Evolution

There is more in the world than humans. Human ancestors may not have eaten roses, but other animals - mammals, birds, reptiles, insects, etc - did. Evolution permits plants protect themselves from all threats, not just humans.

Here's a short list of reasons why you must first be stupid before you can belief in Evolution and the Big Bang:

Stupid means: lacking normal intelligence:

1. The Big Bang? So...something exploded? What blew up, and where did it come from?

2. Supporters of the Big Bang say that it takes 20 stars, in close proximity, to collide in order to form 1 new star.

3. Every star and planet is in a gravitational position which allows it to maintain orbit. It doesn't collide with other stars/planets and never will unless pushed out of orbit by an enormous object. The Big Bang would not, under any circumstances, cause these planets and stars to be in their perfect orbits. Planets and stars formed from the Big Bang would be in random positions and collisions would be astronomically more common than they are today.

4. If a dog can produce a cat, or a human, why has it never been witnessed or recorded? Evolution is the product of need, but there was no need that ever arose to evolve into being a cat or dog.

5. There's enough stars in existence that every person could own 2 trillion of them, yet we've never seen even one form.

6. The Big Bang supposedly produced hydrogen, yet we have 92+ other elements. Where did they come from?

7. If Evolution is true, stars would need to evolve since they are full of many elements and produce various forms of radiation. What need arose that caused these stars to exist at all, or planets other than earth?... wait... There was no need for the existence of earth, and without earth there could be no life on earth.

8. The Big Bang idea/theory began with Belgian astronomer, Georges Edward Lemaitre. According to Isaac Asimov, Lemaitre conceived this mass to be "no more than a few light-years in diameter." At very least, that would be two light-years or about twelve trillion miles. By 1965, that perceived diameter was reduced to 275 million miles, by 1972 to 71 million miles, by 1974 to 54 thousand miles, and by 1983 to "a trillionth the diameter of a proton." Descpite the "fact" that this cannot be duplicated in a labratory or otherwise observed anywhere...
The Deep Astronomy website calls the Big Bang "highly counterintuitive event." Despite the billions without fresh and clean water, the billions who are homeless, the billions who live on less than $1/day, this website claims that the question of the Big Bang is the most important question facing humanity.

9. The universe is not only expanding, but the rate at which it is expanding has always been accelerating. It has never slowed, and never will. There is not any evidence to support otherwise.

10. A Woodpecker's tongue wraps all the way around the back of his brain. Why? What missing links or other paleolithic evidence is there to support an evolutionary process? This website, in support of Evolution, gives a great explanation of how the woodpecker is unique and how it uses its' tongue to survive. Nowhere on the site does it explain "why" its' tongue wraps around the back of the head, or why evolution caused its' tongue to do so instead of something more like an ant-eater or other birds. What need arose for this bird to change from whatever to what we see today where its' tongue wraps around the back of its' brain?

11. Termites chew up wood. They don't "eat" it. There are bacteria in their stomach that processes the wood, and the bacteria processes the cellulose so the termite spit it out for various purposes. Which evolved first, the termite or the bacteria? One cannot survive without the other.

12. When we humans cry, tear ducts produce teats. Why? No other species of mammal or animal have tear ducts. These tears help keep our eyes clean and fight infection. Why? Dogs and cats have eyes, yet they don't have these protective tears. Why would humans evolve the "need" for them?

13. I believe the mousetrap is a perfectly valid example of something we need, so why has evolution not caused it to be? Why must we humans make our own?

14. Vitamin K is required for blood clotting. Why? Why didn't we evolve without the need for Vitamin K?

15. We humans could not survive if we had no eyeballs, yet there are examples of other mammals and animals which don't have functioning eyes, such as the bat. The human eyeball is essentially made up of pigmented cells, epithelial cells, nerve fibers, water-filled cavity, epithelium, optic nerve, cornea, lens, iris, retina. If evolution is true, which was evolved first? All parts of the eyeball would need to evolve at the same time or there would be no need for any of the individual parts. Or is there some reason for a retina to exist without the other parts?

