Atheists: If evolution is true, how do u explain...?

Question

Atheists: If evolution is true, how do u explain...?

Answer 1

sigh...



1: You haven't seen "transitional" fossils because you haven't bothered to look. Refusing to acknowledge their existence doesn't make them go away.



2: the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics refers to heat transfer through closed systems and was never intended to be applied to biological systems. I've never really understood why creationists seem to have this weird obsession with thermal conduction...



3: Altruism is a trait which facilitates social living. You'll also find that true altruism is extremely rare; most of it is reciprical altruism.



4: Learn a little about evolution please



5: Please don't tell me that you think cars reproduce.



6: I'm assuming that's supposed to be deep and meaningful...?

Answer 2

Thank you for your interest in evolution.



Your question demonstrates:



( ) insight and understanding

( ) a common misunderstanding among scientists

( ) a common misunderstanding among high school students

( ) a common misunderstanding among elementry school students

(x) a complete lack of familiarity with science





You have



(x) comitted a logical fallacy

(x) misrepresented the theory of evolution

(x) shown utter disregard for the scientific method

(x) been brainwashed by the institute for creation science

(x) appealed to the supernatural

( ) used spelling and punctuation correctly

(x) disregarded the rules of intelligent debate



of type



(x) straw man

(x) ad hominem attack

(x) non sequiter

(x) proof by assertion

(x) false dichotomy





Answers to this question



( ) will further scientific inquiry

(x) will not change your mind

(x) will involve a drinking game

(x) will beat the proverbial deceased equus caballus



For this question you should be:



( ) Congratulated

( ) Gently corrected

(x) Reprimanded

(x) Flogged

(x) Drawn and Quartered

(x) subjected to some social darwanism

(x) sent a third grade biology textbook

Answer 3

Since when does somebody have to be an atheist to accept evolution? You haven't really taken the time to read up on this subject, have you? The fact that you're posting these in the R&S section instead of Biology, makes you seem rather insincere.



1) There are plenty of transitional fossils:

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html



2) This argument is so embarrassingly bad, that even the leading creationist website AnswersInGenesis admits that it's flawed and advises other creationists NOT to use it. Here's why:

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo



3) No, it wouldn't have. Humans, other primates, and a number of other animals are social animals. Social responsibility IS rooted in personal survival, because people and many other animals have the foresight to guess the consequences of back-stabbing actions.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB411.html



4) Probably not, judging from the fact that the ancestors of flying non-insects had no problem with the transition.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_2.html



5) Horrible analogies. For the car, there was no single guy who wrote the blue prints, designed the car completely from scratch, made the pieces materialize out of thin air, and put it all together by himself. Or are you really a polytheist?



The reality is that a new car was built from older models of cars. These were based on even old cars, which were slight modifications of still older cars, all the way back to the first Ford Model-T. And that, in turn, was based off the 4-wheel horse-drawn carriage model (2 wheels on each side, a certain width wide, "engine" in front, etc.). The modern car was the result of GRADUAL CHANGES applied over a LONG TIME. It wasn't created as-is.



And like many creationists, you stupidly assume that the only two possibilities are "a big invisible man did it" or "it happened by chance". Natural selection is quite the OPPOSITE of chance. Try learning a little bit about the subject before you embarrass yourself any further.



6) You tell me. You're the one claiming somebody made everything out of nothing.

Answer 4

1. http://www.google.com.sg/search?hl=en&rlz=1C1GGLS_enSG328SG328&ei=RsDeSrLYAYyIkAXvw8Ql&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CBMQBSgA&q=List+of+Transitional+Fossils&spell=1



2. Earth is not a closed system, it takes in energy from the sun, outer spaces' electromagnetic waves... In fact, Creationists have long admitted that using this argument is stupid, even by their standards.



3.Notice that Altruism is only found in social creatures. You do not find Altruism in Tigers. Social Creatures are weaker alone, so they develop teamwork to best survive.



4.Your front legs don't drop off. You first start climbing steep hills, and your front legs gain more muscles and have webs to help in lift. Slowly, that web grows and your arms change as you climb up steeper hills and need more lift. Eventually, flight take place (See Evolution of Birds in the series EVOLVE) Please remember that this process does not take place in months or years or centuries, but millions of years.



5. A car is Mechanical, The Universe is not. Complexity arose from simplicity. The Universe as a whole is complex, broken down it is simple. Secondly, In biology, complexity stems from reproduction.



6. By that argument, God shouldn't have existed, since He is Everything.

Answer 5

I bet you still own a B/W television.

Answer 6

I don't know. Why don't you ask the national science board of every first and second world country on the planet, since they all claim it's true. Surely our answers would be far less intelligent.

Answer 7

1: We do find these.



2: The earth isn't a closed system, the sun provides the extra energy and the second law says nothing about a force guiding energy, just that energy is needed to maintain/build order. This energy is added by the sun, and abiogenisis is the current theory on how initial life came about, but how life came about is actually irrelevant to Evolution anyways. Evolution only deals with what happens after life exists.



3: No, you see this behavior is only really seen in pack animals. For these kinds of creatures, the survival of the pack is survival of the species, the individual is less important.



