• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Confused about evolution

dear lord... ACTUALLY YES NEW SPECIES HAVE BEEN CREATED!!! and its not all that uncommon on the bacterial level, obviously no mammals or birds have been created recently SINCE IT TAKES MILLIONS OF YEARS!!! this is not a fast proccess... and to proclaim evolution a religion is absolutly ludicrous.. have you even heard of scientific method?
 
Upvote 0
BuckeyeSoldier said:
lv buck everysingle thing you just said was purely opinion with no fact and you expect us to accept that a irrefutable evidence? most of what you said was was either just plain wrong or lies.. im not sure which.. if you actually want proof of the things you are trying to dispute contact me and ill get it for you.. but you OBVIOUSLY have no clue as to what you are talking about... that or you are so biased you are blind to everything but one side of it..
oh, so Piltdown Java, and Nebraska Man were NOT hoaxes? please. there are so many holes in your theory, it looks like swiss cheese...

besides, you did not address the point that after all the mutations, and 'evolution' that your viruses (or is it 'virii') undergo, THEY ARE STILL JUST A VIRUS. when a mutated, evolved virus ceases to BE a virus, and becomes something entirely different, i will be more than happy to say that your thoery has merit, but until then, Evolution is your religious faith, just as Creation is mine.

you say you have evidence, then post it. please.

-edit-
your long winded copy and paste was very nice. HOWEVER, i can say that i am on the verge of making my Honda run 10 seconds flat in the quarter mile, but that doesn't prove a thing... the article is nothing more than over inflated, self indulgent egos patting themselves on the back...

and besides, man 'creating life' (which HAS NOT HAPPENED) doesn't prove evolution, since an OUTISDE FORCE was neccessary to facilitate said 'life'...

evolution requires a spontaneous movement from non-life to life. and THEN, on top of that, evolution requires matter-or life, if you will- to go from less complexity, to More complexity which i think has been pretty well covered in the Laws of Thermodynamics...you know what a LAW is, don't you, Mr Genetics Major? there is a BIG reason that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a LAW, and evolution is just a theory...

Soldier said:
ACTUALLY YES NEW SPECIES HAVE BEEN CREATED!!!
oh really? name ONE. nevermind the fact that within a GENUS, species are readily intermingled, and new species apper... you still haven't addressed the issue of a new GENUS originating from an old one... besides, if evolution takes millions of years, there should be BILLIONS of unsuccessful evolutionary 'attempts' in the fossil record... amazingly, THEY ARE ALL ABSENT.

Soldier said:
have you even heard of scientific method?
yes, i have. i have also heard of evolutionist 'scientists' inventing 'missing links' in order to purport their erroneous beliefs... i believe i listed several on the previous page... inventing false 'missing links' doesn't seem too scientific to me, but maybe it works for you...

evolution, in the commonly taught 'molecule to man' iteration is about as ridiculous a concept as i can fathom...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
ok, so let me get this straight the fossil record shows there arent any? is this the same fossil record that the creationists dismiss as having been planted there by the devil!?!?! if we arent discounting that are you claiming humans have been around as long as the dinasaurs? thats strange the fossil record seems to show otherwise..


name ONE. nevermind the fact that within a GENUS, species are readily intermingled, and new species apper...
well there ya go you JUST ADMITTED NEW SPECIES APPEAR!!!!

cmon i havent even had to look anything up yet you can do better than this..

as for genus whoever even said that was proven? i think you inserted that yoruself.. i said species.. and lets not forget OUR genetic code is 99.97 the same as a chimp so you dont exactly to change all that much for massive changes..

and how is that that all of you just ignored oh8ch (i think it was him) when he mentioned the bacteria and how it EVOLVES so quickly that it can overcome our antibiotics within just a couple generations... or arent those large enough evolutions for you?
 
