I once did a study on Evolution in my Pathology class and my lecturer made a statement ""I want all of you to understand that evolution is just a theory and hasn't been proven yet, but in this class, we will be referring to hard and fast scientific evidence that makes it a believable and widely accepted idea of creation and how life arose."

I have seen in many cases in this Forum that evolution has sorta become like a religion (widely accepted belief though with no god) unknowingly despite the fact that its almost as inconclusive as the proponents "cream" christianity. I dare to counter such belief not because i represent christianity but because I am also a free-thinker. Afterall we have the same evidence (earth and its content) to proove the existence or non existence of GOD, the formation of life by Intelligent Design (creationism) or by chance (evolution).

I knew that learning the material was not synonymous with accepting it. I got no reason not to learn evolution. I had even garnered a lil knowledge from church "Christ Embassy". I learned about almost everything from the Big Bang, neutrinos to Hubble's Law. From the Evolution of cosmos (earth) to Life in itself and i couldnt see a better reason to believ more in evolution than creationism.

Firstly "To be forced to believe only one conclusion—that everything in the universe happened by chance—would violate the very objectivity of science itself. Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye?"

Even Charles Darwin, whose theories about evolution took the world by storm, had second thoughts. In his later years he reflected on what he had started: "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them" (William Federer, America's God and Country, 1996, p. 199).

It is helpful to remember that evolution cannot offer an explanation for the origin of our magnificent universe; evolution seeks to explain only how life might have begun in a universe that already existed.

So my case against evolution:

[list]
[li]
Since evolutionists claim that the transition from one species to a new one takes place in tiny, incremental changes over millions of years, they acknowledge that we cannot observe the process taking place today. Our lifespans simply are too short to directly observe such a change.
Instead, they say, we have to look at the past-the fossil record that shows the many life forms that have existed over earth's history-to find transitions from one species to another.

Darwin's theory predicted that countless transitional forms must have existed, all gradually blending almost imperceptibly from one tiny step to the next, as species progressively evolved to higher, better-adapted forms.
Indeed that would have to be the case. Well in excess of a million species are alive today. For all those to have evolved from common ancestors, we should be able to find millions if not hundreds of millions of intermediate forms gradually evolving into other species.
It was not only fossils of transitional species between apes and humans that would have to be discovered to prove Darwin's theory. The gaps were enormous.
[/li]

[li]
If evolution is the guiding force in human development, how is it that higher forms of life evolved with male and female sexes? If humans are the pinnacle of the evolutionary process, how is it that we have the disadvantage of requiring a member of the opposite sex to reproduce, when lower forms of life—such as bacteria, viruses and protozoa—are sexless and far more prolific? If they can reproduce by far simpler methods, why can't we? If evolution is true, what went wrong?
[/li]

[li]
Furthermore. If humans are the result of evolution continually reinforcing characteristics that offer a survival advantage while eliminating those that hinder perpetuation, how can we explain a human infant?
[/li]


[li]
If evolution is true, and humans are the pinnacle of the evolutionary process, why does a process as basic as human reproduction fly in the face of everything that evolution holds true?
[/li]

[li]
Among thousands of species the newly born (or newly hatched) are capable of survival within a matter of days or, in some cases, only minutes. Many never even see their parents. Yet, among humans, an infant is utterly helpless—not for days but for up to several years after birth.
[/li]

[li]
A human baby is reliant on adults for the nourishment, shelter and care he or she needs to survive. Meanwhile, caring for that helpless infant is a distinct survival disadvantage for adults, since giving of their time and energy lessens their own prospects for survival.
[/li]
[/list]


Which is the myth, God or evolution? Louis Bounoure, director of France's Strasbourg Zoological Museum and professor of biology at the University of Strasbourg, stated: "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless" (Federer, p. 61).


Science has been challenged to proove OR disprove the existence of GOD. But must we really light a candle to see the sun? . . .

Layi,

I'll come back to you later this evening to refute each and every one of the arguments you put forth against evolution. You are putting up a strawman and galantly charging him to smithe him to the ground.
Your characterisation of the Theory of Evolution is completely off the mark. Apparently you did not understand one iota of the fundamental forces underlying evolution. I'm a bit saddened that an intelligent man like you is fighting an unwinnable fight in a true Don Quichote manner.

Thats the purpose of the thread - to understand those fundamental forces.

Don Quichote u say? I think my points are nsync..not just explaining away ideas.

However you need not be saddened yet. Let the victory be declared first 

Bring it on.

Layi, this is brilliant! I'm waiting to evolve into some higher primate very soon or don't you think it's high time I evolved?

I've also tried to evolve as well. But seems Evolution hates me.

what kind i evolve into o? hmm, lemmie go and design that in the lab

Evolution as a THEORY makes more sense than the biblical creationism. Simple. Besides hasn't the recent DNA decoding makes that apparent?

dejiolowe:

what kind i evolve into o? hmm, lemmie go and design that in the lab

It can only be "Homo Virtualis" - Invisible man

demmy:

Evolution as a THEORY makes more sense than the biblical creationism. Simple. Besides hasn't the recent DNA decoding makes that apparent?

The DNA coding  issue u pointed out is just a finding under "population genomics" that only gives more credence to the  "Recent African Origin" theory. Funny enough it is scriptural.
Secondly it's does not add a thing to the human evolution theory.

I want to evolve into a super-human. I want to be able to fly, immortal, burrow into the ground, last for ever on ***, etc

Me, I'm evolving into Homo Robotis. I'll become a robot, everything in me will be programmed. Deji, your own is[i] Homo Superis[/i] - Superman.

