PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Evolution for Creationists

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Unriggable

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Okay, first post.

So some of you guys don't believe evolution is true: That's fine. Of course you are kind of denying lots, and lots, and lots of evidence. So I'm going to show you just how screwed up and skewed your idea of "all of a sudden we appeared" can be.  First you need to ask yourself the following questions:

1. Do the strong live and the weak die?
2. Is every person different, and every animal of every species different?
3. Do some differences make some people stronger than others?
4. Do you believe that when DNA is replicated there can be a 'screwup' and therefore a mutation?
5. Do you believe that sometimes these mutations can be benificial, for example the case of the Viceroy Butterfly?
6. Do you believe that if a specific species is given several million years these mutations can accumulate and separate one species from another?

If you answered 'Yes' to all of these, congratulations! You believe in evolution.

The thing is that species don't all evolve at the same time. They branch off. This can be seen in Darwin's finches - which trace their lineage to a common ancestor. Over time that one specie diversified to fill in niches and now they are the numerous species we see today.
I'll give you an example as to how much evolution works.



(A) the ornithischian Heterodontosaurus
(B) the early theropod Herrerasaurus
(C) the neotheropod Coelophysis
(D) the tetanuran Allosaurus
(E) the early maniraptoran Ornitholestes
(F) the Jurassic avialae Archaeopteryx
(G) the cretaceous enantiornithe Sinornis
(H) the wing of an Opisthocomus (hoatzin) hatchling
(I) the wing of the adult chicken Gallus. Modified from Vargas & Fallon (2005).

Still not convinced?
The average fully grown married man is three inches taller than the average fully grown unmarried man. And, guess what? Two thousand years ago the average human was no taller than five feet at the most. So clearly, we are evolving.


-------
"Without Judgment"
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 5:51 PM on April 22, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm not following the whole increased height thing...  According to Stanley Ulijaszek of Oxford University the increase in height (mainly since 1800) can be attributed to "improvements in nutrition and health" which doesn't seem to be evolution driven to me.

Also, do the strong die and do the weak live?  I'm not following how your question has anything to do with evolution.  That's a health related question as far as I can tell.

Is every person different?  How does evolution account for this where God doesn't?

Do some difference make people stronger?  Yes, and some taller, and some faster, etc.  Again how is this an evolution only question?

What non-evolutionist doesn't believe that mutations arise?  Again evolution only?

If mutations do arrive, can some be beneficial?  Of course.  And some (most) can be detrimental.  

I guess that depends on who is doing the categorizing.  Based on what I've read on evolution all life began in the same kingdom.  Branched down to phlyum.  Etc.  Provided enough time, according to evolutionists, I'm guessing something beneath species (perhaps breed, that would work with dogs) will have to be created.  After all, the first life-form, according to you would have had no need to be separated by K,P,C,O,F,G,S as there was nothing to compare it to.  I suppose if humans ever gather seven million years of recorded data this question can be answered unequivocally.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 7:38 PM on April 22, 2007 | IP
Unriggable

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 7:38 PM on April 22, 2007 :
I'm not following the whole increased height thing...  According to Stanley Ulijaszek of Oxford University the increase in height (mainly since 1800) can be attributed to "improvements in nutrition and health" which doesn't seem to be evolution driven to me.

Also, do the strong die and do the weak live?  I'm not following how your question has anything to do with evolution.  That's a health related question as far as I can tell.

Is every person different?  How does evolution account for this where God doesn't?

Do some difference make people stronger?  Yes, and some taller, and some faster, etc.  Again how is this an evolution only question?

What non-evolutionist doesn't believe that mutations arise?  Again evolution only?

If mutations do arrive, can some be beneficial?  Of course.  And some (most) can be detrimental.  

I guess that depends on who is doing the categorizing.  Based on what I've read on evolution all life began in the same kingdom.  Branched down to phlyum.  Etc.  Provided enough time, according to evolutionists, I'm guessing something beneath species (perhaps breed, that would work with dogs) will have to be created.  After all, the first life-form, according to you would have had no need to be separated by K,P,C,O,F,G,S as there was nothing to compare it to.  I suppose if humans ever gather seven million years of recorded data this question can be answered unequivocally.


No, it's just that all those things added up together confirm evolution - mutations of all kind go from generation to generation but only the ones with positive effect last in the long run.

As for your question about God, first of all there is no place for God in a theory (a very well proven theory at that) that has an explanation for everything ever found in the ground.


