Evolution is Wrong...interesting video

[Mike375]

Big change is accumulated though a collection of small changes. Or do you not think that collecting a dollar every day for a billion years would result in possessing a fortune?

That is totally different. You will have a billion dollars in the bank but there won't be any cars, ships, aeroplanes etc.

But can you describe how the amphibian get to an amniote?

So you think that Evolution is based on a scientific agenda of denying Creationism for political/religious reasons? That is a ludicous proposition that would require complicity of tens of thousands of scientists dedicated to finding the facts.

I did not say that. What I said was some portrayal of evolution is influence because of the religion/politics situation.

No alternative to Evolution is required because it is thoroughly demonstrated as sufficient to do the task, demonstrated to be still occurring and revealed in the fossil record and genetic patterns of all life.

There is no other plausible candidate theory with even rudimentary evidence to support it.

Spoken just like a "born again"

I did not say "an alternative to Bible, sorry evolution".

But again, explain to me the road form Amphibian to amniote and while you are hot do the Bomardier beetle for me. But none of that stuff like....then all that needs to happen next is etc.... In other words, no magic inserts

 

[Galaxiom]

My "theory" is that when the start of life is fully answered that will result in the view that there were a lot more "starting points" In other words the amphibian will not be the reptile's great great etc grandfather.

You misunderstand fundament concepts. Modern reptiles and amphibians have a common ancestor that may have been significantly different from any modern creature.

However without even considering the obvious similarities among all Chordates, let alone those between the Reptilia and Amphibia Classes of the vertebrates, there is overwhelming genetic and metabolic evidence that all multicelluar organisms decended from one line of single cellular organisms called Eucaryotes.

The taxinomical classifications of Procaryote and Eucaryotes is above the level that separates the Plant and Animal kingdoms.

If you bothered to read the literature you would see your "theory" is ridiculous.

 

[travisdh]

Ahh how i love the evolution arguments, it certianly brings about some of the most interesting debates!

The theory of evolution is quite simple, it says that an evolutionary pressure is applied to a population, and within that population there will be random mutations as is normal in any population. However over a period of time the evolutionary pressure will act to select for that 'benifitial' trait, which will result eventually in the formation of new species.

Those who do not wish to believe this theory will simply never, however the concept is quite remarkable in its simplicity, bacteria are a perfect example, anti-biotic resistance is one such example of an 'evolving' organism. However this applies across a whole range of animals.

It is also important to look at the past as well as the present, saying how did a plant get to a bird is not a valid question as the path's each went down would have been quite diverse, i.e a plant may not have gone directly to a bird, but rather a protozoa or single celled organism may have developed cell walls, thus moving towards a plant area, whilst others may have further developed into eukarotes and so on.

Glaxiom is exactally right, big change comes from the accumulation of lots of little random mutations / changes. Species A undergoes a change, which results in a sub-species, then so on, then it may result in the formation of a new species, which goes a change, and then that changes. If you look at that process over the span of hundreds of thousands, to millions of years it is not hard to see how there are similarities between species, e.g (apes, and homo sapian) but also distinct differences.

 

[travisdh]

Ahh how i love the evolution arguments, it certianly brings about some of the most interesting debates!

The theory of evolution is quite simple, it says that an evolutionary pressure is applied to a population, and within that population there will be random mutations as is normal in any population. However over a period of time the evolutionary pressure will act to select for that 'benifitial' trait, which will result eventually in the formation of new species.

Those who do not wish to believe this theory will simply never, however the concept is quite remarkable in its simplicity, bacteria are a perfect example, anti-biotic resistance is one such example of an 'evolving' organism. However this applies across a whole range of animals.

It is also important to look at the past as well as the present, saying how did a plant get to a bird is not a valid question as the path's each went down would have been quite diverse, i.e a plant may not have gone directly to a bird, but rather a protozoa or single celled organism may have developed cell walls, thus moving towards a plant area, whilst others may have further developed into eukarotes and so on.

Glaxiom is exactally right, big change comes from the accumulation of lots of little random mutations / changes. Species A undergoes a change, which results in a sub-species, then so on, then it may result in the formation of a new species, which goes a change, and then that changes. If you look at that process over the span of hundreds of thousands, to millions of years it is not hard to see how there are similarities between species, e.g (apes, and homo sapian) but also distinct differences.

Replies with "I aint related to no damn monkey! lol"

 

[Mike375]

You misunderstand fundament concepts. Modern reptiles and amphibians have a common ancestor that may have been significantly different from any modern creature.