Me i want to be Homo Sexualis sorry i mean Homo Angelos - Angel

Brilliant write up there, Layi!

Yes, very brilliant indeed! It made all the pro-evolution folks evolve into Homo [b]Silent[/b]us. 

This post has evolved ME into homo happinessis.
Evolu-what?!Joke of the century. Remember,people used to believe the world was flat!The guy who argued differently,was forced(murdered) to take poison.Now we are all much wiser eh!May be someone will soon tell us the world is hexagonal,and some will believe!
I only believe one thing!GOD CREATED HEAVEN AND EARTH. Period! NO SCIENTIFIC OR OTHER JARGON WILL CHANGE THAT. WANNA TRY,NFERYN?!

well y'all,I just evolved into snazzydabombsapiens!!!

your right layi a species can not evolve, scientists no that so when trying to prove a point they always say over a period of time after living in a differnt place they needed to adapt so they changed bull rubbish. if me and my family live in alaska for a billion years we won't evolve but our offspring we'll not have any problem with the wether their body we'll adapt but their physical apperance won't change or their skin color 

nferyn:

Layi,

I'll come back to you later this evening to refute each and every one of the arguments you put forth against evolution. You are putting up a strawman and galantly charging him to smithe him to the ground.
Your characterisation of the Theory of Evolution is completely off the mark. Apparently you did not understand one iota of the fundamental forces underlying evolution. I'm a bit saddened that an intelligent man like you is fighting an unwinnable fight in a true Don Quichote manner.

Yeah Layi, your arguements are full of logical fallacies ( "Putting up a Strawman" as Nferyn pointed out)
check out this link:
[url]http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lilyth/strawman.html[/url]

most of the posters in this specific thread are guilty of it too!

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position."

what kind i evolve into o? hmm, lemmie go and design that in the lab

wth?

------------
you say evolution is just a theory?
what is the[i]Creation[/i] then?. . . A MYTH!! some creation myth story in the Bible.
now if you were told a myth and a theory which one would you think has a more reliable weight?


and yeah Nferyn is coming to get you guys! 
only he makes better arguments that are actually very coherent and logical which sometimes require a very knowledgeable audience (most of you don't even know what really evolution is. only the oversimplified definition you rely on as well as Layi's biased info.. .  You have to know both sides to make a sound judgement of both.)If only you guys knew what really evolution means instead of attacking made up assertions that the opponent never made in the first place.

layi:

I once did a study on Evolution in my Pathology class and my lecturer made a statement ""I want all of you to understand that evolution is just a theory and hasn't been proven yet, but in this class, we will be referring to hard and fast scientific evidence that makes it a believable and widely accepted idea of creation and how life arose."

It's quite obvious your lecturer did not know the first thing about the Theory of Evolution. A pathologist is not, unless I understand it wrongly, a biologist. Could you explain the context in which he made that statement,, because it is a clear sign of his ignorance on the subject matter.
Anyway, this is the classical mix up of the colloquial meaning of the word theory and the scientific meaning of the word theory.
The famous biologist Stephen J. Gould explained this issue as:

The basic attack of modern creationists falls apart on two general counts before we even reach the supposed factual details of their assault against evolution. First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word "theory" to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice. Second, they misuse a popular philosophy of science to argue that they are behaving scientifically in attacking evolution. Yet the same philosophy demonstrates that their own belief is not science, and that "scientific creationism" is a meaningless and self-contradictory phrase, an example of what Orwell called "newspeak."

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

On top of that, by using the words of creation and how life arose, your lecturer makes it abundantly clear that he has [b]no [/b]understanding of the Theory of Evolution, as that theory:
[list]
[li]does not deal with life's origins[/li]
[li]has nothing to do with creation[/li]
[/list]
I wonder how much experience the man has in the scientific field? If he does have a research background, it will most definitely [b]not [/b]be in biology.

layi:

I have seen in many cases in this Forum that evolution has sorta become like a religion (widely accepted belief though with no god) unknowingly despite the fact that its almost as inconclusive as the proponents "cream" christianity. I dare to counter such belief not because i represent christianity but because I am also a free-thinker. Afterall we have the same evidence (earth and its content) to proove the existence or non existence of GOD, the formation of life by Intelligent Design (creationism) or by chance (evolution).

There are mountains of evidence in favor of the Scientific Theory of Evolution and not a shred of evidence in favor of creationism (just look at this for a mere glimpse of the evidence: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/). Layi, you are as much a free thinker as your religion allows. You dare not step outside the boundaries of your religious dogma. Once more, proof is for mathematics and logic and has no place in real natural science. You can only study the evidence and there is plenty [/b]for evolution and [b]none whatsoever for creationism.
I'm happy you dare to call a cat a cat. Intelligent Design is indeed nothing more than Creationism [/i]in disguise. You show your lack of understanding about evolution by refering to chance as the main driver of evolution. Chance only plays a role in the random mutations that form the basis on which the evolutionary processes can work. Natural selection and sexual selection, which drive evolutionary change in organisms, are anything but chance processes.

layi:

I knew that learning the material was not synonymous with accepting it. I got no reason not to learn evolution. I had even garnered a lil knowledge from church "Christ Embassy". I learned about almost everything from the Big Bang, neutrinos to Hubble's Law. From the Evolution of cosmos (earth) to Life in itself and i couldnt see a better reason to believ more in evolution than creationism.

Well in view of the source of your material, I wouldn't have expected anything else. Did you ever read any material by even one relevant scientist (I mean a working research biologist)?

layi:

Firstly "To be forced to believe only one conclusion—that everything in the universe happened by chance—would violate the very objectivity of science itself. Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye?"

