Evolution is wrong

[IamRAMBO24]

I am not a creationist. I don't care about taking sides. I only seek the truth, and the truth has lead me to believe Darwin is wrong.

1. Darwin believes a species can evolve into another species given the right environment, so for example, a bear can evolve into a whale if the conditions are such he has to be a whale to survive. He gave one example of long beak birds vs short beaks on the Galapagos island, which he believes was isolated from the rest of the world. From this he concluded the long beaks died out when they could no longer break down the seeds for food. First of all, the island isn't that far away from South America and birds have been known to migrate longer distances to look for food. The long beaks didn't die out; they just went somewhere else. Second, even if long beaks happen to evolve into short beaks only, that is just a small variation in phenotype and holds no evidence towards say one completely different species to another. He also used moths changing color to avoid predators as evidence of adaptation, again, this is a small change in variation and who is to say the ones with lighter wings didn't simply get eaten? This is huge considering it is such a small change in variation; Darwin is talking about a bear turning into a whale and he can't even prove simple animals of the same species taking on new variations.

2. The species most resilient to the environment and the strongest aren't necessarily the ones that will win out. The most dominant specie on earth is the homo sapien. Humans aren't built for the environment: they have no fur to keep them warm, they are weak compare to apes, bears, big cats, etc., they can't see in the dark nor do they have the quickness and sensitivity in hearing as other carnivores. They are dominant because they are intelligent. it has nothing to do with adaptibility nor strength. They don't need to adapt to the conditions of the environment: they can live in any climate because they have the know how to alter the environment according to their needs. They are evolving based on intelligence. The best ideas in science and philosophy will evolve humanity to a better state.

It's weak ass guys like Hawkins and Einstein that's going to take humanity to the next phase in evolution, not Arnold or Vin Diesel.
If the ice cap melts, humans aren't going to evolve into fish like creatures in order to survive.

[BigBoss]

Iramble24/7

[DeuceWallaces]

Nope, you're wrong.

[DonD13]

http://lowbird.com/data/images/2014/03/4cdn-1393803279299.gif

[IamRAMBO24]

Nope, you're wrong.

Prove it Douchewallace. Just because you say I am wrong doesn't mean I am wrong. I just refuted Darwin's two strongest points (the points you learn in school). Now it is your turn to prove I am wrong. That's how an argument works.

[Milbuck]

I'm guessing you just read an article summarizing Darwin's work, and decided to pick it apart because you think you could. I don't know why you're basing your entire critique of evolution on Darwin's work (you're also wrong), as if there hasn't been massive advancements in the understanding of the topic, observable/testable evidence, etc. I don't think you understand the scope of evolutionary study.

[IamRAMBO24]

I'm guessing you just read an article summarizing Darwin's work, and decided to pick it apart because you think you could. I don't know why you're basing your entire critique of evolution on Darwin's work (you're also wrong), as if there hasn't been massive advancements in the understanding of the topic, observable/testable evidence, etc. I don't think you understand the scope of evolutionary study.

I know his entire study. I targeted his strongest points. I don't think there is one shred of evidence a species ever turned into another species while there are many evidence of a species remaining the same after millions of years (crocodile for example).

I like how you just said there are "massive advancements" without actually specifying what those advancements are.

[BigBoss]

I know his entire study. I targeted his strongest points. I don't think there is one shred of evidence a species ever turned into another species while there are many evidence of a species remaining the same after millions of years (crocodile for example).

I like how you just said there are "massive advancements" without actually specifying what those advancements are.

:roll:

[Jud]

I know his entire study. I targeted his strongest points. I don't think there is one shred of evidence a species ever turned into another species while there are many evidence of a species remaining the same after millions of years (crocodile for example).

I like how you just said there are "massive advancements" without actually specifying what those advancements are.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NFqO_mMO95Q/TsZUh_3pIKI/AAAAAAAAAuE/vJym0Kh6xxE/s400/Ether.jpg

[Milbuck]

I know his entire study. I targeted his strongest points. I don't think there is one shred of evidence a species ever turned into another species while there are many evidence of a species remaining the same after millions of years (crocodile for example).

I like how you just said there are "massive advancements" without actually specifying what those advancements are.
Lmao. Not even gonna bother breaking down your arguments point by point, it just reeks of ignorance. Just look this stuff up and try to understand it.

