bluxx said:
what evidence for evolution? Where are all the millions of transitionary fossiles? If we did indeed evolve from the primoridal slime what happened? Did the fish thing land on the land and realise it couldn't breath and somehow got washed back into the ocean? Then kept doing this over millions of years and then somehow developed lungs to breath air. Then, once it developed lungs did it then develop legs, organs to reproduce etc? Ask a mathematician the earth is not old enough for evolution to be correct. sorry that's a fact. Mathematicians have debated biologists and left them questioning... there simply isn't enough time from the creation/big bang date to today. Even at billions of years the earth is too young to have had life evolve. Want to look at the complexity of just a single cell happening by random chance which is what evolution needs - that would be like covering North America with dimes that reach to the moon - then placing one red dime among the trillioins of dimes covering the continent reaching up to the moon then asking a blind man to just pick one and him picking that red dime. thats the probabilty mathematicians have calculated for the simplest of elements for life... sorry evolution doesn't add up.
|
Ok bluxx, I know that other people have answered you, but I just can't leave a post like this hanging in the forums.
First of all, it is very clear that you have not attempted to understand evolution in any way outside of the blatant lies Ray Comfort and Kent Hovind have told you.
1. Strictly speaking there is no such thing as a transitional fossil as evolution is a constant process. The "lack of transitional fossils" is a creationist fallacy. I can draw on thousands of examples of midway species between two other species. A kind of animal B between animal A and C. I imagine that fossil B is what you called a "transitional fossil", in which case all fossil are transitional fossils in some way or another (I believe a link has already been posted which examples of these). Heck, I have a fossilised ammonyte on my desk, I'm actually looking at a transitional fossil as I type.
Want to see a future transitional species? Look in the mirror.
2. Fish can live between the land and the sea, in fact it's fairly common. Here's a video of a mudskipper (link), a mudskipper is a fish which lives on both land and sea. And the mechanism is simple, predators live in the sea, so for fish that can exist on land for brief periods of time could escape, would live, and pass this trait. Eventually you have an animal that can exist between land and sea, and eventually exclusively land.
In fact it's not just fish, plenty of amphibians and reptiles live between land and sea. And the process works in reverse, we have a lot of evidence to show that cetaceans (whales and dolphins) evolved from land mammals to water mammals.
3. What mathematicians say this? I have found no evidence from a reliable source that this is true. And I'm instantly sceptical because this in no way falls under a mathematicians job, in fact I find it laughable that you believed this. Why would a mathematician be concerned with such a thing? Mathematicians do not understand the functions of evolution enough to be able to categorically say this, it's not their field. No mathematician would even be interested.
I wouldn't move away from my area of academic research (virtual reality) to tell a chemist that they are wrong, I just wouldn't be able to comment on their field, even though I have a sound understanding of chemistry. This is the same thing.
It's not fact, it's a lie, and it's blatantly obvious. Billions of years is plenty of time. Evolution may be slow, but it's not that slow and this has already been demonstrated in this thread.
An evolutionary biologist with even the most basic of maths skills (most of them have very good maths skills) would be far more qualified to work out the timescale of evolution.
4. Ah! Complex cell structure, another common creationist fallacy. Creationists are always in the mind set that one day a complex cell just popped out of nowhere. Such an idea is obviously not true, and no-one who accepts evolution should claim so. I've already spoke about this in this thread, so look at my older post for more details.
Basically cells didn't start off complex, they started off simple, more simple than an actual cell. They started off as a self-replicating molecule, which exist in nature and have been synthetically created in laboratories. the self replicating cell would have grew more and more complex over thousands of years and eventually evolved into a simple cell... and then everything evolved from there. Oh, and self-replicating molecules have be shown to evolve just like life does.
5. Random chance, this is another good creationist fallacy. For evolution to be "random chance", members of a species would have to survive at ranom, this is not the case, only the fit survive. Basically evolution is a non-random process. The chances of evolution to happen are not one in a million, this just demonstrates a clear lack of understanding, the odds are more like, oh let's say, one in one.
Your dime analogy is grossly incorrect.
To be honest, I know I am being harsh on you, but you have fallen for so many creationist fallacies I fail to see how I can react in any other way.