Why do you keep on hammering that [i]chance [/i]bit? Where does that obsession with [i]chance [/i]come from? Evolution is not driven by chance or random processes. Natural selection is very directive, as only those organisms that are succesful in a specific environment can reproduce and spread their genes.
Read this as an antidote for your misconception of chance in evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html

As for your example of the evolution of the human eye, here's the evidence for it's evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vision.html
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/eyes.htm#Overview
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/evolution.html#EYES
This last link gives a very simple description of how eyes can evolve,which I will repeat here (also see attached image for te references):

The green represents the creature that is evolving, the pink represents light-sensitive cells. Imagine these changes happening over a period of two million years (which is a microscopic fraction of the history of the Earth), each generation of creatures only changing by a fraction of a percent).
A: The creature is blind. This has obvious disadvantages as it cannot see predators approaching, and has to rely on sound, smell etc.

B: A random mutation has given this creature a patch of light-sensitive cells (not a problem - see below). It can detect light and dark. A sudden change of light to dark could indicate a predator approaching, allowing the creature to defend itself (by fleeing, fighting etc.) and dramatically increase it's chances of surviving and reproducing. Which is more likely to survive long enough to reproduce - a creature that runs when a shadow passes over it, or one that stands still? Your skin is covered in cells/nerves that detect heat, pressure, taste, smell and so on. Light is not that much different (see below).

C: Two patches, one either side of the head have developed (no surprise, as symettrical mutations are very common). The creatures can now determine which side the shadow is approaching from, and run in the opposite direction (or it may distinguish open spaces from dark shelter, for instance). Again, a huge improvement in their chances of survival from a fairly small change in their body. Slugs and snails see like this (admittedly, they can't run very well, but who wants to eat a slug anyway?).

D: If the patch of cells becomes hollow, cup-shaped, it gives the ability to better determine the direction of light (a dome would work just as well, but would be easier to damage. Also, a hollow would help create greater contrast with well-defined shadows). One side of the cup will be better-lit than the other. This creature can therefore better determine the direction that a shadow is approaching from (or, again, find a dark shelter more easily).

E: The hollow deepens over time and starts to close in on itself. A photographer would recognise this a pin-hole camera. It will form a reasonable image on the cells (retina), allowing the creature to see shapes, not just differentiate between light and dark. The Nautilus (a marine mollusc) has eyes exactly like this.

F: A transparent membrane covers the pin-hole, forming a crude lens (alternatively, the eye may be filled with a transparent jelly). This will make the images formed on the retina much sharper as well as protecting the delicate surface from dirt and infections. The creature can see predators/prey much more clearly now.

G: Muscles around the lens develop, allowing the creature to alter the shape of the lens and change focus. Now it can clearly see objects close by or far away. This is how the eyes of most mammals (such as humans) function. The Chameleon's eyes are quite different - instead of changing the shape of the lens, muscles move the lens backwards and forwards to focus the image, in the same way that an auto-focus camera works.

Further incremental refinements include the iris (to restrict the amount of light), eyelids (to protect and clean the surface of the eye) and muscles to rotate the eyes.

Very conservative simulations by the biologists [i]Nilsson and Pelger, showed that it takes only about 400.000 generations to develop a camera-lens eye such the human eye (see http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1995-06-16peepers.shtml for a full explanation). It is so astoundingly fast that it would be nearly impossible to detect in the fossil record. It is thus of no surprise that the eye has evolved at least 40 times completely independently in different species.

layi:

Even Charles Darwin, whose theories about evolution took the world by storm, had second thoughts. In his later years he reflected on what he had started: "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them" (William Federer, America's God and Country, 1996, p. 199).

It is a falsehood that Darwin had second thoughts about the validity of his theory, on the contrary. The Lady Hope story you're referring to has been proven to be a fabrication. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hope.html) Darwin used to be an avid theist and it took him quite long to muster the courage to go against the prevailing stream and publish his work On The Origin of Species and only after his Theory was scientifically well established did he dare to publish Descent of Man. So strong was the oposition to the idea that humans are also mere animals.

layi:

It is helpful to remember that evolution cannot offer an explanation for the origin of our magnificent universe; evolution seeks to explain only how life might have begun in a universe that already existed.

Neither should it. It simply does not deal with the origins of the universe. Would you go and ask your auto-mechanic for help when it comes to performing a complex surgery? I am quite positive though that he is far more qualified than you to work on your car.

layi:

So my case against evolution:

[list]
[li]
Since evolutionists claim that the transition from one species to a new one takes place in tiny, incremental changes over millions of years, they acknowledge that we cannot observe the process taking place today. Our lifespans simply are too short to directly observe such a change.
Instead, they say, we have to look at the past-the fossil record that shows the many life forms that have existed over earth's history-to find transitions from one species to another.

Darwin's theory predicted that countless transitional forms must have existed, all gradually blending almost imperceptibly from one tiny step to the next, as species progressively evolved to higher, better-adapted forms.
Indeed that would have to be the case. Well in excess of a million species are alive today. For all those to have evolved from common ancestors, we should be able to find millions if not hundreds of millions of intermediate forms gradually evolving into other species.
It was not only fossils of transitional species between apes and humans that would have to be discovered to prove Darwin's theory. The gaps were enormous.
[/li]
[/list]

1. because evolution happens over wide timespans (geological time), it does not mean evolution has not been observed. Species with very short generational timespans (such as fruit flies or bacteria) are used to study evolution in action. What creationists call macro-evolution (the development of seperate species) has been observed on countless occasions.
See:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

