Evolution is now A FACT OF LIFE

[schmuck]

---

darwin believed that species acquire new traits to adapt and survive..

but species do not acquire new traits per se.. all life on earth is made up of 4 basic nucleotide sequences, no matter how long that sequence is, its still made up of 4..

i'd beg to question what if there are other life forms out there not here on earth.. that is made up of different 4 or maybe another 5th added.. but i haven't had time to ask that yet..

so if all life on earth is just made up of 4, where's the acquisition? its like you're only reusing the same lego blocks to create a different form, but the contents and pieces are still the same.. there's no acquisition of some sort happening at all.. this is what darwin failed to see. if you follow darwin, you'd think we become supermen in the future, continually acquiring traits far better than what we have now.. but that's just not the case.. it may look like we *acquired* new abilities, but the real thing is its already within us.. the possibility.. you just need to reorder your DNA so that you can do this or that.. in transgenics, that is simply what they are doing.. implanting an insulin gene in bacteria so that bacteria can produce human insulin.. but you did not add anything new to bacteria fundamentally speaking, you only replaced that portion of DNA to match its order to yours (human insulin).. its just reshuffling or extending and reshuffling.. your cards are still limited to 4 kinds.

i think you have a distorted view of how evolution works.
evolution is wrong because there are only 4 basic sequence and it doesn't increase?

its not the number of basic sequences that is supposed to increase, its the number of instances(unsa kadaghan) and permutations(arrangement) of it.

[Maikeru]

I have posted this somewhere in the forum before.

from Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BAM! pwnage. how does it feel?

Granted, but not pawned At least got my end statement right . Anyway, do you always do that, like attack people when you feel like they don't agree on you?

Back to topic:

Questions:

If Darwin's evolution is really true. Why were there cases that some of the species he identified as transitional were discredited? Even Archaeopteryx, once thought to be transitional between reptiles and birds, is not. Modern birds have been found deeper in the fossil record. For the most part nature's divisions are not blurred and indistinct, currently or in the fossil record. The phyla appear in the fossil record almost instantaneously in what is known as the Cambrian explosion, with no apparent connections.

If this evolution is really true, why would evolutionists got a hard time explaining macroevolution? (Example as it is believed that birds evolved from reptiles, but birds and reptiles have extremely different lungs <-- Macroevolution) And microevolution is said to cannot be extrapolated to explain macroevolution.

Why did Darwin wrote this himself?
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

IMHO I say evolution theory is just a possibility.
By the way I'm no brilliant guy like everybody else here. I just like to read. And somehow ends up asking questions.
If someone can enlighten me, I'd appreciate it much.

[jamesmusslewhite]

so you are begging for my apology? i know enough not to give apologies for something i didn't do wrong. maybe YOU should apologize. hehehe... it's ok James, i forgive you. i don't hold grudges because i have a wonderful life to live beyond the internets. i don't live in a box like some people here.



don't push your "GOD" to people James. religious people think they're so perfect and righteous because they have their GOD to rely on. it ain't gonna work for me.



at least i'm not pretentious. at least i don't go around telling people all my achievements in life and tell them i'm wiser than everybody else. insecurity in the works... hmmmm... again, why do i have to apologize? you haven't even apologized so why would i... just because you're way older than me doesn't mean i have to apologize first. i thought you're from America... you should know the word FAIRNESS and EQUALITY.

Like I said I have learned enough about you that you are not worthy of much respect. I will give you this, you are consistently disrespectful. The world has the tendency to correct that in a man, you will learn that when you actually grow up to become a man. I hope it just does not take you too long.

[schmuck]

Granted, but not pawned At least got my end statement right . Anyway, do you always do that, like attack people when you feel like they don't agree on you?

Back to topic:

Questions:

If Darwin's evolution is really true. Why were there cases that some of the species he identified as transitional were discredited? Even Archaeopteryx, once thought to be transitional between reptiles and birds, is not. Modern birds have been found deeper in the fossil record. For the most part nature's divisions are not blurred and indistinct, currently or in the fossil record. The phyla appear in the fossil record almost instantaneously in what is known as the Cambrian explosion, with no apparent connections.

If this evolution is really true, why would evolutionists got a hard time explaining macroevolution? (Example as it is believed that birds evolved from reptiles, but birds and reptiles have extremely different lungs <-- Macroevolution) And microevolution is said to cannot be extrapolated to explain macroevolution.

