[Oswy]

(Original post by shahidredhot)
Firstly, your an idiot, your disciples on this website are also idiots and your hero charles darwin was the biggest idiot of all.

Secondly you haven't explained to me the "evolution" of the amoeba. Have you not read my previous comments? Charles Darwin hoped the first cell came as result of some random bull-shiite happening in a "warm little pond".

Thirdly non of these explanations clearly state how animals can just suddenly emerge.

The melanic and peppered moth explanation of natural selection is in itself flawed because it's far more complex than first thought. On the looks of it evolution seems a reasonable theory but once you start delving deep into the fossil record you realise how many holes there are.

My explanation in a nut shell is that an intelligent creator must have created us. The signs are all around us. Evolution aside look at the earth itself, could it really be the result of chance?

Regards to the retroviruses, I don't know what they are exactly so i'll do some research.

The day the THEORY OF EVOLUTION becomes FACT OF EVOLUTION, I'll give up my faith. That day will never come. If it makes you feel good that we evolved from monkeys and everything in the world is a result of chance then so be it.

Hmm, you come across as very defensive here. Obviously if you are hostile to the idea of evolution from the very start (as you seem to be) you're not easily placed to consider the issue in a very detached way. If you gave the impression that you'd read any of the serious literature you'd be more convincing, but you instead give the impression that you've never picked up any serious book aiming to explain and defend the evolutionary explanation of life.

As an aside, I've witnessed plenty of people travel from creationism to evolution without necessarily losing their faith - they've simply dropped a narrowly literalist approach to the Bible.

[Darkened Angel]

(Original post by shahidredhot)
The day the THEORY OF EVOLUTION becomes FACT OF EVOLUTION, I'll give up my faith. That day will never come. If it makes you feel good that we evolved from monkeys and everything in the world is a result of chance then so be it.

Why do you need to give up your faith? I know plenty of muslims who believe in evolution and state that it does not contradict the Quran.

That aside, why does your faith dictate what scientific facts you can believe in? If the Quran is wrong about something than it is wrong, no amount of denial is going to change that.

[Toiletpaper8]

*face to palm*

[Toiletpaper8]

Oh and the theory of evolution is fact... You don't seem to understand "scientific theories".

Darwin and Wallace weren't 100% correct either, but they broke away from the before perceived illusion of design.

It's just religious fundamentalists like yourself that make me despair....

(EDIT: Please do some research, in an open minded way, before coming up with lame examples which don't hold any water)

[grammar_king]

(Original post by shahidredhot)
It's a physical impossibility for species to evolve rapidly and slowly at the same time. It would take a spectacular sequence of random gene mutations for so many species to evolve in such a small space of time. Furthermore you find me a half reptile/half bird fossil I will become an atheist, right here, right now. If you can ever prove the connection between homosapiens and homoerectus I will believe in this theory. Gene mutations are almost always harmful and it seems to me as if were devolving instead of evolving.

Why the hell has noone done this yet? Archaeopteryx. Convert away.

Oh and gene mutations are almost always neutral, actually.

[Darkened Angel]

(Original post by grammar_king)
Why the hell has noone done this yet? Archaeopteryx. Convert away.

Oh and gene mutations are almost always neutral, actually.

According to some study gene mutations are usually 70% harmful which makes sense considering DNA is complex, random changes in our DNA would usually be quite harmful. Shahid's post about this is ridiculous though, natural selection does not favour harmful changes in our DNA. It is the advantageous ones that get passed on.

Great link though, I forgot about that animal.

[grammar_king]

(Original post by Darkened Angel)
According to some study gene mutations are usually 70% harmful which makes sense considering DNA is complex, random changes in our DNA would usually be quite harmful. Shahid's post about this is ridiculous though, natural selection does not favour harmful changes in our DNA. It is the advantageous ones that get passed on.

Great link though, I forgot about that animal.

Hmm... I could've sworn I saw some reasearch showing mutations to be mostly neutral. I'll look it up.