16. Big Bang claims that all the matter in the universe was pulled into the "singularity" which was spinning at a rapid pace. This "singularity" then exploded. Where did all that matter come from? No evolution scientist knows.

17. Evolutionists are religious, since religion simply means "that which you believe." Some believe in "god" and others believe in "dirt." One of the primary differences between "religion" and "evolution" is evolution is "tax" supported, and religion is "faith" supported.

18. Did "gravity" evolve? If, ever-so-many Billion years ago, the earth was a large rock with cooling pools of molten rock, what "need" arose to evolve gravity?

19. Why does light travel at 299,792,458 m / s? Was there a need for light to exist at all? Supposing there was a need for light, why doesn't light travel at 100 m/s, or 500 m/s (for example).

20. Why does the conservation of angular momentum not apply to the Big Bang? If that is a universal scientific fact, all planets and stars should be spinning in the same direction, but they are not. The "singularity" was spinning in one direction, which would cause all things to spin the same direction.

21. In an explosion, debris is evenly distributed (somewhat relative), so why is the universe not shaped like the earth? The universe is shaped like the surface of a horse saddle.

22. Scientists are able to observe a star go nova/supernova about every 30 years. Therefore, there should hundreds of millions of observable nova/supernovas because of the time it takes light to travel to earth. Scientists have only found 300. If the universe is 20 billion years old, why is there not more nova/supernovas?

23. If the earth (molten rock) cooled over a period of 3 billion years, why does granite rock contain Polonium Halos, which require instant cooling?

24. The Big Bang took place about 20 Billion years ago, so they say, yet life did not begin to exist until 16 Billion years later. Why? Was there a need, that arose, that life should evolve?

25. Life could not evolve with oxygen present, but it could not evolve without oxygen to sustain life either. In scientific experiments, if oxygen is used and specimen oxidizes.

26. Scientists continually try and create life in laboratories around the world. On the one hand they say life evolved over billions of years, but on the other hand they try to recreate the process in a few days or weeks in their lab.

27. So, a few billion years ago, rain fell on the hot molten rock for millions of years. This process somehow caused a "soup" to form, from which the first microbial life emerged. This life then found a mate or asexually split so there were two of it. Why? There was nothing to eat, and no reason for it to have another of its' kind. Having a clone of yourself would divide the existing food supply (of which there was none) by two, thus making life harder.

28. If the first life was asexual, neither male nor female, why did male and female evolve?

29. Dr. Colin Paterson, former director of the British Museum of Natural History, in correspondence to Luther Sutherland, quoted in Darwin's Enigma, 1988, page 89, "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil..."

This is still true today.

30. Former Marxist Professor at Harvard University,Dr. Stephen J. Gould, Evolution Now, page 140, wrote, "The absense of fossil evidence for intermediary stages...has been a persistent and nagging problem for...evolution."

There is no "missing link" because the whole chain does not exist.

31. Dr. Richard B. Gouldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, Yale University Press, 1940, page 395, wrote, "The first bird hatched from a reptillian egg."

So... how did that bird reproduce?

32. Since the dawn of time, farmers have tried to breed larger and larger pigs. Do you think they can ever get a pig the size of Texas? No, because there is some unseen law that says that is not possible, yet the need for larger pigs exists, so why can't we get pigs that big?

33. Roaches become resistant to pesticides and scientists are constantly changing or modifying formulas in order to kill roaches. Do you think they will ever become resistant to a sledge-hammer? If evolution is true, they should evolve this ability.

34. Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life, Wadsworth, 1992, page 304, "Other examples, including the much-repeated 'gradual' evolution of the modern horse, have not held up under close examination."

Dr. George Gaylord Simpson, "Many examples commonly cited, such as the evolution of the horse family or the sabertooth "tigers" can be readily shows to have been unintentionally falsfified and not to be really orthogenetic."

35. The "Kiabab Uplift" is evidence (though, not proof by itself) which supports the Biblical Flood. The Grand Canyon does not support that the Earth is millions or billions of years old.

