Evolution vs Whatever

[Vidav]

What about viruses and bacteria developing resistance to vaccines and antibiotics? Couldn't that be considered microevolution?

Certainly, yes. Cannot be refuted as incorrect.

As I rehash this thread every year, I have come to realize that evolution means different things to different people. I am not saying certain aspects of evolution don't happen, for that is obvious. What I am trying to say, is that we don't slowly turn into a different species over time (from ooze to man).

In your example, the viruses and bacteria both undergo microevolution, but in the end, they are still just that - a virus and a bacteria. With the two's ability to swap genes with scary efficiency, shouldn't we have seen a new organism by now? Especially considering how many experiments are performed on both not only in academia, but corporate America as well. All that messing with their DNA and still no new species.

Changes happen slowly. Even if they gain one change or another it's not like one day they wake up as a new species.

Check out things like this for some cool examples of bacteria evolving new traits:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_lo ... experiment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Even though they evolved new traits and characteristics they are still E. coli. The change to becoming a new species all together would take much longer than you or I could witness in a lifetime.

[D1B]

What about viruses and bacteria developing resistance to vaccines and antibiotics? Couldn't that be considered microevolution?

Certainly, yes. Cannot be refuted as incorrect.

As I rehash this thread every year, I have come to realize that evolution means different things to different people. I am not saying certain aspects of evolution don't happen, for that is obvious. What I am trying to say, is that we don't slowly turn into a different species over time (from ooze to man).

In your example, the viruses and bacteria both undergo microevolution, but in the end, they are still just that - a virus and a bacteria. With the two's ability to swap genes with scary efficiency, shouldn't we have seen a new organism by now? Especially considering how many experiments are performed not only in academia, but corporate America as well. All that messing with their DNA and still no new species.

[Vidav]

Certainly, yes. Cannot be refuted as incorrect.

As I rehash this thread every year, I have come to realize that evolution means different things to different people. I am not saying certain aspects of evolution don't happen, for that is obvious. What I am trying to say, is that we don't slowly turn into a different species over time (from ooze to man).

In your example, the viruses and bacteria both undergo microevolution, but in the end, they are still just that - a virus and a bacteria. With the two's ability to swap genes with scary efficiency, shouldn't we have seen a new organism by now? Especially considering how many experiments are performed not only in academia, but corporate America as well. All that messing with their DNA and still no new species.

Watched a slow in History channel last night that stated if you crammed the entire world's/universe's existence into 14 years, man's presence (in our current form) on earth wouldn't happen until the last SIX minutes. Looking at how something "microevolves" in a couple weeks/months/years is hardly the same as what the theory of evolution is proposing, SG.

[Grizalltheway]

What about viruses and bacteria developing resistance to vaccines and antibiotics? Couldn't that be considered microevolution?

Certainly, yes. Cannot be refuted as incorrect.

As I rehash this thread every year, I have come to realize that evolution means different things to different people. I am not saying certain aspects of evolution don't happen, for that is obvious. What I am trying to say, is that we don't slowly turn into a different species over time (from ooze to man).

In your example, the viruses and bacteria both undergo microevolution, but in the end, they are still just that - a virus and a bacteria. With the two's ability to swap genes with scary efficiency, shouldn't we have seen a new organism by now? Especially considering how many experiments are performed not only in academia, but corporate America as well. All that messing with their DNA and still no new species.

Dinosaurs and modern-day birds? Some pretty obvious biological simmilarities there.

[Vidav]

Certainly, yes. Cannot be refuted as incorrect.

As I rehash this thread every year, I have come to realize that evolution means different things to different people. I am not saying certain aspects of evolution don't happen, for that is obvious. What I am trying to say, is that we don't slowly turn into a different species over time (from ooze to man).

In your example, the viruses and bacteria both undergo microevolution, but in the end, they are still just that - a virus and a bacteria. With the two's ability to swap genes with scary efficiency, shouldn't we have seen a new organism by now? Especially considering how many experiments are performed not only in academia, but corporate America as well. All that messing with their DNA and still no new species.

Dinosaurs and modern-day birds? Some pretty obvious biological simmilarities there.

There are a ton of examples of this if you are willing to actually research it.

I suggest reading one of the following:

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[SeattleGriz]

Dinosaurs and modern-day birds? Some pretty obvious biological simmilarities there.

There are a ton of examples of this if you are willing to actually research it.

I suggest reading one of the following:

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have read plenty of reasons as to why people believe evolution happens and can say the argument is just like the global warming argument. Circular.

