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
     On Snapdragons and Evolution
       Please, educated people only

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

    
MarkQuinn

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Allow me to introduce myself.  I am a nobody.

I am a nobody like the vast number of posters to this forum who join the debate armed only with overcharged emotions and vague recollections of something they think they heard a guest on a Christian talk show say once back in 1991.

I offer nothing to the argument.  It is however my sincere hope that I can appeal to the more scientific minded individuals of this forum for assistance in opening the mind of my beloved fiance who, I am sad to say, thinks inside the box of her Christian upbrigning to the exclusion of all other ideas.

There is no need whatsoever for any creationists to respond to this post, though you are free to do so.  To me the point is so utterly moot that debating it (as many of the more educated people on this forum have probably surmised) is relegated to mere sport.  But to me, contemplating the idea of soon living with her, the issue carries far more important implications.  It is a matter of open-mindedness, the ability to think freely and accept new ideas (new to them) as opposed to mental stagnation under the opressive yoke of religious control.  In short, I don't give a whit what some creationist on this forum thinks, but I care very much what my fiance believes when it comes to certain things.

What upsets me so much about her is that in every other regard she is free-spirited and alive.  She loves nature, loves the investigation of the human mind and human behavior, and most of all she is a certified master gardener who, in my thinking, should have a greater respect for the incredible diversity of life than to suggest that it was all conjured up by the snap of some supreme being's fingers.

Two weeks ago she was showing me her garden. There was a very interesting flower which I'd never known about before called the bleeding heart.  For some reason, and I don't fully know why, this flower reminded me of a snapdragon.  I asked her how closely related they are and although I don't recall her answer, the episode was fresh enough in my mind to use it as an analogy for the kind of conversations that take place on this forum.  Let me explain....

Tonight on the phone I was telling her about this site and how humerous I find it.  I explained that the tendency seems to be for creationsists to stir up arguments by posting statements and figures which are questionable at best, shallow and flat-out untrue at worst, followed by several resounding intellectual lashings at the hands of people with clear educational superiority.  I laughed at the tenacity of these creationists who keep plugging away despite the overwhelming odds against them, and gave them credit at least for that.  I said that it was not too dissimilar from me (who knows nothing about gardening) debating flowers with her (whose knowledge and experience on the subject is truly staggering).  This gave her some pause, but it was nothing more than an analogy.  I took the analogy futher, however.

Summoning my best Neanderthal impersonation, I mimicked a what-if situation, asking her to imagine what she would think if I walked into her garden and insisted that those lovely heart-shaped flowers with the tiny dripping petals WERE in fact snap-dragons.

I said "What if I did that?  What if I said, 'No, Susan, they're snapdragons.  I KNOW.  I've seen snapdragons before and that's what they look like.'"

She would say "But they're not.  They're bleeding hearts."

Seeing where I was going with this, she said "You know Mark, those evolutionists can believe whatever they want.  I'm going to keep believing what I believe."

"But they're not believing it based on some frivolous ideas!  They didn't just make this stuff up!  This is years of research, years of data, years of study in a field which is even more removed from our knowledge base than my level of knowledge about gardening is form yours.  We slept through 9th grade biology, Susan, but these guys took this stuff from there and rocketed into the stratosphere.  Now you're gonna tell me they're wrong?  How are they wrong?"

She replies: "There are plenty of scientists who don't believe in evolution."

I said: "Name one."

"I don't know but I'll find them."

"Okay," I said, "do your internet research and send me a link.  I'll post it on that forum and see what they think of it.  What else?"

"The Earth isn't old enough," she said, "to allow for evolution."

"You sound like all the other creationists on that forum who are summarily bested.  Tell me, Susan, how old is the Earth?"

"Not old enough to allow for evolution." she replied.

"Yeah?  Well how old is it?  Do you know how old the Earth is?"

"No."

"If you don't know how old the Earth is, how can you comment about whether it's old enough to support evolution?"

"Well," she moved on to the next cliche, "scientists can't even agree on the details of evolution."

I replied: "Economists can't always agree on the details of how money should flow, and yet there's no disputing that economies exist and generally speaking, grow over the years.  So somebody is doing something right.  The same applies in biology."

Again, she chimmed in with "They can believe what they want ... I'm gonna go on believing what I want."

