Refutes against evolution

[Noogah]

Before I begin, I would like to say that I have tried to keep this thread as unbiased as possible. If I made any scientific errors in this thread, please note them, and they will be corrected as soon as possible. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I will not always be present to respond, so if you don't get a response immediately, don't say it's because I have none. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Okay now. I made a post that had nothing to do with evolution, and somehow it turned into an evolutionary debate. So I says to myself, "Noogah, if you can post something thats not about evolution, and get replies about it, then you will get even better replies if you post something about evlution." Instinctly, I had planned on labeling this thread "proof against evolution" But just as there is no (undebatable) proof for evolution, I don't really think that there can be any (undebatable) proof against evolution. Quoting isegoria1 from youtube.com(youtube.com/isegoria1) "If there was it would sink the very nature of the scientific method. No one ever claimed that it was perfect or unchallenged." That is to say, nobody who fully understands the theory of evolution, or creation can say that the theories are perfect and/or unchallenged. Thus the following are only refutes that make evolution less likely. They are meant to be discussed, and debated. --THE BIG BANG-- The big bang is one of the big problems with evolution. It has been the topic of much debate, and some evolutionists have denied the big bang for that fact. The theory: According to the big bang theory, around 12 billion years ago, all the matter that exists today was all floating around in the fabric of space and time existed. Over the course of time, the matter began to clump together and became very large and dense. What resulted was a black hole effect. Matter was pulled into it, and became denser, and heavier. Eventually, all the matter that exists today had clumped together into a tiny pellet. The titanic ammount of stress on the inside of the pellet became so intense, that an elastic rebound occured, resulting in the greatest explosion in the history of the universe. Within a split second of the explosion, hydrogen nuclei began to form. Within a few minutes, very basic elements were formed. Hundreds of thousands of years later, stars had formed, and blew in supernovas resulting in many of the complex elements that we know of today. Several problems. 1.The theory never actually explains where the matter came from. It only explains how it formed everything. Thus, it does not actually explain our origins. 2.It is impossible for all the matter in the universe to be squeezed THAT densely. Not improbable, impossible. It is not something that can not be done with physical matter. 3.Even if it could be squeezed that densely, there is no way that it could expand under such a massive pull of gravity. 4.Even if it COULD pull away, there is no plausible way that it could come back together to form stars. --EVOLUTION-- Now for the monkey business itself! The theory: Life began with single celled organisms that had been created due to the extremely wealthy mineral supplemments that early earth boasted. This, mixed with oceans, and pools of water formed a sort of soup. Frothy disgusting pools brimming with minerals, supplements, and all sorts of goodies! All the bubbling yuckies resulted in molecular bonding in the minerals. What proceded was the first single celled organism. This happened on several different occasions, until cells were created with repoductive abilities. Essentially, this became the very first species of life. The mineral rich oceans were an oasis for the little guys, and they took to the sea. Variations occured within the breeds, eventually resulting in fins, gills, and other common traits found in sea creatures. Well, this pleasant environment wouldn't last long. The water began to dry up, and land became more abundant. Animals near the shore didn't fare well, but they did farewell.(Cheesy pun intended.) The only species that actually were able to survive along the shorlines were species that had gone through yet more genetic mutation, enabling them to survive on land. The species mated, and reproduced bringing forth the first land apt animals. The cycle continued for millions of years. Genetic mutations continued. The species better suited to land were the species which survived. The other ones died off, or stayed in the oceans. Tiny genetic mutations accumalted over millions of years, bringing BIG changes. Bigger animals, animals with wings, animals with four legs. Continuing, brought forth primates, and eventually brought about humans. Now the big key to evolution is natural selection. This is how natural selection works, and I will be using an analogy to demonstrate. Plausible scenario of how girrafes came to be. Hundreds of four legged animals existed. Genetic mutations occured that made various neck sizes. Necks shorter than a humans, and necks taller than skyscrapers(okay, that's an exageration.) The girrafes with necks taller than trees had a hard time, and died quickly. The ones with necks smaller than trees, also died quickly, due to the inability to harvest food. The ones with necks the same size as trees were just right! And they were the ones to survive, and pass the traits to their children. In a nutshell, mutations that work better last. Mutations that work poorly are quickly exterminated. This is what powers a species development, and according to evolution this is how we came to be. Here are some problems with the theory: 1.Impossible. Unfortunately, despite how intelligent natural selection seems at first glance, it is impossible. Why? Because even though genetic mutations that caused a girrafe to have a long neck may be beneficial, they cannot be passed down to offspring. This is because even though the animals own genes have changed, his reproductive cells have not. Thus, the offspring will carry the same traits as the parents had before the mutation. Thanks to A roxxor for correcting this. 2.There are traits that humans have now, that would not have necessarily been beneficial. a.WHy do we have two legs? ALthough they seem beneficial now, why would natural selections select them? FOur legs means faster escape from a predator, better jump, easier hunting, and other nice benefits. b.WHy the lack of fur? Since the bginning of the human species as we know it, humans have found ways to warm themselves in the cold of winter. Fire, blankets, fur coats, etc. Those who didn't often died of cold, or sickness brought about by the cold. Of course, with our superior brains, we don't need fur. However, natural selection would not have been effected by it. These two reasons suggest a guided developement. SOmething that saw the bigger picture ahead. WHy would we not need fur? Because we have the brains to stay warm in negative zero degree weather. Why do we need two limbs? As far as a human goes, it's more practical. We have arms that we can use to conduct delicate activities (pouring coffee, typing on the keyboard, driving a car, even laboratory experiments) 3.Although this has has already been in the blender about a million times, it is still note worthy. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (and with that, the readers groaned, facepalmed, bashed there heads, etc.) It's a complex law, and I'll only bother explaining the parts pertaining to evolution. In a nutshell, the law states that in an enclosed environment(an environment cut off from any energy source) things will deteriorate, and cannot grow more complex without external interference. Of course, earth is not an enclosed environment. We have the sun, gravity, the electromagnetic field surrounding us, etc. However, in the case of evolution, this only adds more chaos to the mix, making it even worse. 4.The plausibility of evolution is horrific. Evolution is almost totally driven by genetic mutation. Genetic mutations are not exactly rare. However, genetic mutations that have any notable effect on something ARE rare. The following analogy is not totally accurate due to the fact that it deals with an inanimate non-reproductible object, but it should adequately express my point. If you open a laptop up, and drop a screw inside, close it back up, and use it, what will happen? Probably nothing. The laptop will probably do what it has always done, because the screw has not harmed/improved the laptops performance. It has a neutral effect. However, there is also a slight chance of negative effect. The screw may have shorted out a circuit that keeps the laptop from performing properly. There is a VERY slight, yet possible chance that the screw may in fact improve the performance of the laptop. Perhaps it will boost it's WiFi range. Perhaps it increases the volume ability of your speaker system. But this analogy shows that when a genetic mutation occurs, it usually does nothing. Next in line, it will have a negative effect, but rarest, it will have a positive effect. For enough positive genetic mutations to occur to a single celled organism to form a multi-billion celled human being is rediculously implausible, no matter how much time you give it. LE RULES Alot of these kind of threads go ballistic, so I thought I'd just give some basic rules to keep this thread safe. 1.STAY ON TOPIC Running through a few rabbit trails is okay with me, but lets not fall into wonderland, and forget the real topic. 2.KEEP YOUR COOL "Your inferiror. You are an idiot, and you are a moron. You should be exterminated from the face of this planet." Come on people. Debate properly. A little sarcasm is okay, but don't go off the deepend. If either party is a jerk, either ignore it, or cope with it. 3.EASY ON THE PICS Avoid any replies that consist of a mere picture. Use pictures if you must, but use them sparlingly, and keep rule 2 in mind while doing so. 4.NO PLAGIARISM! Last but not least, dont paste entire wikipedia pages in your posts, and dont make your entire post nothing but a collaboration of youtube videos. DO your research, and post a video or two if you must, but do so sparingly. If you feel like you must paste something, list your soure. That pretty much wraps it up.