4: Nope, as you'll see with things like flying squirrels, its possible to have working legs and gliding capabilities, this is likely a step between fully ground borne animals and fully airborne animals



5: Right, except when you take into account that the car works right most of the time, doesn't reproduce and therefore can't be subject to evolution and natural selection, and doesn't have any random parts that serve no purpose, like our tailbone. The car also doesn't have a system that will break and destroy the car if it almost gets in a crash (Shock can kill a person by taking blood away from other organs for the brain). If we were designed, we were designed by an idiot.



6: This has nothing to do with evolution again, but it makes just as much if not more sense then nothing x nobody = somebody x nothing = everything + somebody who leaves no evidence of their existence.

Answer 8

Ya' know, Atheists never claimed to know how it all started. We just think that a big ghost in the sky, who encourages murder, incest, genocide, etc, seems a little bit.. Oh I dunno... Stupid?

Answer 9

You get the brief version since I hve answered these cut and paste lies so many times.



1) There are numerous transitional series and numerous extinct lines that have failed.

2) Thermodynamics does not say that only living things can order spontaneously. Orderly crystal lattices form spontaneously.

3) Populations evolve. Altruism benefits the population.

4) The small arms of the T-rex didn't hinder its success. That is one of the therapods -- the group that has feathers and became birds.

5) False analogy. Does every rock have a sculptor or every snowflake have an assembly team? The only logical disconnect is your fallacy.

6) Who says that you have to start with nothing? Things can happen with nobody around.



Thank you for taking the time to show that evolution deniers live on a steady diet of fallacies and lies.

Answer 10

1) There are millions of transitional fossils found. We don't find the "errors" (specimens with detrimental mutations) because they cause the animal to die and don't propagate in the population. Fossils are rare, and the majority of animals are perfectly healthy specimen.



2) This argument is only valid if your system doesn't get a steady supply of energy from an external source. Such as, say, a class 2 yellow star in close vicinity.



3) Read "The Selfish Gene" and you will understand why altruistic behavior outperforms selfish behavior. Societies function better than individuals.



4) This is a fallacy. Evolution doesn't have a goal or direction. Flying evolves from jumping and gliding, where protowings are beneficial.



5) Cars don't breed with variation and selection by the environment. Evolution IS a designer which adapts things to the environment. If cars were subject to it, we would know they aren't designed by some outside intelligence.



6) Of course not, don't be silly. However, (gravity + magnetism + weak nuclear force + strong nuclear force) x (energy/matter) x (time) = EVERYTHING.

Answer 11

1. There is no lack of transitional fossils. Just as an example with humans, let's look at the recently unveiled Ardipithecus ramidus (Ardi). One of the things that is noteworthy about this fossil is that it's feet had a grasping toe which is common in apes, but not found in humans. However, Ardi was clearly an early hominid that walked upright on two legs. This is clearly a fossil that gets us much closer to the common ancestor between humans and apes.



2. I do not know about thermodynamics, so I will leave this to others.



3. Altruism is a human trait. It comes from the recognition that personal sacrifice is good for the rest of the community. I don't think there is any indication that altruism is a genetic trait. And even if it is, it can not be ruled out by evolution. The only thing required by evolution is that the fittest survive long enough to pass on their DNA. After that there is no genetic requirement that they live a long life.



4. As you can see in birds, the front limbs are not useful for anything other than flight. They don't generally function as arms - except for balance. There is no reason to believe a flightless lizard wouldn't have been able to function the same way. The wing is not something that I have a lot of knowledge about, so again, I will let others explain this better.



5. One of the problems with this statement is that you are ignoring the evolution of an idea that lead to the creation of the car. Engineers didn't just sit down and create a car. The car "evolved" from carts then wagons then trains. Same with a computer. It started way back in the day when people simply used stones or seeds to count and progressed to the abacus and then the mechanical adding machine and then then tube driven computers and then a microprocessor controlled calculator and so forth.



The same basic idea goes for evolution. We didn't start with an eye. First there was just a patch of light sensitive cells. Then the cells were inside of a progressively deeper depression which helped focus the light to give a sense of direction. Eventually a lens formed to allow the light to be resolved into images.



Furthermore, you are making the leap that humans are the most complex machines and greatest works of are. Yet human body parts are almost universally inferior to the best found in nature. Bird of prey have better eyes than humans. Dogs have better hearing and smell than humans. Humans have knees and shoulder joints which are relatively weak and prone to failure.



6. The problem with this statement is that god can't just come from nothing. A being sufficiently intelligent to design all the laws of nature and create all matter from nothing, can't have come into existence from nothing. Such an idea is much more absurd than the fact humans evolved from simple organisms.



EDIT

Serine: can you provide a source for your Da Vinci "quote". I am suspicious that it's probably a made up quote which someone attributed to Da Vinci as a way to validate faith. Similar quotes have been attributed to Einstein and other prominent scientists.

Answer 12

1) Every single fossil found is a transitional fossil.

There are no 'Failed' fossils because the mutation probably killed the creature or at least meant the number of offspring was very small, and fossils are rare so you need a large population of a species to get lucky and find any fossils at all.



2) Second Law of thermo dynamics talks about a closed system with no external source of additional energy.

The earth is not a closed system because it gets energy from the sun.

If you look at the universe as 'The system' and look over the life of that system then it will hold because the sun will go out and all life on earth will die eventually.



