Evolution: The grand experiment

[nebula]

What is the NRB network? I don't even see it on my cable line up.

http://nrb.org/

[Guest Ditchens]

Okay, there's a few things wrong with this...

A. Just because the fossil record contains no intermediate between bats and pterosaurs and their walking ancestors, does that mean we have to throw out the entire theory? The fossil record has holes because not every singe species can be expected to fossilize. There are all sorts of fossils showing the gradual emergence of fish from land to water and into amphibians, terrestrial mammals into that water as what we now know as whales and dinosaurs into birds. This clip also does not take into account the amount of proofs for evolution we find in the bodies of these animals (for example, the residual pelvic bones of whales, the many reptilian traits of birds and the toe nails of manatees. All these are perfectly explained by evolution, not creationism). Just because a theory needs some minor tinkering here and there does not by any means show that it's faulty. Lots of other scientific theories accepted by religion are still being perfected. Why be so hard on evolution?

B. What motivation do these scientists have for forging the proofs of evolution? None! If you had a phd in biology, would you seriously go around planting fake fossils here and there? Any geologist can tell you they're authentic (or is geology a scam too?). Do creationists seriously believe scientists are making this up just to make them mad? May I remind people that when evolution was first discovered, almost all scientists, Darwin included, were religious?

C. Even if we assume evolution DOES have some fatal flaws (I assure you it doesnt), is the next best option really to assume that a supernatural being created everything out of thin air? Doesnt a logical, thought out, PROVEN scientific train of logic (ah logic, that old enemy of religion...) seem a bit more reasonable than immediately assuming a god is behind everything just because an ancient book written before the invention of science says so? Science may not have all the answers but, unlike religion, it doesnt pretend that it does, and it admits this (again, unlike religion), it fine tunes itself to better explain new discoveries (still, unlike religion) and it used simple tools like logic and reason and doubt (doubt, you see, is humble. Something we could all use) to better explain things. No body thinks that god causes objects to fall instead of gravity, or that god causes chemical reactions instead of atoms, or that god causes disease instead of bacteria. And Ive noticed that just about everyone that likes to comment on how evolution is a "lie" has truly no idea how it works. Go read some Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne and, if you have an open mind, evolution will sell itself.

Yes it has been done on a few occasions! They are well documented.

And Darwin, poor deluded Darwin, admitted that he could in no way explain the "evolution" of the eye (it's a famous quote, look it up)

We have been around the Darwin tree so often on these boards, and no one has yet been able to show me their monkey.

Oh, the whole eye thing? Um if you acctually take the time to read the origin of species, darwin says that it seems improbable that the eye formed on its own, but then he GOES ON TO SAY HOW IT HAPPENED. Somehow word about that fact hasnt gotten out...

[Hal P]

The video presentation isn't saying they can't find links between pterosaurs and modern animals, the video presentation is saying - or rather the evolutionists themselves are saying they cannot find a fossil ancestry for the pterosaurs. No ancestor, no transition, nothing! For all the fossils they have found of pterosaurs, they have found nothing that can be claimed as an ancestor to the animal.

This is false, just recently such a fossil was found - Darwinopterus modularis.

Warning: this link contains real science explained by an actual paleontologist.

It has not proved fruitful for anti-evolutionists to point out supposed 'gaps' in the fossil record as no sooner do they do so than the gaps quickly become filled in. As just one recent example, Michael Behe once wrote, "if random evolution is true, there must have been a large number of transitional forms between the Mesonychid [a whale ancestor] and the ancient whale. Where are they?" He assumed such forms would not or could not be found, but three transitional species were identified by paleontologists within a year of that statement. He doesn't make such arguments anymore.

Edited November 6, 2009 by Hal P

[Guest Ditchens]

Just because the fossil record contains no intermediate between bats and pterosaurs and their walking ancestors, does that mean we have to throw out the entire theory?

If you had a phd in biology, would you seriously go around planting fake fossils here and there? Any geologist can tell you they're authentic (or is geology a scam too?).

The reason the fossil record does not support Darwin

[Guest Ditchens]

Okay, there's a few things wrong with this...