[Alric]

I will take on the giraffe one and make it really simple. Think of it as selective breeding. Humans have been doing this for thousands of years, to get animals how they like. Giraffes who necks are slightly longer than others, would be able to get slightly more food. The animal who gets the most food is generally the most healthy. The healthy animals always live the longest and breed the most. So over time, the slightly longer necked ones, breed with other slightly longer necked ones and with time they grow longer and longer. Humans do this with like cows and stuff. Female cows that have larger udders are breed more often, than the others. Over time, the cows naturally have larger udders and produce more milk. Even without any 'random' mutations the species changes over time. We do the same thing with plants we grow for food, and it has been shown you can easily changes things like this. As for the other stuff. If you live in a warm environment you don't need fur. Two legs offers some advantages over four. The most obvious is if you are walking on two legs you now have hands. A HUGE advantage, seeing as where we would be nothing without hands. Anyway, you can see this everyday. A Japanese person has a baby with German person. Does that baby look Japanese or German? Or does it look like a combination? When two people have sex and have a baby they pass genes on to form a baby. A baby is a combination of the genes from both people. The random mutations are due to the resulting mix of genes which some times produce different and possible unexpected results.

[Noogah]

I will take on the giraffe one and make it really simple. Think of it as selective breeding. Humans have been doing this for thousands of years, to get animals how they like. Giraffes who necks are slightly longer than others, would be able to get slightly more food. The animal who gets the most food is generally the most healthy. The healthy animals always live the longest and breed the most. So over time, the slightly longer necked ones, breed with other slightly longer necked ones and with time they grow longer and longer. Humans do this with like cows and stuff. Female cows that have larger udders are breed more often, than the others. Over time, the cows naturally have larger udders and produce more milk. Even without any 'random' mutations the spices changes over time. We do the same thing with plants we grow for food, and it has been shown you can easily changes things like this. As for the other stuff. If you live in a warm environment you don't need fur. Two legs offers some advantages over four. The most obvious is if you are walking on two legs you now have hands. A HUGE advantage, seeing as where we would be nothing without hands. Anyway, you can see this everyday. A Japanese person has a baby with German person. Does that baby look Japanese or German? Or does it look like a combination? When two people have sex and have a baby they pass genes on to form a baby. A baby is a combination of the genes from both people. The random mutations are due to the resulting mix of genes which some times produce strange different things. Bu there is a difference between changes that are already present in the genetic code, and mutations that just happen. As for interracial, that's because two sets of genes combine, and the baby is born that way. I really don't see what that has to do with mutation.

[Universal Mind]

Thanks for ignoring the corrections you asked for. Such as... The universe is about 13.5 billion years old, natural selection results largely from competition and not automatic extinction of weaker organisms, self-replicating DNA was formed from proteins and is the building block of life, etc. I'm at work. I'll get to the rest later.

[Noogah]

Thanks for ignoring the corrections you asked for. Such as... The universe is about 13.5 billion years old, natural selection results largely from competition and not automatic extinction of weaker organisms, self-replicating DNA was formed from proteins and is the building block of life, etc. I'm at work. I'll get to the rest later. I said AROUND 12 billion. It wasn't until you amde that correction that I added the AROUND. natural selection results largely from competition and not automatic extinction of weaker organisms I didn't even go into detail. I assumed everyone knew, and I dont remember that correction. self-replicating DNA was formed from proteins and is the building block of life, etc. Again, I didn't want to waste my time with irrelevant detail.

[Sornaensis]

I said AROUND 12 billion. It wasn't until you amde that correction that I added the AROUND. I didn't even go into detail. I assumed everyone knew, and I dont remember that correction. Again, I didn't want to waste my time with irrelevant detail. Well gee, if you didn't want to explain abiogensis and Evolution, then why the fuck did you make this post?

[Alric]

The general idea behind the big bang is that every thing is moving away from the center of the universe. Which implies everything started there and moved outwards. Though back to evolution. Genes hold a great deal of information, a lot of which isn't used. You have to figure there are some 6 billion unique people in the world. You can combine any two people and get another unique being. This is because there is so much information, and so many possible combination that there is the possibility for mutation.

[Noogah]

The big bang theory has nothing to do with evolution at all. some evolutionists have denied the big bang It is absolutely possible. You have no understanding of physical science OR physics at all, apparently. Unless the material were to phase together, there would not be enough air in between the spaces of the atoms to compressed so tiny. Take neutron stars. They are made of the most dense material known to mankind, and they dont even contain a fraction of all the material in universe. They certainly aren't pellet sized. The matter was clumped because there was nowhere else for it to be. Space-time was only that big. Therefore, when the space-time expanded rapidly, matter was pulled apart. there is no way that it could expand under such a massive pull of gravity The latter still applies, even to space-time. What does this have to do with the big bang? stars had formed, and blew in supernovas resulting in many of the complex elements that we know of today Wrong. Life began with organic molecules. This isn't even evolution Finally! An actual correction! What? This, mixed with oceans, and pools of water formed a sort of soup. What exactly is a 'supplement'? Vitamin supplement. Elements, not minerals. Minerals are rocks, not organic compounds. Wrong. Life began with organic molecules. This isn't even evolution Thankyou. Not even CLOSE. The first complex molecules that have to form are Amino Acids. Single-celled organisms don't show up for quite some time. I didn't want to waste my time with irrelevant detail Reproduction came before cells. Genuine correction number 2! Well, that is evolution, albeit extremely simplified and mostly incorrect. Single celled organisms need to evolve colony behavior and nuclei before we ever see animals. I didn't want to waste my time with irrelevant detail. ...What? Well, this pleasant environment wouldn't last long. The water began to dry up, and land became more abundant. Animals near the shore didn't fare well, but they did farewell.(Cheesy pun intended.) Mostly incorrect, but acceptable from a third-grade report on evolution. Explain. Nearly all of them stayed in the oceans, where they continued to adapt and change, yes. Okay. TETRA-PODS. four legged animals existed Lol, biology fail. (okay, that's an exageration.) Barely passable, but yes, that is the gist of natural selection. I didn't want to waste my time with irrelevant detail. That makes no sense. Every cell in your body has the same dna, which may change through mutation and genetic drift. Gamete mutations are passed down to offspring, as well as reproduction mutations. What you said is completely untrue and ignorant of biology and genetics. Thankyou! Gneuine correction 3. I will remove that. inert, harmless traits remain Those who didn't often died of cold, or sickness brought about by the cold. and aids with the use of TOOLS natural selection would not have been effected by it. No they don't! They suggest the complete opposite along with every other vestigial organ. Explain. How could you possibly have rrived at that conclusion? There are traits that humans have now, that would not have necessarily been beneficial. Humans did not develop in cold-climate areas. Prove it. Did you get all of these 'arguments' from Kent Hovind, or something Nothing from him. I didn't even know he used it. I have no idea what you are on about with chaos. Ignorance is bliss. Evolution only acts withing systems that contain systems of reproducing entities which carry information that describes those entities' structure. but it should adequately express my point. since laptops are mainly a motherboard covered in plastic and are notoriously difficult to open and modify. Okay then, whatever. Replace the laptop with a car engine. since laptops are not reproducing entities that contain information that directly describes it's structure. but it should adequately express my point. ...you're no fun.

