One of many problems with Evolution

[ooge]

Maybe someone can explain this to me,How does a flu that only effects birds at some point starts effecting humans.How does that happen?

[DoomYoshi]

Evolution.

[universalchiro]

Maybe someone can explain this to me,How does a flu that only effects birds at some point starts effecting humans.How does that happen?

Influenza is from a virus that has adapted. Adaptation/speciation. Look at the Wikipedia experiment of bacteria, the end result is that the bacteria are still bacteria, though external stimulus has adaptable changes, yet they remain 100% bacteria. There is never a change of kind, that's where science ends and leaps of faith is required that after 100s of millions of yrs leads to changes of kinds.
Your answer you seek is Adaptation/Speciation.

[GoranZ]

GoranZ, you went personal. That doesn't bode well for you.

nope... evolution always fixes the problems(if you are too big and asteroid strikes you will vanish, if you are not smart enough and ice age comes you will also die out). And sometimes is quite brutal...
So dont get offended from the messenger... change while there is still time or perish(if not you your children or grandchildren).

U still think that there is a problem with the evolution?

[universalchiro]

There is a requirement of trillions of genetic random unguided mutations (evolutionary process) that has allegedly increased the information in the genome in evolution. Yet this is not observable. Not even the top evolutionist has observable evidence and nor do you. So stop pretending your faith in evolution is fact, stop deluding yourself.

Goran, your post is steeped in assumptions and grammatical errors. You assume you are 100% correct, yet Richards Dawkins even uses terms synonymous with belief. If evolutionist are honest with themselves and you really seek truth, then watch the video and ponder this:
There are allegedly trillions upon trillions of random, unguided mutations that have increased genetic information, yet this is not observable, nor testable and defies computational odds. Analogous to monkeys randomly banging on keyboard to modify a software program and given enough chances and enough time, not only was the monkey successful to write a program, but trillions of complex functioning programs.

That is the blind faith of evolution.

[Metsfanmax]

There are allegedly trillions upon trillions of random, unguided mutations that have increased genetic information,

You haven't yet explained what genetic "information" is, nor what it means for a mutation to "increase" genetic information.

[universalchiro]

There are allegedly trillions upon trillions of random, unguided mutations that have increased genetic information,

You haven't yet explained what genetic "information" is, nor what it means for a mutation to "increase" genetic information.

Do you know why Richard Dawkins didn't ask the same question you & crispy ask when he was asked the same question? Because its self explanatory. Its incredulous you want definitions for simple words.

[Metsfanmax]

Probably for the reason that you just proved. If you're going to ask a question, you should understand what it is you are actually asking. Dawkins probably rightly guessed that the person asking did not have a precise understanding of "information in a genome" and was asking a leading question rather than something meaningful. The question you are asking is literally meaningless if you do not even understand what you mean when you say information, so answering it is just a bad idea.

This is not just a trivial question, although it's telling that you would rather describe my question as "incredulous" rather than just answering the question. I am a physicist, and we have very precise definitions for information, for example in statistical mechanics. There's even a whole field of information theory. So I think it's rather fair to ask what you mean when you say "information."

[GoranZ]

There is a requirement of trillions of genetic random unguided mutations (evolutionary process) that has allegedly increased the information in the genome in evolution. Yet this is not observable. Not even the top evolutionist has observable evidence and nor do you. So stop pretending your faith in evolution is fact, stop deluding yourself.

Goran, your post is steeped in assumptions and grammatical errors. You assume you are 100% correct, yet Richards Dawkins even uses terms synonymous with belief. If evolutionist are honest with themselves and you really seek truth, then watch the video and ponder this:
There are allegedly trillions upon trillions of random, unguided mutations that have increased genetic information, yet this is not observable, nor testable and defies computational odds. Analogous to monkeys randomly banging on keyboard to modify a software program and given enough chances and enough time, not only was the monkey successful to write a program, but trillions of complex functioning programs.

That is the blind faith of evolution.

