Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-10-2012, 17:21   #1
Gunhaver
the wrong hands
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,736
Blog Entries: 1
What's your biggest problem with the theory of evolution?

So I had a conversation with my biological father the other day. We've never met. He's in south Florida and I'm way up north. He left when I was a year old and both of our families were JWs and I didn't hear from him for 36 years. Facebook brought us back together and surprise!... He's now a minister.

We had a conversation about my atheism and evolution. I talked to him for literally 4 hours about my issues with religion and the bible along with all of the evidence for evolution and his opinion at this time is that there is plenty of evidence to support the theory right up to the point where mammals split from reptiles. That, he says, is the point where evidence falls short so obviously god had evolution guide the creation of all species until the mammals which is where he stepped in and started creating until he stopped with man, his perfect design.

Never mind that the split from mammal to reptile happened much later and over a longer period of time than that from bird to reptile and involved much larger animals in much greater numbers and that these factors provide far greater evidence than for the rep-bird transition. That's the point where he's uncomfortable with the idea so that's where it has to stop.

So for those of you that deny evolution, what's your biggest problem with the theory? What about it just doesn't make sense?
Gunhaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 17:31   #2
HexHead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,818
Why has evolution appear to have stopped over the last couple of thousand years?
HexHead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 17:39   #3
Drilled
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Detroit
Posts: 1,513
The missing link...maybe it lurks here.
__________________
“The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” —Samuel Adams
Drilled is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 17:57   #4
JBnTX
JB in Tx
 
JBnTX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 14,600
Lack of a fossil record.

http://personal.georgiasouthern.edu/~etmcmull/Noev.htm

http://www.icr.org/article/260/

http://evolutionfairytale.com/articl...l_illusion.htm

No where in history has any animal ever given birth to a completely, or even moderately, different kind of animal.

If evolution were true, there would be a fossil record to show the changes over millions of years.

Sure we have fossils of dog sized horses, but how do you know they weren't a completely different species from the horses of today. There's no evidence showing that same species of horse gradually changing into the horse of today.

How do we know the wholly mammoth wasn't a completely different animal from today's elephant? And if that mammoth had survived, it would still be a mammoth today and would have never evolved into our modern elephant?

There's absolutely nothing linking a million year old fossil of a bird to a modern day bird. Absolutely no proof that one evolved into the other. Just because they look alike doesn't mean they're the same.

..

Last edited by JBnTX; 11-10-2012 at 18:09..
JBnTX is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 18:00   #5
ditto1958
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: West Monroe, Louisiana
Posts: 899
If evolution is true, why are people getting dumber instead of smarter?

Last edited by ditto1958; 11-10-2012 at 18:02..
ditto1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 18:07   #6
Gunhaver
the wrong hands
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,736
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by HexHead View Post
Why has evolution appear to have stopped over the last couple of thousand years?
It hasn't. It's still going strong today. Is plate tectonics false because you can't stand there and watch them move around?
Gunhaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 18:18   #7
Gunhaver
the wrong hands
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,736
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBnTX View Post
Lack of a fossil record.

http://personal.georgiasouthern.edu/~etmcmull/Noev.htm

No where in history has any animal ever given birth to a completely, or even moderately, different kind of animal.


..
Your whole point hinges on this one sentence and it's demonstrably false. The offspring of any animal, or plant for that matter, is never exactly the same as it's parents. There is always a change from one generation to the next. What stops those changes from adding up to massive changes over many generations? If the change is obvious and you want to make the claim that it has to stop at a given point then you have to provide evidence of what biological mechanism halts that change. Stating "it's never been observed!" is very poor science. If we only trusted in what we could actually watch happen before our eyes then we'd be quite a bit further behind than we are.

Can you actually "observe" nuclear fusion happening? How much do you deny that it's real?
Gunhaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 18:29   #8
Gunhaver
the wrong hands
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,736
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by ditto1958 View Post
If evolution is true, why are people getting dumber instead of smarter?
My first knee-jerk reaction to that question is, "Because humans aren't subject to natural selection anymore" but that's not the right answer.

There's no automatic selection for higher intelligence. That's obvious in the fact that we could very well kill ourselves off in a number of ways while cockroaches carry on. That intelligence only happens when a species has the genetic potential for it AND environmental factors select for those genes for a given time.

It seems like intelligence would be an automatic win for any species. So would wings unless you live underground where shovels are more useful. So would great depth perception unless you really need to watch your back. So would giant claws unless you have to spend all day on your feet grazing. You get the idea.
Gunhaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 18:30   #9
JBnTX
JB in Tx
 
JBnTX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 14,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunhaver View Post

Your whole point hinges on this one sentence and it's demonstrably false. The offspring of any animal, or plant for that matter, is never exactly the same as it's parents. There is always a change from one generation to the next.

