Thursday, June 02, 2005

For Those Who Need Evidence of Speciation and Macroevolution

Image hosted by

Image hosted by

Who do you think looks more human, the above photos, or chimpanzees? Chimpanzees have complete legs, arms, fingers, rectal cavities etc., these babies do not.

In my last post people wanted evidence of macroevolution in the process, they say that no one has ever documented such an event. Well this is about as close as you are going to get without watching a species over thousands of years, and if this type of change can happen with one birth, imagine how many changes could happen with 10 billion births. I tried to explain to these people that an ape didn't just give birth to a human one day, and a fish didn't just crawl out of the water, turn into a lizard, start running while transforming from an ape and then to a naked dude. But that is the manner in which the parents and Sunday school teachers of these people taught them to make evolution seem ridiculous, and yes those examples are ridiculous. However, no one really believes that is how it happened. I kept trying to explain that genetic abnormalities or mutations happen in nature all the time, thus albinos, and downs syndrome. Some of these traits, such as baldness, eye and hair color, physique, high cholesterol etc. are passed down from one generation to the next; if your mother’s father was bald you have a good chance of being bald yourself. For some reason those inherited traits are not hard for the creationists to understand but other traits are and they contend that there is no way after a millions of years (since they don't believe the Earth has even been here that long) that something that had it's roots as one species may end up as something that looks completely different, even though it still shares over 95% of it's DNA with its ancestors.

I do realize that this isn't a good example of an actual new species that could reproduce or even survive at all. So far there is really only two cases that I know of where these babies survived past their first few hours. But let’s just say that these babies were all born with fully functional organs, which is not impossible, and that this was a trait that could be passed down from one generation to the next.

So what would happen if the babies born with sirenomelia as in the photos above, were all abandoned in one place because of this defect, isolated, and were able to reproduce, carrying on this gene that causes sirenomelia? What if they were abandoned by the sea and although they were unable to walk, they were able to swim 5 xs faster than humans and therefore were able to get to all the food sources in the sea before people with legs and therefore were able to benefit from this defect, survive and carry on as a civilization? What if one of these babies was then born with another genetic defect such as gills, or a blow hole and were able to stay underwater for longer periods of time, and therefore were able to get to the oceans food sources 10x faster than their predecessors and therefore survived as the others died and thus only passing on the their genetic mutations of no feet and gills? Wouldn't that be the macroevolution that everybody says doesn't exist? It almost seems like sirenomelia could have been the first phase of that separation of species. And if what I described above happened over a million years, and what originally came from air breathing humans, on land, with feet, became a webbed leg fish eater with gills that could survive in the sea, don't you think the DNA would be a bit different than what it started out as? And if so, wouldn't this count as a new species, even though the first time it appeared it was called a deformed human?

I am not making an argument for fish babies per say, if you do any research on sirenomelia you would come to the conclusion that the above is impossible. But what if they weren't so deformed and what if it was just a group of albinos that got isolated from the rest of civilization and instead of living in the sea or above ground, they were forced to live in caves due to sun exposure. Wouldn't the ones with better eye sight be more prosperous in such an environment, wouldn't they have a higher survival rate therefore, more likely to pass good vision on to their offspring? And over time wouldn't we eventually have a race of powder white cave dwellers with great eye sight but with extreme sun sensitivity?

These are all just hypothetical examples that draw correlations to modern human development. I know you all think I am crazier than a shit house rat but there is a point being made; you just have to find it.


trick said...

I'm not sure what a shit house rat is but at least you're not as crazy as a crack house rat. Seriously, your example is extreme for sure, but it does a good job of illustrating the point in a graphic way. The cave-dweller example also shows that it isn't hard to imagine less extreme variations beginning to produce new species. Aside from these hypothetical examples, there is plenty of DNA evidence supporting evolution. There has been a lot of research comparing the DNA of many living animals and plants that shows the relatedness between the species. For example, through this method, it is conclusivley shown where the different living primates and humans split off from each other in the evolutionary process. In other words scientists are able to trace the "family tree" of all living things by comparing their DNA. Every living thing on Earth shares the same type of genetic material, using the same types of molecules and the same processes for replicating them. We also all share some of the same exact genes. We have some of the same genes as plants, more with fish, even more with dogs, even more with monkeys and yet even more with our own President W. Sorry, it's true.