3)Natural selection is not so much survival of the fittest as survival of the best suited to the environment.

Say a group of early humans live in a harsh environment.

Each one is more likely to survive if all of them work together to build a shelter, keep a look out for wild animals, gather food. If any of them decide they are better off looking after number one then they are likely to die of cold, starvation, predators etc

Hence the altruistic trait is likely to be the one passed down.



4) Changes are gradual.

At no point would you have useless front legs, changes only continue if they help the species in some way.

They could start as flaps of skin used to help warm the animal in the sun, or maybe as webbed feet because it helps the animal swim. Eventually they might have large flaps that help the animal jump of glide.



5)

It definitely didn't happen by chance!

But you cant really compare a car and a human. Cars don't reproduce.

If cars were 'born' and every time there were small changes, and the best changes stuck and the worst changes died out then we would have fantastic cars by now!



6) as opposed to (nobody) x (nothing) = GOD = EVERYTHING?

Answer 13

1) We have found quite a few transitional fossils. We have not found the transitional fossil that expressely denotes a link between homo sapiens and earlier hominids. However, the chances of it are so rare, given the tiny population size of humans until about 3000 or so years ago. The maximum human population only recently topped 1 million, compared to the total length of time humanity has been around, and exploded since the scientific revolution. There are more people alive today than all of the people alive from the dawn of man until only a few hundred years ago. Today's population makes up nearly 6% of all human life ever. The chances of the tiny early human and transtional population being in a place to produce fossils upon their deaths is very very tiny and unlikely. Think about the billions or trillions of dinosaurs that may have existed in their multi-hundred million year reign, and we've only found, what, a few thousand fossils?



2) Energy and mass atrophy in a vacuum, yes. However, with an energy source, they can be built up. In the end, the energy required is more than the net gain, so technically there is overall systemic atrophy, but you have more complex subunits.



3) Absolutely not, altruism is extremely advantageous to a species. If one member of the species helps out another member, that leaves two members of the species, not one, in a life or death situation. I am surprised it is not more abundant.



4) I don't know, do people with developmental disabilities and missing limbs die off without reproducing? Last I checked, no, and they have kids quite nicely.



5) Just because man can make complex structures does not mean that complex structures do not exist on their own. Look at comets. They are large, beautiful masses of iron, ice, and some sort of burnable fuel. But no man or machine made those comets, they came from supernovae and similar events.



6) No, and I disagree with quantum theorists. However, I do believe that E=MC^2, and that there has to be a critical mass for all or most of the matter in the universe before it explodes and becomes the universe. The quantum shift hypothesis has no basis in evidence, only that people draw similarities between high level matter and

Answer 14

1. List of many, MANY transitional fossils. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html



2. According to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, a closed system is required. The Earth, however, is not a closed system. The heat and light from the sun's impact on life is proof of this.



The Law of Bio-genesis only took effect once life existed. To date, abiogenesis is still the best avenue being explored to explain how rudimentary life (RNA, amino acids, etc.). There is no explanation that "chance" was involved. Hundreds of millions of interacting natural processes are what brought life and the Earth about.



3. Had we evolved to be solitary beings, then yes, altruism would be detrimental. We did not, though. We teach altruism (yes, to a degree it is a learned response), to maintain the balance within our societies.



4. A T-Rex was a fairly efficient predator, and it had 2 fairly useless front legs. Understand that the changes that became wings (and allowed for flight), did not occur suddenly. Bones hollowed, allowing for the dino to run more quickly. Feathers developed, potentially allowing for increased mating (similar to a peacock's plumage), which would result in furthering the evolution. It's a gradual process.



5. No, there is no logical disconnect, if you're willing to look at evidence. The human body is only a work of art, from an aesthetic and egotistical point of view. It is, simply put, of an ideal shape and functionality to allow for the species to exist, and pass on it's genetic material.



The same argument you make could be applied to all of the gods that man has worshiped thru the eons. Each and every one has been given (by and large) physical and emotional human traits. If anything, it further illustrates the point that humans created gods, as well.



6. Obviously, since it happened (the big bang and evolution are unguided natural occurrences), the answer to your "math" equation is...yes.

Answer 15

1) No because fossilisation is a rare occurance. Most animals that die are eaten, bones and all, by scavengers.



2) The Earth isn't a closed system, it is constantly being showered with energy from the Sun.



3) Altruism is a beneficial trait because it helps the species survive as a whole. Natural selection works on what's good for the species, not for the individual.



4) The 'reptiles' that developed flight apparatus were already bipedal (see velociraptor or deinonychus for example) and they already had rather mangled forelimb structures that bore feathers. There was clearly no problem there. Basically, birds didn't develop from quadrapedal reptiles.



5) Metal and plastic doesn't occur naturally so it's safe to assume that it didn't occur by chance. Organic systems that naturally occur (yes, it's been demonstrated) are more likely to produce novel structures by chance and have clearly done so.



6) Hold on, this was supposed to be able evolution, not the Big Bang/abiogenesis. Besides, nobody is claiming that everything came from nothing, at least not in the scientific community.



["I appreciate your answers!"]

Bollocks do you. You're just going to wait for someone to chime in with something along the lines of "evolution is a fairy tale" and then award them best answer with a comment like "I know".

