[Discussion] Can we deny evolution?

Fountain

Active member
Elite
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Messages
5,415
Kin
13💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
I think your missing the point of his post.

Why would you create a creature that can only survive in water, has a body built for living in water but cannot breath in water and is forced to come to the surface for air. I'd hardly call that an intelligent design.
You could apply that logic to pretty much every other living creature out there as they're not without their flaws. There's a lot of things that don't seem to make a lot of sense but i wouldn't say it's not an intelligent design. To me that sounds kind of silly. Being what they are, i belive their anatomy makes perfect sense.
 

HowDidIGetPrem

Active member
Elite
Joined
Jan 18, 2018
Messages
5,820
Kin
5,803💸
Kumi
1,192💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
You could apply that logic to pretty much every other living creature out there as they're not without their flaws. There's a lot of things that don't seem to make a lot of sense but i wouldn't say it's not an intelligent design. To me that sounds kind of silly. Being what they are, i belive their anatomy makes perfect sense.
if god created specific animals and attached them to specific environments, what's your take on us altering those environments thereby ruining both his creations? do you think you view environmental concerns with more importance because of the fact?
 

Fountain

Active member
Elite
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Messages
5,415
Kin
13💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
if god created specific animals and attached them to specific environments, what's your take on us altering those environments thereby ruining both his creations? do you think you view environmental concerns with more importance because of the fact?
You mean, like what's my opinion on pollution and deforestation, hunting endangered animals etc.? I think it's a real shame. It sucks, and i wish there was something i could do.
 

NarutoKage2

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
3,281
Kin
9💸
Kumi
3💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
They're mammals. So they have Lungs. Why do they live in the sea and have fins and look the way they do? Because they're whales and dolphins, so they live in the sea and look the way they do. It's nature. Not everything that lives in the sea is a fish and everything that lives on earth is a mammal or walks on four legs.

Do you legitimately belive that they were fish once? If that was the case they'd still be fish. Why would they need to develop lungs when they could perfectly breath underwater. For that matter, if that was also the case why would there still be fish, just as there still are primates.
Why indeed.
And in case you failed to notice, there are far more mammals geographically distributed on land, than in the sea, for a very good reason : mammals formed on the land. Also every animal that makes a living on the land is able to breath air .

To spell it out for you: every ancestor of whales, dolphins, or dugongs, manatees or whatever you will, once lived on the land , where they needed their lungs for breathing. A line of their descendants branched off and went to live in the sea, they EVOLVED into whales and dolphins. The lungs those animals have are called vestigial organs, formerly useful organs for their ancestors that tell us their history, in this case on dry land. Additionally, a whale also has a tail fluke that moves upwards and downwards as opposed to left and right , which is the case with all fish. It’s an extension of the mammalian spinal chord that moves up and down when a quadropedal mammal runs on land.

And I suppose you’d also argue that penguins and ostriches also just happen to be birds because their birds and also just happen to have wings that they never use for flying right ?
 

NarutoKage2

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
3,281
Kin
9💸
Kumi
3💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
You could apply that logic to pretty much every other living creature out there as they're not without their flaws. There's a lot of things that don't seem to make a lot of sense but i wouldn't say it's not an intelligent design. To me that sounds kind of silly. Being what they are, i belive their anatomy makes perfect sense.
They don’t ‘seem to make a lot of sense’ , not because of unintelligent or faulty design(which is what we would have to concede if we just accepted it without any explanation as you say we should ) but because of history . Every single animal, that has some feature that appears useless in its environment today, only makes sense when we look at the environment of its remote ancestors, and realise that said feature was useful once.

As a very interesting and recent example, a moth will fly straight into a candle light and burn itself at night. If we just accepted this observable behaviour of the moth, we would call it poor or disastrous design and a behaviour that makes no sense. But as soon as we look at history, the pieces of the puzzle fall into place.

Long before there were any candle wielding humans, the moth lived in a world where the stars and celestial bodies were the only sources of light during the night. So the mental rule of thumb ‘ fly towards the light’ was a very useful one to have, as it flew away from predators at land and at any rate would never actually reach those stars, so win win. But then we humans came along the scene, and it’s ancient behaviour became a dangerous one.

The moths light seeking behavior, like millions of other cases in the natural world, are examples of vestigial relics that tell us the history of the animals ancestors.
 

