Does "evolution" really make sense?

[Hortysir]

Hortysir, can you provide any scientific sources that make the statements that you are attributing to it? You do know what a strawman is, don't you? You might want to get rid of that post and not recycle it further. It only shows that you really haven't even tried to understand the topic you attack and instead choose to use logically poor arguments and emotional appeal. That won't carry much weight here. You might try the teen forum.

The post is a rough compilation of typical evolutionistic remarks that tend to change with the evidence de'jour.
It was a light-hearted ribbing.
I would like to pose this question because I've never been surrounde by so many "experts" (you know what that is, don't you?--"ex" is a has-been, and "spurt" is a drip under pressure):
What happened to the "in-between" species?
Nature being a survival of the fittest enviroment, I would tend to think that these mixed up mutations would've been eaten or squashed(if able to survive the mutation at all).
On the contrary to the "you really haven't even tried to understand the topic you attack " remark, I did (used to) allow these theories to hold water with me.
Too many "missing links".
GodBless

 

[Wonderfulcross]

What happened to the "in-between" species?
Nature being a survival of the fittest enviroment, I would tend to think that these mixed up mutations would've been eaten or squashed(if able to survive the mutation at all).

A very good question. I can't wait to hear......I mean read the responses to this. I personally can't see how the in-between species could have survived.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

The post is a rough compilation of typical evolutionistic remarks that tend to change with the evidence de'jour.

Except they are atypical because they are either false or strawman misrepresentations.

On the contrary to the "you really haven't even tried to understand the topic you attack " remark, I did (used to) allow these theories to hold water with me.

But that doesn't mean that you have ever understood or tried to understand the topics. Usually it's found on this forum that people who claim they used to accept certain scientific explanations like evolution, and abandon them for vacuous ones like young earth creationism, did so passively, as accepting the status quo without really educating oneself about it.

And when you use examples that are blatantly false or misrepresentative (or your "in between species" comment), that only lends credence to that explanation.

 

[Arikay]

By "rough compilation" I assume you mean, outright lie. I have never heard a scientist claim life began 15 billion years ago.
Wow, you changed subjects fast.

Again, isn't false witness a sin? It amazes me to no ends how detailed creationists will get with genesis to try and prove it's literal, but completely forget the entire rest of the bible, especially the part about false witness.

 

[Lucretius]

The post is a rough compilation of typical evolutionistic remarks that tend to change with the evidence de'jour.
It was a light-hearted ribbing.
I would like to pose this question because I've never been surrounde by so many "experts" (you know what that is, don't you?--"ex" is a has-been, and "spurt" is a drip under pressure):
What happened to the "in-between" species?
Nature being a survival of the fittest enviroment, I would tend to think that these mixed up mutations would've been eaten or squashed(if able to survive the mutation at all).
On the contrary to the "you really haven't even tried to understand the topic you attack " remark, I did (used to) allow these theories to hold water with me.
Too many "missing links".
GodBless

Funny; this was a PRATT I had to explain to a friend the other day. Evolution doesn't say "a mesonychid eventually became a whale, so all transitionary species MUST become whales, or they will die."

Quite the contrary, evolution does not have a goal. Whatever mutation is beneficial at a given point will be kept. It's not: "Get this mutation to become a whale, or DIE."

It's rather wasteful to talk to a Creationist about transitionary species. When you find one, they say "Now you made two more gaps!". Fossils aren't very easily made. How many Passenger Pigeon fossils have you found? They didn't die off very long ago.

 

[notto]

What happened to the "in-between" species?
Nature being a survival of the fittest enviroment, I would tend to think that these mixed up mutations would've been eaten or squashed(if able to survive the mutation at all).

A very good question. I can't wait to hear......I mean read the responses to this. I personally can't see how the in-between species could have survived.

Populations evolve, not individuals. I'm not sure what you mean by 'in-between' species. A species is a species. Within the diversity of life we have on earth now, there are many species that fit inbetween others and the relationships between them are born out with several independent lines of evidence. Perhaps you can give us an example of what you mean. What exactly do you mean by 'in-between' species. Inbetween what?

 

[Hortysir]

By "rough compilation" I assume you mean, outright lie. I have never heard a scientist claim life began 15 billion years ago.
Wow, you changed subjects fast.

Again, isn't false witness a sin? It amazes me to no ends how detailed creationists will get with genesis to try and prove it's literal, but completely forget the entire rest of the bible, especially the part about false witness.

