Evolution, why i dont believe in it

[Phratt]

Okay so most of us know what evolution is right?

Well there are two simple laws of it, one that I don't think is plausible and the other that applies to almost anything so obviously its true.

1)Ancestral Modification - All organisms are modified decedents of a common ancestor.

2) Natural selection - Only those fit to live long enough and reproduce, populate and create another generation which allows to pass similar traits.

So which one do you think, I think, is wrong?

Obviously number one. Look, in a world that just happened to have the right coincidences to produce life, its way too highly improbable for cells to just happen to work together, split and have those cells work together. If that were to happen, it'd take longer the 3 billion years for cells to organize themselves in such fashions by only passing traits.

Now lets say something proves that idea wrong and its completely possible for that to happen, evolution fails again at another adapted feature. Limbs. How the fuck do limbs help a fish survive?
If I was a Fish who NEEDS fins in order to survive in hostile enviroments such as the water, having a mutation of a bump instead of a fin would decrease my speed and most likely kill me. If that doesn't kill me, it will kill my offsping eventually. Even so, for that leg to full grow off of one mutation with bones, neurons, proteins and everything is highly implausible and for multiple mutations for that same bump down the same family line is also highly implausible.

For a leg or an arm to develop over a water based oraganism would most likely kill them, seeing as natural selection made them fit to water enviroments. A Fish would have to mutate, arms, legs and simple lungs all at the same time, with a strange instinctial behavior to live on land, if it wanted to survive by amphibious behavior. its improbable, implausible, and impossible for certain things like that to happen.

Another thing, Why is it that all animals that have brains, have it in their head? Having a skull protecting my ass, which contained a brain, would be more helpful than having my brain in my head. Not only that but all of life has too much in common with eachother, everything is built off of cells and uses the same tactics but in different variations. You'd think by now, that cells could mutate into something else, i dunno, maybe an electric string covered by lipids, with electrons signaling chemicals to react floating around it. Not that specifically, im just trying to say that if evolution works the way its supposed to then there must've been COUNTLESS failed attempts at life that just died before they created offspring because of their flaws. Had this been the case, why is it that prokaryotes were the only ones who survived and evolved in eurkaryotes and shit?

it makes no sense.

Im not saying Creationism is the real process, im going agnostic with this situation and settle with the fact that no one knows, and probably will never.

so yeah, i know, this thread has no lulz, i just had to get this out of my head. Sorry for the bad grammar, if any. Thoughts?

[hippl5]

At 5/29/08 07:39 PM, Phratt wrote: Another thing, Why is it that all animals that have brains, have it in their head? Having a skull protecting my ass, which contained a brain, would be more helpful than having my brain in my head.

Doesn't that kind of support the common ancestor theory? Common ancestor had a brain in his head rather than his ass, so we all do too?

Besides, the eyes are close to the brain. What good is having a brain in your ass?

[GrammerNaziElite]

"Logic, why I don't believe in it."

Science can't explain everything and it never will be able to, which is why the whole, 'everything was created by God' theory is so popular. We don't know what happened hundreds of millions of years ago, and if anybody did, I'd feel a little intimidated by them.

If you want to 'know' everything, go with religion.

If you want theories based off of logic and thousands of years of research, go with science.

Also, humans haven't been around forever, so the only non-religious theory that makes sense is evolution.

[CommanderX1125]

At 5/29/08 07:39 PM, Phratt wrote: Okay so most of us know what evolution is right?

Well there are two simple laws of it, one that I don't think is plausible and the other that applies to almost anything so obviously its true.

1)Ancestral Modification - All organisms are modified decedents of a common ancestor.

2) Natural selection - Only those fit to live long enough and reproduce, populate and create another generation which allows to pass similar traits.

So which one do you think, I think, is wrong?

Obviously number one. Look, in a world that just happened to have the right coincidences to produce life, its way too highly improbable for cells to just happen to work together, split and have those cells work together. If that were to happen, it'd take longer the 3 billion years for cells to organize themselves in such fashions by only passing traits.

They don't only pass traits though, that is the thing, occasionaly modifications occur due to environmental influences on the structures DNA, thus crafting a very slight, often times benign. These slight differences are where it really matters in the development of life, and it is these traits, along with the ones that previously existed, that bring about the changes that you speak of that did only take that amount of time.

Now lets say something proves that idea wrong and its completely possible for that to happen, evolution fails again at another adapted feature. Limbs. How the fuck do limbs help a fish survive?
If I was a Fish who NEEDS fins in order to survive in hostile enviroments such as the water, having a mutation of a bump instead of a fin would decrease my speed and most likely kill me. If that doesn't kill me, it will kill my offsping eventually. Even so, for that leg to full grow off of one mutation with bones, neurons, proteins and everything is highly implausible and for multiple mutations for that same bump down the same family line is also highly implausible.

