Creation Or Evolution? Vote!

[JtPv 140]

Says the guy who almost always copy pasted everything he said.

Says the guy who is incorrect about almost all of his Christian knowledge. 

[hammer01 29]

Says the guy who almost always copy pasted everything he said.

 

Says the guy who is incorrect about almost all of his Christian knowledge. 

Guys, guys! lets not turn this into a rage thread!

[Jistuma 1996]

I believe in both creation and evolution... If evolution were to be real... Shouldn't there have been something which created something us? Human's aren't energy.

Well... Althought I do not go agaisnt the way of thinking that people might easily believe both creationism and evolution (I once did for example, thought a very diferent view of creationism), there is abiogenisis (I don't remember if it's a theory or a hipoteses), which would explain the forming of life, which evolution talks nothing about.

 

As for those that don't believe evolution, I can explain the proofs that it has, IF, you don't bring the bible into it. I really can't argue with people that say "The bible said this", because that basicly means they won't believe anything else. Tell me what you don't believe or understand about evolution and I'll try to explain it, just keep in mind these concepts: Evolution has nothing to do with the formation of anything, be it the earth, life or the universe.

[hammer01 29]

Well... Althought I do not go agaisnt the way of thinking that people might easily believe both creationism and evolution (I once did for example, thought a very diferent view of creationism), there is abiogenisis (I don't remember if it's a theory or a hipoteses), which would explain the forming of life, which evolution talks nothing about.

 

As for those that don't believe evolution, I can explain the proofs that it has, IF, you don't bring the bible into it. I really can't argue with people that say "The bible said this", because that basicly means they won't believe anything else. Tell me what you don't believe or understand about evolution and I'll try to explain it, just keep in mind these concepts: Evolution has nothing to do with the formation of anything, be it the earth, life or the universe.

Explain whether you believe in Macro-evolution or Micro-evolution or both. Plus how do you explain the Cambrian Explosion?

[Jistuma 1996]

Explain whether you believe in Macro-evolution or Micro-evolution or both. Plus how do you explain the Cambrian Explosion?

I believe in both macro and micro. As for the Cambrian explosion, the levels of oxigene rose, and so the animals changed drastically because of it, becoming, bigger and more complex. In the theory of evolution it's pretty easy to explain, the reason for the rise in oxigene is the problem, which isn't part of the theory. But even to those there are a few hipoteses, thought they have nothing to do with evolution.

 

Pretty much, with the raise of the levels of oxigene, the animals and the like could become bigger, and so they evolved like that.

[hammer01 29]

I believe in both macro and micro. As for the Cambrian explosion, the levels of oxigene rose, and so the animals changed drastically because of it, becoming, bigger and more complex. In the theory of evolution it's pretty easy to explain, the reason for the rise in oxigene is the problem, which isn't part of the theory. But even to those there are a few hipoteses, thought they have nothing to do with evolution.

 

Pretty much, with the raise of the levels of oxigene, the animals and the like could become bigger, and so they evolved like that.

I dont think so... your stateing that a rise in oxygen could have everyone evolve drastically...? where is the proof for that?

[Jistuma 1996]

I dont think so... your sating that a rise in oxygen could have everyone evolve drastically...? where is the proof for that?

Beings need oxygen to produce energy (except plants and bacteria which do something else). Having more mass means the beings need more oxygen. Without oxygen the beings with not be able to evolve into something big, this is expecially important for those that do not have a breathing system with lungs and the rest, like insects, and the primitive creatures, thought this also happens in those that have it. So more mass and weight, requires more oxygen for more energy, so when the oxygen is low, the creatures can't be very large, and when there is a quick change of oxygen in the atmosphere, the creatures will addapt and change acordanly, as they now have the energy required to do so.

[hammer01 29]

 the creatures will addapt and change acordanly

this is the whole problem with evolution. What proof is there that creatures adapt outside of their species? If this hypothesis were true, wouldnt you think that ants would get larger? or even smaller forms of bacteria(yes, bacteria does use oxygen, i just studied about them in my biology) would get significantly larger?

 

 

 

Here is another problem with macro-evolution. Organs. There are so many different types of animals and we have not found one with a useless "Organ". If Evolution were true, then we would find so many animals with half developed organs that currently have no function. Yet we do not. Why is that?