36. The Geologic Column does not exist. If it did exist, it would be hundreds of miles thick. Our tallest mountain is not hundreds of miles tall, and our deepest hole is not hundreds of miles deep. No human has been hundreds of miles down into the earth.

Looking at the wall, inside the Grand Canyon, there are thousands of layers of dirt and rock, but no erosion marks between the layers. Don't you think, that if any one of those layers sat there for 10 million years, it would have rained once or twice? If you take a jar of water and dirt, shake it vigorously, set it down and watch, the contents will settle into multiple layers very quickly. This process is known as hydrolocical sorting. If a global flood were to occur today, we would be able to observe those layers form in a few days.

37. A young girl was at a museum, with a tour group. The group came to an exhibit featuring a layer of dirt. The tour guide said "This layer of dirt is about 70 million years old." The young girl, who was 12 years old at the time, asked the tour guide, "How do you know that layer is 70 million years old?" The tour guide replied, "We know how old a layer is based upon what kind of fossils we find in the layer. They are called index fossils." They went around that exhibit to the next one which featured a fossilized dinosaur. The tour guide said, "This fossil is about 100 million years old." The young girl asked another question, "How do you know that fossil is 100 million years old?" The tour guide replied, "We know how old the fossil is based upon what layer it was found in."

That is called circular reasoning, not science.

When the young girl mentioned this to the guide, it almost looked as if he were 'thinking,' which is rare among evolutionists.

J. E. O'Rourke, "The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales"..."That a known fossil or recent species, or higher taxonomic group, however primitive it might appear, is an actual ancestor of some other species or group, is an assumption scientifically unjustifiable, for science never can simply assume that which it has the responsibility to demonstrate." ~ Pragmaticism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy, American Journal of Science, vol 276 (January 1976), page 53

If two layers are compared which both contain limestone, but different fossils, the paleontologist says that one layer is x years old because it contained a certain index fossil, but the other layer is y years old because it contains another index fossil, despite the fact that he/she has no other way of demonstrating the age of the layer.

38. All throughout the world full-sized, adult trees can be found in these layers. These trees are standing, and complete. How did they get there, and how is they exist in the same layer as index fossils?

Hundreds of trees, standing up, have been found in the Kettles Coal mines near Cookville, TN. Some of those trees have their bottom half in one layer, and their top half in another layer, yet paleontologists/evolutionists still insist that there is 100 million years difference between those two layers. Sometimes trees are found upside down and run through several rock layers. This is not possible except by flood, possibly global.

Some polystrate trees are upside down and extend through multiple layers. I'm sorry, but a tree cannot exist for 100 million years while a layer of rock forms around it.

Need I continue?

Those of you who believe in evolution: You may have evolved from a rock, but I originate from a Being much more intelligent than your rock. Your belief in something so stupid and ignorant as evolution is proof of your stupid rock ancestor.

Again this is stupid, things with smells or color help plants or animals survive because of natural selection. For example some animals have camouflaging abilities to increase their survival.

if you think that evolution would remove senses then perhaps this is why you're unable to understand evolution.

Colour is just your imagination. It doesn't technically exist. It's just a method of communication and recognising different objects. We have poor colour vision compared to many animals. We can only see 3 colours. Yellow, red and blue. Everything else is a mixture of those 3 colours. Butterflies can see 5, and the mantis shrimp can see a whopping 12.

Food smells good, trash smells bad. Your body is telling you what is good to eat and what is bad to eat. Thing that are appealing to you does not necessary smell good because it benefits you after all, flowers smell good to attract bees to pollinate it. Whereas the Stinkhorn smells terrible to us, but is pollinated by flies which finds their smell appealing.

The reasons given above about how evolution is "b.s." Just.. wow!

"Believe in my way of the origins or you're stupid and dumb" That kind of thinking came from an "intelligent design"? Okey-dokey then.

You'd think that the intelligent design would show itself or would've at least made intelligent beings, rather than immature ones who say things like "You're stupid for believing in what i don't".

I've never seen someone who believes in evolution cut someone's head off because they don't believe in their "god". Oops! Said too much. Hope i'm not reported for this...


