Darwins theory of Evolution?

[MustafaMc]

Hello, I believe they are sufficient, though I know it can be really complex and therefore hard to comprehend. Thanks.

On what basis do you believe that "tides to move chemicals about in the water, tempreture variation, sunlight" can create benefical gentic variation to go from a more primitive pre-human to a modern human such as Albert Einstein? It seems to me that you most likely have no better answer than vague speculation that has no more scientific basis than me saying, "God did it!" I would like for you to present in your own words a logical sequence of events on a molecular level to make a single change from a prehumanoid to a human. Let's say we want to go from a super hairy norm like the a presumed prehistoric woman (like wolfman of modern carnival shows) to modern woman with very little body hair.

 

[Scimitar]

Hi there, I have actually seen this. I found the arguments presented are not really compelling. Thanks.

I was expecting a typically close minded response, so really - I'm not surprised. Funny how you don't find the top tier scientists in the field "compelling". And it's interesting how you negated other possibilities in lieu of something which is faithless and unfounded.

I read Charles Darwins "The Origin of the Species". It's fiction. Not fact. And the hypothesis he presented is so weak, even he says near the end of the book that it's unlikely that humans evolved. The reason why the book became famous is because it gives the masonic agneda something to work with - in order to indoctrinate people so they lose faith in a creator. Know what I find "compelling"? How kids in school are being taught evolution as fact when it's clearly a weak theory, and how religion is taught as a fairytale... not to be taken seriously. And that is compelling enough to actually study these subjects with no bias, study them comparatively and with a critical outset - to further gain a well rounded opinion on the matter.

The fact that you don't do this is evident when you say "I found the arguments presented are not really compelling" - Science and philosophy is not compelling? Your attachment to ideas which belong in the realm of fantasy are not compelliing. They're biased. Simple. It's clear to me that you did not see the documentary. If you had, you would have stayed quiet - just like all the real life people I know who have seen the documentary and are post graduates in subjects like Physics etc... Keen brains know when to avoid looking foolish.

 

[Gator]

Ok, let's go.

Is there a fossil record?

 

[Scimitar]

Your evolutionists haven't maanged to find one that stands up to the international community...

And yes, with regards to God creating man in his present form, there is - human fossils have been found that are millions of years old, and not in any transitional state. The one example that seems to be convincing you is a deformity. This still happens today. You can hardly call it evolution, more like de-evolution. Prove me false?

Before you start ranting off about neanderthalls and stuff - let me just tell you that in the Quran, Allah mentions that HE created men into tribes. Ever care to wonder why? We all have our distinct features.

Compare the skeleton of a typical large headed african to that of a south asian and you will think this is evolution at work? No, it is not. It is genetic variation. Not evolution. Evolution is such a gray area, some even say that mixing races can create a new race... lol. Yet it doesn;t stop the same people from calling dogs from different genetic variances mongrels does it? You need to think...

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Gator,

Ok, let's go.

Is there a fossil record?

The fosil record shows many species, with many similarites, but how does this prove evolution?

According to the fosil record, about 600 million years ago there were no vertabra, within the next 400 million years nature brings together 200 bones, 500 muscles, 500 ligaments and a 1,000 tendons.

If evolution is to be proved as a fact, then science needs to find convincing evidence, as to how the tools of nature made this so. I found thid brief explanation about different types of mutation, and they do not seem very helpful to ToE.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/mutations_03

print

Types of mutations
There are many different ways that DNA can be changed, resulting in different types of mutation. Here is a quick summary of a few of these:


Substitution
A substitution is a mutation that exchanges one base for another (i.e., a change in a single "chemical letter" such as switching an A to a G). Such a substitution could:
1. change a codon to one that encodes a different amino acid and cause a small change in the protein produced. For example, sickle cell anemia is caused by a substitution in the beta-hemoglobin gene, which alters a single amino acid in the protein produced.
2. change a codon to one that encodes the same amino acid and causes no change in the protein produced. These are called silent mutations.
3. change an amino-acid-coding codon to a single "stop" codon and cause an incomplete protein. This can have serious effects since the incomplete protein probably won't function.