Answer 16

1) Either every species is a transitional species or the term is nonsensical.

2) No. The net change of entropy in the entire system conforms to the second law of thermodynamics. And in the paper where Huxley states that biogenesis is a law, in 1870, he says: "But though I cannot express this conviction of mine too strongly, I must carefully guard myself against the supposition that I intend to suggest that no such thing as Abiogenesis ever has taken place in the past, or ever will take place in the future." And his biogenesis was opposed to spontaneous generation, which would be maggots coming to life from non-living poo. Or man coming to life from unliving dirt.

3) No. For social animals, the survival of a population is more important than the survival of an individual.

4) Well, evolution isn't directed. But there are extant non-flying animals that do fine with only two legs. And animals that do fine with gliding, including gliding lizards and snakes (4 legs and 0 legs).

5) No. That's begging the question. I know how a car is designed, because we can see people designing cars. I know paintings are painted, because we see the humans or animals painting them (or machines can too). And if the human body is such a great piece of art, how come I get back pain?

6) strawman, and as moogle pointed out, not related to evolution.



edit: and I doubt the veracity of Serine's Leonardo story. Since she/he doesn't allow email, I can't ask for citations directly. I'll be checking back here periodically. Not that Appeal to authority isn't a logical fallacy, but because I see so many misattributed quotes, which are disrespectful to the person in whose mouth they are being shoved.

Answer 17

1. Transitions happen so rapidly that few if any of the intermediate stages will be preserved in the fossil record. (This can be demonstrated by mathematical modelling. See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0)



2. According to your interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics, refrigerators should not work. Fortunately for hungry people everywhere, refrigerators do work and it must be your interpretation which is flawed. (It actually says that in order to decrease the entropy in a system, you need to do work on that system. A refrigerator uses electricity to move heat from the inside where it's cold to the outside where it's warmer -- this is a decrease in entropy. The Earth is receiving about a kilowatt of energy per square metre from the Sun ..... you work the rest out.)



3. Altruism is simply the most viable strategy for predators which live and hunt in packs. This can be demonstrated by mathematical modelling: do a few rôle-play simulations, and you will find that populations of mainly selfish individuals die out in short order, while populations of mainly altruistic individuals flourish.



4. Quite likely, actually. However, once a population does somehow manage to survive the transitional stage, then the instructions for making wings are available for re-use in its descendants.



5. The designer of a car or a painting knew in advance what they were trying to achieve. Humans are the result of a cumulative process of trial-and-error; saw a bit off here, weld a bit on there and see what works.



If you could see the universe from a distance, it would look more like random lumps of junk that had been lobbed here and there with huge gaps in between them than anything consciously designed.



6. Only Creationists are saying that "(nobody) x (nothing) = EVERYTHING". Scientists are saying that for some reason that we don't understand, all the matter in the universe started out at one point in space and time, and moved out from there. So there *was* matter and kinetic energy in the first place.

Answer 18

Sigh. Fine. I'll have a go at this.



1. Firstly, you make evolution sound like a thing of chance. Natural selection is only trial and error in the sense that if a mutation works, then the genetic code is more likely to get passed on. Fossils are an extra gift; they are not required for us to see that evolution is true, and we are lucky to have any fossil at all. Having said that, there are an awful a lot of transitional fossils which have been dug up this past century, but you keep asking for more. I suggest you stop reading from that creationist website.



2. The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems. And we have the sun.



3. No. Ever heard of "if you scratch my back I'll scratch yours?" Selfish concept indeed, but fundamental. Humans (generally as well as other species) survive better working together. We have the bigger brains, so we took it from there.



4. That makes no sense whatsoever. If you die off, then you die off. It's natural selection, survival of the fittest. Like 99% of all species which ever lived are extinct.



5. See "evolution".



6. We don't know everything, but God does not provide an excuse for us to keep searching for answers. This question does not involve evolution, perhaps more the theory of Big Bang. By the way, our current understanding of abiogenesis shows that it is very plausible indeed that life could spawn from non-life.



Thank you.

Answer 19

1) There are millions of fossil records that provide ample evidence.

2) Who is to say what is alive anyways? Define what you think life is.

3) Yes many animals fend for each other. It is a social oriented animal trait and human beings are VERY socially oriented. We evolved in a way that we look out for each other, it is how we survive as a species.

4) Evolution does not neccesarily move in a forward direction, it is simply life adapting to its enviroment. The H1N1 virus is a perfect example of micro evolution, if micro evolution exists than over a longer timeline macro evolution does as well. Its not like things happen all at once anyways. I'm not going to say we understand 100% how evolution works because we don't. But we do know that it is true.

5) Yeah but a car is designed much faster than we were. It was designed to be perfect and didn't need to adapt because we alter it to be perfect. It took us literally billions of years to be designed. You are looking at this in a very linear narrow way.

6) No but think about this: you start off as a single cell that begins to divide inside the womb, it divides and divides until it becomes a complex human being. Originally it was just one cell and was very very simple.

Answer 20

1) Well, we only get the developed ones because there were more of them that survived! The other ones died out, and didn't manage to reproduce as many that were like them, if they did at all. This is why we only get the defined mutations...the ones that were successful mutations that became isolated in the population, and had mutations that actually helped them in their environments.

