Re: DON'T WORRY
>>I'm not denying the big holes we have inevolution though<<<br><br>This line confuses me more
than anything in that previous post. I am unaware of
any 'big holes' as you so eliquently called it, in
the prospect of evolution. Now, mabey I just happen
to have read all the wrong journals, and look at all
the wrong exibitis and such, but I see no big holes.
1.) If you are reffering to the idea of the 'Missing
Link' you can just as good as scratch it. My mind is a
little fuzzy as to wear this missing link was, I believe
it was either after homo habilius, or the
austrolopithicus. Sorry, not awake yet :).<br>Anyway, they found
there missing link back in 1999. However, there was
much argument over wheather or not it was acctually
the missing link. As recently released in a british
journal (another one of those names I can't remember) it
was concluded that over much observation and debate,
they had found there missing link. The problem was,
because of the layout in the frontal regions of the skull
and braine, people did not realize what it was until
a full analazies of the skeltal system was
preformed. So, sorry charlie, We are cousins of the apes :)
<br>2.) If you see the gaps between the speices to
species evoultion, that again has been proven again and
again and again and again and again. A nice little trip
to the field musem in chicago Ill, or the musem of
natural history in NY (us), can show you skeletal records
of complete spieces to speices evoltuion. Wasps to
ants, whales to (damn, another mind laps) ect. have all
been proven and are on display. So check it out
:)<br>If there is another subeject that you find wrong
with evolution I would really like to hear
--- In teenatheistsoftheworld@y..., scorcher150 wrote:
Before I rebuke this guy's statements, I'd just like to say I'm new
to the group, from Missouri, and 14 years old. *waves*
> LoL.<br><br>Hey, have you looked at this "proof"
> for evolution? Explain abiogenesis. How did it occur
> in the wilderness of a hostile planet and yet can't
> be reproduced in million dollar labs by trained
> scientists? The odds against it are astronomical.
Not reproduced in labs? Scientists have passed electricity through
chemicals and gotten the basic materials for life. No, they have not
created life, but think about this: We have only understood
electricity for 300 years. The conditions on the young earth were
different: molten, hot, and a soup of chemicals. We have done fairly
few experiaments on the subject when compared to the MILLIONS of
years and TRILLIONS of lightening bolts that must of struck the
surface of the earth. Millions of years is a long time. You
underestimate the sheer amount of time that passed between the
formation of earth and the creation of life. The odds are certainly
less astronomical, anyway, than a guy with supernatural powers coming
into existence and decided to make a planet.
> beggining. Nothing blew up into something? Sounds like it
> takes more faith to believe in atheism than God to me.
*snort* That is laughable. What about your God? Where did he come
from? Didn't he bring something from nothing? The creation of life
was the converting and bonding of one element to another, perfectly
natural processes that change one type of something to another, and
you say that it is more likely for a being to come out of nowhere,
create the Earth, the universe, and life for some mysterious purpose.
> Explain how life survived when the sun would have been so
> much closer to the earth at the time.
The sun was not closer to the earth at the time in any signifigant
> mutations are positive.
Do you have a thing against change? Winning the lottery is good,
isn't it? If you fiddle with genes, things, both good and bad, can
happen. Some people, due to strange flukes of nature, are more
resistant to sunburn, others are more intelligent. The tiny
characteristics that separate us from our parents, caused by blips in
the genes and such, make a genetic make-up that is either superior or
deficient. Malfunctions can lie undetected for thousands of years.
Take AIDS for example. Most people are utterly devastated by the
disease. However, there are a few people who have been found in
Africa who are resistant. How? Genetics.
Explain how EVERY animal and plant
> in the world is perfectly adapted to its environment
> simply because of random, damaging mutations.
Not every animal is perfectly adapted. How come we have a blind spot
in our eye? How come corals are damaged by the slightest change of
water temperature, natural or otherwise? We don't see drastically
unadapted creatures because they don't survive. As time goes on, a
creature becomes more and more fit for their environment. Alligators
are an ancient species and are well-adapted. However, the mackaw
monkies in Japan (a relatively recent species) developed a fondness
for hot springs because they notice the cold, unlike polar bears.
> how transitional forms (i.e. wolf to whale) survived.
Again you underestimate the passage of time. A wolf didn't become a
wolf-whale in two days, two hundred years, or even two thousand
years. Transitional forms were not innefficient creatures. A bird-
dinosaur could run or launch themselves from trees to safety, not
quite being perfect at gliding or at running, but combined they are
enough to save. Gradually, very gradually, beasts that prefer and are
better at flying are more numerous and those that run dwindle. Flyers
mate with other flyers and produce animals that are even better at
gliding. Thus the dinosaurs make the lengthy change to birds.
> Explain how simbiotic relationships "evolved." Explain
> why there arent millions of fossils of evolution.
What are you talking about? If you dig into the fossil layer, you
find tiny bacteria, then muti-celled, then primitive sea life, then
more complex sea life, then animals that crawl from pool to pool,
then the first land creatures, etc. The fossil record is quite full
and there are indeed millions. Only a few gaps exist (such as the
missing link between apes and humans, which is rapidly narrowing with
> Explain why there are no transitional animals living
> today, if evolution does ideed take place.
Again, this is ignorant. What about mudcrawlers? have you ever seen
those? They are fish that can survive on land for a day or two, since
they have weak lungs and fin-leg things, when they crawl from pond to
pond as they dry up. If that's not transitional, I don't know what
Explain how a
> new species would populate an area, you would need to
> have both a male and a female with the exact same
> reproductive mutations to be able to breed with eachother.
That's not true. Mutations are not always drastic. They do not make
an animal sterile. Your mother, I should hope, differs in her genes
from your father and you are here, aren't you?
> I'll be looking forward to your response.<br><br>Best
You too. ^^
Where little boys play at sports, grown men play at war. I, for one,
will take no part in it.