A. Just because the fossil record contains no intermediate between bats and pterosaurs and their walking ancestors, does that mean we have to throw out the entire theory? The fossil record has holes because not every singe species can be expected to fossilize. There are all sorts of fossils showing the gradual emergence of fish from land to water and into amphibians, terrestrial mammals into that water as what we now know as whales and dinosaurs into birds. This clip also does not take into account the amount of proofs for evolution we find in the bodies of these animals (for example, the residual pelvic bones of whales, the many reptilian traits of birds and the toe nails of manatees. All these are perfectly explained by evolution, not creationism). Just because a theory needs some minor tinkering here and there does not by any means show that it's faulty. Lots of other scientific theories accepted by religion are still being perfected. Why be so hard on evolution?

B. What motivation do these scientists have for forging the proofs of evolution? None! If you had a phd in biology, would you seriously go around planting fake fossils here and there? Any geologist can tell you they're authentic (or is geology a scam too?). Do creationists seriously believe scientists are making this up just to make them mad? May I remind people that when evolution was first discovered, almost all scientists, Darwin included, were religious?

C. Even if we assume evolution DOES have some fatal flaws (I assure you it doesnt), is the next best option really to assume that a supernatural being created everything out of thin air? Doesnt a logical, thought out, PROVEN scientific train of logic (ah logic, that old enemy of religion...) seem a bit more reasonable than immediately assuming a god is behind everything just because an ancient book written before the invention of science says so? Science may not have all the answers but, unlike religion, it doesnt pretend that it does, and it admits this (again, unlike religion), it fine tunes itself to better explain new discoveries (still, unlike religion) and it used simple tools like logic and reason and doubt (doubt, you see, is humble. Something we could all use) to better explain things. No body thinks that god causes objects to fall instead of gravity, or that god causes chemical reactions instead of atoms, or that god causes disease instead of bacteria. And Ive noticed that just about everyone that likes to comment on how evolution is a "lie" has truly no idea how it works. Go read some Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne and, if you have an open mind, evolution will sell itself.

The Supernatural Being, i.e., God created YOU. So how do you explain that? Oh, and since you didn't bother to introduce yourself, welcome to Worthy.

If the supernatural being created me, then why did he create me to not believe in him? Seems ironic. And if god creates all people, why does he create people with downs syndrome, or conjoined twins, or children with tails, or babies born with diseases that kill them within minuets of being born? Seems like god either itsn't too competent a designer or simply likes to pull cruel jokes on his innocent creations.

[OneLight]

Okay, there's a few things wrong with this...

A. Just because the fossil record contains no intermediate between bats and pterosaurs and their walking ancestors, does that mean we have to throw out the entire theory? The fossil record has holes because not every singe species can be expected to fossilize. There are all sorts of fossils showing the gradual emergence of fish from land to water and into amphibians, terrestrial mammals into that water as what we now know as whales and dinosaurs into birds. This clip also does not take into account the amount of proofs for evolution we find in the bodies of these animals (for example, the residual pelvic bones of whales, the many reptilian traits of birds and the toe nails of manatees. All these are perfectly explained by evolution, not creationism). Just because a theory needs some minor tinkering here and there does not by any means show that it's faulty. Lots of other scientific theories accepted by religion are still being perfected. Why be so hard on evolution?

B. What motivation do these scientists have for forging the proofs of evolution? None! If you had a phd in biology, would you seriously go around planting fake fossils here and there? Any geologist can tell you they're authentic (or is geology a scam too?). Do creationists seriously believe scientists are making this up just to make them mad? May I remind people that when evolution was first discovered, almost all scientists, Darwin included, were religious?

