Ever Notice this about all religion ???

Yes science and maths are important, But maths doesn't necessarily play a direct role in every branch of science. Maths is good at explaining conservation of angular momentum, Not so good at explaining the circulatory system.

Evolution functions within a dynamic system with far too many variable to have a mathematical model. Mathematical formulas work only in systems with constants and laws. Whoever wrote that site you linked to is frankly an imbecile.

Still none of what you said is accurate.
1) individuals don't adapt in any genetic sense
2) humans never evolved from chimpanzees.

 

st0x wen will they get it that evolution is natural and we came from a species like apes thru generations of defects and it did not just happen once but there were multiple designs for human and out of the 12 or so known Morden man prevailed simply becoz the others could not survive (Neanderthal , the few Pigme man they have found not midgets but small man 3ft tall) how could we have that if we didnt evolve its nature perfecting design and it takes billions of yrs for evolution to work. but doesnt mean there is not clear examples in everyday life.

Also there is probly less then 5 planets in the milky way that support life (even if its as advanced as a dino or caveman does not mean we can see them its impossible to ) the onlyway we will know is to travel to the planets or they evolve enogh to send some sort of signal wich humans have only managed to do for last 100 yrs, considering we have been round for how many millions of yrs we are just advanced enough to see into space. so why wouldnt other worlds harver other kinds of life under the rules of life creation on earth.

 

Lol its true but I realized he was right on that - scientific theories are as factual as ever like the theory of gravity.

But both macro and micro evolution have been observed - I really so no sense in debating over adaption since its pretty real. Humans didn't start with Adam and Eve, if its true then we're all children of incest. And I personally would rather be a descendant of a chimp than a child of incest - has anyone seen that movie Deliverance?

 

1. In biology, evolution is change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Might not be mutations directly or instantly but still involves genetics.

2. I never said humans evolved from chimps was a fact, I stated that it was something implied based on another scientist who said we probably came from chimps through series of mutations.

Let's go to your flu talk to play with.

Since the "flu" mutates and adapts and you clearly said that things won't adapt or evolve easily in response to their environment, that means the flu virus would only survive if it had certain characteristics that could withstand the force of antibodies or medication and rather let the other part die and just have the stuff that does withstand it grow instead. Basically like wiping out one part of a species in order to allocate the one that best can withstand an environment.

I'm not entirely stupid you know. Wikipedia tells some strange things anyways.

 

So you agree that virus and bacterias evolve, yet, you don't for the other living things, also made of cells?

The fact that it happens so fast with microbes is based on their ultra rapid reproduction cycles. Microbes live and die at a rate that could compare a few weeks to hundreds of thousand of years for a human.

 

If it did exist it would have to be on the micron scale and not something of our size with complexity.

 

But individuals don't evolve genetically on an individual basis due to pressure. So there is no ways for an individual to develop fur or become fireproof. that is the point. An individual can not adapt genetically to their environment as you claimed evolution suggested.

That was the point you made, right? that if i moved to somewhere cold i should, if evolution were true, Become hairier?

Evolution doesn't imply anything of the sort. That is why, As you asked, we don't see humans coming out of chimps and chimps coming out of humans.

That was the point you made, right? that if evolution were true we would see humans coming out of chimps and chimps coming out of humans?

I said individuals don't genetically adapt. As a collective they adapt quickly because of how fast they reproduce and how fast any benificial mutations are passed on.

Are you going to slowly alter your claims post by post so eventually they end up agreeing with me completely?

 

To start with i was talking about transitional phase of humans not animals. And you seem to follow logic a lot, so why found out only one skull, when logic says that we should have found millions of skeletons.

I did not say that it was the missing link, its what the scientisits claim! That one skull may be of anything, i mean a deformed ape or a deformed human or who knows ROSWELL, but the point is there should be a lot more remains of such species, which after all the digging and research scientists have not found out.

Look mate, you can say that scientists may find some more in future, that would be OK! But better accept that there's something wrong with evolution when applied on humans, so far you've been giving examples from bacteria and lizards.

 

I gave you half a dozen examples of hominids which are precursors to humans, What do you want? fossils of ever single individual that ever existed? Fossils are rare, they hardly ever form. But then, we only need one to prove it does happen. More would be nice, we could get a more detailed image of exactly how it happened, but to prove it did happen, we only need one.

Well a "deformed ape" would still be a transitional form between lower primates and humans. Evolution relies on mutations. We have found hundreds of transitional forms, including transitions between lower primates and humans. Just because you refuse to acknowledge it doesn't mean we haven't found them.

No we have equally compelling evidence for human evolution as we do for any other species evolution. Read up on ERV dna, chimpanzee chromosome 13 and lower primate vestiges in humans. In short, get educated.

It's fairly obvious that you are in denial and have no choice but to instantly reject any evidence, no matter compelling it is.

I'm sorry that a magic man in the sky didn't make you, but that's how it is. deal with it.

 

evolution is f*ck up theory since the beginning, so the people who believe in it.