-------
"Without Judgment"
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 9:25 PM on April 22, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

By that line of argument, no need for evolution in Creation.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 9:56 PM on April 22, 2007 | IP
Unriggable

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 9:56 PM on April 22, 2007 :
By that line of argument, no need for evolution in Creation.


Except for the immeasurable amounts of transition fossil.


-------
"Without Judgment"
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 06:42 AM on April 23, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Right...


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 09:13 AM on April 23, 2007 | IP
Unriggable

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:



Entries are:

A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern


-------
"Without Judgment"
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 6:15 PM on April 24, 2007 | IP
Wolflord

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

all proven false and discarded.
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 9:30 PM on February 14, 2008 | IP
Wolflord

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

let me give examples.

Australopithecus africanus

discovered in 1924 by Raymond Dart. was considered a human ancestor until the early 70's when it was dismissed as merely an extinct ape

afarensis

A very famous 'transitional form'. Long curved toes presumably used for grasping just like any other ape. females tended to be 3 and a half to four feet tall, males speculated to be around five feet tall. No human resemblance at all and calling them human ancestors is nothing more than speculation

Homo Habilis.

These were small chimpanzeelike creatures with no resemblance to humans at all and they were estimated to be no more than 3 and half feet tall as adults Skull 1470 was so badly shattered that its reconstruction is subjective. the leg bones are no doubt that the leg bones are human.

Thus Homo Habilis is merely a mixture of human and ape fossils, not a transitional form.

Homo Erectus

A skull cap and femur where found. Even though the femur and skullcap where found nearly 50 feet away they were 'assumed' to come from the same creature. also Homo Erectus or Java man was found in rock that due to the constant flooding and volcanic activity was assumed 500 years old and a human skull was found along with Java man. Dubois kept that skull hidden for about 30 years.

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.


This specimen was later discovered to be fully human but with a slightly larger brain capacity and possibly some sort of skeletal disease or an extinct race of humans,=

Homo sapiens sapiens or Cro magnon man.

Later proven to be just fully human, and like the neanderthals had slightly larger brain capacity than humans today.

That is all for now I feel lazy but if you want extensive descriptions I'll get to it at some point.
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 9:49 PM on February 14, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Boy, you got just about everything wrong.

Australopithecus africanus

discovered in 1924 by Raymond Dart. was considered a human ancestor until the early 70's when it was dismissed as merely an extinct ape


Where did you get this pack of lies....From here:
Africanus

"Australopithecus africanus was an early hominid, an australopithecine, who lived between 2-3 million years ago in the Pliocene.[2] In common with the older Australopithecus afarensis, A. africanus was slenderly built, or gracile, and was thought to have been a direct ancestor of modern humans. Fossil remains indicate that A. africanus was significantly more like modern humans than A. afarensis, with a more human-like cranium permitting a larger brain and more humanoid facial features. A. africanus has been found at only four sites in southern Africa - Taung (1924), Sterkfontein (1935), Makapansgat (1948) and Gladysvale (1992).[1]"

so, Australopithecus africanus was a homonid, not just an extinct ape, it was transitional since it was more like a modern human than
A. afarensis.  You're claims are disproven.

afarensis

A very famous 'transitional form'. Long curved toes presumably used for grasping just like any other ape. females tended to be 3 and a half to four feet tall, males speculated to be around five feet tall. No human resemblance at all and calling them human ancestors is nothing more than speculation


Let's see what the experts say about Australopithecus afarensis ...
Afarensis

"Australopithecus afarensis is an extinct hominid which lived between 3.9 and 2.9 million years ago. In common with the younger Australopithecus africanus, A. afarensis was slenderly built. From analysis it has been thought that A. afarensis was ancestral to both the genus Australopithecus and the genus Homo, which includes the modern human species, Homo sapiens.[1][2]."

So the experts (and virtually all other biologists), consider A. africanus a transitional in the lineage of modern humans.  YOu're completely wrong once again.
From the same source....

"In overall anatomy, the pelvis is far more human-like than ape-like. The iliac blades are short and wide, the sacrum is wide and positioned directly behind the hip joint, and there is clear evidence of a strong attachment for the knee extensors. While the pelvis is not wholly human-like (being markedly wide with flared with laterally orientated iliac blades), these features point to a structure that can be considered radically remodeled to accommodate a significant degree of bipedalism in the animals' locomotor repertoire. Importantly, the femur also angles in toward the knee from the hip. This trait would have allowed the foot to have fallen closer to the midline of the body, and is a strong indication of habitual bipedal locomotion."

Hmmm, bipedalism, aren't humans bipedal?  Yes, there is no question, A. afarensis was certainly transitional with modern humans.