Yeah, here: near the bottom, under Discussions, deleterious mutation rate. Works it out at 3 deleterious mutations in 175 per generation (in humans). Of course it's not at all relevant anyway but I thought it was worth pointing out.

And I've used Archaopteryx as a standard response to "but there are no transitional forms!" (well, another standard response, the other one being 'ALL fossils are transitional fossils, dumbass') for ages now. Tiktaalik is another good one.

[Darkened Angel]

(Original post by grammar_king)
Hmm... I could've sworn I saw some reasearch showing mutations to be mostly neutral. I'll look it up.

Well from what I have read, the term 'neutral' is subjective to opinion. So all research will be biased due to the fact that they cannot agree on what neutral means.

Yeah, here: near the bottom, under Discussions, deleterious mutation rate. Works it out at 3 deleterious mutations in 175 per generation (in humans). Of course it's not at all relevant anyway but I thought it was worth pointing out.

That's quite interesting, it's also really low compared to what I would've expected.

EDIT: Actually it makes sense thinking about it.

And I've used Archaopteryx as a standard response to "but there are no transitional forms!" (well, another standard response, the other one being 'ALL fossils are transitional fossils, dumbass') for ages now. Tiktaalik is another good one.

It just shows a lack of knowledge tbh, they should ask for evidence of a species between two distinct species, it would make slightly more sense.

Another example is the platypus. God sure loves his humour.

[Pocket Calculator]

(Original post by shahidredhot)
The bottom line is your own fossil record shows species suddenly emerging. You can't explain that with evolution.

does it?

Secondly that statement from Fred Hoyle kind of sums up how the first cell came into existence. By blind chance. The first ever cell coming to existence from the materials of the earth is about as absurd as a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a boeing 747 from the materials therein. It really is illogical, absurd and ridicolous.

which is a (albeit rather ignorant) jab at abiogenesis, and has as much to do with evolution as plate tectonics does.

Jesus once said, "know the truth and the truth shall set you free"

what's this got to do with religion.

[ningasheep12345]

Okay, it is obvious that you are sincere in your disbelief of evolution, so there is too much to explain for you to understand what the theory means. Plus, you need to understand what the word "theory" means. The theory of gravity is a "theory", with no more or less evidence than evolution.

(Original post by shahidredhot)
Scientists have actually tested the warm little pond hypothesis, but to no avail.

I'm afraid this is not true. The experiment has been done, and scientists have created protein chains.

Atheists believe that the universe was created by blind chance. The planets, their orbits, the suns all created by blind chance. Then somehow coincedentally the earth came into existence and then by blind chance the perfect balance in the world was created equipped with fully functioning species. What are the chances?

Can you do a little thought experiment for me. Imagine you have a trillion smarties, and I ask you to choose one. Now tell me what were the chances of you choosing THAT smartie? A trillion to one, almot impossible and yet you did, that is the equivalent to what you are saying. How the hell do you know that a trillion universes failed to arise before ours?

You must realise that scientists are now able to witness evolution. We can see bacteria evolving over time due to their fast reproductive rate.

You have to approach this with an open mind, because as we stand you don't understand evolution and thus you cannot yet accept it.

[Darkened Angel]

(Original post by ningasheep12345)
You must realise that scientists are now able to witness evolution. We can see bacteria evolving over time due to their fast reproductive rate.

Just to add to that - we've also witnessed new species emerging.

[Charzhino]

Damn I had a New Scientist magazine a while ago which talked about a experiment scientists did on some lizards in 2 islands and they basically saw speciation occuring over a weeks time. If only I could find that article..

[Darkened Angel]

Google speciation or something, it will show loads of results.

[ningasheep12345]

(Original post by shahidredhot)
...

May I also ask how you would account for the variation we see in dogs? Selective breeding has meant that we are actually able to simulate evolution to get different breeds of dog. This is artificial selection.

[BJack]

(Original post by ningasheep12345)
We can see bacteria evolving over time due to their fast reproductive rate.

Don't forget the extensive work undertaken by Richard Lenski.

