FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Transitional forms, so where are they?

Transitional forms, so where are they?

(10:30) Creationism claims that if evolution were true, we should find transitional forms (sometimes called the missing link) - one animal transforming into another - half chicken, half crocodile, or half cockroach, half blue-whale. This is the story of the hunt for transitional forms, that if found, would be yet more strong evidence that evolution is in fact they way that life has come about.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Zealot (2318 days ago)
*sigh* Okay, guys. I appreciate your comments and all but you're missing the point. Do I take the time to explain further knowing that you're really not even listening? No. You don't care. You're convinced that external forces aka "natural selection" caused the beginning of the circulatory system no matter how much that doesn't make sense. And you're convinced that that same "natural selection" caused the caterpillar to beging exuding a cocoon which would eventually lead to wings no matter how completely illogical it is. But mostly, you're convinced that if you recognize the huge flaws in evolution, you'll have to figure out something else and that scares the crap out of you. Evolution is a science of broad sweeping statements based on assumptions and which requires you to discard logic. I remember when science used to be based on fact. Ah well..., hey, just for fun, when you get a moment and you'd actually like to think, go look up how the digestive system works and try to figure that one out. I'd love to hear what external, natural forces are responsible for that. Oh and just so we're clear: I don't think you're bad people. You're just blinded by your faith.
ReplyVote up (204)down (169)
Original comment
*sigh* Okay, guys. I appreciate your comments and all but you're missing the point. Do I take the time to explain further knowing that you're really not even listening? No. You don't care. You're convinced that external forces aka "natural selection" caused the beginning of the circulatory system no matter how much that doesn't make sense. And you're convinced that that same "natural selection" caused the caterpillar to beging exuding a cocoon which would eventually lead to wings no matter how completely illogical it is. But mostly, you're convinced that if you recognize the huge flaws in evolution, you'll have to figure out something else and that scares the crap out of you. Evolution is a science of broad sweeping statements based on assumptions and which requires you to discard logic. I remember when science used to be based on fact. Ah well..., hey, just for fun, when you get a moment and you'd actually like to think, go look up how the digestive system works and try to figure that one out. I'd love to hear what external, natural forces are responsible for that. Oh and just so we're clear: I don't think you're bad people. You're just blinded by your faith.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2318 days ago)
You write a lot but say very little. If you refuse to state your objections to evolution, then how is anyone going to reject them?
ReplyVote up (143)down (149)
Original comment
You write a lot but say very little. If you refuse to state your objections to evolution, then how is anyone going to reject them?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Zealot (2318 days ago)
Dear everyone, Thank you for a fun and engaging debate. Sadly, I don't think I convinced even one of you to think critically about the mechanics of macroevolution. You are convinced that fossils prove evolution without actually considering how and why it happened. Everything from basic cell structure to metamorphosis falls under the umbrella of "natural selection." To me, it's unprovable, statistically impossible and absurd. To you, it's fact. Cool beans. We're wasting our time talking further. As I said before, I admire your faith.
ReplyVote up (180)down (164)
Original comment
Dear everyone, Thank you for a fun and engaging debate. Sadly, I don't think I convinced even one of you to think critically about the mechanics of macroevolution. You are convinced that fossils prove evolution without actually considering how and why it happened. Everything from basic cell structure to metamorphosis falls under the umbrella of "natural selection." To me, it's unprovable, statistically impossible and absurd. To you, it's fact. Cool beans. We're wasting our time talking further. As I said before, I admire your faith.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2318 days ago)
And I admire yours. No, actually I don't. I deride your assertions without any sort of argument, and lamentable attempt to paint evolution as "faith".
ReplyVote up (156)down (156)
Original comment
And I admire yours. No, actually I don't. I deride your assertions without any sort of argument, and lamentable attempt to paint evolution as "faith".
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Zealot (2318 days ago)
Dear Guest, "Faith: Complete trust or confidence in someone or something." You have an incomplete puzzle which you will never be able to complete because all you have are fossils and assumptions, but you believe you know the end result. Faith.
ReplyVote up (169)down (159)
Original comment
Dear Guest, "Faith: Complete trust or confidence in someone or something." You have an incomplete puzzle which you will never be able to complete because all you have are fossils and assumptions, but you believe you know the end result. Faith.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Zealot (2318 days ago)
Hi Guest! (can I call you Guest?) Thanks so much for your little rebuttals. I am now a believer. For instance, I know now that the liver will probably eventually evolve out of humans. (funny. I thought we needed that) I have learned that despite the fact that there are 6 billion of us, humans are not perfectly suited for our environment. I have learned that genetic mutations such as color blindness are bad. (wait. I thought genetic mutations were a good thing.) I have learned that the very fact that butterflies exist is proof that they evolved. (wow) And finally, that fantastic, outlandish theories are okay as long as science says they are. I bow down to your genius. Now go away. The adults are talking.
ReplyVote up (110)down (88)
Original comment
Hi Guest! (can I call you Guest?) Thanks so much for your little rebuttals. I am now a believer. For instance, I know now that the liver will probably eventually evolve out of humans. (funny. I thought we needed that) I have learned that despite the fact that there are 6 billion of us, humans are not perfectly suited for our environment. I have learned that genetic mutations such as color blindness are bad. (wait. I thought genetic mutations were a good thing.) I have learned that the very fact that butterflies exist is proof that they evolved. (wow) And finally, that fantastic, outlandish theories are okay as long as science says they are. I bow down to your genius. Now go away. The adults are talking.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: An adult (2317 days ago)
Sunshine, I assure you that bitter sarcasm coupled with distorted interpretations of, and ad hominem arguments against, those who disagree with you isn't likely to win much support.
ReplyVote up (99)down (101)
Original comment
Sunshine, I assure you that bitter sarcasm coupled with distorted interpretations of, and ad hominem arguments against, those who disagree with you isn't likely to win much support.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Timo (2257 days ago)
Hi Zealot, It's a fun discussion indeed =) I think we have established, that this is not the best place for this kind of discussion, so I am not really going to join in, I'll rather throw you some ideas you might want to pursue. "Every species is perfectly adopted to the environmet [...]" - no they are not. Google "the evolutionary tinkerer" and you will find quite hillarious examples where one just has to admit, that the species are in no way perfect, but make do with what they can realise, given evolutionary restrictions. Take some rabbit for example. Instead of cows, their rodent body-plan doesn't allow for the several guts and the possibility to "re-chew" their foor. Instead, they have to eat their shit to funnel the food through their system again ... doesn't look that perfectly designed to me ;-) And there is more of those examples, where some restriction in 'body-plan' or ancestoral history forces a species to come up with ridiculous solutions to problems a disgned species probably wouldn't even have to face (except of course when their designer has a cruel sense of humor ;) ) About the eye: There is a nice discription in Dawkins' 'Climbing Mount Improbable' how the intrcate human eye could have evolved - with all gaps flled. I don't particularly lke to reference Dawkins, 'cause I don't like his ranting, but this partcular book is a very good read!!! It also has a chapter on cicadas and their 13/17 year cycle and one about bees and figs that you might find interesting with regard to the butterfly question. Also, there is quite a funny article by Gould, called "The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm [...]" which can be found here: LINK Read it, please then do come back and tell me what you think about it. I admit it isn't short, but you took so much time in writing all these comments and you seem to be so committed, so I don't doubt you're up to it ;) Also, if you have interesting sources backing up your position, please share. I have a firm opinion about the evolution/creation debate but I promise I will read your sources as neutrally as possible and rethnk my own arguments. Greetings! Timo
ReplyVote up (96)down (103)
Original comment
Hi Zealot, It's a fun discussion indeed =) I think we have established, that this is not the best place for this kind of discussion, so I am not really going to join in, I'll rather throw you some ideas you might want to pursue. "Every species is perfectly adopted to the environmet [...]" - no they are not. Google "the evolutionary tinkerer" and you will find quite hillarious examples where one just has to admit, that the species are in no way perfect, but make do with what they can realise, given evolutionary restrictions. Take some rabbit for example. Instead of cows, their rodent body-plan doesn't allow for the several guts and the possibility to "re-chew" their foor. Instead, they have to eat their shit to funnel the food through their system again ... doesn't look that perfectly designed to me ;-) And there is more of those examples, where some restriction in 'body-plan' or ancestoral history forces a species to come up with ridiculous solutions to problems a disgned species probably wouldn't even have to face (except of course when their designer has a cruel sense of humor ;) ) About the eye: There is a nice discription in Dawkins' 'Climbing Mount Improbable' how the intrcate human eye could have evolved - with all gaps flled. I don't particularly lke to reference Dawkins, 'cause I don't like his ranting, but this partcular book is a very good read!!! It also has a chapter on cicadas and their 13/17 year cycle and one about bees and figs that you might find interesting with regard to the butterfly question. Also, there is quite a funny article by Gould, called "The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm [...]" which can be found here: LINK Read it, please then do come back and tell me what you think about it. I admit it isn't short, but you took so much time in writing all these comments and you seem to be so committed, so I don't doubt you're up to it ;) Also, if you have interesting sources backing up your position, please share. I have a firm opinion about the evolution/creation debate but I promise I will read your sources as neutrally as possible and rethnk my own arguments. Greetings! Timo
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Zealot (2319 days ago)
I think I finally understand. You, as relatively intelligent individuals, consider nothing but the natural world. This is your bias, so to speak. And so, when faced with something so absurd as to be laughable, like the evolution of the butterfly, you have no choice but to accept it as fact. Look at it this way: you have no caterpillar with half-formed wings, you have no idea how or why a caterpillar would begin the process of making its own body exude a cocoon, you know that natural selection wouldn't favor a caterpillar with half-formed wings for breeding, you have no idea what would cause a caterpillar to begin this transformation in the first place, you don't know how randomly evolved wings would ever manage to have the correct aerodynamics for flight, but you are sure it's true because you can't see any other option. I admire your faith. I ask only this: please take a moment to really think about the mechanics of evolution before you brand me an idiot. Examine your faith, as it were.