2) I'm lost in the second one, too tired to process. I'm 15 give me a break. XD

3) That's because humans survived in numbers, and if there weren't individuals willing to risk it all for the group, they would have all starved.

4) Hahaha I don't think I can take this one seriously. You obviously haven't read anything about evolution...or at least not from a scientist!

5) Hmm...when was the last time cars had to reproduce?

6)Everything=Beautiful Nothing.... it's one of those things that works both ways. And that "nothing" you speak of is more massive than you can imagine. The universe is teeming with life, and we are just lucky to be burdened with it.

Answer 21

Fascinating question.



Why do you think that all atheists will be able to answer these questions. The fact that I fail to believe in some totally unproven and illogical creationist theory does not for one moment mean that I am a scientist. On most of your questions I must simply say , I HAVE NO CLUE. Let me try:



1. I HAVE NO CLUE

2. I fail to see the link bewteen the laws of thermodynamics and evolution, but as I said earlier I am no scientist. Maybe there is a link. Please explain to me.

3. It is a fallacy that evolution is the survival of the fittest. it is survival of those who can deal best with change, those who FIT IN the best or survival of the FITTINEST. Dealing with change and fitiing in does not mean you have to kill everyone else to survive.

4. I do not think that evolution said that EVERY being will be able to fly. Why cant we fly then. Every species adapts in a way it is required for them to survive. AND you are right some will not make it, some however does.

5. We are magnificent pieces of machinery, but that does not in any way necessitate somthing bigger and better to have designed us. According to your beliefs, god is even a bigger and better machine than us - If such perfection requires a designer, who designed him? Isnt there a logical disconnect in that?

6. Yes

Answer 22

You start with a false assumption - that all atheists accept evolution - they don't, at least not all of them. You compound that error by thinking that evolution is equivalent to atheism - it isn't. The Pope believes in evolution just fine - he isn't an atheist. For the rest just see what "Corrupted..." has written - he's 100% accurate in his assessment of your questions. Still...



1. All fossils are transitional, so the question is silly.

2. That only applies to closed systems. The Earth gets energy from the sun, therefore it is not a closed system and does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

3. No. If I share my food with someone else then they are more likely to share their food with me. Altruism can insure the survival of the species. Its why some soldiers throw themselves on grenades - to save their buddies so they can live on.

4. It depends on what forces in nature they are subjected to. Everything else is pure speculation. The only way to know for sure is to observe it, or its fossils, for that million or so years.

5. Yes there is but I doubt you would accept that. And a car is not alive and has not been subjected to billions of years of gradual mutations in its genetic sequence to deletions, substitutions, or changes in its DNA called "mutations" that lead to gradual changes over time.

6. A singularity is not "nothing" - only Creationists say this - not scientists. A "singularity" is such a specialized thing that some even call it the "god particle".



In other words, you lose on every count - sorry.

Answer 23

1) There are. Go to your local bookstore and hae a look at yr12 bio textbooks. We can't find millions of fossils because we aren't digging machines that have shovels for hands. Also, some of them may have degraded over time (you know, since the dinos)



2) Dunno what the hell thermodynamics is.



3) You have altruism if you're a good person/animal. But selfish does not equate with agility, brains, and features adapted for survival.



4) No, go back to that book store and study evolution more. lol It happens reaaaally slowly, evolution.



5) This is a psychological question and has nothing much to do with 'logical disconnect.' If you're religious, trust me, no-one can persuade you to believe it happened by sceince/chance. You have too much faith in that guy up there.



6) Only the bible's history starts off from when mankind started writing. Science can happen when humans didn't even exist.



Sorry wasnt descriptive enough, but i'm not smart enough to answer all of em. Just go to your bookstore and study science from yr1-12 :)



spi AM associate: you're funny as LOL

I actually don't know why anyone actually bothered to answer this question. I think it was out of pity or wanting to help you. But helena pretty much summed it up haha. You're not making an effort to understand science at all. You're just trying to provoke people. So overall mate, epic fail and you get a NC for incompetent in science.

{But when I look at the natural world, i see carefully placed order, and random chance just doesnt seem to be viable to me. But those are my beliefs,} and intuitions/superstitions.

{For people that dont believe there is a God, you seem to take much interest in it. Human beings are unique that way, in that we all have a "God consciousness".humans spend so much time on this concept of "finding God".} More beliefs?

Answer 24

Hahahaha! Very subtle! I wonder if any of the Christians will pick up on it.



I will answer as if you were serious, because I think that is funny.



1 - We actually do find transitional fossils. A lot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils



2 - No, because an outside source, namely the sun, constantly pours usable energy into the system.



3 - No - cooperation, especially between members of the same species, always serves survival better than complete competition. It´s a different matter in reproduction and you will find very little cooperation there. Cannibalism is rare among humans. Adultery is extremely common.



4 - Birds are not descended from quadrupeds but bipeds. Whether this is true for Pterosaurs, too, is unknow, since their ancestry is so obscure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchiornis

That´s just an example.



It is, of course, conceivable that pterosaurs are descended from tree-dwellers that gradually moved to gliding and true flight, like flying squirrels--->colugos--->bats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharovipteryx

Weirdest critter ever.





5 - No. It´s called `evolution´.