Upvote 0
BuckeyeSoldier said:
ok, so let me get this straight the fossil record shows there arent any? is this the same fossil record that the creationists dismiss as having been planted there by the devil!?!?! if we arent discounting that are you claiming humans have been around as long as the dinasaurs? thats strange the fossil record seems to show otherwise..
well there ya go you JUST ADMITTED NEW SPECIES APPEAR!!!!

cmon i havent even had to look anything up yet you can do better than this..

as for genus whoever even said that was proven? i think you inserted that yoruself.. i said species.. and lets not forget OUR genetic code is 99.97 the same as a chimp so you dont exactly to change all that much for massive changes..

and how is that that all of you just ignored oh8ch (i think it was him) when he mentioned the bacteria and how it EVOLVES so quickly that it can overcome our antibiotics within just a couple generations... or arent those large enough evolutions for you?
those are NOT evolutions, they are adaptations... look, if our bodies weren't able to build a tolerance to germs, we would all be dead. you are missing my point. a mutated bacteria IS STILL A BACTERIA. do you get it? i guess not, by your responses... when a mutated bacteria becomes no longer a bacteria, but something wholly new and different, i will believe you, but until then, a better version of the same thing simply is not evolution... i also think that you are missing the point that the more specific a secies code is, the LESS overall information is included in the code... secies are becoming more and more specific, and focused, which is inherently opposite of evolutionary thought... get it? More information can NEVER come from less imformation, but less can always come form more... i can't believe this doesn't make sense to you...

re: bold, umm... i HIGHLY suggest that you take a trip out to Western Colorado, and see the dinosaur museum (i believe it is in Grand Junction), where, you will find fossilized Man's footprints right along side of footprints of dinosaurs that supposedly came millions of years before man. i am talking about in the same exact rock, not different rocks that were close together... i have seen this with my own two eyes, and believe me, brother, there is no denying that man and dinosaur were here AT THE SAME TIME...

concerning genetic code similarities, why don't you compare human genetic code with that of a banana slug, or even a donkey, for that matter. i think that you would be VERY suprised with the results...

concerning new species, did you miss the point that most animals of the same GENUS can intermingle and produce viable offspring? yeah, they just discovered that the Florida Largemouth Bass, and the Texas Largemouth Bass are two different species. but guess what, you take a Florida Bass and put it in Texas, and it will reproduce just fine... IT IS STILL A BASS... when a Florida Bass becomes NOT a Bass, but some other KIND of fish, i will have the evidence that i need to believe in evolution, but not one second before..

i don't think it's sinking in for you yet... maybe it will eventually...

BTW, i think it's funny that the genetics major can't find his own information, but relies on Oh8ch to fight his battles... come on, man.. don't let me down... i thought you were a soldier...
 
Upvote 0
those are NOT evolutions, they are adaptations... look, if our bodies weren't able to build a tolerance to germs, we would all be dead. you are missing my point. a mutated bacteria IS STILL A BACTERIA. do you get it?

If the proportion of bacteria with a specific genetic makeup is different after the 'adaptation' it is evolution. Evolution does not occur in huge steps each of which results in a new species. Evolution occurs in each of an incredible number of small steps. It is only after enough changes have taken place that two groups can no longer breed that a new species has evolved. An evolutionary change and the arrival of a new species are two different - albeit related - concepts.

Let's try a definition again:

evolution is ANY change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.

When a gene can be expressed in one of multiple forms each of those forms is considered an allele. If a virus were to strike the earth tommorrow that only killed people who have the allele for blue eyes - even if that virus only killed say 50% of such people - evolution would have occurred because the frequency of people with the allele for blue eyes would have changed. If breeding among the remaining groups continued as it had before the world would see fewer people with blue eyes - but they would still be people.

Now if you want to make up your own definition of evolution go ahead, and you will surely win your argument.
 
Upvote 0
ok, here let me help you a lil more..

an adaptation is when a creature changes itself to better survive its environment.

evolving is when a creature changes and its offspring have said change born into them genetically.

is that simple enough for you?
 