Cases in point. Nebraska Man, Java Ape Man, Piltdown Man, Neanderthal Man, Lucy and most recently Ida.

All of these were supposed to have proven without a shadow of a doubt that evolution had occurred, but in the end were all proven to be wrong. See my point? If you believe, and more importantly your funding is based on evolution, you will "see" things in light of evolution instead of the truth.

Where is the evidence that we transitioned from one species to the next? Where is the dinobird or the apeman? Shouldn't there be millions of these transitional species? There aren't, only distinct species. With all the untold billions of animals that have been on the Earth, we haven't found a true transitional species.

[89Hen]

There are a ton of examples of this if you are willing to actually research it.

I suggest reading one of the following:

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have read plenty of reasons as to why people believe evolution happens and can say the argument is just like the global warming argument. Circular.

Cases in point. Nebraska Man, Java Ape Man, Piltdown Man, Neanderthal Man, Lucy and most recently Ida.

All of these were supposed to have proven without a shadow of a doubt that evolution had occurred, but in the end were all proven to be wrong. See my point? If you believe, and more importantly your funding is based on evolution, you will "see" things in light of evolution instead of the truth.

Where is the evidence that we transitioned from one species to the next? Where is the dinobird or the apeman? Shouldn't there be millions of these transitional species? There aren't, only distinct species. With all the untold billions of animals that have been on the Earth, we haven't found a true transitional species.

It's almost like there's a missing link or something.

[Skjellyfetti]

Shouldn't there be millions of these transitional species?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tr ... al_fossils" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[SeattleGriz]

Shouldn't there be millions of these transitional species?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tr ... al_fossils" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

All distinct species displaying the diversity of DNA. How exactly do the experts know they are transitional species? Someone who believed in evolution crammed them in where they thought they should be and called it fact.

[Skjellyfetti]

Where is the dinobird

[SeattleGriz]

This article sums up very well my point.

The big guns of Evolution don't have the answers and when confronted, attack those that question.

http://www.discovery.org/a/2457" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Grizalltheway]

Where is the dinobird

Those were planted there by experts.

[SeattleGriz]

Where is the dinobird

Archaeopteryx is classified by the majority of paleontologists as a true bird. But lets just say it is a true link between reptiles and birds. Why is this the only one with an 80 million year development time span?

Also how do you account for the difference in the lungs between reptiles and birds? Two completely different setups (air sacks vs tubes).

[AZGrizFan]

Come on, SG. Are you just being a devil's advocate?

[Vidav]

There are a ton of examples of this if you are willing to actually research it.

I suggest reading one of the following:

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have read plenty of reasons as to why people believe evolution happens and can say the argument is just like the global warming argument. Circular.

Cases in point. Nebraska Man, Java Ape Man, Piltdown Man, Neanderthal Man, Lucy and most recently Ida.

All of these were supposed to have proven without a shadow of a doubt that evolution had occurred, but in the end were all proven to be wrong. See my point? If you believe, and more importantly your funding is based on evolution, you will "see" things in light of evolution instead of the truth.

Where is the evidence that we transitioned from one species to the next? Where is the dinobird or the apeman? Shouldn't there be millions of these transitional species? There aren't, only distinct species. With all the untold billions of animals that have been on the Earth, we haven't found a true transitional species.

You will never find a crocoduck as creationists like to use as an example a lot nowadays. That isn't how evolution works. They aren't half crocodile half duck. It's a lot slower of a transition than that. One day a crocodile doesn't give birth to a baby that is half duck. It's more one animal is born with a very small change that gives it an advantage and so it passes on that trait. Then the line from that animal, which are still the same species as the animal with the first mutation, might get another mutation down the line. It continues like this for millions of years.

Your argument makes it sound like you don't really understand how evolution works. It's almost like the argument "if we evolved from chimps why are chimps still around?" If someone asks that they have done nothing but show that they don't understand evolution.

[AZGrizFan]

It's almost like the argument "if we evolved from chimps why are chimps still around?" If someone asks that they have done nothing but show that they don't understand evolution.

Hmmmm....I hadn't thought of that.

On second thought, SG may be right after all.

[SeattleGriz]

Come on, SG. Are you just being a devil's advocate?

Yes, and I thought I admitted that at the start of this thread. My point, is that Evolution is no different than Global Warming. A bunch of assumptions with very little rock solid proof and if you doubt the assumptions, you are labeled as an idiot.

Hell, Evolutionists cannot even tell how life started. With all the knowledge, they cannot make a single cell from scratch. I won't even get into the astronomical mathematics that are required to build DNA from raw materials.