ReplyVote up (139)down (116)
Original comment
I think I finally understand. You, as relatively intelligent individuals, consider nothing but the natural world. This is your bias, so to speak. And so, when faced with something so absurd as to be laughable, like the evolution of the butterfly, you have no choice but to accept it as fact. Look at it this way: you have no caterpillar with half-formed wings, you have no idea how or why a caterpillar would begin the process of making its own body exude a cocoon, you know that natural selection wouldn't favor a caterpillar with half-formed wings for breeding, you have no idea what would cause a caterpillar to begin this transformation in the first place, you don't know how randomly evolved wings would ever manage to have the correct aerodynamics for flight, but you are sure it's true because you can't see any other option. I admire your faith. I ask only this: please take a moment to really think about the mechanics of evolution before you brand me an idiot. Examine your faith, as it were.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Hates ignorant creationists (2318 days ago)
Zealot, your comment is nonsense. You talk about the fossils of caterpillars with half formed wings as if this is proof for creationism. So you really think that if a higher being was going to create an animal he would decide to make it into a grub that then cocooned itself before emerging with wings? That's an obvious thing to create isn't it? There WILL be a perfectly reasoned argument for the evolution of a butterfly and I'm sure it will not require any fossils to prove it. It's amazing how creationists ignore fossils when they are presented with them but demand them when they are not yet found. It's too simplistic, short-sighted and down right ignorant of you to just look for something that you don't understand and just clap your hands shouting "yey magic man did it".
ReplyVote up (109)down (106)
Original comment
Zealot, your comment is nonsense. You talk about the fossils of caterpillars with half formed wings as if this is proof for creationism. So you really think that if a higher being was going to create an animal he would decide to make it into a grub that then cocooned itself before emerging with wings? That's an obvious thing to create isn't it? There WILL be a perfectly reasoned argument for the evolution of a butterfly and I'm sure it will not require any fossils to prove it. It's amazing how creationists ignore fossils when they are presented with them but demand them when they are not yet found. It's too simplistic, short-sighted and down right ignorant of you to just look for something that you don't understand and just clap your hands shouting "yey magic man did it".
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Zealot (2318 days ago)
First of all, your explanation for the beginning of the universe is a "big bang" so you already believe in nonsensical magic. Secondly, there will NEVER be a logical explanation for the butterfly since it is an illogical creature. It's not born with wings, it develops them through an intermediate process that natural selection wouldn't favor. And finally, I love science. I've done my homework. I used to believe this crap. Evolution DISCARDS logic and reason because it needs to support an agenda. That's not science, it's faith. One last thing: would a higher being create something with such an amazingly complex process? Yup. If for no other reason than to present logical, compelling evidence that evolution is crap.
ReplyVote up (120)down (127)
Original comment
First of all, your explanation for the beginning of the universe is a "big bang" so you already believe in nonsensical magic. Secondly, there will NEVER be a logical explanation for the butterfly since it is an illogical creature. It's not born with wings, it develops them through an intermediate process that natural selection wouldn't favor. And finally, I love science. I've done my homework. I used to believe this crap. Evolution DISCARDS logic and reason because it needs to support an agenda. That's not science, it's faith. One last thing: would a higher being create something with such an amazingly complex process? Yup. If for no other reason than to present logical, compelling evidence that evolution is crap.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Me (2304 days ago)
Why would protecting oneself from external stimuli (even ignoring the transformation of characteristics taking place in the organism) be non-advantageous? A grub living in an extreme environment may do well to 'board up shop' if you will (much like ALL hibernating animals) to prevent unnecessary energy loss while the environment cycles. It may have taken 100, 000 years for cocooning grubs to develop wings to escape all the other cocooning grubs surviving the harsh environment around it. I dont understand why cocoons are considered non-advantageous to you? -Me
ReplyVote up (100)down (153)
Original comment
Why would protecting oneself from external stimuli (even ignoring the transformation of characteristics taking place in the organism) be non-advantageous? A grub living in an extreme environment may do well to 'board up shop' if you will (much like ALL hibernating animals) to prevent unnecessary energy loss while the environment cycles. It may have taken 100, 000 years for cocooning grubs to develop wings to escape all the other cocooning grubs surviving the harsh environment around it. I dont understand why cocoons are considered non-advantageous to you? -Me
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Realist (2319 days ago)
What you brand as faith relies upon the assumption that the we accept a statement as fact without any supporting tangible evidence. We consider nothing but the natural world, because there is nothing else. God is a concept of those who do not take the time to learn about the mechanisms and processes of the natural world to understand how they come to be. In absence of a "spiritual realm" any religion falls apart, yet this same spirituality vastly complicates and perverts the views of the natural world. Religion is a subjective perspective that cannot be tested for proof. The fact that there are so many different types, means that there is no continuity. Yet a scientific experiment can be tested anywhere, anytime and still give the same results, otherwise it's discarded. The vast evidence through genetics, paleontology, geology, physics etc... tell a very linear tale about how things came to be. There's a reason why gov'ts spend trillions on research into these fields: they're real. Religion is a dying belief, we as a species are finally lifting the veil of blinding faith.
ReplyVote up (113)down (123)
Original comment
What you brand as faith relies upon the assumption that the we accept a statement as fact without any supporting tangible evidence. We consider nothing but the natural world, because there is nothing else. God is a concept of those who do not take the time to learn about the mechanisms and processes of the natural world to understand how they come to be. In absence of a "spiritual realm" any religion falls apart, yet this same spirituality vastly complicates and perverts the views of the natural world. Religion is a subjective perspective that cannot be tested for proof. The fact that there are so many different types, means that there is no continuity. Yet a scientific experiment can be tested anywhere, anytime and still give the same results, otherwise it's discarded. The vast evidence through genetics, paleontology, geology, physics etc... tell a very linear tale about how things came to be. There's a reason why gov'ts spend trillions on research into these fields: they're real. Religion is a dying belief, we as a species are finally lifting the veil of blinding faith.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Realist (2319 days ago)
Oh and to respond to your caterpillar comment, it's a larval stage that is similar to all insects that transitioned with this stage as well (eg. flies/maggots). Like chickens and eggs, you don't see half-egg chickens, because the egg is not the precursor species it is merely a development stage. The tadpole to frog maturation is a good example of how transitioning takes place or you can watch the development of a mammal foetus, we all start with non-functional gill slits (how does the bible explain that). You also assume that natural selection is random, read the Blind Watchmaker to see how non-random this process is. It is a force that steers species in a direction that may differentiate itself from it's neighbours to take advantage of a resource or ensure better survival and procreation.
ReplyVote up (111)down (122)
Original comment
Oh and to respond to your caterpillar comment, it's a larval stage that is similar to all insects that transitioned with this stage as well (eg. flies/maggots). Like chickens and eggs, you don't see half-egg chickens, because the egg is not the precursor species it is merely a development stage. The tadpole to frog maturation is a good example of how transitioning takes place or you can watch the development of a mammal foetus, we all start with non-functional gill slits (how does the bible explain that). You also assume that natural selection is random, read the Blind Watchmaker to see how non-random this process is. It is a force that steers species in a direction that may differentiate itself from it's neighbours to take advantage of a resource or ensure better survival and procreation.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: TheSpoon (2299 days ago)
Having read (and been entertained) this extensive conversation here, I can't help but notice a few things. (1) Where each argument is presented, whether it is a portrayal of a careful and considered scientific theorem (no hard facts in science, only accepted theorems) or an emotionally charged theological truth, the presenter believes in what they say emphatically and the recipient does not and probably never will. (2) There are very few open minds, that is a mind that will consider the possibility the other may be right. (3) Most, if not all insects have 4 growth stages, Egg, larvae, chrysalis and final form, most with wings. A butterfly is but one type of thousands. (4) This is a casual entertainment media site, and not a debating forum (5) it is good fun to ask why someone would believe in a more incredulous mechanism by one branch of the theological structure (Judaic based ie the old testiment) and not others (my personal preference is the teutonic myths, much more entertaining and more a parody of us homo sapiens, and buddahism is very open minded in not disputing generally accepted theorems) (6) what are you hoping to achieve? This is of no benefit in trying to win people to your cause(s), only in reinforcing existing entrenched beliefs and dragging it all into the open again. There are better things to do (and I have to ask myself the same question) So where are we again?
