Evolution is stupid

[BigChrisfilm]

GOOD GRIEF WILL SOMEONE GIVE ME SOME PROOF OF EVOLUTION BEFORE I PUNCH MYSELF SQUARE IN THE FACE! LOL.

[Wyvern]

Micro Evolution takes place. There is no evidence that we came from a rock. There is no evidence for the evolution of animals to humans. That is what I am talking about, and you know it. You are trying to hide behind the term. I agree, Evolution happens. BUT, it isn't the stupid kind of evolution that people believe in.

When you talk about origins and rocks you are actually speaking about abiogenesis and not evolution at all, evolution does not deal with origins on any level. You simply said evolution originally which is a very broad field. I try to not make assumptions, it just gets you in trouble and at the worst all it does is make me look stupid, which I don't mind all that much.

Finally, you get to the point of your thread. To go further you have to define the difference between humans and animals. As far as I am concerned humans ARE animals, smart animals to be sure but animals all the same.

[popgenetics]

Micro Evolution takes place. There is no evidence that we came from a rock. There is no evidence for the evolution of animals to humans. That is what I am talking about, and you know it. You are trying to hide behind the term. I agree, Evolution happens. BUT, it isn't the stupid kind of evolution that people believe in.[/quote]


When you say there is no evidence for evolution of animals to humans you ignore the absolutely voluminous literature that says otherwise. This is a common statement from those who have been spending much time reading literature or perusing websites of the Institute of Creation Research and Answers in Genesis. For the uninitiated these sites seem to be wonderful, but if an individual checks out the citations of evolutionists and the statements made about evolution one quickly learns that the individuals connected with these sites are not on the level. For instance, they make incorrect statements about evolution, such as there is no evidence for the evolution of animals to humans. Plus, they miscite evolutionists sources. The thing is, people do not have to take my word for it. They only need to do the research and check the sources and claims of Young-Earth Creationists. Those who have done so know what I am talking about. As a fellow Christian this is what really bothers me about such supposedly Christian organizations. They seem to be baring false-witness and deceiving their fellow Christians.

Now, as for your statement that there is no evidence for the evolution of animals to humans I want to appeal to an area of scientific inquiry that I am most familiar with, paleoanthropology. During my time as a grad-student in Biological anthropology I took classes in this field as well as being comprehensively tested in it. Let me tell you that the area of human evolution is one of the best examples of the evolutionary transition of animal to human (humans, in a biological sense, are animals). To start with there are hominid fossils that show many ape traits, some that are literally intermediate between ape and human, and some that are totally human. As the transition continues to anatomically modern humans the ape traits and intermediate traits become less and less common and the human traits become more and more common. This can be seen in the gracile Australopithecines, the habilines, erectines, and Neandertals, contrary to the statements of young-earth creationists.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Is everyone too lazy to fulfil his request?


Granted, evolution is a vast subject; the evidence and principles of which must be relegated to many volumes of books in order to be given justice. However, since no one has that kind of time, and BigChrisFilm appears to be much too apathetic in order to actually read up on the subject himself, I will improvise.

Here are a few examples of mine from another thread. They demonstrate plain observable evolution in action:

- Microbial diseases. Viruses that we once were able to defeat with certain remedies have managed to adapt to these treatments, forcing us to concoct new formulas. Penecillin, once completely effective, is now useless in most situations. Scientists examining these microbes have sufficiently concluded that their anatomies are quite different. Viruses that could once only infect birds are now jumping over to humans. How does this happen, except through evolution? Did God suddenly create new versions of the disease to foil our medicines? Or could such microbes have evolved in order to better access their prey?

- Biologists are good people to talk to about evolution. They use it every day in the field of genetic engineering, where certain species are forcibly modified for industrial use. By natural selection, engineers add and abolish traits of certain natural products (food, livestock, ect) for better cost efficiency. If you are like 99% of Americans, you probably eat food that has been generically engineered every day of your waking life. How is it that you can grow vegetables in your garden that, curiously, do not exist in the wild? If species are immutable as Creationists claim, how is it that genetic engineering is even viable?

- Through selective breeding, people have been able to modify pets (such as dogs) for individual purposes. A few hundred years ago there was no such thing as a "miniature poodle", or a "black labrador", or a "Bulldog". How is it that we are able to accomplish this if all species are supposed to have remained immutable since creation?

- Since the industrial revolution and the development of pesticides/herbicides, insects and weeds have regularly aquired resistance to our poisons over time, forcing us to invent entirely new killing concoctions. DDT, invented in 1939, was an effective killer of pests. By 1950, common houseflys could bath in puddles of it and remain unharmed. Obviously the flys had to have changed, right? We know the poison didn't.