Insertion
Insertions are mutations in which extra base pairs are inserted into a new place in the DNA.




Deletion
Deletions are mutations in which a section of DNA is lost, or deleted.




Frameshift
Since protein-coding DNA is divided into codons three bases long, insertions and deletions can alter a gene so that its message is no longer correctly parsed. These changes are called frameshifts.
For example, consider the sentence, "The fat cat sat." Each word represents a codon. If we delete the first letter and parse the sentence in the same way, it doesn't make sense.
In frameshifts, a similar error occurs at the DNA level, causing the codons to be parsed incorrectly. This usually generates truncated proteins that are as useless as "hef atc ats at" is uninformative.
There are other types of mutations as well, but this short list should give you an idea of the possibilities.

In the spirit of searching

Eric

 

[Gator]

Is there a fossil record?

Ok yes, it appears there are fossilised remains of previously living creatures.

Are there fossils of different plants and animals, some of which appear not to be around anymore?

 

[Gator]

Are there fossils of different plants and animals, some of which appear not to be around anymore?

There appears to be not only plants and animals that don't exist anymore, but fossiled single-celled creatures as well. There's also other indirect evidence of life such as footprints, waste and imprints.

Can we determine a timeline, or the order in which these creatures appeared, from the fossil record?

 

[Scimitar]

Nope, not conclusively. It's all very hypothetical. Carbon14 dating is a guessing game, and scientists always differ on dates - so no.

So, let's take a better, more accurate modus of study here shall we?

With regard to transitional forms - "If" they had existed - there should be many many many examples of these transitional forms, in multitudes, and not the handful we have found. Agree? This indicates that they were not "transitional" but rather, isolated deformities. Grasping at these isolated deformities and painting them as proof of evolution makes science look very weak. Sure you can agree with that mate.

 

[Gator]

Can we determine a timeline, or the order in which these creatures appeared, from the fossil record?

Yes, we can figure a general order first from where we find the fossils in the different rock layers and then using multiple radio isotopic measures to refine accuracy.

To one of the replies, radio isotope dating is quite accurate and well supported by multiple methods.

Are there some animals that appear the same generally, but have some differences?

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Gator;

Yes, we can figure a general order first from where we find the fossils in the different rock layers and then using multiple radio isotopic measures to refine accuracy.

Agreed, but this just means that different species lived, died and became extinct during different periods of time, and in different places. If you wish to draw any other conclusions from this fosil evidence, then we would require some scientific proof as to how this happens.

Are there some animals that appear the same generally, but have some differences?

You could do a fossil audit for all the species that died in the last hundred years, and come to this conclusion.
About six hundred million years ago there were no vertebrate, three hundred million years later, there was a huge array of species with complete skeletons. What tools does nature have to make this happen in three hundred million years?

In the spirit of searching

Eric

 

[Gator]

Are there some animals that appear the same generally, but have some differences?

There are many different kind of animals in the fossil record, but some appear to be quite similar except for some minor differences.

Are there instances of animals that are generally similar that appear at different times, where there are differences in them so that the last in the order can be traced back to the first by a series of changes?

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Gator;

Are there instances of animals that are generally similar that appear at different times, where there are differences in them so that the last in the order can be traced back to the first by a series of changes?

I could accept this explanation, if there was a credible and scientific answer to the 'How it happened'

Specifically the bones, muscles, ligaments anf tendons, about two thousand in total, over a period of about three hundred million years.

In the spirit of searching.

Eric

 

[Gator]

Are there instances of animals that are generally similar that appear at different times, where there are differences in them so that the last in the order can be traced back to the first by a series of changes?

There are examples where animals in different time periods exhibit ordered changes.

Does the fossil record show a general increase in complexity (simple to complex) or a decline in complexity (complex to simple)?

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Gator;

There are examples where animals in different time periods exhibit ordered changes.

Does the fossil record show a general increase in complexity (simple to complex) or a decline in complexity (complex to simple

Fosil evidence is not science, it seems similar to saying God did it.

