A question for an intelligent evolutionist......?
483713
I wouldn't say that I'm anymore intelligent than someone else, but I did want to answer your question, so....\n\nYou are confusing the theory of evolution (diversification of species) with the theory of abiogenesis (life from natural compounds).  That's okay, many people confuse the two.\n\n1.  How did life get from soup to single-celled organisms?  From wikipedia, "J.B.S Haldane suggested that the earth's pre-biotic oceans - very different from their modern counterparts - would have formed a "hot dilute soup" in which organic compounds, the building blocks of life, could have formed.\nIn 1953, taking their cue from Oparin and Haldane, the chemists Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey carried out an experiment on the "primeval soup". Within two weeks organic amino acids, the basic building blocks of life, had formed. While Miller and Urey did not actually create life; they demonstrated that a more complex molecule — the amino-acids — could emerge spontaneously from simpler chemicals, in the presence of an external energy source in an atmosphere largely devoid of oxygen (the experiment involved shooting a spark, representing lightning, into their flask of supposedly primitive earth-gases)."\n\n2.  How did the original cell eat and develop asexual reproduction?   You are putting the cart before the horse.  In order to get to the cell stage, self-replicating molecules had to exist first... i.e. reproduction & "nourishment"  was occurring well before the cell stage.  Also, what are you referring to with "nourishment"?  For a self-replicating molecule, nourishment would consist of other molecules that it could combine with to form more of itself.\n\n3.  In the "soup", how did primordial cells develop resistences?  Resistence to what?  I don't understand this question.  To the environment?  To viruses or bacteria?  You need to elaborate here, I'm sorry.  I think it ties into your next answer, but not sure.  Please read my answer to #4.\n\n4.  How did it evolve everything it needed if it wasn't in it's DNA?  Can you give an example?  Hmm.  I'm trying to understand how you are approaching this question.  Let's say you have 100 little cells, each a little different.  5 cells can withstand a higher water temperature than the others because of a mutation they have.  One day the temperature goes up and kills off the other 95 cells.  That only leaves the 5 with the mutation.  They scamper off and reproduce like crazy... the cell strain has just evolved a little.  Now repeat this a gazillion times with a dynamic interacting environment and there you go.
111774
we evolved from one specific species of apes. evolution is a constant, dynamic process, that cen be seen even now as you look around. you have to be intelligent and have common sense and pay attention, and not beleive everything that is written. for proof, just look at the weather forecasters - almost everything they say is wrong, or they just flat out lie. I think they lie - nobody could screw up that much and keep a job.
269598
you are right.  evolution is a statistical imposibility\n\nthe odds of even one species evolving like the bat for instance.  with allits specialized functions and abilities....   its like a tornado hitting a junkyard and assembling a fully functional Boeing 747.  and thats just one species.  also i like it when you confront athiests and agnostics with hard fact PROOVING evolution CANNOT HAVE HAPPENED.  like this.\n\nthe earths rotation is slowing.  this is a measured, proven, scientific, fact.  If you were to rewind time adding as you go back the ammount of speed lost. you would find that as little as 1 mil years ago. the earth would be spinning so fast that the centripital force would cause everything to be flung off into space.  \n\nthats just one way and there are many other ways to disprove evolution.  oddly enough whenever you tell these things to an evolutionist and or athiest/agnostic.  they just kind of stand there with a not so bright look on thier face...
