I'm curious about how people who reject evolution would explain the more specific observations in nature that seem to support an evolutionary model. For example:

1. Why are the DNA sequences between species like, say, the chimpanzee and the human, or the bird and the dinosaur, so similar, if those organisms are not related? Wouldn't you expect to see completely random and dissimilar DNA sequences between all species if they shared no genetic relationship?

2. Why are simpler life forms consistently found in lower rock layers than their theorized present-day evolutionary descendents? Shouldn't we find all life forms mixed in all rock layers, if new species did not arise over time?

3. Why do human fetuses grow a layer of fur during development, which sheds later on before birth? And why does this fur grow at the same point in development as Chimpanzee fetuses do? If there were no relationship between us, wouldn't we expect human fetuses to lack such a thing?

4. In the same vein, why do the fetuses of all members of the Chordata phylum all look so similar?

5. Why are there organisms like flesh-eating bacteria, and parasitic, eye-burrowing worms that hurt humans? If such harmful and disease-causing organisms did not arise out of evolutionary adaptation, then why would they be created?

I am genuinely curious about how one would explain these phenomena in a non-evolutionary framework.

cloudgoddess:
I'm curious about how people who reject evolution would explain the more specific observations in nature that seem to support an evolutionary model. For example:

1. Why are the DNA sequences between species like, say, the chimpanzee and the human, or the bird and the dinosaur, so similar, if those organisms are not related? Wouldn't you expect to see completely random and dissimilar DNA sequences between all species if they shared no genetic relationship?

Similarity points to COMMON Designer not descent.
Did you know that horses have more genetic similarity to bats than cows? Genetic homily is a myth

2. Why are simpler life forms consistently found in lower rock layers than their theorized present-day evolutionary descendents? Shouldn't we find all life forms mixed in all rock layers, if new species did not arise over time?

First, you assume there are 'simple' animals. This is circular reasoning. You assume some animals are 'simple', then you assume the more complex evolved from the 'simple' form, and finally you sedimentation takes forever. You need to know that fossilization is the exception not the norm and countless of life forms are virtually unknown because they never fossilized. In short, grow a brain

3. Why do human fetuses grow a layer of fur during development, which sheds later on before birth? And why does this fur grow at the same point in development as Chimpanzee fetuses do? If there were no relationship between us, wouldn't we expect human fetuses to lack such a thing?


4. In the same vein, why do the fetuses of all members of the Chordata phylum all look so similar?

Did you know that human and frog fetuses BOTH have digits(fingers,thumbs and toes)?
The embryo homology was debunked before your grand parents were conceived. A word is enough for the wise

5. Why are there organisms like flesh-eating bacteria, and parasitic, eye-burrowing worms that hurt humans? If such harmful and disease-causing organisms did not arise out of evolutionary adaptation, then why would they be created?

Since when did adaptation equate evolution?

I am genuinely curious about how one would explain these phenomena in a non-evolutionary framework.

Im insincerely curious as to whether you possess the capacity to learn

All your questions fail in light of 3 facts:

Fact 1) Random mutations, a principal evolutionary mechanism spoils the genome and is incapable of adding functional genetic information.

Fact 2) Species through time have been shown since recorded history to be the same for thousands of years. They only reproduce after their likes

Fact 3) There are no fossils of millions of evolutionary dead ends which should occur if species were cobbled through random mutations.

Oh dear ! Looks like the thread was dead on arrival

If evolution is true why don't I turn to a fish if I stay too long in the shower?.... Checkmate atheist!

why did man emerge the brightest student in the class?
I mean, the closest pupil (animal) isnt even clever enough to hold an intelligent conversation with him?
Of all the thousand of species on the planet, shouldnt brighter if not exceeding, counterparts have arisen during the random intelligence distribution process?

Which objective computer program would randomly generate 1 given a range in the millions?
how random is that?

Even common sense makes nonsense of evolution.

