AAE (an evolution thread)

[Cukeman]

Think back to the 1800's, they used to have medicine shows, where
actors performed and vendors sold 'snake oil' (useless cure-all medicine)
just so that people in their company could pickpocket the audience.

Is this the era that our modern science should be founded upon?

I believe that science from this era is outdated.
This is why I am starting AAE: Athiests Against [Darwinian] Evolution
[I hope this name isn't already taken]

The reference to the medicine show is not a specific, or even a good
comparison to the works of Charles Darwin, but I think that there is a
remote connection. I do not submit it as an analysis.

I hope to bring strong unbiased facts that challenge evolution into this
discussion, as I have read up on the material. But first I should point out
what I mean when I say "evolution".

I believe in micro-evolution, that is evolution within a species. For
example, there is only one (or a few) species of dog, but through
selective breeding we have achieved dozens and dozens of breeds of
dog. HOWEVER, they are still dogs. We can't change them into birds,
or cats, or cows.

I DO NOT believe in macro-evolution, that is that one
species can evolve into another. Monkeys have always been monkeys
and will always be monkeys. Monkeys will never evolve into man, and
indeed I think they did not.

I hope this thread will be an appropriate discussion, those who do not
share my view should think twice before joining the discussion or flaming.
Those who agree with my view or oppose it are welcome as long as
they are capable of friendly, mature debate.

I will post some discussion material in about a couple of weeks. So be
patient with me.

Let's let this be a MOD friendly thread.
Talk to you soon

[Margar]

I understand what you mean here, and tend to agree with you, however, so many people are confused over the origins of monkeys and men...
you can't draw a straight line from monkeys to men, but we do share common ancestor species. it's like things branched out WAY back when, and monkeys aren't our ancestors, but rather REALLY distant cousins.

think of it like this:
today we have many many species of birds. Now only same species of birds can reproduce with eachother. Likewise, I can't go screw a monkey and have a monkey/human baby (or hell, maybe I could, who knows? who has REALLY tested that?- don't answer that. i don't think I want to know!).

but all birds share a common ancestor species, right? or a small few original avian species evolved into the THOUSANDS of bird species we have today. same with monkeys and men. we share a common ancestor (theoretically).
when you hear people talk about the "missing link" they're referring to that ancestor from which monkeys and humans both came. Some people believe lucy (an ancient hominid skeleton found) to be a link, and I think there may be others, but there just isn't enough evidence to say for sure.

I really don't think any scientist nowadays still think that man evolved from MONKEYS, but rather, the apes and humans share a common "linking" ancestor (which I suppose you could call a monkey, but at such a primitive stage, you'd be better off just to call it a homo-whatever)

[Cukeman]

For clarification purposes I do not believe in 'common ancestors' either.

And you are right. Old-fashioned evolution has undergone revision over
the years, but the basic school-text versions presented are often the
older material, unfortunately.

In my dog example, let's say there was just one species of dog
originally, there are many breeds today but there would still only
be one species.

As I understand it, the idea of common ancestors is that
different species come from the same source(s).

The way I see it, the species on Earth today are exactly the same
as the species on Earth originally. The only difference is variations
within a species.

I do not believe that a common ancestor can branch off several
new species.

Although there are variations within the species, that species is
essentially the same no matter how far back you trace it.
That is my position.

(Instead of few ancestors, the variety and number of species back then
was as varied as it is today...excluding now extinct species)

[Margar]

I gotchya. but I'm sure there's plenty of evidence to prove both you AND me wrong, LOL! and I'd be interested in seeing it.

the debator in me wants to go find proof that your common ancestor opinion is WRONG! but the lazy person in me is saying "go play animal crossing"
LOL!

[GDwarf]

Well, I know you're trying to argue this from an atheist perspective (though I'd wonder where you think the different species come from) but really, this is pretty much identical to our Creationism v. Evolution thread.


If you can convince me that they'll be different enough to warrant this having it's own thread I'll keep it open, otherwise I may have to close or merge it.