Boiled Owl said...

Never want to argue science much with Trick and Toad, because they obviously know their stuff... but I seem to recall that we share 99% of our genetic material with chimps, not 98% I believe my source for that is Jared Diamond from his superb book "The 3rd Chimpanzee" which, along with his other 2 books, "Guns Germs and Steel," and "Collapse" make for some great background for all the conversations you guys have been having lately.

I'd start with the "Chimp" book. It's just terrific, and while utterly scientific, it does challenge a lot ofassumptions on the ascent of humankind that is being put forth inby other thinkers and authors. Worth a read anyway. I'll double check that 99% thing.

BTW, gross picture Toad! Looks like National Enquirer, but I do get your point (sort of). Oh, and sorry about the above deletion. I had too many stupid typos to let my first draft stand.

Boiled Owl said...

I give up.
I guess I'll just have to suck at typing today.

Toad734 said...

I have even read that some people are now thinking it may be more like 95% and not the 98% as first reported. Now, notice this; you and I will be able to reevaluate our thinking and will be able to accept this new number of 95% and won't insist that it is 98% without having considered all sides. Some other people however, will stick to the first thing they were taught and won't consider the possibility that they may have been wrong all this time and say that the science used to come up with the 95% is flawed.

Of course those people would be the ones who don't believe in science in the first place.

Didn't Neo say we were the ones who were closed minded?

trick said...

I just rounded that 98% figure. The last thing I read (although there's definitely a margin of error in tese sorts of things) was that chimps and humans are 1.6% different. Regardless, the point is really that it is almost all the same. I recently finished "Guns, Germs, and Steel" and it a fantastic book. I also want to get started on "Collapse" soon before I forget too much from "Guns". The last book I finished, which is also a great source of understanding on this topic, is "The Selfish Gene", by Richard Dawkins. Probably even better, though I haven't read it yet, is his more recent book "The Extended Phenotype". Sorry for the following off-topic discussion, but all this has me thinking it would be interesting to start a sort of science-related book club blog. I guess there's probably a bunch out there already. And Toad, that picture really is pretty horrible. Poor kid. But you're going to be accused of the same kind of tactics as anti-abortionists.

Toad734 said...

At least I would have aborted these things before they were born, even though they only lived for an hour, it was definitely worth it for the woman to go through with all of that.

And yes you should start your "geek only" book club.

Boiled Owl said...

Toad's hard core, huh?

Dem0critus said...

Interesting facts:

People with some disorders like downsyndrome are missing more than just a few genes. They are missing an entire chromosome, yet the live. Now, they can't reproduce, but it shows that drastic changes in our DNA aren't necessarily fatal. It suggests that a species could easily drop a good number of genes, and switch to a new species. Also, downsyndrome is somewhat common. It isn't a stretch to imagine an isolated population of folks with such a common genetic variation, becoming prevolent, and reproducing.

The biggest problem that people tend to have with evolution has to do with their perception that species are completely disjoint from one another. That is that people have trouble with the idea that two animals from different species could mate with eachother. Seriously, a lot of different equines can mate with eachother, and produce offspring. The mule is bred from donkeys, and horses. Horses, and zebras can breed.

Now, donkeys, zebras, and horses aren't just from different species. They actually have a different number of chromosomes. Isn't it astounding that two animals from completely different species, and with a completely different number of chromosomes can actually breed with one another, and produce offspring that are physically healthy. Now, these animals happen to not be able to reproduce, but still, if this can occur, is it much of a stretch to imagine new species being born that can reproduce with the original species?? It isn't much of a stretch, is it??

Thrasher said...

That's an amazing example of macroevolution. Nevermind the fact that none of the examples cited (from sirenomelia to Down's Syndrome) are better suited for life in any environment.

Your post was full of "What-ifs," which are the basis of the Evolutionary theory. It is pure conjecture. It attempts to ascribe more influence to genetic variation than there is. Now, there is a place for "what-ifs," but considering that no one has observed functional Darwinian macroevolution, can such conjecture really be treated as science?

Of course, genetic traits are passed down through generations. However, these genetic traits are never created (without creating impotent and/or invalid offspring), only hidden or exposed. You can refine a species' dominant traits, but you can never create new ones that will stay in the gene pool.

I also think your albino example is rather interesting... would the albinos "evolve" better eyesight, or become blind, as you claim the blind cave fish did? Also, would a new species really have been created by the albinos, or would it just be a new race?