[Photolysis]

Exactly! And when did anyone state (seriously) that Evolution was 100% proven, and was a perfect theory? But here's the interesting thing, everything you take as a fact outside of logical proofs is not proven either. There's no definite proof that the Earth is round, or that electricity is real, or any other observation you care to make. So why would you accept electricity as real, and that the physics that keep planes in the air up are accurate, and that the Earth is round not flat and so on? Because of the massive overwhelming evidence for them. Evolution is no different, regardless of how little you understand it. The matter existed. Okay. So? Seeing as the Big Bang theory tries to explain the conditions and inflation of the Universe, and not the origin of this, what does it have to do with how accurate the theory is? That's a rhetorical question; it doesn't have anything to do with it. Even if the original matter was magicked in to place, it has no bearing on the evidence for the Big Bang. there would not be enough air Air is a mixture of Oxygen, Nitrogen, and other gasses. The space in between atoms is merely empty space. They are made of the most dense material known to mankind, and they dont even contain a fraction of all the material in universe. They certainly aren't pellet sized. And this automatically means anything denser is impossible ... how? So yes, basically as I said, your unqualified intuition has no place in the workings of physics at the smallest possible scales. Incidentally, you are aware that density can increase with greater matter right, due to the greater forces? Apparently not. This is because even though the animals own genes have changed, his reproductive cells have not. Okay, I missed that point but it still demonstrates a profound level of ignorance. If a gene for longer necks was expressed, it's going to be found in more than one cell. Unless it's a cancer (for example), it's going to be found in all cells, where it most certainly can be passed on. Furthermore, mutations in the gamete cells can and does occur; these mutations then occur in all cells in the offspring. But okay, let's have an example of a mutation that doesn't get passed on. Let's say a bunch of UV light causes a cancer of the pituitary gland in a giraffe, which causes it to grow taller because of the extra hormones. Yes, it is entirely possible that such a happening could temporarily boost the fitness of the giraffe (before the cancer kills it of course), yet this giraffe wouldn't have tall offspring. Such an example would be extremely unlikely, and not to mention there's a whole other host of side effects from this cancer; the window of any improved fitness would be very small, and it would have essentially no impact, evolutionarily speaking, because evolution operates on massive timescales. A a single mutated giraffe in a single generation can safely be ignored.

[Specialis Sapientia]

So many misconceptions.. Read this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html Often creationist mix Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution in one big mess of misconception, they are NOT the same nor should they be mixed. Again, I didn't want to waste my time with irrelevant detail. The "irrelevant details" is what you need to know! How can it be irrelevant? Your attitude towards the scientific truth is apparent.

[Noogah]

The "irrelevant details" is what you need to know! How can it be irrelevant? Hopefully you already know the itty bitty tidbits.

[Universal Mind]

1.The theory never actually explains where the matter came from. It only explains how it formed everything. Thus, it does not actually explain our origins. It explains the current state of the universe, but not the origin of matter. It is not supposed to. 2.It is impossible for all the matter in the universe to be squeezed THAT densely. Not improbable, impossible. It is not something that can not be done with physical matter. Where did you get that? 3.Even if it could be squeezed that densely, there is no way that it could expand under such a massive pull of gravity. Where did you get that? 4.Even if it COULD pull away, there is no plausible way that it could come back together to form stars. Why? You put a great deal of stock into gravity in your previous point. Why do you now suddenly say it is not enough for chunks of the matter to go back together? Now for the monkey business itself! We evolved from apes, not monkeys. Monkeys have tails. [s]12.There are traits that humans have now, that would not have necessarily been beneficial. That is true. It does not mean they could not spread throughout the gene pool. They were commonly packaged with with other genes that were beneficial. a.WHy do we have two legs? ALthough they seem beneficial now, why would natural selections select them? FOur legs means faster escape from a predator, better jump, easier hunting, and other nice benefits. Our ancestors had what chimpanzees have now, which is pretty much a set a four strong arms. Running and walking became more important than swinging around in trees, so legs evolved. We did not come from six limbed mammals. b.WHy the lack of fur? Since the bginning of the human species as we know it, humans have found ways to warm themselves in the cold of winter. Fire, blankets, fur coats, etc. Those who didn't often died of cold, or sickness brought about by the cold. Of course, with our superior brains, we don't need fur. However, natural selection would not have been effected by it. These two reasons suggest a guided developement. SOmething that saw the bigger picture ahead. WHy would we not need fur? Because we have the brains to stay warm in negative zero degree weather. You almost answered your own question. We evolved the brains to stay warm in really cold weather. Why do we need two limbs? As far as a human goes, it's more practical. Four limbs. But yes, what we have now is more practical. 3.Although this has has already been in the blender about a million times, it is still note worthy. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (and with that, the readers groaned, facepalmed, bashed there heads, etc.) It's a complex law, and I'll only bother explaining the parts pertaining to evolution. In a nutshell, the law states that in an enclosed environment(an environment cut off from any energy source) things will deteriorate, and cannot grow more complex without external interference. Of course, earth is not an enclosed environment. We have the sun, gravity, the electromagnetic field surrounding us, etc. However, in the case of evolution, this only adds more chaos to the mix, making it even worse. I am not sure what you are saying. You seemed to answer your own question there and then refute the answer with a vague negation that you did not explain. 4.The plausibility of evolution is horrific. Evolution is almost totally driven by genetic mutation. Genetic mutations are not exactly rare. However, genetic mutations that have any notable effect on something ARE rare. How much Earth history time would take away the significance of the rarity for you? I said AROUND 12 billion. It wasn't until you amde that correction that I added the AROUND. Uh, all right. Why not just say 13.5 billion? I didn't even go into detail. I assumed everyone knew, and I dont remember that correction. It's a very important part of the picture. You seemed to be trying to make a mockery of the whole thing by talking as though the characteristics that are "just right" keep happening to pop up and save animals from extinction. "Just right" isn't a requirement. It just develops over time because "better" keeps winning the competitions. Again, I didn't want to waste my time with irrelevant detail. It is not an irrelevant detail. I was correcting another one of your mockeries. You made it sound like molecular structures formed in the primordial soup and just spontaneously started reproducing. I was pointing out the details of the process. Molecular bonding, then proteins, later DNA. Chemistry can explain the self-replicating of DNA, which can explain the reproductions of cells. By making a giant leap, you tried to make it sound like some freak magic came out of nowhere one day.

