Does "evolution" really make sense?

[Forever42]

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 shouldn't be gasses around the earth, if that were true. But we do - it's called gravity. It's what holds our atmosphere close to the earth, as well as those of the gas giants.

 

[notto]

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.

Gasses don't dissipate in a vacuum when they are affected by gravity. Why doesn't our atmosphere dissipate?

Plus, the big bang has little to do with galaxy formation. You should email whoever gave you this information and let them know that they are doing a poor job of representing science. They are lying to you. Probably on purpose. Does that concern you?

 

[Lucretius]

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.

What are you talking about?

Jupiter has a rocky core, which is then surrounded by metallic hydrogen. These compressed materials create enough gravitational compression, and, because metallic hydrogen is metallic, magnetism, we get this thing called a magnetic field which attracts the large amounts of gas there to it.

The same holds true for the other planets.

Outer space is not a vacuum. It's what's called interstellar space. It's composed of 90% hydrogen and 10% helium. The core and metallic hydrogen of Jupiter would attract the lighter elements to it, and it's the core and the metallic hydrogen's magnetism that allow for Jupiter and the gas giants to become so large.

Please do some research before putting forth such bad claims.

P.S. Don't forget Gravity.

 

[Wonderfulcross]

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?

What's hard to graps? I can't fathom how an avimimus(bird like dinosaur) could evolve into a bird over millions of years. I mean if a dinosaurs forelimbs gradually evolved into wings, those wings would only slow them down and make them more vulnerable untill their legs were thinner, their bones became less dense and their overall weight decreased by more than half. (so they could fly)
Even if that species could have survied, then what was the need to continue to evolve? Natural selection would then select that successful intermediate species over what it may evolve into.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

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.

Quoted because I think that sums it up rather well.

Ghost

 

[notto]

What's hard to graps? I can't fathom how an avimimus(bird like dinosaur) could evolve into a bird over millions of years. I mean if a dinosaurs forelimbs gradually evolved into wings, those wings would only slow them down and make them more vulnerable untill their legs were thinner, their bones became less dense and their overall weight decreased by more than half. (so they could fly)
Even if that species could have survied, then what was the need to continue to evolve? Natural selection would then select that successful intermediate species over what it may evolve into.

So by your logic, ostriches and emus don't exist.

There is no 'need' to evolve other than to survive. As environments change, the needs of a population change and natural selection drives populations to change to adapt.

 

[Lilandra]

actually think that what they are posting makes sense?

 

[Nathan Poe]

actually think that what they are posting makes sense?

Actually, it makes perfect sense.

"I don't get it, so it's impossible."

It's wrong, but it makes perfect sense...

 

[Forever42]

What's hard to graps? I can't fathom how an avimimus(bird like dinosaur) could evolve into a bird over millions of years. I mean if a dinosaurs forelimbs gradually evolved into wings, those wings would only slow them down and make them more vulnerable untill their legs were thinner, their bones became less dense and their overall weight decreased by more than half. (so they could fly)
Even if that species could have survied, then what was the need to continue to evolve? Natural selection would then select that successful intermediate species over what it may evolve into.

Even if the so-called "intermediate" species were more vulnerable to being preyed upon, the population never would have incorporated this mutation unless it did give an advantage to the species in some way. Like I said before, there was no disabled species halfway in between - each intermediate was successful in its own way, or we wouldn't have birds today.

 

[caravelair]

nothing says that CMB radiation was radiated from one point, it is just said to be the oldest form of radiation and that it fills the universe,

big bang doesn't say the radiation came from one point. in the early universe, matter and radiation were sort of intertwined together, and were not able to separate from each other until the universe has expanded enough. this moment of separation is called 'recombination time', and this is when the radiation was able to move freely from the matter. at this point, the radiation is almost uniformly distributed throughout the universe, so if this were true, we should expect to see the same blackbody spectrum of radiation coming from all directions at equal strength. but if the universe has been expanding for billions of years, we would expect this radiation to be greatly redshifted to lower frequencies. lo and behold, after the big bang theory predicted we should find this radiation, it was discovered that it did indeed exist. we do see a blackbody spectrum of radiation coming uniformly from all directions, and it is redshifted to low frequencies as expected. the CMB radiation therefore is evidence for the big bang. that's the way evidence works in science - fullfillment of predictions of a theory.

there's no proof that the universe itself is expanding, only that the galaxies are gradually moving furthur away,

yes, everything is moving away from everything else at much the same rate. what's the difference?

there's no proof that everything will eventually contract.

i never said that, i think you misunderstood me. i was asking you to imagine the reversal of time, and look at the universe. if you go forwards in time, the universe is expanding. if you look at it in reverse, it's contracting. get it?

the only TRUE evidence of the big bang is that most galaxies are just giant black holes from large stars...

i don't see why this would be evidence for the big bang. black holes would have formed many millions of years after the big bang.

but you have to understand that there's many of them, and only one star makes one black hole. So there's no evidence of a super star creating many black holes, or else one regular star would give off many tiny black holes

i'm not sure i understand what you mean here.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

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

Gravity is just an unproven, man-made theory.

