Evolution, basically means to go from point A to point B because you need to get to point B in order to survive. In the millions of years needed to "grow" a particular organ to better your chances of survival, wouldn't you die somewhere along those lines from a lack there of?

12/19/2009 8:45:47 PM

If only we had a 7th grade science textbook, we could answer that question.

12/19/2009 8:53:09 PM

If only we had a less weird (and somewhat fatalist) definition of evolution, we could answer that question.

[Edited on December 19, 2009 at 8:59 PM. Reason : .]

12/19/2009 8:58:55 PM

" I need to eat leaves that are in 15ft tall trees or I die. Gee, that means I have to grow a 17ft long appendage know as a neck. Well, hopefully I can stick around and manage for a couple of million years until that neck gets here"


why do I need to eat leaves that high in trees?
what's keeping me alive now?
If I can live for millions of years without the needed appendage, then why can't I go on without it?


[Edited on December 19, 2009 at 9:04 PM. Reason : /]

12/19/2009 9:01:14 PM

It's all contradictory. I hate to hear scientists say " this species needed this, so they evolved this" in order to survive.

12/19/2009 9:06:22 PM

You’re wrong about what evolution is. Evolution is rarely about need. A common misconception about evolution is that it is tending towards one purpose or goal, it is not. It just is. What happens tends to favor a particular environment for some point in time, but it doesn’t have to; there’s no mandate for it to.

LOTS and LOTS of species do in fact die out as a result of not adapting properly, which is what allows other species to thrive (longer-necked giraffes vs. the shorter necked ones).

But their legacy lives on in the form of genetics that were shared with other animals.

[Edited on December 19, 2009 at 9:12 PM. Reason : ]

12/19/2009 9:11:14 PM

what about inner breeding? No one ever questions that. The one aspect that makes evolution so contradictory is time!! There were different species of humanoids that walked the earth at the same time. Evolution fails at explaining this.

12/19/2009 9:14:08 PM

haha what do you mean “humanoids”?

Current evolutionary theory in no way rejects multiple homo genera co-existing.

And just out of curiosity, what theory better explains the natural world than evolution? Do you know of a more valid alternative?


Notice the overlaps? This has been the running theory for a few decades now too, there’s really no excuse for your ignorance on this matter.

[Edited on December 19, 2009 at 9:21 PM. Reason : ]

12/19/2009 9:17:08 PM

Humanoids, I was being cute here. But you haven't explained my thesis!! Wouldn't the very need to adapt over millions of years be the very thing that kills you?

12/19/2009 9:23:16 PM

I don’t think you understand, that very thing does kill species. Particularly when the thing they have to adapt to is sudden.

Fortunately, the things species have to adapt to happen relatively slowly too.

I can’t remember all the different types, but biologists have terms for the different ways species come about. The 2 off the top of my head are allopatric and sympatric speciation. You should google those.

12/19/2009 9:25:52 PM

what you just said makes perfect sense for geographical speciation. But what about the millions of other species that aren't bounded to a certain geography? What you have already is what you need. So there is no need to evolve. And if the theory is so sound, then why can't evolution be predicated?

[Edited on December 19, 2009 at 9:40 PM. Reason : /]

12/19/2009 9:38:00 PM

punctuated equilibrium… look it up

And evolution doesn’t aim to predict exactly future changes (but there is research in the direction). If you mean why they can’t say with 100% certainty what will happen, that should be self-evident, but if not, it’s because the process of mutations is chaotic for the most part.

[Edited on December 19, 2009 at 9:45 PM. Reason : ]

12/19/2009 9:38:40 PM

Of course, that's not to suggest evolution isn't always occurring. You are genetically different from your parents, as are your siblings. But conditions today are not significantly different than in your parents world(OR ARE THEY?) so there are no environment factors currently weeding you guys out(OR ARE THERE?)

12/19/2009 9:48:30 PM

Ok, how about the Law of Biogenesis? Or better yet the Second Law of Thermodynamics? They are some of the most renowned laws of science that run directly counter to it. Fact.

Then another thing on top if that is the dating methods. (this runs into my TIME argument)The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radiodecay rates of uranium and thorium. Such "confirmation" may be short-lived as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radiodecay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences.

And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago but, rather, within the age and memory of man.' So given the millennium it requires to evolve, the starting point of life would have a very limited course to run its action INCLUDING THE ORIGIN OF LIFE.

One main component of evolution is TIME. Evolutionists/ scientists always say "it took this amount of years to evolve to this". Well, how long did it take for the atom to become the Lucy skeleton? How many multi billions of years did it take?

