|
Astargath
|
 |
June 08, 2017, 12:36:56 PM |
|
You know it's really funny how atheist denounce creation and site their support for Science whiles they haven't given us any definite proof about evolution, Do we catch monkeys and study them for a billions years to see if they will evolve into something else, they have watched too much movies.
The media I think have brainwashed them too much. How come I have become a man from a reptile who become a cat and then who become a monkey and then become a man, how stupid is this ? I wonder what kind of science backs up evolution as the one I have studied at mathematics school surely do not back up unproved theories.Biology, Microbiology, Anthropology, Archaeology, Embryology, Geology, Paleontology, Genetics, a lot of math. Statistics, computation, machine learning, applied mathematics, are used heavily in a lot of evolutionary work. In fact evolution has been used in computer science. Evolutionary computation is a family of algorithms for global optimization inspired by biological evolution, and the subfield of artificial intelligence and soft computing studying these algorithms. In technical terms, they are a family of population-based trial and error problem solvers with a metaheuristic or stochastic optimization character. Also a scientific theory can't be unproved, that would make no sense: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. I think you should study more. Maybe I should study more but you still haven't told me how did I become a man when I was a reptile before then become a cat ,then become a monkey and in the end I become a man. That leaves me a lot of doubts which biology ,microbiology and every other science you mentioned didn't tell me in details or the details are far from complete. I personally believe that only people with limited mental intelligence believe in evolution. Also why don't monkey turn to men right now ? And don't bother to answer these questions as I am sure your answers will not be satisfactory for my thinking. Prove it otherwise stop it as simple as this. ''Why are there still monkeys if men evolved from monkeys'' Is considered the stupidest thing you can say about evolution, please do not say that in front of a scientist because he would smack you. Humans did not evolve from apes, gorillas or chimps. We are all modern species that have followed different evolutionary paths, though humans share a common ancestor with some primates, such as the African ape. Now, we don't know and probably never will exactly how every organism evolved in details, it's obviously impossible unless we can time travel. However thanks to the different science fields and studies we can determine more or less how it happened. Perhaps I can give you an easy example of evolution. Peppered Moths are normally white with black speckles across the wings, giving it its name. This patterning makes it well camouflaged against lichen-covered tree trunks when it rests on them during the day. There is also a naturally occurring genetic mutation which causes some moths to have almost black wings. These black forms (called 'melanic') are not as well camouflaged on the lichen as normal 'peppered' forms and so they are more likely to be eaten by birds and other predators. This means that fewer black forms survive to breed and so they are less common in the population than the paler peppered forms. This is the normal situation observed in the countryside of Britain and Ireland. Normal and Melanic Peppered Moths (Chris Manley)However, in the nineteenth century it was noticed that in towns and cities it was actually the black form of the moth that was more common than the pale peppered form. Industrialisation and domestic coal fires had caused sooty air pollution which had killed off lichens and blackened urban tree trunks and walls. So now it was the pale form of the moth that was more obvious to predators, while the melanic form was better camouflaged and more likely to survive and produce offspring. As a result, over successive generations, the black moths came to outnumber the pale forms in our towns and cities. Since moths are short-lived, this evolution by natural selection happened quite quickly. For example, the first black Peppered Moth was recorded in Manchester in 1848 and by 1895 98% of Peppered Moths in the city were black. That's what we call evolution, as you can see it's not magic. Some moths simply mutated due to the pollution at the time and survived better than the previous ones because they were harder to detect. There are a lot of mutations and many of them are bad, for example some people might be born with 6 fingers instead of 5, this however doesn't help them in any significant way. As I predicted in my previous post, your answer no matter how hard you try it's not satisfactory as it didn't answer what I wanted. However I will post a link for you to raise your horizons in science as I see you like it. I will put a link to the book called "The deceive of the theory of evolution" and although this book is made by a Turk person it is based 99% in science and 1% in religion. http://www.harunyahya.com/en/books/47624/Darwinist-Propaganda-Techniques/chapter/14326/The-Deception-of-EvolutionRead before talking nonsense, it has even covered your black and white moths myths in the book. Your answer is totally incorrect. Off to a good start. ''This theory, which claims that life emerged by chance from inanimate matter, was invalidated by the scientific evidence of miraculous order in the universe and in living things, as well as by the discovery of more than 300 million fossils revealing that evolution never happened.'' Evolution does not claim that life emerged from anything because evolution is not about how life originated. Evolution's "handbook" - The origin of species lays out the process through which all known species on Earth evolve into their current form. So right off the bat the author of that article clearly does not know what the theory of evolution is. Abiogenesis is the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. There are experiments showing how life can come from non-living matter: http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2015/0623/How-can-life-emerge-from-nonliving-matter-UNC-scientists-find-new-evidence Abiogenesis is however not complete and we still don't know many things.
