Evolution is Impossible....

Was it not the founder of evolution, Charles Darwin, who disproved his own theroy?

This story was propogated by Lady Hope, and is almost certainly untrue.

Also a statement from Chuck Missler (I dont know if the name is spelled correctly), but he said that evolution is like a tornado going through a junk yard and after it passes a car fully formed and functioning is left behind... it is an extremely slim chance that that could happen....

Chuck Missler is a biblical fundamentalist who probably knows nothing of the working of evolution or biology in general. He is a moron. Not because he claims that evolution is highly improbable, but because he has absolutely no basis for his claim. Evolution by natural selection is very systematic. His analogy is bogus.

scientists have many theories that try to explain what happens with life...

From my "Objection to Religion" post:

The main claim of creationism asserts that life did not evolve on Earth by natural selection, but that a divine entity designed and created life in its present state. Creationists generally mean common descent when they use the term �evolution.� Creationists insist that their claim is as valid as evolution because evolution �is just a theory,� and since it is just a theory it should be removed from class, or all opposing theories should be given equal time in the classroom. The problem here arises from their interpretation of the word �theory.� In American vernacular the term insinuates uncertainty; in the context of science the term is used to describe a group of propositions that explain a natural phenomenon. Gravity, for instance, is a natural phenomenon. There have been many proposed theories to explain the phenomenon, such as Newton�s classical theory, or Einstein�s general theory of relativity, however the fact that two massive bodies will attract each other has remained constant. Similarly, common descent is a natural phenomenon. The theory of evolution explains this phenomenon. It is possible that one day our current theory may be replaced by something else; however that will not change the fact that species are related by common descent.

Goddamn you, Black Jesus, for making sense!

He's a bastard, ain't he?

---

I don't see why people should use the fact that "evolution is highly improbable" as an argument. So what if the chances are a billion to one? There's still that chance it could happen, however miniscule.

He's a bastard, ain't he? --- I don't see why people should use the fact that "evolution is highly improbable" as an argument. So what if the chances are a billion to one? There's still that chance it could happen, however miniscule.

But the thing is it's not highly improbable. Anyone with half a brain that has an open mind can look at the evidence and see that it's the most likely answer. Problem is, religion is all about being closed-minded.

But the thing is it's not highly improbable. Anyone with half a brain that has an open mind can look at the evidence and see that it's the most likely answer. Problem is, religion is all about being closed-minded.

RELIGION IS NOT ABOUT BEING CLOSED MINDED!!!!
Why does every one say that?

RELIGION IS NOT ABOUT BEING CLOSED MINDED!!!! Why does every one say that?

Because religion is absolutely about being closed minded. Are you open to other people's religions? No, of course not, that's against your religion. Are you open to other people's ideas? Of course not, it isn't in your bible and your preacher doesn't teach you anything about it so it must be wrong.

All a religion is is a shitload of people who decide they are only going to believe one thing and automatically say everyone else is wrong. Religion is the biggest load of shit ever.

I think this summarizes the difference between religion and science:

RELIGION IS NOT ABOUT BEING CLOSED MINDED!!!! Why does every one say that?

They keep saying it because all evidence of your posts points to that conclusion. If you don't think this is true, then you are a hypocrite. Choose either to be open-minded (thus accepting that, perhaps, evolution's overwhelming evidence could have a foundation in fact) or choose to accept that religion makes you closed-minded.

Furthermore, the improbability factor in evolution's action is entirely irrelevant. Consider that evolution requires improbability to function (for highly specialized organisations such as wings), why would this be its bane? For the rest, only those parts which, when checked by the actions of nature (living), are sufficiently bred to further generations (to flourish or fade, but, if an organisation is beneficial, it would surely flourish) will continue to emerge and undergo further specialization. Therefore, the tornado comment is a shot in the dark.

Religion does not make people closed minded, you have only been exposed to the people who are, remember that when you steriotype you make your self even more ignorant.....

I also want you to show me physical proof of evolution, a fosil or something....

Furthermore, the improbability factor in evolution's action is entirely irrelevant. Consider that evolution requires improbability to function (for highly specialized organisations such as wings),

Have you seen any changes lately that helped the organism, because I haven't... most of the time you see people with an extra something that is removed because it was causing a hinderance(extra weight, un usable, etc.)...