6 - Yes. According to quantum mechanics, it in fact happens constantly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam

Answer 25

1. There are transitional forms. Go look.



2. The second law of thermodynamics applies to heat distribution in closed systems over time. The spontaneous generation idea has long been discarded and is not associated with the hypothesis of abiogenesis.



3. Piranha don't eat each other. Figure that one out get back to us.



4. No, evolution doesn't occur with a goal in mind.



5. Cars don't self-replicate.



6. I don't think it does.



I appreciate the regurgitation of questions!

Answer 26

congrats on taking college philosophy 101....



1) there are plenty of transitional phase fossils in the fossil record. you dont often find fossils of unsuccessful species because its not really a trial and error kind of process. the organisms with detrimental traits don't pass their genes on frequently enough to have evolutionary kinds of changes on a population. it's survival of the fittest...only those most fit pass their genes on and affect change to a population.



2) evolution doesn't try to explain how life started, it just explains how it progressed. entropy doesn't apply.



3) evolution works on physical traits, not psychological



4) look at the turkey, it someone survived the evolution from dinosaur to its present state.



5) lets just call it the teleological argument.

Answer 27

1) Every single organism that exists is a transitional form.

2) Not in an open system.

3) See "kin selection". Now add a cortex that allows novel expression of those tendencies, and our morality is easily accounted for,.

4) No. You have simply insisted upon a scenario and failed to say what environmental pressures would necessitate the change. Simply nonsense.

5) Begging the question fallacy.

6) No, and nobody who understands the science claims it can.



All you have indicated is that you have bought into several straw men instead of actual science.

Answer 28

Actually I think it's can nobody + sin[arcsin(nobody)] = EVERYTHING. and the answer is no. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed, only altered. E = mc^2



EDIT:

"..many of you spend allot of time answering questions in the religion/spirituality section." How is that any different from christians knocking on my door? Just piss off already.



"Human beings are unique that way, in that we all have a 'God consciousness.' Ive never seen a monkey worship a banana tree and yet humans spend so much time on this concept of 'finding God'" No, devout religious groups "spend so much time on this concept of 'finding god.'" And I'm glad you've made that 'monkey analogy.' Proves a point. :]

Answer 29

1) There are millions of transitional fossils: every fossil. You simply refuse to accept that.



2) 2LTD says no such thing. Besides it applies ony to closed systems. Look up into the sky during the day. See that bright thingy? It provides energy input for our system.



"biogenesis says life can not come from non living matter, life only comes from life."



No such "laws".



"Doesnt chance occurence of life forming violate both these scientific laws?"



Nope.



3) Nope.



4) Obviously not.



5) I'm happy to be the first to inform you... A car is not a living thing.



6) Apparently.



"I appreciate your answers!"



Bullshït. You'll ignore them, as usual.



ADDENDA



"For people that dont believe there is a God, you seem to take much interest in it."



Hardly. We take interest in those who do who would restrict the rights of others with their insane superstitions.



"just as belief in the theory of evolution also requires much faith"



No faith is required, just an understanding and acknowledgement of the evidence.



"We look at evidence, but the conclusions are always interpretive"



Perhaps, but some of us choose to ignore what they see and "interpret" it to fit their own delusions.

Answer 30

1 ALL fossils are transitional dummy



2 You don't have it right go back and study some more .



3 Your neighbors would shoot you if you were like most politicians that is why they need SS bodyguards for life .



4 The figure is actually more like 40,000,000 .



5 So you are saying that a man is a car's god ?



6 http://tinyurl.com/yjm842

Answer 31

Man why can't you believe in evolution as well as God? Is it so hard to think that evolution was part of God's Will? No. I think it's all connected.

Answer 32

1) its there, your bible is just in the way. go and look for it instead of just assuming that its not there.



2) no, learn something about it, and youll see that what you said is completely and entirely flawed.



3) you see that trait in the animal kingdom only because it is needed. The male lions will be kind and generous to the alpha, only until they can finally beat it. its actually one of the best survival traits. thank you for pointing that out.



4) just, rofl.



5) the fact you are comparing cares to humans is sad. and yes, over thousands of years, the body has grown to the needs of human beings. we have organs that are completely unnecessary, that millions of years ago, we evolved to get in order to stay alive. (case in point, appendix)



6) you need to work on your math skills.

Answer 33

haha. mate, almost everyone that answered you owned you.

your faith is fine, there are only a few atheists that will bag you for it if you don't start bagging our beliefs.

i get the feeling (you made it painfully obvious) that you don't actually WANT an answer. you want a fight, or to try and prove someone wrong, perhaps you even want to convert through the internet?



if you want a fight, go to a bar

if you want to prove someone wrong, teach a primary class

if you want to convert, go to a nursing home.



if you want to actually know something about science, ask a scientist. They will shut your arguments down in a second and you may actually learn something.

Answer 34

Car is man made. The body is not 'built' by anyone other than our own cells, dna and the help of who i like to call 'mum and dad'.



Why does nature have to be defined as 'god'?

Answer 35

"1) The lack of transitional-phase fossils between different animal types? If species transformed from one to another in a "trial and error" fashion, shouldnt we find thousands of errors, between fully developed species?"

Every single fossil we have found is transitional.

Every transitional fossil is 'fully formed'. Look at Tiktaalik for example. It had all it needed to live, but is clearly part fish and part amphibian.