There are tons of PhD's that don't buy into Evolution either.

I don't have the answers, and as stated can only try to punch holes in the belief we started out as a puddle of chemicals and evolved into all the diversity you see today. That is why I lean toward Intelligent Design. ID does not say that evolution cannot happen, but says the complexity we see today just couldn't have happened by chance and needed some outside help. I realize many will take that to mean God, and I wish it didn't, for I am not trying to insert God into this equation.

[SeattleGriz]

I have read plenty of reasons as to why people believe evolution happens and can say the argument is just like the global warming argument. Circular.

Cases in point. Nebraska Man, Java Ape Man, Piltdown Man, Neanderthal Man, Lucy and most recently Ida.

All of these were supposed to have proven without a shadow of a doubt that evolution had occurred, but in the end were all proven to be wrong. See my point? If you believe, and more importantly your funding is based on evolution, you will "see" things in light of evolution instead of the truth.

Where is the evidence that we transitioned from one species to the next? Where is the dinobird or the apeman? Shouldn't there be millions of these transitional species? There aren't, only distinct species. With all the untold billions of animals that have been on the Earth, we haven't found a true transitional species.

You will never find a crocoduck as creationists like to use as an example a lot nowadays. That isn't how evolution works. They aren't half crocodile half duck. It's a lot slower of a transition than that. One day a crocodile doesn't give birth to a baby that is half duck. It's more one animal is born with a very small change that gives it an advantage and so it passes on that trait. Then the line from that animal, which are still the same species as the animal with the first mutation, might get another mutation down the line. It continues like this for millions of years.

Your argument makes it sound like you don't really understand how evolution works. It's almost like the argument "if we evolved from chimps why are chimps still around?" If someone asks that they have done nothing but show that they don't understand evolution.

I wasn't saying half this, half that. My point has always been there aren't any transitional species. Only distinct species of varying diversity within the family. You talk of gradual change, where are all of these intermediary forms? Of all the fossils in the world, all the transitional species for some reason didn't fossilize? We can't use the geological column for looking at because it is a mess and offers no solid proof.

[D1B]

There are a ton of examples of this if you are willing to actually research it.

I suggest reading one of the following:

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have read plenty of reasons as to why people believe evolution happens and can say the argument is just like the global warming argument. Circular.

Cases in point. Nebraska Man, Java Ape Man, Piltdown Man, Neanderthal Man, Lucy and most recently Ida.

All of these were supposed to have proven without a shadow of a doubt that evolution had occurred, but in the end were all proven to be wrong. See my point? If you believe, and more importantly your funding is based on evolution, you will "see" things in light of evolution instead of the truth.

Where is the evidence that we transitioned from one species to the next? Where is the dinobird or the apeman? Shouldn't there be millions of these transitional species? There aren't, only distinct species. With all the untold billions of animals that have been on the Earth, we haven't found a true transitional species.

You're so full of shit. You have no idea how evolution works.

Where's the Apeman!? Newsflash, you fucking dork, humans ARE apes! Look in the mirror.

[D1B]

I have read plenty of reasons as to why people believe evolution happens and can say the argument is just like the global warming argument. Circular.

Cases in point. Nebraska Man, Java Ape Man, Piltdown Man, Neanderthal Man, Lucy and most recently Ida.

All of these were supposed to have proven without a shadow of a doubt that evolution had occurred, but in the end were all proven to be wrong. See my point? If you believe, and more importantly your funding is based on evolution, you will "see" things in light of evolution instead of the truth.

Where is the evidence that we transitioned from one species to the next? Where is the dinobird or the apeman? Shouldn't there be millions of these transitional species? There aren't, only distinct species. With all the untold billions of animals that have been on the Earth, we haven't found a true transitional species.

You will never find a crocoduck as creationists like to use as an example a lot nowadays. That isn't how evolution works. They aren't half crocodile half duck. It's a lot slower of a transition than that. One day a crocodile doesn't give birth to a baby that is half duck. It's more one animal is born with a very small change that gives it an advantage and so it passes on that trait. Then the line from that animal, which are still the same species as the animal with the first mutation, might get another mutation down the line. It continues like this for millions of years.

Your argument makes it sound like you don't really understand how evolution works. It's almost like the argument "if we evolved from chimps why are chimps still around?" If someone asks that they have done nothing but show that they don't understand evolution.

SG is just yanking chains. He's a dumbass, but not that dumb, according to his attorney.

[SeattleGriz]

I have read plenty of reasons as to why people believe evolution happens and can say the argument is just like the global warming argument. Circular.