As I have stated before most mutations, and I use that word very loosely for lack of a better term at the moment, are benign entirely, or so it would seem at least within humans. At any rate, fish have limbs, per se, and fins just so happen to be those limbs. An easy way to see how some fish managed to develope would be the the mudskipper, or lungfish, both of which have adaptations to live partially on land, albeit temporarily. You'll notice they happen to have the very features you attack, which handily defeats that portion of your arguement.

For a leg or an arm to develop over a water based oraganism would most likely kill them, seeing as natural selection made them fit to water enviroments. A Fish would have to mutate, arms, legs and simple lungs all at the same time, with a strange instinctial behavior to live on land, if it wanted to survive by amphibious behavior. its improbable, implausible, and impossible for certain things like that to happen.

Please see above.

Another thing, Why is it that all animals that have brains, have it in their head? Having a skull protecting my ass, which contained a brain, would be more helpful than having my brain in my head. Not only that but all of life has too much in common with eachother, everything is built off of cells and uses the same tactics but in different variations. You'd think by now, that cells could mutate into something else, i dunno, maybe an electric string covered by lipids, with electrons signaling chemicals to react floating around it. Not that specifically, im just trying to say that if evolution works the way its supposed to then there must've been COUNTLESS failed attempts at life that just died before they created offspring because of their flaws. Had this been the case, why is it that prokaryotes were the only ones who survived and evolved in eurkaryotes and shit?

Alright, since you go off on two tangents here, I'm going to split my answer into two pieces, however, I'm going to do easy thing, for reading at any rate, and split them to answer each piece.

Frist, what in the unholy name do you mean "too much in common"? How the hell does that fight against evolution when you look at the idea of common ancestors? It doesn't, which results in epic fail on your part for that.

As for the second part, the possibilities of failed life, it makes sense that such things occured, we have proof of failed lifeforms, perhaps not starting life forms, but certainly of greater ones. Just take a moment and look at the various extinct species, even just the ones within the last couple hundred years, and you'll have proof that not all life is successful. I do believe that is what you are hammering at anyway. Please correct me if I am wrong in that assumption.

it makes no sense.

See above statements. All of them.

Im not saying Creationism is the real process, im going agnostic with this situation and settle with the fact that no one knows, and probably will never.

We have a pretty damn good idea, though it is nice to hear you are not a pesky creationist. Kudos to you on that part.

so yeah, i know, this thread has no lulz, i just had to get this out of my head. Sorry for the bad grammar, if any. Thoughts?

Nothing to note at this point other than you should sit down with a biology text or two and have yourself a good read. That isn't to be insulting, but it seems you are generally interested to some extent, and since you want knowledge, why not look within a book over the very subject you speak of?

[Memorize]

I love Commander's response.

"Well, those certainly are problems, BUT they aren't the only explanations. So here, let me give you more explanations that also have problems."

Hurray for the infinite amount of excuses!

[CommanderX1125]

Please, by all means, point out my flaws, as I'm always willing to learn of them, and to remedy them. If you have nothing to say of them, then go play in general and stop being a troll.

[SEXY-FETUS]

At 5/29/08 07:39 PM, Phratt wrote: Now lets say something proves that idea wrong and its completely possible for that to happen, evolution fails again at another adapted feature. Limbs. How the fuck do limbs help a fish survive?
If I was a Fish who NEEDS fins in order to survive in hostile enviroments such as the water, having a mutation of a bump instead of a fin would decrease my speed and most likely kill me. If that doesn't kill me, it will kill my offsping eventually. Even so, for that leg to full grow off of one mutation with bones, neurons, proteins and everything is highly implausible and for multiple mutations for that same bump down the same family line is also highly implausible.

Let's say that the fish found itself living in an enviroment with shallow water. It may develope a way to breath both the water and the air above since it's alot easier now for it to find itself out of water. Now throw in a predetor who doesn't have this trait, to escape it could throw itself on land to escape. Well it's land more and more and those fins aint providing that great of transportation. So it developes legs, or more likely became longer with a more flexible spine to crawl more like a snake. Pretty soon it says "fuck the water I'll just stay up here" and pretty soon it loses the fins that do it no good on land. Now it's getting harder to find food since the plants have now adapted and has grown it's leaves and fruit higher to get away from this snake. There's now a need for it to develope legs for climbing, not to mention by now the predator that now has less of a food supply has made it to land and the original now needs a way to be quicker to escape him again.

There's always gonna be a reason for an animal to adapt to survive. And with smaller animals having such a short life span there's no reason they couldn't make these changes in just a few thousand years if that also means a few thousand generations.

[SEXY-FETUS]

Let me just take a moment to apologize for how poorly that last post was written.

[ABsoldier17]

At 5/29/08 07:58 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: "Logic, why I don't believe in it."

Science can't explain everything and it never will be able to, which is why the whole, 'everything was created by God' theory is so popular. We don't know what happened hundreds of millions of years ago, and if anybody did, I'd feel a little intimidated by them.

If you want to 'know' everything, go with religion.

So far it's the only detailed explanation of how everything started.. and considering it's still a theory after 300 + years is pretty bad for it's reputation. If you want to believe in unprovable theories by all means lie to yourself....