[Cukeman]

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Well, I know you're trying to argue this from an atheist perspective (though I'd wonder where you think the different species come from) but really, this is pretty much identical to our Creationism v. Evolution thread.


If you can convince me that they'll be different enough to warrant this having it's own thread I'll keep it open, otherwise I may have to close or merge it.

Thanks for the heads up. I'm new here.

As for where the species come from. That is the mystery. My only goal
is to show support that it was some other means than Darwinian evolution.
I just want to show scientific dissatisfaction with the theory.

One other major purpose of my thread is just to avoid religion since
it is a whole different realm of reasoning. Also, I am making a comment
on the overgeneralization that because someone doesn't agree with
evolution they "must" be religious. That is unfair.

[Margar]

actually, GDwarf, I think this merrits staying open...

but what I really want to know is- if you don't believe in evolution, nor creation, then how did the species get here???

how can you be atheist and not believe that all life evolved from a common species?!?!
(at least leave it open til we get the answer!)

[Mirror Image]

I really don't see where you're coming from at all. Because we had people using fake science in order to make money it discredits Darwin's life work? I really don't get this at all. As far as I know (I could be VERY wrong here) the majority of that took place in America (Again sorry if I'm wrong about this), but either way it's not like those were in the Galapagos islands.

Originally Posted by Margar

think of it like this:
today we have many many species of birds. Now only same species of birds can reproduce with eachother. Likewise, I can't go screw a monkey and have a monkey/human baby (or hell, maybe I could, who knows? who has REALLY tested that?- don't answer that. i don't think I want to know!).

I recently watched a documentary called Humanzee which looked at the possibility of cross breeding a human being and a chimpanzee. From what I gathered from it, this is scientifically possible due to the fact we are 98% similar to chimpanzees (some have even claimed it has been done, and the offspring killed within days, but this cannot be proven), but due to moral and ethical reasons, the likelyhood of this actually taking place is slim.

but all birds share a common ancestor species, right? or a small few original avian species evolved into the THOUSANDS of bird species we have today. same with monkeys and men. we share a common ancestor (theoretically).
when you hear people talk about the "missing link" they're referring to that ancestor from which monkeys and humans both came. Some people believe lucy (an ancient hominid skeleton found) to be a link, and I think there may be others, but there just isn't enough evidence to say for sure.

Oh, there's many others. I'm sorry but I'm not very knowledgable on this subject, and I really don't know all that much about hominids, but I know that lucy is nowhere near the oldest or the most likely candidate for a 'missing link'
List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You might want to ask someone with more knowledge for better information.

I really don't think any scientist nowadays still think that man evolved from MONKEYS, but rather, the apes and humans share a common "linking" ancestor (which I suppose you could call a monkey, but at such a primitive stage, you'd be better off just to call it a homo-whatever)[/quote]The great apes all have 48 chromosomes, and humans have 46. Since we don't just lose chromosomes, the way to explain how we could be related to these animals and have 46 chromosomes would be that a pair of our chromosomes somewhere along the line fused. And we did find that that indeed happen with Chromosome #2 I'm not very knowledgeable on this subject, and the clearest explanation I can find is on wikipedia, which I guess isn't very credible, but here:
Chromosome 2 (human - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

[Cukeman]

Originally Posted by Mirror Image

I recently watched a documentary called Humanzee which looked at the possibility of cross breeding a human being and a chimpanzee. From what I gathered from it, this is scientifically possible due to the fact we are 98% similar to chimpanzees (some have even claimed it has been done, and the offspring killed within days, but this cannot be proven), but due to moral and ethical reasons, the likelyhood of this actually taking place is slim.

I am going to have to look this up again, but I think I remember reading
that a mouse is 90-some percent similar to humans also. If I am right
in my memory, then that number doesn't mean a whole lot.

[Mirror Image]

Originally Posted by Cukeman

For clarification purposes I do not believe in 'common ancestors' either.

Then please explain to me your theory on all of those pesky fossils in the ground laughing at you.

The way I see it, the species on Earth today are exactly the same
as the species on Earth originally. The only difference is variations
within a species.

Unless you can present evidence I'm inclined to call you blind.