"Isn't it astounding that two animals from completely different species, and with a completely different number of chromosomes can actually breed with one another, and produce offspring that are physically healthy."

Sure it's astouding. Isn't it astounding that to do so is to hit a genetic brick wall? The offspring can't reproduce.

Dem0critus said...

You seem to be running into a rather obvious stumbling block, neo.

You seem to think that the line drawn between two species is a thick black one. It's more like there is an overlapping, gradual gray one. In time, two species will seperate, but that doesn't have to be instantaneously. Now, we have witnessed the creation of new species from species that go through many generations quickly. It's amazing how many new diseases are apt to just suddenly appear. This isn't a coincidence. This is an example of species evolving.

Seriously, the odds that we don't evolve into new species given millions of years is a lot less likely than the odds that we do evolve.

Of course, as with all things in SCIENCE, it is only a theory, so there is no 100% certainty that all of us came to exist in this manner, but it is reasonable and logical. It is most likely the way that we've come into being.

Boiled Owl said...

Speaking of science, Neo uses the words "new race." I not so sure there is really such a thing as "race" is there? Help me out here folks, but are there "races" in the animal kingdom, as far as species classification goes, or is "race" an artificial, non-scientific, construct?

United We Lay said...


Boiled Owl said...

Ok, so Neo, how do you explain how embryos go through all kinds of changes as they develop, at one stage being tadpole like, at another, having gill structures, etc, and how the brain is layered with reptilian structures at the base, then mamillian, then human at the frontal lobes only. Also what about vestigal limbs found in numerous species, or why our foot structure is just barely adequate for upright walking? Nature has one thing on it's side that our human minds don't. Time. Eons of it.

In cosmology, we learn that at one time, and for a very long time, the whole universe was void. Then, very gradually, the simplest atoms formed. One electron around one nucleus. Hydrogen. Then through the actions and effects of all the forces, enough hydrogen accumulated in one place to start the first nuclear chain reaction and form helium, the next atom...and so on. All of this is evolution. All of this is observable and verified by experimentation. How do you dispute it? If the cosmos itself is an evolving process, why should we humans, and life in general be any different? We are, after all, just recycled hydrogen, with many billions of years of evolution behind us. We are stardust, formed from exploding suns! Isn't that miraculous enough for you? It is for me! The key is to try to grasp the time scale. It's almost impossible to do, I know.

Boiled Owl said...

Another thing to consider Neo, is probability.

Einstein didn't like this part. He said, "God doesn't play dice." But it's starting to look like that's the only game in town.

What are the odds that simple hydrogen would one day process into all the elements we know of today? Well, now that it's happened, the odds are 1:1. We're here. But before that the odds were very slight indeed. A lot had to happen between then and now.

And each time those things happened, the odds of our existance happening got better and better. In fact, according to Quantum Theory, we are coming apart and getting put back together at breathtaking speed every single nano-moment of our existance.

Our observation of this, due to the inadequacy of our instruments and sense of time, is pretty limited.

But it's happening all right, and the odds of it continuing to happen have gotten so good, that you can count on it.

In fact, your life depends on it.

That seems like a miracle to me too, but you know what? That's probably the way it is!

Boiled Owl said...

Ok, Polanco, so are there "mongrel" humans?
I, for one, am pretty sure I'm some kind of mutt.
(Scotch Irish, French, English) Arf. Arf.

Boiled Owl said...

Relative to all this, here's a little snippet of truth:

"Even a stopped clock is right two times a day!"

Toad734 said...


How can you say that these traits are never created; are you saying the mermaid babies parents have the mermaid gene? They aren't mermaids, their parents weren't mermaids, so if that isn't the case, and they did pass on this mermaid trait then you are wrong; they can breed offspring with these inherited traits.

And yes, in this particular example these traits don't give them any survival advantages and they cannot reproduce. But them not being able to reproduce is just incidental; other "mutated" people such as midgets can reproduce, and if we lived in a world of tree hanging and flying predators, guess who would be the ones who were more likely to survive and pass on their genes; the midgets.