ReplyVote up (148)down (137)
Original comment
Having read (and been entertained) this extensive conversation here, I can't help but notice a few things. (1) Where each argument is presented, whether it is a portrayal of a careful and considered scientific theorem (no hard facts in science, only accepted theorems) or an emotionally charged theological truth, the presenter believes in what they say emphatically and the recipient does not and probably never will. (2) There are very few open minds, that is a mind that will consider the possibility the other may be right. (3) Most, if not all insects have 4 growth stages, Egg, larvae, chrysalis and final form, most with wings. A butterfly is but one type of thousands. (4) This is a casual entertainment media site, and not a debating forum (5) it is good fun to ask why someone would believe in a more incredulous mechanism by one branch of the theological structure (Judaic based ie the old testiment) and not others (my personal preference is the teutonic myths, much more entertaining and more a parody of us homo sapiens, and buddahism is very open minded in not disputing generally accepted theorems) (6) what are you hoping to achieve? This is of no benefit in trying to win people to your cause(s), only in reinforcing existing entrenched beliefs and dragging it all into the open again. There are better things to do (and I have to ask myself the same question) So where are we again?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Zealot (2317 days ago)
So this is the state of scientific discussion today. I asked repeatedly for any reason that a butterfly should exist in regards to evolution. I made several points about the mechanics of butterfly evolution not following the traditional understanding of natural selection. I have read countless books on this subject and I have yet to find any explanation that even comes close to being plausible. In response, I have been told that wings are beneficial and that a butterfly works well so it must have evolved. I have been told to read a book as though anyone has actually put forth a semi-reasonable explanation in book form. I have been called closed minded though I seem to be the only one here who has not gotten so bogged down in my beliefs that I refuse to think about the problems. (A short note here: every evolutionary scientist admits to problems with the theory but claim they will be solved eventually. If they don't, they're blind.) And finally, I have been told that I don't understand science and that I am an idiot. This is not the science I remember. This has become a belief system debate with the side of science arrogantly claiming that anyone who questions their theory is a buffoon. It's a shame really. I won't bother with this thread again so please know that I won't read your inevitable insults. But someday, I truly hope you will examine what you think you know with a more open mind. And remember that science was once absolutely sure the earth was flat.
ReplyVote up (151)down (157)
Original comment
So this is the state of scientific discussion today. I asked repeatedly for any reason that a butterfly should exist in regards to evolution. I made several points about the mechanics of butterfly evolution not following the traditional understanding of natural selection. I have read countless books on this subject and I have yet to find any explanation that even comes close to being plausible. In response, I have been told that wings are beneficial and that a butterfly works well so it must have evolved. I have been told to read a book as though anyone has actually put forth a semi-reasonable explanation in book form. I have been called closed minded though I seem to be the only one here who has not gotten so bogged down in my beliefs that I refuse to think about the problems. (A short note here: every evolutionary scientist admits to problems with the theory but claim they will be solved eventually. If they don't, they're blind.) And finally, I have been told that I don't understand science and that I am an idiot. This is not the science I remember. This has become a belief system debate with the side of science arrogantly claiming that anyone who questions their theory is a buffoon. It's a shame really. I won't bother with this thread again so please know that I won't read your inevitable insults. But someday, I truly hope you will examine what you think you know with a more open mind. And remember that science was once absolutely sure the earth was flat.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Mmm (2316 days ago)
Jesus, Mary and Muhammad this is getting boring. While I admire the passion behind Zealot's opinions I'm afraid I can't let him have the last word here. To avoid repeating the same sentences again and again and again, I will sign off with the eloquent words of Mr. Johnny Wikipedia: 'A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs'.
ReplyVote up (147)down (135)
Original comment
Jesus, Mary and Muhammad this is getting boring. While I admire the passion behind Zealot's opinions I'm afraid I can't let him have the last word here. To avoid repeating the same sentences again and again and again, I will sign off with the eloquent words of Mr. Johnny Wikipedia: 'A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs'.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Couldn't help but check (2315 days ago)
Good point. Evolutionists are bigots. Though it seems odd of you to say so. If anyone needs me, I'll just be over here marveling at the flagellum.
ReplyVote up (153)down (157)
Original comment
Good point. Evolutionists are bigots. Though it seems odd of you to say so. If anyone needs me, I'll just be over here marveling at the flagellum.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Mmm (2314 days ago)
Finally, a sense of humour!
ReplyVote up (170)down (158)
Original comment
Finally, a sense of humour!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Zealot (2314 days ago)
Mmm, you seem cool. I actually think I've got a pretty good sense of humor. This issue gets to me, though. See, you guys see two sides to this issue: smart people who believe in evolution, and religious crazies who are too stupid to read a book. It makes it hard to carry on a discussion when the other party thinks you're an uneducated zealot. Or like you said, a bigot. Listen to the hate that Dawkins spews sometimes and imagine you were on the receiving end. It's surprisingly hard to be amiable. Okay, I'm really done.
ReplyVote up (159)down (142)
Original comment
Mmm, you seem cool. I actually think I've got a pretty good sense of humor. This issue gets to me, though. See, you guys see two sides to this issue: smart people who believe in evolution, and religious crazies who are too stupid to read a book. It makes it hard to carry on a discussion when the other party thinks you're an uneducated zealot. Or like you said, a bigot. Listen to the hate that Dawkins spews sometimes and imagine you were on the receiving end. It's surprisingly hard to be amiable. Okay, I'm really done.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: ¿¿¿ (2312 days ago)
Dear Zealot, though i cannot personaly give you the awnsers you are looking for i came bearing some advice. i doubt you are close minded, ignorant, stupid or mentaly ill. however al of that falls to question by the fact that you are trying to get the awnser for a question throug a means wich has proven itself to be lacking in this matter. if you really wish to find the awnser to your butterfly question then i urge you to start searching properly. because i get a doubtfull feeling about you "looking into several books" to find the awnser to your question. here's some advice, do a wide search for highly educated biolegists/scientist that specialize in the field of evolution and try to get into contact with them. and stop asking these questions in the comment section of a video on a website called boreme.com because if you are really as smart as you say you are, then you should have known that this is not the place to start looking for awnsers about the theory of evolution.
ReplyVote up (160)down (152)
Original comment
Dear Zealot, though i cannot personaly give you the awnsers you are looking for i came bearing some advice. i doubt you are close minded, ignorant, stupid or mentaly ill. however al of that falls to question by the fact that you are trying to get the awnser for a question throug a means wich has proven itself to be lacking in this matter. if you really wish to find the awnser to your butterfly question then i urge you to start searching properly. because i get a doubtfull feeling about you "looking into several books" to find the awnser to your question. here's some advice, do a wide search for highly educated biolegists/scientist that specialize in the field of evolution and try to get into contact with them. and stop asking these questions in the comment section of a video on a website called boreme.com because if you are really as smart as you say you are, then you should have known that this is not the place to start looking for awnsers about the theory of evolution.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MissAlanius MissAlanius (2318 days ago)
To Zealot: For non-experts (almost everyone on this Earth) science is accepted as the best current way to determine what is or is not 'true' because it is based on the Scientific Method, ie. peer-reviewed, repeatable, empirical evidence. Science doesn't talk about truth, only likelihood, because new evidence may be discovered that refutes current theories. The theories are then reevaluated to make sense of the new evidence.
ReplyVote up (157)down (159)
Original comment
To Zealot: For non-experts (almost everyone on this Earth) science is accepted as the best current way to determine what is or is not 'true' because it is based on the Scientific Method, ie. peer-reviewed, repeatable, empirical evidence. Science doesn't talk about truth, only likelihood, because new evidence may be discovered that refutes current theories. The theories are then reevaluated to make sense of the new evidence.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MissAlanius MissAlanius (2318 days ago)
There is a HUGE amount of evidence supporting evolution that is peer-reviewed, repeatable and empirical, and as far as I am aware, none that is contradictory. There are holes in the evidence (transitional forms used to be such a hole), but that doesn't change the overall picture. It's like we have 950 pieces of a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle. It is very unlikely that the 50 missing pieces will change the overall picture, much more likely that when they are found, they will reconfirm it.
ReplyVote up (163)down (184)
Original comment
There is a HUGE amount of evidence supporting evolution that is peer-reviewed, repeatable and empirical, and as far as I am aware, none that is contradictory. There are holes in the evidence (transitional forms used to be such a hole), but that doesn't change the overall picture. It's like we have 950 pieces of a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle. It is very unlikely that the 50 missing pieces will change the overall picture, much more likely that when they are found, they will reconfirm it.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MissAlanius MissAlanius (2318 days ago)
So for non-experts like you and me, surely the sensible thing is to accept that the 'truth' based on science is the best we've got. After all, if 90% of medical doctors advise you to stop smoking, you'd be arrogant to think you knew better.