"2) The second law of thermodynamics, which says energy in an ordered state will always transform to a lesser quality state, or that order will always tend toward disorder if no external force guides the energy into a more ordered state. only living things can concentrate energy into more useful states and the law of biogenesis says life can not come from non living matter, life only comes from life. Doesnt chance occurence of life forming violate both these scientific laws?"

First off, evolution doesn't mean more ordered energy or less ordered energy. You misunderstand entropy.

Second off, the earth is not a closed system. The big 'external force' you speak of is the Sun.

As for the law of biogenesis: Laws in science are just descriptions. They are not true in all cases. For example, the Law of Conservation of Matter was shown to not always be true when we found out how to destroy matter.

Finally, life forming from non-life is not what evolution is about: that's abiogenesis.



"3) The trait of altruism, which means doing whats in the best interest for another living thing even at the detriment of that individuals own well being, is a trait we see today in not only humans but occasionally in the animal kingdom. Would not the process of natural selection by survival of the fittest have completely weeded out this characteristic as its very existence in an individual lowers its chances of survival? Shouldnt selfish behavior have completely eliminated non selfish behavior?"

No. Altruism is beneficial for our species' survival. Survival of the fittest isn't just about who is stronger or meaner. It's about 'fitness' which can also be a species helping other members of the same species.

Also, you admit that animals have it too. Generally in the ones that are closest related to us. (Chimps have demonstrated altruistic behavior quite a bit, for example.)



"4) Say im a 4 legged reptile, and in 1,000,000 years or so (expand the timeline as much as you need to) my descendants are going to fly. Arnt my descendants going to die off from having 2 severely debilitating front legs before theyll ever have 2 working wings?"

No, because that's not how evolution works. See my Berkeley source below.

"Scientists generally agree that wings must have been exaptations; they were used by the ancestor for one function, and became useful for flight among the descendants [...]"



"5) Take a look at a car. Excellent piece of machinery, performs many functions. You and I can both look at the car and say that somebody designed it. Someone had to visualize that concept figure out how to make it work just right. Now a painting for example. ordered strokes, careful planning, again we would logically assume someone made that painting. Then you look at the human body, one of the most complex machines and greatest works of art conceivable, and assume that all happened by chance, Isnt there a logical disconnect in that?"

Evolution gives the appearance of design. But we actually understand why that is, and how a designer is not necessary.



"6) Can (nobody) x (nothing) = EVERYTHING?"

No, but that has very little to do with evolution.



"Okay, so it seems you guys feel you have this all figured out. Fair enough. But when I look at the natural world, i see carefully placed order, and random chance just doesnt seem to be viable to me."

Evolution is not random.



"For people that dont believe there is a God, you seem to take much interest in it."

I take an interest in it because a lot of religious people are trying to subvert science, particularly with evolution. It's worth arguing against.



"[...] but that doesnt mean there must not be any god."

I never said there must not be a god. It is my contention that we shouldn't believe in a god until positive evidence is there for one.

There is nothing that says there must not be invisible unicorns, but I bet you don't believe in them still.



" It is largely a matter of faith, just as belief in the theory of evolution also requires much faith."

Evolution requires understanding, not faith.

We have seen speciation itself, in one generation, in asexually reproducing organisms. We've SEEN evolution happen. The theory is an explanation as to how.

Saying it requires faith is like saying that atomic theory requires faith. But it doesn't really, unless you want to get really philosophical and talk about how we can't be sure of anything except our own existence.

Answer 36

I love how creationist questions can always be related to lack of understand of evolution. ALWAYS. Either plain ignorance or willful ignorance.

Answer 37

Interesting presentation. DaVinci presented a similar argument to one of his atheist friends. He had a small imprecise replica of the solar system made and when his friend saw it he admired it and asked DaVinci who made it. DaVinci said that no one had made it. The friend laughed and repeated his question several times. DaVinci continued to deny that anyone had made the model of the solar system.



The atheist friend became somewhat upset and DaVinci finally said, "This is but a small, imprecise model of a much grander creation and you insist it has a maker. Yet, of the immense, much more beautifully operational solar system, you say there is no maker. My friend, how do you account for that?"



Leonardo DaVinci is considered one of the greatest minds ever to have lived. He certainly outdistances any of us at this site.



Try not to be disheartened by the display of scientific evidence repeated here. Science has changed its mind so much in the past 50 years that its total structure is now completely unrecognizable. Not only that, but one of the signs of the times is that men will be ever learning and never coming to a knowledge of the truth. Truly, there are none so blind as those that will not see.

Answer 38

i don't i got better things to do or get ppl to do to me u get me it's ur god's horn of plenty

Answer 39

1) We have stacks of transitional fossils in our records and on display. You have to actually go out and check them out. Now what I suspect you mean is a mermaid thing that is clearly 1/2 one thing and 1/2 the other. That is not how this works....each "transitional" is a slight and small change so right now humans are a transitional phase. But check out Acanthostega gunnari which can has internal gills to breathe in water and on land as well as the "Whale who walks" which was another transitional form. They are abundant and easily found



2) Your argument about the second law of thermodynamics left out the #1 important factor being that only happens in a CLOSED syetem....Earth is not since we receive a non-stop energy influx from the Sun..we are an open system. Also nothing says the entropy increase must be uniform across the entire system. (Also fyi there is no official "law of biogenesis" it was a phrase coined to explain that bacteria reproduce and do not just spontaneously appear on things)



3) The trait of altruism...is not very common in nature. However, in herd animals (which humans are) it is very common since the mentality of a herd is to protect each other which in turn gets the individual protected. This trait would ne essential to a functioning herd/society as without it the herd/society would break up and the individuals are easy prey out in nature...their survival depends upon the group.