Aaanyway, here's the thing about the OP, the color you see is just the light reflecting off a surface and into your eyes.
Each cone cell have red, blue and green sensitive pigments that are sensitive to those colors.
We can sense almost any gradation of color when red, green and blue are mixed.
There are about 7 million cone cells in the retina. They're more concentrated towards the center.

There's also another type of cell called rods, they're responsible for us seeing in low-lighting conditions. They don't pick up color though. When you're sitting in a dark room or a room with very low light try this;
Look straight, but then very slowly look to the side from the corner of the eyes without actually turning your head or looking sideways, you'll be able to see the darker areas of the room much more clearly, that's because you're using rods to see, not cones. This is called scotopic vision.
There are about 120million rod cells and they're more sensitive than cones, that's why they're more "dark-adapted". They're low-resolution unlike cones.

Cones are effective in light, humans aren't nocturnal so we're more EVOLVED to see in daylight rather than in night time. But we also aren't totally diurnal and we are also crepuscular. So we EVOLVED rods too, that help us see at all times of day/night, as long as there's enough light present to be absorbed by our eyes.

Interesting fact btw, rods don't see red, they see blue/green more clearly though.

The thing is when the light falls on a surface, it bounces off it, when it bounces off it, our eyes absorbs that bounced off ray of light that carrying data of the object it bounced off of, that data contains specific spectrum of colors (of the visible spectrum of light) the intensity, shape, size, etc of that object, now when that light is received by our cones, the data is then sent to the part of brain that converts the data into what we call "vision". This process is completed by Occipital lobe in the back of the brain.


Now the smell, simply put, in this process our nerve cells in the nose pick up the scent and send it to the temporal lobe for processing, this smell then helps us determine through smell if the thing we're about to eat or touch is safe enough or not.

Not only that, but our sense of smell also helps determine our ideal mates. Yes, humans have that sense too, but it's too faint to notice, it's there though. We detect pheromones but not at a higher level. Another EVOLUTIONARY trait.

,

The book "Why Evolution is True" by Professor Jerry Coyne is pretty good. Here's an excellent lecture he did based on his book:

While this back-and-forth is fun to read, it seems there is a fundamental misunderstanding about what evolution is. Evolution is not a force, it is not something that dictates laws such as you must be able to smell roses or you must see in color. It, in itself, doesn't have the capacity to determine between good or bad traits. This is a very simplified version of the explanation, but evolution is essentially change through genes inherited by parents. If you can agree that a child has his mother's eyes or his father's strong chin, then you already agree with a founding principle behind evolution that traits are passed from parent to offspring.



As for how we (or any other living being) develop new senses such as color-vision or sensitivity of smell, it comes down to gene mutations. DNA is a long and complex strand of code, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that mistakes are made when it is replicated, which needs to happen to create sex cells. Most of these mistakes never have any consequence, so we go on living never knowing we even had a genetic mutation. Other times though, it can result in change which may produce new abilities, new anatomical features, and with enough time a new species.


Lets use the (extremely simplified and shortened) route to color vision as our example. Well start with the assumption that our starting population lack cones the parents and many of the offspring will see the world in grayscale. However, eventually a mutation occurs and BAM! We get our first cone. This doesn't mean that the mutated baby suddenly sees the world as we do today, they only received the ability to see a small range of color. The mutated offspring grows up and, provided it is successful reproducing, the mutated gene may be carried on to later generations. The process is similar for gaining the second and third cones. The genes for fewer cones do not go away completely (there are indeed various types of colorblindness still today) and evolution does NOT focus on the why part of the equation. It doesn't care if the cone provided an advantage, disadvantage, or had no net change in survivability. All evolution cares about was that there was a mutation that was passed on enough that now the majority of the population has changed from colorblind to color-vision.


Natural selection is the actual process that focuses on the why, assuming that changes which provide a benefit to an organism (aka, lets it live long enough to have babies and pass on its genes) will have a better chance of being passed on. Evolution goes oops, mutation, look at that a cone! Whatever, I dont care unless more people have this. Natural selection offers explanations along the lines of


MUTANT: Wow, I don't know why my friends are having such a hard time picking berries? They are right there, easy as pie.