Upvote 0
I can't believe this argument has dissolved into a discussion about semantics. Let's try not to get caught up in the small, petty details, but argue whether there is scientific proof that supports either creation or evolution. What is amazing to me is nobody, and I mean absolutely NOBODY, can answer my question. Evolution supporters, please, please, PLEASE, help your argument.

Question: What was the very first "thing" ever? And how did it get there?

You people can argue semantics and definitions all you want, but that doesn't help anyone. Just because BuckeyeSoldier's definition of "evolution" differs from lvbuckeye's, what does that mean? Re-read both posts, and you get the gist of their respective arguments. But I will NOT believe in evolution as a whole until someone can prove that it had a logical beginning, which NOBODY can. There are hundred's of "sub-theories" under both evolution and creation. Many creationists believe in some form of evolution, and I have heard religious, creation-believing persons theorize that the bible's "seven days" of creation actually took place over millions of years, and the "seven days" is purely a translation error or misinterpretation. But again, someone, anyone, tell me how our universe, or existence at all, first started? If it wasn't God, then how did anything ever get here? And what is here? Anyone?
 
Upvote 0
FKA, its not a matter of semantics, that IS evolution... and i already answered your question on another post...

i dont know... science doesnt know.. we are willing to admit it.. its ok.. the world is going to end because we havent figured everything out yet.. but where do you think 99% of religions come from??

ppl trying to explain what they dont understand... same with yours buddy.. sorry.
 
Upvote 0
What is amazing to me is nobody, and I mean absolutely NOBODY, can answer my question. Evolution supporters, please, please, PLEASE, help your argument.

Question: What was the very first "thing" ever? And how did it get there?
FKA, are you serious? You are actually amazed that no one on BP can answer what was existant eons and eons ago?

C'mon, one guys says "why, the 'big bang' was first, of course...see, the universe is constantly expanding, so by my estimation, x billion years ago, all known matter was in the very same point, thus is all blew up", while the other says "But wait, it says here in my book that God created this beautiful planet in just seven days! And if I follow the lineage in my book, I determine that God created it..oh, about y years ago."

Now, the first guy made some observations with his telescope, or whatever, and theorized what happened. The second, however, holds a milleniums-old book that has been handed down (and translated dozens if not hundereds of times) and simply takes what is written there as fact.

The problem with taking to task someone who subscribes to the scientific method by constantly saying 'but why?' or 'but what came before that' is, that, qiute simply, they don't know, and won't say 'because God made it that way'. Based on my experience, a scientist such as Darwin, made observations of the world around him and tried to formulate a plausible explaination for those observations. So future generations of scientists have this plausible explaination to test through their own observations. If some can find instances which completely contradict the previously plausible explaination, then it is thrown out or modified. Hence theories are constantly tested, revised, pared down and honed.

Now, try taking a fundamentalist Christian to task about his beliefs. What came first? Answer 'God'. Prove it. Answer: 'I have faith that is unshakable, and the way I see it, God was and will always be'. 'Arguing' with a fundamentalist is waste of time, in my experience. If someone has unshakable faith, then the final answer of any discussion is 'God' or 'God made it that way'. While that may satisfy the fundamentalist, the 'pure' scientist may not find this explaination satisfactory.

While I do have faith in a higher power (though I don't think he's a giant white-bearded european-looking fellow on a throne), I am not satisfied with the 'God made it that way' explaination.

So, we've got this debate about Evolution vs. Creationism. I tend to walk the line that the bible's creation story is metaphor, and both can coexist. I mean, can you actually believe that two enormous hands reached out of the sky and molded man out of clay?

