Evolution is Impossible....

Though it wouldn't suprise me if he is a furry.

Anyway I want to continue with the topic without sending this thread way off.

What the fuck does court have to do with this? In SCIENCE, evidence supports an idea or theory.

I simply ment it as an example, nothing more....

Draco, are you a furry? I see that name a thousand times on my furry IRC channels.

What is a furry?

Regardless of you being wrong about that in the first place, you're dodging the topic and nitpicking about something small in my post.

So tell me, if evolution is impossible and never occurred, then how'd we get here? A divine deity? Big bang? Accident? What?

Grav, have you stuck a flash thingy into your post?

Regardless of you being wrong about that in the first place, you're dodging the topic and nitpicking about something small in my post.

How am I dodging the topic? You have yet to answer my original question...
Where are these transitional animals? Where are they in the fossil record?

What "transitional animals" are you talking about? It's not like there are animals that evolve on a daily basis. Evolution takes a very long time to happen. Most likely there would be no huge changes from one generation to another.

What "transitional animals" are you talking about? It's not like there are animals that evolve on a daily basis. Evolution takes a very long time to happen. Most likely there would be no huge changes from one generation to another.

So if it takes a long time, shoulden't we see some sort of transition? We should be able to see some transition in the fossil record as well...

One question... If monkeys evolved into humans... how come we still have monkeys? Shouldent they all heve evolved?

Why should they all evolve? Is their some kind of law that states when one animal in a species evolves, every other animal of that species MUST evolve to?

Btw, ever heard of a nice little island chain called the Galapagos Islands?

Why should they all evolve? Is their some kind of law that states when one animal in a species evolves, every other animal of that species MUST evolve to?

DNA would agree... if one has the traits to change they all should....

Why? Come on, elaborate.

You can't just say "Oh, one has the traits to evolve, therefore all of them should evolve".

DNA would agree... if one has the traits to change they all should....

Draco, go seriously learn about Evolution and then come debate it with us. You don't know anything about it. You're just talking out of your ass.

Draco god is punishing you simply by continuing your existence.

Hahaha! A friend has just sent me links to MC Hawking. Amazing! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNwJZe8HtOE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89jt7zJzkNQ

MC Hawking is awesome.

Let me put it to you this way.... when single celled organisms divide they create exact copys... so one splits into two, two into four, so on and so fourth... their DNA tells them how to split and when to split....

They do not create exact copies. There is genetic variation due to recombination, migration, or alteration in the karyotype. The beneficial traits in the descendant are preserved via natural selection, ergo a species evolves. I'm not entirely sure about my next statement, but my guess would be that meiotic cell division catalyzes this process significantly.

there could not possibly be a genetic trait in the organism that would go outside of the information stored in the cell

Simply because something is too hard for you to believe does not mean it can not happen. If you are referring solely to DNA replication, then you are correct. All the information needed for DNA replication is stored in the cell. However, the environment certainly has an effect on the genotypes and phenotypes of an organism. Genes which harm an organism in its current environment will make it more likely that the organism dies earlier than its competitors, which makes it less likely that the particular gene will be passed on. This is, once again, the process of natural selection.

Also, don't think of natural selection to occur on a species-level. It's far easier to think of it on a genetic level.

otherwise scientists that study the organisms would have seen at least some sort of change by now...

Not necessarily. Creationists often throw this argument out. Believe it or not, though, speciation has been observed. Here are four well-known examples. These do not encompass all or most of the available examples:

Drosophila paulistorum developing hybrid sterility in male offspring

A species of firewood that was formed by doubling the chromosome count from the original stock

The faeroe island house mouse speciated in less than 250 years after being brought to the island by man

Five species of cichlid fish formed after being isolated from the original stock.

Let me also ask you this... The body is made up of systems. Visual system, respiratory system, cardiac system and so forth. Can you explain or can anyone explain how any of these systems could have been created, in peicemeal fashion over time to become a functioning system that is dependent upon the other systems to have a living organism.

No. Their creation can certainly be outlined, but science can't really put together anything piece by piece. For example, you want to know how to build a computer. Sure, I could tell you how to build a working copmuter. But if you asked me to explain the electronics behind building a motherboard I wouldn't know what to tell you. Surely, however, since this is a man-made creation, someone knows. However, what happens when you get down to the elemental level. Nobody can actually tell you how to simply create an element. It can be outlined by top-of-the-notch physicists, but piece by piece is still a long way away. Similarly, scientists can synthetically create organisms. However, to describe piece by piece how they were built and evolved naturally is still a long way away. Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe somebody does know, and I simply haven't heard of it. Unlikely, though.

But lets just look at the visual system for a moment. You have the structure of the eye, the surface, the vitrious fluid that is so pure it is the only place in the body that it is found. You have the lens and then you have the cones of the eye that receive photons and turn them into electrons. You have the retina which recieves these electrons and then sends it along the nerve pathways to the cells of the brian that interprets these electrons into visual images that we see. Yet evolutionists would expect us to believe that the visual system was peiced together purely by accident over many many years through genetic "defects" that became beneficial. If you had 98% of the visual system put together the organism still can not see. It has to be 100% complete. So during all of this time while we were waiting for nature to accidently make the last peice of the puzzle we were running around blind for millenia.