I said "Imagine it, Susan.  I walk into your garden.  I say those are snapdragons.  You say no they are not: they're bleeding hearts.  I say yes they are, they're snapdragons and I know it because I've sen snapdragons before.  You show me books.  Pictures.  Websites.  You take me into your garden center and let me speak with other experts in the field of gardening.  All of your evidence points to the fact that these flowers growing in your garden are bleeding hearts.  After everything, I repeat once again: 'No they're not.  They're snapdragons.  I know.  Snapdragons look like that.'"

I asked her "What kind of an idiot would you think I am?  You'd throw your arms up in frustration, wouldn't you?  You'd give up.  You'd know there's no winning such a debate.  And if I added insult to injury and said 'You can go on believing those are bleeding hearts if you want to, but I'm gonna go on believing they're snapdragons and I know better than you.'"

I made my point with this analogy.  Taking an area of HER expertise and forcing her to imagine if someone with absolutely no education in the area challenged her with an impossible claim, she could see what I meant when I spoke about all the arm-chair biologists who think they're going to win over a forum full of people who (in many cases) have made a career and life-long pursuit out of the study of life and its origins.  And yet, on a practical basis she could not allow herself to agree that perhaps she is wrong.  "I think," she said, "that people put too many eggs in one basket.  I don't necessarily believe in creationism but I have faith in God."

"Nobody says you can't have faith in God," I replied, "but discounting the science behind evolution is as ridiculous as me discounting the science behind the fact that those flowers growing in your back yard are, without question, bleeding hearts."

"I can back up the fact that they're bleeding hearts with hard evidince," she said.  "What hard evidence do evolutionsists have?"

"Tons," I said.

Using my own tactics of challenging me to come up with facts and figures behind my statements (she's a fighter, I'll say), she said "Name them."

"Tons," I replied.

"Like what?  I can show you a picture of a flower and say 'This is what this is.'  Evolution has no pictures."

"But it does," I replied.

"Like what?"

"Like the fossile record."

"How does that prove evolution?"

"I don't know," I said.

"What else does science have?"

"DNA," I replied.

"How does DNA prove evolution?"

I replied "I don't know."

Suddenly I found myself in a jam.  I had backed myself into the same corner she had.  After years and years of practice debating over subjects I know nothing about and learning schemes and methods to make my knowledge appear greater than it is (let's call it the pufferfish technique), I was trapped with no place to run, no place to hide.  And then, inspiration!  And inspiration, let me tell you, is always best when it points to the truth.  And so, I laid the truth on her....

"I'm a laymen.  I know no more about biology and evolution than I do about gardening.  Ah, I take that back.  I know more about biology because I watch PBS and the Discovery Channel and National Geographic and I NEVER watch HGTV.  But I'm far from an expert.  And the problem is, when you watch these shows they pretty much take it for granted that evolution is scientific fact --- so I'm not well versed in the curriculum of proving it.  But I guess I believe that natural selection is pretty much common sense, that we've observed it happening, and that over the course of millions of years those small advantages that species devise for survival can affect wide-sweeping changes, so much so that new species develope --- or EVOLVE.  Am I saying the hand of God has nothing to do with it?  No.  But because when it comes to things supernatural I am least-versed of all, I find it to be ignorant and the height of arrogance to suggest the methods by which a God might work His miracles in nature.  So I don't know the details, but common sense seems to direct many of them.  And for the record, I'm not some moron who actually believed those were snapdragons and needed a master gardener to tell me so.  Nor do I need a biologist to tell me that species can change, adapt, evolve.  It simply IS...."

I had a very big gun but lacked only the ammunition.  That is why I'm here.  I'm here to read the platitudes presented by creationists ad nauseum and in turn read the responses by far more educated and level-headed individuals.  Sometimes those responses are easy to understand, and sometimes they require a base knowledge in other areas of science which I lack.  So, if I might be bold enough to ask for a response to this post, I guess the response I'm looking for should be presented in laymens' terms which I can then take back to Susan to make her understand the things I do not.  I am here to learn more than debate.  To me, this is not a debating forum as much as an ever-growing FAQ list where the FAQs are the things uneducated people (i.e. creationists) ask of the educated people (evolutionists with a background in science).

Many of you are probably high school teachers.  So if and when you respond, please bare in mind I was one of the many kids in the back of the class who didn't give a rat's arce about the lesson.  But I've grown up.  I've become interested in things.  I regret that I didn't pay more attention and implore you, dear teacher, with my most sincere apologies, to give me a little of that lesson again (specifically geared towards evolutionary fact in opposition to creationism).

If a starting point is needed, why not start with the two questions I could not answer?

(1) How does the fossile record support evolution?

(2) How does DNA support evolution?

Thank you for reading.