44109
Wow.  There is a staggering amount of ignorance exhibited in this thread.\n\nEvolution can be taught as science because it actually *is* science. Intelligent Design/Creationism is merely a faith based leap to "God did it!" Science is about observing, modelling, and predicting the universe around us.  Creationism is closing your eyes to the world and explaining everything by magic.\n\nHere's part of an answer I posted in another thread that addresses many of the same questions raised and misinformation spewed by some of the responses\nabove:\n\n---------\nThe trouble with most Creationists- scratch that. ONE of the troubles with most Creationists is that they seldom actually argue against evolution as it really is, but against straw-man charicatures of evolution. Rather than actually educating themselves about the subject they ask inane questions like "If man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" and then pat themselves on the back thinking they've scored points rather than revealing their ignorance about the subject. And then the choir they are preaching to nod their heads and agree.\n\nHere's a few simple things to remember:\n\n1. Evolution is NOT the study of how life began.\nhttp://www.origins.tv/darwin/abiogenesis.htm#Origins\n\n2. Evolution does NOT say man came from monkeys.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/\n\n3. There will be no "intermediary forms" if by that you expect to see a half-this/half-that critter, nor does evolution say there should be.\nhttp://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm\n\n4. Evolution is not incompatible with religious faith. Plenty of scientists believe in both God and evolution. It is only incompatible with the literalist view of Genesis espoused by young earth creationists. Of course, these folks' views run counter to geology, physics, paleontology, archeology, and astronomy as well.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html\n\n\n5. While there is vigorous debate about some of the mechanisms and features of evolution, there is no doubt in the scientific community that evolution is real. OF COURSE you will find some cranks out there on the fringe who will fight against evolution (most making a tidy living giving talks to fundamentalist religious groups), just like there are historians who insist the Holocaust didn't occur. Every large enough group will have it's nutballs.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/\nhttp://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html\n\n\n6. Yes, speciation has been observed.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html\n\n7. "Theory" means something entirely different in scientific language than in colloquial use. In science, a theory is a well-tested model of how things work, not "just a guess."\nhttp://www.skeptictank.org/hs/factfaq.htm\n\n8. Evolution is not guided solely by random chance.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance.html\n\nI personally don't care if somebody wants to believe that God, Allah, or the Tooth Fairy created the universe. What does bother me are those people who argue against a "cartoon" view of evolution because they feel that it threatens their faith, or because they are too lazy to learn what evolution is before choosing to try and smear it.\nSource(s):\n\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/\nhttp://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page\nhttp://www.origins.tv/darwin/evolution.htm\n----------------------\n\n\nFollowup:  Ummm.... You DO understand that Darwin was *ages* ago, and that the field of evolution has advanced light years beyond his notions right?  Darwin's ideas were formed in the 1830s-1850s, and he was unaware of genetics, radiometric dating, protein synthesis, plate tectonics, and a host of ot
1153626
This point is terrific.\n\nIt's why intelligent design is ridiculous and absurd.\n\nWhen I hear people say they believe in theistic evolution I have to say to them grow balls pick one.
99308
• According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals combined and came to life.\n\n• However, scientists don't really know how life came to be. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, says that the origin of life is still unknown. The idea that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.\n\n• The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that, according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities for a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model on a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of such a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute\n\n• Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."\n\n• Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. It is established scientific fact that like begets like. On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Although a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are beneficial, most mutations produce inferior offspring. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection.\n\n• Darwinists claim that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals at least some of these transformations must have happened: \n• Scales had to have mutated into hair. \n• Breasts had to have evolved from nothing. \n• Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb. \n\n• It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures. \n\n• Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.\n\n• Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml\n\n* Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory of evolution, for example:\n\n* The Fossil Record (Updated 3 July, 2005)\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/fossil.htm\n\n* Living "Fossils"\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/living.htm\n\n* The Cambrian Explosion\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/explosion.htm\n\n• New T.Rex Discoveries (Updated 10 June, 2005)\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/t-rex.htm\n\n* "Missing Links"\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/misslinks.htm \n\n* The Big Bang\n http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/bigbang.htm\n\n* Anthropic Principle\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/anthropic.htm\n\n*Irreducible complexity\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/irreducible.htm\n\n* Biological Evidence\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/biology.htm\n\n* The Moon\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/moon.htm\n\n*Earth's Fight Against Solar Attacks \nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/earthfight.htm
805731
Hey,everybody is slamming you,but don't back down.Evolutionists are beatin' a dead horse.It's over,but it's going to take years to repair what evolution has destroyed.\n"Darwin admitted that millions of ‘missing links,’ transitional life forms, would have to be discovered in the fossil record to prove the accuracy of his theory that all species had gradually evolved by chance mutation into new species. Unfortunately for his theory, despite hundreds of millions spent on searching for fossils worldwide for more than a century, the scientists have failed to locate a single missing link out of the millions that must exist if their theory of evolution is to be vindicated."\n\n"The evolutionists seem to know everything about the missing link except the fact that it is missing."
