first off, if you think i have said something ridiculous, which i may have, then tell me and show me your evidence. and dont get mad at me because i said apes are the closest physically to humans when it may be gorillas, correct me for big things. i have done my best to show both sides of the argument. honestly, i think everyone should know everything about both sides so they can understand the evidence and see which one is BS.
Evolution is proven, a quick google search of Charles Darwin will prove that. And no I do not expect to change your belief on the internet so I shall not try, just putting the argument forward.
i did a quick search for evolution evidence, and this is the first link.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
i have seen this many times, and i have three letters for it, LOL
they say the evidence for it are these things,
1. the fossil record of change in earlier species
2. the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms
3. the geographic distribution of related species
4. the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations
the first piece of evidence, the fossil record, is no evidence for evolution. of
course there have been changes in the animal history, but that does not prove evolution. the closest species that they have found to humans, whether alive today or in the fossil record, the difference is so great that it
cannot be attributed to a single genetic mutation. show a fairly consistent process of any species from the fossil record, then i will listen.
the second piece of evidence, is again no evidence. yes there are similar species, but that does not mean that they have the same ancestors. the closest species to humans physically is the ape, but the closest species genetically is the pig. did humans apes and pigs all evolve from the same ancestors?
there are different kinds of unique species on isolated islands. since the isolated islands are going to be different than the mainland, of course it is going to be the way it is now if evolution occurred the way they say it did, or of course a intelligent designer would design the species to be perfectly fit in with their environment. again, this is no real evidence.
the bacteria experiment, in no way is proof for evolution. since there are a bunch of different kinds of bacteria, including the kind that was already immune to the killer, what do you know! the immune bacteria survives the killer and "thrive". i can see how they are implying that this shows natural selection, and i know that natural selection is a true principle in a lot of cases, only morons would go against that. so the immune bacteria survive and overcome. so, if evolution occurred, a single beneficial genetic mutation had to occur at the
same time of the change in climate or whatever, and the change in the creature had to benefit it in this specific change. the chances are so remote.
now, cells can adapt themselves a
little bit, for example, the people living in the Andes Mts. have much more developed chests because they have to use the oxygen more efficiently because of the altitude. now, i live around tall mountains and when i go up there high for a few days, you will get a headache. but after a day or so that will go away. How? you get used to it. how? because your cells are begging to adapt themselves, almost like they have a mind of their own. nothing to do with random mutation or natural selection. that is what was going on with the finches on Galapagos Isl. they still have the same gene mapping but they can adapt themselves a little and they are still the same species. but after a while it can be implemented into the dna, as has happened with those people.
yes, we have developed different kinds of animal through selective breeding, but those are
intelligent designers that pick and choose, something that nature cannot do on its own, to get what they want to make a certain kind of looking dog or whatever.
ok, do not give me the BS that evolution is far from being accepted, you stupid website. it is far more accepted than intelligent design, and that is why these science morons do not look at the evidence open mindedly, and sources like this use examples that are no proof at all or are in fact proof to the contrary, and
do not show the other evidence that is against this theory,(not that i am saying that YEC christans websites dont do the same) but the average human would not know that, and any open minded human who looks at this is going to think, "well those Christians are morons, look at this evidence!" (ps, i do not think that the YEC's have it all right either)
i hate political correctness, i hate the accepted view of things, i hate that we will just lock ourselves onto a view and will not change it, and that is why any scientist that goes against evolution will loose his/her reputation, or job, or both.
no one will ever gain more truth about anything if they do not accept the FACT that they might be wrong, and i am not saying that i am perfect in that, just look in my computer argument thread. but as far as this subject, i know the evidence, and it is obvious to me, and dont say that this is one of my delusions.
now as far as my first post about cells, how could randomly splitting a-sexual cells produce a perfect male and female that are compatible with each other? it would have to have the sex organs, the birth organs, and the instinct to do it, and it would have to be perfectly designed for each animal. it is ROFL to me for someone to say that it happened like that. if there is another theory, then show me.
there are things about animals that i do not see how they can be applied to random genetic mutation and natural selection.
for example:
birds wings. if they evolved from when nothing was there, for it to work at all for the bird to fly, you would have to have the perfectly designed wing,
on both sides, with the feathers, for it to be any use. and that cannot be attributed to a single random genetic mutation.
now if they evolved from flippers, you would still have the perfectly redesigned wing on both sides with the feathers for it to be any use, and that is still impossible. and they would have to learn to use it in the single generation.
if the first cells originated in water, then how did we get air-breathing lungs? again, we would have to have the perfectly designed lung for it to be any use, in a single genetic mutation, that would be quite the jerk from land to water. and if a fish all of a sudden got lungs that could breathe air, it obviously would be able to survive better in water than on land, how would it defend itself and get food? so explain how lungs on a fish would be beneficial.
these are just a few examples, just think about it, a heart... without blood veins? or bone in the ear... without the ear drum, and all the other necessary parts to make an ear work? etc. etc. etc.
i have something for you to think about, it is not evidence. if you take a real complicated swiss watch, take it all apart, put it in a box and shake the box, will it ever put itself together because of random event? what if a wrong thing was impossible to happen, only something that would further put it together? what about after 500 million years? it is impossible. and trust me, the human body is way more complicated than a swiss watch.