- Homologous/vestigial structures
- Analogous structures and convergent evolution
- Fossil records
- Biogeography
- Studies on drug-resistance bacteria
- Countless studies on heritable traits, genetic variation, favorable characteristics, etc (Soapberry bugs, finches, so on)

DeuceWallaces' post was right on the money. You cannot and will not prove Evolution wrong no matter how hard you try. You might as well try to disprove gravity while you're at it.

[Overdrive]

I am not a creationist. I don't care about taking sides. I only seek the truth, and the truth has lead me to believe Darwin is wrong.

1. Darwin believes a species can evolve into another species given the right environment, so for example, a bear can evolve into a whale if the conditions are such he has to be a whale to survive. He gave one example of long beak birds vs short beaks on the Galapagos island, which he believes was isolated from the rest of the world. From this he concluded the long beaks died out when they could no longer break down the seeds for food. First of all, the island isn't that far away from South America and birds have been known to migrate longer distances to look for food. The long beaks didn't die out; they just went somewhere else. Second, even if long beaks happen to evolve into short beaks only, that is just a small variation in phenotype and holds no evidence towards say one completely different species to another. He also used moths changing color to avoid predators as evidence of adaptation, again, this is a small change in variation and who is to say the ones with lighter wings didn't simply get eaten? This is huge considering it is such a small change in variation; Darwin is talking about a bear turning into a whale and he can't even prove simple animals of the same species taking on new variations.

2. The species most resilient to the environment and the strongest aren't necessarily the ones that will win out. The most dominant specie on earth is the homo sapien. Humans aren't built for the environment: they have no fur to keep them warm, they are weak compare to apes, bears, big cats, etc., they can't see in the dark nor do they have the quickness and sensitivity in hearing as other carnivores. They are dominant because they are intelligent. it has nothing to do with adaptibility nor strength. They don't need to adapt to the conditions of the environment: they can live in any climate because they have the know how to alter the environment according to their needs. They are evolving based on intelligence. The best ideas in science and philosophy will evolve humanity to a better state.

It's weak ass guys like Hawkins and Einstein that's going to take humanity to the next phase in evolution, not Arnold or Vin Diesel.
If the ice cap melts, humans aren't going to evolve into fish like creatures in order to survive.

Cognitive advancement is also part of evolution - that's why mankind is the most highly evolved species, but not most specialized. You think you proofed a book full of inductive and deductive evidences wrong by typing out two paragraph?

What you anti evolution guys don't get is that a bear doesn't turn a whale because he's bathing - it would take millions of years..and it wouldn't be a whale, but a ocean bear or whatever.

[IamRAMBO24]

http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/samerica/galpsa.gif

The Galapagos is about 2-3,000 miles from South America. Birds can travel farther than that. The long beaks didn't die out. When food is scarce, they will migrate to other places to find food. Animals do this all the time. There is evidence of this. No animal stays in one place and dies. Darwin simply made the wrong assumption.

[Milbuck]

Cognitive advancement is also part of evolution - that's why mankind is the most highly evolved species, but not most specialized. You think you proofed a book full of inductive and deductive evidences wrong by typing out two paragraph?

What you anti evolution guys don't get is that a bear doesn't turn a whale because he's bathing - it would take millions of years..and it wouldn't be a whale, but a ocean bear or whatever.
But if I can't see a bear physically turn into a whale before my own eyes, how can I be sure evolution exists?

[CeltsGarlic]

Imma let you finish, but arent you an idiot who cant write his own arguments?

[DonD13]

Rambo, my friend, i want to know Darwin as good as you, can you please link me to the part where he says that a bear can turn into a whale?

[Overdrive]

I know his entire study. I targeted his strongest points. I don't think there is one shred of evidence a species ever turned into another species while there are many evidence of a species remaining the same after millions of years (crocodile for example).

I like how you just said there are "massive advancements" without actually specifying what those advancements are.

Because crocodiles get enough to eat the way they are and are rarely eaten. Why should the change? They're successful they way they are? If you're no creationist answer me this: Why are there no bird fossils from 200 mil years ago, but later there are fossil links between sauri and birds? Why was a nonflying bird the dominant species after the dinos vanished, yet mammals overtook them? If there was no evolution why aren't we ruled by predating ostriches?

[IamRAMBO24]

Cognitive advancement is also part of evolution - that's why mankind is the most highly evolved species, but not most specialized. You think you proofed a book full of inductive and deductive evidences wrong by typing out two paragraph?