Man is the chosen and selected specie to control and dominate all other species.
A random ,chaotic, aimless process could never have been so selective and biased.

asalimpo:
[size=18pt]why did man emerge the brightest student in the class?[/size]

Because you have an artificial sense of what brightness means. Building structures with flat surfaces and right angles, and designing boxes that can move quickly through space are remarkable achievements, but meaningless. It is the epitome of vanity.
In other words, we're only doing those "intelligent and bright" things because death hasn't yet arrived. Consider them as activities we do to kill time until we die. While impressive and useful, they're also meaningless in the grand scheme.

We still rip open wildlife and devour their corpses. We feed their bodies to our children. I don't see the difference.

So I disagree that humans are special. Our sentience doesn't address the issue of death. We, along with the closest cockroach will die. But yea, we can use machines that enable us to move fast on the soil. And in the air. That's impressive.

Weah96:


Because you have an artificial sense of what brightness means. Building structures with flat surfaces and right angles, and designing boxes that can move quickly through space are remarkable achievements, but meaningless. It is the epitome of vanity.
In other words, we're only doing those "intelligent and bright" things because death hasn't yet arrived. Consider them as activities we do to kill time until we die. While impressive and useful, they're also meaningless in the grand scheme.

We still rip open wildlife and devour their corpses. We feed their bodies to our children. I don't see the difference.

So I disagree that humans are special. Our sentience doesn't address the issue of death. We, along with the closest cockroach will die. But yea, we can use machines that enable us to move fast on the soil. And in the air. That's impressive.

It's interesting how you try to trivialize the achievement of man.
You call the invention of the automobible , vanity and cars "boxes that can move through space".

if you dont see the achievements of man over the years as truly intelligent and incomparable to
that of any species, then you are living in denial.

If we are truly doing this to kill time, it still makes no difference. At least,
in the meantime, mans efforts have created a better present day than he met it.
(Everybody agrees that the cellphone age is better than the pre mobile phone era .
Most present day people wouldnt trade these experience for the past.
Same can be said about the internet era, automibile transportation era etc)

Besides, it still puts a dent on chaos and randomness. Because, the traits in man should
have been evident in substantial amounts in other creatures if the process was unbiased.

asalimpo:


if you dont see the achievements of man over the years as truly intelligent and incomparable to
that of any species, then you are living in denial.

If we are truly doing this to kill time, it still makes no difference. At least,
in the meantime, mans efforts have created a better present day than he met it.
(Everybody agrees that the cellphone age is better than the pre mobile phone era .
Most present day people wouldnt trade these experience for the past.
Same can be said about the internet era, automibile transportation era etc)

Oh, we're intelligent all right, but not for the reasons you think.
Technology may prolong life a bit, but we still die like wildlife in the end.
So, the cellphone is an impressive piece of achievement, as well as the aeroplane.
When the picture is widened though, you'll notice that the airplane is little more than a mechanical bird with room for human passengers.

We are not really going anywhere, we only move quickly over the earth's surface to get to another part of the soil.

Weah96:


Oh, we're intelligent all right, but not for the reasons you think.
Technology may prolong life a bit, but we still die like wildlife in the end.
So, the cellphone is an impressive piece of achievement, as well as the aeroplane.
When the picture is widened though, you'll notice that the airplane is little more than a mechanical bird with room for human passengers.

We are not really going anywhere, we only move quickly over the earth's surface to get to another part of the soil.

In other words, man got his inspiration from nature.
But the simplicity of nature belies its complexity, going by the amount of brainpower it has taken man to mimic the works of nature.
"we are not really going nowhere",
that view is informed by your atheism.
Why does man of all species derive great satisfaction and have great drive to achieve all the greatness we've witnessed over time?
Man dominates the air, the sea, the land. he is driven to overcome and learn and grow.
He has this nature inborn in him.
He wants to conquer and rule and direct his destiny.
He isnt comfortable co existing with limitation.
Y? given that the atheistic world view is hopelessness,meaningless and choas?
Y dont other creatures share similar drives?