I do not believe that a common ancestor can branch off several
new species.

Too bad that beliefs in science must be backed up by plausible theory, from which evidence on your part I don't think I'm ever going to see.

Although there are variations within the species, that species is
essentially the same no matter how far back you trace it.
That is my position.

Then how do you explain the whole classification of animals that goes from Kingdom - Phylum - Class - Order - Family - Genus - Species.

That's my main question to you, besides asking you to prove your claims. If everything came about just as it was, wouldn't this be somewhat impossible?

I guess you can argue that we made up this way to classify different organisms, but still, I believe my question still valid.

[Cukeman]

Originally Posted by Mirror Image

...Then please explain to me your theory on all of those pesky fossils in the ground...

I believe in flood theory. I didn't say that a supernatural being caused the flood.
But EVERY religion has a flood story. This oral history crosses the barriers of
religion and culture. There have been computer models (by Christian scientists)
involving the physics of water dynamics. These show that under flood circumstances,
large layers of bone and sediment can be ordered by size and density etc.
Have you noticed that there are many fossils "out of place" in the fossil record?
Things appearing which did not "evolve yet", or just don't belong in that "era."
Also look at large groups of fossils which are in convoluted positions suggesting
violent and sudden death. Further, there are no transitions discovered between
creatures if these are "long geological eras" of evolution.

Originally Posted by Mirror Image

"The way I see it, the species on Earth today are exactly the same
as the species on Earth originally. The only difference is variations
within a species.
I do not believe that a common ancestor can branch off several
new species."

Unless you can present evidence I'm inclined to call you blind.
Too bad that beliefs in science must be backed up by plausible theory, from which evidence on your part I don't think I'm ever going to see.

I admit that I cannot prove that all of these species existed back then,
but neither can you prove they didn't. Correct?
-This is all besides the point. The purpose of this thread is to discuss
the shortcomings of evolutionary theory, not to find a valid replacement.
I will be glad to share my thoughts on what might have happened in
lieu of evolution, but they are only suggestions. The entire point of
the thread is not to FIND the truth, it is to debate whether or not
Darwinian evolution is the answer. My theories may or may not hold
water, but I am putting Darwin's theories to the test, not my own.
(That could be a separate thread.) The goal is not to replace evolution
with "what really happened" it is too discuss whether or not evolution
is really possible.

Originally Posted by Mirror Image

...how do you explain the whole classification of animals that goes from Kingdom - Phylum - Class - Order - Family - Genus - Species.

That's my main question to you, besides asking you to prove your claims. If everything came about just as it was, wouldn't this be somewhat impossible?

I guess you can argue that we made up this way to classify different organisms, but still, I believe my question still valid.

It is indeed my view that the kingdoms and phylums are merely systems of
organization, and considering pending updates, it seems that the system
isn't quite ironed out yet. The reason for the similarites between the species
is that they all live in similar ecosystems, for life to exist on this planet
it must be equipped to deal with life on land sea or air. This planet's life
is heavily based on water and oxygen.

Suppose there was life on Mars. All the species would have different
characteristics to be able to live on that planet. My point is that animals
are similar because they share the same limited resources, not because
they evolved from a common ancestor or from other species.

I am sorry but I don't have my materials at hand, I warned
readers that it would take time. If you want specifics, wait.
It is not that I cannot provide them.

P.S. Mirror Image, insults are detrimental to the purpose of debate and make you look
unprofessional, and could result in flaming, please do not get emotionally involved.
Thank you.

P.P.S. Thank you for the mouse link.

[Mirror Image]

Originally Posted by Cukeman

I am going to have to look this up again, but I think I remember reading
that a mouse is 90-some percent similar to humans also. If I am right
in my memory, then that number doesn't mean a whole lot.

Stem Cell Mixing May Form A Human-Mouse Hybrid - New York Times


Maybe you should have started this thread when you were ready to hold a valid debate.

[Eternal Paradox]

Originally Posted by Cukeman

I believe in flood theory. I didn't say that a supernatural being caused the flood.
But EVERY religion has a flood story. This oral history crosses the barriers of
religion and culture.

