Evolution is now A FACT OF LIFE

[Homo_quaeritans]

---

Merry Christmas!!!

[brownprose]

Merry Christmas!!!

Happy New Year as well!

[cromagnon]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cromagnon
I believe in evo going back to bigbang that did happen . and whateever the posibility that was before that.

but
@ james
@kebot

anybody can find all the wrong things on such theories.

but how do u look at creationism ? im sure u also find some or lots of the something fishy on it.

but do u believe creationism as

a. claim,
b.theory
c. fact
d. or not more than a possibility

cromag we are not pushing the creation idea... we only defend creation and sometimes we don't contest because In my POV whatever the explanation, it is something you guys do not want to believe. Either its arrogance or insufficient evidence... I PERSONALLY DO NOT CONTEST, But if you do, i can start asking one line question, and you will have all the burden to prove it...

Why INSIST?

Thats why i said Creationism is MOSTLY FAITH and partly science... Cromag I just noticed that you are a man looking for answers but looking at the one portion of it. Seek and you shall find it. Don't close other possibility, so much for science cro... start learning about dogma it makes you a better person, better perspective, and better feeling...

obviously i just wana hear it by ur side , thats all. So u mention creationism is all about faith and with the abscence of whether its true or not . and believing such things makes u a better person . Well,
from my POV , i can see the oposite as how i look at the world today and at the past . no thanx.


but u both with James . I' ll leave u with how u understand the world. its non of my business anyway.

@james.
i like how ur creation story goes , i leave u with that,.
on my side , its just hard for me to understand / believe such myth , that fossils are results of great flood.
Scientif findings satisy me more. anyway ,- good luck.

[brownprose]

Creationism aka Intelligent Design vs. Evolution, which side are you?

[Thugstaz Hustlaz]

Evolution by Natural Selection is not random

It is also depends 100% RANDOM mutational change, where in order to build something with the incredibly efficient complexity of organ systems (i.e., not merely simple adatation), randomness has to be lucky in a way we can't observe in randomness. I've zeroed in on that problem because it's buried in evolution theory, and ignore or glossed over by every Darwinist I've ever debated.

*yawns* and who told you that? suggest you read evolution first then come back and make your point.

Forget that there's no reason to assume selection for fitness would produce organs, his outrage cleverly side steps explaining how randomness got so lucky as to produce just the right mutations to build the most efficient, functional organizational system the universe has ever seen. So I repeat my objection, it's that a great many prominent scientists are telling the public that evolution is a FACT when there is at least one major problem at the very foundation of the theory.


An absolute proof may not be possible, but there are very clear standards for what can be called a fact. The same scientists screaming like stuck pigs over creationists' blind faith assertions violate their own stringent epistemology's demand for proper evidence when they claim evolution is a fact.



mode off...

[cromagnon]

fantastic works of evolution

Mamalian whale , sea lion , dolphin , penguin

actually evolved from land mamals.

[cromagnon]

Evolution sea to Land.
'Fishapod' reveals origins of head and neck structures of first land animals



f
Tiktaalik roseae--the intermediate fossil between fish and the first animals to walk out of water onto land 375 million years ago--are revealing how this major evolutionary event happened. A new study, published this week in Nature, provides a detailed look at the internal head skeleton of Tiktaalik roseae and reveals a key intermediate step in the transformation of the skull that accompanied the shift to life on land by our distant ancestors.

[brownprose]

It is also depends 100% RANDOM mutational change, where in order to build something with the incredibly efficient complexity of organ systems (i.e., not merely simple adatation), randomness has to be lucky in a way we can't observe in randomness. I've zeroed in on that problem because it's buried in evolution theory, and ignore or glossed over by every Darwinist I've ever debated.

Forget that there's no reason to assume selection for fitness would produce organs, his outrage cleverly side steps explaining how randomness got so lucky as to produce just the right mutations to build the most efficient, functional organizational system the universe has ever seen. So I repeat my objection, it's that a great many prominent scientists are telling the public that evolution is a FACT when there is at least one major problem at the very foundation of the theory.

You're not making sense. Random mutation is not the whole essence of evolution. Read, Adaptation,
Genetic drift, Gene flow, Mutation, Natural selection, Speciation

An absolute proof may not be possible, but there are very clear standards for what can be called a fact. The same scientists screaming like stuck pigs over creationists' blind faith assertions violate their own stringent epistemology's demand for proper evidence when they claim evolution is a fact.

So what do you think are these "clear standards" for anything to be called a fact?

[vahnhelsing]

diin jud kaha sugod tanan no? mayta makaimbento ang mga scientist ug bag.ong kalibutan.... para maprove jud nila totally ang evolution ug tanan nga theory... ug mahitabo na aw wa nay pangutana ug naa bay ginoo nga nagbuhat aning tanan...

[bluedes]

the thing I was asking was, where did you get the idea that an increase/acquisition of traits through evolution necessitated an increase in the 4 bases of DNA? And the claim that since the 4 bases have always been 4, evolution is wrong.

when you say there's an increase/acquisition of traits thru evolution, how do you explain these acquisition of traits?

the underlying explanation in DNA is that there is only a reshuffling of 4 bases, and nothing more. On the DNA level, was there anything added or acquired?

Evolution is acquiring of traits for survival.. but this *acquisition* is not really acquisition, but just a mere reshuffling of DNA, and getting the right sequence to achieve that trait required for survival. So its not really acquisition, its just a race of getting the combination correct in time for survival. Otherwise, if you don't adjust your DNA at the right time, either you adjust it too early, or adjust it too late, then you basically wont survive. That's where evolution is, I think, mistaken in its definition. There is no acquisition of traits.