MQ

 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 01:30 AM on June 3, 2003 | IP
ufthak

|       |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

While I am sure that most people here could answer your questions, I feel that you would find the most enlightening and well presented material over at http://www.talkorigins.org
I am pretty sure you will find everything you need over there.
 


Posts: 28 | Posted: 2:00 PM on June 3, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well I guess I will start with your two questions.
1)It doesn't. In the theory of evolution there is no explination for why things such as the dinosaurs would fossilize instead of just decaying. For something to fossilize it would need to be barried very deep, very quickly.(Flood). But there isn't anything in the evolution theory. Also fossils can't be used to "prove" evolution because the only thing we know about fossils is that they died. We can't tell if they had kids or if there kids happened to be different from them.
2)DNA only proves that there was some higher being of existance with the knowledge to make DNA. It has nothing to do with evolution and doesn't prove anything to do with evoltion.

Now your snapdragon analogy works both ways. I saw you and your snapdragons the same as you with your evolution. You fience might be giving you all the facts about creation and you keep going no no no its evoltion.

You seem lost and one sided, you seem to have only learned about evolution like many people and not ever actually looked at creation. I was once like you but as I learned more and more about creation I understood more of how it is true and evolution doesn't work. You might not see true proven fact of evolution but all of the information on evolution is not true proven and fact they just want you to believe it is.

If you want further learning go to drdino.com and watch the online seminar. If you watch the hole thing Im sure you will change your mind. If you don't then go ahead and debate your soon to be wife but until you get this side then don't.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 9:49 PM on November 20, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well I guess I will start with your two questions.
1)It doesn't. In the theory of evolution there is no explination for why things such as the dinosaurs would fossilize instead of just decaying. For something to fossilize it would need to be barried very deep, very quickly.(Flood). But there isn't anything in the evolution theory.


Well, evolution is the explanation of biological diversity using the imperfect replication of heritable material.  I think that for the explanation of fossils you would want to study forensic science, or maybe geology.

2)DNA only proves that there was some higher being of existance with the knowledge to make DNA. It has nothing to do with evolution and doesn't prove anything to do with evoltion.


Sorry, but I'm unable to respond to this since it makes no sense whatsoever.


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:29 PM on November 21, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1)  The fossil record supports the theory of evolution in a number of ways.  Fossils are found in a strict chronological order, modern organisms are only found in the youngest and topmost layers of the geological column.  The further down you go, the more primitive or different to modern life the fossils become.  We never find an overlapping of organisms from different eras, no humans found at the same levels as dinosaurs, etc.  Now, we can date these layers very accurately with various techniques like radiometric testing, so we can be very certain of when these different life forms lived.  Since different life lived at different times, what happened to the old life forms and where did the new life forms come from?  The theory of evolution explains this nicely, the old life forms either died out or changed into newer life forms.  This is supported by the fossils of obviously transitional organisms we find, like Archeaopteryx.  The fossils describing reptile to mammal evolution are excellent, one can see structures evolving true a number of representative fossils.  Over a number of fossils the second jaw joint of the reptile gradually shrinks over millions of years and becomes the tiny bones of the ear in the mammal.  The theory of evolution is the best explaination, really the only explaination, of how life changed and diversified.  

2) DNA - This statement from the National Academy of Sciences, taken from here:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/2487_statements_from_scientific_and_12_19_2002.asp#aibs

"In unveiling the universality of the chemical basis of heredity, molecular biology has profoundly affirmed common ancestry. In all organisms -- bacteria, plants, and animals, including humans -- the hereditary information is encoded in DNA, which is in all instances made up of the same four subunits called nucleotides. The genetic code by which the information contained in the nuclear DNA is used to form proteins is essentially the same in all organisms. Proteins in all organisms are invariably composed of the same 20 amino acids, all having a "lefthanded" configuration, although there are amino acids in nature with both "right" and "lefthanded" configurations. The metabolic pathways through which the most diversified organisms produce energy and manufacture cell components are also essentially the same. This unity reveals the genetic continuity of living organisms, thereby giving independent confirmation of descent from a common ancestry. There is no other way consistent with the laws of nature and probability to account for such uniformity. "

Does that answer your questions?

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:53 AM on November 22, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

if you want an exceptionally educated, non "creationist" view that challenges neo-darwinism to the core, you really should check out a book by Michael Behe called "Darwin's Black Box". Behe is a Biochemistry Phd and professor, but the book is very accesible to any lay person who is interested in the topic. I think this book would be a great 'mediator' between you and your fiance's possition. Good luck!
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 02:35 AM on December 6, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Except for the fact that Behe accepts some levels of evolution and his theory of irreducible complexity has been demolished time and time again.  And he still doesn't have any evidence for intelligent design.
So I don't think it's a serious challenge to the Theory of Evolution...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:24 AM on December 6, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The idea that fossils are found in strict chronological order is absolutely erroneous.