Richards Dawkins is a scientist... as any other scientist. Its ok if he doesn't know something, science never does know everything, that's why its called science. Scientists are discoverers, they never know all the answers, and sometimes things they figure out turns out tho be only special case of something even bigger(Newtons laws of gravity for example)...
And I dont assume that I'm 100% correct, but I'm close enough. English is not my native language so that is the origin of the grammatical errors
Bones from billions dead Dinosaurs are evidence of the evolution and reminder for everyone like you how you could end if you dont adapt according to the laws of the evolution. This is not personal, nor its a threat from me to you... its only a portrait of what evolution does.
So you want to end up like the dinosaurs or you will change your mind while there is still time?

[Serbia]

Without getting too terribly deep into this whole debate, there is one concern I have with evolution, and that is the complete absence of transitional fossils. There are plenty of fossils of whales, and fossils of cows, but there are no fossils showing half a cow, half a whale. Can this be explained? If it took millions, or even thousands, of years to complete the change, shouldn't there be evidence by way of fossils?

That's as deeply involved into this debate as I'll get. I know the Christian perspective on this question, I'm interested in the secular response.

Bollocks.

[notyou2]

The biggest problem with evolution are the misguided moronic deluded naysayers that are being fed lies and half truths by beguilers taking their money through books, church, etc.

Too bad natural selection wouldn't weed these idiots out of the gene pool. Instead they breed like fleas and result in a blight on society.

ok, pick a mammal we evolved from... most say apes. Ok why are there no apes evolving today? Why do we not see ANY evidence that one animal species evolves into a new, totally different animal species? Did nature just STOP the evolution process one day? What is funny is that many evolutionist deny the existence of God because they "can't see Him", yet wholeheartedly accept evolution which they also "have not seen".

You want a response?

They ARE evolving, continuously, but many of the changes are minute and difficult to see. Albino-ism for example. In a cold environment that is an advantage. In a warm environment it isn't.

[hotfire]

Darwin's main points in natural selection:
1. In any group of organisms, more offspring are produced than can survive to reproductive age.
2. Random variations occur in all organisms. Some of these traits are inheritable- that is they can be passed on to offspring.
3. Some inheritable traits make an organism better suited to its environment (most do not).
4. Because bearers of favorable traits are more likely to survive, they are also more likely to reproduce successfully than bearers of unfavorable traits. Favorable traits tend to accumulate in the population- they are selected. Unfavorable traits are weeded out be competition.
5. The physical and biological (natural) environment itself does the selection. Favorable traits that contribute to the organism's success show up more often in succeeding generations (if the environment stays the same). If the environment changes, other traits become favorable, and the organisms with those traits live most effectively in the new environment.


An organism is a vessel holding a particular combination of traits, testing that combination. If the organism is successful, it will reproduce, and the genes responsible for its good traits will continue in the population. If the organism is not successful, that combination will be eliminated. Most mutations are unfavorable; and the organisms that possess them are eliminated by other organisms or by the physical environment.

[Metsfanmax]

Without getting too terribly deep into this whole debate, there is one concern I have with evolution, and that is the complete absence of transitional fossils. There are plenty of fossils of whales, and fossils of cows, but there are no fossils showing half a cow, half a whale. Can this be explained? If it took millions, or even thousands, of years to complete the change, shouldn't there be evidence by way of fossils?

The concept of "transitional fossils" is itself a fallacy, at least in the way you are thinking about it here. It is fallacious in the sense that no modern animal evolved from any other modern animal; they both evolved from a common ancestor. There never needed to be any "half-cow, half-whale" animal. Instead, there was some animal a long time ago that possibly shared some characteristics of both, and some of its offspring eventually evolved into whales, and cows, and other animals such as hippos. The "complete absence"* of these types of transitional fossils is completely compatible with a proper understanding of evolution, because there's no reason a "cow-whale" ever needs to have existed.

*That being said, there are many, many examples of transitional fossils between modern animals and their ancestors, such as "Lucy."

[universalchiro]

And there is the proof of evolutionary faith based doctrine. Metsfan so eloquently professed his faith in what possible happened. No one was there & this has never been duplicated, hence failing the scientific method. And his evidence to support his belief: Lucy. Lucy has been discovered as falsified evidence of combining two dig sights a mile apart.

This gift of metsfan personifies and codifies just one of the problems with evolution.