''Darwin's theory was not based on any concrete scientific finding; as he also accepted, it was just an "assumption." Moreover, as Darwin confessed in the long chapter of his book titled "Difficulties on Theory," the theory failed in the face of many critical questions.'' This is one of the most persistent of LIES spread by Creationists. They will repeat this like a mantra but they will never be able to point to *anything* Darwin wrote that backs up this claim.
The LIE is based on two things:
1. Deliberately *misquoted* passages from Darwin's works. The most common tactic you will find in *MANY* Creationist sources is to quote from Chapter 6, where Darwin anticipates objections or "difficulties" of the theory, Darwin's method is to (A) describe the "difficulty", and then immediately (B) provide a response to it. But the Creationist quotes will give (A) but leave out (B), making it sound like Darwin was "admitting doubts" about his own theory. This is incredibly dishonest, and quite easy to expose (just by checking the original text, since Darwin's works are all searchable online) ... which makes this tactic especially baffling as it does nothing but make the Creationists look like dishonest liars.
This tactic of carefully finding selective partial quotes, and just providing enough to make it sound like the author was saying the *opposite* of what he actually said, is so common among Creationists that the tactic has been given a name ... "quote mining." (Google it for lots of examples.)
2. The infamous "Lady Hope" story. Lady Hope was an evangelist who claims to have visited Darwin on his deathbed and "converted" him. Not one other person (including Darwin's very religious wife, no a single person from Darwin's family) confirms that Lady Hope was anywhere *near* Darwin on his deathbed, much less her story about this deathbed conversion. But the story is inflated by Creationists even beyond what Lady Hope described ... and is now described as Darwin "recanting" his scientific theory on his deathbed. The Creationists will announce this with great authority despite *ZERO* evidence, and despite the fact that it contradicts everything Darwin ever wrote, said, jotted in a letter to closest friends, family, or colleagues, or scribbled on a napkin. All of Darwin's life work means nothing to them compared to a complete exaggeration of an uncorroborated story that is most likely false.
I have read Darwin's book and in 3 chapters Darwin explains the possibility of a higher power creating humanity as if Darwin was following in his wife's religious footsteps. This was never fortified it was just held as an idea based on religious groups, Darwin always believed his theory of evolution, many stories are created nowadays by religious groups trying to deny evolution and fortifying the possibility of a higher power (quote mining), which is false based on Darwin's theory of evolution.''The Complex Structure of Life'' There is no reason to think that the life around today is comparable in complexity to the earliest life. All of the simplest life would almost certainly be extinct by now, outcompeted by more complex forms.
Self-replicators can be incredibly simple, as simple as a strand of six DNA nucleotides (Sievers and von Kiedrowski 1994). This is simple enough to form via prebiotic chemistry. Self-replication sets the stage for evolution to begin, whether or not you call the molecules "life."
Nobody claims the first life arose by chance. To jump from the fact that the origin is unknown to the conclusion that it could not have happened naturally is the argument from incredulity.
''Imaginary mechanism of Evolution'' The author clearly does not understand or deliberately doesn't explain what natural selection is. I suggest to read what natural selection actually is.''Lamarck's Impact'' Blatantly just lying here. Mendelian inheritance[help 1] is a type of biological inheritance that follows the laws originally proposed by Gregor Mendel in 1865 and 1866 and re-discovered in 1900. These laws were initially very controversial. When Mendel's theories were integrated with the BoveriSutton chromosome theory of inheritance by Thomas Hunt Morgan in 1915, they became the core of classical genetics. Ronald Fisher later combined these ideas with the theory of natural selection in his 1930 book The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, putting evolution onto a mathematical footing and forming the basis for population genetics and the modern evolutionary synthesis.[1]
Natural selection is a more powerful process with Mendelian heredity, because Mendelian genes are preserved over time; whereas it is at best a weak process with blending inheritance, because potentially favorable genes are diluted before they can be established.''Mutations'' ''Mutations do not cause living beings to develop; on the contrary, they are always harmful.'' The author again lies and says this is a fact. Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).