Life can exist happily without the need for movement, trees and plants are a good example of this. If plants, sponges, worms and jelly fish were the highest pinical of evolution, then I could kind of understand the theory.
But when you put two thousand components together, bones, ligaments, tendons, muscles, it stops being a biological mass, it becomes a highly sophisticated mechanical object. Where is the science that explains this?

In the spirit of searching

Eric

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Gator,

There are examples where animals in different time periods exhibit ordered changes.

I have read about the evolution of the horse over the past fifty five million years, it started off dog size, and its teeth and toes changed. I can understand how natural selection could make this change happen, but 55 million years is a vast amount of timer for such small changes.

But horse evolution is meaningless on its own, because the starting point is already a perfectly good horse, just smaller with variations in teeth and feet.

Coming back to my concerns about the failings of ToE, I need to be convinced by science, that the tools of nature can create and assemble two thousand plus mechanical parts in 400 m years. I would like this explanation to start from around 600m years ago, when there were no verebrate. What tools did nature use, to make this mechanical change happen?

In the spirit of searching

Eric

 

[Abz2000]

Dunno if this is off topic but do ToE advocates then like bestiality?

and isn't grabbing an unconsenting monkey a bit like rape?

 

[Gator]

Does the fossil record show a general increase in complexity (simple to complex) or a decline in complexity (complex to simple)?

From evidence of single-celled bacteria to multi-celled animals to plants and animals we have today, it appears to me that it has gone from the simple to the complex.

This has been an abbreviated version of my thought process about pieces of evidence for evolution from the fossil record. My view is, it appears that prior to man being around, there was line of creatures that started simply and slowly changed over time to the creatures we have today. This to me is reasonable evidence that life started simply, based on the earlier fossil record of simple single-celled animals, changed over time, evidenced by increased complexity in the fossil record and the ordered steps, and were selected into the animals we have today, based on the multitude of creatures no longer present.

For me this is consistent evidence of an evolutionary process and not equivalent to saying god did it.

But this is only part of the story. There is still abiogenesis (prior to the fossil record) and mechanisms of change and selection. That will hopefully answer some of the questions asked as I go through my thought process.

Thanks.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Gator;

There are examples where animals in different time periods exhibit ordered changes.

Does the fossil record show a general increase in complexity (simple to complex) or a decline in complexity (complex to simple)?

I often read it can take a thousand years, or twenty thosand years for a mutation to spread throughout a population and be accepted. Working on the theory of a beneficial mutaion spreading through a population every thousand years. That gives about four hundred thousand chances for various mutations to spread throughout a population over a period of 400m years.

What are the odds of each of the two thousand components, the bones, ligaments, tendon, and muscles being about the right size, shape and be in proportion to each other. Suppose the odds are only two to one against for each component.
What are the odds that each of these separate components will attatch to each other, in a way that enables movement, suppose it is only two to one against for each joining of all components.
When you compound all these odds together, evolution is just not able to work without help from a creator. The only way evolution might work, is if every mutation was beneficial.

In the spirit of searching

Eric

 

[Abz2000]

and six fingers may have also been beneficial, and how about some wings too? and some 360 view rotating eyes and sharp protruding knuckles, and the speed of a puma - and why on earth would natural selection give up the ability to live in water since it's a useful trait?
where are those offshoot human species?

the only evolution i know about is those people God turned into apes and swine for breaking the sabbath, maybe darwin came across one and decided it was the other way round

And you know well the story of those among you who broke Sabbath. We said to them: "Be apes—despised and hated by all."
Thus We made their end a warning to the people of their time and succeeding generation, and an admonition for God-fearing people.
Quran 2:65-66

But when even after this they disdainfully persisted in that from which they were forbidden, We said to them, "Become apes—despised and disgraced!"
Quran 7:166

that's possibly where the skeletons came from aswell

 

[Predator]

Just saw this in the news, Muslims have started skipping classes about Darwin's theory

http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/why-muslim-students-are-skipping-these-lectures-153516?pfrom=home-otherstories