ReplyVote up (155)down (152)
Original comment
So for non-experts like you and me, surely the sensible thing is to accept that the 'truth' based on science is the best we've got. After all, if 90% of medical doctors advise you to stop smoking, you'd be arrogant to think you knew better.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MissAlanius MissAlanius (2318 days ago)
As for your butterfly question, if you want an informed answer, ask an expert. You could try Richard Dawkins - here's his number: 07885 221 645
ReplyVote up (141)down (154)
Original comment
As for your butterfly question, if you want an informed answer, ask an expert. You could try Richard Dawkins - here's his number: 07885 221 645
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Zealot (2318 days ago)
Here's a thought: the scientific method says that if even one fact disagrees with a hypothesis, then that hypothesis is disproven. The hypothesis of evolution relies on natural selection. Right? The metamorphosis of a butterfly goes completely against natural selection since there is an additional step that should have been eliminated due to it's impracticality. (the incredibly long cocoon stage) Therefore, if natural selection doesn't hold up against the butterfly, evolution can't be true. Oh! Here's an interesting one: there is a frog that literally freezes to death every year. Completely dead. As a doorknob. In the spring, it spontaneously thaws, not from the sun mind you, and comes back to life! Please explain. I'm dying to know what "The Glorious All-Knowing Science" says about this one.
ReplyVote up (139)down (157)
Original comment
Here's a thought: the scientific method says that if even one fact disagrees with a hypothesis, then that hypothesis is disproven. The hypothesis of evolution relies on natural selection. Right? The metamorphosis of a butterfly goes completely against natural selection since there is an additional step that should have been eliminated due to it's impracticality. (the incredibly long cocoon stage) Therefore, if natural selection doesn't hold up against the butterfly, evolution can't be true. Oh! Here's an interesting one: there is a frog that literally freezes to death every year. Completely dead. As a doorknob. In the spring, it spontaneously thaws, not from the sun mind you, and comes back to life! Please explain. I'm dying to know what "The Glorious All-Knowing Science" says about this one.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MissAlanius MissAlanius (2318 days ago)
Hi Zealot. If you really are dying to improve your knowledge, then do the research. It took me the whole of 30 seconds to find this article from Scientific American that explains the freezing dead frogs you speak of. LINK
ReplyVote up (157)down (146)
Original comment
Hi Zealot. If you really are dying to improve your knowledge, then do the research. It took me the whole of 30 seconds to find this article from Scientific American that explains the freezing dead frogs you speak of. LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Zealot (2318 days ago)
Hi MissAlanius, I'm well aware of how it happens. One might say it's almost miraculous. But nothing addresses how and why it evolved that way. (That is what we're talking about, right?) I mean, there must have been a transitional point when the frozen frog just stayed dead, right? But science would have us believe that this frog developed an antifreeze in anticipation of the fact that it would, in fact, freeze and die even though that would presuppose its own death. Natural selection = this happened because of this because of this and so on. Are you following me? The frog developed antifreeze that would revive it after months of being dead before it could have possibly needed it. Your answer to this will of course be that some frogs developed the antifreeze and some didn't and the ones with it survived but why did they develop it in the first place? It makes no sense. Again, blind faith in evolution means abandoning logic and reason. On another note, Boreme is making a fortune off of me today. An ad for comments, Boreme? Really? That's gotta bring in like 14 cents a day and it just discourages thoughtful dialogue.
ReplyVote up (153)down (149)
Original comment
Hi MissAlanius, I'm well aware of how it happens. One might say it's almost miraculous. But nothing addresses how and why it evolved that way. (That is what we're talking about, right?) I mean, there must have been a transitional point when the frozen frog just stayed dead, right? But science would have us believe that this frog developed an antifreeze in anticipation of the fact that it would, in fact, freeze and die even though that would presuppose its own death. Natural selection = this happened because of this because of this and so on. Are you following me? The frog developed antifreeze that would revive it after months of being dead before it could have possibly needed it. Your answer to this will of course be that some frogs developed the antifreeze and some didn't and the ones with it survived but why did they develop it in the first place? It makes no sense. Again, blind faith in evolution means abandoning logic and reason. On another note, Boreme is making a fortune off of me today. An ad for comments, Boreme? Really? That's gotta bring in like 14 cents a day and it just discourages thoughtful dialogue.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MissAlanius MissAlanius (2318 days ago)
I'm no expert so I can't answer your question about how freezing frogs evolved, but I presume you are aware that exactly the same argument is used by creationists about the human eye - that it could not have evolved because it needs to be in its entirety to function at all. I presume you also know that scientists have found animals alive today that exhibit every evolutionary stage of the development of the eye showing a perfectly logical and plausible path from a simple light-sensitive cell to the complex human eye. I'm curious to know whether you accept that the human eye could have evolved. David Attenborough actually explains it much better than I ever could in this short, easy-to-digest video on BoreMe. LINK
ReplyVote up (125)down (146)
Original comment
I'm no expert so I can't answer your question about how freezing frogs evolved, but I presume you are aware that exactly the same argument is used by creationists about the human eye - that it could not have evolved because it needs to be in its entirety to function at all. I presume you also know that scientists have found animals alive today that exhibit every evolutionary stage of the development of the eye showing a perfectly logical and plausible path from a simple light-sensitive cell to the complex human eye. I'm curious to know whether you accept that the human eye could have evolved. David Attenborough actually explains it much better than I ever could in this short, easy-to-digest video on BoreMe. LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Zealot (2318 days ago)
Ah the human eye question. Science says there are all kinds of eyes, including simple ones, therefore one came from the other. This is an illustration of the problem with evolution as a whole. The idea is that every transitional form of life was fully functional the entire time, that somehow, it just slowly morphed from one thing to another. The problem is, this just doesn't work with things like the major systems of the body which are dependent on each other for their very function. (Does a brain work without a circulatory system?) Same goes with the eye. A human eye without any single one of its parts working perfectly, doesn't work. A lens that's irregularly shaped, for instance. Or even more compelling, a brain that can't comprehend an upside-down image. Evolutionists point to stages but expect us to believe that each stage went from complete to complete and that doesn't happen. What you call "evolutionary stages of the development of the eye" are all perfectly formed beings with eyes perfectly suited to their environment. Frankly, this is all too complex to handle in a comment board. I tell you what; just answer my initial question and give me one single, plausible reason for the evolution of the butterfly. One. Tell me what in nature caused a caterpillar to develop the need to fly, how that caterpillar evolved the ability to spin a cocoon out of its own body, and then explain how metamorphosis works with the theory of natural selection. Your proof of evolution is assumption and imprints of complete, extinct creatures. I've only got logic and the butterfly.
ReplyVote up (142)down (151)
Original comment
Ah the human eye question. Science says there are all kinds of eyes, including simple ones, therefore one came from the other. This is an illustration of the problem with evolution as a whole. The idea is that every transitional form of life was fully functional the entire time, that somehow, it just slowly morphed from one thing to another. The problem is, this just doesn't work with things like the major systems of the body which are dependent on each other for their very function. (Does a brain work without a circulatory system?) Same goes with the eye. A human eye without any single one of its parts working perfectly, doesn't work. A lens that's irregularly shaped, for instance. Or even more compelling, a brain that can't comprehend an upside-down image. Evolutionists point to stages but expect us to believe that each stage went from complete to complete and that doesn't happen. What you call "evolutionary stages of the development of the eye" are all perfectly formed beings with eyes perfectly suited to their environment. Frankly, this is all too complex to handle in a comment board. I tell you what; just answer my initial question and give me one single, plausible reason for the evolution of the butterfly. One. Tell me what in nature caused a caterpillar to develop the need to fly, how that caterpillar evolved the ability to spin a cocoon out of its own body, and then explain how metamorphosis works with the theory of natural selection. Your proof of evolution is assumption and imprints of complete, extinct creatures. I've only got logic and the butterfly.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MissAlanius MissAlanius (2317 days ago)
Hi Zealot. It seems you misunderstand the very basics of evolution. A clue is when you say in another comment "...external forces aka "natural selection" caused...". Natural selection is not an external force. Natural selection is simply the phrase used to describe cause and effect in relation to life. So when genes copy themselves, occasionally there is a mistake, and if that mistake happens to help survival, then that 'mistake' will be copied into the next generation that will now be better at surviving. How such a simple process produces the amazing complexity in life can be difficult to believe, until you realise the timescales involved. Jesus walked this Earth 2 thousand years ago. Humans have been around for 100 thousand years (1/10 of a million). Life started 3.5 billion (3,500 million) years ago. It is these enormous, almost unimaginable timescales that you can't ignore when thinking about evolution. Try playing Chinese Whispers and you'll understand. I hope you are also aware that the theory of evolution doesn't explain how life originated, it explains how life evolved from the simplest of structures to what we find today.