For example, at a volcano in South America, Potassium Argon testing dated the lava at around 212 million years old.

Then, a modern human skull was found. The geologists went scrambling to look for new data to suggest a new age for the volcano. Their conclusion, that the KBS Tuft is actually 500,000 years old.

That is a 500% error. Just a slight miscalculation.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 09:48 AM on December 6, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And as for the uniform DNA argument, where did the information for the similiarities in our DNA come from in the first place.

See, in order for DNA to replicate itself it first had to exist. In your theory, you say that DNA came from a rock. Well, there is one problem with this. No where in the entire known universe have we ever seen matter, meaning your rock, give rise to DNA information, never.

See, evolution assumes that the earth was a molten mass of lava and water rained on the earth for millions of years so the material used to spark life came from somewhere on the rocks or in the breaking up of the rocks.

Well, go run your hose on your rocks, then add the contents of whatever priomordial soup you would like, and then add a spark of electricity and see what you get.

Then name it Miracle because if it sparks life it would be.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 09:52 AM on December 6, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As far as the argument that life is getting more complex because of DNA or that DNA can be easily explained, that is absurb if you look at the complexity of DNA.

There are 20 different kind of amino acids. That doesn't seem like a lot. But look at this way. If you were to extract all the DNA molecules from a persons body you would have just enough to fill two tablespons.

yet within these two tablespoons you have enough information to fill enough books to fill the Grand Canyon 40 times. Yet, all this information fits in two tablespoons.

Now, does this prove evolution, absolutely not. But it really puts some holes in the evolution theory. See, among all this vast information the margin of error is very slim considering the volume of material.

For example, evolutionists claim that we are 96% or whatever it is today closely related to the chimp, ape or whatever animal. Yet in this 4 percent difference, there are more than 480 million DNA molecules and if there are 3 or more changes in the 480 million, the changes would be fatal and the animal would not live.

This is explains why we see expontentially nearly 100,000 more harmful mutations rather than benefiicial mutations. Yet for evolution to work you need millions of beneficial mutations.  
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:06 AM on December 6, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Now, as far as your fossil record, your comments are absolutely misleading. Throughotu the fossil record, which is not always found chronologically by the way, we do not find one transition fossil. We find variations within specific kinds, but there is not one transition fossil.

This comment is not my own. This comes from leading evolutionist Richard Patterson who is overseer of the world's largest collection of fossils in the world, the Natural History Museum of London. In Patterson's book, he details a very storied fossil record, but yet there is not one transitional fossil.

Now, he was asked about this and he said if he knew of one transitional fossil, he would have included it, but he couldn't name one.

In fact, many leading evolutionists are now coming up with other theories to explain the lack of transitional fossils. Stephen Gould put out an interesting theory. He says perhaps the reason why we don't find transitional fossils is because evolution happens fast rather than gradual.

Well, that would certainly hurt your geologic column and old earth theory even if it were true.

But I have one thing to suggest. Perhaps your missing links are not missing at all. Perhaps they were never there in the first place.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:11 AM on December 6, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"The idea that fossils are found in strict chronological order is absolutely erroneous."

Then give me any example of mismatched fossils being found in the same level, dinosaurs with humans, dolphins with ichtyosaurs, trilobites with modern fish.  You make a totally inaccurate claim with nothing to back it up.  The fossil record is in strict chronological order.  
Your example of an unnamed South American volcano is completely bogus.  Lava flows are notorious for being difficult to radio date because of xenoliths.  Samples that are radiometrically dated are dated by at least two or more different methods that must concurr before a date is established, the chance of 2 different methods giving the same erroneous date is viturally nil.  Your one unverified example against the millions of accurate, verified radiometric dates that have been cross checked by multiple means is no contest.  You have failed miserably to discredit the fact that the fossil record is in strict chronological order.