1127502
I believe in myself.  As for evolution, in a nutshell there are still monkeys because the group of monkeys we came from were forced to evolve due to a new enviroment and monkeys didn't have to evolve because their enviroment has pretty much been the same.  Understand though that this didn't happen in a day or seven but over a few million years, its a fact sorry but that doesn't mean that there isn't a god.
314054
We know that evolution exists. Science can prove it. We also know that modern man was created by God, the Bible proves that! So what about all those creatures that existed on the Earth for hundreds of thousands of years? Of course they evolved. And some of them very much resemble modern man. But God said He created us in His image. Maybe not necessarily physically, God doesn't have a body! But the difference between us and those creatures is indeed that "missing link" that cannot be "found". The link is God. The difference is that we (modern man) were created with a free will. No other creatures have ever had that. \n\nIf you read Genesis 1:1 you see that God created the heaven and earth. But something very drastic happened probably over a very long period of time between verse one and two because we see in verse two that the earth was without form, and void...\nNow what does God create that is without form and void? Nothing! Everything God creates is perfect.\nSo what happened and how many years passed between verse one and verse two? Science tells us that, there's no mystery. Creatures of all kinds evolved, the popular idea is something hit the earth and tilted it on it's axis. That triggered all kinds of weather changes, ice ages countered by global warming (without benefit of fossil fuels I might add), dinosaurs lived and died off. Primitive man-like creatures became dominant. It's all there!\n\nSo yes, you can believe in God and understand that creatures indeed evolved. But modern man, with all of his uniqueness, was created by God.\n\nNow concerning your lack of passion for your faith... read Acts Chapter 2 in the New Testament a couple of times and see if that piques your interest. I'll guarantee you have never been taught that in the catholic church. You need to ask yourself why. It is clear by the scriptures that Jesus intends that everyone with a love for the truth receive the gift of the Holy Ghost just as described in Acts 2. Read it again! It still happens just that way. It's still real. I see it every week. I see the power of the Spirit being used through ordinary people like you and me. Ordinary people like Jesus and the disciples were. Jesus didn't come and die so that we would have to seek everything we needed through a priest. He came that we could boldy go directly to Him with our needs. That is scripture! You need forgiveness? You need to ask Jesus, not another man. You need compassion and love? Ask Jesus, don't ask another man. Do you want to understand exactly what He has for you in this life and the next? You need to ask Him, not some portly old fellow in a black robe. Ask God directly. Go boldly to the throne and tell Him you need to know more. You will be amazed what you will experience if you are sincere and have enough character!\n\nUpdate 5-1-06\nI read with interest one of the answers below that demonstrates exactly what is wrong with the churches today. Sure, just ask someone (other than God). And if you don't like that answer just go ask someone else. That say's two things:\n1. The "authotities" in the churches don't even agree on truth.\n2. People only are interested in what they want to hear.\n\nThat's what I meant when I said God will show you the truth if you seek it from Him with a true desire to know. Why ask another man who has no clue anyway? We are talking about something as important as the salvation of your soul. Why wouldn't you go directly to the source if the source asked, indeed pleaded with you, to do so?\nAnd Paul absolutely did not encourage people to believe whichever way was best for them. He wrote to the Ephesians in Ep. 4:5 that there is "One Lord, one faith, one baptism". You see this repeated throughout the New Testament. There are not many paths to God, there is one.  Please, read the scriptures for yourself. You do not need someone to interpret the Bible for you. Let God show you
341923
And that's only the pick of the Iceberg...There are many more issues that goes in other directions than with the Theory of Evolution.  In Scientific-historical terms, we still think that the Earth is flat and that it is the center of the Universe.  Your question has a great value for the Genius curious minds that doesn't stop in the established Scientific Dogmas. You're getting somewhere...
1026724
I don't believe in evolution either but if you really get down to it and put the concept in another form there is still no way to prove it.lol.If we were evolved from apes then there would be no more.I mean come on who here resembles an ape?I mean not bein mean but some colored guys do but thats it that's unexplainable as well.Evolution is fake it is just sumthin that Darwin thought up because he was jealous of a man named GOD.