ReplyVote up (142)down (146)
Original comment
Hi Zealot. It seems you misunderstand the very basics of evolution. A clue is when you say in another comment "...external forces aka "natural selection" caused...". Natural selection is not an external force. Natural selection is simply the phrase used to describe cause and effect in relation to life. So when genes copy themselves, occasionally there is a mistake, and if that mistake happens to help survival, then that 'mistake' will be copied into the next generation that will now be better at surviving. How such a simple process produces the amazing complexity in life can be difficult to believe, until you realise the timescales involved. Jesus walked this Earth 2 thousand years ago. Humans have been around for 100 thousand years (1/10 of a million). Life started 3.5 billion (3,500 million) years ago. It is these enormous, almost unimaginable timescales that you can't ignore when thinking about evolution. Try playing Chinese Whispers and you'll understand. I hope you are also aware that the theory of evolution doesn't explain how life originated, it explains how life evolved from the simplest of structures to what we find today.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MissAlanius MissAlanius (2317 days ago)
Another clue to your misunderstanding of evolution is when you say the brain can't evolve independently from the circulatory system. God might be able to create the brain on Thursday morning and the circulatory system on Thursday afternoon, but evolution doesn't work that way. Things don't evolve in isolation - they can't do. Think of it this way. Pretty much anything that changes, evolves - societies, language, music, art, fashion, hoovers, motorbikes - in fact, the whole universe and everything inside it is continually evolving. So if you look specifically at the evolution of music, you'll find that external factors are always an influencing factor. Technology, drugs, fashion, commercialisation - they all play their part. How life evolves is the same. Climate, food supplies, predators, all influence how life evolves. And within an organism, every part influences every other part. Until you understand that evolution is basically cause and effect in action, then you'll never make sense of it. Evolution can't not happen, in the same way that music or language can't stop changing. It's just what happens.
ReplyVote up (157)down (138)
Original comment
Another clue to your misunderstanding of evolution is when you say the brain can't evolve independently from the circulatory system. God might be able to create the brain on Thursday morning and the circulatory system on Thursday afternoon, but evolution doesn't work that way. Things don't evolve in isolation - they can't do. Think of it this way. Pretty much anything that changes, evolves - societies, language, music, art, fashion, hoovers, motorbikes - in fact, the whole universe and everything inside it is continually evolving. So if you look specifically at the evolution of music, you'll find that external factors are always an influencing factor. Technology, drugs, fashion, commercialisation - they all play their part. How life evolves is the same. Climate, food supplies, predators, all influence how life evolves. And within an organism, every part influences every other part. Until you understand that evolution is basically cause and effect in action, then you'll never make sense of it. Evolution can't not happen, in the same way that music or language can't stop changing. It's just what happens.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MissAlanius MissAlanius (2317 days ago)
Precisely how evolution by natural selection works is quite amazing, particularly now that we have an incredibly detailed understanding of the mechanics. The fact that we can clone sheep, genetically modify plants, utilise stem cells, fight diseases etc. means that the science is basically correct, if not complete.
ReplyVote up (175)down (134)
Original comment
Precisely how evolution by natural selection works is quite amazing, particularly now that we have an incredibly detailed understanding of the mechanics. The fact that we can clone sheep, genetically modify plants, utilise stem cells, fight diseases etc. means that the science is basically correct, if not complete.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MissAlanius MissAlanius (2317 days ago)
I don't know how the butterfly evolved, but if even nobody knows, it does not disprove evolution. If you want to disprove evolution with the butterfly, you'd need to prove the butterfly came about some other way. Good luck.
ReplyVote up (127)down (140)
Original comment
I don't know how the butterfly evolved, but if even nobody knows, it does not disprove evolution. If you want to disprove evolution with the butterfly, you'd need to prove the butterfly came about some other way. Good luck.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: John (2317 days ago)
No, MissAlanius. I don't misunderstand evolution. I disagree with the conclusions reached by science which are primarily based on assumption and an unwillingness to accept the unknown. 60,000 miles of blood vessels in one human being. Cells designed to repair skin flawlessly. Organs that combat poison. A sperm and an egg containing all the information for an entire being. A frog that dies and comes back to life. A butterfly. All beautifully, perfectly, completely designed. You've never seen the watchmaker but you know it was made. In the end, you can't see beyond your bias and you have no choice but to believe the impossible. Which is fine. Thanks for the discussion and I wish you the best.
ReplyVote up (141)down (148)
Original comment
No, MissAlanius. I don't misunderstand evolution. I disagree with the conclusions reached by science which are primarily based on assumption and an unwillingness to accept the unknown. 60,000 miles of blood vessels in one human being. Cells designed to repair skin flawlessly. Organs that combat poison. A sperm and an egg containing all the information for an entire being. A frog that dies and comes back to life. A butterfly. All beautifully, perfectly, completely designed. You've never seen the watchmaker but you know it was made. In the end, you can't see beyond your bias and you have no choice but to believe the impossible. Which is fine. Thanks for the discussion and I wish you the best.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MissAlanius MissAlanius (2317 days ago)
It appears that you also don't understand how science works. I've spouted enough so I'm stopping. But I'd just like to make one last point. Scientific progress is similar to evolution, if you replace the natural selection bit with pro-active selection by humans. In 100 years, we have gone from the steam-powered Titanic to creating anti-matter (last week anti-matter was created for 16 minutes at CERN, a world first!). So I don't see the problem with natural selection coming up with a butterfly in 3.5 billion years. I also thank you for the discussion.
ReplyVote up (138)down (130)
Original comment
It appears that you also don't understand how science works. I've spouted enough so I'm stopping. But I'd just like to make one last point. Scientific progress is similar to evolution, if you replace the natural selection bit with pro-active selection by humans. In 100 years, we have gone from the steam-powered Titanic to creating anti-matter (last week anti-matter was created for 16 minutes at CERN, a world first!). So I don't see the problem with natural selection coming up with a butterfly in 3.5 billion years. I also thank you for the discussion.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MissAlanius MissAlanius (2317 days ago)
John, I'm sorry. I said I was stopping, but I can't let you get away with "All beautifully, perfectly, completely designed". I'd wager you don't think gays are beautiful and perfect. As Stephen Fry pointed out, almost all animals in the wild live under heavy stress, are continually hungry and die violent and bloody deaths. And what about bone cancer in children? Or that parasitic worm that buries itself in the eyeball of a lamb, eating the eyeball from inside? Or the tsunami that devastated Japan? Or the cockroaches that share my kitchen? The list of imperfections in the natural world is endless. If your answer is "god works in mysterious ways", then I despair. Again, I thank you for the discussion.
ReplyVote up (136)down (151)
Original comment
John, I'm sorry. I said I was stopping, but I can't let you get away with "All beautifully, perfectly, completely designed". I'd wager you don't think gays are beautiful and perfect. As Stephen Fry pointed out, almost all animals in the wild live under heavy stress, are continually hungry and die violent and bloody deaths. And what about bone cancer in children? Or that parasitic worm that buries itself in the eyeball of a lamb, eating the eyeball from inside? Or the tsunami that devastated Japan? Or the cockroaches that share my kitchen? The list of imperfections in the natural world is endless. If your answer is "god works in mysterious ways", then I despair. Again, I thank you for the discussion.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Zealot (2317 days ago)
And like every evolutionist, you dismiss every single valid point and end with, "You don't understand science." This is why I don't come on these boards. I say, "The mechanics of the evolution of the butterfly don't work with Natural Selection." You say, "You obviously don't understand Natural Selection" while completely ignoring the butterfly question. I say, "Look how perfectly and completely designed everything is for its environment." You say, "What about cancer?" even though that illustrates that the vast majority of the time, gene mutations are devastating and deadly. You will never be convinced that evolution is wrong because it is your only choice. In addition, you have all been utterly predictable in this argument. I didn't spout the Bible or ask about a Crocoduck but you belittle me as though I did and you dismiss very valid evolutionary questions with a wave of the hand. To paraphrase the illustrious Guest, "The fact that it works and exists is proof that it evolved." Fine. Great point. Just answer me this: What happened to the first caterpillars that wrapped themselves a cocoon, in the time before they grew wings and how was the trait of wrapping itself in a cocoon favored by Natural Selection? I'm going to guess your answer to this one will be that I'm a moron and I don't understand how science works. Oh, and one last thing MissAlanius, while Natural Selection in and of itself isn't external forces, the vast majority of the time, it is based on external forces. (Favoring the trait of a thinner beak to more easily get food) So, what causes internal, major systems to evolve? What could possibly cause a bunch of cells to start growing a circulatory system? Did it get cold? Think! Think REALLY HARD, and tell me one thing that might have caused a basic circulatory system to start growing and eventually end up as 60,000 miles of blood vessels in the human body. I'm guessing that with this one, you'll point out something about my upbringing or quote music theory. But remember, because I disagree with a scientific theory, I'm an idiot so please, speak slowly and in small words.