Exaar

Active member
Legendary
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Messages
12,773
Kin
5💸
Kumi
3💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
You could apply that logic to pretty much every other living creature out there as they're not without their flaws. There's a lot of things that don't seem to make a lot of sense but i wouldn't say it's not an intelligent design. To me that sounds kind of silly. Being what they are, i belive their anatomy makes perfect sense.
How is it an intelligent design to not give a purely water based animal the ability to breath in the water it lives in for it's entire life?.
 

scrmz

Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
295
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
They're mammals. So they have Lungs. Why do they live in the sea and have fins and look the way they do? Because they're whales and dolphins, so they live in the sea and look the way they do. It's nature. Not everything that lives in the sea is a fish and everything that lives on earth is a mammal or walks on four legs.

Do you legitimately belive that they were fish once? If that was the case they'd still be fish. Why would they need to develop lungs when they could perfectly breath underwater. For that matter, if that was also the case why would there still be fish, just as there still are primates.
We are told by evolutionists that a fish wiggled out of the sea onto dry land and became a land creature. So let's examine this idea. OK, a fish wiggles out of the sea and onto the land, but he can't breathe in air. This could happen. Fish do stupid things at times. Whales keep swimming up onto the beaches where they die. Do you think the whales are trying to expedite an multi-million generation plan to grow legs? That concept is stupid, but let's get back to the fish story. The gills of the fish are made for extracting oxygen from water, not from air. He chokes and gasps before flipping back into the safety of the water. Why would he do such a stupid thing? This wiggling and choking continues for millions of generation until the fish chokes less and less. His gills evolve into lungs so he can breathe on dry land, but now he is at risk of drowning in the water. One day he simply stays out on the land and never goes back into the water. Now he is a lizard. If you believe this evolutionary nonsense, you need psychiatric help.
 

NarutoKage2

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
3,281
Kin
9💸
Kumi
3💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Yeah no we all came from Adam(who had a belly button)and Eve, who was his rib come to life. Their children all proceeded to have incest with each other and launched us on our merry way.

Of course all this was done by a magic sky fairy, who went on to outlaw incest in his own book, even though that’s how he made people come into the world in the first place.

Years later, the sky fairy decided people had become really bad so he decided to flood the whole world by drowning it by 8 cubits(water for which does not exist even taking into account every drop of the oceans), except for his most trusted family, who would again repeat the incest tradition by repopulating the earth amongst themselves. He also ordered two(evidently this sky fairy never heard of hermaphrodites) of every kind of animal to be taken onboard a ship fave family would build. And of course the ship would be sturdy enough to survive floodwaters capable of drowning the Himalayas.

And every single animal we find in the world today, emerged from that arc. Including the penguins, who for some reason decided to travel thousands of miles to Antarctica and nowhere else,and all the marsupial mammals who just happened to all go to Australia, both animals of course reached their respective destinations, without leaving a single straggler behind on the way or a single fossil of themselves either.


Yep, makes more sense than evolution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lightbringer

Fountain

Active member
Elite
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Messages
5,415
Kin
13💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
Why indeed.
And in case you failed to notice, there are far more mammals geographically distributed on land, than in the sea, for a very good reason : mammals formed on the land. Also every animal that makes a living on the land is able to breath air .

To spell it out for you: every ancestor of whales, dolphins, or dugongs, manatees or whatever you will, once lived on the land , where they needed their lungs for breathing. A line of their descendants branched off and went to live in the sea, they EVOLVED into whales and dolphins. The lungs those animals have are called vestigial organs, formerly useful organs for their ancestors that tell us their history, in this case on dry land. Additionally, a whale also has a tail fluke that moves upwards and downwards as opposed to left and right , which is the case with all fish. It’s an extension of the mammalian spinal chord that moves up and down when a quadropedal mammal runs on land.

And I suppose you’d also argue that penguins and ostriches also just happen to be birds because their birds and also just happen to have wings that they never use for flying right ?
Ah ok sorry. You didn't think they were fish. You think they were actually land dwellers once, and that penguins and ostriches were/are also something else because they can't use their wings... Well, you know what, i find that even more absurd than fish developing lungs. But i'm not gonna say anything anymore. You're inclined to belive whatever you want.
 