What you anti evolution guys don't get is that a bear doesn't turn a whale because he's bathing - it would take millions of years..and it wouldn't be a whale, but a ocean bear or whatever.

How do you know humans can evolve into bears within a million of years? You can't. It's a logical fallacy because the term "it'll take millions of years" has no basis with reality. I can say humans won't evolve into anything other than smarter humans in a million years and I will still be right.

There is absolutely no evidence of a species ever turning into another species. Fact.

[DonD13]

I am not a creationist. I don't care about taking sides. I only seek the truth, and the truth has lead me to believe Darwin is wrong.

1. Darwin believes a species can evolve into another species given the right environment, so for example, a bear can evolve into a whale if the conditions are such he has to be a whale to survive. He gave one example of long beak birds vs short beaks on the Galapagos island, which he believes was isolated from the rest of the world. From this he concluded the long beaks died out when they could no longer break down the seeds for food. First of all, the island isn't that far away from South America and birds have been known to migrate longer distances to look for food. The long beaks didn't die out; they just went somewhere else. Second, even if long beaks happen to evolve into short beaks only, that is just a small variation in phenotype and holds no evidence towards say one completely different species to another. He also used moths changing color to avoid predators as evidence of adaptation, again, this is a small change in variation and who is to say the ones with lighter wings didn't simply get eaten? This is huge considering it is such a small change in variation; Darwin is talking about a bear turning into a whale and he can't even prove simple animals of the same species taking on new variations.

2. The species most resilient to the environment and the strongest aren't necessarily the ones that will win out. The most dominant specie on earth is the homo sapien. Humans aren't built for the environment: they have no fur to keep them warm, they are weak compare to apes, bears, big cats, etc., they can't see in the dark nor do they have the quickness and sensitivity in hearing as other carnivores. They are dominant because they are intelligent. it has nothing to do with adaptibility nor strength. They don't need to adapt to the conditions of the environment: they can live in any climate because they have the know how to alter the environment according to their needs. They are evolving based on intelligence. The best ideas in science and philosophy will evolve humanity to a better state.

It's weak ass guys like Hawkins and Einstein that's going to take humanity to the next phase in evolution, not Arnold or Vin Diesel.
If the ice cap melts, humans aren't going to evolve into fish like creatures in order to survive.

ok

1. he never claimed that a whale can turn into a bear. he claims that they got common ancestors way back

2. he never claimed that 'the strongest' survives. he says 'the fittest'. meaning the ones who produces the most potent offsprings.

you obviously have never read anything about it. at best, you've seen a youtube vid.

[IamRAMBO24]

Because crocodiles get enough to eat the way they are and are rarely eaten. Why should the change? They're successful they way they are? If you're no creationist answer me this: Why are there no bird fossils from 200 mil years ago, but later there are fossil links between sauri and birds? Why was a nonflying bird the dominant species after the dinos vanished, yet mammals overtook them? If there was no evolution why aren't we ruled by predating ostriches?

Humans are not adapting to the environment like other animals. We are one of a kind. No other species come close. An ape using a twig to eat ants isn't even on the same wave length. With this special tool, we are altering the environment to suit our needs. We can live in colder climates without the need for fur, we can travel long distances without big feet, we can hunt without sharp fangs, etc. Animals react to the environment, but humans are changing it.

The only reason why many people believe an ape evolved into us is because we share some genetics and they have facial features like us, but that is ludicrous. Humans are nothing like apes. In fact, based on the genome mapping, we didn't even come from apes, let alone neanderthals.

[IamRAMBO24]

ok

1. he never claimed that a whale can turn into a bear. he claims that they got common ancestors way back

2. he never claimed that 'the strongest' survives. he says 'the fittest'. meaning the ones who produces the most potent offsprings.

you obviously have never read anything about it. at best, you've seen a youtube vid.

1. He said a bear can turn into a whale under the right conditions. Maybe you don't know much about Darwin but that was exactly what he said.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2013/02/can-bears-turn-into-whales-part-two-charles-darwin-revisited.html

2. He said in the struggle for survival the ones that win out are the ones that are the best at adapting to their environment. You're just arguing semantics. I've already clearly mentioned adaptation many times in my other posts.

[Overdrive]

How do you know humans can evolve into bears within a million of years? You can't. It's a logical fallacy because the term "it'll take millions of years" has no basis with reality. I can say humans won't evolve into anything other than smarter humans in a million years and I will still be right.