ReplyVote up (158)down (131)
Original comment
And like every evolutionist, you dismiss every single valid point and end with, "You don't understand science." This is why I don't come on these boards. I say, "The mechanics of the evolution of the butterfly don't work with Natural Selection." You say, "You obviously don't understand Natural Selection" while completely ignoring the butterfly question. I say, "Look how perfectly and completely designed everything is for its environment." You say, "What about cancer?" even though that illustrates that the vast majority of the time, gene mutations are devastating and deadly. You will never be convinced that evolution is wrong because it is your only choice. In addition, you have all been utterly predictable in this argument. I didn't spout the Bible or ask about a Crocoduck but you belittle me as though I did and you dismiss very valid evolutionary questions with a wave of the hand. To paraphrase the illustrious Guest, "The fact that it works and exists is proof that it evolved." Fine. Great point. Just answer me this: What happened to the first caterpillars that wrapped themselves a cocoon, in the time before they grew wings and how was the trait of wrapping itself in a cocoon favored by Natural Selection? I'm going to guess your answer to this one will be that I'm a moron and I don't understand how science works. Oh, and one last thing MissAlanius, while Natural Selection in and of itself isn't external forces, the vast majority of the time, it is based on external forces. (Favoring the trait of a thinner beak to more easily get food) So, what causes internal, major systems to evolve? What could possibly cause a bunch of cells to start growing a circulatory system? Did it get cold? Think! Think REALLY HARD, and tell me one thing that might have caused a basic circulatory system to start growing and eventually end up as 60,000 miles of blood vessels in the human body. I'm guessing that with this one, you'll point out something about my upbringing or quote music theory. But remember, because I disagree with a scientific theory, I'm an idiot so please, speak slowly and in small words.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Me (2304 days ago)
This is only hypothetical, but I'll give it a go, and I'll try and do it without insulting you or your beliefs because I honestly think arguments of that sort detract from the conversation. "What could possibly cause a bunch of cells to start growing a circulatory system?" I can remember looking at slides in my biology class years ago, watching tiny organisms in pond water having a microscopic heart like cell group pump nutrients/energy through a very small (in comparison) circulatory system so that the muscles (or equally functional cell mass) could provide propulsion for the organism so that it could avoid the unfavorable condition, much like that of the light under the microscope heating up the water it was swimming in. This example allows for this organism to use several highly specialized cell groups to avoid unfavorable conditions. A similar cell without a circulatory system would either have the cell group responsible for propulsion produce its own energy (and likely be more inefficient at it, requiring more effort to obtain energy and what not) or to not have any form of propulsion, leaving it at the whim of the external forces. Not only with animals, but plants would benefit from much of the same systems: Imagine algae, floating in or on the water, sucking up nutrients and photosynthesizing to produce energy for growth. Would it be unreasonable to believe that simple organisms like these could not develop very simple circulatory systems in order to transport this energy to other specialized parts of the plant, say a simple root system that allows for better absorption of nutrients in the water. Having the ability to transport energy throughout the organism allows for growth in size and reach. This can be seen in trees, bushes, and many other forms of plant life, themselves also have circulatory systems that transports water and minerals from the roots (If they have them) to the leaves (if they have them) without the use of animal-istic muscles, using cohesion and back-pressure. This allows them to become much larger in size than they could otherwise be in order to successfully compete with other plant life for sunlight, whom perhaps are unable to grow to competitive size with its (I would like to think) inferiorly unspecialized cells. My point is that any(/most?) organism with sufficient complexity has some form of system(s) that transport required materials to and from these specialized cell groups. Whether it be an organism of a million plus cells or an organism of single to double digit cell counts. We, as a organism with lots of specialized cell groups, many of them large consumers of energy, require elaborate systems to provide these groups with energy, getting blood, sugar, etc to the hundreds and thousands of muscles in our bodies is not something 10 feet of circulatory pathways can achieve. But the great thing about evolution is that you don't need 600 muscles to be present for the circulatory system to begin to appear, or vice versa. All you need is an organism to develop a propulsion mechanism, say a hair like protrusion that whips around wildly. Then 10,000 years later another adaptation (after the failed 1 million adaptations) I hope everything in here is clear, sorry for such a long post. -Me
ReplyVote up (141)down (134)
Original comment
This is only hypothetical, but I'll give it a go, and I'll try and do it without insulting you or your beliefs because I honestly think arguments of that sort detract from the conversation. "What could possibly cause a bunch of cells to start growing a circulatory system?" I can remember looking at slides in my biology class years ago, watching tiny organisms in pond water having a microscopic heart like cell group pump nutrients/energy through a very small (in comparison) circulatory system so that the muscles (or equally functional cell mass) could provide propulsion for the organism so that it could avoid the unfavorable condition, much like that of the light under the microscope heating up the water it was swimming in. This example allows for this organism to use several highly specialized cell groups to avoid unfavorable conditions. A similar cell without a circulatory system would either have the cell group responsible for propulsion produce its own energy (and likely be more inefficient at it, requiring more effort to obtain energy and what not) or to not have any form of propulsion, leaving it at the whim of the external forces. Not only with animals, but plants would benefit from much of the same systems: Imagine algae, floating in or on the water, sucking up nutrients and photosynthesizing to produce energy for growth. Would it be unreasonable to believe that simple organisms like these could not develop very simple circulatory systems in order to transport this energy to other specialized parts of the plant, say a simple root system that allows for better absorption of nutrients in the water. Having the ability to transport energy throughout the organism allows for growth in size and reach. This can be seen in trees, bushes, and many other forms of plant life, themselves also have circulatory systems that transports water and minerals from the roots (If they have them) to the leaves (if they have them) without the use of animal-istic muscles, using cohesion and back-pressure. This allows them to become much larger in size than they could otherwise be in order to successfully compete with other plant life for sunlight, whom perhaps are unable to grow to competitive size with its (I would like to think) inferiorly unspecialized cells. My point is that any(/most?) organism with sufficient complexity has some form of system(s) that transport required materials to and from these specialized cell groups. Whether it be an organism of a million plus cells or an organism of single to double digit cell counts. We, as a organism with lots of specialized cell groups, many of them large consumers of energy, require elaborate systems to provide these groups with energy, getting blood, sugar, etc to the hundreds and thousands of muscles in our bodies is not something 10 feet of circulatory pathways can achieve. But the great thing about evolution is that you don't need 600 muscles to be present for the circulatory system to begin to appear, or vice versa. All you need is an organism to develop a propulsion mechanism, say a hair like protrusion that whips around wildly. Then 10,000 years later another adaptation (after the failed 1 million adaptations) I hope everything in here is clear, sorry for such a long post. -Me
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: JustThinking (2317 days ago)
You must be related to Sam, but without the humour
ReplyVote up (149)down (144)
Original comment
You must be related to Sam, but without the humour
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Mmm (2318 days ago)
Zealot, firstly; thank you for at least engaging with research and reason in your arguments against evolution. It is rare to see this. That said, having read all the comments on this page I believe if there's anyone here who should be accused of having a closed mind it is you. The absence of either dignity or accuracy in your retort to 'Realist' points to this. Both the chicken/egg and frog/tadpole are valid comparisons; it is only you who is talking purely about end products and thus limiting the scope of your understanding. You say you've done your research but if you were open-minded you'd understand research is ongoing.
ReplyVote up (127)down (166)
Original comment
Zealot, firstly; thank you for at least engaging with research and reason in your arguments against evolution. It is rare to see this. That said, having read all the comments on this page I believe if there's anyone here who should be accused of having a closed mind it is you. The absence of either dignity or accuracy in your retort to 'Realist' points to this. Both the chicken/egg and frog/tadpole are valid comparisons; it is only you who is talking purely about end products and thus limiting the scope of your understanding. You say you've done your research but if you were open-minded you'd understand research is ongoing.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Mmm (2318 days ago)
Zealot: Regarding the butterfly; speaking as someone who's never read anything by Dawkins or Hitchens and has little more than a Biology GCSE I would say this: Some reasons why an animal (eg caterpillar) would benefit from flying are to increase the chances of finding a mate and to widen the distribution of its eggs. Thinking about the many and varied species of egg/larvae/flying insects in existence it's easy to imagine that a butterfly could share a common ancestor with these. As I understand it, the ToE does not suggest a progression from complete stage to complete stage at all but rather a series of often almost imperceptible differences between generations of a species. You keep mentioning the irreducible complexity argument. Here is one of the many many sources which can hopefully set the record straight on this; LINK (The gist of it is that the components of a biological system can have their own function, totally independent from the system, and thus there is no reason why the entire system must have appeared all at once, as you keep repeating.)
ReplyVote up (136)down (127)
Original comment
Zealot: Regarding the butterfly; speaking as someone who's never read anything by Dawkins or Hitchens and has little more than a Biology GCSE I would say this: Some reasons why an animal (eg caterpillar) would benefit from flying are to increase the chances of finding a mate and to widen the distribution of its eggs. Thinking about the many and varied species of egg/larvae/flying insects in existence it's easy to imagine that a butterfly could share a common ancestor with these. As I understand it, the ToE does not suggest a progression from complete stage to complete stage at all but rather a series of often almost imperceptible differences between generations of a species. You keep mentioning the irreducible complexity argument. Here is one of the many many sources which can hopefully set the record straight on this; LINK (The gist of it is that the components of a biological system can have their own function, totally independent from the system, and thus there is no reason why the entire system must have appeared all at once, as you keep repeating.)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Zealot (2318 days ago)
Every system in the body is completely dependent on every other system. That's why we die when one of them breaks. The idea of, say, the digestive system evolving without the liver is ridiculous. How 'bout the brain without the circulatory system. Again, you're making assumptions to support your assumptions which are based on assumptions. Here's a fact for you: there are no species in the known world that are not complete and perfectly suited for their environment. I remember some scientist a few years back saying that this was because evolution is finished. Well, that's nice to know.
ReplyVote up (131)down (136)
Original comment
Every system in the body is completely dependent on every other system. That's why we die when one of them breaks. The idea of, say, the digestive system evolving without the liver is ridiculous. How 'bout the brain without the circulatory system. Again, you're making assumptions to support your assumptions which are based on assumptions. Here's a fact for you: there are no species in the known world that are not complete and perfectly suited for their environment. I remember some scientist a few years back saying that this was because evolution is finished. Well, that's nice to know.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2318 days ago)
"Here's a fact for you: there are no species in the known world that are not complete and perfectly suited for their environment." Utter rubbish. For example, us humans could be faster, stronger and more resistant to disease. Some would not be colour blind, or have genetic deficiencies. We need not have an appendix, nor virtually all our DNA be white noise.
