Missing link revealed.

[iPhantom]

Originally Posted by MMM

We don't need to talk about religion to talk about evolution.

True. Religious people think religion is on par with a scientific theory! How sad.

[zorminus]

Jaydelart? can you tell me how you belive the human race began?

[FeyOberon]

Originally Posted by MMM

The fact that evolution exists has been confirmed through observation experiment. Things like the swine flu is just one of thousands of examples. Why is it that flu inoculations become ineffective after as little as a year? Because the flu becomes resistant to the inoculations. That is evolution.

There are countless different strains of influenza virus. Because it would be impossible to vaccinate against every strain, every year doctors and scientists attempt to predict which strains will be predominant in the upcoming flu season and prepare the vaccine accordingly. The foremost reason that last year's vaccination will be ineffective next year is that different strains will predominate.

That being said, I am not denying that virus strains can adapt to treatments that target them. These are normal genetic variations that the virus possessed the capability of in the first place. While an influenza virus may develop a vaccine resistance and be named something new to differentiate it from a non-resistant strain, it is still an influenza virus -- it will never turn into gastroenteritis, HIV, or any other type of virus, let alone something other than a virus altogether.

That is not evolution, it is variation.

And @ iPhantom: You don't really think a discussion about the origin of life and the universe can take place without involving religion (i.e. various belief systems), do you?

[MMM]

1) All living things come from other living things. All living things have a "parent"

2) Animals are not as "different" as those who don't believe in evolution like to think. You can say monkeys are different from dogs that are different from whales. But these creatures do share similar traits. They all have spines, for example. In fact the animal world is divided into 2: vertebrates and invertebrates. With or without a spine.

3) Simple plants and animals existed long before complex ones. The fossil record shows this.

[iPhantom]

Originally Posted by FeyOberon

And @ iPhantom: You don't really think a discussion about the origin of life and the universe can take place without involving religion (i.e. various belief systems), do you?

People who use their own beliefs to prove something can't be helped.

[FeyOberon]

Originally Posted by MMM

1) All living things come from other living things. All living things have a "parent"

2) Animals are not as "different" as those who don't believe in evolution like to think. You can say monkeys are different from dogs that are different from whales. But these creatures do share similar traits. They all have spines, for example. In fact the animal world is divided into 2: vertebrates and invertebrates. With or without a spine.

3) Simple plants and animals existed long before complex ones. The fossil record shows this.

1) I'm not entirely sure how this point relates to anything that has been said recently. Of course all things living on the earth are the offspring of their predecessors -- that really goes without saying, I would hope. If you are alluding to the absolute origin of life, however, then the first "parents" had to have come from somewhere. You will not find a person anywhere who claims to be a scientist and believes that life on earth has always existed.

2) Yes, monkeys and dogs and whales all have spines and hair, are mammals, are bilaterally symmetric, and share numerous other traits. And, yes, the animal world is categorized by Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species based on similar trates among different species. But your point is overly simplistic in that there are irreconcilable differences between different species on a cellular and DNA level. I took biology also, so please don't patronize me.

My point with the viruses was not that two different strains of virus (or viruses compared with bacteria or anything else not viral) are so different from one another. Rather, my point was that, no matter how small the difference between two different organizims, one will never change into the other. My point was that your example of viral "evolution" is not evolution at all.

3) The age of fossils, and, by extension, the plants and animals you refer to, is determined by radiocarbon dating -- an imperfect dating method that cannot provide an accurate age without knowledge of unknowable variables from the past. Also, even today, simple plants and animals are much more likely to encounter circumstances that would lead to fossilization than are complex life forms.

And @ iPhantom: This is what I meant -- Even scientists don't have a theory as to where matter originated from. The Big Bang theory requires a dense mass to be in existence before the big bang occurred. Because "science" has not provided an explanation, theorizing about the source of matter boils down to "I think *fill in the blank* is the answer." Each individual decides for himself what he thinks the answer is. That is his belief.

I would really like to continue this discussion! I'll try to check back this weekend (I can't tomorrow).

[iPhantom]

Originally Posted by FeyOberon

And @ iPhantom: This is what I meant -- Even scientists don't have a theory as to where matter originated from. The Big Bang theory requires a dense mass to be in existence before the big bang occurred. Because "science" has not provided an explanation, theorizing about the source of matter boils down to "I think *fill in the blank* is the answer." Each individual decides for himself what he thinks the answer is. That is his belief.

I would really like to continue this discussion! I'll try to check back this weekend (I can't tomorrow).

Science says universe always existed. Big Bang just made it what it is today.