[Photolysis]

Sigh. I wish ignorant people would learn to recognise their ignorance. The magnitude of yours is shocking. Where did you 'learn' science from? Either you weren't listening, or whoever taught you did a terrible job. If I made any scientific errors in this thread, please note them, and they will be corrected as soon as possible. Too bad that in correcting your errors (which are extremely basic that people with the slightest knowledge of the subjects would be able to correct), you have to destroy your own argument. The big bang is one of the big problems with evolution. Only if you have a profound ignorance of both subjects. The big bang does not cause any problem with evolutionary theory, because the timescales shown by evidence are perfectly compatible with the evidence for evolution. According to the big bang theory, around 12 billion years ago, all the matter that exists today was all floating around in the fabric of space and time. Over the course of time, the matter began to clump together and became very large and dense. Who would have imagined you could have so many large errors in this paragraph alone? 1. The big bang does not state that matter was "floating around" before clumping together 2. The singularity was not large, it was infinitely small 1.The theory never actually explains where the matter came from. It only explains how it formed everything. Thus, it does not actually explain our origins. Since the theory does not attempt to explain the origins of matter, this is irrelevant. It is impossible for all the matter in the universe to be squeezed THAT densely Please, by all means explain how your uneducated and ignorant intuition is qualified to provide insight in to physics at the smallest scales of time and space? Here are some problems with the theory: 1.Impossible. Unicorns exist. See how by making statements, they become fact? Unfortunately, despite how intelligent natural selection It's not intelligent you ignorant cretin. It's a blind process with no foresight or planning. Because even though genetic mutations that caused a girrafe to have a long neck may be beneficial, they cannot be passed down Hahahahaha. Oh god. If only there was something called genes that could be inherited from previous generations. Congratulations, you've even demonstrated to lack the most basic knowledge possible on reproduction; you couldn't even describe where the genetic content comes from, because if you did, you wouldn't have said this. 3.Although this has has already been in the blender about a million times, it is still note worthy. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (and with that, the readers groaned, facepalmed, bashed there heads, etc.) It's a complex law, and I'll only bother explaining the parts pertaining to evolution. In a nutshell, the law states that in an enclosed environment(an environment cut off from any energy source) things will deteriorate, and cannot grow more complex without external interference. Of course, earth is not an enclosed environment. We have the sun, gravity, the electromagnetic field surrounding us, etc. However, in the case of evolution, this only adds more chaos to the mix, making it even worse. You haven't just shot yourself in the foot here, you've blown it off with a hand cannon. As you so correctly point out, the Earth is not a closed system, but yet you ignore the fact that the 2nd law only applies in a closed system. Entropy can increase just fine in an open system. Like say, a planet that receives energy from a star. "Entropy increases in a closed system. Evolution (or life) increases entropy, and even though the Earth is not a closed system (making it not apply), this law disproves Evolution". Christ you really are stupid. You throw terms around with no understanding. I particularly like it where you basically state it's complex and you are dumbing it down and simplifying it, yet fail to grasp the very basics of it. It's hilarious. But just as there is no (undebatable) proof for evolution Because you cannot prove something by observation alone. 2.KEEP YOUR COOL I could, but I can't debate intelligently with someone so stupid, so ignorant, so misinformed, and someone so lazy that they didn't bother to research even the most basic concepts about the ideas they argue against. You don't deserve anything but scorn. I might come back to the rest of this later, but others will probably dismantle anything else of significance, probably more eloquently than myself.

[Noogah]

The big bang does not state that matter was "floating around" before clumping together Fine. The matter was spinning around in circles. It really doesn't matter. The matter existed. Please, by all means explain how your uneducated and ignorant intuition is qualified to provide insight in to physics at the smallest scales of time and space? Unless the material were to phase together, there would not be enough air in between the spaces of the atoms to compressed so tiny. Take neutron stars. They are made of the most dense material known to mankind, and they dont even contain a fraction of all the material in universe. They certainly aren't pellet sized. Unicorns exist. See how by making statements, they become fact? Ha. Read what follows. t's not intelligent you ignorant cretin I think you understoond what I meant. If only there was something called genes that could be inherited from previous generations. This is because even though the animals own genes have changed, his reproductive cells have not. You throw terms around with no understanding Thats pretty much the only logical point you've made this whole argument long. Because you cannot prove something by observation alone. Exactly! I could, but I can't debate intelligently with someone so stupid, so ignorant, so misinformed, and someone so lazy that they didn't bother to research even the most basic concepts about the ideas they argue against. Than don't make a reply.

[Sornaensis]