Weah96:


Because you have an artificial sense of what brightness means. Building structures with flat surfaces and right angles, and designing boxes that can move quickly through space are remarkable achievements, but meaningless. It is the epitome of vanity.
In other words, we're only doing those "intelligent and bright" things because death hasn't yet arrived. Consider them as activities we do to kill time until we die. While impressive and useful, they're also meaningless in the grand scheme.

We still rip open wildlife and devour their corpses. We feed their bodies to our children. I don't see the difference.

So I disagree that humans are special. Our sentience doesn't address the issue of death. We, along with the closest cockroach will die. But yea, we can use machines that enable us to move fast on the soil. And in the air. That's impressive.

You are horribly shallow.

asalimpo:

In other words, man got his inspiration from nature.
But the simplicity of nature belies its complexity, going by the amount of brainpower it has taken man to mimic the works of nature.
"we are not really going nowhere",
that view is informed by your atheism.
Why does man of all species derive great satisfaction and have great drive to achieve all the greatness we've witnessed over time?
Man dominates the air, the sea, the land. he is driven to overcome and learn and grow.
He has this nature inborn in him.
He wants to conquer and rule and direct his destiny.
He isnt comfortable co existing with limitation.
Y? given that the atheistic world view is hopelessness,meaningless and choas?
Y dont other creatures share similar drives?

What greatness? Our primary adversary is death, so much so, that societies erect traditions of lies like organized religion to cope with it.

Our appreciation for innovation is borne out of a materialistic worldview, with financial profit as the reward.

Until we find a way to address the common enemy, death, I say we're just killing time here like the rest of the animals.

Yea we can communicate in real time across vast distances. Yes, we can enter a box and control it to move rapidly over the ground. But where are we going? If it's not too look for food to eat, it's pointless.

Our consciousness is the only bright thing about us, because it possesses potential. We can control what we see, feel, hear, and smell by making alterations to our consciousness. Animals can't do that.

In a couple of million or billion years, will chimpanzees be able to build cars and twin towers ?

Like will there be a Isaac newton chimpanzee or Einstein.

Or will some other ape or animal do it?

I think this might be relevant in this thread.

It is about the discovery of a fish that walks like land vertebrates.
Perhaps a link that shows the evolutionary transition from marine to Amphibian or vertebrate life.

life.http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/25/science/researchers-find-fish-that-walks-the-way-land-vertebrates-do.html

plaetton:
I think this might be relevant in this thread.

It is about the discovery of a fish that walks like land vertebrates.
Perhaps a link that shows the evolutionary transition from marine to Amphibian or vertebrate life.

life.http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/25/science/researchers-find-fish-that-walks-the-way-land-vertebrates-do.html

Yeah, I remember watching it on Natgeo. Wild Indonesia, I think.

Weah96:


Because you have an artificial sense of what brightness means. Building structures with flat surfaces and right angles, and designing boxes that can move quickly through space are remarkable achievements, but meaningless. It is the epitome of vanity.
In other words, we're only doing those "intelligent and bright" things because death hasn't yet arrived. Consider them as activities we do to kill time until we die. While impressive and useful, they're also meaningless in the grand scheme.

We still rip open wildlife and devour their corpses. We feed their bodies to our children. I don't see the difference.

So I disagree that humans are special. Our sentience doesn't address the issue of death. We, along with the closest cockroach will die. But yea, we can use machines that enable us to move fast on the soil. And in the air. That's impressive.

I agree with your observations about the vanity of human existence.

Weah96:

What greatness? Our primary adversary is death, so much so, that societies erect traditions of lies like organized religion to cope with it.
Our appreciation for innovation is borne out of a materialistic worldview, with financial profit as the reward.
Until we find a way to address the common enemy, death, I say we're just killing time here like the rest of the animals.
Yea we can communicate in real time across vast distances. Yes, we can enter a box and control it to move rapidly over the ground. But where are we going? If it's not too look for food to eat, it's pointless.
Our consciousness is the only bright thing about us, because it possesses potential. We can control what we see, feel, hear, and smell by making alterations to our consciousness. Animals can't do that.

