Evolution and Big Bang Theory on shaky ground... (Page 2) Geoff: Which demonstrates that you don't understand evolution. The basis of evolution is that heritable variation leads to change based on increased breeding by those members of a population best able to survive. And evidence from fossils is merely supporting evidence. The most comprehensive proof is in living things. The variation we see from one generation to the next, the commonality of various features between species proving a common ancestry, archaic features in physiognomy (such as the coccyx or appendix in humans), genetic markers that we share with all other living things. These are the evidence for evolution that brook no dispute from those who actually understand them. Not fossils, despite the bible-bashers constantly using them as a rather poor whip. Fossils support evolution, every fossil found increases our knowledge of the past. But even without them, the fact that species evolve would still be true.  XFixYourBrainX: I'm not into religion, but that's besides the point of u saying bible bashers. You said what you said about those fossils records and the evolution process not being strong enough evidence of the entirety of support for evolution. Yes you did say that. Your such a hypocrite. You don't even know what your talking about but your trying to know what your talking about and its not working for you buddy. XFixYourBrainX: I don't take either side of religion or evolution but you assuming I'm one of those religious people makes you look like an even bigger idiot.  Dalai Mama: Ummm....Pokerman....it actually seems that you are the one who may need to brush up on his science....if you really want to understand the theory...there is a little book, the origin of th species....you should check it out...and life does evolve...all the time...the evolution process is still going on today. XFixYourBrainX: I've read it once again don't assume I don't know anything about evolution because if your sitting there say I don't know anything and that is all you can say but you yourself can't say anything intelligent or anything that evolution states mojo which you haven't said anything intelligent about evolution than you must not even know enough about evolution yourself because you can't explain the basic form of evolution which is the evolution process. Tell me what you think about evolution mojo Geoff: Pokerman. Did you know that your grammar becomes almost incomprehensible when you get worked up? And I didn't accuse you of being a bible basher, but people generally need the spur of religion to deny the obvious. So what's your excuse? Are you a follower of Von Daniken? Geoff: And you need to practice your English. What I said was that the evidence for evolution doesn't lie in fossils, but in living organisms. I then said that fossils support evolution (in other words that they are not evidence to the contrary).  LiptonCambell: >>>the theory part starts when we start considering if evolution is how all life evolved... But. Thats. Not. What. Evolution. Was. Meant. To. Explain. Repeat after me; Evolution says NOTHING- INTENTUALLY- ON HOW LIFE WAS FORMED. Life could form in an entirely different set of circumstances- for all we know, thats exactly what had happened, since there is no form of life even been recorded than that one tiny "Spark" of life appeared approx 4 Billion years ago. I repeat- all forms of life on Earth are related to the abiogenesis of one single cell organism. This fact and this fact alone means one thing; The origin of life is intensely rare. Whatever circumstances they came from are insanely different from the conditions that we are now thriving it- otherwise, we would see more examples of life taking root  WilliamGolding: However life is a rather convenient vessel for consciousnesses to be in. I heard a man on the religion side of the argument say that the odds for life starting on it's own would be like a 747 airplane putting itself together in a hurricane by chance.. AND COULD JUST ONE OUT OF A HUNDRED THOUSAND MONKEYS AT A HUNDRED THOUSAND TYPEWRITERS TYPE THE LORDS PRAYER BY CHANCE?  StuckInTheSixties: Oh Christ! That idiotic "747 putting itself together by a tornado (hurricane)" analogy. That bit of stupidity even has a name, and a wiki entry: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle's_fallacy Geoff: Actually, the odds of the circumstances under which life arose are not that remarkable. Rare to be sure, but not so rare as to be statistically impossible. After all, the odds of winning the lottery in the UK are 11,000,000 to one, but it's more common for at least one person to win each week rather than no-one. But the difference now compared to when life on this small blue rock started is that any fledgeling life form today would be competing against life forms that had a couple of billions years head start. WilliamGolding: Your mother may have been right in the sense that we all exixted at the time of the big bang, albeit in another form.. StuckInTheSixties: If I understand the "Big Bang" right, we all began to exist (in another form) an infinitly tiny sliver of a moment AFTER the Big Bang. XFixYourBrainX: That's not getting worked up buddy, no matter what you say and how manipulative in the words you choose to explain your hypocritical view on evolution it doesn't negate what you said about fossils and the evolution process. StuckInTheSixties: Pokerman, tell me if I understand your position, please. One thing everyone seems to agree upon is that because a fossil hasn't been found of every single species ever to exist, that means the "fossil record" is incomplete. Is it your contention that unless every single species ever to exist is accounted for in the fossil record, the fossile record proves nothing in regards to evolution? XFixYourBrainX: Well let me put it this way it takes belief in order to believe in evolution especially if the evolution process is unaccounted for along its 4 billion process of evolution. And all those bones will never be found so it takes even more faith and belief to believe in evolution. LiptonCambell: You didn't answer his question. Is it fair to reject a science because not everything is known everywhere? LiptonCambell: Then clearly your only intention is to be a jackass in this thread. You must reject everything, since no one knows everything.... StuckInTheSixties: Pokerman, I'll ask you again. It's a straightforward question. How about a straightforward answer ( instead of "Well let me put it this way" ): Is it your contention that unless every single species ever to exist is accounted for in the fossil record, the fossile record proves nothing in regards to evolution? | Science Chat Room 2 People Chatting Similar Conversations |