"See, in order for DNA to replicate itself it first had to exist. In your theory, you say that DNA came from a rock."
Please!  Learn a little bit about what you are trying so unsuccessfully to argue against!  First it's not my theory, abiogenesis is a hypothesis put forth by the worlds leading biochemists.  And to call the complex chemical soup that we know existed early in the earths history a "rock" is assinine!  Secondly, the first self replicators, the first life, that arose did not have anything so complex as DNA, DNA clearly evolved.  DNA clearly mutates, this is a fact.  Your claim that we see 100,000 more harmful mutations than beneficial mutations is a bold face lie.  The great majority of mutations are neutral, it is the environment they express themselves in that determines if they are harmful or beneficial.  The average man has around 100 neutral mutations in his genetic makeup.  We have recorded numerous beneficial mutations in both the plant and animal kingdom.  You make no attempt to explain why organisms that are more closely related have more similar genetic makeups, this is what evolution predicts.  You make no attempt to explain HOX genes, genes that are in every form of life on the planet, if all life came from a common ancestor, this is what we would see.  You make no attempt to explain endogenus retroviral insertions, markers on the genetic code from viral infections that are passed on permenantly.  We share 7 endogenus retroviral insertions with chimps, the ONLY way this is possible is if we share a common ancestor.  Face it, DNA and the genetic code is overwhelming evidence for the theory of evolution, you have failed dismally to disprove this.  

And I loved this strawman arguement:

"See, evolution assumes that the earth was a molten mass of lava and water rained on the earth for millions of years so the material used to spark life came from somewhere on the rocks or in the breaking up of the rocks.
Well, go run your hose on your rocks, then add the contents of whatever priomordial soup you would like, and then add a spark of electricity and see what you get."


Run a hose on rocks and if we don't get life, this disproves abiogenesis (it wouldn't disprove evolution, just abiogenesis...)?!?  You can't be serious!  We have already seen complex organic molecules naturally arise, we have found them in meteors.  When these molecules formed on the primordial earth, it was a much different earth than we have today.  For one thing, our world is teaming with life now, 3.5 billion years ago there was no life, nothing to prey on these primitive self replicators, they would have had millions of years to evolve unmolested by other life.  
So, let's review, you have totally failed to prove any point you have made, you use simple minded arguements that have no basis in reality, and you have done nothing to falsify the theory of evolution, one of the most robust theories in all of science and the only explaination for the diversity of life on earth.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:25 PM on December 6, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Now, as far as your fossil record, your comments are absolutely misleading."

No they are not, you're just making that up.

"Throughotu the fossil record, which is not always found chronologically by the way, we do not find one transition fossil."

Once again your wrong!  The fossil record is in chronological order, to prove me wrong, just point out a few examples, say a human found alongside of a Triceratops, or bunny rabbit alongside of a thecodont.  If the fossil record isn't in chronological order, then this should be easy, and please include your sources, so far everything you've said has been wrong.
And we have found literally thousands of transitional fossils, like Archeaopteryx.  In the line of reptile to mammal fossils, we can actually see how the reptilian second jaw joint slowly becomes the mammilian inner ear bones.  No, your batting average is still .000, plenty of transitional fossils that support the theory of evolution.

"We find variations within specific kinds, but there is not one transition fossil."

Boy, I'm getting tired of pointing out all of your errors!  Archeaopteryx has characteristics of 2 different kinds, reptiles and birds, the only explaination is evolution.  Cynognathus was a very mammal like reptile, or reptile like mammal, has characteristics of 2 different kinds, only evolution can explain it and according to your statement "We find variations within specific kinds",  it should not exist, but since it does, it disproves your claim that there are no transitional fossils.

"This comment is not my own. This comes from leading evolutionist Richard Patterson who is overseer of the world's largest collection of fossils in the world, the Natural History Museum of London. In Patterson's book, he details a very storied fossil record, but yet there is not one transitional fossil.

Now, he was asked about this and he said if he knew of one transitional fossil, he would have included it, but he couldn't name one."


Once again, wrong again!  First it's Dr. Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History, get his name right, at least.
This is from here:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/misquote.htm

"Another prominent biologist who has been the victim of creationist misquotes and dishonesty is Dr Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History. In a private letter to creationist Luther Sunderland, who had asked Patterson why no transitional fossils were illustrated in his book, Patterson responded: "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. . .I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument." (Creation Science Foundation, Revised Quote Book, 1990). Since then, creationists in both the US and Australia have widely circulated this quote, contending that Patterson is "admitting that there aren’t any transitional fossils".

