Controversies.

[saharzad]

I find the notion that some people still refuse to believe in evolution to be absolutely horrifying.

I find the arguments that people use to support their refusal to be even more appalling.

Sincerely,
Steve

Comments

YEAH!

[kenlas2017]

YEAH!!!!! YOU TELL EM' ANONYMOUS! SCIENTOLOGY MAKES *WAY* MORE SENSE THAN WHAT YOU"VE WRITTEN! You're on a roll. Anyways, there is no refuting evolution. We can see it work with anti-biotic resistant bacteria and the way humans are getting even bigger bodies and brains. How the first cell was formed, we have no idea. Learning about this in my evolution class, organic molecules were created in a labrotory setting using the model of a new Earth. Then it was also found that RNA molecule pieces can replicate themselves faster in certain cases, thus producing a natural selection. So far, science has not been able to determine how we go from RNA pieces to cells and all the steps in between. Maybe something beyond us gave those molecules a nudge. Who knows?

Anonymous, if you exist at all and your arguement is against evolution, you seem to be jumping about....oh,2 billion yearsof *gradual* change. The skeleton fossils we find are MILLIONS of years old, with species persisting for hundreds of thousands, even millions, of years themselves(you understand these numbers, correct?). Just because evolution exists doesn't mean that people are shutting God out and rescinding thier desire to call Christ God's son and the Savior. It just means that people in general are understanding thier world better, and those outside the "general" human population are getting allbent out of shape because they know nothing about God and His teachings, which will persist, despite Intelligent Design's extinction.

Re: YEAH!

[kenlas2017]

What does it matter if I am anonymous? And if you knew who I was? Would that change your arguments in anyway? No. So shut up and argue. Don’t worry about who you're arguing with.

Just because you have left wing liberals pushing for evolution in schools does not mean intelligent design is extinct. Has it been disproved? No.

I guess your evolution class doesn’t teach relatively basic biology concepts that should have been taught in intro bio courses?
"We can see it work with anti-biotic resistant bacteria and the way humans are getting even bigger bodies and brains."

1. Anti-biotic resistant bacteria are not the result of evolution. Random mutations occur within the bacteria to create an immunity. Random mutations does not equal evolution. OR, holy hell the bacteria is "naturally selected" by the environment because maybe it developed by random mutation to survive. These random mutations and just that--random.

2. The increase of the average height in humans is also not a result of evolution. Hell, I'm not sure you can even claim natural selection on this one buddy. Want to know why the knight in shining armor was only 5"2? Poor nutrition. A thousand years ago the only time you were ever given milk was when you were a baby. Since the discovery of OMG CALCIUM and nutrition humans have been getting taller (that is a simple fact you can learn in any basic anatomy course). Now, sure, genes also have something to do with the height increase. Genes. NOT random mutations. If you have a child with a woman that is 5"9 and you are 5"11, your kid should be right around the heights of the parents. Just because humans are now reaching their potential heights is not evolution.

3. There is a difference between natural selection, random mutation, and archaebacteria developing lungs. The mutations that lead from an organism being killed by oxygen to it depending on oxygen would have had to happen ALL around the same period or else the organism would DIE. Anybody can understand how natural selection shit works or how antibiotic resistant bacteria is formed..... but that isn't evolution. We're talking the formation of animal cells with no cell walls, the formation of plant cells with cell walls, anaerobic respiration and aerobic respiration. PROTEINS being made. Amino acid combinations must be made for a cell to even function. ALL this must happen at similar points in history, like in one or two generations of cells. Sure, I'd like to see DNA synthesis without a ribosome or even cytoplasm for that matter. It wouldn’t happen, it could NOT happen biologically. These "random mutations" must have occurred pretty close together and then naturally selected for a "new world". To all of the sudden produce an oxygen dependent cell from basically nothing with every membrane bound organelle functioning is unbelievable, ESPECIALLY within the span of perhaps a cell generation or two. Its safer to believe in scientology than something like that.

Take plants for that matter. Take in CO2, release oxygen and H20. We depend on the oxygen they produce. Was the plants' waxy outer coat to prevent dehydration just a random mutation as well? OK, so if it was... how did the earlier forms of plants survive? these mutations must all occur around the same time for anything to survive. Exactly how did an oxygen deprived world become one that depends on its very existence? Natural selection? Random mutations? Is that all science has got? That over a "long period of time" we evolved to be humans? Show me transitional species, show me what was naturally selected. A couple of moths died because they couldn’t blend in with the trees? That isn’t enough for me, and shouldn’t be.