With regards to your cave people comment it could go either way. Yes they could eventually not need eyes and survive just as well as the people with eyes such as cave fish, or they could have eyes but no sight and develop sonar like bats or sharks, or they could be like other nocturnal creatures such as OWLS(boiled owls), or lemurs and develop large sensitive eyes. I guess it would just depend on the amount of light in these caves; if there was absolutely no light at all they would have no need for eyes but if they lived in a place that had a little light they would end up like owls, lemurs and other nocturnal animals who thrive in very little light.

Toad734 said...

RE Demo

Actually people with downs syndrome have an extra, or part of an extra chromozome, they aren't missing one.

And yes they can reproduce, though not as easily as we can.

Neo, a Downs Syndrome couple has a 50/50 chance of passing this genetic mutation on to their children, resulting in a drastically different looking being, with different brain functions and a lower life expectancy than us. Almost sounds like another species doesn't it.

How possible is it Neo for a colony of people with downs syndrome, or something like it to be replaced or pushed out of existence by a group of people that live much longer, have better muscle and motor functions and have higher brain functions, even if they were the dominant race at one time?

City Troll said...

I love when idiots try present evidance. I would like to nominate you for the Nobel prize since all the scientists since Darwin have not been able to come uop with proof to back up his theory yet a dude in a star wars cloak could. Bravo

The Troll

Boiled Owl said...

Star Wars cloak? I thought that was your burka, Toad!

BRUISER said...

City troll... you give shit to toad for being into star wars yet you side with Bill & his Fristians washing each others feet in the capitol building??? Is there something you have against dinosaurs to act like they never existed republicans do the same thing with Poor people and cokehead presidents GW...?

If a fossil is not an account of an evolved species from the earths bio-smegma cache...& the fact that Karl Rove has turned the entire Republican party into sheep is this not proof of both evolution and de-evolution???

ps- City Troll call Toad an "idiot" for presenting evidence... You might want to ammend that statement for the simple fact of misspelling "EVIDENCE" and voting Republican...

Hope your septic tank cleaning job is going well ... turd hurdler...

Boiled Owl said...

Not to "pile-on" bruiser, but city troll also left the word "to" out of his sentence, giving his syntax a little extra "idiotic" touch, don't you think?

Not that I don't make such errors myself from time to time, but then I rarely resort to ad hominum remarks unless confronted by a FUCKING ASSHOLE!

RODney said...

Hey... can't we all just ...get along.. I mean uh..

Donna said...

Toad - I'm dying to know what you read...Book're it!

United We Lay said...

Yes, mos of us are mongrels at this point.

Boiled Owl said...

I'm with you polanco. That's why "ethnic clensing" doesn't make any sense, huh?

It's my understanding that Hitler himself was partly Jewish (not that they'd claim him).

I'm also told that everyone on the planet these days is pretty closely related to everyone else – as much as some folks would like to pretend otherwise.

Boiled Owl said...

Good ol' Cousin Toad. (shudder)

trick said...

Sooner or later the sheer amount evidence will be undeniable, even to all of you brain-washed creationist whackos. Here is a hint of the beginning of the end of this debate:

DNA of ancient bears successfully sequenced

Pay attention to the last paragraph - they'll be sequencing the Neanderthals soon.

United We Lay said...

So, my brothers, can't we fight nicely? PS - I have removed myself from the evolution debate as I don't feel it's something people are going to agree on as long as religion takes a stance on it.

Boiled Owl said...

Smart move polanco. Religion doesn't usually agree. At best, it absorbs and appropriates. That's how we got the Christianity we know and love today. It didn't start out this way. Of course you know this.
But do the "true believers"?

erinberry said...

"You can refine a species' dominant traits, but you can never create new ones that will stay in the gene pool."

That is just false. Mutations DO occur, and they most certainly can be passed on.

And CityTroll rears his moronic head once again, coming onto blogs and calling people stupid, yet being utterly incapable of expressing what is so "wrong" with the poster's argument.

Boiled Owl said...

Hey Toad, what's the 734 all about? The breakdown of a prime number, or what? Should be: Toad 7322.

United We Lay said...

They probably don't as most don't research their religion past what their pastor tells them. Jesus was a Buddhist.

United We Lay said...

And definitely not a republican.

annush said...

wow...that was intense.
you certainly made your point, though in a very extreme fashion.

Boiled Owl said...

Interesting assertion polanco. Are you familiar with a book called "The Jesus Mysteries"? I wouldn't dispute your thought that Jesus was Buddhist, other than to perhaps suggest that Jesus and Buddha are one and the same (in the spiritual, not the historical sense). But that's getting pretty esoteric of me, I know.

trick said...