Not the big bang theory The big bang theory has nothing to do with evolution at all. Several problems. 1.The theory never actually explains where the matter came from. It only explains how it formed everything. Thus, it does not actually explain our origins. That is not the goal of the theory. Actually, all the big bang describes is the rapid expansion of space-time, which is evidenced through the doppler effect acting on light that we see. 2.It is impossible for all the matter in the universe to be squeezed THAT densely. Not improbable, impossible. It is not something that can not be done with physical matter. It is absolutely possible. You have no understanding of physical science OR physics at all, apparently. 3.Even if it could be squeezed that densely, there is no way that it could expand under such a massive pull of gravity. The matter was clumped because there was nowhere else for it to be. Space-time was only that big. Therefore, when the space-time expanded rapidly, matter was pulled apart. 4.Even if it COULD pull away, there is no plausible way that it could come back together to form stars. What does this have to do with the big bang? The theory: Life began with single celled organisms that had been created due to the extremely wealthy mineral supplemments that early earth boasted. Wrong. Life began with organic molecules. This isn't even evolution: It's abiogenesis. A completely separate theory that has MANY supported hypotheses. This, mixed with oceans, and pools of water formed a sort of soup. What? Frothy disgusting pools brimming with minerals, supplements, and all sorts of goodies! What exactly is a 'supplement'? All the bubbling yuckies resulted in molecular bonding in the minerals. Elements, not minerals. Minerals are rocks, not organic compounds. What proceded was the first single celled organism. Not even CLOSE. The first complex molecules that have to form are Amino Acids. Single-celled organisms don't show up for quite some time. This happened on several different occasions, until cells were created with repoductive abilities. Reproduction came before cells. Essentially, this became the very first species of life. The mineral rich oceans were an oasis for the little guys, and they took to the sea. Early organisms are thought to have been photosynthetic or chemosynthetic. Not atrohpic. Also, you haven't even touched biological evolution once. Variations occured within the breeds, eventually resulting in fins, gills, and other common traits found in sea creatures. Well, that is evolution, albeit extremely simplified and mostly incorrect. Single celled organisms need to evolve colony behavior and nuclei before we ever see animals. Well, this pleasant environment wouldn't last long. The water began to dry up, and land became more abundant. Animals near the shore didn't fare well, but they did farewell.(Cheesy pun intended.) ...What? The only species that actually were able to survive along the shorlines were species that had gone through yet more genetic mutation, enabling them to survive on land. The species mated, and reproduced bringing forth the first land apt animals. The cycle continued for millions of years. Genetic mutations continued. The species better suited to land were the species which survived. Mostly incorrect, but acceptable from a third-grade report on evolution. The other ones died off, or stayed in the oceans. Nearly all of them stayed in the oceans, where they continued to adapt and change, yes. Tiny genetic mutations accumalted over millions of years, bringing BIG changes. This is what evolution states. Bigger animals, animals with wings, animals with four legs. You seemed to have skimped out on the evolution of bones, insects, plant life, reptiles, Dinosaurs, which were followed by mammals and birds. Continuing, brought forth primates, and eventually brought about humans. Primates have been around for millions of years. Humans aren't the latest species to define itself. Now the big key to evolution is natural selection. This is how natural selection works, and I will be using an analogy to demonstrate. Oh boy... Plausible scenario of how girrafes came to be. This example is terrible already. Hundreds of four legged animals existed. TETRA-PODS. Genetic mutations occured that made various neck sizes. Genetic mutations do all kinds of things. Most aren't this large-scale, however. Necks shorter than a humans, and necks taller than skyscrapers(okay, that's an exageration.) Lol, biology fail. The girrafes with necks taller than trees had a hard time, and died quickly. The ones with necks smaller than trees, also died quickly, due to the inability to harvest food. The ones with necks the same size as trees were just right! And they were the ones to survive, and pass the traits to their children. Barely passable, but yes, that is the gist of natural selection. In a nutshell, mutations that work better last. Mutations that work poorly are quickly exterminated. This is what powers a species development, and according to evolution this is how we came to be. Essentially. Here are some problems with the theory: Orly? 1. Impossible. Not...really...no, not really. Considering what you said is an extremely dumbed-down and partially incorrect summary of evolution. Unfortunately, despite how intelligent natural selection seems at first glance, it is impossible. Why? Because even though genetic mutations that caused a girrafe to have a long neck may be beneficial, they cannot be passed down to offspring. This is because even though the animals own genes have changed, his reproductive cells have not. Thus, the offspring will carry the same traits as the parents had before the mutation. That makes no sense. Every cell in your body has the same dna, which may change through mutation and genetic drift. Gamete mutations are passed down to offspring, as well as reproduction mutations. What you said is completely untrue and ignorant of biology and genetics. 2.There are traits that humans have now, that would not have necessarily been beneficial. No animal is perfect. That is the entire point. Nothing is 'designed', it is inherited, meaning that inert, harmless traits remain, and traits that only just aid in survival will also be passed on. a.WHy do we have two legs? ALthough they seem beneficial now, why would natural selections select them? FOur legs means faster escape from a predator, better jump, easier hunting, and other nice benefits. Humans, having few natural defenses, evolved an upright-stance from the semi-upright stance of ancestral primates as it makes running faster on open plains more effecient and aids with the use of TOOLS. b.WHy the lack of fur? Since the bginning of the human species as we know it, humans have found ways to warm themselves in the cold of winter. Fire, blankets, fur coats, etc. Those who didn't often died of cold, or sickness brought about by the cold. Of course, with our superior brains, we don't need fur. However, natural selection would not have been effected by it. I don't understand your point. Human sweat, so we don't need as much fur to regulate our body temperature. Especially in open plains, when we would have been in direct sunlight more often. These two reasons suggest a guided developement. No they don't! They suggest the complete opposite along with every other vestigial organ. And wasn't that your original point? Jesus, boy. Make some sense, will ya? SOmething that saw the bigger picture ahead. How could you possibly have rrived at that conclusion? WHy would we not need fur? Because we have the brains to stay warm in negative zero degree weather. Humans did not develop in cold-climate areas. Why do we need two limbs? As far as a human goes, it's more practical. No, I explained this to you above. We have arms that we can use to conduct delicate activities (pouring coffee, typing on the keyboard, driving a car, even laboratory experiments) El-oh-el. 3.Although this has has already been in the blender about a million times, it is still note worthy. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (and with that, the readers groaned, facepalmed, bashed there heads, etc.) The second law of thermodynamics seems to be used a lot by people who are complete idiots and have no understanding of physics, as you clearly do not. The Second law of thermodynamics describes the loss of energy withing a system. The earth is constantly receiving energy from the sun. Did you get all of these 'arguments' from Kent Hovind, or something [quote]It's a complex law, and I'll only bother explaining the parts pertaining to evolution. In a nutshell, the law states that in an enclosed environment(an environment cut off from any energy source)[/quote[ The earth isn't a closed system, it is constantly receiving energy form the sun. things will deteriorate, and cannot grow more complex without external interference. No, the 2nd law of thermodynamics deals with the loss of energy through heat radiation as a system does work. As stated, this does not apply to earth, which is receiving energy from the sun, it's core, and tidal forces. Of course, earth is not an enclosed environment. We have the sun, gravity, the electromagnetic field surrounding us, etc. However, in the case of evolution, this only adds more chaos to the mix, making it even worse. You just completely nullified your own point. Lol. Evolution actually tends toward complexity. I have no idea what you are on about with chaos. 4.The plausibility of evolution is horrific. No, it's actually quite well supported and/or complemented by nearly every field of modern science. Evolution is almost totally driven by genetic mutation. No. That is a large part, but no. If there are no selective pressures, then everything will either deteriorate or stagnate. [quote]Genetic mutations are not exactly rare. However, genetic mutations that have any notable effect on something ARE rare.[/quote[ You're forgetting that mutations are usually completely inert and the fact that mutations pile up over time. The following analogy is not totally accurate due to the fact that it deals with an inanimate non-reproductible object, but it should adequately express my point. Evolution only acts withing systems that contain systems of reproducing entities which carry information that describes those entities' structure. If you open a laptop up, and drop a screw inside, close it back up, and use it, what will happen? Probably nothing. You'd probably short it out the next time you tried to use it, since laptops are mainly a motherboard covered in plastic and are notoriously difficult to open and modify. The laptop will probably do what it has always done, because the screw has not harmed/improved the laptops performance. No, the screw would really fuck things up. It has a neutral effect. However, there is also a slight chance of negative effect. There is almost a 100% chance of a negative effect. The screw may have shorted out a circuit that keeps the laptop from performing properly. There is a VERY slight, yet possible chance that the screw may in fact improve the performance of the laptop. No there isn't. Perhaps it will boost it's WiFi range. I would snort rock-salt. Perhaps it increases the volume ability of your speaker system. I would then eat my head. But this analogy shows that when a genetic mutation occurs, it usually does nothing. This analogy shows nothing, since laptops are not reproducing entities that contain information that directly describes it's structure. Next in line, it will have a negative effect, but rarest, it will have a positive effect. For enough positive genetic mutations to occur to a single celled organism to form a multi-billion celled human being is rediculously implausible, no matter how much time you give it. Piling up neutral effects is usually what causes positive effects. You no nothing about genetics. Did I mention that you are a moron?

[Xei]

I'm going to have to bullet point because the above is so fundamentally wrong in many different ways. - The only reason scientists accept the validity of a hypothesis (e.g. the hypothesis that organisms evolve) is because of evidence. Evolution has plenty of this. - Why on Earth are you talking about the Big Bang..? That is an astrophysical theory with absolutely nothing to do with biology. Regardless, your description of it was entirely wrong. There was never any matter 'floating about' which condensed. Again: scientists only believe in things if there is empirical evidence which gives us a reason to. The empirical evidence which led us to believe in a Big Bang is that all galaxies are flying away from each other. We can tell this because they are red shifted (look it up). We also believe it because it is impossible to have a static universe, because the gravitational attraction between galaxies would cause them to converge into a giant black hole. If we look back in time, therefore, we can deduce that at some point in the past (calculations suggest 13.7bn, not 12bn) all of the galaxies were at some in the same point in space, and therefore at some time they expanded. Unless you can suggest a different hypothesis which also fits the evidence, the Big Bang is correct. - Can you please define evolution for me? Because it seems you have no idea what it's actually defined as. Your posts seems to be attempting to refute natural selection, which is completely different from evolution. To address your numbered points: 1. It is perfectly possible for mutations to be inherited. If the giraffe's father's or mother's gametes (sex cells which fuse to form a zygote) had a mutation in a gene, every single cell of the giraffe's body would carry that mutation, and it would hence be perfectly possible for that mutation to be passed on. Also, this ignores the fact that from generation to generation, mutations are not what cause the majority of variance. Rather, the variance is caused by the independent assortment of chromosomes. Let me explain: Every animal has two copies of every gene, on two versions of the same chromosome (called a homogulous (matching) pair of chromosomes). These are often slightly different, in which case the two different genes are called alleles. When an animal sexually reproduces, a process called independent assortment causes a two cells (gametes) to be formed which only have one copy of each allele. The alleles separate in a completely random fashion. The animal's sexual partner also does this. These two gametes then fuse to form a new cell with two alleles for each gene again; this cell grows into a new animal. In the case of the giraffe's height: this is cause by many different genes (the genes are therefore called polygenes). Due to independent assortment, the new giraffe has a random mix of alleles for these polygenes, and is therefore a random height, which is obviously heritable. 2. We have two legs because it frees up our arms which could be used for holding weapons... obviously. 3. No, evolution doesn't contradict the second law of thermodynamics (which you don't seem to have any understanding of). The second law only applies to closed systems, which the Earth is not, because it receives energy from the Sun. 4. You've given no mathematical justification at all to that. The timescales involved in evolution are millions of years, which is plenty of time for mutations to occur. And like I said, the majority of variation isn't about mutations, it's about the independent assortment of alleles.