4) You assume the only path to wings is by having weak, useless arms 1st. That assumption has no basis in reality. The front arms could become longer giving reptile reach and then stretch a membrane between the fingers of arms to provide wings one they are strong enough to support flight. The whole idea is that this happens in tiny little changes not just A to B to C..so there would not be useless limbs.



5) You are comparing inanimate, inorganic objects to an organic and biological creature. That is like comparing the sun and the moon...yeah they are both up in the sky but one is fire and super huge, hot and exerts massive gravity...the other is small, cold, almost no gravity. To compare them as the same objects is just 100% lunacy

(pun intended..get it...lunacy...come on that's clever stuff you didn't think of it)

What about a rock? did it have a designer? Did someone come along and put it where it is and make it look the way it did? Or did it maybe get blasted from a volcano and that is why it is where it is and looks how it looks? Is a volcano blasting out a rock illogical? What about a tree blown down by a hurricane...according to your logic since trees stand up and this is down obviously a designer came along and did it.



Look inanimate objects are not alive and are acted upon by outside forces...but living things are dynamic and every second of every day your cells are dying and reproducing and in the reproduction copy the DNA..so with trillions of cells is it so illogical that 1 might F up the DNA copy? What about babies...obviously parents design them right? I mean if a kid is born with congentical defect that is because parents designed kid that way right? Of course not...you mix up the DNA and hope for the best and since we are living things that PASS ON DNA it gets handed off like a relay race.



6) (nobody) x (nothing) = EVERYTHING. This statement makes no sense at all in any way and as such has no answer. Where do you get the idea that Evolution makes stuff up from nothing? Where do you get the idea that Evolution explaines everything. You know it has nothig to do with solar system, planetary alignment, star formation, AC vs DC electrical current, moon pies, etc.







ADD>

1) never said I was an atheist..I have a God



2) "i see carefully placed order, and random chance just doesnt seem to be viable to me". Well that is YOUR perception but it sure ain't the objective truth. Chaos abounds and influences everything..as does order..they are polar forces. You see what you WANT to see and you also see a system of nature that has evolved over eons in which the living things have adapted to the natural cycles to CREATE a harmony. Go to the site of a recent Volcano eruption and let me know how orderly and structured everything is.



3) Evolution takes as much faith to believe in as gravity or atomic Theory; in that we accept on faith that the scientists are not lying just as I accept on basic faith that you are a human and not some weird alien in a spaceship. It has empirical, objective proof behind it and so it is not a faith based idea like you are making it out to be...no matter what your faith says it wil not change how reality works. People had a burning faith that made them burn heretics that Earth was alone in the universe...it did not make the universe empty.

Now it can be looked at as faith based by having faith that our understanding of the world is not 100% wrong, that up is up and down is down, that the foundation of knowledge handed down to us from our forefathers is not intentionally false, etc.

But is it *not* faith as in it takes a leap to believe due to lack of solid evidence



4) Are you familiar with how monkeeys worship? Maybe they do and we just have not figured out that is why they live in trees yet.



5) Yes conclusions are open to discussion...within reason. If we are both standing over a dead body and you claim the conclusions point to the man painting a building...you are just plain wrong. Personal views are fine but they do not make each belief valid, correct or change reality to suit the belief.



Just something to keep in mind. The only relation Evolution has to religion is in YOUR mind and the minds of those with the illusion of a threat. It does not mean there is no God, does not hint this, does not attempt to explain how universe was created, explain the origins of Earth or life itself. All it does is explain the natural process of diversification.



Another point...if God is all knowing, all powerful, etc then what PREVENTS God from nudgeing the atoms here and there to cause X mutation on a gene to achieve Y result? Nothing...a being with total mastery of all reality, space, time, etc would be well within its capabilities to use the setup laws of nature to achieve its goals. After all an eternal and infinite being doesn't have a set deadline for its work, and I find the idea of humanity being sculpted and crafted over millions of years to be much more comforting rather than poof'd out of dirt like a magic trick.



I see a flat out denial of Evolution as kinda rejecting creation itself...but hey it's your mind to think as you please



If you are gonna be honest though you just gotta stop spreading these "flaws" that have been disproved countless times for decades if not longer

(seriously on YA alone it has been hundreds upon hundreds of times)

Answer 40

i tried to make sense of that but couldnt. but yeah, evolutuion is true.

Answer 41

mta, las mismas preguntas idiotas que en España.



1: no todos los animales tienen fociles de transición, algunos como el cocodrilo se adaptaron y no han cambiado en millones de años.

Answer 42

how u gona be an atheist and not think evolution is true wat the hell do u believe in thn that everything just all of a sudden popd up fool u need to find sum sense of mind take sum shrooms or sumthin maybe that will open ur mind up sum.

Answer 43

I love this question ... and agnosticism.