No, I'd rather believe that extinct intelligent design. That we were beautifully and fearfully designed with a purpose. I'd rather believe something that can be proven and seen in everyday life. Something that didn’t take humanity to figure out until the 19th century. Just because science is advancing doesn’t mean we're getting any smarter.

Re: YEAH!

[kenlas2017]

So I should shut up and argue? Two completely diffrent things...anyways, that's fine if you want to hide behind the anonymous thing. We can't all be known as pretenders. Eh, that's besides the point. Another thing besides the point that was brought up anyway was the whole labeling it as a left liberal wing ideal or something like that. You see, these librals don't have to "push" for it to go anywhere. It's already in the text books as a proven theory, which while still able to be disproven,would be hard to refute, kinda like the theory of gravity. Enough of the side issues, onto the meat.

Antibiotic resistant bacteria are the result of evolution, with the mode being natural selection. You see, it is hospital practice to isolate and destroy all the resistant bacteria that they can. Now,because bacteria can actually pass DNA sequences around, they can pass that mutation of resistance onto more bacteria. While it may be an acquired trait in some, but because bacteria reproduce by mitosis(which provides exact copies of thier DNA), the progeny is resistant. Thus a specific strain is evolving to be resistant. This process is very gradual to make all the bacteria of that strain resistant.

Sure, *homo sapians* are experiencing better nutrition, but I'm talking about humans in general. The ancestors of humans are very small in comparison, something like 3 feet tall. The skull of the newest find, a 3 year old that was fossilized 3.3 million years ago, can fit inside one hand. Compare that with the size of a three year old Homo Sapian's head, and you'd find a vast diffrence. It's one of the laws of evolution, where decendant organisms typically become larger. Oh yeah, genes are the collective term for all the possible alleles at a particular locus on a chromosome. Alleles are mutations, and are completely random when they show up. So, your genes are actually specific alleles, sorry to burst your bubble, look it up on dictionary.com.

well,yes there is a diffrence between all those terms and scenarios you vomit out. Let me educate you on the basic principals of evolution. In its most basic and well known form, evolution is the process through which mutations of genes, called alleles, get passed on to offspring, producing gradual change in species and occasionally giving rise to new ones. Natural selection is the process of the surviving of the combonation of alleles that allow the creature to reproduce more, barring chance. Natural selection is very gradual, however sometimes jumps can occur,called saltations, which are rare.

Now, if you're done looking at things in black and white, there are many forms of bacteria that can survive in oxygen, but don't use it. In addition to that your very own cells can function for a breif period of time without oxygen, but the build up of acid is too rapid and kills you quickly. At some point, and even now, there existed bacteria that could survive without oxygen, yet use it when it wanted. It seems as though the evolutionary pathways found it more favorable to produce some 9 times more energy in areobic metabolic pathways than anaroebic pathways.

Quite frankly, you are not appreciating the word *gradual*, Mr. Anonymous. It means slowly, the opposite of fast. Evolution is a very gradual process, consisting of many individual steps(evolutionary novelties) to get from one "organism" to another. Every feature of a cell or organism was either the result of a mutation or the reassignment of a feature into a new task. The cell wall didn't exist at one point, but through mutation and natural selection(the basis of evolution), it was produced and that common ancestor gave rise to all organisms with cell walls.

Re: YEAH!

[kenlas2017]

Nope, the random mutations didn't have to pile up suddenly. Besides having bacteria that can survive both anerobically and areobically, geologists and meteorologists have concluded that the early Earth lacked a large quantity of oxygen, yet when plants became abundant, the amount of oxygen that was in the atmosphere rose, allowing for aerobic respiration to evolve and be selected FOR instead of AGAINST. Who knows how many times aerobic respiration arose before it held.

Okay, the moth thing shows natural selection, but you want transitional species? There are species of barnicals that went from having 8plates to mostly 4, sometimes even 1. The general idea behind that is there was less chinks in the armor for predators. Horses have gone from a diminuative size with multiple toes to being the present equine species that is very large and has one fused toe that is the hoof. Whales evolved from tetrapod mammals, that's why they slowly lost thier pelvic gerdles and moves thier "nose" to the top of thier skull. Birds are actually a very evolved class of lizard, with archeopteryx being one ofthe many transitionary species. You see feathers show up on these. There have been plenty documented transitional species of man consisting of Neanderthals, Homo Africanus, Homo Erectus, et certa. They just found another specimen of "lucy"'s species of humanoid. If you want more transitional species, I would be glad to get the names outof my textbooks and write them downforyou, Tex.