If you want theories based off of logic and thousands of years of research, go with science.

Now evolution as a theory has only been around for 300 plus years... if you want to judge whose right by age then religion wins :D Not to mention Darwin acknowledged the existence of a creator in The Origin of the Species.... so religion wins again

Also, humans haven't been around forever, so the only non-religious theory that makes sense is evolution.

Says a theory that can't be proven.

[CommanderX1125]

At 5/29/08 09:58 PM, ABsoldier17 wrote:

At 5/29/08 07:58 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: "Logic, why I don't believe in it."

Science can't explain everything and it never will be able to, which is why the whole, 'everything was created by God' theory is so popular. We don't know what happened hundreds of millions of years ago, and if anybody did, I'd feel a little intimidated by them.

If you want to 'know' everything, go with religion.

So far it's the only detailed explanation of how everything started.. and considering it's still a theory after 300 + years is pretty bad for it's reputation. If you want to believe in unprovable theories by all means lie to yourself....

When you say detailed, I imagine you mean vague as humanly possible and still making gramatical sense. As for the word theory, do you have any idea what theory means in a scientific context? Let me put it this way, it isn't just a simple shot in the dark. Gravity is still a theory, the fact that the Earth revolves around the sun, another theory. The word theory is defined as the following, the definition as it applies to science is bolded for your viewing pleasure.

Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: \%u02C8th%u0113-%u0259-r%u0113, %u02C8thir-%u0113\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural the·o·ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek the%u014Dria, from the%u014Drein
Date: 1592
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -often used in the phrase in theory<in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

As for how long it has been around, for about 150 years, not 300. If you can't even be bothered to look at the subject long enough to even know how long it has existed, how anyone can take your ideas on the subject as serious?

If you want theories based off of logic and thousands of years of research, go with science.

Now evolution as a theory has only been around for 300 plus years... if you want to judge whose right by age then religion wins :D Not to mention Darwin acknowledged the existence of a creator in The Origin of the Species.... so religion wins again

150 years... 150 years... And ages doesn't matter when it comes to fact. As for acknowledging a creator, no, he did not. He believed in a god, that is it.

Also, humans haven't been around forever, so the only non-religious theory that makes sense is evolution.

Says a theory that can't be proven.

Please, oh please, tell me this was supposed to be sarcastic and you simply missed putting /sarcasm at the end...

[HorseloverFrost]

*Sigh* Look, EVERYTHING is a theory. Everything. Relativity, motion, light, existence, everything. So the fact that the theory of evolution is called the 'theory of evolution' has no bearing on its validity.

Sorry, I just get so tired of that argument.

[poxpower]

It's so boring to talk with people who think evolution is impossible because they don't understand how it works.

Hey, topic starter, watch THIS video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW1rVGgFz WU

It will explain it. It was designed to explain evolution to children, so it's perfect for you.

[Elfer]

At 5/29/08 07:39 PM, Phratt wrote: Another thing, Why is it that all animals that have brains, have it in their head? Having a skull protecting my ass, which contained a brain, would be more helpful than having my brain in my head. Not only that but all of life has too much in common with eachother, everything is built off of cells and uses the same tactics but in different variations.

So wait, you consider the overwhelming unity of life, and the fact that huge segments of the life on Earth share many properties with each other to be evidence against common descent?

What the fuck?

[Ravariel]

At 5/29/08 09:58 PM, ABsoldier17 wrote: ...considering it's still a theory after 300 + years is pretty bad for it's reputation. If you want to believe in unprovable theories by all means lie to yourself....

You don't know what a "theory" is, do you?

[Diederick]

So is there any point in this?

Evolution is the most logic assumption on the basis of our existence I ever read. The process of evolution is also scientifically evident, how else do species develop? Frankly I prefer logic and science over completely unqualified foundation such as religion.

"Ancestral modification:" if it is not the same as evolution, you must mean that apart from the parents' genetics there is something else modifying our bodies in the womb? The life of the parent influences his or her body, that influence is passed on to the offspring: hence we have evolution. The driving force in this change is this world itself, the characteristics of the surroundings spur the evolution development.

Logic overrides theories; at least with me.

[zoolrule]

OK, But just let me correct you in one thing -
You don't understand Evolution. Therefor - "Evolution, Why i don't understand it?" And then we'll answer:
there are few possible reasons, you might be mentally retarded, you could have extremely low IQ, You could be ignorant, you could be one of these guys brainwashed since young age, there are many reasons.

[ABsoldier17]

At 5/30/08 08:23 AM, Ravariel wrote:

At 5/29/08 09:58 PM, ABsoldier17 wrote: ...considering it's still a theory after 300 + years is pretty bad for it's reputation. If you want to believe in unprovable theories by all means lie to yourself....

You don't know what a "theory" is, do you?

A postulate that has yet to be proven or significant evidence has yet to be gathered... with this definition the THEORY of Evolution is really sad. 300 plus years and zero ground gained

[poxpower]

this dipshit made this thread in general and is pretty much a troll. Sorry everyone, he's not coming back.