Give me a viable proof(i.e A study) and maybe then your point will hold some water

You seem to doubt that there is any conclusive evolutionary study that we can cite. What do you think scientists have been doing for the past 150 years?

Most people believe that evolution is far too slow and complex to be replicated in a lab. No so. Many scientists have taken the time to personally observe evolution in action. Here are a couple of my favorite studies:

(1) Richard E. Lenski and colleages at Michigan State University recently tracked 20,000 generations of a certain bacterium. A slow, almost unnoticable evolutionary change through the generations was noted.

(2) Speciation events (where lineage splits into two seperate species), has also been observed in the scientific community. William R. Rice and George W. Salt achieved astounding results in an experiment involving fruit flys. Conducted over many years, they noted that same species of fruit fly placed in different environments began to alter accordingly. When the two different species were brought together, they were so different that they were unable to mate. Salt and Rice succeeded in creating an entirely new species of fruit fly via natural selection.

Evolution in the larger scope is well proven as well. Vast archeological records demonstrate various changes in animals over time. Our ape-like ancestors have been genetically tracked to modern humans. Carbon-14 dating (along with other methods) gives us a surprisingly accurate idea of the fossil's ages (which happens to be considerably more than 6,000 years, giving large scale evolution ample time to occur). Sediment is deposited in direct correlation to time, lending our geological time-scale further creedence.

No one here is quite up to the task of feeding you all the relevant information. I encourage you to explore Micatala's site for further details.

[popgenetics]

Evolution in the larger scope is well proven as well. Vast archeological records demonstrate various changes in animals over time. Our ape-like ancestors have been genetically tracked to modern humans. Carbon-14 dating (along with other methods) gives us a surprisingly accurate idea of the fossil's ages (which happens to be considerably more than 6,000 years, giving large scale evolution ample time to occur). Sediment is deposited in direct correlation to time, lending our geological time-scale further creedence.

Carbon-14 dating cannot be used to date fossils because it cannot date objects older than 30-40,000 years. Then other methods are used. One method that has been used quite often to date hominid fossils found in East Africa is potassium-argon, however, only the layers above and below the strata where the fossil was found are dated. It has a minimum age limit of a few hundred thousand years. It is still quite accurate when used properly (source: Klein 1989)

[BigChrisfilm]

Someone give me some good reason why I should believe it please.

[bernee51]

Someone give me some good reason why I should believe it please.

Look in the mirror.

[BigChrisfilm]

Someone give me some good reason why I should believe it please.

Look in the mirror.

Boy, that's the best answer I have ever seen. lol.

[Scrotum]

I dont think thats a good answer at all, he would just see an ape, he would ask where the human is.. HAHAHA



Seriously, What Evolution do you mean? Biological evolution? I assume thats what you mean?

[Scrotum]

If its biological evolution its very easy, most 5 year olds can take a look at lets say regular chimpanzees and find a certain similarity between them and humans. I know i could when i saw a kid, i assume all others have this mental capacity.

We also have the reaserch, as after we´ve seen this, we (science) had a look at it, and it turned out to be right, we do indeed evolve from a ´monkey like´ ancestor. IT may or may not still exist (chimpanzee for example), it does not matter, as long as we understand that we are as other animals, just that we have manage to get the ability of being self-aware, which oher animals may to have, We dont know.

In any case, you can also have a look at all the Dogs, or Horses we have, we have hundreds of different versions of them, imagine it a couple hundred million times over, and you get what change over time can do (evolution means change). There is no "better" or "worse", just change.


We are not the final product, but merely a product of what has happened so far.

[BigChrisfilm]

If its biological evolution its very easy, most 5 year olds can take a look at lets say regular chimpanzees and find a certain similarity between them and humans. I know i could when i saw a kid, i assume all others have this mental capacity.

So since they look the same, that means they are related? I think that means the same guy made them.

We also have the reaserch, as after we´ve seen this, we (science) had a look at it, and it turned out to be right, we do indeed evolve from a ´monkey like´ ancestor. IT may or may not still exist (chimpanzee for example), it does not matter, as long as we understand that we are as other animals, just that we have manage to get the ability of being self-aware, which oher animals may to have, We dont know.

How did it turn out to be right?

In any case, you can also have a look at all the Dogs, or Horses we have, we have hundreds of different versions of them, imagine it a couple hundred million times over, and you get what change over time can do (evolution means change). There is no "better" or "worse", just change.

Dogs make Dogs. Horses make Horses. So, why would I believe that a Dog can make a Horse? That is called blending Micro, and Macro Evolution. Only Micro is science, because it is the only one that can be tested with the scienctific method, the other can not.

We are not the final product, but merely a product of what has happened so far.

I understand this is what you believe, but I asked for proof, not belief.