Weah96:

Oh, we're intelligent all right, but not for the reasons you think.
Technology may prolong life a bit, but we still die like wildlife in the end.
So, the cellphone is an impressive piece of achievement, as well as the aeroplane.
When the picture is widened though, you'll notice that the airplane is little more than a mechanical bird with room for human passengers.
We are not really going anywhere, we only move quickly over the earth's surface to get to another part of the soil.

Even Solomon the wisest agrees....


Ecc 2: 9 So I was great, and increased more than all that were before me in Jerusalem: also my wisdom remained with me.
10 And whatsoever mine eyes desired I kept not from them, I withheld not my heart from any joy; for my heart rejoiced in all my labour: and this was my portion of all my labour.
11 Then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and on the labour that I had laboured to do: and, behold, all was vanity and vexation of spirit, and there was no profit under the sun.

Some wisdom in this atheist

plaetton:
I think this might be relevant in this thread.

It is about the discovery of a fish that walks like land vertebrates.
Perhaps a link that shows the evolutionary transition from marine to Amphibian or vertebrate life.

life.http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/25/science/researchers-find-fish-that-walks-the-way-land-vertebrates-do.html

Excuse the earlier digression about dead people, but this walking fish would need a respiratory apparatus to survive a prolonged land journey. Maybe I read it too quickly, but I didn't see anything about the similarities between the genes of the gill structure and the reptilian lungs.

It's a false alarm. A fish who suddenly finds itself stranded on dry land has more immediately pressing issues than just mobility. They would need to address that issue later.

Muafrika2:


I agree with your observations about the vanity of human existence.




Even Solomon the wisest agrees....


Ecc 2: 9 So I was great, and increased more than all that were before me in Jerusalem: also my wisdom remained with me.
10 And whatsoever mine eyes desired I kept not from them, I withheld not my heart from any joy; for my heart rejoiced in all my labour: and this was my portion of all my labour.
11 Then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and on the labour that I had laboured to do: and, behold, all was vanity and vexation of spirit, and there was no profit under the sun.

Some wisdom in this atheist

I watch a lot of old Shaolin kung fu movies. Check out this white boy on YouTube called Louis C.K. He does a funny, and less ominous, rendition of that same realization. It's a 1 minute video.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aGGdZEcsds

Weah96:


I watch a lot of old Shaolin kung fu movies. Check out this white boy on YouTube called Louis C.K. He does a funny, and less ominous, rendition of that same realization. It's a 1 minute video.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aGGdZEcsds

He's right. The basis of all human existence is food. The ruling elite(the ones with real global power) know it too, control food and you have the people.

Death is something that noone shall ever defeat because it is one of the things that God has decided that we will never defeat so some unwise people among us will not go from saying God does not exist to that we are equal with him.

Richirich713:
In a couple of million or billion years, will chimpanzees be able to build cars and twin towers ?

Like will there be a Isaac newton chimpanzee or Einstein.

Or will some other ape or animal do it?

They'll create nukes to wipe out trespassing humans . It will be real planet of apes , or smart monkeys.

Weah96:


What greatness? Our primary adversary is death, so much so, that societies erect traditions of lies like organized religion to cope with it.

Our appreciation for innovation is borne out of a materialistic worldview, with financial profit as the reward.

Until we find a way to address the common enemy, death, I say we're just killing time here like the rest of the animals.

Yea we can communicate in real time across vast distances. Yes, we can enter a box and control it to move rapidly over the ground. But where are we going? If it's not too look for food to eat, it's pointless.

Our consciousness is the only bright thing about us, because it possesses potential. We can control what we see, feel, hear, and smell by making alterations to our consciousness. Animals can't do that.