2. transitional fossils for all major taxa have been found. This in itself is already quite impressive, as the remains of past species only fossilise under very favorable conditions, so only a very tiny number of specimens of the great variety of past lifeforms could ever fossilise and could thus be found. Obviously, this could only be a problem for the Theory of Evolution, if the fossil record were the only line of evidence in it's favor, which isn't the case.
See:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cre_args.html

layi:

[list]
[li]
If evolution is the guiding force in human development, how is it that higher forms of life evolved with male and female sexes? If humans are the pinnacle of the evolutionary process, how is it that we have the disadvantage of requiring a member of the opposite sex to reproduce, when lower forms of life—such as bacteria, viruses and protozoa—are sexless and far more prolific? If they can reproduce by far simpler methods, why can't we? If evolution is true, what went wrong?
[/li]
[/li]
[/list]

This once more shows your lack of understanding of what the Theory of Evolution really is. Sexual reproduction provides many benefits, such as a more rapid adaptation rate and quicker evolution of resistance against parasites. The most important benefit though is that it is a mechanism that weeds out non-beneficial mutations quicker within a population. For complex, multi-cellular organisms, these benefits far outweigh the advantage of fast reproduction.
Multi cellular lifeforms have just colonised another niche of nature that bacteria, viruses and protozoa do not occupy and for that reason, they are not in direct competition with these lifeforms. Sexual reproduction has proven to be the most beneficial survival mechanism for multi-cellular organisms.

layi:

[list]
[li]
Furthermore. If humans are the result of evolution continually reinforcing characteristics that offer a survival advantage while eliminating those that hinder perpetuation, how can we explain a human infant?
[/li]
[/li]
[/list]

Very easily. How exactly does the existence of human infants disprove evolution, as the human form and characteristics have proven to be quite successful. We have colonised the entire planet. The main driver for our success as a species is our big brain and our ability to craft and use tools. Such a brain needs a lot of development and consumes a lot of energy. Even at birth, the human brain is huge compared to other species. It still needs to develop considerably to perform the functions humans need for survival. That's why the human infant needs long care and nourishment by it's parents (I won't bore you here with the details as to why we are not born with a fully developed brain, but if you would insist, I can explain the mechanism of the underlying evolutionary trade-offs in another post)

Once more, our success as a species is sufficient evidence for the positive evolutionary outcome of human specificity. We eat [/b]all those species that are capable of survival within a matter of days [b]for lunch and we have developed technology to fend of fierce predators without much effort. What more do you need as evidence for our evolutionary success?

layi:

[list]
[li]
If evolution is true, and humans are the pinnacle of the evolutionary process, why does a process as basic as human reproduction fly in the face of everything that evolution holds true?
[/li]
[/list]

Only a Creationist would say that humans are the pinnacle of evolution. We are successful, yes, but so are the insects and bacteria, and even more so, as they have a higher bio-mass than ourselves.
Anyway, can you explain how exactly human reproduction flies in the face of everything that evolution holds true? It seems to me that it only flies in the face of the validity of your strawman of evolution.

layi:

[list]
[li]
Among thousands of species the newly born (or newly hatched) are capable of survival within a matter of days or, in some cases, only minutes. Many never even see their parents. Yet, among humans, an infant is utterly helpless—not for days but for up to several years after birth.
[/li]
[/list]

So? See above.

layi:

[list]
[li]
A human baby is reliant on adults for the nourishment, shelter and care he or she needs to survive. Meanwhile, caring for that helpless infant is a distinct survival disadvantage for adults, since giving of their time and energy lessens their own prospects for survival.
[/li]
[/list]

Evolution works on the level of the replicators, not on the level of the individual or group. Investment of time and energy in their offspring increases the chance of survival of the constituant genes of a specimen more than fending for one's own survival. You should read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins

layi:

Which is the myth, God or evolution? Louis Bounoure, director of France's Strasbourg Zoological Museum and professor of biology at the University of Strasbourg, stated: "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless" (Federer, p. 61).

Another one of those creationist mock-ups? You can do better than that, layi.
See:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part11.html

It's is quite obvious that creationists just love to use quotes, either by famous biologist or by others that could give their ideas credibility. These quotations are either invented, attributed to other people than the ones that made them, a mock up of several quotes by different people, or completely out of context quotations.
This quotation scores high on that index. It passes 3 out of the 4 criteria for good ^(tm) creationist quotations.

layi:

Science has been challenged to proove OR disprove the existence of GOD. But must we really light a candle to see the sun? . . .

Since when has science been challenged to do that? This is news to me.

nferyn:

It's quite obvious your lecturer did not know the first thing about the Theory of Evolution. A pathologist is not, unless I understand it wrongly, a biologist. Could you explain the context in which he made that statement,, because it is a clear sign of his ignorance on the subject matter.
Anyway, this is the classical mix up of the colloquial meaning of the word theory and the scientific meaning of the word theory.
The famous biologist Stephen J. Gould explained this issue as:
On top of that, by using the words of creation and how life arose, your lecturer makes it abundantly clear that he has no [/b]understanding of the Theory of Evolution, as that theory:
[list]
[li]does not deal with life's origins[/li]
[li]has nothing to do with creation[/li]
[/list]
I wonder how much experience the man has in the scientific field? If he does have a research background, it will most definitely [b]not [/b]be in biology.