[argonian 14254]

this is the whole problem with evolution. What proof is there that creatures adapt outside of their species? If this hypothesis were true, wouldnt you think that ants would get larger? or even smaller forms of bacteria(yes, bacteria does use oxygen, i just studied about them in my biology) would get significantly larger?

 

 

 

Here is another problem with macro-evolution. Organs. There are so many different types of animals and we have not found one with a useless "Organ". If Evolution were true, then we would find so many animals with half developed organs that currently have no function. Yet we do not. Why is that?

Well, while I don't know of many organs that are appearing, the appendix is a useless thing in humans that may have previously had an evolutionary purpose. There are probably other cases like that too

[hammer01 29]

Well, while I don't know of many organs that are appearing, the appendix is a useless thing in humans that may have previously had an evolutionary purpose. There are probably other cases like that too

The appendix is not useless. Some studies have been done and it was discovered that it functions like a fallout shelter. When a disease invades your digestive system that you aren't able to fight off, all of the organisms in your guts that help with getting nutrients retreat into your appendix until you pass whatever it was that was dangerous... thus minimizing the damage done.

[Jistuma 1996]

this is the whole problem with evolution. What proof is there that creatures adapt outside of their species? If this hypothesis were true, wouldnt you think that ants would get larger? or even smaller forms of bacteria(yes, bacteria does use oxygen, i just studied about them in my biology) would get significantly larger?

 

 

 

Here is another problem with macro-evolution. Organs. There are so many different types of animals and we have not found one with a useless "Organ". If Evolution were true, then we would find so many animals with half developed organs that currently have no function. Yet we do not. Why is that?

Well, there is a lot of proof that the creatures adapt outside their own species. Also, ants are smaller or larger depending on the location, and there are probably fossils of larger ants. Bacteria, are something a lot more difficult to talk about, but.... there are a lot of extremelly small bacterias, so I don't know what you mean. Also, not all bacterias use oxygen, and bacterias are a group that has limitations, they are unicellular beings, and don't have a lot of things that other cells do.

 

Organs is more simple to explain, they progressed. If an Organ turns useless, normally it disapears, why wouldn't it? Thought there are those that are in the works of disapearing like the appendix, it still has uses, but mostly, it's useless now.

As for how they evolved, it's also explained. The eye for example, told to be something extremelly complicated, could just have started out as just an indicator for sunlight, then it progressed from there, starting to go towards the radiation of most energy, then perceing diferent radiations, etc.

 

The appendix is not useless. Some studies have been done and it was discovered that it functions like a fallout shelter. When a disease invades your digestive system that you aren't able to fight off, all of the organisms in your guts that help with getting nutrients retreat into your appendix until you pass whatever it was that was dangerous... thus minimizing the damage done.

As I said, it isn't useless yet, or it would probably not exist anymore.

 

[edit] More examples or organs that disapeared or are useless, are the tail in humans, some useless bones in whales, the wings of flightless birds.

[hammer01 29]

Well, there is a lot of proof that the creatures adapt outside their own species. Also, ants are smaller or larger depending on the location, and there are probably fossils of larger ants. Bacteria, are something a lot more difficult to talk about, but.... there are a lot of extremelly small bacterias, so I don't know what you mean. Also, not all bacterias use oxygen, and bacterias are a group that has limitations, they are unicellular beings, and don't have a lot of things that other cells do.

 

Organs is more simple to explain, they progressed. If an Organ turns useless, normally it disapears, why wouldn't it? Thought there are those that are in the works of disapearing like the appendix, it still has uses, but mostly, it's useless now.

As for how they evolved, it's also explained. The eye for example, told to be something extremelly complicated, could just have started out as just an indicator for sunlight, then it progressed from there, starting to go towards the radiation of most energy, then perceing diferent radiations, etc.

 

As I said, it isn't useless yet, or it would probably not exist anymore.

Useless organs don't disappear overnight. They would require thousands of generations to disappear. Don't you think we might see some organs like that?

 

 

Cells do have organelles...

 

Here is another question for you: How can the additional information needed to change an organism via evolution be added to its DNA? To go from ape to human means that the DNA that is in a human, but not in an ape, had to come from somewhere, so where did it come from?