This is your philosophy of life.
Again, this is a question religion answers.
But that doesnt in any address the question at hand.
Which is, random chance and chaos could not have predetermined one specie to be far ahead of the rest.
mathematically, it is impossible(soft talk for highly improbable).
After you are born, you can enact whatever philosophy you want. In modern societies,
you are entitled to pursue you own happiness.
Want to make music all day? - that's for loafers (but its your wish)
want to drive cars for a living ? - they'll call you a never do well (but race drivers emerged from these set)
want to eat all day ? - tasters do that
want to lay around all day ? - no problem.
Dont trivialise the accomplishment of man- they're truly great. Amazing.
stop calling a car a box - that's an insult on over a century of knowledge and experiments in making more efficient transport devices.
We may scoff at religion and religious views, but people gave their lives to make this world
as comfortable and conducive for others- lets recognize and praise their acheivements instead of belittling them.

asalimpo:

This is your philosophy of life.
Again, this is a question religion answers.
But that doesnt in any address the question at hand.
Which is, random chance and chaos could not have predetermined one specie to be far ahead of the rest.
mathematically, it is impossible(soft talk for highly improbable).

How can randomness predetermine anything? Do you even hear yourself? What you're doing is defending the Bible, not searching for answers.

Why should you? You already know what happens when human beings die like animals.

Weah96:


How can randomness predetermine anything? Do you even hear yourself? What you're doing is defending the Bible, not searching for answers.

Why should you? You already know what happens when human beings die like animals.

By the theory of evolution and how the world began,
the rise of man to become the dominant creature should never have occured.
so, I hearmyself . This is a hole in evolution theory.

asalimpo:

By the theory of evolution and how the world began,
the rise of man to become the dominant creature should never have occured.
so, I hearmyself . This is a hole in evolution theory.

Someone like you will never understand evolution because you approach it with the preexisting belief that the Bible is the inerrant dictation from the source of the universe.

There is no more room to grow without splitting your psyche into different personalities.

vooks:

Similarity points to COMMON Designer not descent.
Did you know that horses have more genetic similarity to bats than cows? Genetic homily is a myth

And how does this disprove the point? Your fact (apart from making you look smart) doesn't disprove that all animals share a common ancestor. You neglected to mention that the bat is also mammal just like the horse, the fact that they branched from a common ancestor is not in disproved. Read a real book on this subject.

vooks:

First, you assume there are 'simple' animals. This is circular reasoning. You assume some animals are 'simple', then you assume the more complex evolved from the 'simple' form, and finally you sedimentation takes forever. You need to know that fossilization is the exception not the norm and countless of life forms are virtually unknown because they never fossilized. In short, grow a brain

This is another poorly though out response. There are absolutely no dinosaur fossils after the cretaceous period or mammalian fossils in, say the devonian period. Why is fossil dating suddenly an exception when the dating methods give accurate readings for known objects?

vooks:

Did you know that human and frog fetuses BOTH have digits(fingers,thumbs and toes)?
The embryo homology was debunked before your grand parents were conceived. A word is enough for the wise

Once again, you've shot yourself in the foot, this only serves as an argument AGAINST intelligent design, or whatever goalpost-shifting intellectual standpoint that you're arguing from, because why would a designer have foetuses go through these stages (that only stand as evidence to exclude said designer from the equation)?

vooks:

Since when did adaptation equate evolution?

Another falsehood from history deniers such as yourself, what exactly drives an adaptation? Isn't it a series of inherited genetic traits that were favoured by natural selection? Wasn't that the case in the Lenski Experiment? Or was it FSM's Noodly Appendage?

vooks:

Im insincerely curious as to whether you possess the capacity to learn

I can ask you the same question but I already know the answer to that (you're the same guy who can't even think of a better alternative scientific model but yet tries an fails to disprove evolution with falsehood). I'm only responding to your post for the sake of others that you may have misinformed.

CoolUsername:




And how does this disprove the point? Your fact (apart from making you look smart) doesn't disprove that all animals share a common ancestor. You neglected to mention that the bat is also mammal just like the horse, the fact that they branched from a common ancestor is not in disproved. Read a real book on this subject.