Potential mates: Ooo, [MUTANT] makes this look so easy. You know, people are dying because they cant find enough food, I don't want my babies to die like that. Hey! [Mutant]! I want your babies!


As for your thought that the world would have been more logically seen in black and white, observe the follow three pictures:

[image: orig02.deviantart.net]

The first is grayscale, the second is with red removed, and the last is the original picture I found on Google. Which one has the easiest to see berries? If you possess three (or more!) cones, the original version (the furthest right) has the berries stand out the most, making it easier for individuals with three (or more) cones to gather and eat those berries. However, color vision simply detects wavelengths, so if we can see red berries we will also see red flowers, red balloons, red pillows (etcetera, etcetera) even if those don't directly impact our survival. This applies equally well to smell, touch, taste pretty much any sense. Fun fact though: rose petals and their fruit (rose hips) are edible and still eaten to this day. ;)

Well, to find the best evidence, it would really help to know what exactly about it your colleague doesn't believe.

If he is one of those people who think evolution says humans evolved from chimpanzees/monkeys, he's right about one thing - we didn't. We share (as I assume you know) a common ancestor. What might help your friend wrap his mind about that is to point out other creatures that share a common ancestor, but are not descended from each other. The first thing that comes to my mind is the horse/zebra/donkey relationship. I haven't met anyone who claimed that these animals aren't related. Our relationship to chimpanzees are comparable to the horses relationship to the zebra.

However, if his beef is that he doesn't believe that a certain species could evolve to become a new species (e.g., "wolves could never become dogs, that's lunacy!"), this short video segment may help:



This shows the beginnings of how wolves may have changed into dogs, but with the use of foxes. While this is interesting and informative, there is one thing that bugs me about this video: it makes the claim that Darwin's estimation of evolution takes a long time is false. While the foxes certainly undergo a pretty massive transformation in a relative short span, the tamer and more dog-like foxes are still foxes in the end. Darwin's claim of evolution needing a long time is more focused toward the creation of new species rather than a new "breed" as is what seems to be shown here.

I certainly have more I can put forward, but I really prefer to have more specific targets so I feel like I'm not rambling! lol So yes, if I didn't hit on any of the issues your colleague finds weak (or if anyone else is up for a friendly debate) just let me know and I'd be happy to address the issues more specifically. Or just through some more interesting videos up here. :D

Excellent post.

4. evolution takes millions of years, unless a genetic mutation is exceedingly useful to the species, in which case the process is quickened

Sorry but that's absolute nonsense.

Leave him alone, he's just jumping on the bandwagon :p

I find it mind boggling to think that the human reproductive organs (Male, and female) just so happened to evolve at the same rate, and are compatible with one another.

What a miracle!

>.>

Evolution could be the answer,not the reason why something can't be because of it.

Nothing comes from something.

i wish 2 pieces of nothing would come together and make me a sandwich

the big bang theory is stupid....... but the show is funny

Humans do eat roses. There are numerous recipes, tinctures, and oils that call for certain parts of the rose.

It is mathematically impossible for something like the rose to be both appealing and beneficial to so many species of life.

Essentially, all life on our planet is intricately connected and interdependent. Evolution without the guidance of an intelligent being is nothing more than chaos. Evolution without guidance is the equivalent to scientists today who invent a new drug which treats one symptom, yet puts the patient at risk for serious side-effects or death. Why do we not see this in nature? Because the guiding force, Yahweh, behind the designs, symmetry and all forms of life is much smarter than you, any of you, or any human before you - any of us.

For evolution to be true, for us to be ever moving forward, scientists must prove it true such as with a cure for cancer, cure for AIDS, etc.

Until such time, which will never come, I will continue to Believe in the Holy Inspired Scriptures of Yahweh, and the perfect Unity described in the Law #pscep

Why do you believe in Yahweh?

Everyone has the right to believe in what they want to, but when you force your beliefs onto me, that's where the problem begins and will not be tolerated.