Uzumaki Macho

Active member
Elite
Joined
Jul 23, 2014
Messages
6,663
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
We are told by evolutionists that a fish wiggled out of the sea onto dry land and became a land creature. So let's examine this idea. OK, a fish wiggles out of the sea and onto the land, but he can't breathe in air. This could happen. Fish do stupid things at times. Whales keep swimming up onto the beaches where they die. Do you think the whales are trying to expedite an multi-million generation plan to grow legs? That concept is stupid, but let's get back to the fish story. The gills of the fish are made for extracting oxygen from water, not from air. He chokes and gasps before flipping back into the safety of the water. Why would he do such a stupid thing? This wiggling and choking continues for millions of generation until the fish chokes less and less. His gills evolve into lungs so he can breathe on dry land, but now he is at risk of drowning in the water. One day he simply stays out on the land and never goes back into the water. Now he is a lizard. If you believe this evolutionary nonsense, you need psychiatric help.
You clearly know a lot about evolution.
 

NarutoKage2

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
3,281
Kin
9💸
Kumi
3💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Ah ok sorry. You didn't think they were fish. You think they were actually land dwellers once, and that penguins and ostriches were/are also something else because they can't use their wings... Well, you know what, i find that even more absurd than fish developing lungs. But i'm not gonna say anything anymore. You're inclined to belive whatever you want.
It’s not a belief if it’s based on facts, I just gave an explanation for the facts, something you seem incapable of doing.
 

Uzumaki Macho

Active member
Elite
Joined
Jul 23, 2014
Messages
6,663
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Ah ok sorry. You didn't think they were fish. You think they were actually land dwellers once, and that penguins and ostriches were/are also something else because they can't use their wings... Well, you know what, i find that even more absurd than fish developing lungs. But i'm not gonna say anything anymore. You're inclined to belive whatever you want.
I would like to hear your explanation for vestigial organs.
 

Cornson

Active member
Regular
Joined
Mar 12, 2013
Messages
910
Kin
0💸
Kumi
2,500💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
To answer the original question: You can always deny Evolution, there are countless of people that does that, same with anti vaxers and flat earhers... there are people everywhere that just can't grasp reality as it is.

We have collected more proof that backs the scientific theory of evolution than we have for all the other theories combined...

if you do not believe in evolution do you also not believe in gravity?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Lightbringer

Punk Hazard

Active member
Immortal
Joined
Apr 21, 2011
Messages
59,542
Kin
1,661💸
Kumi
11,569💴
Trait Points
50⚔️
Ah ok sorry. You didn't think they were fish. You think they were actually land dwellers once, and that penguins and ostriches were/are also something else because they can't use their wings... Well, you know what, i find that even more absurd than fish developing lungs. But i'm not gonna say anything anymore. You're inclined to belive whatever you want.
You find fish growing lungs absurd, but tadpoles literally hatch with gills and then lose them while gaining lungs. This isn't even a wild concept.
 

Aim64C

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
3,681
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
Why indeed.
And in case you failed to notice, there are far more mammals geographically distributed on land, than in the sea, for a very good reason : mammals formed on the land. Also every animal that makes a living on the land is able to breath air .
And here I thought all life came from the sea.

To spell it out for you: every ancestor of whales, dolphins, or dugongs, manatees or whatever you will, once lived on the land , where they needed their lungs for breathing. A line of their descendants branched off and went to live in the sea, they EVOLVED into whales and dolphins. The lungs those animals have are called vestigial organs, formerly useful organs for their ancestors that tell us their history, in this case on dry land. Additionally, a whale also has a tail fluke that moves upwards and downwards as opposed to left and right , which is the case with all fish. It’s an extension of the mammalian spinal chord that moves up and down when a quadropedal mammal runs on land.
The problem most of us who have our reservations about evolution have is in regards to the extent of adaptations. Sure - we can accept the idea that populations will diverge from each other in simple terms - finches with evolutions to their beaks, for example. What is a different story, entirely, is the conversion of hands into fins or the complete shift of something like an otter into something like a whale. The problem with evolutionary theory, in general, is the lack of selective power. Evolution of an otter into a whale becomes far more plausible if you allow me to take the most whale-like male and female otters and breed them together, exclusively, every generation for millions of years.
However, it's not as if the otters with mildly thicker webbing on their feet are going to be -that- much more successful than their peers. In order for evolution to work - the gains need to be fairly substantial and selective pressures need to be very stable over history in order to push a species into the extremes of morphological changes. Evolution of cellular structures and entirely new proteins that fill a function are another story.

