Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Evolution is a myth? Please explain:

There are two types of people in the world; those who see everything as binary, and those who don’t.

Not sure why you set up the question as you did; there are alternatives not mentioned.

One possible reason why you set it up that way could be that you have a religiously zealous affiliation with Darwinian evolution and have set up a false binary to make that appear reasonable.

I envision it as if you were God, and you were sitting on a mountain top watching a train going by in the valley below. The train is the universe. You can see the beginning and the end.
The scientist can go back to the 'big bang' and no further. God provided the 'bang'. Looking at it this way the 'leap' isn't as far.

The problem with trying to have a scientific discussion with very religious people is... What is your response when something you believe is verifyably wrong?

It does not look to be a slow night on the 'fire tonight.

When was the last time an explosion make things come together?

What the hell are you talking about? The damned mutation is expressed in the offspring.

those ruskies beat us into space a few times.

and that was after we had the pick of the rocket men from the german cadre.

we still did well as the time went on. but was it cruelty, and would PETA approve a monkey in space?

and did the ruskies have a head start? what about input from gurdjeiff & ouspensky?

this is serious stuff we're engaging in. i'll bet the High Priests at NASA are laughing so hard.

Evolution is not the Big Bang Theory. Next.

It's like discussing biology based on what my father was taught in high school in the '50s!

The theory of evolution simply describes the continual and ongoing process of creation over time.

Thank you. God created evolution to mess with us.

The universe is moving outwards, expanding, not inwards.

What the hell are you talking about? If you are going to change the form of an animal, there has to be a change or mutation early in the formation of that animal while the body plan is being formed. And when that occurs, it is always fatal.

You seem to want to have it both ways. You don’t want to argue that higher animals developed from lower organisms which would have at some point, necessitated huge changes in body plans, while ridiculing anyone who questions evolution as a whole.

If you want to have Evolution, you’ve got to have the whole damned thing. If you don’t, then you’re arguing some outside agency or force or something we don’t understand and you really have no right to ridicule someone who questions the theory as a whole.

One way in which you confirm a theory... Prediction...

A couple of generalizations
According to evolution, you should find more primitive life forms the farther back in time you go; and that's exactly what we see.
According to evolution, you should see random mutations in DNA; and that's exactly what we see.

A couple of specifics
Darwin predicted that precursors to the trilobite would be found in pre-Silurian rocks. He was correct: they were subsequently found.

Very specifically - The recent find of the Tiktaalik fossil. Scientists looked at evolutionary theory, the fossil record, and determined:

If we go to this section of Greenland(place), dig down to this level (date), we should find a creature with XYZ features... After 10 years of searching, they found almost exactly what they were looking for, exactly in the geologic layer they said they would find it, and it has most of the physiological features they predicted they would find. It was just luck, and a bonus that they ended up finding one of the most complete fossils in paleontologist history.

would we be better off if things were happening at a bit faster rate, or are things about right?

we know the earth has been through at least four re-designs in the past? anyone agree?

that is, before the dinasours were a few, then that crowd, and now us as the dominants.

wonder what the next re-design will look like? i mean, evolution is evolution, right?

False assumption.
Certainly there are some mutations that can be fatal...absolutely.

But how is it you don't notice obvious mutations in existing living animals?

If someone has a mutation that causes them not go grow lungs; that's fatal.
If someone has a mutation that caused them to have 6 fingers...Not fatal.

Nah, we do it to ourselves by holding on faithfully to the old mistaken notion about how old the Earth is, and that creation was a one time event that happened not long ago. Either one takes it on faith that the Earth was created thousands of years ago in a single event, or one believes in the hard empirical evidence at hand.

A great case of "observational" evolution (as in, evolution humanity has observed directly), is the case of the Mosquito's in the London subway. They first went down there in the 1860's. Today, those mosquitos are a completely different species (verifyable). We have samples of what they were...We have what they are. We have DNA from both, we can SEE the path of mutations that led to a different species.

The new species looks different, has some different biology... And have changes so much, that the two can no longer interbreed. Humanity has directly observed evolution.

Six fingers isn’t really significant.

Dude, you really don't know jack about biology. The mutation is expressed in the offspring. The mutation is in the DNA passed from the parent(s). Elementary biology.