<p>Justinian I, do you have any idea what the theory of evolution even is. If you do, please tell us. How do you test evolution. The whole point of it is that it takes thousands of years for a species to evolve. You can't just do it in a lab. Please explain it and explain how you can do it in a lab.</p>
<p>
Evolution has been chemically tested in the lab already. Do you know what happened? NOTHING! Nothing has ever evolved chemically in the laboratory.
This is not true at all. [url=<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment%5Dlink%5B/url">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment]link[/url</a>]</p>
<p>The experiment assumed that the early earth's atmosphere was composed of reactive elements like ammonia. The experimenter himself confessed that if he had used nitrogen and carbon dioxide (which are the most abundant elements in the atmosphere today), nothing would have happened.</p>
<p>(taken from Lee Strobel's 'The Case For Faith')</p>
<p>...but at the time that this formation supposedly occured wasn't the earth's atmosphere VERY different than todays, containing alot of ammonia and such...All that would prove is that new life virtually couldn't form today in the natural environment.</p>
<p>True, early earth probably had a different atmospheric composition, due to volcanic eruptions. However, look at the composition of volcanic eruptions: </p>
<p>"VOLCANIC GASES
GAS COMPOSITION</p>
<p>Other than free oxygen, generated by photosynthesis, all atmospheric gases were derived from inside the earth and released by volcanic eruptions. The gaseous portion of magma varies from ~1 to 5% of the total weight. Water vapor constitutes 70-90%. The remaining gases include CO2, SO2, and trace amounts of of N, H, CO, S, Ar, Cl, and F."</p>
<p><a href="http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/Volcanic_gases.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/Volcanic_gases.html</a> (notice, no methane or ammonia).</p>
<p>"The original atmosphere of the Earth, Venus and Mars consisted of Hydrogen and Helium."
- <a href="http://zebu.uoregon.edu/internet/l2.html%5B/url%5D">http://zebu.uoregon.edu/internet/l2.html</a></p>
<p>It still doesn't change the fact that Justinian is very, very wrong. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Evolution has been chemically tested in the lab already. Do you know what happened? NOTHING! Nothing has ever evolved chemically in the laboratory.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How many times do we need to explain this to you guys? That is abiogenesis, NOT evolution. Get it straight, will you?</p>
<p>As for evolution occuring in the lab, speciation has already happened.</p>
<p>
[quote]
in Muslim he's Bathala (i think)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Okay, I'm not going to get into the whole 'god exists, god doesn't exist' debate again, because I beleive God exists, no one will convince me otherwise, etc, etc. </p>
<p>Just wanted to clarify, that in Islam, we call God Allah - Allah is just an arabic word meaning god. We beleive in the same god that christians and jews beleive in. Actually, I think this was mentioned before, in this thread.</p>
<p>Also, I beleive that we, as humans, cannot understand God, it is beyond our limits. I beleive quite a few people have said this.</p>
<p>Apparently, as I've learned on this forum, not only is understanding God beyond the limits of most people, but so is understanding the difference between abiogenesis and evolution.</p>
<p>ZING!</p>
<p>I don't think it really matters if God exists or not as long as people don't use either view to their advantage. I think that is only where human beings err in there pronouncements of a God or not.</p>
<p>Ex 1: God is all-powerful and created those followers in His image. Well since blacks don't look like Him color-wise they must be lesser people. </p>
<p>Or since He told His followers to write this book, it must be the only right way and allow these people thought the Earth was flat and the Sun revolved around it, there views on the length of time that human life and Earth's creation must be scientifically sound based on the fact that this was "dictated" to them by God.</p>
<p>Ex 2: Since there is no God, there is no afterlife and no reason to do very bad things since I will never be eternally punished, only temporarily.</p>