And I suppose you’d also argue that penguins and ostriches also just happen to be birds because their birds and also just happen to have wings that they never use for flying right ?
I would buy the story of a penguin evolving into a whale before I bought one of a cow evolving into a dolphin. But we still have a very, very long way to go before I'll buy the story. Namely, we have to come to the realization that the past didn't actually exist as we understand it to, and much of our universe exists as a macroscopic consequence of quantum mechanics. If the universe were thought of as a bose-einstein condensate, then the only state that exists with any amount of classical physics is the 'observed' state - being the energy absorbed and re-radiated by the condensate. From this observed state of present - a past and potential range of futures can be projected. The past never existed as a concrete thing, however, as the bose-einstein condensate existed as a null state, prior. Alternatively, a sufficiently isolated energetic state can be considered coherent in a similar fashion to a bose-einstein condensate. These systems allow for more persistent states of 'present' - but are sufficiently more quirky than what we are used to working with in classical physics, as the entire notion of causality is under QM.

In other words - the fact we are here in the world has created the world. It exists in the present state which means events in the past are subject to the effects of QM - and you can have things occur with far greater efficiency than they would under classical physics - such as having the result of the most beneficial adaptations toward a set of morphological changes compiled across members of all generations (regardless of whether they lived millions of years apart) and compile them into one entity. This is the "random walk" of QM computations on a macroscopic scale.

I could buy evolution in that case - but then we are talking about a very different view of physical reality that is well beyond most people's experiences and understanding of reality.
 

Aim64C

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
3,681
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
You find fish growing lungs absurd, but tadpoles literally hatch with gills and then lose them while gaining lungs. This isn't even a wild concept.
This is not entirely true. Amphibians do not have 'gills' in the same sense that a fish has gills. The "gills" of an amphibian are effectively the core vascular structure that will become the lungs, exposed to a pocket through which water can be pulsed. Skin eventually grows over them after the lungs and associated capillary system have developed on the other side.

Fish gills are a more complicated organ that use a filament system to exchange gases and ions with the water. All of which involves the use of unique proteins and structures that are very different from how the lung forms.

I could cut your skin off and insert you into a PH and salinity balanced bath with oxygen and even many basic minerals the body needs - and you might be able to survive without eating if it is properly loaded with sugar. The surface area to mass ratio of the average human is probably too low - but in principle, many of our tissues are capable of facilitating the exchange of CO2 for Oxygen - even our blood vessels. The thing is that this function gets streamlined by using a dedicated fluid - blood - for transfer and then uses specialized structures to perform the tasks of supplying that blood with nutrients/oxygen, and removing various wastes.

The difference between salt water fish and fresh water fish, for example, is immense in terms of their gill structure. Salt water fish have a special cellular membrane which acts to stave off the influx of salt. The gills of fish work very closely with the kidneys to keep water and salt balance correct within the fish - all of which are of very different topography from amphibian systems.
 

HowDidIGetPrem

Active member
Elite
Joined
Jan 18, 2018
Messages
5,820
Kin
5,803💸
Kumi
1,192💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
The problem most of us who have our reservations about evolution have is in regards to the extent of adaptations. Sure - we can accept the idea that populations will diverge from each other in simple terms - finches with evolutions to their beaks, for example. What is a different story, entirely, is the conversion of hands into fins or the complete shift of something like an otter into something like a whale. The problem with evolutionary theory, in general, is the lack of selective power. Evolution of an otter into a whale becomes far more plausible if you allow me to take the most whale-like male and female otters and breed them together, exclusively, every generation for millions of years.
However, it's not as if the otters with mildly thicker webbing on their feet are going to be -that- much more successful than their peers. In order for evolution to work - the gains need to be fairly substantial and selective pressures need to be very stable over history in order to push a species into the extremes of morphological changes. Evolution of cellular structures and entirely new proteins that fill a function are another story.
The gain wouldn't have to be substantial at all. As long as it poses no hindrances, the mutation should be able to circulate without issue eventually. If you understand as much as you do, you should see these massive changes are millions of years of progress that are 100% feasible if you acknowledge birds can morph in mere decades. Not that selective pressures are the only force behind evolution. If thick, webbed feet were dominant alleles to whatever otters had previously, that change is going to occur regardless if it's hardly beneficial unless pressure wipes it off.
 

NarutoKage2

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
3,281
Kin
9💸
Kumi
3💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
And here I thought all life came from the sea.



