Does God exist? (7 Viewers)

[Kwayera]

Re: evolution;

- There are gaps in the fossil record in that we've only been looking for a couple hundred years. If there's enough proof now, imagine what another couple hundred years of finding fossils will tell us.
- There are sufficient transitional forms between amphibians and fish. Ichthyostega, Tiktaalik, Acanthostega, anyone? Coelacanth and Eusthenopteron further back, and their modern analogues (we even have one in Australia! The Australian Lungfish!).
- We have transitional fossils from amphibia to mammalia, as well, from therapsids to cynodonts etc.

- What further proof do you need? If you DO need further proof, do some research on the genetics.

 

[Enteebee]

the single biggest flaw with evolution is the incontinuity in the fossil record.

Tell me what you think we should see in the fossil record to show 'continuity'.

 

[Riet]

Tell me what you think we should see in the fossil record to show 'continuity'.

Dinosaurs and man living together.

 

[emytaylor164]

What fucked up christian sect are you? last I checked everyone sins and that whether or not we went to heaven/hell was down to faith in jesus.
"Thomas saith unto him, Lord we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the father, but by me."

I was reffering to whether or not we deserve hell btw, I do believe what you said about whether or not we go to heaven or hell is based on faith, all i was saying is we all deserve t o go to hell.

 

[Edward Teach]

There are many indignant young atheists ITT at present, with an over-inflated opinion of their own intelligence and beliefs.

Don't worry about it, their immaturity is plain for all to see.

I'm aware of problems with the incontinuity of the fossil record, such as the lack of major transitional special between fish and amphibians. I believe the missing records are simply waiting to be found. A 100% complete fossil record is an unrealistic expectation.

Nonetheless, you must admit, the fossil record is pretty awesome and strong evidence as it stands.

It doesn't really matter that there isn't a complete fossil record.

It's only one of the many sources of evidence for evolution (and you're not even close to right about the missing fish-amphibian link, and there's more besides that one, lots more, I'll do a post on it if you want.)

We know the limitations of the fossil record (habitat bias, taxonomic bias, temporal bias, abundance bias)... it's a highly non-random sample of organisms from the past. We know.

Still, anyone who says there's no transitional fossils or there's no evidence for evolution (which aren't even close to being equivalent statements) is either lying or hasn't bothered to find out what has been discovered.
Similarly anyone who says I don't believe in evolution either doesn't understand it or won't be convinced by any reasonable standards of logic and evidence anyway.

Aside from the fact that the mechanisms of evolution have been observed in the lab and in nature there are dozens of predictions made by evolution from the molecular to ecological level which are confirmed every time.

Here are some good sources:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
an extremely thorough collection of predictions & observations supporting evolution, most of which don't rely on "transitional fossils" (and you thought they were the only evidence!)

if that's too much reading then these videos contain much of the same information as the above link (although they don't cover everything) in an easier to digest way

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX_WH1bq5HQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA_UFImmulY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI&feature=related
notice nothing here relies on fossils, it all comes from molecular biology & genetics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CvX_mD5weM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZj0P_NmMCQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eblrphIwoJQ
only one of these mentions fossils, the rest draw from every area of biology (because every area of biology supports the predictions of evolution, so in effect you have to deny all of biology to deny evolution)
still if you insist on seeing some fossils
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4GdZOlPrX8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUcB_HiCKnM
you can't have been more wrong about the fish-->amphibian thing, lol

in fairness you could be skeptical of those videos since they're made by amateurs and they aren't all referenced

but it turns out they say much the same thing as textbooks written by scientists, I'd recommend
Freeman, S. and Herron, J. (2006). Evolutionary Analysis, 4th ed. Benjamin Cummings.
Should be at your local uni campus' bookstore or library. Any biology textbook will do, really.

There's no excuse apart from ignorance, sometimes willful I think.

 

[Captin gay]

Rapid changes occuring only very rarely over a long period of time.

You mean this one?

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=r...s=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a

 

[Kwayera]

Also, Ed, I have that textbook. It's awesome.

 

[bigboyjames]

For those who don't accept evolution, what do you propose as an alternative theory and where is the evidence for it?

the Abraham religion theory isn't true- not enough evidence suggests so. and so is the case with the evolution theory.