There are mountains of evidence in favor of the Scientific Theory of Evolution and not a shred of evidence in favor of creationism (just look at this for a mere glimpse of the evidence: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/). Layi, you are as much a free thinker as your religion allows. You dare not step outside the boundaries of your religious dogma. Once more, proof is for mathematics and logic and has no place in real natural science. You can only study the evidence and there is [b]plenty [/b]for evolution and [b]none whatsoever for creationism.
I'm happy you dare to call a cat a cat. Intelligent Design is indeed nothing more than Creationism [/i]in disguise. You show your lack of understanding about evolution by refering to chance as the main driver of evolution. Chance only plays a role in the random mutations that form the basis on which the evolutionary processes can work. Natural selection and sexual selection, which drive evolutionary change in organisms, are anything but chance processes.
Well in view of the source of your material, I wouldn't have expected anything else. Did you ever read any material by even one relevant scientist (I mean a working research biologist)?
Why do you keep on hammering that [i]chance [/i]bit? Where does that obsession with [i]chance [/i]come from? Evolution is not driven by chance or random processes. Natural selection is very directive, as only those organisms that are succesful in a specific environment can reproduce and spread their genes.
Read this as an antidote for your misconception of chance in evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html

As for your example of the evolution of the human eye, here's the evidence for it's evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vision.html
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/eyes.htm#Overview
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/evolution.html#EYES
This last link gives a very simple description of how eyes can evolve,which I will repeat here (also see attached image for te references):Very conservative simulations by the biologists [i]Nilsson and Pelger, showed that it takes only about 400.000 generations to develop a camera-lens eye such the human eye (see http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1995-06-16peepers.shtml for a full explanation). It is so astoundingly fast that it would be nearly impossible to detect in the fossil record. It is thus of no surprise that the eye has evolved at least 40 times completely independently in different species.

It is a falsehood that Darwin had second thoughts about the validity of his theory, on the contrary. The Lady Hope story you're referring to has been proven to be a fabrication. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hope.html) Darwin used to be an avid theist and it took him quite long to muster the courage to go against the prevailing stream and publish his work On The Origin of Species and only after his Theory was scientifically well established did he dare to publish Descent of Man. So strong was the oposition to the idea that humans are also mere animals.
Neither should it. It simply does not deal with the origins of the universe. Would you go and ask your auto-mechanic for help when it comes to performing a complex surgery? I am quite positive though that he is far more qualified than you to work on your car.
1. because evolution happens over wide timespans (geological time), it does not mean evolution has not been observed. Species with very short generational timespans (such as fruit flies or bacteria) are used to study evolution in action. What creationists call macro-evolution (the development of seperate species) has been observed on countless occasions.
See:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

2. transitional fossils for all major taxa have been found. This in itself is already quite impressive, as the remains of past species only fossilise under very favorable conditions, so only a very tiny number of specimens of the great variety of past lifeforms could ever fossilise and could thus be found. Obviously, this could only be a problem for the Theory of Evolution, if the fossil record were the only line of evidence in it's favor, which isn't the case.
See:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cre_args.html
This once more shows your lack of understanding of what the Theory of Evolution really is. Sexual reproduction provides many benefits, such as a more rapid adaptation rate and quicker evolution of resistance against parasites. The most important benefit though is that it is a mechanism that weeds out non-beneficial mutations quicker within a population. For complex, multi-cellular organisms, these benefits far outweigh the advantage of fast reproduction.
Multi cellular lifeforms have just colonised another niche of nature that bacteria, viruses and protozoa do not occupy and for that reason, they are not in direct competition with these lifeforms. Sexual reproduction has proven to be the most beneficial survival mechanism for multi-cellular organisms.
Very easily. How exactly does the existence of human infants disprove evolution, as the human form and characteristics have proven to be quite successful. We have colonised the entire planet. The main driver for our success as a species is our big brain and our ability to craft and use tools. Such a brain needs a lot of development and consumes a lot of energy. Even at birth, the human brain is huge compared to other species. It still needs to develop considerably to perform the functions humans need for survival. That's why the human infant needs long care and nourishment by it's parents (I won't bore you here with the details as to why we are not born with a fully developed brain, but if you would insist, I can explain the mechanism of the underlying evolutionary trade-offs in another post)

Once more, our success as a species is sufficient evidence for the positive evolutionary outcome of human specificity. We eat [/b]all those species that are capable of survival within a matter of days [b]for lunch and we have developed technology to fend of fierce predators without much effort. What more do you need as evidence for our evolutionary success?
Only a Creationist would say that humans are the pinnacle of evolution. We are successful, yes, but so are the insects and bacteria, and even more so, as they have a higher bio-mass than ourselves.
Anyway, can you explain how exactly human reproduction flies in the face of everything that evolution holds true? It seems to me that it only flies in the face of the validity of your strawman of evolution.
So? See above.
Evolution works on the level of the replicators, not on the level of the individual or group. Investment of time and energy in their offspring increases the chance of survival of the constituant genes of a specimen more than fending for one's own survival. You should read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins
Another one of those creationist mock-ups? You can do better than that, layi.
See:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part11.html

It's is quite obvious that creationists just love to use quotes, either by famous biologist or by others that could give their ideas credibility. These quotations are either invented, attributed to other people than the ones that made them, a mock up of several quotes by different people, or completely out of context quotations.
This quotation scores high on that index. It passes 3 out of the 4 criteria for good ^(tm) creationist quotations.
Since when has science been challenged to do that? This is news to me.

wow........this is one long post, you must have alot on your mind bro.

goodguy:

Brilliant write up there, Layi!

IAH:

Yes, very brilliant indeed! It made all the pro-evolution folks evolve into Homo [b]Silent[/b]us.

Apparently people only listen to arguments they already agree with. Sad but true

layi:

demmy link=topic=6208.msg194621#msg194621 date=1138984736:

Evolution as a THEORY makes more sense than the biblical creationism. Simple. Besides hasn't the recent DNA decoding makes that apparent?