ReplyVote up (146)down (120)
Original comment
"Here's a fact for you: there are no species in the known world that are not complete and perfectly suited for their environment." Utter rubbish. For example, us humans could be faster, stronger and more resistant to disease. Some would not be colour blind, or have genetic deficiencies. We need not have an appendix, nor virtually all our DNA be white noise.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2318 days ago)
"Every system in the body is completely dependent on every other system. That's why we die when one of them breaks." Which is why we're not suddenly going to evolve into a species that has no liver. However, we may slowly evolve into one where the liver has limited or no functional use. Like a tail, appendix or sense of smell.
ReplyVote up (135)down (127)
Original comment
"Every system in the body is completely dependent on every other system. That's why we die when one of them breaks." Which is why we're not suddenly going to evolve into a species that has no liver. However, we may slowly evolve into one where the liver has limited or no functional use. Like a tail, appendix or sense of smell.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Mmm (2317 days ago)
Zealot, you seriously need to get a handle on the fact that evolutionary science doesn't simply look at 'end products'. Sure, if you took my circulatory system away my brain wouldn't work, but a primitive circulatory system could exist without a brain.... then a primitive brain could evolve which was fed by this.... then the two could evolve together into (or rather as a part of) a far more complex, mutually dependent system. It is a building process. Why don't you do some proper follow-up research into the many points your many respondees are raising here, rather than just repeating the same arguments again and again? This makes it look like you've not listened to or fully understood any of the answers that people have taken the time to supply you with.
ReplyVote up (130)down (126)
Original comment
Zealot, you seriously need to get a handle on the fact that evolutionary science doesn't simply look at 'end products'. Sure, if you took my circulatory system away my brain wouldn't work, but a primitive circulatory system could exist without a brain.... then a primitive brain could evolve which was fed by this.... then the two could evolve together into (or rather as a part of) a far more complex, mutually dependent system. It is a building process. Why don't you do some proper follow-up research into the many points your many respondees are raising here, rather than just repeating the same arguments again and again? This makes it look like you've not listened to or fully understood any of the answers that people have taken the time to supply you with.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Zealot (2317 days ago)
So a circulatory system could exist without a brain? Really? Could it exist without a respiratory system? Huh. Well, that makes sense. But then, why did it evolve a brain if it didn't need one? I'm just so stupid and uneducated that I can't understand your big concepts. I am curious though: why would evolution favor making a being so complicated that if you remove even one small part of any system, the whole being dies? That seems counterproductive. Wait! There went my little brain again, trying to think. Just ignore me and I'll go away.
ReplyVote up (134)down (124)
Original comment
So a circulatory system could exist without a brain? Really? Could it exist without a respiratory system? Huh. Well, that makes sense. But then, why did it evolve a brain if it didn't need one? I'm just so stupid and uneducated that I can't understand your big concepts. I am curious though: why would evolution favor making a being so complicated that if you remove even one small part of any system, the whole being dies? That seems counterproductive. Wait! There went my little brain again, trying to think. Just ignore me and I'll go away.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Mmm Mmm (2317 days ago)
Actually, I think you are proof that a circulatory system can exist without a brain.
ReplyVote up (101)down (129)
Original comment
Actually, I think you are proof that a circulatory system can exist without a brain.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Mmm (2317 days ago)
Lastly, I was brought up to be religious and am now not, so I can honestly say I've been immersed in both 'sides' of the argument at different points in my life. Right now, yes I totally believe in evolution over creationism. This is a decision based on factors personal, emotional and logical. My mind is not closed but you will need to come up with some far, far better arguments than you are doing before it's likely to change. Best wishes.
ReplyVote up (127)down (147)
Original comment
Lastly, I was brought up to be religious and am now not, so I can honestly say I've been immersed in both 'sides' of the argument at different points in my life. Right now, yes I totally believe in evolution over creationism. This is a decision based on factors personal, emotional and logical. My mind is not closed but you will need to come up with some far, far better arguments than you are doing before it's likely to change. Best wishes.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Zealot (2318 days ago)
Mmm, Thank you for your reply. If I may, the reason I am so flippent in my responses is twofold. First, Realist chose to argue against God in his reply and I'm not here to talk about God. As I said to him, I really don't care what you believe. Secondly, and this is true nearly always, it doesn't matter how well reasoned an argument I might have or how well thought out the premise, it is assumed that I am an ignorant zealot because I question the norm. There is no fair dialogue in the scientific community in regards to evolution. Now, as to my closed-mindedness, I would beg to differ. See, I believe there are two options: we evolved or we were put here. By who or what doesn't matter. In doing my research, and I have done more than most, I have come to the conclusion that macroevolution can't work. For a number of reasons. You, on the other hand, have exactly one option which is what my original comment addressed. There is nothing but evolution, therefore it must be true. In the famous words of Sherlock Holmes, "If you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." The problem only comes in when you realize that macroevolution is also impossible. Finally, I still maintain that the chicken and the egg comparison is bad. There are four stages to the life of a butterfly: egg, larvae, pupa and adult. If evolution was possible, which it isn't, then it stands to reason that an egg would hatch a caterpillar and that would be that. Here's a perfectly good caterpillar with everything it needs to be a productive member of the animal kingdom. BUT, this caterpillar, due to some unknown natural circumstance, and over millions and millions and millions of years, managed to somehow spin itself a cocoon out of its own body, grow viable wings, and fly. So to sum up, this is like the egg hatching a chicken that then randomly covers itself in another egg and then emerges with flippers and gills. I don't know how to present its impossibility any clearer than that. Again, I appreciate your response.
ReplyVote up (107)down (123)
Original comment
Mmm, Thank you for your reply. If I may, the reason I am so flippent in my responses is twofold. First, Realist chose to argue against God in his reply and I'm not here to talk about God. As I said to him, I really don't care what you believe. Secondly, and this is true nearly always, it doesn't matter how well reasoned an argument I might have or how well thought out the premise, it is assumed that I am an ignorant zealot because I question the norm. There is no fair dialogue in the scientific community in regards to evolution. Now, as to my closed-mindedness, I would beg to differ. See, I believe there are two options: we evolved or we were put here. By who or what doesn't matter. In doing my research, and I have done more than most, I have come to the conclusion that macroevolution can't work. For a number of reasons. You, on the other hand, have exactly one option which is what my original comment addressed. There is nothing but evolution, therefore it must be true. In the famous words of Sherlock Holmes, "If you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." The problem only comes in when you realize that macroevolution is also impossible. Finally, I still maintain that the chicken and the egg comparison is bad. There are four stages to the life of a butterfly: egg, larvae, pupa and adult. If evolution was possible, which it isn't, then it stands to reason that an egg would hatch a caterpillar and that would be that. Here's a perfectly good caterpillar with everything it needs to be a productive member of the animal kingdom. BUT, this caterpillar, due to some unknown natural circumstance, and over millions and millions and millions of years, managed to somehow spin itself a cocoon out of its own body, grow viable wings, and fly. So to sum up, this is like the egg hatching a chicken that then randomly covers itself in another egg and then emerges with flippers and gills. I don't know how to present its impossibility any clearer than that. Again, I appreciate your response.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2318 days ago)
"Here's a perfectly good caterpillar with everything it needs to be a productive member of the animal kingdom. BUT, this caterpillar, due to some unknown natural circumstance, and over millions and millions and millions of years, managed to somehow spin itself a cocoon out of its own body, grow viable wings, and fly." No doubt there could have been a successful species of caterpillar that did not turn into a butterfly, but the obvious advantages that one which does have over one which doesn't adequately explains why we may be left with one that does. Simple observation of it happening proves that as a mechanism, it is successful. So the problem boils down to how such an apparently finely perfected process came about without an apparent halfway stage. But of course, in various other species there are these intermediate stages of metamorphosis as a nymph matures to adulthood. We see creatures becoming beautiful and growing arms that can glide.
ReplyVote up (110)down (110)
Original comment
"Here's a perfectly good caterpillar with everything it needs to be a productive member of the animal kingdom. BUT, this caterpillar, due to some unknown natural circumstance, and over millions and millions and millions of years, managed to somehow spin itself a cocoon out of its own body, grow viable wings, and fly." No doubt there could have been a successful species of caterpillar that did not turn into a butterfly, but the obvious advantages that one which does have over one which doesn't adequately explains why we may be left with one that does. Simple observation of it happening proves that as a mechanism, it is successful. So the problem boils down to how such an apparently finely perfected process came about without an apparent halfway stage. But of course, in various other species there are these intermediate stages of metamorphosis as a nymph matures to adulthood. We see creatures becoming beautiful and growing arms that can glide.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2318 days ago)
"The metamorphosis of a butterfly goes completely against natural selection since there is an additional step that should have been eliminated due to it's impracticality. (the incredibly long cocoon stage)" It may look impractical to you, but there is no reason that this contradicts evolution, for the simple reason that it DOES work. Caterpillars DO turn into butterflies with success.