As far as the resulution of this debate, let's look back to the time of Galileo. He (edit: or was it Copernicus?) made rudimentary observations of the celestial mechanics of our solar system and realized 'Why, the earth really isn't the center of the universe after all, we're actually orbiting the sun!' Now, as you know, the church branded him a heretic and threw him in jail! What he said condradicted their 'unshakable' beliefs. Fortunately, others made observations and backed up his claims. And now, we all know the truth, that the earth is just a small planet, orbiting a medium sized star. So, a bit of the 'universal mystery' of our place in the universe was revealed and a bit of the churches hold on 'the Truth' was chipped away.

Where will this 'chipping away' of the churches hold on 'the Truth' end? Well, we've got as good a chance of guessing that as we do answering your question, FKA.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I understand that there will be many unanswered questions about what happened millions and millions of years ago. But, there still has to be a "beginning point". To me, the biggest hole in the evolution theory is that nobody can say what started it. I cannot believe in evolution if that question cannot be answered. I can believe that evolution does occur, but I cannot believe in the evolution theory as it applies to this argument of creation vs. evolution, simply because of that one huge hole that nobody can fill. Christians cannot necessarily "prove" God's existence, but at least "faith" is part of their overall argument. It pains me to see the "scientific" argument, where everything must be proven and substantiated by cold fact, yet no advocates of this argument can offer me any type of explanation in response to my question.
 
Upvote 0
FKA, you have some strange logic there... so you can believe one "idea" because its willing to sell out and make up a reason without proof, but you refuse the other because it is willing to admit that no one knows? if i made up a story book beginning for you would you believe it? im sorry but thats what makes science so truly great, if we dont know something we dont HAVE TO LIE ABOUT IT! we'll come up with ideas and try to see if they fit but at the moment we havent figured out how to prove any of them one or the other so they are still only theories.. to say that creationism is better than evolution because it has a beginning that is only based on faith is simply illogical... if you are bothered by there being a whole in theory why arent you bothered that chrisitans thought that there were no dinasaurs, the sun revolved around us, it was ok to go on crusades and burn witches at the stake, they believe in an omnipotent being which is impossible in itself, they think some guy managed to catch EVERYANIMAL ON THE PLANET AND PUT IT ON A BOAT but now all those animals some of which are still just now being discovered have decided that they only want to live in certain areas but amazingly once intraduced soemwhere else thrive quite well(indicating if they all came from one spot like it would show coming from an arc they all should already be able to be everywhere) ect ect ect... i could go on literally for days showing holes and contradictions in the bible.. but you arent ok with us not knowing how it all began.. maybe it didnt begin fka, maybe its always been here... maybe we will never know.. but we certainly arent going to make something up to make ourselves feel better about it...
 
Upvote 0
Oh8ch said:
If the proportion of bacteria with a specific genetic makeup is different after the 'adaptation' it is evolution. Evolution does not occur in huge steps each of which results in a new species. Evolution occurs in each of an incredible number of small steps. It is only after enough changes have taken place that two groups can no longer breed that a new species has evolved. An evolutionary change and the arrival of a new species are two different - albeit related - concepts.

where are the steps in the fossil record?

Oh8ch said:
Let's try a definition again:



When a gene can be expressed in one of multiple forms each of those forms is considered an allele. If a virus were to strike the earth tommorrow that only killed people who have the allele for blue eyes - even if that virus only killed say 50% of such people - evolution would have occurred because the frequency of people with the allele for blue eyes would have changed. If breeding among the remaining groups continued as it had before the world would see fewer people with blue eyes - but they would still be people.
yes, you can say that the the race has evolved, if the whole race is changed and there are no more eyed people, and yes they would still be people, but ARE THEY MORE ADVANCED? IS THERE MORE INFORMATION ENCODED INTO THE 'NO BLUE EYED' RACE THAN THERE WAS IN THE MULTI-COLORED EYE RACE??? the answer is a resounding NO, which is why you have again missed my point...