1.) This is largely irrelevant to the topic of speciation, which you actually stated you agree with in one of your above responses.

2.) Photons are packets of energy. They can not simply turn into electrons.

3.) You are incredulous. Again, simply because you believe something is too complex to occur naturally does not mean that it can not. Darwin wrote three and a half pages how the eye could have evolved. This shows how easily it is possible for the eye to have evolved. I have no intention of copying those pages and pasting them here. I suggest you read his work.

To convince me of evolution, you would have to have at least one single shred of fossil evidence to support the theory. Today there is no single peice of fossil evidence to support the theory. That is why evolution anchors itself on hopeful monsters which use to be referred to as the missing link.

Jesus fucking H. Christ (If you catch me for blasphemy, FUCK YOU. I'm allowed to use my own name in vein). Again with the moronic missing link and no fossil evidence claims. From the thread: http://zelaron.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41042

"Many people who argue against evolution cite a �missing link,� fossilized evidence which should be a requirement of proof according to some creationists, in the lineage of the human race. I have heard this argument many times. I find it somewhat ironic that though many people will use this as a key point to their argument, this missing link remains esoteric in the sense that no one seems to know exactly what, when, or where this missing link is. This is a moot argument, however. If a missing link exists, it does not refute the theory of evolution. Evolution does not entail a direct fossilized record from ancestor to descendant. Fossilized evidence is contingent on the geological forces of the earth, and is coincidental when found. It supports the theory of evolution. Fossilized evidence is not a requirement for ascertaining the theory�s validity."

However, if you lift even one finger (quite literally...thats all it takes to hit the keyboard) to look for the evidence, you will find it. There is no practical way I can list all the fossilized evidence towards evolution, but lets start by some:

Archaeopteryx fossils
coelacanth fossils
Fish Fossils
Gish on Precambrian fossils
Hominid Fossils
Horse fossils
Polystrate fossils
punctuated equilibria
trilobites
whale fossils
and oh yes...transitional fossils

Of course the fact that these fossils form a sort of phylogenetic tree is certainly not evidence towards evolution. Certainly not.

I'll get to the rest of the posts later. I'm going to play basketball.

You evidently don't understand the difference between adaptation and evolution, that small changes in a cell wall can help a cell to survive like if it has minimal exposure to a drug it could develop a resistance much like when people take medicine for a while their body will eventually require more of it to feel the effects...

Actually, bacteria's increasing resilience to antibiotics is an observation of evolution. It is clearly heritable, making it a consequence of evolution, not a simple adaptation.

And for those of you that think Autism is a benefit, people with defect cannot survive on their own, think of them like an infant in a grown up body... they require 'parental' watch.....

What is beneficial in society need not coincide with what is genetically or biologically beneficial. What needs to be asked is will an autistic individual have an advantage when it comes to reproduction. Not to my knowledge. However, KA and Grav were talking about something significantly different.

Religion does not make people closed minded, you have only been exposed to the people who are, remember that when you steriotype you make your self even more ignorant.....

Religion is based on faith. Faith is, of course believing zealously in something in lack of evidence. You could argue that this is not closed-minded. However, zealously believing something which contradicts all evidence is the very definition of dense. Trying to find loopholes around established facts, as you are trying to do in this thread, is quintessential closed-mindedness.

Have you seen any changes lately that helped the organism, because I haven't... most of the time you see people with an extra something that is removed because it was causing a hinderance(extra weight, un usable, etc.)...

- Bacteria's resilience to antibiotics
- Mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS
- Mutations in humans confer resistance to heart disease
- mutations in humans makes bones stronger
- Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity
- Ribozymes
- Adaptation to high and low temperatures in E. Coli
- mutation which allows growth in the dark for Chlamydomonas
- mutation which allows yeast to grow in a Low Phosphate Chemostat Environment
- new enzymatic functions by recombination

I can keep going, but it's impractical. The evidence for beneficial changes are all around.

1. If you understand the concept of adaptation, then you understand evolution. Evolution is adaptation on a larger scale.

Not really. Adapations need not be heritable.

I asked for an evolutionary fossil, not just any fossil.... and I have looked, so far all possible fossils have turned out to be fakes....

Where the fuck are you looking? Evidence for Evolution: Jesus Camp part II?

If you diddent notice by now... you and every one else seems to dodge my question... where is the scientific proof of evolution...

There is no proof of evolution. Proof is not in the realm of science. Proofs happen in mathematics. Science only offers evidence. Evidence and proof are not one and the same. As far as the theory of evolution goes, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence towards it. If you really can't google it, I can briefly outline that evidence for you in another post. Just let me know if that's what you would like me to do.

you dont see transitional animals walking around

"Transitional" is not very well defined. Biologists do not say that you will find outrageous animals, such as half-dogs, or half-birds. This would pretty much disprove evolution. Evolution states that an organism needs to be genetically well-adapted to its environment in order to survive. Such half-animals would not be so lucky, for the most part.