8356
I suggest you do a bit more research on your thermodynamics debate.  Please check out this website, which explains exactly what thermodynamics is, which you seem to be lacking in understanding of:  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html\n\nSecondly, there are many people that believe that evolution simply doesn't exist.  That all things were created, and that all things will continue to be created by a greater force.  However, as there is no proof, this too remains a theory, however much the creationists dislike it being called thus.\n\nThe problem that i see with the evolution vs creationist issue is that evolution has been proven to take place in the animal kingdom.  We have seen, for example, 2 exact same species grow up in completly different geographical areas and be 100% different from each other.  They evolved from one state into another to adapt to the surroundings of their enviornment.  Creationists attribute this to god giving them new traits, ect, that allow them to interact and adapt with their new surrounding.  Evolutionists, however, can see the 'paper trail', ie the evolutionary trail of these species, from the failed, to the development of traits and abilities over long periods of time.\n\nFossiles, which are one good source of information, are one of the good ways of proving evolution took place.  But, just as the positer said, evolution is indeed a theory at the moment; but we are ever increasingly stepping closer to proving it a reality. Whereas the creationists are still within the 'theory' state, and unfortunatly for them, their 'theory' isn't even a true 'theory'.  It is a simple form of religious-biased fact, instead of a documented possiblity.\n\nSo, are there people out there that don't use the bible to argue against evolution, sure, why not; but most of the time, these people have no clue about the dynamics of evolution and the debate in which it takes place.\n\nAnd, as is typical of any debate that must accept a defeat, creationists have taken a passive aggressive stance, in making pepole believe that god created evolution.  This is laugable at best, because it is one way for a person who believes in creationism, but who also understands that evolution is a possibly, to cop out of the debate and say that 'god' created the premise by which evolution took place.\n\nSounds kind of fishy to me :)
789435
tell a scientist that a truck can evolve given a billion years and he would say you are foolish.  The same scientist would say you are foolish to say that the theory of evolution is to be believed otherwise you are foolish.  truck is much much much less complicated than even a single celled oraganism. If a scientist can't even agree that a truck can never be made without a creator how in the world can he prove that the whole world with all its extrememly complex designs which are interdependent on each other so much that its so delicately balanced evolved itself? Doesn't that sound more stupid?   plus just because there are a set of evidences that support evolution that does not mean that evolution is proved. just because you see small footprints in the sand you can't conclude it is of a dog, it could be any other animal , hence the conclusions drawn from evidences can't really be conclusive.. whatever you think I can't ever understand evolution though I have really read and seen a lot about it.\n\n-----------------\n\nlol, see its hard to believe a truck could construct itself in a billion years.. taken as a big blunder said by me .. haha..  after all scientists say that evolution did happen through a series of random chances.. so why not a random chance of getting a truck? sounds absurd, huh?  thats the kind of absurdity that even the theory of evolution has because its says that so many things much much more complicated than a simple truck evolved itself from nothing.. I mean from no life. which is really much harder to believe.. and just one sentence out of a whole argument might look stupid, but when you take the whole argument it would not look that stupid. And evolutionary proof is not conclusive.. its only supportive.. there is much difference between supportive and conclusive.. and I am not an ignorant person who simply states without knowing anything, I am really much interested in science and read and see a lot of things..
1005527
I don't see how you can think that the intelligent design theory states that God designed people to evolve. If anything, it says the opposite. If anything, intelligent design is creationism cloaked in scientific terminology, and to say the least, it's faulty science! Proponents of creationism and intelligent design basically try to use science to back up their preconceived notions, and to say the least, this is irresponsible and not conducive to uncovering the truth. And not only that, but despite what many would like to believe, there IS evidence that Darwin's theory is correct. After all, there are more genetic similarities between humans and chimpanzees than there are between Asian and African elephants. And not only that, but a fossil of a long-extinct fish was discovered some time ago, and it was shown that its fins were in the process of evolving into limbs. Plus, the fossil of a dog-like creature that eventually evolved into the whale has been found. The evidence is everywhere!
145948
Of course Evolution makes NO sense. Let me ask you, Are u a believer in Macro evolution or lets say Micro evolution. You evolutionists are ALWAYS chaniging the story. Evolutionist: The earth beith 6 Billion years old. \nOther evolutionist: No no idiot the earth is 600 billion years old. (Btw the earth is closer to 6000 years old ;)\n\nPoint proven thanx for reading.