Cases in point. Nebraska Man, Java Ape Man, Piltdown Man, Neanderthal Man, Lucy and most recently Ida.

All of these were supposed to have proven without a shadow of a doubt that evolution had occurred, but in the end were all proven to be wrong. See my point? If you believe, and more importantly your funding is based on evolution, you will "see" things in light of evolution instead of the truth.

Where is the evidence that we transitioned from one species to the next? Where is the dinobird or the apeman? Shouldn't there be millions of these transitional species? There aren't, only distinct species. With all the untold billions of animals that have been on the Earth, we haven't found a true transitional species.

You're so full of shit. You have no idea how evolution works.

Where's the Apeman!? Newsflash, you fucking dork, humans ARE apes! Look in the mirror.

Back for more eh? At least you are consistent.

If we are apes, then why do apes have 24 chromosome pairs and man only 23? Must have lost that pair with the hair. I will admit that is a weak reply and mostly incorrect, but your supposition is just as weak.

[youngterrier]

I don't have the answers, and as stated can only try to punch holes in the belief we started out as a puddle of chemicals and evolved into all the diversity you see today. That is why I lean toward Intelligent Design. ID does not say that evolution cannot happen, but says the complexity we see today just couldn't have happened by chance and needed some outside help. I realize many will take that to mean God, and I wish it didn't, for I am not trying to insert God into this equation.

But one day, we'll probably have the answers, and I'd rather follow a theory with some scientific evidence, follow the reasoning behind it (we're uncovering more and more fossils every few year it seems) than concede "Aw shit I have no fucking clue" and submit to a theory that cannot be scientifically proven. That's the point of science, they're lots of theories but not all of them are perfect. It's why we build on theories that can be proven or tested as opposed to throwing the hat in and saying we can't know. You're welcome to follow your own personal philosophy but don't throw it in with Science (I'm pretty sure you haven't done that in this thread though). Evolution isn't perfect by any stretch, but it's the most perfect/best explanation we have as of yet, and until someone can propose an alternative that is ACTUALLY scientific it's going to be automatically assumed that you believe in the alternative, which is apeshit science because it's not science.

[SeattleGriz]

You will never find a crocoduck as creationists like to use as an example a lot nowadays. That isn't how evolution works. They aren't half crocodile half duck. It's a lot slower of a transition than that. One day a crocodile doesn't give birth to a baby that is half duck. It's more one animal is born with a very small change that gives it an advantage and so it passes on that trait. Then the line from that animal, which are still the same species as the animal with the first mutation, might get another mutation down the line. It continues like this for millions of years.

Your argument makes it sound like you don't really understand how evolution works. It's almost like the argument "if we evolved from chimps why are chimps still around?" If someone asks that they have done nothing but show that they don't understand evolution.

SG is just yanking chains. He's a dumbass, but not that dumb, according to his attorney.

Every year I start this thread for fun. Stop wrecking it. I don't shit on your posts!

[Skjellyfetti]

the alternative, which is apeshit science because it's not science.

23 or 24 chromosomal ape shit?

[SeattleGriz]

I don't have the answers, and as stated can only try to punch holes in the belief we started out as a puddle of chemicals and evolved into all the diversity you see today. That is why I lean toward Intelligent Design. ID does not say that evolution cannot happen, but says the complexity we see today just couldn't have happened by chance and needed some outside help. I realize many will take that to mean God, and I wish it didn't, for I am not trying to insert God into this equation.

But one day, we'll probably have the answers, and I'd rather follow a theory with some scientific evidence, follow the reasoning behind it (we're uncovering more and more fossils every few year it seems) than concede "Aw shit I have no fucking clue" and submit to a theory that cannot be scientifically proven. That's the point of science, they're lots of theories but not all of them are perfect. It's why we build on theories that can be proven or tested as opposed to throwing the hat in and saying we can't know. You're welcome to follow your own personal philosophy but don't throw it in with Science (I'm pretty sure you haven't done that in this thread though). Evolution isn't perfect by any stretch, but it's the most perfect/best explanation we have as of yet, and until someone can propose an alternative that is ACTUALLY scientific it's going to be automatically assumed that you believe in the alternative, which is apeshit science because it's not science.

But don't you see how anyone who even proposes an alternate idea is castigated. If Evolutionists were to truly follow their own rules, they would welcome any and all objections and disprove them. Doing that would make the Evolutionary theory stronger, but they don't. They ridicule and drum up straw man arguments. Can you imagine what would happen to funding for a Creationist at a University? Gone, and most likely lose their job.