[Noogah]

I'm going to have to bullet point because the above is so fundamentally wrong in many different ways. - The only reason scientists accept the validity of a hypothesis (e.g. the hypothesis that organisms evolve) is because of evidence. Evolution has plenty of this. - Why on Earth are you talking about the Big Bang..? That is an astrophysical theory with absolutely nothing to do with biology. Regardless, your description of it was entirely wrong. There was never any matter 'floating about' which condensed. Again: scientists only believe in things if there is empirical evidence which gives us a reason to. The empirical evidence which led us to believe in a Big Bang is that all galaxies are flying away from each other. We can tell this because they are red shifted (look it up). We also believe it because it is impossible to have a static universe, because the gravitational attraction between galaxies would cause them to converge into a giant black hole. If we look back in time, therefore, we can deduce that at some point in the past (calculations suggest 13.7bn, not 12bn) all of the galaxies were at some in the same point in space, and therefore at some time they expanded. Unless you can suggest a different hypothesis which also fits the evidence, the Big Bang is correct. - Can you please define evolution for me? Because it seems you have no idea what it's actually defined as. Your posts seems to be attempting to refute natural selection, which is completely different from evolution. To address your numbered points: 1. It is perfectly possible for mutations to be inherited. If the giraffe's father's or mother's gametes (sex cells which fuse to form a zygote) had a mutation in a gene, every single cell of the giraffe's body would carry that mutation, and it would hence be perfectly possible for that mutation to be passed on. Also, this ignores the fact that from generation to generation, mutations are not what cause the majority of variance. Rather, the variance is caused by the independent assortment of chromosomes. Let me explain: Every animal has two copies of every gene, on two versions of the same chromosome (called a homogulous (matching) pair of chromosomes). These are often slightly different, in which case the two different genes are called alleles. When an animal sexually reproduces, a process called independent assortment causes a two cells (gametes) to be formed which only have one copy of each allele. The alleles separate in a completely random fashion. The animal's sexual partner also does this. These two gametes then fuse to form a new cell with two alleles for each gene again; this cell grows into a new animal. In the case of the giraffe's height: this is cause by many different genes (the genes are therefore called polygenes). Due to independent assortment, the new giraffe has a random mix of alleles for these polygenes, and is therefore a random height, which is obviously heritable. 2. We have two legs because it frees up our arms which could be used for holding weapons... obviously. 3. No, evolution doesn't contradict the second law of thermodynamics (which you don't seem to have any understanding of). The second law only applies to closed systems, which the Earth is not, because it receives energy from the Sun. 4. You've given no mathematical justification at all to that. The timescales involved in evolution are millions of years, which is plenty of time for mutations to occur. And like I said, the majority of variation isn't about mutations, it's about the independent assortment of alleles. Thanks, I'll be sure to give this thought. Unlike some other folks, you actually gave some nice refutes here. I will study them, and get to a reply.

[Licity]