The problem most of us who have our reservations about evolution have is in regards to the extent of adaptations. Sure - we can accept the idea that populations will diverge from each other in simple terms - finches with evolutions to their beaks, for example. What is a different story, entirely, is the conversion of hands into fins or the complete shift of something like an otter into something like a whale. The problem with evolutionary theory, in general, is the lack of selective power. Evolution of an otter into a whale becomes far more plausible if you allow me to take the most whale-like male and female otters and breed them together, exclusively, every generation for millions of years.
However, it's not as if the otters with mildly thicker webbing on their feet are going to be -that- much more successful than their peers. In order for evolution to work - the gains need to be fairly substantial and selective pressures need to be very stable over history in order to push a species into the extremes of morphological changes. Evolution of cellular structures and entirely new proteins that fill a function are another story.



I would buy the story of a penguin evolving into a whale before I bought one of a cow evolving into a dolphin. But we still have a very, very long way to go before I'll buy the story. Namely, we have to come to the realization that the past didn't actually exist as we understand it to, and much of our universe exists as a macroscopic consequence of quantum mechanics. If the universe were thought of as a bose-einstein condensate, then the only state that exists with any amount of classical physics is the 'observed' state - being the energy absorbed and re-radiated by the condensate. From this observed state of present - a past and potential range of futures can be projected. The past never existed as a concrete thing, however, as the bose-einstein condensate existed as a null state, prior. Alternatively, a sufficiently isolated energetic state can be considered coherent in a similar fashion to a bose-einstein condensate. These systems allow for more persistent states of 'present' - but are sufficiently more quirky than what we are used to working with in classical physics, as the entire notion of causality is under QM.

In other words - the fact we are here in the world has created the world. It exists in the present state which means events in the past are subject to the effects of QM - and you can have things occur with far greater efficiency than they would under classical physics - such as having the result of the most beneficial adaptations toward a set of morphological changes compiled across members of all generations (regardless of whether they lived millions of years apart) and compile them into one entity. This is the "random walk" of QM computations on a macroscopic scale.

I could buy evolution in that case - but then we are talking about a very different view of physical reality that is well beyond most people's experiences and understanding of reality.
For the umpteenth time, modern animals do NOT evolve into other modern animals, who told you that ? No reputable biologist ever claimed that a modern cow evolved into a dolphin or a penguin evolved into a whale. These animals simply had a common ancestor if we were to travel far back enough in time, that was emphatically NOT a modern animal itself but a predecessor to modern species. It’s amazing how people who ‘disagree’ with evolution have a fundamental misunderstanding of what it is.

Well I have no background or interest in quantum mechanics but if you’re argument is that the past does not exist, well yes it’s undeniably possible that the world started 5 minutes ago, and we were all sent here with implanted memories and are all victims of a giant confidence trick, played out by being part of someone else’s computer simulation. Why such an argument is never used for any other discipline or study, like the study of history or archealogy is beyond me. I could argue, using your logic, that president Reagan never existed but was an implanted memory in the hearts of all neo cons .

Nevertheless, biologists dont distinguish between divergence in ‘ simple’ terms and the longer scale macro evolution, which is essentially the same process over a larger time frame.

Lack of selective power? Have you seen the variation of animals, even within the same species in a single generation? Let alone multiple hundreds of thousands of generations that are involved in a larger time frame. The domestication of the dog, is a very illustrative example of marked physical change over relatively short time frames . Also look up ‘belayevs fox experiment’ for further elaboration. What we find from this and countless other case studies, is that variation and on rare instances, mutation occur within populations all over the natural world. Some of those survive better, and since these variations are heritable(I.e can be transferred to the next generation), then it automatically and obviously follows that populations change over time. The selective pressures can range from anything like artificial or man made pressures, to pressure for mates (sexual selection, incidentally the reason why male hens and male peacocks are more colourful and have more adornments than females of the same species, because females over generations only mated with males who had those traits, till selective power made a few bright feathers into the remarkable sight that is a fully expansive male peacock), pressure to hunt prey, to evade predators(with adaptations like the chameleon) and to carve out a niche and survive, natural selection.

If you still insist on macro evolution being a stretch, consider the division of animals, into sub groups. Like mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish etc. Or further subdivisions like the cat family, the great apes, etc. Not only do these groupings fall into a perfectly hiearchial family tree (each individual species being the branches), the DNA similarity between animals is exactly what we should expect if they had evolved from common ancestors, and the similarity being directly proportional to the proximity of the animals to each other within said tree.
 
Last edited:
Top