You evidently don't understand the difference between adaptation and evolution, that small changes in a cell wall can help a cell to survive like if it has minimal exposure to a drug it could develop a resistance much like when people take medicine for a while their body will eventually require more of it to feel the effects...

Actually, bacteria's increasing resilience to antibiotics is an observation of evolution. It is clearly heritable, making it a consequence of evolution, not a simple adaptation.

And for those of you that think Autism is a benefit, people with defect cannot survive on their own, think of them like an infant in a grown up body... they require 'parental' watch.....

What is beneficial in society need not coincide with what is genetically or biologically beneficial. What needs to be asked is will an autistic individual have an advantage when it comes to reproduction. Not to my knowledge. However, KA and Grav were talking about something significantly different.

Religion does not make people closed minded, you have only been exposed to the people who are, remember that when you steriotype you make your self even more ignorant.....

Religion is based on faith. Faith is, of course believing zealously in something in lack of evidence. You could argue that this is not closed-minded. However, zealously believing something which contradicts all evidence is the very definition of dense. Trying to find loopholes around established facts, as you are trying to do in this thread, is quintessential closed-mindedness.

Have you seen any changes lately that helped the organism, because I haven't... most of the time you see people with an extra something that is removed because it was causing a hinderance(extra weight, un usable, etc.)...

- Bacteria's resilience to antibiotics
- Mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS
- Mutations in humans confer resistance to heart disease
- mutations in humans makes bones stronger
- Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity
- Ribozymes
- Adaptation to high and low temperatures in E. Coli
- mutation which allows growth in the dark for Chlamydomonas
- mutation which allows yeast to grow in a Low Phosphate Chemostat Environment
- new enzymatic functions by recombination

I can keep going, but it's impractical. The evidence for beneficial changes are all around.

1. If you understand the concept of adaptation, then you understand evolution. Evolution is adaptation on a larger scale.

Not really. Adapations need not be heritable.

I asked for an evolutionary fossil, not just any fossil.... and I have looked, so far all possible fossils have turned out to be fakes....

Where the fuck are you looking? Evidence for Evolution: Jesus Camp part II?

If you diddent notice by now... you and every one else seems to dodge my question... where is the scientific proof of evolution...

There is no proof of evolution. Proof is not in the realm of science. Proofs happen in mathematics. Science only offers evidence. Evidence and proof are not one and the same. As far as the theory of evolution goes, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence towards it. If you really can't google it, I can briefly outline that evidence for you in another post. Just let me know if that's what you would like me to do.

you dont see transitional animals walking around

"Transitional" is not very well defined. Biologists do not say that you will find outrageous animals, such as half-dogs, or half-birds. This would pretty much disprove evolution. Evolution states that an organism needs to be genetically well-adapted to its environment in order to survive. Such half-animals would not be so lucky, for the most part.

The mistake I assume you are making here is that you think that transitional animals needs to be incomplete in some way. Well, if that is the case, you could say that human beings are incomplete. What is to say that the eye is not further evolving? It's easy to see that other animals have much better eye-sight than our own. That being known, what makes you think that our eye is not simply in a transitional state. No. Transitional animals are all still complete. That is why they can survive.

You can consider the following "transisional" in the sense that they do not have all the same features and abilities of similar creatures:

- The flying squirrel, which could be on its way to becoming more batlike
- The euglena, which appears well on its way to becoming a plant
- Aquatic snakes
- any animal with an "infrared eye"
- various fish that can survive on land for extended periods of time

Again, it would be impractical for me to list all the examples. Nor could I tell you all the examples.

and you dont see any evidence in the fossil record

It paints a clear picture of the phylogenetic tree...

They are one in the same... in a court system evedence is proof that someone has done something, evedence supports the proof...

The interpretation of the courts is highly irrelevant in this discussion. Evidence and proof in the contex of science are simply not the same thing.

One question... If monkeys evolved into humans... how come we still have monkeys? Shouldent they all heve evolved?

This is another common example of creationist ignorance to evolution. Humans did not descend from monkeys. We share a common ancestor with monkeys.

DNA would agree... if one has the traits to change they all should....

Negative. Speciation generally occurs on a population. It is hardly ever pandemic. Evolution does not occur due to DNA encoding the change. It occurs through mutations in the DNA. It would occur on an individual level only. If it hapens to be beneficial, natural selection will spread it out through a population.