 

The only thing wrong in this thread is your understanding of evolution. There are no "transition" phases, as that would imply a specie would adapt toward a future goal. It does not. There are phases of evolution, however, and there are thousands of fossils, remains and skeletons, showing these different hominid phases. Scientific theories are based on observing the facts and trying to interpret them, not the other way around like some backward fundamentalist religions.

Any specie would not adapt to resisting to fire, however, because it destroys life. But some do adapt to different temperatures, in-between the survivable scale. As for fur, there are hairy people and less-hairy people. If we didn't have clothes, hairy people living in colder conditions would survive more than the less hairy ones, reproduce more, pass that trait, and over hundreds of thousands of years, people would probably have fur, if the conditions stay the same.

What's so difficult to understand. If you're going to deny one of the major scientific theory accepted by the world community of scientists, a theory, I might add, that contributed to find many new scientific discoveries, you better have proofs and evidence of your own, instead of blocking your ears and shout "la la la la" or bring some lame, creationist talking points that only the fanatics and the uneducated mass accepts (that seem to reside mostly in the US bible belt, the rest of the world doesn't have that problem, well, maybe some other crazy theocratic country like Iran).

No complex theory is perfect so nitpicking on a few details that aren't fully understood yet does not invalid it, and surely does not endorse an alternative opinion that mostly says "it's magic", which contributes in nothing to our understanding of the world. Obscurantism ended in the "dark age", in case you weren't informed.

 

does this come from your immense knowledge about biology and geology?

rather sounds like it comes from a profound 'education' acquired at early age in sunday school/mosque (whatever applies)

 

Actually evolution proves the existence of god. We have discussed all of this before a few times havent we lol. isnt Order and purpose such a beautiful thing. God surely has given us so much, why do animals evolve? It all seems like some PURPOSE is going on doesnt it

Common sense unless you believe humans evolved through magic, but then again if you have one of the worlds ex-atheist leaders coming over to the god side then I take it that would make me very insecure if I was an atheist also lol.
God bless reason and common sense.

 

actually, if you not aware off, people already can fly.

there is no cure for viruses, any viruses. and people think that they can create life from nothing?
i'm still waiting for our great scientists to be able create life from nothing.

now, aren't we all want that god will do anything for us? maybe he will be kind enough to drop me a ford ranger tomorrow?

actually, for me personally, there nothing mysterious about god works.

 

well i'm a muslim and went to catholic school when i was young, so you can blame the catholic school.

 

what does that have to with evolution? oh that's right, nothing. it's just you clutching at straws aftering being unable to refute a single thing i have said.

if you want to know what viruses science have produced vaccinations for then smallpox and polio are two for you to have a think about. So instead of trying, and failing, to criticise science, why don't you thank it for saving your life many times over and stop being so ungrateful for what is essentially the greatest gift you have ever been given.

Funny how even the religious go running to science when they have an illness. All the hot air counts for nothing when it comes down to it.

 

for me, it should be more easier to kill the viruses rather than create a life.

who said i'm not being grateful and i'm not appreciated science???
that what the problem, you take conclusion to soon.

not all scientists are atheist.
and not all atheist are scientists.

 

yeah it is, which is why we currently are able to kill some viruses, despite your false claim that we can't.

I find that hard to believe considering how much you criticise science. You come across as being extremely ungrateful for all what science has given you, Including your extended lifespan.

Around 3/4 (75%) of top scientists express a "personal disbelief" in a higher power and disbelief in "immortality". Which is probably a result of atheists, in general, having a higher IQ than the religious, which makes them more likely to be scientists than a disbeliever who, on average, has a lower IQ.

 

link pleaseeeeee

that is again, your problem, hard to believe.
because I criticise science makes me an ungrateful???
1+1=2 is a science...

so... what was i said?
not all atheist are stupid?

 

I gave you two examples. polio and smallpox, google them. Both transmitted virally, both can be vaccinated against. "curing" a virus once a host has been infected is actually impossible, physically, because of the way the virus works. it invades cells and uses the cell functions to reproduce. So once it's in a cell it can't be taken out. what we can do though is administer antiviral treatments to inhibit the viruses ability to infect more cells by disabling certain proteins within the virus (Of course this only works with viruses which have proteins significantly different to proteins in our own bodies otherwise the antiviral treatment will kill us) Thus rendering it incapable of spreading throughout other cells. You can thank science later for that.

People don't generally criticise things they are grateful off.

It's not a case of not all atheists being stupid, it's a case of atheists on average having a higher IQ than the religious and being more likely to be scientists. I don't know if you understand how statistics work but i will walk you through the numbers i gave you and what they signify;

See, on average, an atheist has an IQ 5 points higher than a religious person, and this higher IQ means a higher percentage of the atheist population will become intellectuals, like scientists, than the religious population. So as atheists are more intelligent and more likely to be scientists we should expect to find a higher percentage of disbelief in god in the scientific community than compared to the general population, And we do, With around 75% of scientists disbelieving in the existence of a god compared to around 20% of the general population. So while it's true that not all scientists are atheists, most of them are.