--THE BIG BANG-- The big bang is one of the big problems with evolution. It has been the topic of much debate, and some evolutionists have denied the big bang for that fact. The theory: According to the big bang theory, around 12 billion years ago, all the matter that exists today was all floating around in the fabric of space and time existed. Over the course of time, the matter began to clump together and became very large and dense. What resulted was a black hole effect. Matter was pulled into it, and became denser, and heavier. Eventually, all the matter that exists today had clumped together into a tiny pellet. The titanic ammount of stress on the inside of the pellet became so intense, that an elastic rebound occured, resulting in the greatest explosion in the history of the universe. Within a split second of the explosion, hydrogen nuclei began to form. Within a few minutes, very basic elements were formed. Hundreds of thousands of years later, stars had formed, and blew in supernovas resulting in many of the complex elements that we know of today. Several problems. 1.The theory never actually explains where the matter came from. It only explains how it formed everything. Thus, it does not actually explain our origins. 2.It is impossible for all the matter in the universe to be squeezed THAT densely. Not improbable, impossible. It is not something that can not be done with physical matter. 3.Even if it could be squeezed that densely, there is no way that it could expand under such a massive pull of gravity. 4.Even if it COULD pull away, there is no plausible way that it could come back together to form stars. 1.Correct, it doesn't explain where the matter originally came from. It does explain why things look the way they do at present. 2. It's not impossible. Far from it. There's a phenomenon called gravitational collapse, where an object collapses into a compressed state or even a singularity under the force of it's own gravity. This is how black holes get started. All that needs to happen in advance is some kind of original pressure to get it past a certain point, and that certain point gets easier and easier to reach as the object gets bigger and bigger. Make the object everything in the universe, and it's perfectly plausible. 3. Well, that would depend on what caused the Big Bang. 4. Gravity perhaps? By the way, how exactly does the Big Bang have anything to do with evolution? It might be totally wrong and off base in the end, and it wouldn't matter a little bit. --EVOLUTION-- Now for the monkey business itself! The theory: Life began with single celled organisms that had been created due to the extremely wealthy mineral supplemments that early earth boasted. This, mixed with oceans, and pools of water formed a sort of soup. Frothy disgusting pools brimming with minerals, supplements, and all sorts of goodies! All the bubbling yuckies resulted in molecular bonding in the minerals. What proceded was the first single celled organism. This happened on several different occasions, until cells were created with repoductive abilities. Essentially, this became the very first species of life. The mineral rich oceans were an oasis for the little guys, and they took to the sea. Variations occured within the breeds, eventually resulting in fins, gills, and other common traits found in sea creatures. Well, this pleasant environment wouldn't last long. The water began to dry up, and land became more abundant. Animals near the shore didn't fare well, but they did farewell.(Cheesy pun intended.) The only species that actually were able to survive along the shorlines were species that had gone through yet more genetic mutation, enabling them to survive on land. The species mated, and reproduced bringing forth the first land apt animals. The cycle continued for millions of years. Genetic mutations continued. The species better suited to land were the species which survived. The other ones died off, or stayed in the oceans. Tiny genetic mutations accumalted over millions of years, bringing BIG changes. Bigger animals, animals with wings, animals with four legs. Continuing, brought forth primates, and eventually brought about humans. Enough holes have been punched in this paragraph by the above posters. Now the big key to evolution is natural selection. This is how natural selection works, and I will be using an analogy to demonstrate. Plausible scenario of how girrafes came to be. Hundreds of four legged animals existed. Genetic mutations occured that made various neck sizes. Necks shorter than a humans, and necks taller than skyscrapers(okay, that's an exageration.) The girrafes with necks taller than trees had a hard time, and died quickly. The ones with necks smaller than trees, also died quickly, due to the inability to harvest food. The ones with necks the same size as trees were just right! And they were the ones to survive, and pass the traits to their children. In a nutshell, mutations that work better last. Mutations that work poorly are quickly exterminated. This is what powers a species development, and according to evolution this is how we came to be. Here are some problems with the theory: 2.There are traits that humans have now, that would not have necessarily been beneficial. a.WHy do we have two legs? ALthough they seem beneficial now, why would natural selections select them? FOur legs means faster escape from a predator, better jump, easier hunting, and other nice benefits. b.WHy the lack of fur? Since the bginning of the human species as we know it, humans have found ways to warm themselves in the cold of winter. Fire, blankets, fur coats, etc. Those who didn't often died of cold, or sickness brought about by the cold. Of course, with our superior brains, we don't need fur. However, natural selection would not have been effected by it. 2a. Two legs means fewer muscles to move means less energy consumed to move about means easier survival. Two legs make less noise than four when walking, so sneaking around prey is easier. Two legs also allows us better running over long distances. 2b. What about the humans that live in warm areas? Fur would have spelled the end for them, as overheating can be just as deadly as cold, if not more so. If the current humans evolved adapted to warmer climates, then it would make perfect sense to have no fur. These two reasons suggest a guided developement. SOmething that saw the bigger picture ahead. WHy would we not need fur? Because we have the brains to stay warm in negative zero degree weather. Why do we need two limbs? As far as a human goes, it's more practical. We have arms that we can use to conduct delicate activities (pouring coffee, typing on the keyboard, driving a car, even laboratory experiments) Why would we not need fur? Because we may have evolved in temperate areas. Why do we have two limbs? Efficiency. No fair saying that we have two arms for handling delicate activities, those did not exist until a two-armed human had the bright ideas of coffee mugs, keyboards, cars, and experiments. Evolution IS a guided development, it guides development towards survival. 3.Although this has has already been in the blender about a million times, it is still note worthy. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (and with that, the readers groaned, facepalmed, bashed there heads, etc.) It's a complex law, and I'll only bother explaining the parts pertaining to evolution. In a nutshell, the law states that in an enclosed environment(an environment cut off from any energy source) things will deteriorate, and cannot grow more complex without external interference. Of course, earth is not an enclosed environment. We have the sun, gravity, the electromagnetic field surrounding us, etc. However, in the case of evolution, this only adds more chaos to the mix, making it even worse. Evolution thrives on chaos. No mutations and changes means that evolution stops. 4.The plausibility of evolution is horrific. Evolution is almost totally driven by genetic mutation. Genetic mutations are not exactly rare. However, genetic mutations that have any notable effect on something ARE rare. ...which is why evolution takes so long to happen in humans. Evolution is well documented in bacteria and other single cells with a reproductive cycle of about twenty minutes. The following analogy is not totally accurate due to the fact that it deals with an inanimate non-reproductible object, but it should adequately express my point. If you open a laptop up, and drop a screw inside, close it back up, and use it, what will happen? Probably nothing. The laptop will probably do what it has always done, because the screw has not harmed/improved the laptops performance. It has a neutral effect. However, there is also a slight chance of negative effect. The screw may have shorted out a circuit that keeps the laptop from performing properly. There is a VERY slight, yet possible chance that the screw may in fact improve the performance of the laptop. Perhaps it will boost it's WiFi range. Perhaps it increases the volume ability of your speaker system. The screw will never do any of those things, because the hole for the screw is specifically built to not touch anything important. But this analogy shows that when a genetic mutation occurs, it usually does nothing. Next in line, it will have a negative effect, but rarest, it will have a positive effect. For enough positive genetic mutations to occur to a single celled organism to form a multi-billion celled human being is rediculously implausible, no matter how much time you give it. And why exactly is a positive change so much harder to come by than a negative one? And why is the evolution of humans SOOO ridiculously implausible? Plus, evolution doesn't rely hugely beneficial mutations, even the tiniest advantage to a given allele will typically result in it growing in frequency exponentially.

[Noogah]

Well people, this is a better turn out than I expected. Unfortunately, domestic duty prevails. It's getting late, and tommorow is Saturday. I have stuff on Saturday, and Sunday. You won't see much of me until Monday. Until then, farewell. Also, if you would like to make any edits to my post, you can do so, and PM the copy to me. I'm not TRYING to be inaccurate, but Im not a scientist.

[DrunkenArse]

I'm not TRYING to be inaccurate, but Im not a scientist. That's the damn truth. Were you home schooled?

[DrunkenArse]

I just got to the party. had to work I'm also going off the top of my head so I might have to correct something later. I'm just going off of whats in the first post that hasn't been edited. 2.It is impossible for all the matter in the universe to be squeezed THAT densely. Not improbable, impossible. It is not something that can not be done with physical matter. Not true. The vast bulk of matter is empty space with electro-weak forces keeping them separate. When enough matter is close enough together, the gravitational attraction overcomes the electro-weak force. At this point, all the space between the atom nuclei disappear. This is called a Black Hole. Black holes have been observed. There is one at the center of the milky way. 4.Even if it COULD pull away, there is no plausible way that it could come back together to form stars. Not true, once the matter is evenly dispersed through the universe, initial irregularities in the concentration will cause varying gravitational pull on matter in different directions. Hence it will move towards the stronger gravitational pull and cause a positive feedback loop. Once enough hydrogen has clumped into a ball, there will be enough pressure on it from gravity to ignite a star. As I'm sure you learned in science class, heat causes pressure and pressure causes heat. 2.There are traits that humans have now, that would not have necessarily been beneficial. This is to be expected from the theory. The idea that an organism is ideally suited to its environment is called adaptationism and has been thoroughly discredited. An organism is at best ideally suited to an environment from multiple generations ago and realistically has features that are the result of genetic drift acting on genotypic features that have a close to neutral phenotypic expression. It's funny that you bring this up, because it is often used as evidence against creationism. b.WHy the lack of fur? Since the bginning of the human species as we know it, humans have found ways to warm themselves in the cold of winter. Fire, blankets, fur coats, etc. Those who didn't often died of cold, or sickness brought about by the cold. Of course, with our superior brains, we don't need fur. However, natural selection would not have been effected by it. Humans evolved in africa. It's not terribly cold there in the winter. If you look, you see a lot of other mammals without fur in africa as well. Actually, we are just as hairy as a chimpanzee, but our hair is much finer. Sexual selection could have played a role as well. 3.Although this has has already been in the blender about a million times, it is still note worthy. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (and with that, the readers groaned, facepalmed, bashed there heads, etc.) It's a complex law, and I'll only bother explaining the parts pertaining to evolution. In a nutshell, the law states that in an enclosed environment(an environment cut off from any energy source) things will deteriorate, and cannot grow more complex without external interference. Of course, earth is not an enclosed environment. We have the sun, gravity, the electromagnetic field surrounding us, etc. However, in the case of evolution, this only adds more chaos to the mix, making it even worse. How does the sun, a regular and consistent source of energy add chaos to the mix? At any rate, if we view the earth as the enclosed environment, the presence of the sun makes the second law not applicable, as it is indeed an external energy source. The second law is a mathematical theorem and hence its hypothesis must hold to be applicable. One of them is, as you pointed out, that there is no external energy source. Viola. My head hurts. I'm gonna see what others have addressed.

