Evolution is Impossible....

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:

Pretty much yeah, that looks about right. Except the graph to the right is missing the "find evidence that is bullshit but believe it anyway" box. Like how Joseph Smith got those golden plates that had some divine language on them that only he could read and after he read them the "angels took away his ability to read them." And how nowadays there are actually prophets in the mormon church and pretty much anything they say is straight from God.

Oh and something interesting and slightly funny, the tomb of jesus and his family is thought to have been discovered. They've found loads and loads of evidence that statistically proves it's jesus' tomb. The funny thing is, a lot of christians I've talked to about it are like "yes see we were right all along!" when it actually completely disproves their religion. If christ rose from the grave, why would his remains stay behind?

The next step in this conversation is they say "God put that there to test our faith. The true believers won't be fooled by this."

Hence why I think religion is the biggest load of bullshit ever.

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.

Brace yourself for ignorant nonsense.

Hah, I was too late because I read MJs post. The ignorant nonsense is above this post.

This debate has reached the point of being pointless(isn't that weird.) MJ's last two posts were absolutely magnificent, I envy your ability to debate like you do MJ. Draco on the other hand is just an ignorant fool.

To quote MC Hawking:

Upon blind faith they place reliance,
What we need more of is science.

Draco, take note!

You and me both. I wish I could debate like that. I think it just takes a little more effort than most are willing to exert is all.