Some more evidance for evolution (try and desprove that)

[Valentin the II]

Here are 2 great videos explaining how evolution works, and why its actualy very probabble and logical:


I challange any and all creationists to step up and try to argue with that.

[Yosemite]

Here's a good article

http://www.ourbeacon.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=96

[Chaigidel]

there is nothing for a creationist to argue about-- because it just cant be argued against( the mistake that this detracts from the spiritual value of the holy books is just wrong)

creationism is just a silly thing that will hopefully pass in time.

[AnCeallach]

I don't think God created the Earth in 6 days like in Genesis, I do kindof believe in Evouloutionism but I also believe that humans are kindof a special animal. I also believe, do you know the way theres all laws of science and gravity and stuff, and if those laws weren't there everything would be all random and stuff? I think God must be the entity that created the Universe and set alla the laws of Science. Its very hard to explain Gods like the lawmaker and creator.

[Curtana]

I think God must be the entity that created the Universe and set alla the laws of Science. Its very hard to explain Gods like the lawmaker and creator.

OK. Where did God come from? Did he make himself or did he spontaneously form out of nothing? A bit like a 'big bang' only a harder to explain.

[Chaigidel]

I hate to make it another god thread but , personally I do see the laws that science reveals as perhaps the sinews of god so to speak-- the inner workings of a being if such a being were to make up our existence-- otherwise if you acknowledge knowing everything is the same as knowing nothing if it happens all at once, perhaps we could say god is non sentient but inherently the substance of the universe itself.-- this again satisfies all powerful, all knowing--

If some sort of Universal unconscious does indeed exist this thing of overall sentience would be called god I suppose by virtue of its sentience, but it would only be a fraction of the One True God-- which is the overal existence and all that we know and dont know -- but God represents the truth we will find in all our revelations with science as well

those are all just personal musings of course-- on topic its critical for the religious or spiritually minded people to remove god from the books and from every and simply obey the lesson of reverence for all existence that most all religions teach in one way or another.

[Amorphos]

whilst creationism and emanationism are flawed, there is something incomplete about evolution - although it is basically correct.

maybe evolution loosely follows a path? we live in a cyclic universe, if everything in the first or given previous universe finds its way by chance, then the next time around perhaps it would have an intuition about itself and perhaps develope some kind of universal principles - like e.g. ‘the humanative’ [universal human nature].

it may be kind of like a time loop in a star trek episode i just watched lol.

[TheKwas]

there is something incomplete about evolution

That something would be?

[Feliks]

That something would be?

I would still think that a human, despite all of science's theories, is quite simply more than the sum of his parts.

[Juggernaut]

I don't think God created the Earth in 6 days like in Genesis, I do kindof believe in Evouloutionism but I also believe that humans are kindof a special animal. I also believe, do you know the way theres all laws of science and gravity and stuff, and if those laws weren't there everything would be all random and stuff? I think God must be the entity that created the Universe and set alla the laws of Science. Its very hard to explain Gods like the lawmaker and creator.

I'm not really interested in what you believe unless your belief has some basis, and "I think ~ because I think so" is not really strong basis.
And what is "Evolutionism"?
It sounds like a ideology rather than a scientific theory.
And what the hell do you mean by "all random and stuff"?
I don't get it.
What do you mean by random?

[drak10687]

Yes, there is evidence for evolution, but there is also some against, and as a scientist you would have to keep your mind "open" and not go on a gut feeling of whats "right" and "wrong".

As for evidence against, one example is the feather. This is actually a very heated debate in the scientific world AFAIK. The reason being is that a feather, and for that matter the entire body of the bird is perfectly made to fly... which is fine... but the problem is that there is no hard evidence that it was ever otherwise. There have never been remains of feathers found that were "inferior" in their aerodynamic abilities to modern feathers.

Anyways, thats just something to think about, but personally I don't "believe" in evolution, as I find that science relies on the critical analysis of (hopefully) facts and scientist are often mislead when they search for a presumed truth. The entire point of science is lost once someone puts faith in it.

[Chaigidel]

on the feather yeah they have tons of evidence on primitive feathers and how feathers developed as specialized scales

[drak10687]

Something else I wanted to add:

Another problem is that scientist seem to often SEARCH for evidence that supports their theories, rather than JUST search for evidence; or to use one set of evidence to derive their "grand theories". A very interesting man and very famous scientist to point this out was Richard Feynman, who in one of his lectures referring to this subject, tried to point out the irony in such practices with the following: (I don't remember the exact quote, but it went something like this) " before this lectures, I was walking in the parking lot, and was astounded to notice that one of the cars had a license plate with the number AJX 857! And I though how remarkable that was, and what were the chances that out of all the millions of license plates in America, I happened to come across AJX 857! " - point being that simply stumbling across a phenomenon that supports a theory does not validate said theory.

@Chaigidel
Would you be so kind to point me to a source which explains what this evidence is?