This is a full article taken from The Times Online by the great scientist and writer, Richard Dawkins. Sorry in advance for the long post (paste) but it is very good and maybe the creationists will actuall read it here. I did not change anything, but HERE is the link if you want it.

Creationism: God's gift to the ignorant
As the Religious Right tries to ban the teaching of evolution in Kansas, Richard Dawkins speaks up for scientific logic

Science feeds on mystery. As my colleague Matt Ridley has put it: “Most scientists are bored by what they have already discovered. It is ignorance that drives them on.” Science mines ignorance. Mystery — that which we don’t yet know; that which we don’t yet understand — is the mother lode that scientists seek out. Mystics exult in mystery and want it to stay mysterious. Scientists exult in mystery for a very different reason: it gives them something to do.

Admissions of ignorance and mystification are vital to good science. It is therefore galling, to say the least, when enemies of science turn those constructive admissions around and abuse them for political advantage. Worse, it threatens the enterprise of science itself. This is exactly the effect that creationism or “intelligent design theory” (ID) is having, especially because its propagandists are slick, superficially plausible and, above all, well financed. ID, by the way, is not a new form of creationism. It simply is creationism disguised, for political reasons, under a new name.

It isn’t even safe for a scientist to express temporary doubt as a rhetorical device before going on to dispel it.

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” You will find this sentence of Charles Darwin quoted again and again by creationists. They never quote what follows. Darwin immediately went on to confound his initial incredulity. Others have built on his foundation, and the eye is today a showpiece of the gradual, cumulative evolution of an almost perfect illusion of design. The relevant chapter of my Climbing Mount Improbable is called “The fortyfold Path to Enlightenment” in honour of the fact that, far from being difficult to evolve, the eye has evolved at least 40 times independently around the animal kingdom.

The distinguished Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin is widely quoted as saying that organisms “appear to have been carefully and artfully designed”. Again, this was a rhetorical preliminary to explaining how the powerful illusion of design actually comes about by natural selection. The isolated quotation strips out the implied emphasis on “appear to”, leaving exactly what a simple-mindedly pious audience — in Kansas, for instance — wants to hear.

The deceitful misquoting of scientists to suit an anti-scientific agenda ranks among the many unchristian habits of fundamentalist authors. But such Telling Lies for God (the book title of the splendidly pugnacious Australian geologist Ian Plimer) is not the most serious problem. There is a more important point to be made, and it goes right to the philosophical heart of creationism.

The standard methodology of creationists is to find some phenomenon in nature which Darwinism cannot readily explain. Darwin said: “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.” Creationists mine ignorance and uncertainty in order to abuse his challenge. “Bet you can’t tell me how the elbow joint of the lesser spotted weasel frog evolved by slow gradual degrees?” If the scientist fails to give an immediate and comprehensive answer, a default conclusion is drawn: “Right, then, the alternative theory; ‘intelligent design’ wins by default.”

Notice the biased logic: if theory A fails in some particular, theory B must be right! Notice, too, how the creationist ploy undermines the scientist’s rejoicing in uncertainty. Today’s scientist in America dare not say: “Hm, interesting point. I wonder how the weasel frog’s ancestors did evolve their elbow joint. I’ll have to go to the university library and take a look.” No, the moment a scientist said something like that the default conclusion would become a headline in a creationist pamphlet: “Weasel frog could only have been designed by God.”

I once introduced a chapter on the so-called Cambrian Explosion with the words: “It is as though the fossils were planted there without any evolutionary history.” Again, this was a rhetorical overture, intended to whet the reader’s appetite for the explanation. Inevitably, my remark was gleefully quoted out of context. Creationists adore “gaps” in the fossil record.

Many evolutionary transitions are elegantly documented by more or less continuous series of changing intermediate fossils. Some are not, and these are the famous “gaps”. Michael Shermer has wittily pointed out that if a new fossil discovery neatly bisects a “gap”, the creationist will declare that there are now two gaps! Note yet again the use of a default. If there are no fossils to document a postulated evolutionary transition, the assumption is that there was no evolutionary transition: God must have intervened.