[Jistuma 1996]

Useless organs don't disappear overnight. They would require thousands of generations to disappear. Don't you think we might see some organs like that?

 

 

Cells do have organelles...

 

Here is another question for you: How can the additional information needed to change an organism via evolution be added to its DNA? To go from ape to human means that the DNA that is in a human, but not in an ape, had to come from somewhere, so where did it come from?

Check the edit I did in my last post, I gave a few examples of organs that are right now, in animals useless, but still exist.

 

As for the DNA part, before I respond, do you know what DNA is and how it mutates?

 

[edit] Sorry, I didn't understand what the cell image is for...

[hammer01 29]

[edit] More examples or organs that disapeared or are useless, are the tail in humans, some useless bones in whales, the wings of flightless birds.

 

Tails in humans? I don't think people have found fossils of people with tails... For the whales, it depends on the bones your talking about. The wings of flightless birds, well i dont really know about that one... but they could be used for a lot of things incluting defense... if an Ostrich wing hit me in the head, i don't think i would remember thing...

 

As for the DNA part, before I respond, do you know what DNA is and how it mutates?

Yeah, i do. It is the "Blueprint" of an organism. Now the real question is: do you know how DNA mutates, because last time i checked, when DNA mutates, it destroys DNA, and never adds DNA, am i right?

[Jistuma 1996]

Tails in humans? I don't think people have found fossils of people with tails... For the whales, it depends on the bones your talking about. The wings of flightless birds, well i dont really know about that one... but they could be used for a lot of things incluting defense... if an Ostrich wing hit me in the head, i don't think i would remember thing...

 

Yeah, i do. It is the "Blueprint" of an organism. Now the real question is: do you know how DNA mutates, because last time i checked, when DNA mutates, it destroys DNA, and never adds DNA, am i right?

Tail in humans still exists when a mutation happens which allows it to be formed at birth, it's considered an illness now, but it still exists. The pelvic bones in the whale are really just useless, and the wings are pretty useless as well.

 

And on the DNA, you are wrong. First off, it's not a blueprint, a code, or anything like that. Those are just words to help understand what it does, but now what it is. DNA is a sequence of nucleotides, which will then create a certain grid of proteins which will then, be the cause to the "code". Now... DNA is composed of 4 seperate necleotipes, which are expressed as T, A, C, G, of which T can only connect with A and C can only conect with G, and the other way around. A mutation is when one of those necleotipes gets changed, making, or not, changes on the protein it is associated with, and create changes in the being with it. Sometimes a new necleotipe can be added, sometimes it is removed. And that is how mutations happen.

 

[edit] Now for the apes to humans. First off, it's not apes to humans, it's anscestor to apes and humans. The DNA is almost the same already, like something of 98% (I'm not sure on the number). Why is it so close? Because both species have arms, legs, hair, eyes, mouth, heart, lungs, etc. and only that small 2% or whatever percentage it is, will create the diferences between the two species. Now, 2% is it a LOT of mutations, but since they come from the same ancestor, it would be only be needed 1% changes in both (1% for humans and 1% for the apes, which would make them 2% diferent. This isn't exacly like this, as some mutations were probably the same in both cases). Before 2 people have a child (mother and father) their bodies and expecially their sperm and the female egg, will already be subjected to over 100 mutations, that is why the son is not an exact half mother, half father, he is something new, even if close to the parents. That is how fast mutations go, 200 (100 from the father + 100 from the mother) mutations that were not bad (or the parents would of died), at about 20 years old, into just one generation. Over the course of 100 generations, you see the maximum amount of mutations can be quite big (200 on the first gen, 400 (200 + 200) on the second, 800 on the third, so 100 x 2 ^ 100 = a very very big number), but of course most mutations would be the same, and maybe already happen before, so the number is not really that big. Then with all these mutations, why isn't the humans so different from each other? This comes to natural selection, which means, the fit survive, the unfit die in sorter terms, if the group stays together, there will not be much changes as the stronger would mate with the weaker, and the result would be a normal one, and so no changes would happen.

 

So, there are various ways of many changes happeing, which are normally associated with the conditions one creature lives in. Humans had the great evolution of being able to stand stright and start using tools, which then meant they could travel and addapt better to the new enviroment, without taking many changes as they did not need them, but still the changes can be noticeble today, like skin tones, hair color and so forth.