Since the community seems mature here and I hope for a good debate, I made this thread. If you want to debate me, feel free to. Anyways I have a few things that in a way disproves evolution. I know things get traits over time, but I don't believe a one-celled organism created me and other species.
1. How can we have such complex organisms like humans if we came from monkeys? 2. How can teeth evolve from scales? If they did, then how did we eat when we had scales in our mouths? 3. If we evolved over 50 million years ago, then how come we didn't turn into crisp? It's been proven that over time the sun loses its energy, so if it had energy 50 million years ago, and our positioning in the solar system, we would be toasted by the sun's intense heat.
They use too stand up straight but then adapted to living as a aquatic animal.
Not really. Crocodile ancestors never walked on two legs, and not like a dog either.
Well not really standing fully straight, more like a dog, also a crocodile wouldn't travel across the continent.
Our ancestors didn't travel across the continent either, not before they developed walking.
Tall grass was present in fields, when our old ancestors simply exiled themselves from the forest they would've needed to get up from their knuckles and such. That's one of the reasons humans have the best peripheral vision - we could see through the fields and thus long distances for hunting. ^^
I think this wasn't really a reason. An advantage to eb sure, but only because we already walked before going to the savanna. We used to stay around the trees before.
Those who had the best vision and could stay upright would be able to hunt better, staying upright allowed running which of course was needed for catching prey. ^^
Because it was an advantage, the now-outdated philosophy of "survival of the fittest" came into effect.
also elephants are being born without tusks, I'm not sure if is evolution because I don't think poaching been around for millions of years, if you know please quote me
Technically it's evolution. The ones with huge tusks are being killed before they can reproduce. Therefore the genes for huge tusks don't get passed down, but the genes of the ones with smaller tusks are. It's not like they noticed the big-tusked ones dying and thought "oh I should probably stop growing mine" because it dosen't work that way.
Maybe the entire thread? I'm not too sure but this is a rather pointless thread, if you ask me...even though I left a rather long post on it.
Well the point of the thread seemed to be to try and disprove a well established theory and fact. Something it has so far failed to do. Apposing questions to the disproving side which have so far gone unanswered and apparently ignored. The only thing I'm seeing as making this pointless is that those saying they will try and disprove it have been relatively quite, giving us not much to discuss.
Those who had the best vision and could stay upright would be able to hunt better, staying upright allowed running which of course was needed for catching prey. ^^
What I mean is, the idea that our ancestors started walking upright to see better in the high grass is outdated, there were already semi-arborical forms like Lucy before they adventured out on the plains, that lacked any possibility to retire back into the safe tree anyway.
What I mean is, the idea that our ancestors started walking upright to see better in the high grass is outdated, there were already semi-arborical forms like Lucy before they adventured out on the plains, that lacked any possibility to retire back into the safe tree anyway.
Right, thanks for that man.
Sorry for slow replies by the way, typing differently is strange.
Last time I checked, 'real G's' were more worried about not being shot and trying to make it in the city rather than where they came from.
I think this is very off-topic, and really didn't have a direction to begin with. ^^
They use too stand up straight but then adapted to living as a aquatic animal.
Actually, this is true. The ancestors of the crocodile had at one point been bipedal as well as also being a long legged quadruped at another point, as he said.
I'd like to challenge our friendly creationists with a quote from a book ("How To Deep-Freeze a Mammoth", by Bjorn Kurten):
Typical coral animals live inside a small cup made of lime that the animal itself builds up. New lime is deposited every day during the coral animal's lifetime. This happens only during daylight, for the coral lives in symbiotic relationship with a plant that needs sunlight for its life processes. When the deposition of lime ceases for the night, a growth line is formed which can be seen under a microscope. Analogous differences between summer and winter make it possible to distinguish annual growth lines, each of which contains 365 24-hour lines. Moreover it seems that the monthly four-week period may be reflected in the growth of the corals that live in areas where they are affected by changes in the tides. Such a coral skeleton thus becomes a kind of calendar, in which the passing of the days, the months, and the years can be read.
This is true not only of present-day corals. Similar growth lines also occur in fossil corals. In Scientific American (October 1966) the British scientist S. K. Runcorn describes corals from the Devonian period (for which radiometric age determinations give an age of about 400 million years). They, of course, are only distantly related to present-day corals (they belong to an extinct group called Rugosa). These corals from such an inconceivably distant past have the same daily, monthly, and annual rings as the modern ones. This indicates that the moon existed that long ago....
If we use the daily growth lines to calculate the number of days in the Devonian year, we find to our surprise that their number was around 400, rather than 365 as they decently ought to be.... If we look at somewhat younger (late Carboniferous, about 300 million years old) corals, the number of days in the year had been reduced to ca. 380 and in those of the present day they have of course come down to 365. So it seems that the earth is rotating ever more slowly on its axis. Other organisms besides corals give analogous evidence, with bivalves yielding particularly useful data for the time period from 350 million years ago to our day.
Actually scientists have known a long time that the rotation of the earth is slowing down, and in recent years it has even been possible to measure the retardation with the aid of the new atomic clocks. The retardation is caused by the friction effected by the tides. It is also possible to calculate how many days the Devonian year ought to have had, provided the friction over all these years has been the same as it is now -- that is, provided the moon has always retained its position [tidal friction has actually varied over time as continental drift has changed the configuration of oceans and continents]. The result was 399 days. So the correspondence is extremely close and we are forced to the conclusion that the same moon, our old friend, must have been there all the time.
I find it interesting how biology/paleontology and astrophysics come to the same conclusions with such precision. What say you?
Actually, this is true. The ancestors of the crocodile had at one point been bipedal as well as also being a long legged quadruped at another point, as he said.
You may be right on the long-legged quadruped, but... bipedal? What's their name? I'm intrigued..