1099264
you seem to be so smug in your belief of evolution.  there is no proof whatsoever of it happening.  adaptation is different.  bacteria becoming immune to antibodies is adaptation.  humans do this all the time.  the bacteria aren't changing into anything different, they are still bacteria.  \nthere is no evidence in the fossil record either to support your idea.  in fact, all evidence in the fossils says otherwise.  there is no common ancestor of humans and primates.  nowhere.  lucy was an oversized chimp.  neanderthal man is equivalent to modern man in brain capacity, body structure, and everything else, what's the difference?  you can't use the tooth of a pig to create an entire skeleton of a human, that is called fraud (piltdown man).\n\ntry these FACTS: dr. frederick hoyle did a study on the probablility of a single-celled lifeform through means of random process from the beginning of time.  the likelihood of this happening is 1 in 10 to the 40,000 power.  (anything over 1 in 1050 is considered scientifically impossible).  hoyle stated, "evolution is nonsense in the highest degree"\nthe co-discoverer of DNA, francis crick; did a similar study on the chance of one single strand of DNA happening by random chance, but the results came that the chance is so small that it is nonexistant (so close to zero it's actually there)\n\nthe alternative? intelligent design.  all evidence points to a young earth.  if the earth is millions of years old: why hasn't it stopped spinning yet?  it slows down every year?  why hasn't the sahara desert taken over the plant yet?  it's growing by the day?  why have we never seen a single star form?  why hasn't the moon left us yet?  it gets farther and farther away every year?  \n\nother science would ask: why do some heavenly bodies rotate counter-clockwise if they all resulted from the big bang?  (according to the LAW of angular conservation, they should all be spinning the same way)  why isn't there a huge vacuum (present after any explosion); but the universe is instead expanding?  (refer to newton's LAWs of relativity)  why would the population curve put the start of humanity at about 4500 years ago, if we've been around for millions?  why is the oldest tree (also the oldest living organism) only 4500 years old?  \n\nuse evolution to explain morality, emotions, intelligence, abstract thought, love, etc.  you can't.  the only plausible answer is intelligent design.  \n\nanthony flue, once the greatest known and most highly revered atheist; writing over 30 books on the subject is an oxford double-doctorate with numerous other degrees and awards.  now a theist.  the clincher?  intelligent design.  unless you think that you're smarter than this guy (and it doesn't look like it from your grammar, spelling, and theology)  study a bit more before you go bashing theists.  \n\n"when science finally comes to the top of this mountain of truth, it will see that religion has been there all along."
574863
>>>If life was not created by an intelligent, self-aware,\n>>> designer, where did evolution get intelligence and self \n>>>awareness to "give" us?\n\n\nIt got it from a series of mutations and processes selecting for increased intelligence. Intelligence is simply the result of ever increasing ability to process and respond to sensory information. It is no harder to ‘get’ than size. \n\nYou might just as well ask if all organisms evolved from microscopic bacteria, where did evolution get size to give to whales. The difference between whales and bacteria in terms of size is one of degree, not kind. And in exactly the same the difference between a human and a bacterium WRT intelligence is one of degree, not kind.\n\n\n\n>>>>There appear to be three levels of life, plants (having\n>>>> no awareness), animals (having sensory perception), and \n>>>> humans(perceiving self and contemplating all things). \n\nThat quite obviously isn’t true. Anyone who has lived outside a city knows that plants perceive and respond to the passing of the seasons and the timing of the rains.\n\nOnce again I have to stress that the difference between plant intelligence and human intelligence is one of degree, not of kind. It is not the case that plants have one type of intelligence and humans have another. Plants simply have much less intelligence than humans\n\n>>>>Neoteny… How can anything retain something which it has\n>>>> not received? How can anything be received from a\n>>>> source that does not have *that* thing?\n\nI think you need to spend at leats one hour studying this subject before criticising. All animals receive the genetic instructions for their juvenile from their parents.\n\nIt is amazing that someone in the 21st century could actually believe that God personally builds young animals and that the form of a kitten has no genetic basis whatsoever.