 

[Lilandra]

Check out this gem from the thread.

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.

Actually, it makes perfect sense.

"I don't get it, so it's impossible."

It's wrong, but it makes perfect sense...

What I don't get is what ticks some Creationists off about the Big Bang.

 

[Sir_AxillaryRain]

well sense u asked me no i do not think evolution makes sense. i mean just learn what evolution is then look at the world...





P.S. is anything evolving now other than scientist made up creatures?

 

[Lilandra]

is evolving right now.

well sense u asked me no i do not think evolution makes sense. i mean just learn what evolution is then look at the world...





P.S. is anything evolving now other than scientist made up creatures?

 

[notto]

well sense u asked me no i do not think evolution makes sense. i mean just learn what evolution is then look at the world...





P.S. is anything evolving now other than scientist made up creatures?

Sure it is. Did you get your flu shot this year?

 

[Arikay]

I didn't know scientists made up creatures. Cool.

It's nice that humans are such a geographically diverse species and that has put us into relative stasis compared to other organisms, as right now it looks like we are evolving towards lesser intelligence.

Hmm, I wonder if there is a creationist group with enough guts and intellectual dishonesty to use the continued propogation of creationism to prove devolution is true?

 

[The Eye]

Gravity is just an unproven, man-made theory.

LOL! You're just messing with people's heads now!

It's true in some respects, we have a theory as to what gravity is and is not, but gravity itself exists. Well, the thing we label gravity exists anyway and it's measurable by observation.

 

[The Eye]

What is far more interesting is this belief that evolution cannot or has not been proven. This is wrong, really wrong.

Take a virus in a hospital (MRSA for example). Clean the hospital and immunize everyone that has the disease. You'll probably kill most of the viruses, but some may survive due to some genetic mutation (evolution is mostly about what is wrong with an organism rather than what's right).

These that survive will replicate passing on the same characteristics that meant they survive. So, you get more of the ones that can live with the chemicals that have been used in the past to destroy them. Do this enough and you have a super-strain of virus that is resistant to a lot of things.

That's evolution. It's not much of a leap to see how over millions of years this can be seen in complex animals.

 

[Jet Black]

some scientists mix up different fossils to make a creature that supposedly "links" two different species of animal

and the vast majority of scientists don't. you are letting one bad apple spoil the bunch. I wouldn't claim that all creationists are liars and charlatans just because Hovind is.

Also, the "Big Bang" does not really make any sense at all.

well do the maths then, examine the evidence and you'll see that it does actually make alot of sense.

I mean, I wouldn't believe OUR universe used to be a huge floating mass of whatever, and then just suddenly it blew up and etc.

well it wasn'tand it didn't so it appears that you don't think the big bang makes sense principally because you don'tknow what the big bang is.

Something else that hasn't really been shown to the public is a fossil of a dinosaur and human print side by side.

fakes dude, or eroded footprints of other dinosaurs. remember not all footprints are perfect footprints. the footprints claimed that I have seen are just other dinosaurs where the inpressions of the outer toes have not formed well.

but the theory says that only our "ancestors" (monkeys, gorillas, whatever) where there during the dinosaurs' time.

there were no great apes around at the time.

How could humans survive a meteor strong enough to wipe out the population of dinosaurs?

Humans weren't around then either.

 

[corvus_corax]

LOL! You're just messing with people's heads now!
It's true in some respects, we have a theory as to what gravity is and is not, but gravity itself exists. Well, the thing we label gravity exists anyway and it's measurable by observation.

Yeah, it is funny
But MB makes a point.
The fact is- when you drop something it falls.
The fact is- planets orbit our sun.

The theories address why this happens.

Gravity does not exist. Things falling to the ground...that exists. Gravity is the theory as to why things fall.

For those who are confused about gravity, I like to ask "WHICH gravity exists?" Newtonian? Relativity-based? Graviton-based?
Three theories. Three reasons. Some of them overlap, some of them mesh to one degree or another.
However, curved space does not equal graviton particles. Graviton particles may create curved space, but if so, then we have to overlapping (but seperate) theories.

Things fall. Fact.
Gravity. Theory (theories).

It took me a few months to appreciate the difference, but the difference is quite marked.

And in all honesty, Im still working out the differences