What's with this fetish of yours about "false witness"?
I have not presented any thing remotely resembling a presentation of fact.
Just light-hearted banter, and questions.
Though not very 'scientific', a quick Google search brought up these reasults (I only went to the second page to get to 10 answers):
3.5
4.5
3.6
3.8
4
3.8
4.3-4.4
4.53-4.58
4.3
4.5
as to billion years ago life began.
A 1.08 BILLION YEARS margin of error doesn't strike me as very exact.

Poplations evolve, not individuals. I'm not sure what you mean by 'in-between' species. A species is a species. Within the diversity of life we have on earth now, there are many species that fit inbetween others and the relationships between them are born out with several independent lines of evidence. Perhaps you can give us an example of what you mean. What exactly do you mean by 'in-between' species. Inbetween what?

A bird and a lizard for one.

 

[Split Rock]

What happened to the "in-between" species?

Are you refering to "transitional" species? They are mostly extinct. Many (not all) have been found in the fossil record. We have good tranistionals for:
1. whales (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/cetacea/cetacean.html, http://www.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/whaleorigins.htm)
2. horses (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html)
3. humans (*gasp*)(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/)
4. mammals (http://genesispanthesis.tripod.com/fossils/rept_mam.html, http://www.museums.org.za/sam/resource/palaeo/cluver/early.html, http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/400Therapsida/000.html)
5. birds
etc, etc..

Nature being a survival of the fittest enviroment, I would tend to think that these mixed up mutations would've been eaten or squashed(if able to survive the mutation at all).

I am not sure I understand what you are asking about here... what "mixed-up mutations" are you refering to?

 

[mikeynov]

"Does "evolution" really make sense?"

Yes.

 

[notto]

A bird and a lizard for one.

Well, we have a great number of dinosaur fossils that show signs of having feathers. Their populations seemed to do quite well. We also have fossils of birds that show several reptile like features such as teeth. Not sure what is so tough for you to grasp, we know they existed and they had populations.

What's the problem?

 

[Lucretius]

A bird and a lizard for one.

All About Archaeopteryx.

 

[Arikay]

Ah, yes, when the bible talks about lying it's a sin, but when creationists talk about not lying, it's some strange fetish.

My "fetish" is that many creationists appear to find it perfectly acceptable to present false information as truth, and then turn around and quote bible passages to support their beliefs and the 50 year old piltdown man as a reason why we shouldn't accept evolution. It would seem not only dishonest but hypocritical.
But maybe I just have a thing with honesty and truthfulness. I would assume creationists, being christians would have a thing for that too, but it is apparent they don't.

Ok, in otherwords you found zero evidence to support your "rough compilation of typical evolutionistic remarks." Good to know you truthfully represent the evolutionist side of the argument.

What's with this fetish of yours about "false witness"?
I have not presented any thing remotely resembling a presentation of fact.
Just light-hearted banter, and questions.
Though not very 'scientific', a quick Google search brought up these reasults (I only went to the second page to get to 10 answers):
3.5
4.5
3.6
3.8
4
3.8
4.3-4.4
4.53-4.58
4.3
4.5
as to billion years ago life began.
A 1.08 BILLION YEARS margin of error doesn't strike me as very exact.
Poplations evolve, not individuals. I'm not sure what you mean by 'in-between' species. A species is a species. Within the diversity of life we have on earth now, there are many species that fit inbetween others and the relationships between them are born out with several independent lines of evidence. Perhaps you can give us an example of what you mean. What exactly do you mean by 'in-between' species. Inbetween what?
A bird and a lizard for one.

 

[notto]

Though not very 'scientific', a quick Google search brought up these reasults (I only went to the second page to get to 10 answers):
3.5
4.5
3.6
3.8
4
3.8
4.3-4.4
4.53-4.58
4.3
4.5

A 1.08 BILLION YEARS margin of error doesn't strike me as very exact.

Yet you claim that your original post was an example and that post had a 7-8 billion year difference. So it was a strawman after all, wasn't it.

As we find more evidence, the date gets pushed back more and more. That is how science works. The data is presented as what we currently know. It is refined as we learn more - as with any science or historical study.

I think its funny when people criticise science for being science.

 

[Split Rock]

The post is a rough compilation of typical evolutionistic remarks that tend to change with the evidence de'jour.

