existence today – is amazingly complex. […] the first living cells had to possess:
- A cell wall
- The ability to maintain and expand the cell wall (grow)
- The ability to process “food” (other molecules floating outside the cell) to create energy
- The ability to split itself to reproduce
Otherwise, it is not really a cell and it is not really alive._
(bear in mind this is from a pro-evolutionist website, in a series of pages about evolution. According to the same site, the e.coli bacteria, one of the most primitive lifeforms known to exist today, is twice as complex as this imaginary basic model.)
Some day people will look at this retarded evolution dogma and they’ll think the same as for when people thought the earth was flat.
Personally i found these short videos pretty funny, especially the last one:
Evolutionists Debunk Evolution - YouTube
NO (CREDIBLE) TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS - THEORY OF EVOLUTION DEBUNKED FOREVER - YouTube
‘‘Intelligent’’ Atheists Left Speechless On A Question On Evolution - YouTube
Try this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecule
then this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymerization
then this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macromolecule
then this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleic_acid
You might also be interested in this:
I’m not sure how the apes’ survival into the modern world proves natural selection and evolution false. While the apes might be doing well enough in their particular deep jungle environments, I haven’t see too many roaming around northern mexico, the united states or canada. I don’t expect they would do very well if they tried. I imagine many other inhabitants of non-jungle environments would report the same findings.
Are any of these mutations beneficial? Do they make the person more “fit” to survive?
No, of course not. It was to show that if changes can happen at the level where you can see them with your own eyes. Then imagine what could be happening at the levels of cells or smaller; the lego blocks of life.
Which segways into “transition” and your concept of being able to find fossils, which by the way we use most of this stuff as GAS FOR YOUR CAR. Why is it reasonable to assume anything made of living tissue will ever be found by anyone? Things decompose.
Finally, that one time someone tried to cross breed a ligar, in our recorded history, is a terrible benchmark for how long things can take to change. But, they do.
Good times.
Some day people will look at this retarded evolution dogma and they’ll think the same as for when people thought the earth was flat.
Yes, I agree.
That doesn’t mean evolution isn’t a science. It can change based on new information, or be thrown out the window once better information takes it’s place.
Observable evidence points to evolution. Missing parts? That’s not a new theory. That’s nothing.
To conclude:
“Ok, how did the first song pop into existence?” …so for those of you who believe in music theory, please explain this to me.