The DNA coding issue u pointed out is just a finding under "population genomics" that only gives more credence to the "Recent African Origin" theory. Funny enough it is scriptural.

Can you explain to me how exactly the "Recent African Origin" theory (which postulates that Homo Sapiens moved out of Africa approximately 50.000 years ago) gives credence to scripture?

Alright, just a quick one for the pro-evolutionists.
If Humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

Icon:

Alright, just a quick one for the pro-evolutionists.
If Humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

@ Icon
I guess those stubborn Apes just refused to Evolve....lol

I'm strongly aversed to evolution as the source of human life. Before i start dissecting some points raised in posts above...i'll want the pro-evolutionists to answer Icon's question first.

Icon:

Alright, just a quick one for the pro-evolutionists.
If Humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

nferyn:

Apparently people only listen to arguments they already agree with. Sad but true

Brilliant write up there, nferyn!

layi:

I'm strongly aversed to evolution as the source of human life. Before i start dissecting some points raised in posts above...i'll want the pro-evolutionists to answer Icon's question first.

Icon link=topic=6208.msg195766#msg195766 date=1139051058:

Alright, just a quick one for the pro-evolutionists.
If Humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

Well, as it's your thread I will grant you the courtesy of answering that question.

Humans and other apes share a common ancestor they don't evolve into each other. This once again shows how badly you people understand evolution, but I think you do not have a willingness to learn anyway.
It's actually as stupid a question as you can possibly ask. It's akin to saying[i] "If many Americans and Australians are descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans around?"[/i]

Anyway, I guess the source of this question is a misunderstanding of the process of natural selection. Natural selection does not postulate that because a population evolves into another species because of increased fitness, that the original species dies out. Natural selection is a process that works from:
1. genetic variation within a host species
2. evolutionary pressure coming from a specific environment (ecology)
Selection is a function of positive fitness changes caused by genetic variability within a specific [/b]environment. [b]Different environments cause different kinds of adaptations

Hominids evolved from other apes when the climate in Africa changed. The atmospheric CO2 (greenhouse gas) decreased during the ice ages and it became significantly cooler and dryer. The lush tropical forests retreated to a band closer to the equator and the natural environment of the common ancestor between Chimpansees and Humans changed. It found itself in two different climates with two different evolutionary pressures. One was the tropical forest (where the chimpansee now resides) and the other the savanna (where our Hominid ancestors lived). The two populations became reproductively isolated and evolved in different directions: one leading to humans and the other leading to the common chimp and the bonobo.

It's quite obvious your lecturer did not know the first thing about the Theory of Evolution. A pathologist is not, unless I understand it wrongly, a biologist

A pathologist is a biologist. Infact a "higher" biologist and he deals more with microbiology (supposed antecedents of macrobiology).

Could you explain the context in which he made that statement,, because it is a clear sign of his ignorance on the subject matter.

Thats inconsequential, its a statement with a vivid meaning that can't change for the opposite with context

On top of that, by using the words of creation and how life arose, your lecturer makes it abundantly clear that he has no understanding of the Theory of Evolution, as that theory:

does not deal with life's origins

Then what does evolution explain? Evolution explains the origin of Life through abiogenesis. I am surprised at your statement (except u've got your own version of evolution).
The explanation of the origin of life offered by evolution theory is roughly this: Once upon a time, there was no life. Purely by chance, there came to be simple organisms capable of reproducing themselves. Random mutations introduced variety into the population of these organisms, with the result that some of them were better suited for competition than others. A scarcity of the natural resources necessary for these organisms to survive introduced competition for those resources. Those least fit for competition were unable to secure the resources that they needed to survive, and died without reproducing. Those best able to compete multiplied, with random mutations again introducing further variety. As this process was repeated, the organisms developed on an upward curve: each round of mutations introduced better organisms, and each round of competition killed off the weaker organisms. We are the result of the repetition of this process over millions of years.

See these links for more info :
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/L/lifeorigin.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

I wonder how much experience the man has in the scientific field? If he does have a research background, it will most definitely not be in biology.

Beign a prof in the field of biology, i know he's definitely got more experience than you- a communication scientist.

There are mountains of evidence in favor of the Scientific Theory of Evolution and not a shred of evidence in favor of creationism

Evolution theory is merely an interpretation of facts. Creationism also does the same. Its just an alternative interpretation of those facts. There are evidences supporting creationism which We'll delve into that later.
In actual fact, if there are 2 sides of a coin, and 1 side is not it. U don't need evidence or proof to tell you its definitely the other side.

Layi, you are as much a free thinker as your religion allows. You dare not step outside the boundaries of your religious dogma

Evolution is also a religion ..though with no god. You are guilty as well. You can't think out of the box called "logic". I have seen several things in life that are illogical (not abnormal)

You show your lack of understanding about evolution by refering to chance as the main driver of evolution. Chance only plays a role in the random mutations that form the basis on which the evolutionary processes can work

So without "chance" the evolutionary process can't work. What are we saying then?

Neither should it. It simply does not deal with the origins of the universe.

Evolution does not deal with origin of universe and origin of life? Then what does it deal with. Origin of what? What explains your obsession for www.talkorigins.org .You've referred me there a thousand times and all they talk there is origin. Am i missing something?

1. because evolution happens over wide timespans (geological time), it does not mean evolution has not been observed. Species with very short generational timespans (such as fruit flies or bacteria) are used to study evolution in action.