There is absolutely no evidence of a species ever turning into another species. Fact.

Read again. I never said humans become bears et vice versa.

[Overdrive]

Humans are not adapting to the environment like other animals. We are one of a kind. No other species come close. An ape using a twig to eat ants isn't even on the same wave length. With this special tool, we are altering the environment to suit our needs. We can live in colder climates without the need for fur, we can travel long distances without big feet, we can hunt without sharp fangs, etc. Animals react to the environment, but humans are changing it.

The only reason why many people believe an ape evolved into us is because we share some genetics and they have facial features like us, but that is ludicrous. Humans are nothing like apes. In fact, based on the genome mapping, we didn't even come from apes, let alone neanderthals.

Again: Brains evolve, too. Better cognitive powers less adaption to environment needed.

Again part 2: Why aren't carnivore ostrich-like birds still the prime predators, how did mammals get on top? Where did men come from if you neither believe in creation nor evolution? Where were there dominating birds 55 mil years ago, sauri 65 mil years and further but no men?

Is your view on this topic based on the Flintstones?

[IamRAMBO24]

Lmao. Not even gonna bother breaking down your arguments point by point, it just reeks of ignorance. Just look this stuff up and try to understand it.

- Homologous/vestigial structures
- Analogous structures and convergent evolution
- Fossil records
- Biogeography
- Studies on drug-resistance bacteria
- Countless studies on heritable traits, genetic variation, favorable characteristics, etc (Soapberry bugs, finches, so on)

DeuceWallaces' post was right on the money. You cannot and will not prove Evolution wrong no matter how hard you try. You might as well try to disprove gravity while you're at it.

1. Biogeography? GTFO none of that proves the heart of his theory: a species turning into another species through adaptation from a struggle for existence. His best evidence was the birds on the island but even that was filmsy since birds tend to migrate.

2. I don't need to disprove gravity. Einstein already did it. Right back at ya.

[oarabbus]

1. He said a bear can turn into a whale under the right conditions. Maybe you don't know much about Darwin but that was exactly what he said.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2013/02/can-bears-turn-into-whales-part-two-charles-darwin-revisited.html

2. He said in the struggle for survival the ones that win out are the ones that are the best at adapting to their environment. You're just arguing semantics. I've already clearly mentioned adaptation many times in my other posts.

If he truly said a bear can turn into a whale he's wrong. Doesn't mean his theory is wrong. A bear and a whale can share a common ancestor.

[Overdrive]

2. I don't need to disprove gravity. Einstein already did it. Right back at ya.

No, he did not. He just showed that gravity is not as constant is it was believed before and that gravitational and time effects interact.

note time is present in a, v and hence E/W, p and F.

[IamRAMBO24]

Again: Brains evolve, too. Better cognitive powers less adaption to environment needed.

Again part 2: Why aren't carnivore ostrich-like birds still the prime predators, how did mammals get on top? Where did men come from if you neither believe in creation nor evolution? Where were there dominating birds 55 mil years ago, sauri 65 mil years and further but no men?

Is your view on this topic based on the Flintstones?

1. Based on the genome mapping, humans are a completely new species with no linkage to the apes. On evolutionary scale, we should be living with the dinosaurs to have this level of intelligence. You're basing your assumptions on old faulty science.

2. Based on the facts of genetics, I don't think men came from apes. We don't know where men came from. The genome mapping is new and there are a lot of unanswered questions.

[kNIOKAS]

DeuceWallaces' post was right on the money. You cannot and will not prove Evolution wrong no matter how hard you try. You might as well try to disprove gravity while you're at it.
That's a fallacyyyyyyyy!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zXDo4dL7SU

[Overdrive]

1. Based on the genome mapping, humans are a completely new species with no linkage to the apes. On evolutionary scale, we should be living with the dinosaurs to have this level of intelligence. You're basing your assumptions on old faulty science.

2. Based on the facts of genetics, I don't think men came from apes. We don't know where men came from. The genome mapping is new and there are a lot of unanswered questions.

Basically, you're stating that you don't know and that's how you want to disprove Darwin?

Ostrich question still not answered.

[IamRAMBO24]

Basically, you're stating that you don't know and that's how you want to disprove Darwin?

Ostrich question still not answered.

Elaborate the ostrich.

