58 replies to this topic

[eThErEaL]

iDevonian, on 07 March 2013 - 05:55 PM, said:

Why would Allah create and delete and create and delete and create and delete over and over and over and over again billions of times, while creating organisms that appear similar to those that directly preceded them?

Also, why would you believe this is a more reasonable explanation, than simply having 2 types of elephants that look almost the same being related, just as two types of people that look a little bit different, are? I look and physically am a little bit different than my grandfather, why wouldnt elephants or any other animal be a bit different too?

These questions are really just rhetoric.  I would imagine you see what I mean.  Especially when we can see evolution occurring, physically with observation right before our eyes (you can see the changes in genetics of organisms over their lineages as well as the physical changes that come with those alterations in genetics).

The evolution I am against is evolution above the species level (i.e. macroevolution).  

Quote

If we see it before our eyes, why would the fossils be anything other than what we see?

Do we see macroevolution before our eyes?

[iDevonian]

eThErEaL, on 07 March 2013 - 11:18 PM, said:

The evolution I am against is evolution above the species level (i.e. macroevolution).  


Do we see macroevolution before our eyes?

There is no difference between micro and macroevolution. I dont even think the website u had posted before identified any difference in the physical mechanisms.

You should try describing what you had meant when we last talked about the reason why you do not believe in evolution above speciation.

If you believe in microevolution, then you believe that A can evolve into B and B into C and C into D. (small, micro steps)

With that said, you cant turn and say, I dont believe that A can evolve into D because that is a macro evolution (a big step).  If you believe that A can evolve into B and then into C and then into D (all "micro" evolution), then how can you say that you do not believe A can evolve into D?

I agree that A cannot evolve directly into D, but nobody says that, that happens. Macro evolution occurs in micro steps.  Its like walking down the street, nobody can take one giant 30 foot step (instantaneous macro evolution), however, with many small steps (micro), you reach the end of the street (macro through micro steps). Evolution only occurs in small micro steps, until collectively you have enough steps to call it a macro step.  It is all the same mechanism.

Edited by iDevonian, 08 March 2013 - 12:30 AM.

[eThErEaL]

iDevonian, on 08 March 2013 - 12:15 AM, said:

There is no difference between micro and macroevolution. I dont even think the website u had posted before identified any difference in the physical mechanisms.

I don't think anyone would doubt that the mechanism for microevolution and macroevolution are identical.  After all, macroevolution is a generalization of the former; a gross and unwarranted one I think.

Quote

If you believe in microevolution, then you believe that A can evolve into B and B into C and C into D. (small, micro steps)
With that said, you cant turn and say, I dont believe that A can evolve into D because that is a macro evolution (a big step).  If you believe that A can evolve into B and then into C and then into D (all "micro" evolution), then how can you say that you do not believe A can evolve into D?

If I believe humans, dogs, apes, lizards, and birds  can change over time that doesn't mean I believe they can change respectively into non-humans, non-dogs, non-apes, non-lizards, and non-birds. The difference in the two is that while the former kind of change or evolution is empirically proven, the latter kind isn't.

Edited by eThErEaL, 08 March 2013 - 04:10 AM.

[iDevonian]

they're both empirically proven.  George washington lives and he dies. He is replaced by non george washingtons.  George washington did not evolve into non george washingtons. He birthed them, then died himself.

if you have white, black and grey.  You can't say that you believe that black can transition to grey, and grey can transition to white...but then turn and say that you do not believe black can become white.

it makes no sense.  Surely you can see why.

if you have white, black and grey.  You can't say that you believe that black can transition to grey, and grey can transition to white...but then turn and say that you do not believe black can become white.

it makes no sense.  Surely you can see why.

Edited by iDevonian, 08 March 2013 - 01:04 PM.

[eThErEaL]

iDevonian, on 08 March 2013 - 12:54 PM, said:

they're both empirically proven.

How is macro-evolution empirically proven through the fossil record?  

A human can only bear a human
Washington is a human
Washington can only bear a human.

Who would disagree with that?  Do you disagree with the major and minor?

Edited by eThErEaL, 08 March 2013 - 01:43 PM.

[iDevonian]

human can bear non human. I imagine the vast majority of biologists would say the same.

macro evolution, evolution as a whole is empirically proven through not just the fossil record.  There are countless lines of evidence.  A modern human, that is to say homo sapien sapien can in fact bear a non homo sapien sapien. Just as washington can bear a non washington.

you can't just say...oh a reptile cannot directly bear a bird, therefore birds could not have come from reptiles, because there are countless organisms in between that birds could come from, which could originate from reptiles.

if you believe in micro evolution, or speciation, which you have claimed you do, or at least you are ok with it...humans, the species are included in that. That is to say, humans are a species, and can bear non humans, as per our observations in the world today.

We came from non humans.  A species of protohumans, archaic sapiens.  While they, originated from even more primitive hominids. And they from more primitive hominids, until ultimately what you have is something that is, not only not a modern human, but its not human at all. It is why we do not have written records from our great great great great great great great great great grand parents.  Because if you keep going back, they were non humans incapable of writing and reading and thinking like we do.  We didn't just appear out of thin air, we've been here for billions of years and just haven't had the mind to recognize it.

Edited by iDevonian, 08 March 2013 - 06:32 PM.

[iDevonian]

Of course, the post above is just my understanding, all are free to disagree.

Edited by iDevonian, 08 March 2013 - 08:33 PM.

[Seekingtruth14]

iDevonian, on 06 March 2013 - 06:23 PM, said:

So, you cant answer the initial question, so in an attempt to not look foolish, you have asked me for transitional fossils of an animal without bones. hahaha

You may as well ask for fossil evidence for the evolution of precambrian jelly fish.


buuuuuuut, some ancient ant fossils have been preserved in amber.  They give us an idea of what kinds of ants used to exist in the past.

http://www.pnas.org/...02/21/7411.full

http://www.pnas.org/...pe2=tf_ipsecsha

The articles only give theories and never show the evolutionary process. Never. You always see complete organisms.

iDevonian, on 06 March 2013 - 06:23 PM, said:

The flag still stands.

The flag still stands?

Save the flag when you are playing Counter strike or Battlefield. Flags are found in the world of childish games, not here in the real world.

May Allah (swt) help you understand that “the theory of evolution” is a non-scientific toy used by the Elite to brainwash innocent brains.

[iDevonian]

Seekingtruth14, on 13 March 2013 - 05:25 PM, said:

The articles only give theories and never show the evolutionary process. Never. You always see complete organisms.

So, lets say a reptile evolves into a bird.  You always see complete organisms in the fossil record...as opposed to what?

not complete organisms?  Maybe, if evolution were true, we should see crocodiles with wings?

maybe like...



This.  Yes, if Evolution were true, we should find incomplete animals like this right?

If not half and half incomplete animals, what exactly would we expect to find, if organisms evolved from one to another?

What about...



Seems complete to me, and yet, what is it, if it shares traits of both birds and reptiles? Well, it is both bird and reptile, in full form as one.

What exactly would a half bird half reptile look like, if not something fully formed and complete, like the fossil above that has both bird and reptile traits?

Edited by iDevonian, 13 March 2013 - 06:27 PM.