You are basically agreeing with me, that is, the amphibian did not evolve to an amniote. However, that is what evolution likes to put forward. but because it never happened that way it means any explanation to cover how it happened looks like a pile of waffle, which it is.

 

[travisdh]

For those that are interested this is the age-of-man theory, or at least one of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Age-of-Man-wiki.jpg

 

[Mike375]

If you look at that process over the span of hundreds of thousands, to millions of years it is not hard to see how there are similarities between species, e.g (apes, and homo sapian) but also distinct differences.

But they are small time changes as compared to getting from amphibian to amniote as evolution would have us believe. In fact that is a much bigger change then a donkey evolving to a human

 

[Galaxiom]

... a plant may not have gone directly to a bird, but rather a protozoa or single celled organism may have developed cell walls, thus moving towards a plant area, whilst others may have further developed into eukarotes and so on.

Not really. The Eucaryotes evolved before the rigid cell walls found in plants. Eucaryotes are the line with mitochondria. These organelles are essentially another single cellular organism that infected a larger cell and formed an endosymbiotic relationship. Without them multicellular life was impossible because the ordinary cellular energy metabolism was far to inefficient.

... big change comes from the accumulation of lots of little random mutations / changes.

It isn't all as random as many believe. A lot is about combination of genes rather than random mutation. People are attracted to others with different immunology who consequently smell different.

 

[travisdh]

you have compleatly mis-interprated my comments, which is not a first as i tend to not explain myself very well.

Evolution functions perfectly well, it does not try and say man evolved from species A to species B, it simply says that over a period of time, there will be a range of random mutations which result in the formation of a new species, and over the period of a significant number of years, that will result in the formation of new species. This is observed based on Bacteria, as well as genetic differences between a range of different species all across the world.

Certianly my comments were perhaps to quick, but rather suited to explain a concept rather than the intergral workings of cell walls (my degree is Science) but it has been awhile since i have been required to do Biology.

I do agree that somewhat of a change of genetics is due to the attractiveness of a mate, however it is not all about the combination of genes, there will always be a certian element of mutation which results in the formation of a gene which was not present in the gene pool previously. It may be that this gene has no benefit and becomes dormant, or results in the negative selection of the carrier of that gene. However immunology only plays a small part, look at Bacteria as the perfect example. The resistance to anti-biotics was not nessessarly there in the first place, and it is clear that not all bacteria are resistant. However random mutations, which result in the resistance to a certian anti-biotic allow for the positive selection when treated with Anti-Biotics. Perfect example (MRSA (Mysnomer that it is Multiple Resistant Staph Aureus) its actually Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus is the perfect example of the positive selection of a resistant bacteria which follows an evoloutionary selection process.

 

[travisdh]

But they are small time changes as compared to getting from amphibian to amniote as evolution would have us believe. In fact that is a much bigger change then a donkey evolving to a human

small time changes add up, look at each time you eat junk food, your stomach gets slowly bigger and bigger, which might not be noticable at the time, but in the span of 50 - 60 years, it becomes very noticable. (pending exercise etc) its a bad analogy but the same with evoloution, given a much bigger timeframe.

and Donkey to human is not a direct link , Human to Ass might be lol.

 

[Mike375]

small time changes add up, look at each time you eat junk food, your stomach gets slowly bigger and bigger, which might not be noticable at the time, but in the span of 50 - 60 years, it becomes very noticable. (pending exercise etc) its a bad analogy but the same with evoloution, given a much bigger timeframe.

It's a bad analogy in the sense it does not cover the big changes. The real "problems areas" are where you have a big change and the animal would be a big stuff up while that change was happening and hence fossil records don't show and never will show the half dog and half lizard. As you would know there are several fossils that indicate a feathered dinosaur but they are complete animals.

Going from blind to a complex eye is easy enough.

With your "gettting fat" example if there were social changes whereby over weight was desirable then the over weight would be the common version of our species but there has been no real change. Peppered moth stuff.

 

[travisdh]

Modern HealthCare throws a spanner in the works of Evolution, Evolution is quite a lot about environmental pressure which allows the development of a trait or characteristic which is of benefit, in the same way it also allows for the removal of genes which do not serve any benefit, by the survival of the fittest system.

Hundreds of thousands of years ago, the getting fat comment would have possibly been a negative selection pressure. I.e. not being able to get away from predators and being eaten. However with modern health-care, the negative pressure is minimized, and as a result the gene can be passed across to future generations, allowing over a longer period of time potential evolution to a larger race, mating is also important however, so if the people who are larger are not attractive to the whole population, then that trait would eventually die out, as no reproduction would allow the trait to be passed on.