The fact that you call tumors facts and demand they be disproved reminds me m0rons abound on NL. Read a book on homology

This is another poorly though out response. There are absolutely no dinosaur fossils after the cretaceous period or mammalian fossils in, say the devonian period. Why is fossil dating suddenly an exception when the dating methods give accurate readings for known objects?

Dating is a sham. It is circular reasoning per excellence.
One example will suffice; Mungo Woman in Australia. I'm not here to mother you so look it up

Once again, you've shot yourself in the foot, this only serves as an argument AGAINST intelligent design, or whatever goalpost-shifting intellectual standpoint that you're arguing from, because why would a designer have foetuses go through these stages (that only stand as evidence to exclude said designer from the equation)?

Don't be a m0ron. The point is embryo homology means NOTHING, or rather the conclusions drawn therefrom are arbitrary.

Another falsehood from history deniers such as yourself, what exactly drives an adaptation? Isn't it a series of inherited genetic traits that were favoured by natural selection? Wasn't that the case in the Lenski Experiment? Or was it FSM's Noodly Appendage?

There is enough genetic variety in any organism to manifest these differences. The information is ALREADY there.

can ask you the same question but I already know the answer to that (you're the same guy who can't even think of a better alternative scientific model but yet tries an fails to disprove evolution with falsehood). I'm only responding to your post for the sake of others that you may have misinformed.

I don't need to disprove a claim, I only need to critique its evidence for which there is none. I may for instance claim that there are Giants on Uranus. You only need me to prove it. You don't prove a negative. Brush up your logic son

CoolUsername ... are you dprodg ? I just need to be sure that Im right

vooks:

The fact that you call tumors facts and demand they be disproved reminds me m0rons abound on NL. Read a book on homology

You have failed both in the humour and making-a-point department.

vooks:

Dating is a sham. It is circular reasoning per excellence.
One example will suffice; Mungo Woman in Australia. I'm not here to mother you so look it up

Dating is a sham? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
I dunno what to say to you, but for the sake of others.
HOW RADIOMETRIC DATING WORKS

vooks:

Don't be a m0ron. The point is embryo homology means NOTHING, or rather the conclusions drawn therefrom are arbitrary.

If you know how embryonic formation relates to genetics, you'll see the connection. But I doubt that you'll look at it with an open mind so...

vooks:

There is enough genetic variety in any organism to manifest these differences. The information is ALREADY there.

O rly?

Because the experiment that I cited actually involved a beneficial additive mutation in e.coli. Did you not do your damn research?

vooks:

I don't need to disprove a claim, I only need to critique its evidence for which there is none. I may for instance claim that there are Giants on Uranus. You only need me to prove it. You don't prove a negative. Brush up your logic son

More obfuscating ignorance from your end again. Sir, it is rather poor etiquette to read the source I cited, the Lenski experiment is a very good example of evolution in action, so to come here and shout 'bring the evidence forward' is poor form on your part.

EDIT: Added a source that doesn't require registration.

KingEbukasBlog:
CoolUsername ... are you dprodg ? I just need to be sure that Im right

Nope

[size=1pt]

CoolUsername:


You have failed both in the humour and making-a-point department.



Dating is a sham? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
I dunno what to say to you, but for the sake of others.
[url=study.com/academy/lesson/radioactive-dating-methods-uses-and-limits-of-radioactive-decay-as-a-dating-tool.html]HOW RADIOMETRIC DATING WORKS[/url]



If you know how embryonic formation relates to genetics, you'll see the connection. But I doubt that you'll look at it with an open mind so...



O rly?

Because the experiment that I cited actually involved a beneficial additive mutation in e.coli. Did you not do your damn research?



More obfuscating ignorance from your end again. Sir, it is rather poor etiquette to read the source I cited, the Lenski experiment is a very good example of evolution in action, so to come here and shout 'bring the evidence forward' is poor form on your part.

[/size]
These topics are quite wide. Pick any topic of your choice, invite me and I will make mince meat of the few neurons that make up your brain