[Overdrive]

Elaborate the ostrich.

Obviously you don't read what you reply to.

[DonD13]

1. He said a bear can turn into a whale under the right conditions. Maybe you don't know much about Darwin but that was exactly what he said.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2013/02/can-bears-turn-into-whales-part-two-charles-darwin-revisited.html

2. He said in the struggle for survival the ones that win out are the ones that are the best at adapting to their environment. You're just arguing semantics. I've already clearly mentioned adaptation many times in my other posts.

1. :dancin

2. but... but you said it's not plausible because humans "are weak compare to apes, bears, big cats, etc"

let's just hope you don't produce any offsprings mate

[IamRAMBO24]

Obviously you don't read what you reply to.

You were talking about predator ostriches that can rule the world. WTF does that have to do with anything? I already told you humans are the most dominant species because they are the opposite of Darwin's theory: they're not passively adapting to the environment in order to survive; they are actively manipulating it. If the dinosaurs lived with men, they would dominate them as well. It is not the fittest who will survive, it is the most intelligent.

[Lebowsky]

I will never understand why people waste time replying to this retarded troll...

[IamRAMBO24]

1. :dancin

2. but... but you said it's not plausible because humans "are weak compare to apes, bears, big cats, etc"

let's just hope you don't produce any offsprings mate

If Darwin's theory is correct (adaptation to the environment), humans should of retained their ape-like strength and passed it on to their off springs since we are the most dominant specie, but we are not doing that because we are not evolving based on adaption to the environment; we are evolving based on purely mind. The best ideas in technology and science are moving us forward. Evolution only works for animals.

[DonD13]

If Darwin's theory is correct (adaptation to the environment), humans should of retained their ape-like strength and passed it on to their off springs since we are the most dominant specie, but we are not doing that because we are not evolving based on adaption to the environment; we are evolving based on purely mind. The best ideas in technology and science are moving us forward. Evolution only works for animals.

what? i don't think there's anybody questioning that the key why humans are so successful is their intelligence :confusedshrug:

you came up with this "strength" thing, not Darwin.

you just making shit up :oldlol:

[dunksby]

The only thing that separates us from most mammals is a 1.4 percent regulatory genes that dictate the placement and proportion of organs during the embryonic growth. These regulatory genes direct when genes are turned on and off during the embryo's development and consequently changing the size and placement of body organs and limbs. Basically we share a lot with other animals because we have all evolved to survive in the same environment, all animals need oxygen to survive, eat from their surroundings, sexual reproduction for some etc.

[Overdrive]

You were talking about predator ostriches that can rule the world. WTF does that have to do with anything? I already told you humans are the most dominant species because they are the opposite of Darwin's theory: they're not passively adapting to the environment in order to survive; they are actively manipulating it. If the dinosaurs lived with men, they would dominate them as well. It is not the fittest who will survive, it is the most intelligent.

There actually was a big non flying top of the food chain prime predator bird for millions of years. It died out long before men reached their territory. Endemic non avid species overtook. No catastrophes were involved. How come?

[ThePhantomCreep]

If Darwin's theory is correct (adaptation to the environment), humans should of retained their ape-like strength and passed it on to their off springs since we are the most dominant specie, but we are not doing that because we are not evolving based on adaption to the environment; we are evolving based on purely mind. The best ideas in technology and science are moving us forward. Evolution only works for animals.

Not necessarily. Human brainpower and the use of tools make ape-like muscle density (which requires enormous amounts of food to maintain) more trouble than its worth.

You think evolution is disproven because we can't snap trees like toothpicks? :roll:

[Sarcastic]

How do you know humans can evolve into bears within a million of years?

No one does, but it takes a lot longer than that. The scale of time is even larger than you can even fathom, and that's probably the biggest problem.

[ILLsmak]

Evolution is wrong in the same way a lot of science is wrong. It takes something true and goes way too far with it.

obviously things evolved and the world changed, but the truth is that I don't agree 'good mutations' could happen on that level. I mean, the whole statistical idea of it is basically if you ran the same thing infinitely it would eventually happen. The world would be created, bad evolution would happen, everything would die. The world would be created again, etc. But the issue, to me, is that there are insurmountable odds.

Seems just as likely that a godbeing could have evolved, something outside of the sphere of this creation and destruction, because it was lucky or immune, then it influenced the world in its next stages.