Yes, scientific theories "change with the evidence." This is the difference between science and your religious dogma.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

It is extremely interesting to me how educated fools have tricked the masses into believing in evolution.

No what is interesting is how uneducated ones keep trying to trick people into believing they know what they are talking about.

Evolution is not:

• repeatable,
• testable; or,
• observable.

Actually Evolution is;

• An ongoing process, it has not stopped
• testable; and
• observable.

The way we test things in science is by falsificationism. That is to say we make predictions based on what we can never, ever find if the theory is correct, then we go out and look for it.

In other words, it doesn't even qualify as real science.

Evolution does qualify as science, I suggest you go and brush up on what the scientific method is and how science is done. Science works very differently than you seem to think and has done since Poppers day.

Evolutionary science is as testable as any other branch of science, we have observed the evolution of living organisms and we have not falsified the theory in 150 years of trying. It makes reliable predictions that are born out by observation and it is studied in ways that completely comply with the method, despite your false assertion to the contrary.

Ghost

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I should point out that John has stated earlier (and I think he was serious) that there really is no use for scientific education beyond Highschool level (for the entire population or just for the average man I dont know).

Indeed, I can see how some people have this attitude. I've never had a use for Calculus in my everyday life, so why bother learning it?

Of course, I have no problem utilizing advances made by those who might have used Calculus, just like I'm sure John has no problem using advances based on sciences he doesn't like.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

I would like to pose this question because I've never been surrounde by so many "experts" (you know what that is, don't you?--

Yes some one educated and learned in the field, and yes many posters here do hold degrees in the field, why does this always come as such a shock to people? Given the Net has its roots in science why do people always seem so surprised to find scientists on it? That strikes me as being surprised to find football players on a football field.

"ex" is a has-been, and "spurt" is a drip under pressure):

Great, yet another new member who didn’t bother to read the forum rules before jumping in.

Ghost

 

[Forever42]

I listen here, rather than post, because I don't have the knowledge and experience that a lot of people do, but I want to try this one. Please correct me if needed.

What happened to the "in-between" species?
Nature being a survival of the fittest enviroment, I would tend to think that these mixed up mutations would've been eaten or squashed(if able to survive the mutation at all).

A very good question. I can't wait to hear......I mean read the responses to this. I personally can't see how the in-between species could have survived.

See, the thing is, mutations aren't one big swoop. Take the whale, since it was mentioned. There wasn't a half land mammal, half aquatic mammal, that was a direct jump between land mammal and aquatic mammal. Mutations don't make huge leaps, they make tiny steps.

Say a land mammal gained a mutation that allowed it to hold its breath slightly longer than normal. If this mammal preyed on fish, and had a slightly greater chance at survival to reproduction because of it, the genes would be passed on to the next generation. Eventually many of these land mammals would be able to stay under water longer, and the entire population would have this mutation.

Then perhaps some time later, another member of the population may gain a mutation that streamlined its legs, and allowed it to swim faster than the other similar mammals. It would catch prey better, gain a reproductive advantage, pass on its genes, and eventually the entire population would have this mutation.

Eventually tiny mutations would change the population very slightly each time, and if the mutation was advantageous for the environment, it would help the animal pass the mutated genes onto the next generation. These tiny mutations grow into large changes.

But there were no disabled half this, half that animals waiting to be squashed. It's not how evolution works.

Also, an animal doesn't develop these tiny mutations in response to the environment, the mutations happen on their own. If they are posititve for reproductive success in the environment, then they're passed on.

(I know that's incredibly simplistic, too, if I even got it right )

 

[Wonderfulcross]

it was? this is news to me. what was the evidence that falsified it?

If the Big Bang actually happened, Jupitor and all of the other gas planets would have no gas swirling around them. According to the effects of the Big Bang, gases in space swirled around the cores of those planets. Their gravitational pulls pulled the gasses to the center which is how they got there.
Gasses dissipate in a vacuum. The gasses surrounding those planets would have to have been placed there from the very beginning. They couldn't have gotten there any other way.

 

[Freodin]

If the Big Bang actually happened, Jupitor and all of the other gas planets would have no gas swirling around them. According to the effects of the Big Bang, gases in space swirled around the cores of those planets. Their gravitational pulls pulled the gasses to the center which is how they got there.
Gasses dissipate in a vacuum. The gasses surrounding those planets would have to have been placed there from the very beginning. They couldn't have gotten there any other way.

There is such a concept as "gravity", you know?