<p>I mean what is the big deal if you are a good person anyways. I think it only a big deal because so many people try to take their knowledge of God and force it on others and use it to their advantage. I wish people would well-enough let each other alone. Can't there be a discussion of God without a discussion of religion?! All that stuff is propaganda to make one think a particular God is correct. Why can't people just believe in a God that has no rules? Why must a system must be made, each of which requires "faith" in extraordinary events that cannot be explained.</p>
<p>I think God can be discussed rationally without the mention of religion other than a belief system from where your God comes from. I'd like to see that.</p>
<p>if the theists use "god is beyond human understanding" as their fallback, couldn't the same principal be applied to abiogenesis, evolution, or any of the other topics at hand. They're too complex for humans to understand at this point with the current level of technology. Doesn't prove either one either way, just means that we don't have enough information at this point to make a conclusion either way, which is why, in my opinion, agnosticism is the only belief that makes sense.</p>
<p>im hindu....</p>
<p>I recommend for everybody to check out this page and if you have any questions hasten to ask.</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah</a></p>
<hr>
<p>Next, as students of higher education, I strongly believe that we need to step out of the box and put ourselves in someone else's shoes. See and understand their views. </p>
<p>I have done that and thus it is apparent to me that anybody who does not believe in the existance of God (Allah--- The Lord of Abraham) only chooses to follow their own whims and desires. In turn, it is a matter of submitting yourself to your whims and desires, making yourself worshipping your own whims and desires. Thus, your lord becomes your whims and desires.</p>
<hr>
<p>^^ Looks like this guy didnt "evolve" from his ape ancestors.</p>
<p>Sorry I will not respond to such ignorance. You my friend have your heart blinded. Enough said. </p>
<p>Please conduct yourself as an adult on this site and not my cursing or swearing. If you choose to curse and swear there are other forums on the internet which you can be a part of. As students of higher education, to automatically curse and reply to a post like that is just plain ignorance.</p>
<hr>
<p>All others please disregard the last post because it is nothing but pure insult and hate.</p>
<p>You talking about my post?</p>
<p>No Sevendust not your post. I didn't realize you were posting the same time I was. Sorry for the confusion.</p>
<p>UCLA,
Please explain to me what evolution is. Last time I checked, evolution is the belief that species evolved by random mutations. I remember you in the evolution vs creation debate VERY well!
Sorry I am so ignorant!
UCLA, your posts are so ambiguous and changing. In one post a long time ago, you said that evolution has been witnessed in bacteria cultures. Then you say that evolution has NEVER been witnessed. Make up your mind. HA, Ha UCLAri must be thirteen or something, LOL. What is it? Arguing Ad ignoratium. Yes... yes it is. :)
Yes, scientists have tried to replicate chemical evolution by recreating the earth millions of years. Trust me, I know this because we studied this topic in one of my classes here at Harvard!</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I can tell you don't go to harvard by the way you speak.</p></li>
<li><p>Scientists might have tried to replicate chemical evolution, but they will fail. You can't recreate something that is random. Don't you get it. It can't be done. It is all random. If a creature undergoes a mutation that helps him/her live, it will reproduce and the offspring will be the same. Therefore the creature goes through evolution as it adapts to its environment better. If the mutation does not help it, it will die and not reproduce. Tell me, how can this be tested in a lab.</p></li>
<li><p>Evolution can be witnessed in species that reproduce very fast, or by studying species for hundreds of years. Bacteria reproduce very fast, so they probably are able to be studied.</p></li>
<li><p>It seems that you don't know much about evolution. All you know is what it is. My suggestion is you stop arguing with people about facts that you don't know for sure.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
[quote]
Please explain to me what evolution is.