People often say there was nothingness before. That is downright wrong, something cannot magically form from nothingness. That would mean 'to create from nothing'... which has never happened in human history.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by FeyOberon

1) I'm not entirely sure how this point relates to anything that has been said recently. Of course all things living on the earth are the offspring of their predecessors -- that really goes without saying, I would hope. If you are alluding to the absolute origin of life, however, then the first "parents" had to have come from somewhere. You will not find a person anywhere who claims to be a scientist and believes that life on earth has always existed.

I am not referring to the origin of life but the fact that all life come from life. Me from my parents, my parents from their parents, etc. Each generation different from the last. There is no evidence to suggest that every individual species existing on the planet today came straight through history each on an individual straight line, untouched by other creatures. They must have COME from somewhere. And that somewhere is a simple organism. You have to squeeze your eyes shut pretty tight not to see the connections.

Also the fact that man did not exist when the dinosaurs did means that man had to come from somewhere AFTER the dinosaurs went extinct. Since you agree all life comes from life, where did man come from then?

Originally Posted by FeyOberon

2) Yes, monkeys and dogs and whales all have spines and hair, are mammals, are bilaterally symmetric, and share numerous other traits. And, yes, the animal world is categorized by Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species based on similar trates among different species. But your point is overly simplistic in that there are irreconcilable differences between different species on a cellular and DNA level. I took biology also, so please don't patronize me.

Was I patronizing you? If you took biology then you already know how different animals are connected to each other.

I am surprised you chose to bring up DNA because DNA supports evolution more than debunks it, though certain folks think they have found evidence that it does...

Looking at DNA the human it is almost identical to a gorilla's, but even closer to the DNA of prehistoric human beings...our ancestors. As a biology student you are surely familiar with homology. This is the similarity between different creatures due to shared ancestry. Homology explains things like why certain modern whales have hip bones when they don't have any purpose for a creature that doesn't walk.

Originally Posted by FeyOberon

My point with the viruses was not that two different strains of virus (or viruses compared with bacteria or anything else not viral) are so different from one another. Rather, my point was that, no matter how small the difference between two different organizims, one will never change into the other. My point was that your example of viral "evolution" is not evolution at all.

My example of viral evolution absolutely is an example of evolution on a small scale.

And no, creature do not change into other creatures, it's a much slower process than that. So slow it's impossible to visualize without seeming fantastic. The reason modern whales have hipbones is because their ancestor was a creature called Pakicetus who had more developed rear legs, and probably was a land-dweller. Why can't whales breathe underwater when other fish can? That's the line of ancestry that they came from.

Originally Posted by FeyOberon

3) The age of fossils, and, by extension, the plants and animals you refer to, is determined by radiocarbon dating -- an imperfect dating method that cannot provide an accurate age without knowledge of unknowable variables from the past. Also, even today, simple plants and animals are much more likely to encounter circumstances that would lead to fossilization than are complex life forms.

I would really like to continue this discussion! I'll try to check back this weekend (I can't tomorrow).

Radiocarbon dating is only one way of determining a fossil's age, and indeed it is not perfect, but not nearly as inaccurate as certain factions would like you to believe.

The theory of evolution will never be proven as absolute fact. This is true of most things in science. But it also hasn't been disproved, despite legitimate and continuing efforts. And the longer evolution cannot be disproved, the more likely it is that it is true.

[Jaydelart]

Originally Posted by iPhantom

Theories are not refutable because your mind thinks so. give some clues as to why we should refuse it.

If theories were not refutable, would they still only be theories?

Regardless of how logical or complex, theories are still essentially based on speculation.
Hopefully, you don't deem the clue of common-sense invalid.


I'm not implying at all that Evolution is illogical, nor am I claiming that it is absolutely untrue. Evolutionists are intelligent people who have good reasons behind their beliefs. I just disagree with them.

I can elaborate on the fine details, but we've gone through this debate 5(?) times already, and I'm pretty sure it will end badly.


More on topic... How is this missing link significant?
I'm no scientist, so I'd opt for a (civilized) basic explanation.

[RegPaq]

I remember learning that charles darwin himself converted to religious beliefs before he died. Also that there are scientists who have studied evolution but ended up converting to a religion after they studied the subject. Is this true?... just asking.

One thing that has never left my mind on evolution and something thats keeping me from believing it. Evolution from Ape to man didn't happen over night. So why do we find so few of these "missing links" when we can find an enormous amount of dinosaur bones that apparently lived long before these missing links? And if everything is created from the same original thing, how come humans are so far more intelligent than other animals?