[Chaigidel]

I agree if your searching for a particular answer your not doing science :O

I never remember where things are, and I dont care enough about my points to back them up with all kinds of articles and "educated thinkin".

but they found some proto feather like structures on some early reptiles, kinda like the down feathers that birds have under flight feathers; plus there was a small gliding dino which used feathers to swoop between trees (theoretically)

On either count it should not in any way impede a persons faith to accept evolution as the most likely case for our eventual creation, it makes it no less wonderous to be evolved than created-- god can still be involved so to speak.

[TheKwas]

I would still think that a human, despite all of science's theories, is quite simply more than the sum of his parts.

Wishful thinking (read illogical thinking) that's not based in evidence.

As for evidence against, one example is the feather. This is actually a very heated debate in the scientific world AFAIK. The reason being is that a feather, and for that matter the entire body of the bird is perfectly made to fly... which is fine... but the problem is that there is no hard evidence that it was ever otherwise. There have never been remains of feathers found that were "inferior" in their aerodynamic abilities to modern feathers.

The only debate in the scientific community is how the feather exactly evolved, not whether the feather 'could' or 'did' evolve. All scientists (of any merit) agree that the feather could and did evolve.

As for hard evidence for ancient feathers, there are plenty dispite the fact that feathers rarely fossilize nicely:

After a century of hypotheses without hard evidence, beautifully preserved (and legitimate) fossils of feathered dinosaurs were discovered during the 1990s and 2000s. The fossils were preserved in a Lagerstätte — a sedimentary deposit exhibiting remarkable richness and completeness in its fossils — in Liaoning, China. The area had repeatedly been smothered in volcanic ash produced by eruptions in Inner Mongolia 124 million years ago, during the Early Cretaceous Period. The fine-grained ash preserved the living organisms, that it buried, in extraordinary detail.
...

List of dinosaur genera preserved with feathers
A number of non-avian dinosaurs are now known to have been feathered. Direct evidence of feathers exists for the following genera (listed in order of publication):

Sinosauropteryx (1996)[2]
Protarchaeopteryx (1997)[3]
Caudipteryx (1998)[4]
Shuvuuia (1998)
Sinornithosaurus (1999)[5]
Beipiaosaurus (1999)[6]
Microraptor (2000)
Epidendrosaurus (2002)
Cryptovolans (2002)
Scansoriopteryx (2002)
Yixianosaurus (2003)
Dilong (2004)
Pedopenna (2005)
Jinfengopteryx (2005)
Sinocalliopteryx (2007)

[edit] Primitive feather types
At present, the most primitive (known) feathered dinosaur is Sinosauropteryx (Jurassic/Cretaceous, 150-120 mya), whose body was covered with feather-like structures that look like hollow tubes, or hairs. They may or may not have had barbs, like downy (plumulaceous) feathers. Another early fossil, Dilong paradoxus (Early Cretaceous), an ancestor of Tyrannosaurus rex, also had similar feather structures. These early fossils suggest that feathers originally developed as insulators, to maintain body temperatures (thus also providing evidence for warm-blooded dinosaurs). Flight would have been a later evolutionary adaptation (or exaptation) of feathers.

The first dinosaur fossils from the region found to have true flight-structured feathers (pennaceous feathers) were Protarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx (135-121 mya). It is more likely that their feathers were used for display rather than for flight in these dinosaurs. Subsequent dinosaurs found with pennaceous feathers include Pedopenna and Jinfengopteryx. Several specimens of Microraptor, described by Xu et al. in 2003, show not only pennaceous feathers but also true asymmetrical flight feathers, present on the fore and hind limbs and tail. Asymmetrical feathers are considered important for flight in birds. Before the discovery of Microraptor gui, Archaeopteryx was the most primitive known animal with asymmetrical flight feathers.

...

Fossil feather impressions are extremely rare; therefore only a few feathered dinosaurs have been identified so far. However, through a process called phylogenetic bracketing, scientists can infer the presence of feathers on poorly-preserved specimens. All fossil feather specimens have been found to show certain similarities. Due to these similarities and through developmental research almost all scientists agree that feathers could only have evolved once in dinosaurs. Feathers would then have been passed down to all later, more derived species (although it is possible that some lineages lost feathers secondarily). If a dinosaur falls at a point on an evolutionary tree within the known feather-bearing lineages, scientists assume it too had feathers, unless conflicting evidence is found. This technique can also be used to infer the type of feathers a species may have had, since the developmental history of feathers is now reasonbly well-known

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

Another problem is that scientist seem to often SEARCH for evidence that supports their theories, rather than JUST search for evidence; or to use one set of evidence to derive their "grand theories".

Neither of these problems are applicable in the case of evolution. Paleontologists just dig for bones, it just so happens that evolution, as a matter of fact, always has a place for the bones they do dig up. If paleontologists find a bunny in the Pre-Cambrian, you can rest assured that they will take it very seriously and will seriously discredit (or atleast significantly alter) our understanding of evolution.