[Edited on December 19, 2009 at 10:01 PM. Reason : /]

12/19/2009 9:51:34 PM

Quote :

"Ok, how about the Law of Biogenesis? Or better yet the Second Law of Thermodynamics? They are some of the most renowned laws of science that run directly counter to it. Fact. "

Huh? Are you saying that the Law of Biogenesis and thermodynamics are against evolution? Because if you are, you are completely wrong. I’m assuming that you’re using a misunderstood definition of the Law of Biogenesis, but evolution doesn’t speculate on the beginning, it focuses on the evolution (big surprise, huh?), although it has implications for the beginning.

And what aspect of thermodynamics are you referring to…?

Quote :

"The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radiodecay rates of uranium and thorium. Such "confirmation" may be short-lived as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radiodecay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago but, rather, within the age and memory of man.' "

Actually, there are a myriad of indications wholly separate from radiometric dating that peg the earth at billions of years old. The existence of continents and continental drift the scope and “layout” of the solar system and other celestial bodies, the size and type of our sun compared to other types of suns, and tons of other things.

And variability and susceptibility of radiometric dating to environmental effects has been known since the techniques were discovered. But, none of the known variations, assuming wort case scenarios, is going to be anywhere remotely less than, say, a billion years.

12/19/2009 9:58:12 PM

I'm going to ignore your first paragraph. So there.

Your second is absolutely correct. All dating techniques are open to some interpretation, and certain tests will only effectively work on certain types of samples. Which test to use? Well that's where using your brain comes in. But even with the latest correct test on the proper sample, there will be a margin of error. This margin generally increases the farther back you try to go. You can correct for natural changes in radioactive carbon based on other measurements, but the atmospheric A-bomb tests during the 50's essentially means radiocarbon dating after that period is impossible.

So what do you want scientists to do? Give up? Stop wondering or giving it their best guess? Stop reviewing each others work and attempting to correct each other errors? Do you have any better ideas? They would love to hear them. That's just the type of people they tend to be.

12/19/2009 10:03:20 PM

^^The law that explains how life only comes from life. And the law of entropy.



One main component of evolution is TIME. Evolutionists/ scientists always say "it took this amount of years to evolve to this". Well, how long did it take for the atom to become the Lucy skeleton? How many multi billions of years did it take?

^ Now you're just spinning. You're making a play on conventional wisdom.



[Edited on December 19, 2009 at 10:07 PM. Reason : /]

12/19/2009 10:03:43 PM

Quote :

"Well, how long did it take for the atom to become the Lucy skeleton? How many multi billions of years did it take?"

Somewhere in the neighborhood of 14 billion years.

12/19/2009 10:05:52 PM

You're saying evolution couldn't have happened because it took too long? Or because we don't know how long a series took to happen?

12/19/2009 10:06:34 PM

Quote :

"You're saying evolution couldn't have happened because it took too long? Or because we don't know how long a series took to happen?"

Basically both,lol.

12/19/2009 10:08:42 PM

Quote :

"And what aspect of thermodynamics are you referring to…?"

I've heard this one before -- was even taught it once when I was still doing the whole Christianity song and dance.

It's a attempted application of the second law of thermodynamics to the overall process of evolution, based upon a misunderstanding/layman's definition of increasing entropy. The argument essentially says that if a system is supposed to become more chaotic as we move forward in time, then evolution effectively breaks that by introducing more complex and seemingly more "ordered" lifeforms.

Pretty silly and easy to dismiss, really.

12/19/2009 10:10:02 PM

Quote :

" Somewhere in the neighborhood of 14 billion years."

laughable. Assuming that the earth was even livable during that span of time.

12/19/2009 10:12:26 PM

Quote :

"Evolution, basically means to go from point A to point B because you need to get to point B in order to survive."

No, you don't need to get to point B to survive, point B just makes survival a whole lot easier.

12/19/2009 10:12:47 PM

Scientists don't say that. Newspapers and elementary school teachers say things like that. Scientists say, "the evidence suggests..." or "it is believed...". Even if they don't say that, it's implied. And you'll find the dates don't always exactly match between studies. Even if they can't pick a day on the calendar that apes became man(which is nonsense, there isn't one, speciation is just a helpful classifying tool), they can arrange the general order of things.

The easiest clue to this is of course how deep something's buried. Being an archaeology buff, you can agree the new shit stays on top, the old shit goes to the bottom. Doesn't work if you go back to a point before the latest continents were formed. Then you're looking for small pockets of very old rock that happen to still be on the surface. That's where the geologists and all the other disciplines come in, and people much smarter than me give their best guess at putting it all together. I don't have any evidence that says they're wrong, so I take them at their word...until the latest word comes out that is.