[/quote]
Evolution is the fact of change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. Or in other words, it "is the process by which populations of organisms acquire and pass on novel traits from generation to generation." </p>
<p>
[quote]
Last time I checked, evolution is the belief that species evolved by random mutations.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, it is not the "belief" that species evolve by random mutations. </p>
<p>
[quote]
UCLA, your posts are so ambiguous and changing. In one post a long time ago, you said that evolution has been witnessed in bacteria cultures. Then you say that evolution has NEVER been witnessed.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>When did I say that evolution has NEVER been witnessed? I've constantly been saying that speciation has been witnessed both in bacteria and insects. I've also given you links to point mutations leading to beneficial new traits in humans. </p>
<p>If you're going to make such a wild claim, please be ready to back it up with examples.</p>
<p>
[quote]
HA, Ha UCLAri must be thirteen or something, LOL. What is it? Arguing Ad ignoratium. Yes... yes it is.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, actually you're arguing ad hominem. And I'm really 22. If you don't believe me, feel free to look me up on Facebook.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, scientists have tried to replicate chemical evolution by recreating the earth millions of years.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, they have. When did I say otherwise?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Trust me, I know this because we studied this topic in one of my classes here at Harvard!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would, if possible, like proof of your Harvard studentship.</p>
<p>Evolution is not a series of random mutations. Evolution is the process of change to better adapt to the environment that isn't behavior (or is if it is controlled by genes). For instance, there is a flightless swallow/thrush and there is a massive torrent of water that becomes a permanent land obstacle between the the swallows on one side and the swallows on the other side. On one side of the river there are flowers that the swallows like that require a very long beak in order to obtain their nutrients. On the other side of the river there are hard nuts that must be cracked. The birds on one side through process of elimination and evolution become a completely seperate species of swallow through generations (few or many of change needed to bring about the correct long beaks. The other side would be similar except instead of long narrow beaks they would be short hard beaks. These would become completely genetically different species of swallow. And if the river ever dried up they could even come back together and create hybrids with a long, thick beak or thin, hard beak. This natural selection guides the "random" mutations and allows for the species survival.</p>
<p>This doesn't just happen with birds. It happens to every species thereby proving evolution through selection. Sometimes it may be "random" but it must be beneficial enough to allow for the thriving and survival of it.</p>
<p>Also what UCLA was describing was that the experiment used to prove you wrong about evolution never being proven in a lab was a different process called biogenisis or something. It is separate from evolution. Just because evolution was never proven in a lab doesn't mean crap. It has been proven in the real world hundreds times. You can prove evolution in a lab because in lab controlled settings there would be no reason to evolve. The only reason for evolution is competition and mutations that are beneficiary to the survival of the species because from bacteria to humans all we were genetically, instinctually built to do was procreate. Which is why humans are so fascinating because they are the only ones who seemed to rise above those instinctual levels and create a civilization whose top unanswered questions are about why exactly are we so special that we seemed to have civilized when no other animal has yet accomplished that? We must be driven by a special force (God)? Or been selected specially as a species? Better yet, designed specifically to rule the Earth (and destroy a creation which took a relatively short time to make rather than destroy if you look at it from that perspective).</p>
<p>It's easy to say evolution doesn't exist but that is why we are where we are. We as a species didn't sit back and just accept things but figured them out and improved them and made things more knowledgeable and technological than ever before.</p>
<p>If you really want evolution > design argument here's one: If we are so perfectly designed then why do we have so much extra stuff that is completely useless on us? Why do we have tailbones? Why do we have an organ that is only noticed when it becomes fatal to us and can be taken out without much of a difference in your body's daily functions? Why does the Y chromosome keep shrinking when it contains the infomation necessary to the creation of a completely different gender? Or how about the palamaris longus tendon? It would have been useful for climbing or hanging, which some people still do but since it isn't a necessary part of life almost 1/5 of the population today doesn't have it or has it only on one side? (To see if you have it just touch your pinky and thumb together and watch for a noticeable bump in the middle of your wrist. It is shown here: <a href="http://www.dartmouth.edu/%7Eanatomy/wrist-hand/surface/surface3.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.dartmouth.edu/~anatomy/wrist-hand/surface/surface3.html</a>)</p>
<p>It has already been proven that the human brain has evolved in just the 20th century. Minor changes mind you but that is where they start. The changes only become noticeable after a million years or so or during a drastic climate change (where hairier whiter folks might have an advantage due to warmth from excess hair and better toleration to ccold, dark weather that paler persons can adjust to easier than those with more melanin in their systems).</p>