 

[Enteebee]

the Abraham religion theory isn't true- not enough evidence suggests so. and so is the case with the evolution theory.

Evolution is probably one of the best scientific theories we have, it's even supported by mathematics. Name some other scientific theories you believe in.

 

[jordankuai22]

For those who don't accept evolution, what do you propose as an alternative theory and where is the evidence for it?

he is right

sux this board has no pictures
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/4296/evolutiongn9.jpg

 

[Graney]

It's only one of the many sources of evidence for evolution (and you're not even close to right about the missing fish-amphibian link, and there's more besides that one, lots more, I'll do a post on it if you want.)

iirc there was a lack of transitional species showing a good record of the development from fins to hands. There are some transitional species, but the development of certain features of the hand structure evident in land animals is not currently available in the fossil record

But i probably don't recall correctly. I can't distinguish what I learnt in biool1002 and what I've learnt from creationist videos on youtube.

A+ post though.

 

[Edward Teach]

so far i haven't learned anything new in the evolution part of biol1002 just coz of watching youtube videos, lol

Wait.

You're not trolling.

WHAT HAS HAPPENED.

evolution is serious business

 

[darkliight]

In terms of speciation by the process of natural selection the organisms aren't vastly different from the original species. They are still the same class. I'm probably going to end up contradicting myself the way this is going. Antibiotic resistant bacteria are still bacteria, even though there has been a change in their genetic structure.

Ok, so that is over less than 100 years (as an absolute upper bound).

Now imagine what changes might accumulate over 10 times that time, 1000 years.

What about, a hundred times that time, 10,000 years?
A thousand times? 100,000 years?
What about thirty seven million times that time? 3,700,000,000 years?

You must at least see the plausibility of common descent here, right? There are enough ways for changes to happen, there is natural selection, and there is enough time. Even if common descent is wrong, it's at least plausible. But, given all the evidence for it, we hit the realm of probable. In fact, the evidence is so compelling and there is so much of it, it's pretty much a given in the scientific community.

But it seems like you're saying x organism didn't change much in a very short time, therefore x organism can't change very much in a very long time, and that seems like a massive fault in logic. I just don't get it. That you're willing to tell the worlds experts you think you understand this better than them makes me really think it's you that doesn't get this. Did that ever occur to you? Did you ever think that maybe you really should just defer to the experts here? I imagine you would if it was your doctor, your solicitor, your plumber, etc. even if you did have a crack at reading what they're reading.

 

[darkliight]

I was reffering to whether or not we deserve hell btw, I do believe what you said about whether or not we go to heaven or hell is based on faith, all i was saying is we all deserve t o go to hell.

Fuck you. I can't believe you think that.

 

[squeenie]

I was reffering to whether or not we deserve hell btw, I do believe what you said about whether or not we go to heaven or hell is based on faith, all i was saying is we all deserve t o go to hell.

But why? What have we, humanity, flawed as we are, done that is so bad that we deserve eternal damnation for it? Is having faith the only way to salvation?

It seems that religion raises more questions than answers...

 

[Kwayera]

iirc there was a lack of transitional species showing a good record of the development from fins to hands. There are some transitional species, but the development of certain features of the hand structure evident in land animals is not currently available in the fossil record

But i probably don't recall correctly. I can't distinguish what I learnt in biool1002 and what I've learnt from creationist videos on youtube.

A+ post though.

Aargh there isn't a lack of transitional species. The homologous hand structure is even seen now in the coelacanth, a 400-million-year-old order of fish - the current species descend directly from the ones that went on to evolve into tetrapods.

 

[Enteebee]

tbqh i don't even see why it'd be so bad if we never found fossils showing close to the complete transition from fin to hand... I mean it'd be disappointing from the standpoint of academic curiousity but it really wouldn't make me think any differently about evolution, nor can I think of a reason why it should.

 

[Kwayera]

Exactly. It wouldn't matter, not one bit.

 

[Stevo.]

It will matter to those silly little theists who deny evolution.

 

[emytaylor164]

I believe that God created humans in there current form, i don't think we have evolved at all, although other animals might of.