If creationism is believing there is unexplainable shit that happened in order for the earth to get to this point, then mark me down as one.

-Smak

[GimmeThat]

what's wrong, is the lack of ability for human to interpret the currency as gold or silver

[eriX]

When is rambo going to accept he is just going to rot away, posting shiet on ISH where no fks were given and people like Darwin will be remembered for centuries to come.

Dat feel.

[Lebron23]

http://www.gifbin.com/bin/072011/1310121676_angry_wrestler.gif

[Take Your Lumps]

1. Darwin believes a species can evolve into another species given the right environment, so for example, a bear can evolve into a whale if the conditions are such he has to be a whale to survive.

Lol

http://giant.gfycat.com/NiceGoodHeterodontosaurus.gif

[riseagainst]

OP is the most ignorant poster on this site. He thinks he actually knows science when he states the most retarded, extreme conclusions. Wow, should have stayed in school and paid attention, kid.

[KevinNYC]

I am not a creationist.


There is absolutely no evidence of a species ever turning into another species. Fact.
Uh, huh.

[shlver]

Darwin was wrong on some points, but was right on others. Equating modern evolutionary theory to Darwin's theory shows your ignorance on anything related to science.

[Micku]

How do you know humans can evolve into bears within a million of years? You can't. It's a logical fallacy because the term "it'll take millions of years" has no basis with reality. I can say humans won't evolve into anything other than smarter humans in a million years and I will still be right.

There is absolutely no evidence of a species ever turning into another species. Fact.


You're wrong. We already examined when a species turned into another species. It exists. It's out there.

First:
Classify what it means to be a species. Species means a group of organisms that are capable of interbreeding in order to make a off spring.

Second (example 1):


There was an experiment done in the 50s with fruit flies. The experiment was done by splitting the fruit flies into separate cages and gave them different foods. One with maltose-based foods and the other with starch-based foods. After some generations, the flies begun to change. The flies in one cage had their color changed, grew extra wings so it has four wings in total instead of two, and a third antenna. And the most important thing of all: is that when they finally put the flies back together, they could not mate with each other.

Remember the definition of a species? Well since they cannot mate with each other, and they could only mate with their "group" and they are now considered different species.

Source:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_45

Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZJTIwRY0bs#t=50s


How did this happen?

Genetic mutation. This is evolution, a change over time.

Since flies have a short life span, they are capable of going through many generations in a short period of time.

This poor example of Darwinism tho, since they can't really survive other than being in a lab. But it is an example of a same group of organism split up into different geographic and isolating them. You'll tend to get interesting changes with genetics.

Evolution doesn't mean evolving into advance species, it just means change. In this case, genetic mutation.


Third (example 2):

A new plant species was created by a doubling of the chromosome count from the original. This was observed in 1960s. This new plant is a type of fireweed. See Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)".

Fourth (example 3):

Five new species of cichlid fishes were created after they were isolated from Lake Nagubago less than 4000 years ago. They have different coloration, mating and cannot mate with each other.


Fifth (difference between evolution and evolving into different species):

Evolution doesn't mean evolving into a different species. It basically means a change over time in a general sense. In the biology term, it also means a change in heritable traits over generation. Which you can look no further dogs. They all have a common ancestor with wolves. This is selective breeding of evolution and not natural selection since we can eventually turn a wolf into a chiwawa after many generations. The same with a domesticated silver fox, which took 50 years of selective breeding.

They are not different species, but it is an example of genetic mutation. You can call microevolution. But as pointed out above, microevolution can lead to marcoevolution where you can no longer breed.

Tldr:
There have been species turning into another species before, so you're wrong. We tested it with flies, seen it with plants, and fishes. Evolution takes time and evolution doesn't mean a species turning into another species.

[KevinNYC]

http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/samerica/galpsa.gif

The Galapagos is about 2-3,000 miles from South America. No it's not.

More ISH Geography.

The width of the continent of South America at its widest point is about 3,000 miles or about 5 times the distance of the Galapagos to South America.

[KevinNYC]

He gave one example of long beak birds vs short beaks on the Galapagos island, which he believes was isolated from the rest of the world. From this he concluded the long beaks died out when they could no longer break down the seeds for food. First of all, the island isn't that far away from South America and birds have been known to migrate longer distances to look for food.

And how many birds migrate over the open ocean?

So Darwin's finches which are about an ounce in weight were able to travel hundreds of miles to the Galapagos Islands? And what did they eat? And they flew the entire time? No resting?