Do you have a source for this statement?

Dogs have baby dogs, horses have baby horses, fish have baby fish.
Show me where any one animal gave birth to a different type of animal?

Surely in the millions of years of evolution that fossil proof would exist somewhere. But it doesn't, why?

..

Last edited by JBnTX; 11-10-2012 at 18:31..
JBnTX is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 18:41   #10
Gunhaver
the wrong hands
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,736
Blog Entries: 1
Your links go to typical YEC sites that get it so wrong that it'd be a full time job to correct all the misinformation. As for there being no transitional forms... There are many. In fact every single animal that's ever reproduced was a transition between what it was generations ago and what it will be, or has become many generations later.

What you're looking for is something that is obviously between 2 completely different animals. That happens sometimes. Ever seen a saber tooth monitor lizard? Therapsids are my favorite obvious transitionals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapsida

Particularly Arctops Watsoni. I had the pleasure of helping liberate one from it's matrix once and it's an amazing critter.
Gunhaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 18:57   #11
Gunhaver
the wrong hands
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,736
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBnTX View Post
Do you have a source for this statement?

Dogs have baby dogs, horses have baby horses, fish have baby fish.
Show me where any one animal gave birth to a different type of animal?

Surely in the millions of years of evolution that fossil proof would exist somewhere. But it doesn't, why?

..
A source for that statement? Do you look exactly like your parents? Exactly the same height, same number of hairs on your bodies, same fingerprints, same DNA? Do your children look exactly like you? Do calico cats only give birth to calico cats? Dogs are always exact clones of their parents? There's your source.

That fossil proof does exist and you've been pointed to it many times. Each time you dismiss it because it's not from a YEC site. I'm quite a bit more versed on fossil evidence than you are. Maybe you should trust me? Don't you call an electrician to do electrical work or a lawyer for legal work? I'm no paleontologist but I have worked with them and they've shown me many things that have blown my mind.

Last edited by Gunhaver; 11-10-2012 at 19:02..
Gunhaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 19:02   #12
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 14,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBnTX View Post
Do you have a source for this statement?

Dogs have baby dogs, horses have baby horses, fish have baby fish.
Show me where any one animal gave birth to a different type of animal?

Surely in the millions of years of evolution that fossil proof would exist somewhere. But it doesn't, why?

..
You can't actually believe the Theory of Evolution proposes that species emerge in a single generation?

Like every billion births a new species pops out?

There's plenty of examples of genetic changes in isolated populations even in humans. Blood types, genetic abnormalities, etc. That's over a period of thousands of years, not millions of years.

Where do YOU think dinosaurs came from? They didn't exist in earlier times. Then they did. Different ones appeared at different times. Then they were gone. Then birds appeared. Then mammals.
What's your theory?

Randy

Last edited by steveksux; 11-10-2012 at 19:03..
steveksux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 20:15   #13
PaulMason
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBnTX View Post
Lack of a fossil record.



No where in history has any animal ever given birth to a completely, or even moderately, different kind of animal.


This shows you don't understand the theory of evolution.
PaulMason is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 20:28   #14
ArtificialGrape
CLM Number 265
Charter Lifetime Member
 
ArtificialGrape's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 5,950
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBnTX View Post
No where in history has any animal ever given birth to a completely ... different kind of animal.
Here we can agree, but to argue that this is a problem with evolution would require a strawman argument, because evolution does not argue that an animal gives birth to a completely different kind of animal.

To take that further, there was never a first human (Homo sapien), a first dinosaur, a first turtle, etc.

Imagine that you build a giant flip book (like the deck of stick figures that you flip through to animate the figure), with a picture of you, your father, his father,... 100-greats-grandfather...10 million greats-grandfather... Now grab any 3 consecutive cards (son, father, grandfather) and they will all clearly be members of the same species. This would even be true across hundreds of generations.

If you went back several thousand generations you would find noticeable changes -- for instance to the forehead ridge and eyes. If you kept going back to your 50,000-greats-grandfather you would be looking at a Homo erectus ancestor, however there was never a Homo erectus that gave birth to a Homo sapien.

An oversimplification would be water temperature. We can all agree that there is hot water (let's say on the verge of boiling) and cold water (let's say on the verge of freezing). As we warm the pan of cold water, can you identify, to roughly the nearest 1/10th of a degree Fahrenheit when the water is no longer cold, and is now hot?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JBnTX View Post
No where in history has any animal ever given birth to a ... moderately different kind of animal.
Do you have the exact same DNA has your parents? Do siblings that share the same mother and father have the same DNA as each other? No, they are all moderately different.