you could use a real-life example if you wanted, and talk about the genetic anomaly that is present in elephants in which approx. 10% of elephants do not grow tusks... now, due to poaching taking it's toll on the tusked elephants, the percentage of non-tusked elephants is growing... eventually, tusks MAY dissappear entirely, which is a remarkable feat of ADAPTATION, that i readilly admit... now, my question is this: which gene pool is deeper? the pool in which some may be born with no tusks or the pool in which none are born with tusks? information (to grow tusks) is being LOST. the information to Not grow tusks was ALREADY PRESENT. this is Adaptation, which, once again, i totally agree occurs...

however, the concept of adaptation and genetic mutations forming entirely new types of animals (your basic 'molecule to man' concept of evolution) goes totally against all known Laws of Nature and Physics...

or to put it another way, please name ONE, example of information being GAINED, rather than LOST in your definition of evolution...

Oh8ch said:
Now if you want to make up your own definition of evolution go ahead, and you will surely win your argument.

i'm not making up my own defintion of evolution. you are not answering the key question in the molecule to man theory. which is, since all examples cited in this thread involve the LOSS of overall genetic information at what point is information being added?
i still haven't seen an example...

-edit-
Soldier said:
im sorry but thats what makes science so truly great, if we dont know something we dont HAVE TO LIE ABOUT IT!
you obviously missed my post citing several BLATANT lies concerning the discovery of supposed 'missing links' that have been thrust upon us, and taught as fact for a while, until said hoaxes were exposed as the frauds that they were...

Soldier said:
they think some guy managed to catch EVERYANIMAL ON THE PLANET AND PUT IT ON A BOAT
EVERY KIND OF ANIMAL, NOT EVERY SINGLE ANIMAL... your reading comprehension skills are a bit lacking.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
lvbuck ok, yes i mistyped i MEANT every type of animal, trust me EVERYONE knows the story of the arc... and even to fit everytype is an impossible feat.


secondly yes, those are evolutions, regaurdless if the species gains or loses information it is still evolving. as for gaining, i go back to the bacteria you like to ignore, they are constantly gaining new defenses to our antibiotics, THAT is evolution, in most cases it takes a mutation, a freak if you will, for a creature to GAIN information.. if that freak just happens to be better equipped for survival and reproduction than its predecessors then it will. of course we dont have a whole list of examples for you to show creatures gaining genetic information, because it happens OVER MILLIONS OF YEARS.. we have been around for a couple thousand...

and YES YOU ARE MAKING UP YOUR OWN DEFINITION.

and i didnt dispute that some people lie to make themselves famous, duh they are humans its what they do.. hoaxes happen all the time it doesnt say anything about science, it says that someone thought they could turn a profit.

im pretty sure at this point you are just being stubborn cuz you arent making any valid points.. just denial and spin and strange deffinitions
 
Upvote 0
lvbuckeye:

I'm a little dissapointed that you didn't quote me in your rebuttal. Perhaps it is because I didn't try and 'prove' Darwins theory of evolution to you. A monumental task, no doubt, that has yet to be accomplished - hence the theory, and not law.

Perhaps we subscribers to evolutionary theory could attempt another tact, that is to debunk strict creationism. You wrote:

EVERY KIND OF ANIMAL, NOT EVERY SINGLE ANIMAL... your reading comprehension skills are a bit lacking.
From that quote, I get the sense that you are a strict interpreter of the Bible, and you believe that a man named Noah actually gathered every single species of animal on the planet in his ark. Now, as we know, the Bible states the dimensions that God instructed Noah to use when building this vessel. Perhaps you or some other Biblical scholar could provide those dimensions, as I do not know them by heart. I do know they are in 'cubits', but it seems to me that those units have been converted to feet or some other familiar unit.

At any rate, if you are a strict adherent to scripture, you take this all as fact, that he rounded the globe, scooping up pairs of kangaroos, wallabees, jaguars and prarie dogs. I for one, think this literal interpretation is preposterous. First of all, to gather unique species fom all the continents is a daunting task, not to mention actually fitting them all in a vessel which we know the actual dimenstions of.