ReplyVote up (125)down (144)
Original comment
"The metamorphosis of a butterfly goes completely against natural selection since there is an additional step that should have been eliminated due to it's impracticality. (the incredibly long cocoon stage)" It may look impractical to you, but there is no reason that this contradicts evolution, for the simple reason that it DOES work. Caterpillars DO turn into butterflies with success.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: johntorneo07 (1848 days ago)
Latest comment: Well still the we're pretty curious on how that "Transition" occurred HOW ?? WE ARE APES YES BUT how does transition occur ?? no fact to back up huh ?
ReplyVote up (101)down (103)
Original comment
Latest comment: Well still the we're pretty curious on how that "Transition" occurred HOW ?? WE ARE APES YES BUT how does transition occur ?? no fact to back up huh ?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Richard (2319 days ago)
As Dawkins has pointed out, whenever a gap in the fossil-record is filled by finding a new fossil to place in the middle, the creationists react gleefully "now there are two gaps" !
ReplyVote up (110)down (120)
Original comment
As Dawkins has pointed out, whenever a gap in the fossil-record is filled by finding a new fossil to place in the middle, the creationists react gleefully "now there are two gaps" !
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Jason (2317 days ago)
Zealot, you want evidence? Read Dawkins book ‘The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution’. You sound like a smart man, albeit somewhat close minded, and I urge you to keep an open mind and just look at the facts. I recommend this book as it does exactly what it says, provides evidence for evolution. I could waste my time preaching about why you are wrong but I prefer to give you the tools to discover it yourself.
ReplyVote up (151)down (176)
Original comment
Zealot, you want evidence? Read Dawkins book ‘The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution’. You sound like a smart man, albeit somewhat close minded, and I urge you to keep an open mind and just look at the facts. I recommend this book as it does exactly what it says, provides evidence for evolution. I could waste my time preaching about why you are wrong but I prefer to give you the tools to discover it yourself.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Zealot (2318 days ago)
Ah, Realist. You're quaint. You managed to address my comment without addressing any of the content within my comment. I'm not talking about God. I really don't give much of a crap what you believe. I'm talking about the mechanics of evolution. The hows and the whys. I could get into the incredible complexities of, say, the human digestive system or perhaps we could talk about the reproductive system. Maybe white blood cells. But instead, I'm asking you to logically think about something as simple as the butterfly. What natural forces caused the evolutionary process of the butterfly? How did it manage to develop all the necessary muscles for flight along with the wings themselves? Where are the caterpillar fossils with little non-functioning wings? You're not suggesting that the wings just appeared in one generation, are you? I don't know. Hey, you're convinced. Good for you. You have a bunch of fossils and you've made your assumptions. But perhaps, if you could step out of your box for a moment and actually think about things like probability and mechanics and causality, you might actually realize that it just doesn't work. Btw, chicken and the egg doesn't really work here... We're talking end products. You should probably work on your analogies.
ReplyVote up (94)down (102)
Original comment
Ah, Realist. You're quaint. You managed to address my comment without addressing any of the content within my comment. I'm not talking about God. I really don't give much of a crap what you believe. I'm talking about the mechanics of evolution. The hows and the whys. I could get into the incredible complexities of, say, the human digestive system or perhaps we could talk about the reproductive system. Maybe white blood cells. But instead, I'm asking you to logically think about something as simple as the butterfly. What natural forces caused the evolutionary process of the butterfly? How did it manage to develop all the necessary muscles for flight along with the wings themselves? Where are the caterpillar fossils with little non-functioning wings? You're not suggesting that the wings just appeared in one generation, are you? I don't know. Hey, you're convinced. Good for you. You have a bunch of fossils and you've made your assumptions. But perhaps, if you could step out of your box for a moment and actually think about things like probability and mechanics and causality, you might actually realize that it just doesn't work. Btw, chicken and the egg doesn't really work here... We're talking end products. You should probably work on your analogies.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
slicksps slicksps (2318 days ago)
To find a caterpillar with non functioning wings, would would have to look into the water where wingless creatures learn to propel themselves by wriggling just so, through evolution they developed fins like fish. These fins grew to enable some animals (like mudskippers) to crawl out of the water for survival, food or safer egg laying. Other swimming creatures were able to pick up enough speed to catch insects in the air as they lept from the water. Eventually these fins became legs and wings. Penguins also have non functioning wings (at least as flight wings), and as for chickens, their wings are best for the BBQ rather than flight, but boy can they use them to jump. The point of this video isn't that you'll find a transitional species between one living creature and another, it doesn't happen because one did't evolve into another. Take ape and man for instance, apes did not evolve into man. What actually happened is that at some point in history, a creature existed which due to it's wide expansion exolved into many species like baboon, man and even macaque. And to address your mention of perfect organisms with overly complex internal systems, we're far from perfect. animals are born with missing limbs, malformed skeletons and weakened flesh every day, most die, some live for short periods. Some however are born stronger and faster 'survival of the fittest begins here). We're riddled with diseases, catch colds which are proven to adapt and evolve (think MRSA, non existent 100 years ago let alone at creation) We finally have the problem of dates. So while we don't have Crocoduck fossils, there are also no human fossils from dinosaur times... if we existed since creation, why can we find nothing humanlike back then? As time progresses, we see fossils of upright, walking creatures but these are not recognisable as human... in the last few thousand years however, human remains and fossils are all over the place.
ReplyVote up (101)down (86)
Original comment
To find a caterpillar with non functioning wings, would would have to look into the water where wingless creatures learn to propel themselves by wriggling just so, through evolution they developed fins like fish. These fins grew to enable some animals (like mudskippers) to crawl out of the water for survival, food or safer egg laying. Other swimming creatures were able to pick up enough speed to catch insects in the air as they lept from the water. Eventually these fins became legs and wings. Penguins also have non functioning wings (at least as flight wings), and as for chickens, their wings are best for the BBQ rather than flight, but boy can they use them to jump. The point of this video isn't that you'll find a transitional species between one living creature and another, it doesn't happen because one did't evolve into another. Take ape and man for instance, apes did not evolve into man. What actually happened is that at some point in history, a creature existed which due to it's wide expansion exolved into many species like baboon, man and even macaque. And to address your mention of perfect organisms with overly complex internal systems, we're far from perfect. animals are born with missing limbs, malformed skeletons and weakened flesh every day, most die, some live for short periods. Some however are born stronger and faster 'survival of the fittest begins here). We're riddled with diseases, catch colds which are proven to adapt and evolve (think MRSA, non existent 100 years ago let alone at creation) We finally have the problem of dates. So while we don't have Crocoduck fossils, there are also no human fossils from dinosaur times... if we existed since creation, why can we find nothing humanlike back then? As time progresses, we see fossils of upright, walking creatures but these are not recognisable as human... in the last few thousand years however, human remains and fossils are all over the place.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Scorn (2318 days ago)
"step out of your box" which is more (in)credible, that there is a rational explanation for life, or that there is a god (gods?) ? LMAO
ReplyVote up (109)down (107)
Original comment
"step out of your box" which is more (in)credible, that there is a rational explanation for life, or that there is a god (gods?) ? LMAO
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Zealot (2318 days ago)
Interesting point. Of course, you believe that one day, long long ago, there was a big bang and everything just was. And before that, there was an itsy bitsy ball of dense mass floating in nothing that came from nowhere. Sounds logical. Wait. No... no it doesn't... But hey! According to MissAlanius, 90% of scientists believe so it must be true! I admire your faith.
ReplyVote up (95)down (124)
Original comment
Interesting point. Of course, you believe that one day, long long ago, there was a big bang and everything just was. And before that, there was an itsy bitsy ball of dense mass floating in nothing that came from nowhere. Sounds logical. Wait. No... no it doesn't... But hey! According to MissAlanius, 90% of scientists believe so it must be true! I admire your faith.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2318 days ago)
Zealot needs to stop panicking when in an argument. Re-read what MissAlanius said, and think, before repeating the "faith" rubbish. Arguing against the big bang theory because it doesn't sound "logical" (actually it is very logical, I think you mean that it is "esoteric" and "unintuitive"), does not make sense, for the simple reason that there is no possible theory of how the universe came to be that is not utterly fantastic.
ReplyVote up (105)down (142)
Original comment
Zealot needs to stop panicking when in an argument. Re-read what MissAlanius said, and think, before repeating the "faith" rubbish. Arguing against the big bang theory because it doesn't sound "logical" (actually it is very logical, I think you mean that it is "esoteric" and "unintuitive"), does not make sense, for the simple reason that there is no possible theory of how the universe came to be that is not utterly fantastic.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
AronRa in conversation with a Christian protester at an atheist convention
AronRa in conversation with a Christian protester at an atheist convention
A Conversation with AronRa - The raw, unedited interview
A Conversation with AronRa - The raw, unedited interview
Transitional forms, so where are they?
Transitional forms, so where are they?
AronRa draws Muhammad on Everybody Draw Muhammad Day
AronRa draws Muhammad on Everybody Draw Muhammad Day
AronRa - Is it rational to believe in god?
AronRa - Is it rational to believe in god?