Evolution vs. Creation · 11:38pm Jan 4th, 2015
Hello everyone. Here, I'm going to be explaining why I don't believe in evolution by looking at different aspects of evolution and why it doesn't make sense. Shall we begin?
1. The first multi-cell organism.
For all of you who don't know, evolution states that single-cell organisms formed a colony and became the first multi-cell organism. Sounds good, right? Well, I don't think so. First of all, reproduction. For the organism to survive past the the first generation, they'd have to have a reproductive system. But, that raises a question. How did the cells for reproduction form? They'd have to have a few generations of gradually becoming reproductive cells. Then, that raises another question. Was it asexual or did it need a partner of the opposite gender? Well, if it was asexual and "the present is the key to the past" then that means, if we look at asexual, multi-cellular creatures of today, the children would be clones of the parents. So, it wouldn't be asexual. But, to be able to have a partner, that would mean there would have to be another colony that became the same kind of animal at the same time but the opposite gender. Already, several coincidences in place for the first organism. Next, they have said that, in a laboratory setting, they have seen single cell organisms become multi-cell organisms. I looked at the paper on it. They only became colonies. Now, scientists say that "the present is the key to the past". Now, if this was true, that would mean they wouldn't have just become colonies. They would have become organisms. Now, we come to the eye. How did it start forming? What made the eye start forming? It would have to have started with useless parts. Yeah..a lot of it doesn't seem to be adding up. It takes way too many coincidences. So, let's just look at something else.
2. "If just one fossil was found in the wrong level, the entire evolution theory will be destroyed. But that will never happen."
That statement above is completely true. The latter part is only because they rename it. For example, in China, there was a fossil that resembles the Tasmanian devil so closely, one wonders why they didn't name it as such. They called it a Repenomamus robustus. Perhaps they named it as such because it had a baby psittacosaurus in its stomach. If something was truly evolving, wouldn't it have evolved something new? Or change completely? Next, also in China, six squirrel-like fossils were found in the Jurassic layers. Again, named it something different. I think that's enough for right now. I'll post again later. If you wish to try to refute this, you may.
No it doesn't.
The scientific theory of evolution merely asserts that we change, mutate and/or diversify over time.
Anything beyong that is an extraneous bullshit pad upon the theory that people who don't understand said theory take issue with.
It was most likely asexual reproduction. Quite a few single-cell organisms reproduce via mitosis today. However sometimes mitosis isn't the way to go.
Example: in some cases/environments mitosis may be impossible from a resources standpoint. Eggs however, are relatively simple, and merely require a safe place and some care, or, in the case of many fish and amphibians, no care whatsoever. Lay millions of tiny eggs, and leave. Some of them are bound to survive.
No, they would only mostly be clones, mitosis is not perfect, mutations happen, and things change. A loosely related example would be the anole lizard, which may regenerate it's tail after removal, however the tail will not be completely identical to the old one. Mutations occur, and if they are beneficial they are passed on more. This sounds like I'm saying you have a hydra, and POOF, next day it's an antelope, but remember, these mutations pile on over millions upon millions of years.
No they wouldn't, this kind of thing takes a long time.
There are potential explanations, not that Wikipedia is the most stable info source.
Ah yes, repenomamus robustus(and later reptomamus gaganticus, species that essentially told folk that yes, larger mammals may have preyed on small dinosaurs.
images2.alphacoders.com/445/445560.jpg
i.imgur.com/JM03WXhl.jpg
Are you completely sure about that?
Yes, when you find a fossil with a smaller fossil in it's stomach, and they are both the same age, it is logical to assume that one may have preyed on the other.
No, the theory of evolution is not dictated by what you think evolution is.
Yes, they didn't call them "squirrel," presumably because they are not squirrels.
Chicken-like creatures are not chickens. Neanderthals were human-like, but they are less closely related to us than a modern chimpanzee, just because something looks kinda like something else does not automatically make it that thing.
There is a huge difference between georgespigot.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/robocop-1987-02.jpg
and
mama-static-cdn.bonnierdigitalservices.se/Global/Mama/Bilder/2014/07/pirat/Robert-Cop-Bootleg-7.jpg
Goody goody too.
Anyway, I suggest you look more into the actual theory of evolution, and not what Ken Ham, Eric Hovind, Ray Comfort, and that guy from GenesisWeek think it is.
Seriously, the only remotely correct thing that these people have ever stated, is that there is a big difference between the theory itself, and the historical implications behind it.
This is the first website I found when I Googled "in-depth explanation of evolution" and heck man, there's a reason this is the edu and AnswersinGenesis is the org.
I hope you read into it, and if you still decide that you have grievances with the theory then at least you read the source material.
Have a swell day if you feel like it.
2700953
But, those who assert the theory say that is how the first multi-cellular organism formed.
I was talking about multi-cellular organisms. There is a lizard, which I can't remember the name of, that reproduces asexually and every single lizard is exactly like the mother. They are all clones of the mother.
Yes for two reasons. 1. that is an artists interpretation of how one looks. 2. They still resemble one another really closely.
Yet, we won't be sure, as we only have the skeleton, which looks almost identical to a squirrel skeleton. And while it may not make it that thing, it still raises questions. Especially when the majority of the dating methods require a lot of presuming things for them to work, thus making them inaccurate.
Actually, it would be a night for me right now. Won't have a swell day tomorrow because of cutting wood. And it'll be really cold. And, that's also why I won't be reading that tonight. Tomorrow, if I'm not too tired and don't forget, I'll read it.
2701458
Regardless, it is not a part of the theory or the scientific model, it's just a substantiated estimation based on whatever evidence they have(I admit to being less than well-versed in the origin of basic multicellular things from billions of years ago.
I think you're referring to the New Mexican Whiptail(or that's what Google says).
We made those apparently.
Fair point, but there are key differences in the skeletal structure, namely Tasmanian devils have big-ass fangs, whereas the rep-dude skulls did not.
Not if you use the right dating method.
Like yeah, if you try counting the rings on a dinosaur's neckbone then that won't work, but if you combine relative and radiometric dating then you can pinpoint it much more closely.
Of course this is on a scale of tens to hundreds of millions of years, so yeah, we're often by by a couple thousand years at most.
The dating method itself isn't really that innacurate if you know the decay rate of the element you're looking to date. Though if those elements were gone I imagine we're limited to relative dating, which is basically "oi this fossil is on a lower rock layer, so it's older."
It totally doesn't. If you have a squirrel-like thing, that is millions of years old, but has key differences in the skeleton, then it's probably a squirrel ancestor. Transitional fossils yo.
K, well have a swell time whenever you can I guess.
Protip: Professor Plum is smarter than me, and he'll provide better answers. Shoot him a pm.