So, as I mentioned in my earlier post, I believe this is yet another example of the Bible recording in the written word, legend and tales handed down orally for countless generations. To interpret it as fact is just silly and quite short-sighted, imho. So, to debunk the theory of evolution, which is Darwin's plausible explaination for the origin of species by waving your Bible around is rediculous.

So, in conclusion, I provide a little essay I found on the 'net that explores the Noah's Ark story. Quite an interesting little read.

<CENTER>[size=+2]
<CENTER>[size=+2]The Institute for Historical Accuracy[/size] [size=+1]April 19, 1999[/size] [size=+2]The Myth of Noah's Ark[/size]

</CENTER>In a matter of days, NBC-TV will be presenting what its star Jon Voigt calls ". . . the biggest thing ever done for television," a mega-production of the biblical tale "Noah's Ark." Because this well-known story is widely portrayed as being "historical," it is incumbent upon the Institute for Historical Accuracy to disseminate the following information.

For millennia, countless people have been taught that there was a real man named Noah who somehow piled two (or seven, depending on which scripture in the "infallible Word of God" one reads) of every animal on the planet into an ark and with his family survived an enormous global flood. Obviously, to thinkers worldwide this story is logically to be considered an impossible fable, not history.

The fact is that, rather than being a historical figure who was the progenitor of three races, Noah is a fictitious character found in the mythologies of a number of different cultures globally, as opposed to being limited to one area and its specific peoples. The Bible story, in reality, is a rehash of many of these other myths, changed to revolve around these particular peoples.

Like other biblical tales, the myth of Noah is found earlier in India, Egypt, Babylon, Sumer and other places. The fact is that there have been floods and deluge stories in many different parts of the world, including but not limited to the Middle East. In the Sumerian tale, which predated the biblical by thousands of years, the ark was built by Ziusudra; in Akkad, he was Atrakhasis, and in Babylon, Uta-Napisthim. The Greek Noah was called Deucalion, "who repopulated the earth after the waters subsided" and after the ark landed on Mt. Parnassos. The Armenian flood hero was called Xisuthros, "whose ark landed on Mt. Ararat." Noah's "history" can also be found in India, where there is a "tomb of Nuh" near the river Gagra in the district of Oude or Oudh, which evidently is related to Judea and Judah. The "ark-preserved" Indian Noah was also called "Menu."

Like Noah, the Sumerian Ziusudra had three sons, including one named "Japetosthes," essentially the same as Noah's son Japheth, also related to Pra-japati or Jvapeti, son of the Indian Menu, whose other sons possessed virtually the same names as those of Noah, i.e., Shem and Ham.

The story of Noah's Ark actually takes place in the heavens, as Noah and his crew of seven represent the sun, moon, earth and five inner planets. Obviously, Noah's famous "ark," which misguided souls have sought upon the earth, is a motif found in other myths, representing the arc-shaped lower quarter of the moon.

As to the "real" Noah's ark alleged to have been found, it should be noted that it was a custom, in Scotland for one, to create stone "ships" on mounts in emulation of this pre-biblical celestial myth, such that any number of these "arks" may be discovered on Earth.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
[/size]</CENTER><!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
 
Upvote 0
interesting link

Here's an interesting site I found after reading through this thread. I took a quick peek in one of the forum discussions and it even mentioned something about the "alleles" discusion. The "alleles" thread is the second link.

http://www.evolutionisdead.com/
http://www.evolutionisdead.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13&sid=7ea21257249eb93f3bee02b1e583526b

My own belief regarding what should/should not be taught is that the schools should treat each theory consistantly. In short, they should either teach both sides, or neither of them... since neither side can be proven as absolute fact... at least at this time.

"And I say, "Hey, Lama, hey, how about a little something, you know, for the effort, you know." And he says, "Oh, uh, there won't be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consiousness." So I got that goin' for me, which is nice." - Carl Spackler (Bill Murray), Caddyshack.
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top