Man could have a relatively longer generational span, but we have had over 20,000 generations since homo sapiens evolved acoording to evolutionist. Is that not enough to observe evolution in man? Afterall the present man evolved from Homo Erectus<corrected> *according to Evolutionists* over 400,000yrs ago. It takes roughly 300,000 - 500,000 years for species in the HOMO genus to evolve into the next and the transition phase gets considerably shorter down the *tree*. We should have observed evolution in modern man - Homo Sapiens (Homo Sapiens Sapiens).

Humans and other apes share a common ancestor they don't evolve into each other. This once again shows how badly you people understand evolution, but I think you do not have a willingness to learn anyway.
It's actually as stupid a question as you can possibly ask

Its a clever question sir. If Natural selection is responisble for the evolution of man and apes from the same ancestors, then they shouldnt be living under the same enviroment/natural habitat. The 'forest' is inconsequential afterall ther are trees and gardens in the cities. The point here is the region. Chimpazees and Man both live in tropical region. Morphological similarity does not indubitably explain a relationship.

Hominids evolved from other apes when the climate in Africa changed.

Scientists have identified the skeletal structures of Homo sapiens in different parts of the world. The main conroversy centers around the question of whether Homo sapiens evolved from a single population in Africa or simultaneously in different parts of the world. Some evidence (molecular genetics) supports the "Out of Africa"model, other evidence (morphology) supports the "Multiregional Evolution"model.

See http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1997/TroyHolder.shtml and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

Once more, our success as a species is sufficient evidence for the positive evolutionary outcome of human specificity. We eat all those species that are capable of survival within a matter of days for lunch and we have developed technology to fend of fierce predators without much effort. What more do you need as evidence for our evolutionary success?

Evolution theory holds that we have evolved incrementally over time, gradually changing from one state that works to another state that works better. If evolution theory is true, therefore, then there must be a succession of states, each of which allows us to survive, through which we have evolved on an upward curve.
This, though, doesn’t seem to be the case; we seem to be irreducibly complex. To illustrate (actual examples are a bit more complex than this): think of the organs that make human beings work, our hearts, lungs, stomachs, brains, etc. A human being that lacks any of these won’t just have less survival value than one with all of them; it won’t have any survival value at all. A human being without a heart is a dead human being, as is one without either lungs, or a stomach, or a brain. We therefore can’t have incrementally acquired these things, first getting one, then another, and so on; we must have acquired them all at once. That, though, isn’t evolution. Evolution is a gradual process.

Evolution, then, cannot explain the origin of irreducibly complex biological organisms. If we are such organisms, then there must be more to how we got here than evolution.

Here is the Major Problem With the Theory as regards evolution of Life.

Early theories of the origin of life centered on the ability of a reducing atmosphere of the prebiotic earth to instigate formation of amino acids, and subsequently assembly of proteins. Stanley Miller demonstrated in the 1953 that mixtures of reducing gases, thought to be present in the primordial earth, when subjected to electrical discharges, produced many organic compounds, including several amino acids. Years later, a meteor which landed in Murchison, Australia, was shown to contain the same organic compound and amino acids in roughly the same proportion as those generated through the Miller experiments.

Although the Miller experiments and the Murchison meteor suggested that organic molecules could be synthesized in the absence of life, many questions and problems arose. Although simple proteins could be produced by laboratory manipulations of amino acid building blocks, no model or method of self replication of proteins could be found. In addition, the amino acids which compose all forms of life are exclusively of the "left-handed" variety (L-amino acids). Those produced in the Miller experiments and found in the Murchison meteor are both L- and R-amino acids. No model could be proposed which would explain inclusion of only one form of amino acids to the exclusion of the other, without the aid of RNA's, in the form of ribosomal RNA (rRNA), transfer RNA (tRNA), and messenger RNA (mRNA). All models would require the spontaneous evolution of both RNA's and proteins simultaneously. In addition, specific proteins are required in combination with rRNA in order for other proteins to be synthesized. This dilemma has led to statements, such as that of Leslie Orgel, "And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means."

To try to avoid the overwhelming problems associated with the self replication of proteins, Carl Woese, Francis Crick, and Leslie Orgel proposed RNA as the original building blocks of life. They proposed that self-replicating RNA could code for proteins and eventually evolve into DNA, because of DNA's superior intrinsic stability. Experiments by several scientists have demonstrated the ability of RNA's to catalyze chemical reactions, similar to that seen by enzymes (which are proteins). But could RNA itself have been synthesized and replicated by chemical means on the prebiotic earth?

Juan Or— discovered in 1961 that the nucleic acid base adenine could be synthesized in a mixture of hydrogen cyanide and ammonia. Since then, scientists have shown that the remaining nucleic acid bases, guanine, uracil, and cytosine, could be synthesized from mixtures of hydrogen cyanide, cyanogen, and cyanoacetylene. When the nucleic acid bases are combined with the sugar ribose and phosphate, nucleotides form, which in the presence of an appropriate catalyst, form random strands of RNA. The spontaneous formation of a self-replicating RNA (which acts as a catalyst for replication of itself) ensures perpetuation of the RNA, according to the theory.

It is at this point that the theory encounters major problems. First, there is no mechanism for the synthesis of ribose in the absence of enzymes.1 All chemical reactions which synthesize ribose, produce it as a very minor product. The major products are other sugars, which combine with nucleic acids to form products which inhibit RNA synthesis and replication. In addition, any ribose formed is racemic, that is, both left- and right-handed. Only right-handed ribose can be used to form nucleotides. Left-handed ribose interfers with RNA synthesis.

The next major problem is that nucleotides do not form under prebiotic conditions. If the phosphate is left out, purine nucleosides (adenine and guanine) will form under these conditions, but no pyrimidine nucleosides (cytosine and uracil) form. Even if a method for formation of pyrimidine nucleosides could be found, the combination of nucleosides with phosphate under prebiotic conditions produces not only nucleotides, but other products which interfere with RNA polymerization and replication.