C. Even if we assume evolution DOES have some fatal flaws (I assure you it doesnt), is the next best option really to assume that a supernatural being created everything out of thin air? Doesnt a logical, thought out, PROVEN scientific train of logic (ah logic, that old enemy of religion...) seem a bit more reasonable than immediately assuming a god is behind everything just because an ancient book written before the invention of science says so? Science may not have all the answers but, unlike religion, it doesnt pretend that it does, and it admits this (again, unlike religion), it fine tunes itself to better explain new discoveries (still, unlike religion) and it used simple tools like logic and reason and doubt (doubt, you see, is humble. Something we could all use) to better explain things. No body thinks that god causes objects to fall instead of gravity, or that god causes chemical reactions instead of atoms, or that god causes disease instead of bacteria. And Ive noticed that just about everyone that likes to comment on how evolution is a "lie" has truly no idea how it works. Go read some Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne and, if you have an open mind, evolution will sell itself.

The Supernatural Being, i.e., God created YOU. So how do you explain that? Oh, and since you didn't bother to introduce yourself, welcome to Worthy.

If the supernatural being created me, then why did he create me to not believe in him? Seems ironic. And if god creates all people, why does he create people with downs syndrome, or conjoined twins, or children with tails, or babies born with diseases that kill them within minuets of being born? Seems like god either itsn't too competent a designer or simply likes to pull cruel jokes on his innocent creations.

Faith is a choice, not a mandate.

Maybe you can tell me since no other atheist has so far ... what is the probability statistics that our DNA, having enough information in them to create a library of information from here to the sun, could happen out of chance?

[Guest Ditchens]

Okay, first off, I wasnt saying there was a link between pterosaurs and bats THEMSELVES. Thats just stupid. I meant that they both have their own individual walking ancestors that may or may not have been fossilized. And I agree that doubt and challenging is good, but there;s a difference between challenging a theory and banging your head against the wall. Now, the theory of evolution does not in any way say the bible is a lie. Im not an atheist because of evolution. My belief in it is a byproduct of my atheism. Evolution simply means that the genesis story is impossible. Thats it. Now, I even admit, the whole Ida thing was quite overblown. But just because of that, why does it mean that we evolution is wrong? Evolution does not pretend to have all the answers and it is admittedly not 100% perfect. That doesnt mean its wrong. And what proof of a mind is there in natural phenomena such as the human appendix, or ostrich wings, or horses with 3 toes, or flightless birds or aquatic mammals? All these things are explained totally by evolution, all creationism can say is "oh, god did it. Why? Because I say so." And the books by the authors I mentioned do critically analyze evolution and simply cant find any reason why is could be untrue.

[Guest Ditchens]

[OneLight]

Faith is a choice, not a mandate.

Maybe you can tell me since no other atheist has so far ... what is the probability statistics that our DNA, having enough information in them to create a library of information from here to the sun, could happen out of chance?

Well, first off, evolution does NOT happen by random. Far, far from it. The factors that influence it, such as the environment and factors from other species, are indeed random, but the result highly ordered. Our DNA began as a self-replicating molecule that was used by the most basic cells, little more than complex molecules themselves, to allow them to express certain essential proteins. After billions of years of environmental pressure to change and upgrade, DNA slowly began to change and adapt to it's changing environment. The other alternative was simply extinction (and countless species went down that road for not being able to adapt, change and thereby evolve). This process continued throughout the ages until it, relatively very recently indeed, resulted in us, and we are by no means an end result or an image of perfection. So, to answer your question, there is 0 chance that it happened by chance. Evolution is not a game of chance.

Then, if I may ask, how do you believe it all got started?

Then, if it all began as random factors, what is the probability of such a randomness to become so perfected to create such a species as a human we have today?

[MorningGlory]

Well, first off, evolution does NOT happen by random. Far, far from it. The factors that influence it, such as the environment and factors from other species, are indeed random, but the result highly ordered. Our DNA began as a self-replicating molecule that was used by the most basic cells, little more than complex molecules themselves, to allow them to express certain essential proteins. After billions of years of environmental pressure to change and upgrade, DNA slowly began to change and adapt to it's changing environment. The other alternative was simply extinction (and countless species went down that road for not being able to adapt, change and thereby evolve). This process continued throughout the ages until it, relatively very recently indeed, resulted in us, and we are by no means an end result or an image of perfection. So, to answer your question, there is 0 chance that it happened by chance. Evolution is not a game of chance.

So...where did the original DNA come from?

(Please use the quote feature because everything above your post looks like it was written by you when it obviously was not.)