The creationists’ fondness for “gaps” in the fossil record is a metaphor for their love of gaps in knowledge generally. Gaps, by default, are filled by God. You don’t know how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don’t understand how memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex process? Wonderful! Please don’t go to work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don’t work on your mysteries. Bring us your mysteries for we can use them. Don’t squander precious ignorance by researching it away. Ignorance is God’s gift to Kansas.

Richard Dawkins, FRS, is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, at Oxford University. His latest book is The Ancestor’s Tale

Boiled Owl said...

Mighty fine post there trick.

Can't wait to read the rebuttals.

"But trick, how do you know the devil didn't guide your hand when you pasted that article into Toad's blog?" etc.

United We Lay said...

Boiled Oil -
Great point, could be one in the same, and thanks for the book suggestion!

Trick -
You are SO going to hell ;)

trick said...

The devil's been guiding my hand for a while now, it's nothing new.

Nölff said...

I'm a monkey.

Boiled Owl said...

trick, I cant figure out what your picture is. Is it an architectural drawing, an aeriel photo, an abstract painting, or what?

trick said...

sort of an abstract self-portrait. how about yours? why do you keep bobbing your head up and down like that. are you hungry or trying to attract a mate or something?

Boiled Owl said...


Toad734 said...

You really don't want to know what the 734 is about Owl, it's much more low brow than what you are thinking, but does lend itself to my evil godless ways.


By the way I am not wearing nor would I ever wear a Star Wars cloak, ever hear of Photo Shop?

PS If you are trying to point out the idiocy of other, try running a spell check first.

Boiled Owl said...

I'll take your word for it, Toad, and stick with the prime thing until I figure it out.

Toad734 said...

Ill give you a hint

Its actually missing a number.

trick said...

you're goin to hell, toad

Boiled Owl said...

Toad, here are some guesses from the Skleeve:

"The number of the most shots of tequila that he's taken in any given month while attending college. Or, his body weight divided by 2 and multiplied by 10. SAT score? Length of right arm expressed in millimeters? Number of times sent to detention during high school career? Average number of bowel movements during a calendar year? I give up. " (This was before I gave him your hint.)
We'll be back. I have to leave town for awhile now.

Meanwhile, get this evolution deal handled will ya, man? I'm worn out looking at that poor little kid every time your page comes up. Hasta luego, vato loco.

Jack Mercer said...

What are they turning into?


Toad734 said...

Mermaids, duh!

Striped Tree said...

That's bull shit. Those babies aren't evolving into anything. They are suffering from major birth defects. Perhaps if they did live and breed maybe they would have children that are like them. I don't think that's evolution,though. When was the last time you saw something alive evolve?
Did you know that it has been proven that the earth is not billions of years old or however old you evolutionists think it is? It's around ten thousand years old.
I like your blog, by the way. You have some strong opinions. I guess like isn't really the right word, but it keeps me entertained for long periods of time. You're a good writer.

Toad734 said...

Thanks but the only proof you have that the earth is 10,000 years old is the Bible. I can write a Bible too and put any information in there I want; 2000 years from now there will be no one to confirm or deny anything contained within.

Living things don't spontaneously evolve during their life time; no one ever said that. If the babies above could live, it is possible that they could carry one this gene and create a race of what would still at this point be humans that have tails instead of feet and in some circumstances that would make them more suitable for environments such as the ocean.

Did you know that whales used to have feet and that modern whales still have internal leg bones?

Also, over the last 300 years the size of the average sperm whale has decreased due to man targeting larger whales thus taking the bigger whales out of the gene pool and only passing on the genetics of the smaller whales. That is a form of evolution and natural selection.

Striped Tree said...

Okay. I guess I see where you're coming from. I don't believe that the Earth evolved from nothing, but I do understand that things change over time and that is a form of evolution. But how did they get here?
I wasn't talking about the Bible. I was talking about scientific proof. I am not one to easily believe things and I don't believe the Bible just because I'm supposed to. I am one of those seeing is believing people and I have seen, therefore, I believe. Creation makes a lot more sense to me than evolution does. How can a "big bang" create all this??

Toad734 said...

If it was so hard for a clump of mass to just one day come into existence and then explode; wouldn't it be a lot harder for a "perfect being" to just appear one day?

Let me put it this way; which do you think is more likely to spontaneously generate out of nothingness: a clump of rock, or a perfect being with limitless powers? And if you think this perfect being could evolve out of nothingness, doesn't in make sense that a primitive living microorganism could spontaneously generate from the right nonliving compounds in the right conditions?