Why did Darwin wrote this himself?
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

I say evolution theory is just a possibility.

which part of that post was an attack on you as a person?

re: macroevolution hard to explain <- care to expound. sources, citations.
here's a little tidbit for you, a bird's(even a domestic chicken) DNA can be manipulated(simple toggling ON/OFF of certain portions) so that they grow teeth(like a reptile) instead of just a beak.
But a reptile's DNA can not be tweaked to grow wings. What does that tell you? Think think.

re: microevolution/macroevolution.
my dear, repeat microevolution a number of times and you'll end up with macroevolution.
look up 'ring species'


re: darwin
yep. he is simply stating how evolution is falsifiable. Any Scientific Theory should be falsifiable. If it isn't(e.g. God did it) then its not science.
Another thing that makes evolution falsifiable: find a fossil of a modern day mammal(say a rabbit) from the pre-cambrian period.

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

is this your final answer?

Its what I believed in . I cant support my answers with just FACTS but the TRUTH I believed in . If the TRUTH I believed in is actually false , then there is still an existing truth that is unaltered and it could be on the same page of the " FACTS " or " contradicts " the facts .

TO sum it up ... in what I believed in , the CREATION STORY is true and that EVOLUTION THEORY extracts its FACTS to conclude that CREATION is the TRUTH . Without EVOLUTION , the CREATION is useless .

This is not my final answer either , just what I believe in .

================================================== ================================================== ===

What does OLD WORLD MONKEYS and NEW WORLD MONKEYS have that the extinct reptiles , mammals , birds and fishes dont have ? Why are the primates still around with the human beings ? Why HUMAN BEINGS stopped " evolving " ?

See these are age old questions that doesnt require " much " of the DNA , SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH , all the drama going on here . Have you guys thought of answering this with straight to the point answers ? Its hard because logically , we can assume that commonsense can take care of it but realistically , SCIENCE needs to be tapped but then the 5W's needs to be employed again . By employing these questions , we are provided with answers .... the issue is , are we gonna be contented with the answers or does it depends on who's court the ball lands into ?

[Maikeru]

which part of that post was an attack on you as a person?

re: macroevolution hard to explain <- care to expound. sources, citations.
here's a little tidbit for you, a bird's(even a domestic chicken) DNA can be manipulated(simple toggling ON/OFF of certain portions) so that they grow teeth(like a reptile) instead of just a beak.
But a reptile's DNA can not be tweaked to grow wings. What does that tell you? Think think.

re: microevolution/macroevolution.
my dear, repeat microevolution a number of times and you'll end up with macroevolution.
look up 'ring species'


re: darwin
yep. he is simply stating how evolution is falsifiable. Any Scientific Theory should be falsifiable. If it isn't(e.g. God did it) then its not science.
Another thing that makes evolution falsifiable: find a fossil of a modern day mammal(say a rabbit) from the pre-cambrian period.

Here is the link. If you know that much and won't cause you much trouble, could please explain all these arguments.
Is Evolution True?

By the way.
"macroevolution can happen without gradual compounding of small changes; whole-genome duplication can result in speciation occurring over a single generation - this is especially common in plants." - Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not against the evolution theory. I believe that it is possible. But to impose that it is the truth about our origins at this time? It sure is a different story.

[schmuck]

Here is the link. If you know that much and won't cause you much trouble, could please explain all these arguments.
Is Evolution True?

By the way.
"macroevolution can happen without gradual compounding of small changes; whole-genome duplication can result in speciation occurring over a single generation - this is especially common in plants." - Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

sorry, can't watch youtube at work.
maybe later.

re: your 2nd point.
so how? macroevolution? still not explainable?


@springfield
humans are no longer evolving per se(physical). we are at a point where we are above natural selection. add the fact that we are simply too many already.
we're more on a cultural evolution now.

[Homo_quaeritans]

There is Creation, there is Evolution. Creation is Evolution, Evolution is Creation.

The process of Creation is Evolution, the result of Evolution is Creation.


Creation is evolving gradually giving birth to another creation.

[Maikeru]

sorry, can't watch youtube at work.
maybe later.

re: your 2nd point.
so how? macroevolution? still not explainable?

Nah its ok. But the site is not in youtube. The combination of micro part is clear. What is not clear to me is the part where combination of micro is not the case. And how evolution theory deals with it. Anyways, I had a great time reading you're post guys. Made me to google around.

[schmuck]

Nah its ok. But the site is not in youtube. The combination of micro part is clear. What is not clear to me is the part where combination of micro is not the case. And how evolution theory deals with it. Anyways, I had a great time reading you're post guys. Made me to google around.

oops. dili diay youtube. libat na ko cgeg code diri. Im happy you are learning new stuff

i'll take a break off istorya sa.
later guyz. gotta make monies