-ArtificialGrape

If time permits after the kids go to bed I may reply in more detail.
ArtificialGrape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 21:15   #15
Woofie
CLM Number 293
Disirregardless
 
Woofie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Here
Posts: 10,080
Send a message via AIM to Woofie
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBnTX View Post
Lack of a fossil record.

http://personal.georgiasouthern.edu/~etmcmull/Noev.htm

http://www.icr.org/article/260/

http://evolutionfairytale.com/articl...l_illusion.htm

No where in history has any animal ever given birth to a completely, or even moderately, different kind of animal.

If evolution were true, there would be a fossil record to show the changes over millions of years.

Sure we have fossils of dog sized horses, but how do you know they weren't a completely different species from the horses of today. There's no evidence showing that same species of horse gradually changing into the horse of today.

How do we know the wholly mammoth wasn't a completely different animal from today's elephant? And if that mammoth had survived, it would still be a mammoth today and would have never evolved into our modern elephant?

There's absolutely nothing linking a million year old fossil of a bird to a modern day bird. Absolutely no proof that one evolved into the other. Just because they look alike doesn't mean they're the same.

..
You fail worse than Romney's presidential campaigns.
__________________
"Turns oit i had irrisputable proof i was out of the country" youngdocglock

"I don't need to figure probabilities, and I don't need facts." JBnTx

"Maybe they should drink like Woofie and come up with pure brilliance." OXCOPS

"Woofie is the only smart one around here." Photoman642
Woofie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 21:29   #16
Atomic Punk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,657
http://sickle.bwh.harvard.edu/malaria_sickle.html

humans with sickle cell anemia tend to be immune to malaria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyam

looking back at the history of the black plague shows some people already had an immunity to the bacteria. tests of their descendants show most have it also.

evolution is not necessarily about strength, intelligence, or many other things. its about adapting, what survives. disease has been a factor, just like many other things.
Atomic Punk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 21:33   #17
Gunhaver
the wrong hands
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,736
Blog Entries: 1
What I want to know is, now that the way evolution really works has been explained to you as opposed to the YEC misrepresentation of it, does that change your standard of evidence?

In other words, since transitional fossils obviously need to look the way they do instead of the way you think they should, does that change your mind about the evidence? We'll just assume you were in the bathroom the other 1000 times this has been gone over.

Expect me to keep hounding you with bigger and bigger text until you answer.
Gunhaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 21:49   #18
Paul53
Geezer Boomer
 
Paul53's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: W of Pecos, N of Rio Bravo
Posts: 4,153
Firm believer in evolution or natural selection. What bothers me is the thought that it would have the strongest effect on traits that would increase survival to childbirth, or having offspring of some type, and raising them. But it seems like it would have least effect at selecting for longevity. Species where young are dependent on parental nurturing are also favored (humans, birds) whereas species with no parental involvement (snakes, turtles) get no benefit for trait selection after reproduction.

Kinda long winded description, but I don't see anybody studying how natural selection effects species after reproduction.
__________________
Ever have a recurring dream that in a previous life you were a Druid who died with a lot of bad Karma and were reincarnated as mulch?

Last edited by Paul53; 11-10-2012 at 21:51..
Paul53 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 21:59   #19
Atomic Punk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul53 View Post
Firm believer in evolution or natural selection. What bothers me is the thought that it would have the strongest effect on traits that would increase survival to childbirth, or having offspring of some type, and raising them. But it seems like it would have least effect at selecting for longevity. Species where young are dependent on parental nurturing are also favored (humans, birds) whereas species with no parental involvement (snakes, turtles) get no benefit for trait selection after reproduction.

Kinda long winded description, but I don't see anybody studying how natural selection effects species after reproduction.
there is no "one way" every species still around today is on a path that for whatever reason allowed it to continue to pass on its genes.
Atomic Punk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 22:04   #20
Gunhaver
the wrong hands
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,736
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul53 View Post
Firm believer in evolution or natural selection. What bothers me is the thought that it would have the strongest effect on traits that would increase survival to childbirth, or having offspring of some type, and raising them. But it seems like it would have least effect at selecting for longevity. Species where young are dependent on parental nurturing are also favored (humans, birds) whereas species with no parental involvement (snakes, turtles) get no benefit for trait selection after reproduction.

Kinda long winded description, but I don't see anybody studying how natural selection effects species after reproduction.
Maybe this is what you're getting at?

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...ly-2010-06-30/
Gunhaver is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:28.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,238
305 Members
933 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31