[notyou2]

And there is the proof of evolutionary faith based doctrine. Metsfan so eloquently professed his faith in what possible happened. No one was there & this has never been duplicated, hence failing the scientific method. And his evidence to support his belief: Lucy. Lucy has been discovered as falsified evidence of combining two dig sights a mile apart.

This gift of metsfan personifies and codifies just one of the problems with evolution.

Show me PROOF of gravity

Show me how a magnet works

Prove there is oxygen in air

Prove to me you are alive

[notyou2]

Prove that a chiropractor is a doctor.

[Frigidus]

Virtually everything is a faith based assumption. For all we know our senses are broadcasting a false reality to us. That does not make every given idea about how the world works equally viable.

[Metsfanmax]

And there is the proof of evolutionary faith based doctrine. Metsfan so eloquently professed his faith in what possible happened.

No, I said that is what happened. I used the word "possibly" not in the sense that this is what "possibly" happened, but rather that the common ancestor of cows and whales "possibly" shared some of the recognizable characteristics of either of them. Regardless of whether that is the case, that common ancestor did exist. I am as certain of that as I am that if I jump up, I'll fall back down.

Now, please answer the question about the meaning of information, or else this thread is worthless.

[denominator]

Lucy has been discovered as falsified evidence of combining two dig sights a mile apart.

Uhm, what?

[universalchiro]

Virtually everything is a faith based assumption. For all we know our senses are broadcasting a false reality to us. That does not make every given idea about how the world works equally viable.

I hear you, but just a quick glance through some evolutionist posts and one sees ample statements that evolution is fact and no evidence is brought forward. The sages in this forum consistently purport that evolution is fact and they resort to insults to prove their point. Its like the evolution of the quality of debate is just past primal feces slinging and not quit high school level.

[notyou2]

You are not above shit flinging. I find what you are saying to be offensive to my intellect.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

*yawn*... yet another thread where universalchiro and his ilk misrepresent, misuse, and misunderstand pretty much all the basics of biology. If you're wondering why some flat out mock you, it's because these arguments have been repeated a thousand times, and you take the salient arguments of evolution, completely and deliberately misunderstand them, and congratulate yourselves for your great, "logically" won arguments (btw a great exercise in self-delusion).

So, I can either a) counter your arguments with the theories and evidence of the past 150 years of evolutionary science, which you have and will continue to ignore/subvert, or b) poke fun at you. One of these things takes less time than the other.

btw comparing the mutations of organic cells with computer codes does not support your argument. Sorry. The binary expression of computer codes (which honestly I know very little of) is not much like the expression of proteins (of which I know more of).

-TG

[notyou2]

*yawn*... yet another thread where universalchiro and his ilk misrepresent, misuse, and misunderstand pretty much all the basics of biology. If you're wondering why some flat out mock you, it's because these arguments have been repeated a thousand times, and you take the salient arguments of evolution, completely and deliberately misunderstand them, and congratulate yourselves for your great, "logically" won arguments (btw a great exercise in self-delusion).

So, I can either a) counter your arguments with the theories and evidence of the past 150 years of evolutionary science, which you have and will continue to ignore/subvert, or b) poke fun at you. One of these things takes less time than the other.

btw comparing the mutations of organic cells with computer codes does not support your argument. Sorry. The binary expression of computer codes (which honestly I know very little of) is not much like the expression of proteins (of which I know more of).

-TG

Well said TG

[betiko]

Argument won. Mod close the thread quickly please!

[Metsfanmax]

Virtually everything is a faith based assumption. For all we know our senses are broadcasting a false reality to us. That does not make every given idea about how the world works equally viable.

I hear you, but just a quick glance through some evolutionist posts and one sees ample statements that evolution is fact and no evidence is brought forward. The sages in this forum consistently purport that evolution is fact and they resort to insults to prove their point. Its like the evolution of the quality of debate is just past primal feces slinging and not quit high school level.

There is no debate to be had about the existence of evolution. It is true. It is scientific fact. Therefore any time you try to debate about it, of course you will get nothing more than insults, if you get anything at all.

If you honestly wanted to have a conversation about evolution, or try to understand evolutionary theory, you might get some real discussion happening. But you don't, as evidenced by the title of this thread (and as evidenced by the fact that you still have not deigned to explain your original question).