 

[Galaxiom]

You are basically agreeing with me, that is, the amphibian did not evolve to an amniote. However, that is what evolution likes to put forward. but because it never happened that way it means any explanation to cover how it happened looks like a pile of waffle, which it is.

Rubbish. Evolution does not propose this at all. You continually misconstrue the precepts of Evolution such that you can deny them as the basis of your rejection of the theory.

Modern reptiles and amphibians are decended from a common ancestor. That common ancestor was certainly a tetrapod whose decendents diversified into at least two different lines that independently went on to become modern amphibians and modern reptiles.

The ancestors of the reptile would have gone through an "amphibious" phase where it underwent the many small changes necessary for it to live and reproduce independently of the water including internal fertilization and the amniote egg.

There were many lines of reptile-like amphibious tetrapods but due due to the features of the egg being unlikely to fossilise it is impossible to determine the sequence of the transition from the fossils of the animals.

The amniote egg is defined by several extra layers of membranes. The development of extra membranes, probably one at a time, is hardly an insurmountable challenge to Evolution but rather lends support for the concept. Each new membrane would increased the time the embroyo could stay in the egg and/or decrease the dependence on water allowing the animal to move further from the aquatic environment and progress steadily toward the embryonic stage being entirely in the egg.

I don't see why you consdier this such a hurdle as it would be one of the easiest to explain as a product of adaptation.

 

[Galaxiom]

The real "problems areas" are where you have a big change and the animal would be a big stuff up while that change was happening and hence fossil records don't show and never will show the half dog and half lizard. As you would know there are several fossils that indicate a feathered dinosaur but they are complete animals.

These areas are an illusion projected by your intransigence. There were no big changes. Any organism that made a big change didn't reproduce.

Dogs and lizards decended from two separate lines of Amniotes. Synapsids are the ancestors of mammals while Saurospids were the ancestors of lizards.

As for the half dog half lizard:

Cynognathus ("dog jaw")

 

[Mike375]

Rubbish. Evolution does not propose this at all. You continually misconstrue the precepts of Evolution such that you can deny them as the basis of your rejection of the theory.

Your church and fellow atheists would disagree. Perhaps you are not a "born again" atheist.

Modern reptiles and amphibians are decended from a common ancestor. That common ancestor was certainly a tetrapod whose decendents diversified into at least two different lines that independently went on to become modern amphibians and modern reptiles.

The evolution story softens.

But it would be interesting to see how the tetrapod got to eggs etc and etc. and amphibian.

Amniote

I don't see why you consdier this such a hurdle as it would be one of the easiest to explain as a product of adaptation.

Well you don't even think it happened. Well actually you think it happened the other way.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Sometime ago you said you were an amateur theoretical physicist but you you were stuck with Access. I would reckon that with Access you would need an employer.

On evolution you have no idea. You physics is probaly the same which is why you are stuck as an amateur. You let personal prejudice frame your views.

 

[Galaxiom]

But they are small time changes as compared to getting from amphibian to amniote as evolution would have us believe. In fact that is a much bigger change then a donkey evolving to a human

Utter bullshit.

Once again you have this idiotic concept of some modern species evolving into another.

Our last common ancestor with donkeys is at least 85 million years ago. Indeed it would be hard to find a placental mammal we are less related to. We are far more closely related to rats.

We belong to Euarchontoglires while donkeys are Luarasiathernia

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

That is totally different. You will have a billion dollars in the bank but there won't be any cars, ships, aeroplanes etc.

A dollar a day for a billion years - doesn't leave you with a billion pounds or dollars in the bank does it.

Or maybe its does, the way the banking system is now - as the bank makes off with the other 364 billion itself.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

Utter bullshit.

Language please - there are more than just Aussies on these boards, so try and raise your standards to at least the international norm. Ta

 

[Mike375]

Utter bullshit.

Once again you have this idiotic concept of some modern species evolving into another.

Please show where I posted that opinion.

You are a "born again" atheist.

Please show where I posted anything to to create your posting of "Once again you have this idiotic concept of some modern species evolving into another"

You are dumber than a box of rocks.

 

[Mike375]

A dollar a day for a billion years - doesn't leave you with a billion pounds or dollars in the bank does it.

Or maybe its does, the way the banking system is now - as the bank makes off with the other 364 billion itself.

But I am counting on the evolution miracle.