[tmacattack33]

I am not a creationist. I don't care about taking sides. I only seek the truth, and the truth has lead me to believe Darwin is wrong.

1. Darwin believes a species can evolve into another species given the right environment, so for example, a bear can evolve into a whale if the conditions are such he has to be a whale to survive. He gave one example of long beak birds vs short beaks on the Galapagos island, which he believes was isolated from the rest of the world. From this he concluded the long beaks died out when they could no longer break down the seeds for food. First of all, the island isn't that far away from South America and birds have been known to migrate longer distances to look for food. The long beaks didn't die out; they just went somewhere else. Second, even if long beaks happen to evolve into short beaks only, that is just a small variation in phenotype and holds no evidence towards say one completely different species to another. He also used moths changing color to avoid predators as evidence of adaptation, again, this is a small change in variation and who is to say the ones with lighter wings didn't simply get eaten? This is huge considering it is such a small change in variation; Darwin is talking about a bear turning into a whale and he can't even prove simple animals of the same species taking on new variations.

2. The species most resilient to the environment and the strongest aren't necessarily the ones that will win out. The most dominant specie on earth is the homo sapien. Humans aren't built for the environment: they have no fur to keep them warm, they are weak compare to apes, bears, big cats, etc., they can't see in the dark nor do they have the quickness and sensitivity in hearing as other carnivores. They are dominant because they are intelligent. it has nothing to do with adaptibility nor strength. They don't need to adapt to the conditions of the environment: they can live in any climate because they have the know how to alter the environment according to their needs. They are evolving based on intelligence. The best ideas in science and philosophy will evolve humanity to a better state.

It's weak ass guys like Hawkins and Einstein that's going to take humanity to the next phase in evolution, not Arnold or Vin Diesel.
If the ice cap melts, humans aren't going to evolve into fish like creatures in order to survive.

The strongest and most dominant species will survive. Our intelligence is what makes us strong and allows us to survive and thrive.

[bladefd]

Did you know that they were able to turn a bacteria-species into a new species in a lab over many generations? Bacteria live for short period and reproduce very quickly so you can fast-forward through many generations.

E coli normally cannot 'eat' citrate and die from it. Out of many groups of them, 1 E. coli colony was able to evolve this ability after MANY generations. That means they became a new species of E. coli. The biologist did this in 19 years. Now imagine what would happen if you had many more generations. Maybe 100 million years? What do you think would happen?


But in one remarkable case, however, they discovered that a flask had turned cloudy without any contamination. It was E. coli chowing down on the citrate. The researchers found that when they put the bacteria in pure citrate, the microbes could thrive on it as their sole source of carbon.

In nature, there have been a few reports of E. coli that can feed on citrate. But these oddballs all acquired a ring of DNA called a plasmid from some other species of bacteria. Lenski selected a strain of E. coli for his experiments that doesn’t have any plasmids, there were no other bacteria in the experiment, and the evolved bacteria remain plasmid-free. So the only explanation was that this one line of E. coli had evolved the ability to eat citrate on its own.

http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a-new-step-in-evolution/

If you are expecting these bacteria to turn into a bird (like a bear turning into a whale) then you have completely wrong misunderstanding of the mechanism of evolution. It is over many millions of years & generations not over short period.

There you go, Rambo. I completely tore your argument apart in 5 minutes. Next please.

[MavsSuperFan]

I am not a creationist. I don't care about taking sides. I only seek the truth, and the truth has lead me to believe Darwin is wrong.

1. Darwin believes a species can evolve into another species given the right environment, so for example, a bear can evolve into a whale if the conditions are such he has to be a whale to survive. He gave one example of long beak birds vs short beaks on the Galapagos island, which he believes was isolated from the rest of the world. From this he concluded the long beaks died out when they could no longer break down the seeds for food. First of all, the island isn't that far away from South America and birds have been known to migrate longer distances to look for food. The long beaks didn't die out; they just went somewhere else. Second, even if long beaks happen to evolve into short beaks only, that is just a small variation in phenotype and holds no evidence towards say one completely different species to another. He also used moths changing color to avoid predators as evidence of adaptation, again, this is a small change in variation and who is to say the ones with lighter wings didn't simply get eaten? This is huge considering it is such a small change in variation; Darwin is talking about a bear turning into a whale and he can't even prove simple animals of the same species taking on new variations.

