Facts to disprove theory of evolution

[Ophiolite]

Why would anyone ever seek to oppose God's Plan , to depart from God's Way, to seek what is opposed to God's Word ? Who is it that attempts to thwart God's Word, Plan, and Healing; who seeks to oppose Truth, Jesus, Life as God Says ?

You should not confuse the absence of belief in God's plan, or of God, with opposition to such an imagined (by others) plan.

 

[stevil]

Personally, my favorite story from evolutionary theory is the one where that cow who walked out of the sea one day decides to walk back into the sea and become a whale. What a brilliant, visionary move. When you compare how much beef McDonald's sells to how much whale blubber they sell...brilliant move. <slow clap>

I would expect that prior to becoming a whale, the mammal would have had a period of time where it simply spent lots of time in water, e,g the Hippo

Yes, cows and hippos are both even-toed ungulates. But can you elaborate?

Well, in your post you were claiming that evolution is a result of brilliant, visionary moves.

You also bizarrely claimed that a cow walked out of the sea, perhaps implying that cows lived in the sea??
and then bizarrely claimed that the same cow made a decision to walk back into the sea and become a whale?

I was just pointing out that your post is nonsense and is avoiding the intermediary forms.
There is no evidence that cows were sea bound creatures ever.

 

[AV1611VET]

I would expect that prior to becoming a whale, the mammal would have had a period of time where it simply spent lots of time in water, e,g the Hippo

In actuality, whales came before land animals.

 

[stevil]

When The Creator States His PLan, and/or Reveals His Plan, it is not imagined but known.

Just waiting, any moment now, any moment,



still waiting.....


When will this "when" happen?

 

[Ophiolite]

When The Creator States His PLan, and/or Reveals His Plan, it is not imagined but known.

From your perspective. Just don't confuse my indifference to opposition.

 

[friend of]

That scenario is nothing like what would have to happen for humans to develop gills. To start with, even if humans were exposed to conditions in which they gradually developed the ability to breath under water, there is no necessity that the adaptation would even resemble the gills of a fish

How would any living creature ever adapt to an environment that is so hostile to it that in a matter of minutes of exposure to such an environment, said creature would literally die?

That's the question.

 

[partinobodycular]

Okay so if I as a human being wanted to develop gills so I could respirate underwater like a common fish, how would I go about it? Would I attempt to drown myself every day and force my descendants to do so for hundreds of thousands of years in order for evolution to "click" and say "I should give that man gills"

Somebody explain?

No, humans wouldn't evolve gills, because they wouldn't need gills, just as whales and dolphins don't need gills. In fact all that people would need is to just keep doing what the Bajau people do, spend an inordinate amount of time under water. Over time humans would evolve to be just as proficient at spending time underwater as many aquatic mammals are... no gills required. (Just an enlarged spleen) As a rule, the body doesn't evolve new stuff... it simply adapts what it already has.

 

[friend of]

it simply adapts what it already has

So the amoeba didn't develop organs? It had those organs already?

 

[Larniavc]

What I said was that the whale thing is my favorite TOE story.

But it's not a ToE story. It's a naive strawman that creationists tell each other because the don't understand biology. It's no more a part of ToE than nanotubules or graphullerene.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I agree. No one in their right mind would believe Barak Obama could evolve into Donald Trump. Same with cows and whales.

Not aurochs specifically, but closely related hooved creatures.

 

[Larniavc]

Okay so if I as a human being wanted to develop gills so I could respirate underwater like a common fish, how would I go about it?

You can't.

Wait, do you think individual animals turn into something else?

 

[Larniavc]

How would any living creature ever adapt to an environment that is so hostile to it that in a matter of minutes of exposure to such an environment, said creature would literally die?

It can't. I have to ask- why do you think it might adapt in a few minutes?

 

[Astrophile]

Is this a trick question? I said "monkey" and you said "apes". I thought humans were apes. Could it be that taxonomy is all just useless arbitrary semantics? For example, I have a banana in the kitchen which is yellow. I also own a shirt which is yellow. So obviously, bananas and shirts are the same type of thing.

No, this is not a trick question.

The answer depends partly on definition. However, if I understand it correctly, the evolutionary lineage leading to apes (including ourselves) and the lineage leading to Old World monkeys are both descended from common ancestors that lived about 26 million years ago and that were neither monkeys nor apes. If this is right, the apes (including extinct and living species) are descended from these common ancestors, not from monkeys.

I should be glad if anybody who knows more about this subject would correct me on this point.

 

[friend of]

You can't.

Wait, do you think individual animals turn into something else?

According to evolution, yes, they do. Everything living thing at one point derived from a single celled organism.

 

[friend of]

It can't. I have to ask- why do you think it might adapt in a few minutes?

That's my point. If there's no way for a marine animal to adapt to breathing oxygen with lungs, then other animals who have lungs shouldn't be able to get gills. The problem with evolutionary theory is that it explicitly states that marine animals developed the ability to respirate outside of water/gills. I am merely highlighting how absurd that proposition is, and you are agreeing with me.

 

[Astrophile]

What sort of facts could disprove it?

Does anyone have any?

If we were to observe the spontaneous generation of a living organism out of non-living or inorganic matter, that would be the sort of fact that could disprove evolution.

 

[Chesterton]

Well, in your post you were claiming that evolution is a result of brilliant, visionary moves.

You also bizarrely claimed that a cow walked out of the sea, perhaps implying that cows lived in the sea??
and then bizarrely claimed that the same cow made a decision to walk back into the sea and become a whale?

I was just pointing out that your post is nonsense and is avoiding the intermediary forms.
There is no evidence that cows were sea bound creatures ever.

I guess I'll take that as a "no, I cannot elaborate".

 

[partinobodycular]

So the amoeba didn't develop organs? It had those organs already?

This ain't rocket science. You begin with organisms comprised of very simple genetic building blocks. From those the potential to evolve organs is practically unlimited. And over time that's exactly what happens. However, once you begin to specialize it becomes easier to adapt what you already have, then to try to start all over from scratch. Which is why whales didn't evolve gills, they simply found a different way to survive in an aquatic environment.

If this is too difficult for you to understand then there's no sense in trying to explain it to you. Simply enjoy the wondrous bliss that comes with self-imposed ignorance.

 

[friend of]

This ain't rocket science. You begin with organisms comprised of very simple genetic building blocks. From those the potential to evolve organs is practically unlimited. And over time that's exactly what happens. However, once you begin to specialize it becomes easier to adapt what you already have, then to try to start all over from scratch. Which is why whales didn't evolve gills, they simply found a different way to survive in an aquatic environment.

If this is too difficult for you to understand then there's no sense in trying to explain it to you. Simply enjoy the wondrous bliss that comes with self-imposed ignorance.

Doesn't even begin to address what I said. Thanks for nothing.

 

[Chesterton]

But it's not a ToE story. It's a naive strawman that creationists tell each other because the don't understand biology. It's no more a part of ToE than nanotubules or graphullerene.

Okay then. Tell me what actually happened.