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.[/]
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 fossil record is fantastic supporting evidence. First of all understand 99.999999% of animals, plants, etc DO NOT become fossilized. They need to die in very specialized circumstances such as getting flooded over with sediment, falling into natural tar pits, getting covered in volcanic ash, etc... That said it is remarkable how well the tree of life can be seen. The closest species to humans that we SHARED A COMMON ANCESOR with is the Bonobo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo this is akin to another species being humans father/mother and humans and bonobos are brothers/sisters. The Common ancestor is likely (from Wikipedia)
(CHLCA is chimp human last common ancestor)
The fossil find of Ardipithecus kadabba, Sahelanthropus tchadensis, and Orrorin tugenensis are closest in age and expected morphology to the CHLCA and suggest the LCA (last common ancestor) is older than 7 million years. The earliest studies of apes suggested the CHLCA may have been as old as 25 million years; however, protein studies in the 1970s suggested the CHLCA was less than 8 million years in age. Genetic methods based on Orangutan/Human and Gibbon/Human LCA times were then used to estimate a Chimpanzee/Human LCA of 6 million years, and LCA times between 5 and 7 million years ago are currently used in the literature.
For a great DNA example we are also related to Neanderthals - they interbred with humans. Since we have extracted DNA from Neanderthal remains you can swab your cheek - send it in - and see what % Neanderthal you are. It's typically a few percent.
As to your one mutation LOL! Each new offspring is likely to have several. There are millions even in small populations. As populations accumulate these and are seperated (typically by geography) they eventually become too different to interbreed with offspring that live. Thus speciation occurs. It is literally hundreds of millions of small changes not one.
actually being similar is strong evidence. Sharing 97% of the same genetic code is incontrovertible evidence. It's not the ape and it's not the pig. And yes all life on earth from the trees to birds to viruses to bacteria to plants to fish - EVERYTHING - shares common ancestry.
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?
this is actually great evidence for evolution. Separation is necessary to stop genetic differences in two or more populations from mixing - it lets the difference become larger and larger. Saying a magic fairy did it, well, they can do anything right? So that says nothing.
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.
there are so many false facts I can only hope to correct a few. Your genetic code doesnt really change with environment. It is quite likely you are not a mix of your parents but do have a few unique mutations. However lifting weights to gain muscle, exercising your lungs to get better capacity, etc DO NOT CAUSE GENITIC changes which is required for evolution. You need to reproduce and with unfounded beliefs like this good luck.
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.
you are 100% right on. It is complete BS that it is far from being accepted. It is completely accepted by anyone with a brain that works and education - literally almost everyone. I mean ffs the POPE himself believes it - he admits this openly.
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,
science is very open to facts. It's why we went from stone age understanding to you replying on a computer over the Internet in only 2000 years. Religion is not - it's just dogma. There are ZERO peer reviewed papers that present evidence for intelligent design for a reason - it is 100% *** with no facts whatsoever to back it up. THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY
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.
try this link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_ ... production
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.
The evolution of sexual reproduction is described by several competing scientific hypotheses. All sexually reproducing eukaryotic organisms derive from a common ancestor which was a single celled eukaryotic species.[1][2][3] Many protists reproduce sexually, as do multicellular plants, animals, and fungi. There are a few species which have secondarily lost this feature, such as Bdelloidea and some parthenocarpic plants. The evolution of sex contains two related, yet distinct, themes: its origin and its maintenance. However, since the hypotheses for the origins of sex are difficult to test experimentally, most current work has been focused on the maintenance of sexual reproduction.
It seems that a sexual cycle is maintained because it improves the quality of progeny (fitness), despite reducing the overall number of offspring (the two-fold cost of sex). In order for sex to be evolutionarily advantageous, it must be associated with a significant increase in the fitness of offspring. One of the most widely accepted explanations for the advantage of sex lies in the creation of genetic variation. Another explanation is based on two molecular advantages. The first of these is the advantage of recombinational DNA repair (promoted during meiosis because homologous chromosomes pair at that time), while the second is the advantage of complementation (also known as hybrid vigor, heterosis or masking of mutations).
So there are several hypothesis about how eukroyatic organisms developed sexuality. There is good evidence for this but not enough as of yet to form a theory. But the study of genetics is only 50 years old and has only been really underway for 20 years. Soon science will have a theory "proof". Saying 'god gon dunnit" is ignorant and useless it provides nothing from which to form a useful explanatory tool unlike scientific explanations.
wow you have no understanding at all. There are fossils of bird like animals without enough feathers to fly but that are precursors to birds. They used the feathers for cooling/heating and to attract mates. They became large enough to start gliding at which point they became repurposed for flight through evolution. After a long time birds were flying. This is quite well understood.
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.
Single cells don't need lungs. Thier surface area to volume ratio allows for direct absorption. The first animal on land had gills not lungs. They were adapted for low oxygen so that is why they worked (barely) on land. And DUH the first animal on land didn't need to defend itself from other animals. I mean ffs why would you ask that? Because it didn't need to defend itself, it was safe, is why they kept tryin to stay out of the water and evolved better gills which lead eventually to lungs.
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.
You fail to understand time and the size of the universe and the concept of evolution. It starts out extremely simple and gradually over about 60 - 500 million year periods becomes ever slightly more complex and better suited to the environment. The universe is so large - possibly infinite - that even unbelievably random things happen all the time. It's like taking 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 boxes and shaking them for 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 years. In that scope it would be positively unbelievable if you DIDN'T reassemble a watch lol.
Wow. Not sure if your are even serious. You have so many things wrong it is awesome. Guess its as much the fault of ignorant people whose motive is to brainwash you into providing them with thousands to tens of thousands of dollars or more throughout your life.