[Lady Seidhkona]

First and foremost, I am appalled at my fellow evolutionists for not being able to play nicely. Yes, I can easily see that this attempt at refuting Evolution is riddled with holes . . . but it's an attempt at intelligent conversation and the cure to ignorance is learning - we can all help each other do that, but there is no need to be downright rude about it. At he wasn't quoting the bible as evidence and pronouncing it a sin to question him, like some creationists I've known, lmao! Whatever happened to human decency? Kindness? Compassion? Now on to you and you're post . . . I will have to admit I did not read all your replies (mainly because they infuriated me at first, and later horrified me by their indecency), so some of these bugs may have already been addressed and I do apologize if anything here is redundant. I have the advantage of having just finished two evolution-heavy classes for my biology degree, so I was excited to see this and maybe put some of that knowledge to use, lol. Starting with your whole big bang theory section, I’m going to go ahead and say I don’t know too terribly much about physics but I find a lot of this mildly irrelevant. The early parts of the big bang theory have no relevance to the theory of evolution, and the only parts that may have any relevance at all happen towards the end where technology and science have a much better grasp on things, starting perhaps with the creation of our particular solar system, but not really having any solid place here until specifically the development of our own planet. The part I have a problem with, is you use the big bang theory in it’s entirety to provide evidence against another theory when the relevance between the two subjects only overlaps at the tip so to speak. I have all faith in evolution, but still look at the big bang theory with suspicion myself. However, the history of events concerning our own planet’s development is much easier to scientifically seek information about, as we have a testable subject, so although the big bang theory in and of itself may be highly questionable, the part that concerns us is relatively safe. If you wanted to keep this part, I would just offer the suggestion of focusing on the relevant part, which might require a but of work and research. In the next section you take a little time to outline the theory of evolution and I must comment that I admire and envy your ability to keep it so short and simple. I have a hard time saying what I mean so eloquently . . . As you will obviously find out in this reply, I’m afraid. I would just like to point out something that you may not have known - there are two separate parts to the idea of Evolution, and they must be addressed separately to be addressed in a relevant manner. There is the Theory of Evolution as you have pretty well explained it, concerning the big picture of history, the origins of life, etc . . . and there is the Fact of Evolution that has been proven to function as a force today but does not necessarily validate everything outlined in the theory. The fact of evolution has been utilized for centuries before the word ever came about, as evident in dog breeding, and farming (how farmers noticed early on in our history that if they bred the best of their stock together, the offspring would more often than not show the positive traits of their parents - there is evidence that this selective breeding has had quite an impact on domesticated species already in just the short time that we have been implementing this technique!). The fact of evolution has been recorded and monitored in a variety of species, and there are plenty of studies to read. In the interest of brevity (for once!) I will only list the one I am most familiar with myself - considering I was the scientist! This experiment was done on a strain of Sacaromyces Cerevisae (basically Bread Yeast) in which I introduce a gene called Pglo into a culture to make the bacteria glow green in UV light (a trait easy to see, and therefore track). I then introduced the offspring of the affected bacteria to a culture of unaffected bacteria of the same strain, and the offspring expressed the gene, as did their offspring, etc. Other studies to look for: The Galapagos Finches E. Coli long-term evolution experiment William Dallinger’s experiment with heat on unicellular organism’s The works of Theodosius Dobzhansky Garland’s Lab Mice Moving on: “2. There are traits that humans have now, that would not have necessarily been beneficial.” Along with traits that many other species have that are not necessarily advantageous today, these traits are collectively called Vestigial traits, and are in fact more evidence towards evolution! According to the theory, these traits were at one time useful to us, and the genes for them were favored and thus they became a trait of the species. Then our environment changed, and though they were no longer favored, they were not disadvantageous so they remained. If you believe that we have always been as we are, why would we have traits that were not directly advantageous? “a. Why do we have two legs? Although they seem beneficial now, why would natural selections select them? Four legs means faster escape from a predator, better jump, easier hunting, and other nice benefits.” To use our hands, of course. We are slow, soft (and probably delightfully chewy to the predators!) as a species and it was the development of superior ingenuity, intelligence, and highly functional hands that allowed us the cushy position we currently hold on modern earth. “b. Why the lack of fur? Since the bginning of the human species as we know it, humans have found ways to warm themselves in the cold of winter. Fire, blankets, fur coats, etc. Those who didn’t often died of cold or sickness brought about by the cold. Of course, with our superior brains, we don’t need fur. However, natural selection would not have been effected by it.” First of, this is much of what I just explained about your last point! Secondly, people without warmth do not die of “sickness brought about by cold” - sicknesses are caused by bacteria, viri (viruses), or parasites. The reason we get cold more in winter is because we stay inside more, and expose ourselves to our own stew of bacteria and viruses more. The cold actually suppresses bacterial growth. Anyways, I do realize that is a little off topic. Addressing the issue at hand, according to Dr. Alan R. Rogers, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Utah, we may have lost our fur indirectly, since the gene for fur (and those for the fine hairs that cover our body) are linked closely to skin genes. As certain skin genes because advantageous (like skin with more melatonin in sunny areas) the traits that lost favor were connected to the traits for fur, and fur just went down with them. According to Mark Pagel of the University of Reading in England and Dr. Walter Bodmer of the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford, we may have lost the fur to protect ourselves from parasites and insects that might have plagued us. “These two reasons suggest a guided development.” Yes - but notice that there are Intelligent Design Evolutionists who believe in evolution, but believe it is guided by a higher power (insert god of choice here). “4. The plausibility of evolution is horrific. Evolution is almost totally driven by genetic mutation. Genetic mutations are not exactly rare. However, genetic mutations that have any notable effect on something ARE rare.” This entire section is, sadly, so wrong I am confused as to how I should correct it. First of all, evolution is not mostly driven by mutation, it’s mostly driven by the natural selection of the diversity that is normal within a sexually reproductive species. There will always be slight variations in our genes - that’s WHY we sexually reproduce at all. The rare beneficial mutation simply speeds evolution up. The majority of the mutations that Evolution fed off of happened in the beginning when your genetic material was still highly prone to mutation due to it’s very naked nature. Bibliography: Elena SF, Lenski RE (june 2003). “Evolution Experiments with Microorganisms: the dynamics and genetic bases of adaptation”. Nat. Rev. Genet 4(6): 457-69. Swallow, John G.; Carter, Patrick A.; Garland, Theodore. Artificial Selection for Increased Wheel-Running Behavior in House Mice”. Behavior Genetics., Vol. 28. Nov. 3, 1998. Wade, Nicholas. “Why Humans And Their Fur Parted Ways.” New York Times. Friday September 4, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/19/sc...rted-ways.html I hope you have learned something from me, I tried to keep it as simple as possible because these are hard concepts to grasp sometimes. Please feel free to as me to clarify whenever you want a more detailed account of what I am trying to say. In Frith, Kris

[Noogah]

Thanks, just to make sure your not annoyed, I probably won't be able to get to your post for a while. Two days tops. But in te mean time, what offensive material did I post that appaled you so? I tried to be as logical as I could.

[Dreams4free]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMH0bHeiRNg This video is clearly scientific verification and only to be watched by those who have undergone serious...biological study of life.

[Universal Mind]

First and foremost, I am appalled at my fellow evolutionists for not being able to play nicely. Yes, I can easily see that this attempt at refuting Evolution is riddled with holes . . . but it's an attempt at intelligent conversation and the cure to ignorance is learning - we can all help each other do that, but there is no need to be downright rude about it. At he wasn't quoting the bible as evidence and pronouncing it a sin to question him, like some creationists I've known, lmao! Whatever happened to human decency? Kindness? Compassion? I think I was pretty civil, but I will point out that you're new here. You don't know who we're dealing with.