Have you already forgotten what I was trying to get across? If you have, there is less hope of you truly coming to this argument with an open mind than I thought at first, I will no longer try to fight you, as your logic and rationality are now suspect in my opinion.
I will not resort to your means of fanaticism to try and convince you to slow down, and think rationally.
You can all shut your mouths with me talking about the beginning of the world.
Then you might as well shut your mouths talking to the rest of us concerning the beginning.
You have yet to give one piece of evidence that is convincing.
And thisisnotanalt, if you look at what I said, you will see that the question was not directed at you, and you also missed the point. I asked Moe the question, and I wasn't asking where the world started. Only where evolution started. Most say it's from a primordial soup, but there are different theories. It isn't very convincing, however, since even though all evolutionists believe the same basic theory, they can't even agree about how it started.
I know it wasn't directed at me; I wanted to clarify. Also, I know what you said - and like I said, evolution started when survival of the fittest first kicked in.
It isn't very convincing, however, since even though all evolutionists believe the same basic theory, they can't even agree about how it started.
The wealth of different theories is a good thing - it means that we're examining more possibilities. Science isn't about unity and standing together in your beliefs like religion is - it's about finding out what's truly correct, and having so many possible avenues like this means tat that is going on.
Alright, I have already stated I am not dismissing evolution. I'm providing evidence against it and said I do not believe in it, but if we make a breakthrough that can actually prove that evolution is true, I will believe it.
Lol, you mentioned not dismissing evolution in the same post you wrote that, so you may as well not have mentioned that at all.
Also, you have presented no valid evidence against it. You haven't linked to a single source yet. If I can find it, Firefly made a giant link list with 50+ articles of evidence for evolution. I'll have it up in a sec if I can find it.
Natural selection, the driving force of evolution, is a fact. So that means the vast majority of evolution is too - evolution is a scientific theory, and while there are unsolved problems typically used as evidence against it, there's quite a bit of evidence for it. The link list is a very small fraction of evidence.
Stop spamming. This IS off-topic, because I'm sure the creator (lol nice pun right?) of this thread created it to be a serious discussion about two different beliefs, not about the spelling of evolutionism or whatever you want to call it... Forgive me if I use the incorrect grammatical terms when referring to those that believe in evolution in this post and every one of my posts from now on. I am sorry you came to the conclusion that my previous post was one-sided. I gave a completely fitting allusion to a doctor and a patient, and I can see that all it did was make creationists happy and offend the evolutionists who saw the truth behind it. Your calling me one-sided, but wasn't the whole point of that story to say that you are being one-sided? Thank you, yielee, for actually helping me out a bit here. And MageGrayWolf, you're kind of blindly throwing aside anything going against evolution. Maybe you should try listening a bit before giving lame excuses about how we're so wrong and evolution somehow makes sense? Thanks. Evolutionism is just a theory. A theory that makes no sense. Just think about it. Think about it. Can you honestly fool yourself into thinking that we, the highest in the food chain, actually came from little spores that appeared when an atom just decided to randomly blow up? And can you do that without feeling like you might have fallen for a lame excuse that has been proven wrong, and has no proof but whims to back it up? You know the theory of evolution leads to a dead end. There's no start. Just an atom exploding. But where did that atom come from? Gas? Where did the gas come from? No where? That defies logic. THERE IS NO START TO EVOLUTION. Only a being who has no beginning and no end could possibly put a start to our marvelously diverse world. You're never convincing me that I came from a pool of muck. Sorry, but this thread is annoying. I don't think anyone will convince anyone to change their beliefs. Therefore, I think this thread is a dud for people to get angry at each other, such as the evolutionists calling me names for giving my incredibly fitting allusion. I doubt I will post on here again, and I kind of envy the Christians in the beginning of this thread who refused to participate. There's no convincing anyone, so I think I'll call this one a stalemate. Guess I'll see you guys around.
Allow me to point out a few flaws in your reasoning.
1. As previously stated Evolution is a theory, not an -ism 2. Evolution has nothing to do with the universe. By claiming this you are comparing to seperate fields of scientifc study. 3. You ask others to be open minded but you yourself contradict this. 4. We who support the side of Evolution have given countless points to support our arguement, that you blatantly ignore our evidence is not our fault but yours.
Actually, there are quite a few theories as to the start of evolution on Earth. One is that a meteor crashed into Earth with a species of single celled organisms on it, and we evolved from those. Another is that the first single celled organisms were formed by a slow combination of basic elements like helium and hydrogen, the same chemicals that condensed to form our solar system. I'm not a scientist, so I don't know the full details.
Evolution... Since you know the rest it's clear your just trying to be inaccurate which only hurts any credibility you could possible muster.
The theory of evolution may not talk about it, but we were discussing where life came from, not how it became diverse. I'm obviously a Creationist (or whatever it's called), so I'll talk about the beginning since my belief does.
Yes that's quite clear. Though the topic isn't Big Bang or Creationism, or abiogenesis or creationism, it's about evolution or creationism.
Also, you have presented no valid evidence against it. You haven't linked to a single source yet. If I can find it, Firefly made a giant link list with 50+ articles of evidence for evolution. I'll have it up in a sec if I can find it.
I keep a notepad of it along with a hand full of videos I added to the end further explaining evolution. So if you ever need just feel free to ask me.
An amount of genetic information doesn't correlate to how advanced or complex an organism is, for example, a butterfly has 380 chromosomes compared to our 46.
Oh, and we aren't looking at mutations in evolution, we're looking at genetic variations.
Uni, it is not based on mutations. It is based on the best suited of the species surviving and mating, passing on all of the positive traits. For example, I will use bacterium as they evolve faster do to the fact they reproduce faster. Penicillin was widely used to treat everything, but some bacterium were immune to it. The immune thus survived and reproduced wile the others were wiped out. The effect ends up being immune bacterium.
Evolution is based on the idea that we evolved into more and more complex organisms through mutation, but most mutations are either neutral or harmful, so this doesn't really make sense to me. As well, mutations alway decrease genetic data, rather than increasing it, so although the organism could experience benefits from a mutation, it doesn't make sense that it could actually develope into a more complex organism.
Evolution doesn't necessarily always result in more complex organisms. Just better adapted organisms to there environment. Most mutations are neutral, but only some are harmful while others beneficial. The harmful ones are weeded out leaving the beneficial. Mutations can increase genetic information (see the last two videos on the list above) mutations can also remove genetic information so it can do both.
Uni, are you saying there is no such thing as a beneficial mutation?
What about drug-resistant bacteria (beneficial to the bacteria), the radiation resistant fungi in Chernobyl (As can be seen here) or a mutation in a human gene that gives partial resistance (and with a double copy full immunity from) HIV-1?
Yes I read that article with interest - and that then brought me to thinking about an antibiotic resistant strain of the plague (we know that the plague still exists - it wasn't really wiped out and so could infect people on a large scale - luckily for us at the minute it can be easily treated with antibiotics). Again, the plague resistance in humans shows beneficial mutation and the possibility that the plague could develop resistance to antibiotics - again proves beneficial mutation and I think we can move forward. Do you agree, Mage? Everyone else?