There may be some theories out there that expose "missing links" in the theory of evolution and the big bang but they don't offer any alternatives and cannot dispute all the "links" that we have already proven. For every piece of "proof" or evidence you have for the world being 10,000 years old I could produce 10 saying that it is close to 5 billion years old. Not to mention that I have heard most of the "Earth is 10,000 years old" arguments and could refute them in about 1 paragraph.

The only things creation "scientists" have been able to do is poke small holes in a theory that is 95% complete. Or I should say raise some doubt as opposed to poke holes. What they have not been able to do was produce any evidence supporting their claims.

Answers in Genesis contains very few answers. They cite what is written in their version of the Bible as evidence and proof.

Striped Tree said...

God wasn't created. He was always just here. That is too big and complex for our finite minds to understand. He had been here for eternity. He was never born, never created, He was just there...always.
Evolution has been disproven so many times. One of these days people are going to laugh about it like we laugh about the way that people used to think thatthe earth was flat and the sun revolved around it. Even the brilliant scientists of the time even thought that. Sound pretty familiar?

Toad734 said...

The mass of matter before the big wasn't created; it was always just there. It had been there for eternity.

No part of creationism has ever been proven, nor is there any evidence suggesting any of those events happened in that 6 day period. If the Earthy is 10,000 years old how do you explain Dinosaurs. If Dinosaurs were created a day before humans, how did the humans survive? Why didn't Dinosaurs eat Noah? How did Noah go to Indonesia and get a Komodo Dragon, how did he get Do Do Birds, why did all the unique species on the Galapagos only end up back on the Galapagos Islands after Noah’s flood?

One of the reasons people thought the Sun revolved around the earth was because of the Bible. If God wrote the Bible how would he get that wrong?

One of these days people are going to laugh at our society because we believe in and kill for god.

Joshua 10:
13 So the sun stood still,
and the moon stopped,
till the nation avenged itself on [a] its enemies,
as it is written in the Book of Jashar.
The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. 14 There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the LORD listened to a man. Surely the LORD was fighting for Israel!

The Sun and the Moon would not have stood still; the earth would have stood still.

Striped Tree said...

That's figurative. Plus, God didn't write the Bible, He told people what to write and that was obviously the perspective of the writer. When we see the sun and moon it does in fact look like they are moving and not us. That is what is meant in the passage.

Toad734 said...

Is the Bible the "word of God" or not?

If it's not the word of God, and it's the word of man then who cares what it says.

If it is the word of God, God should have told the writers that we revolve around the sun.

Vek said...

Alright, I'm not going to read through that, because I know there's enough evidence to prove that evolution exists. Though what you show here in those picture is not proof. As someone who'st studied both developmental biology and evolution, I thought I'd add a bit. Deformities due to environmental factors due not promote evolution. Evolution occurs through that passing on of heritable traits. For one, these deformed babies cannot reproduce and pass on the traits that they should have had. If I was let's say born with half a hand due to exposure to some deforming tetrogen during development, I would still have children with normal hands... unless they became exposed to a similar agent. The thinking that you've presented is not a Darwinian thinking. Rather, it's the thinking of Jean Baptiste Lamarck, who was a predecessor of Darwin's.

Toad734 said...

As I pointed out in the post, no these babies will never reproduce, most will not live more than a few weeks even. But I still got my moms bad heart, which she got from her dad that he probably got from his parents. I have seen families that all have huge foreheads and they pass that trait on to their kids; imagine if one of those kids had children with someone else whose family had huge foreheads; their offspring would then of course get those huge heads. If this trend continued over 6 generations or so, and they were an isolated group, you would have a group with heads that were on average an inch bigger than the rest of the population.

In this instance it just so happens that these mermaid babies cant reproduce and this is not a trait that can be passed down but that doesn't mean that it isn't possible for a defect like that to occur and actually be beneficial.

The point had been made to me that no evolutionary jump of speciation has ever been recorded. The worm baby looks pretty damn close to a different species to me. Maybe not now as it is still a deformed human but if by chance it had reproductive organs and was isolated and paired up with another mermaid baby, over time they could learn to use their deformaties to their advandage and eventually evolve into something that is so far removed from humans that we would have to recognize it as another species.