2. The species most resilient to the environment and the strongest aren't necessarily the ones that will win out. The most dominant specie on earth is the homo sapien. Humans aren't built for the environment: they have no fur to keep them warm, they are weak compare to apes, bears, big cats, etc., they can't see in the dark nor do they have the quickness and sensitivity in hearing as other carnivores. They are dominant because they are intelligent. it has nothing to do with adaptibility nor strength. They don't need to adapt to the conditions of the environment: they can live in any climate because they have the know how to alter the environment according to their needs. They are evolving based on intelligence. The best ideas in science and philosophy will evolve humanity to a better state.

It's weak ass guys like Hawkins and Einstein that's going to take humanity to the next phase in evolution, not Arnold or Vin Diesel.
If the ice cap melts, humans aren't going to evolve into fish like creatures in order to survive.

How do you manage to stay alive?:biggums:

[DeuceWallaces]

How do you manage to stay alive?:biggums:

It's a god damn miracle (s)he is alive and knows how to use a computer.

[blood yes]

WOW:biggums: :biggums: :biggums: :wtf: :wtf:

Im a christian and I don't even believe in evolution but your "evidence" is so ****ing off:biggums:

Bro, if you want to disprove evolution, you can't be uneducated in the topic you're trying to disprove. I can tell you are maybe around 12-17 years old, probably never took a biology class before.

I don't claim to know biology a lot, but I took AP Biology back in high-school and your post is off in so many ways I don't know where to start


Like I said, I don't even believe in evolution but your evidence is so shitty I could see why athiests think religious people are ****ing retarded...

First off, Darwin never mentioned anything about Bear to Whale. Are you ****ing dumb? According to Darwin, there was a common ancestor between the two millions of years ago and they evolved that way.

Also, really? Did you just say that evolution is false because humans aren't strong/dont have night vision?:biggums: Are you ****ing stupid or something?

Evolution doesn't work that way. According to evolution, Over MILLIONS OF YEARS, humans have gained incredible intelligence and social skills which puts them at the top. Intelligence>everything on Earth.

The most dominant organisms are the smartest ones. We don't need ape like strength to be the dominant ruler of the planet.

I swear, your logic is so ****ed up...

I hope you:banghead: burn in hell

[KevinNYC]

And how many birds migrate over the open ocean?

So Darwin's finches which are about an ounce in weight were able to travel hundreds of miles to the Galapagos Islands? And what did they eat? And they flew the entire time? No resting?http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2015/04/01/tiny-bird-open-ocean/#.VRx4GPlSbT8[QUOTE]A tiny songbird that summers in New England can pull off something even the biggest airline companies can

[KevinNYC]

Transoceanic migration by a 12 g songbird (http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/11/4/20141045)

Abstract

Many fundamental aspects of migration remain a mystery, largely due to our inability to follow small animals over vast spatial areas. For more than 50 years, it has been hypothesized that, during autumn migration, blackpoll warblers (Setophaga striata) depart northeastern North America and undertake a non-stop flight over the Atlantic Ocean to either the Greater Antilles or the northeastern coast of South America. Using miniaturized light-level geolocators, we provide the first irrefutable evidence that the blackpoll warbler, a 12 g boreal forest songbird, completes an autumn transoceanic migration ranging from 2270 to 2770 km (mean

[Swaggin916]

Given the right circumstances... a bear could develop more aquatic like features (such as polar bears).

Intelligence has to do with why Homo Sapiens are where we are, but great ape species didn't need to be this intelligent. Australopithecus was around way longer than we have been and had a much smaller brain. What keeps them around in their social order which make them difficult for predators to kill. Think of humans dumb as a brick... but when there are 10 of them, who is going to mess with them? What animal is going to take on fully grown humans to get to a weak child? Not to mention humans will fight something to the death to protect their young... other species don't do this because they reproduce much faster.

[ace23]

OP is always a good laugh

[AkronAngel]

Read the bold in the OP, decided the rest was not worth reading.

[Ass Dan]

Prove it Douchewallace. Just because you say I am wrong doesn't mean I am wrong. I just refuted Darwin's two strongest points (the points you learn in school). Now it is your turn to prove I am wrong. That's how an argument works.

your internet access >>>>>>> a global consensus of PhDs

[tgan3]

We all evolve...do you know the whale skeleton structure has backlegs? Long ago there were land creatures...