1) I'm assuming you are talking about a global flood.

Problems with a Global Flood

2) I'm not 100% positive, but I'm pretty sure that every religion does NOT have a flood story.

As for showing evidence for evolution:
YouTube - 7 -- The Theory of Evolution Made Easy
YouTube - human evolution made easy
YouTube - Ken Miller on Apes and Humans
YouTube - ken miller on the evolution of whales


Oh, and I agree with MI. You probably should have waited till you had all your sources gathered.

[Mad Hatter]

Cukeman, your argument is mostly shattered by the fact that speciation has been observed in many instances.

Here is one list
Here is another,
and here is one more.

Of course, you could move the goalposts and argue against common descent. But then how would you explain the stunning convergence of the fossil record, DNA evidence, biochemical evidence, biogeographical evidence, and geological evidence all pointing to the same line of descent?

And also, what, specifically, is it about evolution that would make it impossible for macroevolution to occur?

Lastly, keep in mind that while there were fraud scientists in the 1800's, there were some very good scientists too. Today there are probably more frauds then in the 1800's, but it's marketed as "alternative medicine". It is no different from the snake oil-peddling charlatans you talk about.

[T-Nemesis]

You say that you accept microevolution occurs, but not speciation events. Okay, then what do you think limits microevolution? What stops all of these little changes from microevolution adding up over millions of years?

[Cukeman]

Blech, real life. I had to work. I am wrapping it up now though.

Before I post some info I have one thought:

For centuries the universe was a mystery to athiests, now
because of one man and one theory we HAVE to choose
evolution OR creation? Excuse me, but that is an either/or fallacy.

[GDwarf]

Er, I'm afraid I don't quite follow that.

Atheists are not the ones making the fallacy.

The current argument from the creationists is, essentially, either everything currently part of the theory of evolution is 100% right, or God did it.

Most atheists are happy to say that parts of evolution could be wrong, but that the theory will adapt, and that even if it doesn't that doesn't mean that God did it.

[ShadowLink92]

Originally Posted by Cukeman

Blech, real life. I had to work. I am wrapping it up now though.

Before I post some info I have one thought:

For centuries the universe was a mystery to athiests, now
because of one man and one theory we HAVE to choose
evolution OR creation? Excuse me, but that is an either/or fallacy.

The universe was a mystery because science had not progressed to the point of allowing detailed knowledge of certain aspects of the world. It is not because of one man and one theory that we have to choose evolution or creation; it is the overwhelming fossil evidence. Darwin was just the first to notice it. If evolution had no supporting evidence, it would not survive in the scientific community.

If you can offer a credible explanation as to why Darwinian evolution is incorrect, please share. If you can't logically argue against it, with actual evidence and not personal beliefs, then you have no right to challenge it.

[Chencheya]

lol flood theory

In case you haven't noticed, the fossil record is,actually, quite neat and orderly, and not in a chaotic mess that worldwide floods would have created. Why do you think there aren't tyrannosaurus fossils mixed up with mammoth fossils? Why aren't there any cavemen fossils mixed up with dunkleosteous fossils?

Are you saying that were there lots and lots of global floods across the world, perhaps? All at different time periods? If so, why have no worldwide floods ever been recorded? Why is there no evidence of a worldwide flood ever recorded, when there is plenty of evidence of fossils suggesting the nature of the evolution of the horse/whale (check these up on wikipedia, they're pretty good), knowledge on when these creatures existed through looking at the sediment structure, right down to knowing what certain dinosaurs ate through examinations of dinosaur poo fossils?

Many religions have a flood story of their very own. Many of them are called myths.

[Cukeman]

"Facts are very interesting things, however it is in the conclusions which we
draw from facts that we often err." -Ron Howard as Sherlock Holmes

Fossil evidence can be used to support more than one theory.
Stating the facts does not mean your interpretation of them is correct.

Again, I have posted no info yet, but this is a basic thought to keep in mind.

Please remember that when science is presented in MEDIA, it is often biased in order to support current theories. You have to think critically. Does the
evidence support the claim? Don't just regurgitate the claim.