[Edited on December 19, 2009 at 10:23 PM. Reason : .]

12/19/2009 10:13:22 PM

Your first objection I don't understand at all, and the second is a simple appeal to ignorance. "I don't understand it, therefore it didn't happen." We have all sorts of evidence proving evolution, but apparently you've never even opened a basic biology textbook and are not much interested in doing so. It's like me saying "I don't understand how flight works, therefore it doesn't exist," all the while ignoring basic physics and planes and stuff like that.

12/19/2009 10:13:31 PM

To be fair, they're still arguing about how planes fly.

12/19/2009 10:16:50 PM

Quote :

"laughable. Assuming that the earth was even livable during that span of time."

The universe is estimated to be approximately 14 billion years old. The first atoms were formed in the first few minutes of the universe. Lucy lived about 4.5 million years ago.

So, it took about 14 billion years to go from atom to Lucy.

12/19/2009 10:17:39 PM

Quote :

"Your first objection I don't understand at all, and the second is a simple appeal to ignorance. "I don't understand it, therefore it didn't happen." We have all sorts of evidence proving evolution, but apparently you've never even opened a basic biology textbook and are not much interested in doing so. It's like me saying "I don't understand how flight works, therefore it doesn't exist," all the while ignoring basic physics and planes and stuff like that."

This is so full of fallacies I don't even know where to begin. I don't want to go to deep into this b/c I don't want to lose anyone. So I try to keep things in layman's terms. Evolution sais it took billions of years for a species to go from A to B. Fault #1= the dating system. Fault #2 = leaves out the condition of the earth ( was it even livable in that billion year span ).

Quote :

"So, it took about 14 billion years to go from atom to Lucy."

How long did it take to create lucy's intergalactic space suite? Ya know, tha kind that blocks radiation and makes the oxygen breathable. I also assumed that Lucy ate MREs' because I don't know what kind of flora or fauna could have existed as well.

[Edited on December 19, 2009 at 10:21 PM. Reason : /]

12/19/2009 10:18:36 PM

Here's a good read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth

12/19/2009 10:23:03 PM

^ha, and that's even more laughable. "The Age of the Universe" lol wow.

12/19/2009 10:26:26 PM

Quote :

"Evolution, basically means to go from point A to point B because you need to get to point B in order to survive. In the millions of years needed to "grow" a particular organ to better your chances of survival, wouldn't you die somewhere along those lines from a lack there of? "

i'm sure this has been addressed, but your entire question is based on a false premise and shows a complete lack of understanding of what evolution is and why and how it happens.

It's amazing that the most staunch opponents of evolution are the ones who understand the least about it. Amazing, but I guess not too surprising....

12/19/2009 10:26:29 PM

He's just trolling, but I enjoy discussing things like this sometimes.

12/19/2009 10:27:41 PM

Quote :

"I don't want to go to deep into this b/c I don't want to lose anyone. So I try to keep things in layman's terms."

You who are all wise and knowing should probably stop wasting your time with us mere mortals. We are too feeble minded to grasp your arguments and honestly we much prefer rolling around in our ignorance anyway. I'm sure someone will enjoy making fun of you though and we will probably all laugh at your regurgitated sunday school arguments, so feel free to stick around.

12/19/2009 10:28:01 PM

Quote :

"How long did it take to create lucy's intergalactic space suite? Ya know, tha kind that blocks radiation and makes the oxygen breathable. I also assumed that Lucy ate MREs' because I don't know what kind of flora or fauna could have existed as well."

What does this even mean? What are you even asking?

Are you suggesting that because you don't know what Lucy ate, she didn't eat anything?

12/19/2009 10:28:40 PM

Quote :

"i'm sure this has been addressed, but your entire question is based on a false premise and shows a complete lack of understanding of what evolution is and why and how it happens. It's amazing that the most staunch opponents of evolution are the ones who understand the least about it. Amazing, but I guess not too surprising...."

There's really not much to understand about basing pseudo science on top of pseudo science nit picking your way thru.

Quote :

"Are you suggesting that because you don't know what Lucy ate, she didn't eat anything?"

What im sayin is, how do we even know the earth was inhabitable during those years. Were talking billions of years here. Climate change and just total instability based on your science.

[Edited on December 19, 2009 at 10:32 PM. Reason : /]

12/19/2009 10:29:46 PM

Whoa, you have a corvette? I've always wanted one of those. Had a few camaros.

12/19/2009 10:34:48 PM

^^ Lucy lived 4.5 million years ago, not billions of years.

Obviously the earth was habitable at that time because Lucy was alive then. Do you question that life existed 4.5 million years ago?