A very interesting man and very famous scientist to point this out was Richard Feynman, who in one of his lectures referring to this subject, tried to point out the irony in such practices with the following: (I don't remember the exact quote, but it went something like this) " before this lectures, I was walking in the parking lot, and was astounded to notice that one of the cars had a license plate with the number AJX 857! And I though how remarkable that was, and what were the chances that out of all the millions of license plates in America, I happened to come across AJX 857!

I have no clue how this quotemining is applicable in this case.

[drak10687]

(the following was written before TheKwas' reply)
well, not the most credible source, but quickly checking Wikipedia:

Feathers most likely originated as a filamentous insulation structure, or possibly as markers for mating, with flight emerging only as a secondary purpose. It has been thought that feathers evolved from the scales of reptiles, but recent research suggests that while there is a definite relationship between these structures, it remains uncertain of the exact process. (see Quarterly Review of Biology 77:3 (September 2002): 261-95). In experiments where a virus was used to reduce the levels of certain proteins in chicken embryos, the chickens retained webbed feet, and the scutes developed into feathers. The scales, however, did not develop into feathers, and the research suggests that feathers did not evolve from reptilian scales.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feather#Evolution

it seems that the scales-to-feathers theory is outdated... but this is entirely off-topic

My point was just that I find it silly for people to argue science based on their beliefs, or what they find on YOUTUBE. Not trying to say that the original poster is silly, but the videos are just simple mathematical representations, that may aid some in understanding the theory of natural selection, and do not actually show how evolution works. Hence, applying what I said in my previous posts, exercises in probability that correspond to theories of evolutionists do not actually prove evolution.

(reply to TheKwas is now in the process of being written)

@ TheKwas
well, it's out of my league to debate with you on the details of the feather's evolution, so I wont try. What I first posted corresponded to what I read somewhere not too long ago, so maybe I am wrong. I have no problem with evolution, I just think that any theorist should be able to doubt his, or anyone else's theory (this, of course, you supported as well) and that no one should be forced to accept any theory at any given time.

[TheKwas]

Of course everyone has freedom of belief/disbelief, but evolution should be considered nothing less than a fact (and it isn't considered anything less than a fact in the scientific community) by rational, educated people. I won't force you to believe in anything, but you would be pretty ignorant or stupid of you not to believe (in a non-religious sense) in evolution.

[The Hammer]

there is nothing for a creationist to argue about-- because it just cant be argued against( the mistake that this detracts from the spiritual value of the holy books is just wrong)

creationism is just a silly thing that will hopefully pass in time.

LOL. You guys can't be serious. Evolution is an atheistic, evil theory which has no basis in reality. It's just an attack on religious faith by a bunch of scientist fanatics.

Of course everyone has freedom of belief/disbelief, but evolution should be considered nothing less than a fact (and it isn't considered anything less than a fact in the scientific community) by rational, educated people. I won't force you to believe in anything, but you would be pretty ignorant or stupid of you not to believe (in a non-religious sense) in evolution.

Are you calling me stupid, sir?

Well excuse me. I'm sorry that I actually need some evidence before I just accept that we evolved from MONKEYS. Every single thing on this beautiful Earth and in this masterfully crafted universe indicates the presence and role of God.

[TheKwas]

The joke accounts are getting out of control.

[Juggernaut]

Yes, there is evidence for evolution, but there is also some against, and as a scientist you would have to keep your mind "open" and not go on a gut feeling of whats "right" and "wrong".

As for evidence against, one example is the feather. This is actually a very heated debate in the scientific world AFAIK. The reason being is that a feather, and for that matter the entire body of the bird is perfectly made to fly... which is fine... but the problem is that there is no hard evidence that it was ever otherwise. There have never been remains of feathers found that were "inferior" in their aerodynamic abilities to modern feathers.

Anyways, thats just something to think about, but personally I don't "believe" in evolution, as I find that science relies on the critical analysis of (hopefully) facts and scientist are often mislead when they search for a presumed truth. The entire point of science is lost once someone puts faith in it.

Wait, what about the feathered dinosaurs and proto birds?
Are you saying proto birds in Cretaceous had the exact same feathers as the birds now?
And why would proto birds have teeth?
What of fossil records?
Confirmed evolution of bacteria over the past 100 years?
Evolution is a theory, but there is no sufficient reason to doubt it, and even those doubt it could not disprove it.

LOL. You guys can't be serious. Evolution is an atheistic, evil theory which has no basis in reality. It's just an attack on religious faith by a bunch of scientist fanatics.


Are you calling me stupid, sir?

Well excuse me. I'm sorry that I actually need some evidence before I just accept that we evolved from MONKEYS. Every single thing on this beautiful Earth and in this masterfully crafted universe indicates the presence and role of God.

Huh?