[shahidredhot]

First of all can I just say there are so many of you intelligent people on this thread. Not one has come up with a reasonable explanation to how species can just suddenly appear.

If a probability of an event occuring is 1 X 10-50, it is deemed as impossible. The mathematical probability is so low that it is considered IMPOSSIBLE. So I come to the question, if 1 X 10-50 is considered as impossible then what are the chances of our very existence? 70% chance of a beneficial mutation, are you having a laugh? What are the chances that the earth was the exact distance away from the sun to sustain life. What are the chances that the moon was the correct distance for it to cause tides? Is it so hard to believe we could have been created by an intelligent designer.

When we look at the scientific data of molecular biology we begin to understand just how complex a cell is. How probable is it that the millions of proteins inside a cell, the cytoplasm, the rough endoplasmic reticulum, the RNA, the ribosomes, the plasma membrane all somehow evolved as a result of random gene mutations. The cell is a chemical factory, literally. So the evolutionist view on the emergence of living beings has zero probability of being true. When you look at the cell there is almost a loud, piercing cry of "design".

The only reason evolution is alive is not because of its scientific worth but I believe because its a bloody ideological obligation. It gives us a reason not to believe in God. It gives us a great reason not to believe in rules and regulations that are set by religion. I just dont understand the materialistic philosophy. If you want to believe in a theory invented by an amateur english naturalist, if you believe in coincedence and blind chance, then EVOLUTION is 4 u ! Read the chapter, "difficulties in the theory" of charles darwins book on evolution and you begin to realise that these flaws have not been answered and they will never be answered.

As far as genetics is concerned, has anyone known of a gene mutation that was beneficial to us? Mutations in our DNA cause cancer, cause disease. Thats why i say we seem to be degenerating and not evolving.

Beneficial and genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would not be a random change in the framework of the building which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.

German physician Max Planck once said: "Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with

[BJack]

(Original post by shahidredhot)
First of all can I just say there are so many of you intelligent people on this thread. Not one has come up with a reasonable explanation to how species can just suddenly appear.

Because it doesn't happen. Rapidly =/= suddenly. Please use appropriate terminology if you want an appropriate answer.

If a probability of an event occuring is 1 X 10-50, it is deemed as impossible.

No. An event is deemed impossible if the probability of it occurring is 0. 10^(-50) =/= 0.

When you look at the cell there is almost a loud, piercing cry of "design".

Almost, but not quite. The scream is in fact, "lack of design".

If you want to believe in a theory invented by an amateur english naturalist, if you believe in coincedence and blind chance, then EVOLUTION is 4 u !

And if you want to believe in a theory invented by an amateur ancient Middle-Eastern hack, then Abrahamic religions are for you.

As far as genetics is concerned, has anyone known of a gene mutation that was beneficial to us?

You're joking, aren't you? If it wasn't for gene mutations, we wouldn't exist.

[shahidredhot]

You have a sense of humour I'll give you that Bjack. Intelligence seems to be lacking though. Darwin was a racist, the book he released after the origin of species, showed how he thought certain races were superior. White/black/brown or yellow, everyone is equal in the sight of God. I predict in 500 years time people will laugh at the idea of evolution, people from the future will see it as a joke that we could evolve from apes, just as we laugh at the idea of ancient scientists thinking the earth was flat.

[BJack]

(Original post by shahidredhot)
Darwin was a racist, the book he released after the origin of species, showed how he thought certain races were superior.

Do you have any quotes to back up that assertion?

[Stony Steve Lemon]

(Original post by shahidredhot)
You have a sense of humour I'll give you that Bjack. Intelligence seems to be lacking though. Darwin was a racist, the book he released after the origin of species, showed how he thought certain races were superior.

(Original post by BJack)
Do you have any quotes to back up that assertion?

He probably does. Darwin was a racist, and also a sexist.

And you know what? So was pretty much everyone at that time.

Plus the fact that he was a racist doesn't mean a damn thing when dealing with the validity of evolution. But I doubt our dear friend there will be able to grasp that.