[Edited on December 19, 2009 at 10:35 PM. Reason : ]

12/19/2009 10:35:10 PM

Quote :

"Evolution, basically means to go from point A to point B because you need to get to point B in order to survive."

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you need to survive in order to get to point B.

Quote :

"In the millions of years needed to "grow" a particular organ to better your chances of survival, wouldn't you die somewhere along those lines from a lack there of?"

Are you serious?

This thread has to be a joke.

12/19/2009 10:35:33 PM

^^At this point he's sounding more like a 6000-years believer than anything else.

[Edited on December 19, 2009 at 10:36 PM. Reason : .]

12/19/2009 10:35:56 PM

I do this all the time. I spout the craziest, most controversial thing that pops into my mind at any given moment. Sometimes I don't even believe it myself. Then when people post links and tell me how stupid I am, I get lots of interesting reading material and am exposed to arguments I'd never even considered. Sometimes I change my mind, sometimes I don't.

I call it the vicious mob approach to education.

[Edited on December 19, 2009 at 10:39 PM. Reason : .]

12/19/2009 10:38:20 PM

Quote :

"^^ Lucy lived 4.5 million years ago, not billions of years. Obviously the earth was habitable at that time because Lucy was alive then. Do you question that life existed 4.5 million years ago?"

Those were the remnants of Lucy at her apex. How long (millions of yrs) did it take for Lucy to reach her apex? From ATOM to Lucy, how many years? Was the earth even inhabitable during that entire span? That's all I ask. I'm not here do disrespect anyone.

I admit, I've bounce around a bit in this thread. But it's all in the name of Evolution. The history of the earth combined with TOE has a lot of holes.

[Edited on December 19, 2009 at 10:44 PM. Reason : /]

12/19/2009 10:41:05 PM

What do you mean when you say "From ATOM to Lucy"?

12/19/2009 10:44:03 PM

Quote :

"I call it the vicious mob approach to education."

I may use this method on some other forum if I remember/get around to it.

[Edited on December 19, 2009 at 10:44 PM. Reason : .]

12/19/2009 10:44:35 PM

^^ From the atom that came from the big bang to the skeleton known as Lucy.

12/19/2009 10:46:49 PM

I already told you: roughly 14 billion years.

12/19/2009 10:47:22 PM

It's believed that the universe came into existence 14 billion years ago, and the solar system/earth formed around 4.5 billion years ago. For much of that 4.5 billion years, the earth wasn't inhabitable, at least not by life like you're talking about. There was no oxygen in the atmosphere. Slowly(I mean really fucking slowly) biological process built on each other and single-celled protobacteria showed up. Eventually some organisms developed photosynthesis and went crazy producing oxygen until there was a surplus that killed off most everything that came before it. And from there things went gangbusters in the past 3/4 billion years. Critters come, critters go and eventually you get things like Lucy in the most recent blink of an eye. Questioning the habitability of the world for Lucy is about like questioning it's habitability yesterday. It literally just happened. If the history of the earth was a 24 hour day, all the cool shit happened after my bedtime.

Not that it was all a bed of roses. Humans were nearly killed off only 10,000 years ago and had plenty of other close calls. Actually, for the other humanoid species, they weren't just close calls.

[Edited on December 19, 2009 at 10:55 PM. Reason : .]

12/19/2009 10:50:37 PM

^^^ From the atom or collective molecuels that came from the big bang to the skeleton known as Lucy. Evolution works on a time line. This is the same time line that we have a problem "dating". And I'm just trying to understand the time it took to "evolve" from a collective group of molecules to a walking mammal. And at the same time, map this time line to the history of our earth as we know it. To see if the earth was even inhabitable during these trillions of years or if it was toooo hot to sustain life. Thats all.

[Edited on December 19, 2009 at 10:51 PM. Reason : /]

12/19/2009 10:51:14 PM

You realize the earth is only 4.5 billion years old, right?

And that 4.5 billion is less than trillions?

12/19/2009 10:53:55 PM

Okay, 4.5 BILLIONS BASED ON WHAT KNOWLEDGE? WHAT MEASURING SYSTEM? So of that 4 billion the last 3/4ths were the only time the earth had to sustain/ evolve life from zero? lol Including GLOBAL DISASTERS that reset everything lol.

[Edited on December 19, 2009 at 10:59 PM. Reason : /]

12/19/2009 10:57:55 PM

I believe they used the metric system.

----

I'll bite: what's your suggestion for how all 'this' came into being?

And what's a GLOBAL DISASTER that resets everything?

[Edited on December 19, 2009 at 11:03 PM. Reason : ]

12/19/2009 11:00:46 PM