evolution does not mske sense

[-6 Paths-]

no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an ongoing endeavor. Scientist are just teaching their opinion the same thing a priest does

Aside from the tiny fact that scientists have a huge amount of evidence supporting their claims, whereas priests do not.
​

 

[Scooby Doo]

You must be registered for see links

 

[Nigerianswagpapi]

evolution sucks. really, human came from monkeys? Smh

human come up with this kind of theories

It's not that we evolved from monkys, it that we share a common ancestor with the monkey

 

[Arian]

no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an ongoing endeavor. Scientist are just teaching their opinion the same thing a priest does

in fact you can observe it every year. just take the flu. why do you think you need a new vaccination every year? because of evolution. cause the onse who survived the last vaccination are ADAPT to their enviromen and multiplied themself a few thousand times in that year so the new generation only consists of the new type...thats evolution right in your face yet u claim its a scientist opinion? lol i guess you also have no idea how it works.

btw you can see this with bacteria within a year causse their generations are like a day or two long, maybe even only hours while bigger annimals like mammals take decades for only one generation(why the visible change takes thousands of years to be visible and observable)

 

[gregtglowe]

Certain assumptions about dna made by evolutionist is wrong. Like that dna can actually build into more. You have what you have. and it can be shown in nearly every instance to be breaking down. You will not have more tomorrow than you do today. though perhaps what you dont need would be shaved away. evolution is somewhat an accurate description of breeding practices enacted by nature. It does describe how dna can be shaved to be more efficient. but it cannot be shown that the organism ever gained anything as far as data goes. Either something that prevented the expression of that dna previously is now gone. or perhaps that is a bit of what needs to fall under epigenetics. Meaning basically that an organism gets the slight ability to choose what to do with its dna and whether or not a certain bit is expressed. and no i do not mean a typical kind of choice. I just mean to say that if your a scrawny guy and you have the super duper body building gene you would never know it without an intense desire to workout first. Evolution at least in the way normally explained is incorrect. Evolutionist often have to rely on the creationist rationale of taking a given time frame and simply sandwiching all the things into it that had to happen to support their theory. I speak mostly about the millions of steps needed to make a population of cells and then further more the steps required to make those into anything complex. These steps cannot be shown to occur. I'm not saying they absolutely could not have happened just that even an evolutionist if he is to explain that particular portion has to almost say that there is some kind of will present. otherwise with the big bang and everything in it spun in just one direction. even with time theres no particular reason life would form. I think considering neither theory can be proven without a time machine perhaps its best just to focus on proving a reversible divergence just like in naruto. Find yourself a muslim and a jew. Combine there cells outright with that of there own son and own father to increase compatability then combine your two composite people with each other. Then take some time sifting through family trees and track down the descendants of shem ham and japeth or at the very least 3 distinct lineages. Likely it would be thinner than that requiring you track down multiple offshoots of each. combine all these dudes and you might at least produce a likeness of noah. Leave female lineage out of it unless you are a female. Simon theorized that if recombined male and female together may provide limitless senescence. I say that instead of eternal youth or living forever because that makes people think you would be young the whole time. but on to my point do all this and at the very least you will show a reversible divergence assuming it worked of course.. if you need an example of the proliferation of foreign tissue in an animal just look at the goat sheep chimera. If you need a human example take transplants or microbial cysts. To summarize I think its just as likely apes broke down from us not the other way. And its at the very least easy to test. (for plausibility not for actually having happened. Knowing that is impossible without a time machine)

 

[llxFLaMe]

in fact you can observe it every year. just take the flu. why do you think you need a new vaccination every year? because of evolution. cause the onse who survived the last vaccination are ADAPT to their enviromen and multiplied themself a few thousand times in that year so the new generation only consists of the new type...thats evolution right in your face yet u claim its a scientist opinion? lol i guess you also have no idea how it works.

btw you can see this with bacteria within a year causse their generations are like a day or two long, maybe even only hours while bigger annimals like mammals take decades for only one generation(why the visible change takes thousands of years to be visible and observable)

Evolution has never been observed.
Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
There are no transitional fossils.
The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.

 

[Arian]

Evolution has never been observed.
Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
There are no transitional fossils.
The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.

typical answer. what if, only if, you read more then just the first 5 lines?

"Evolution has never been observed."

Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.

Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.



you sir just failed epicly, like so many others who think they know what theyre talking about....
i guess you didnt even read the title which was: "Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution"
SMH *Facepalm*

 

[Scooby Doo]

Evolution has never been observed.
Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
There are no transitional fossils.
The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.

You must be registered for see links

 

[llxFLaMe]

typical answer. what if, only if, you read more then just the first fine lines?

"Evolution has never been observed."

Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.

Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.



you sir just failed epicly, like so many others who think they know what theyre talking about....
i guess you didnt even read the title which was: "Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution"
SMH *Facepalm*

The so called 5 misconceptions have been proven to be correct .. Look it up

 

[Scooby Doo]

The so called 5 misconceptions have been proven to be correct .. Look it up

I just linked you that those are misconceptions...

 

[llxFLaMe]

Science is flawed and I don't believe in evolution .. I'm out

 

[Arian]

The so called 5 misconceptions have been proven to be correct .. Look it up

rofl alright then im out, no point talking with you anyways...
you clearly have no clue what youre talking about in the first place, so whats the point? (none, except me wasting my time trying to teach an unteachable dude on a anime based forum about evolution, who doesnt want to accept anything else but his own opinion on the first place....)

 

[llxFLaMe]

This is an interesting thread with a lot of well constructed arguments, and it's definitely a subject I think about often. Obviously, the answer to this question is highly subjective, and I don't believe there is a single right answer. I like reading everyone's opinion on the matter, though, and I hope this discussion goes on.

 

[Scooby Doo]

This is an interesting thread with a lot of well constructed arguments, and it's definitely a subject I think about often. Obviously, the answer to this question is highly subjective, and I don't believe there is a single right answer. I like reading everyone's opinion on the matter, though, and I hope this discussion goes on.

You posted this same answer in a Hiruzen thread .-.

 

[EnDash]

no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an ongoing endeavor. Scientist are just teaching their opinion the same thing a priest does

Evolution has never been observed.
Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
There are no transitional fossils.
The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.

Science is flawed and I don't believe in evolution .. I'm out

there is a 20 year old ongoing experiment observing the evolution of e. coli bacteria:

You must be registered for see links

one strain of e. coli evolved into using citric acid as an energy source. something that has never been observed in e. coli in nature.

the reason science is not flawed and that scientists are not like priests, is because they work their entire life to prove those theories.

humans and monkies share a common ancestor, if your best argument is "why are there still monkeys?" you are a prime example of ignorance.