The mistake I assume you are making here is that you think that transitional animals needs to be incomplete in some way. Well, if that is the case, you could say that human beings are incomplete. What is to say that the eye is not further evolving? It's easy to see that other animals have much better eye-sight than our own. That being known, what makes you think that our eye is not simply in a transitional state. No. Transitional animals are all still complete. That is why they can survive.

You can consider the following "transisional" in the sense that they do not have all the same features and abilities of similar creatures:

- The flying squirrel, which could be on its way to becoming more batlike
- The euglena, which appears well on its way to becoming a plant
- Aquatic snakes
- any animal with an "infrared eye"
- various fish that can survive on land for extended periods of time

Again, it would be impractical for me to list all the examples. Nor could I tell you all the examples.

and you dont see any evidence in the fossil record

It paints a clear picture of the phylogenetic tree...

They are one in the same... in a court system evedence is proof that someone has done something, evedence supports the proof...

The interpretation of the courts is highly irrelevant in this discussion. Evidence and proof in the contex of science are simply not the same thing.

One question... If monkeys evolved into humans... how come we still have monkeys? Shouldent they all heve evolved?

This is another common example of creationist ignorance to evolution. Humans did not descend from monkeys. We share a common ancestor with monkeys.

DNA would agree... if one has the traits to change they all should....

Negative. Speciation generally occurs on a population. It is hardly ever pandemic. Evolution does not occur due to DNA encoding the change. It occurs through mutations in the DNA. It would occur on an individual level only. If it hapens to be beneficial, natural selection will spread it out through a population.

No. Their creation can certainly be outlined, but science can't really put together anything piece by piece.

So if the origin of species can be outlined... how come scientists cant piece anything together? Do they not have anything to back their theroies?

...you want to know how to build a computer. Sure, I could tell you how to build a working copmuter. But if you asked me to explain the electronics behind building a motherboard I wouldn't know what to tell you. Surely, however, since this is a man-made creation, someone knows. However, what happens when you get down to the elemental level. Nobody can actually tell you how to simply create an element. It can be outlined by top-of-the-notch physicists, but piece by piece is still a long way away. Similarly, scientists can synthetically create organisms. However, to describe piece by piece how they were built and evolved naturally is still a long way away. Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe somebody does know, and I simply haven't heard of it. Unlikely, though.

Man made creations are very simple compared to an organism... a computer does not have the ability to replicate itself unless it is told how to do it... I dont think that animals accidentially learned how to survive....

The problem with evolution is probibilty... not everything happens perfectly.
Unlike a computer(which can be built by precision and in one day), evolution is a chance based system... evolution is completely based on chance... so by chance we happened to get the brain power that we have today... by chance we exist today.
Yes scientists can create some organisms synthetically, but they dont leave it up to chance for the organism to form.... they controll the process...

You can consider the following "transisional" in the sense that they do not have all the same features and abilities of similar creatures: - The flying squirrel, which could be on its way to becoming more batlike - The euglena, which appears well on its way to becoming a plant - Aquatic snakes - any animal with an "infrared eye" - various fish that can survive on land for extended periods of time

Yet, these animals need these traits to survive... the flying squirrel uses it gliding ability to escape danger, the euglena is a single celled protist with a light sensitive eye and use light for energy(my skin uses light for some processes too), the lung fish and other short term land fish come on land come to feedwhen the tide is low(they get nutrients from the sand)...

2.) Photons are packets of energy. They can not simply turn into electrons.

Correction, photons are packets of electrons... when they hit the eye the electrons are released and I already explained the rest...

3.) You are incredulous. Again, simply because you believe something is too complex to occur naturally does not mean that it can not. Darwin wrote three and a half pages how the eye could have evolved. This shows how easily it is possible for the eye to have evolved. I have no intention of copying those pages and pasting them here. I suggest you read his work.

He wrote how the eye could have evolved... in a perfect world.
Just because it can dosen't mean it will... you just cant say that that probibility will turn out to help a species unless you can also say that probibility will also harm a species as well... It is almost like rolling a die with a trillion different sides and saying that you could roll the same number twice in a row, its not going to happen... the odds are completely against you...

Brace yourself for ignorant nonsense.

Hah, I was too late because I read MJs post. The ignorant nonsense is above this post.

This debate has reached the point of being pointless(isn't that weird.) MJ's last two posts were absolutely magnificent, I envy your ability to debate like you do MJ. Draco on the other hand is just an ignorant fool.

To quote MC Hawking:

Upon blind faith they place reliance,
What we need more of is science.

Draco, take note!

To quote MC Hawking: Upon blind faith they place reliance, What we need more of is science. Draco, take note!

If you do not want to hear what I have to say... just tell me so I dont have to waist time.... but if you are unwilling to look at the facts then you are just lost in the first place...

Science sometimes can disprove itself... science in some cases can contradict itself... you cannot take science at face value, I do believe that scientitst said that we are experiencing "global warming", but diddn't they also say that we are coming out of an Ice Age? Isn't it supposed to warm up?