refute them, Don't just say it doesn't prove evolution. Give reasons why it doesn't. The word is *than*. From your "understanding" what more is required?
Evolution is crazy. I honestly think that there is so much lack of proof and evidence that it shouldn't even be considered a theory.
interesting stance on the subject... But i am interested, What should take the place of evolution and what evidence and proof is there to support your alternative idea, whatever it may be. You obviously have a deep and profound understanding of the theory of evolution and possess a scientific mind so please, let us know what alternative a great scientific mind like yours has come up with so we can start teaching it to our children. I can't wait!
Stox you leave out all the little details that are actually big deals, you want to know what they are look it up, im sure you know what i mean. You cant find an explanation for evolution that isnt 4 pages long, it is not as simple a process as what you state. Actually i entered the debate, and brought plenty of facts that were immediately dismissed, because it went against the religion of evolution. Everyone Bow to the great God of time. without him we would not exist
You made a statement and i asked you to quantify it. You said there is more to evolution than i stated, Like what? what more is there? Don't just say things and then ask people to do your research for you when they ask you what you meant.
Well specifically i am refering to the details that would answer questions like: How did the heart, lungs, brain, stomach, veins, blood, kidneys, etc. develop in the first animal by slow, minute steps and the animal survive while these changes were occurring? For example, did the first animal develop 10% of complete veins, then 20%, and on up to 100%, with veins throughout its entire body and brain? Then how did the heart slowly develop in the animal and get attached to the veins in the right spot? How did the blood enter the system? The blood could not enter before the veins were complete or it would spill out. Where did the blood come from? Did the blood have red corpuscles, white corpuscles, platelets, and plasma? At what point in this process of development did the heart start beating? Did the animal develop a partial stomach, then a complete stomach? After the stomach was formed, how did the digestive juices enter the stomach? Where did the hydrochloric acid as part of the digestive juices come from? What about its kidney and bladder? The animal better not eat anything prior to this. How did the animal survive during these changes? (And over thousands of years?) Of course, at the same time the animal's eyes must be fully developed so it can see its food and his brain must be fully developed so the animal can control its body to get to the food. Like the heart, brain, veins, and stomach, all of the organs and systems in the first animal's body must be fully functional in the first moments of life. This indicates that evolution couldn't occur, and the fossil record indicates that it didn't occur!!! In other words, if you cannot come up with a detailed, feasible scenario of how the first animal developed, the whole evolutionary theory goes out the window, because it never could have even gotten started! Or is your attitude going to be: "Don't bother me with such details. My mind is made up."?
No they wouldn't have had to be fully functional from the beginning because when they first started developing they were in an animal that didn't require them to be fully functional. Each organ would start off performing the simplest of tasks, And as the creature evolves the organ evolves with it. lungs for example would have started off as cavities for storing air, As the creature grew the lungs would become flexible allowing the creature to draw air into them by creating negative pressure. nothing we have on our body spontaneously formed, It all took millions of years and millions of tiny, Almost unnoticeable, changes. Here is a list of fossils showing creatures in transitional phases
So why is it the animal with the newly developed lung cavaty didnt die. If it all of a sudden had to adapt or evolve, in order to breathe air, how did it survive in the meantime?
Why would it die? at the time it would have been something like an insect, With no lungs, they absorb oxygen through their skin. A cavity would have formed making it easier for the creature to absorb air because it would have given it a larger surface area, And over time, With millions of tiny changes, it developed in to a flexible lung capable of drawing a breath.
we could argue this all day long and not change any ones mind - but its least some more respect should be shown - i.e. I am an intelligent human being - just because I don't agree with your theories doesn't make my automatically non scientific.
Major big steps required in evolution - creation of DNA - DNA to be self replicating - Rise of single cell organism - Change from single cell to multi cell - Change from multi cell to diversification and adaption other major steps - required atmospheric changes needed for this to occur - some being lethal to other stages - required symbiotic relationships - e.g. plants and animals intimate relationships e.g flowers are unnecessary and useless with pollinating organisms
Why would atmospheric changes be required? The current species were not predestined to come into existence, the organisms best fit for survival in the environment at the time were most likely to reproduce. The same with symbiotic relationships, the trait of working together like that was beneficial to survival so was chosen by natural selection. It wasn't necessary that such a relationship was formed or that is was predestined.
Because the currently proposed scenario to produce just the proteins for rNA (not even the rNA itself - just the possible building blocks) requires an atmosphere that is lethal to most other forms of life - how you can instantly change that atmosphere to the right combination of Oxygen, CO2, etc to kept evolution ticking along makes the proposition even more unlikely. In fact in nearly every stage of evolution massive hurdles are required to be over come. A single cell is immensely complicated, the various cycles to produce energy, replicate, defend the cell, maintain water and other chemical balance - without just one of these mechanisms the cell dies - its difficult to imagine how a cell could evolved without having all present at once.
Lethal to many current life forms, not to typical life forms that were alive in that era. That is what I was getting at.
Agreed - like the forms of life in the Volcano blows of deep oceans -[nil photosynthesis required to support the food web - quite remarkable - yet still sustains a complete ecosystem] - most other forms of life on the planet can not live there - but the problem is take them even a short distance from their niche and they die -