The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.
Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).
Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).
High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000). ''Fossil record''
The idea that gradual change should appear throughout the fossil record is called phyletic gradualism. It is based on the following tenets:
New species arise by the transformation of an ancestral population into its modified descendants.
The transformation is even and slow.
The transformation involves most or all of the ancestral population.
The transformation occurs over most or all of the ancestral species' geographic range.
However, all but the first of these is false far more often that not. Studies of modern populations and incipient species show that new species arise mostly from the splitting of a small part of the original species into a new geographical area. The population genetics of small populations allow this new species to evolve relatively quickly. Its evolution may allow it to spread into new geographical areas. Since the actual transitions occur relatively quickly and in a relatively small area, the transitions do not often show up in the fossil record. Sudden appearance in the fossil record often simply reflects that an existing species moved into a new region.
Once species are well adapted to an environment, selective pressures tend to keep them that way. A change in the environment that alters the selective pressure would then end the "stasis" (or lead to extinction).
It should be noted that even Darwin did not expect the rate of evolutionary change to be constant.
[N]atural selection will generally act very slowly, only at long intervals of time, and only on a few of the inhabitants of the same region. I further believe that these slow, intermittent results accord well with what geology tells us of the rate and manner at which the inhabitants of the world have changed (Darwin 1872, 140-141, chap. 4).
"But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification (Darwin 1872, 152).
It is a more important consideration . . . that the period during which each species underwent modification, though long as measured by years, was probably short in comparison with that during which it remained without undergoing any change (Darwin 1872, 428, chap. 10).
"it might require a long succession of ages to adapt an organism to some new and peculiar line of life, for instance, to fly through the air; and consequently that the transitional forms would often long remain confined to some one region; but that, when this adaptation had once been effected, and a few species had thus acquired a great advantage over other organisms, a comparatively short time would be necessary to produce many divergent forms, which would spread rapidly and widely throughout the world (Darwin 1872, 433).
The imperfection of the fossil record (due to erosion and periods unfavorable to fossil preservation) also causes gaps, although it probably cannot account for all of them.
Some transitional sequences exist, which, despite an uneven rate of change, still show a gradual continuum of forms.
The fossil record still shows a great deal of change over time. The creationists who make note of the many gaps almost never admit the logical conclusion: If they are due to creation, then there have been hundreds, perhaps even millions, of separate creation events scattered through time.I will stop here but as I said, the theory of evolution is real, if you don't want to accept it because of your religion, that's your problem but don't spread bullshit. I am not religious otherwise I would not have kept my signature of a gambling site. You were fast to answer but I don't think you have read the whole book in such a short amount of time. Again your answer is wrong and you are only spreading lies. I stop here too as anyone has his/her own view on the matter. See, this is your problem, you can't just say my answer is wrong just for the sake of it, why is it wrong? Obviously I didn't read the whole book, I was reading the link you posted and I quoted the author to explain why he was wrong. You can't accept that for some reason and you choose to accept what the book says its the truth. Why? How did you determine what that book says it's actually factual? Did you research it? Obviously not. There are thousands of books explaining evolution yet you pick one where it supposedly debunks it, why? Why is that book more relevant than the other thousands of books explaining evolution? You are unwilling to accept the truth, for some reason. Evolution has been applied successfully in many different things including computer science. Because no one becomes a scientist nowadays without making a thesis for evolution and not because they like it but because they are forced into it from this lobby who wants to control humans beings like good sheep. I am not into this, but I believe evolution in computers, in cars and in many things that man has created and was not created by chance. Natural selection is the biggest lie on human history. Again I suggest you read the whole book before judging its scientific facts. The author has spend all his life collecting them that is why I believe him more than people who are commanded by certain lobbies like Illuminati etc. I am pro science but completely against a theory who just exist in thin air without solid evidence confirming it. Everyone has his free will and we live in a free country so it's up to anyone to believe what he thinks is the best for him. Countries are not regulated on beliefs and neither are laws. I can't really tell if you are trolling or not. '' no one becomes a scientist nowadays without making a thesis for evolution'' What? They are forced by the illuminati right? Definitely the best possible explanation not that evolution is actually real and 99% of scientists agree on it. I read 10 paragraphs and as you can see, he lies from the first one, he starts talking about how evolution is the origin of life when that's just not true, why should I read further? There is really no point in debating with someone who believes in the illuminati... |