In order to get around the problems of nucleotide formation, scientists have proposed that certain minerals may serve as catalysts for specific formation of only proper nucleotides. To date, no such catalysts have been found.

Even if nucleotides could be formed by some method, both right- and left-handed versions would be formed. When both right- and left-handed nucleotides are added to RNA templates, replication is inhibited.

Beyond the problems of nucleotide formation are still more problems regarding how RNA polymers might replicate in the absence of proteins. The addition of nucleotides will produce a complementary strand of RNA. However, there is, at present, no explanation for duplication of the original RNA polymer from the complementary strand, in the absence of enzymes.

A key component of the RNA world hypothesis, adenine, has its own problems:
[list]
[li]
Adenine synthesis requires HCN concentrations of at least 0.01 M. It is completely unreasonable to expect these concentrations on the prebiotic earth. [/li]
[li]
Adenine is susceptible to hydrolysis (the half-life for deamination at 37°C, pH 7, is about 80 years). Therefore, no adenine would ever be expected to accumulate in any kind of "prebiotic soup." [/li]
[li]
The adenine-uracil interaction is weak and nonspecific, and, therefore, would never be expected to function in any specific recognition scheme under the chaotic conditions of a "prebiotic soup."[/li]
[/list]
Similar problems apply to the abiotic synthesis of cytosine:
[list]
[li]
Cytosine has never been found in any meteorites. [/li]
[li]Cytosine is not produced in electric spark discharge experiments using simulated "early earth atmosphere." [/li]
[li]Synthesis based upon cyanoacetylene requires the presence of large amounts of methane and nitrogen, however, it is unlikely that significant amounts of methane were present at the time life originated. [/li]
[li]Synthesis based upon cyanate is problematical, since it requires concentrations in excess of 1 M (molar). When concentrations of 0.1 M (still unrealistically high) are used, no cytosine is produced. [/li]
[li]Synthesis based upon cyanoacetaldehyde and urea suffers from the problem of deamination of the cytosine in the presence of high concenrations of urea (low concentrations produce no cytosine). In addition, cyanoacetaldehyde is reactive with a number of prebiotic chemicals, so would never attain reasonable concentrations for the reaction to occur. Even without the presence of other chemicals, cyanoacetaldehyde has a half-life of only 31 years in water. [/li]
[li]Cytosine deaminates with an estimated half-life of 340 years, so would not be expected to accumulate over time. [/li]
[li]Ultraviolet light on the early earth would quickly convert cytosine to its photohydrate and cyclobutane photodimers (which rapidly deaminate).[/li]
[/list]
According to Robert Shapiro, a prominent origin of life researcher, the spontaneous formation of a nucleic acid replicator is a "very improbable event." this is because the mixture of amino acids the Murchison meteorite show that there are many classes of prebiotic substances that would disrupt the necessary structural regularity of any replicator.

In addition, all current synthesis schemes require concentration of reactants by a factor of at least 100,000. Robert Shapiro, in his analysis of the "drying lagoon" scenario said:

[center]"If today's Earth may be taken as a model for the early one, then, cases of extreme lagoon concentration (to the extent needed to concentrate a solute by 105) are rare or nonexistent. This mechanism cannot be considered as a source that could stock a global ocean with a particular chemical."[/center]

It is becoming increasingly apparent from over 30 years of research in the field, that the RNA model will never adequately explain life's origin. Increasingly, investigators are looking at alternative models, including pyranosyl RNA and peptide nucleic acid polymers. These models, too, have major problems, which are probably insurmountable.

The current trend in origin of life research is to look for simpler, pre-RNA molecules to serve as genetic material. These models will suffer the same fate as all the rest, namely, the incredible increase in information content required to produce self-replication is not possible in the time frame in which it was supposed to have occurred. The simpler the first step, the more likely it is to occur, but the harder it is to get from step one to step two.

Leslie Orgel recently stated, "The full details of how the RNA world, and life, emerged may not be revealed in the near future."
But ermm We Believers in Christ  know that the Creator of life has already been revealed through the Bible. Even those who search for a creator other than God will, in fact, have the Creator of life revealed to them in the near future, for every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Now, this is getting interesting. Ride on guys!

ooops how can i miss wes' post?

WesleyanA:

Yeah Layi, your arguements are full of logical fallacies

Where are they? Point them out.

WesleyanA:

you say evolution is just a theory?

Is it not?

WesleyanA:

now if you were told a myth and a theory which one would you think has a more reliable weight?

A theory is as unreliable as a myth. Anybody can come out with a thoery. It needs to be Proven

WesleyanA:

and yeah Nferyn is coming to get you guys!
only he makes better arguments that are actually very coherent and logical which sometimes require a very knowledgeable audience (most of you don't even know what really evolution is. only the oversimplified definition you rely on as well as Layi's biased info.. . You have to know both sides to make a sound judgement of both.)If only you guys knew what really evolution means instead of attacking made up assertions that the opponent never made in the first place.

Its obvious you know nothing about evolution as well else you wont ask us to wait for nferyn.

Work out your own salvation baby

oh dear...

I want to make one point that layi may be missing:

Theories cannot be "proven" as such. They can only be supported with evidence.
1) Einstein's Theory of Relativity has not been "proven" any more than the theory of evolution. But we are using it in various aspect of modern lfife and it works for us. It has been supported with a lot of evidence.
2) Gravity itself, like evolution, is "just a theory". So can I jump off a skyscraper and expect not to break my head because gravity is "just a theory"? Come on, folks, be reasonable!