Homo Habilis.
These were small chimpanzeelike creatures with no resemblance to humans at all and they were estimated to be no more than 3 and half feet tall as adults Skull 1470 was so badly shattered that its reconstruction is subjective. the leg bones are no doubt that the leg bones are human.
Thus Homo Habilis is merely a mixture of human and ape fossils, not a            transitional form.


Again, let's dispence with the creationist lies and see what the experts have to say about habilis...From here:
Habilis

"Homo habilis is arguably the first species of the Homo genus to appear. In its appearance and morphology, H. habilis was the least similar to modern humans of all species to be placed in the genus Homo (except possibly Homo rudolfensis). Homo habilis was short and had disproportionately long arms compared to modern humans; however, it had a reduction in the protrusion in the face. It is thought to have descended from a species of australopithecine hominid. Its immediate ancestor may have been the more massive and ape-like Homo rudolfensis. Homo habilis had a cranial capacity slightly less than half of the size of modern humans. Despite the ape-like morphology of the bodies, H. habilis remains are often accompanied by primitive stone tools (e.g. Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania and Lake Turkana, Kenya)."

So no, they are NOT a mixture of human and ape fossils, they are, once again, transitionals in the lineage of modern humans.  And Skull 1470 might have been incomplete but  (from here
Habilis skull

"KNM ER 1813 is a fossilized skull of the species Homo habilis. It was discovered in Koobi Fora, Kenya by Kamoya Kimeu in 1973, and is estimated to be 1.9 million years old.

Its characteristics include an overall smaller size than other Homo habilis finds but with a fully adult and typical H. habilis morphology."

was mostly intact, nothing subjective about it.

Homo Erectus

A skull cap and femur where found. Even though the femur and skullcap where found nearly 50 feet away they were 'assumed' to come from the same creature. also Homo Erectus or Java man was found in rock that due to the constant flooding and volcanic activity was assumed 500 years old and a human skull was found along with Java man. Dubois kept that skull hidden for about 30 years."


And you ignored the other Homo erectus fossils that have been found, like these....
Homo Erectus

"Some of the major Homo erectus fossils:

Indonesia (island of Java): Trinil 2 (holotype), Sangiran collection, Sambungmachan collection, Ngandong collection
China: Lantian (Gongwangling and Chenjiawo), Yunxian, Zhoukoudian, Nanjing, Hexian
India: Narmada (taxonomic status debated!)
Kenya: WT 15000 (Nariokotome), ER 3883, ER 3733
Tanzania: OH 9
Vietnam: Northern, Tham Khuyen, Hoa Binh
Republic of Georgia: Dmanisi collection
Turkey: Kocabas fossil[10] "

So your claims about this are false also.

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.
This specimen was later discovered to be fully human but with a slightly larger brain capacity and possibly some sort of skeletal disease or an extinct race of humans,=


Like everything else you've posted up til this point, this is also wrong.  Neanderthal man was distinctly different from modern humans, as we can see here...
Neanderthal man

"Anatomically Neanderthals were somewhat shorter but much more robust than contemporary H. sapiens. Distinctive cranial features of Neanderthals included prominent brow ridges, low, sloping foreheads, a chinless and heavy, forward-jutting jaw, and extremely large front teeth. The shoulders and pelvis were wider, the rib cage more conical in shape, and the forearms and lower legs shorter. When placed in an evolutionary perspective, Neanderthal anatomy gives the impression of a large and somewhat “primitive” hominid, as though the evolutionary trajectory of Homo sapiens had somehow reversed itself. This impression is offset somewhat by the observation that the Neanderthal braincase measured on average about 1600 cc, larger than contemporary Homo sapiens.
The unique anatomy of Neanderthals probably reflects the fact that they were the first hominid to spend extensive periods of time in extremely cold environments, having evolved in Europe at the onset of the most recent glaciation of that continent (see Pleistocene epoch). For example, their thick, squat build was adapted to maintaining body temperature under harsh climatic conditions. Large front teeth may have reflected a practice common among Eskimo populations of softening animal skins by chewing. Forceful chewing is also suggested by the heavy jaw and brow ridge, both of which serve to buttress powerful muscles."

So no, they were not just modern humans, they were different.  They didn't suffer from some skeletal disease, they had a different skeleton than modern humans.

And yes, cro magnon man is us, no one disagrees about this.

That is all for now I feel lazy but if you want extensive descriptions I'll get to it at some point.

No thanks, your research skills stink.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:45 PM on February 15, 2008 | IP
andrew2k54

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We must have lived with dinosaurs.
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 02:11 AM on February 24, 2008 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.