This is absurd on the face of it, since Patterson’s book contains several descriptions of different transitional fossils: "In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes." (Patterson, 1978, p. 130)

However, when one researcher wrote to Patterson to ask about the much-repeated quote, Patterson responded with yet another example of creationist selective editing: "The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. The passage quoted continues ‘... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question.’ " (Lionel Theunissen, "Patterson Misquoted: A Tale of Two 'Cites', 1997) Thus, it becomes apparent from the full context that Patterson was referring to the impossibility of establishing direct lines of descent from fossils, a position fully in keeping with his cladistic outlook. Patterson was not saying there were no fossil transitions, and Sunderland’s attempt to claim otherwise can only be viewed as an effort at deception. "

I'll admit, you might have been an ignorant dupe, quoting this because you just took the word of some unscrupulous creationist source, but you obviously see now that Dr. Patterson never said what you claim he did, so I wouldn't expect you to ever use Dr. Patterson or this quote to try and support your woefully weak point of view.

"In fact, many leading evolutionists are now coming up with other theories to explain the lack of transitional fossils. Stephen Gould put out an interesting theory. He says perhaps the reason why we don't find transitional fossils is because evolution happens fast rather than gradual.

Well, that would certainly hurt your geologic column and old earth theory even if it were true."


So no leading evolutionists are coming up with any other theories to explain the lack of transitional fossils, because there is no lack of them.  Puncutated equilibrium doesn't hurt the geologic column or an old earth, evolution can move at different rates depending on changing environments.  Puncutated equilibrium fits just fine in the theory of evolution.

"But I have one thing to suggest. Perhaps your missing links are not missing at all."

Well, they're not my missing links and you're right, they are not missing, they have been found and studied extensively, contributing substantially to our undertstanding of the theory of evolution.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:54 PM on December 6, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, let's take a look at that fossil record, from the mouth of some of your contemporaries.

David B. Kitts, in his book Evolution

"Despite the bright promise tht paleontology provides a means of 'evolution', it has presented soe nasty difficulities for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.

How about David Raup, a paleontologist at the Field Museum of Natural History:

"We are now more than 100 years from Darwin and the knowledge of the fosil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quater of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much - ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin)

Of course, some like you have claimed that there is plenty evidence in some taxons while not even acknowleding others. But George Gaylord Simpson says there are huge holes every where you look:

"...every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families appear in the record suddently and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences." (Major Features of Evolution)

How about Phillip Handler:

"Some 25 major phyla are recognized for all the animals and in virtually not a single case is there fossil evidence to demonstrate what the common ancestry of any two phyla looked like."
(Biology and the Future of Man)

And two from Stephen Gould:
"In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." (Natural History)

"...the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology." (Natural History)

Let's try another one, Steven M. Stanley
"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition.
(Macroevolution: Pattern and Process

Now, this last one is my favorite because here is a leading evolutionist claiming that your position of the stance on the fossil record actually hurts their cause.

Oxford Zoologist Mark Ridley:
"If the creationists want to impress the Darwinian establishment, it will be no use prating on about what the fossils say. No good Darwinian's belief in evolution stands on the fossil evidence for gradual evolution, so nor will his belief fall by it."

Sounds like that fossil record is not all it's cracked up to be.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:06 AM on December 9, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And you cite Archeaopteryx  as your transitional form. You need millions of transitional forms, not just one. And to use Archeaopteryx, evolutionists don't even believe he's a transitional form anymore.


‘Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of “paleobabble” is going to change that.’
- That quote is from Dr. Alan Feduccia, an evolutionist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

The recently discovered seventh specimen of the Archaeopteryx preserves a partial, rectangular sternum, long suspected but never previously documented. This attests to its strong flight muscles, but its capacity for long flights is questionable.

This is another quote from the Nature journal.
"The recently discovered seventh specimen of Archaeopteryx preserves a partial rectangular sternum, long suspected but never previously documented. This attests to its strong flight muscles, but its capacity for long flights is questionable."





 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:23 AM on December 9, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let's get right down to the meat of the argument here.

First, evolution, the way that evolutionists claim it happened, has to happen in 5 ways.

First you need, Cosmic evolution. Their leading theory of course is the Big Bang which is all sizzle and no steak. There's plenty of evidence to show the young earth. If anyone wants some, please post I'll be glad to oblige.

Second, you need molecular evolution. Afterall, the periodic table is full of elements, yet the Big Bang model accounts for less than 10%. Where did all the other elements come from.

Third, you need Stellar evolution. Where did the stars come from? Now, no one has seen a new star "evolve" despite the number of stars, more than can be counted. There's enough stars in the universe for each of us to own about a trillion if we wanted. But we have never seen one evolve.

Fourth, now you need organic evolution. That is you need to show how life evolved from matter. Again, something we have never seen, ever, despite what Stanley Miller claims in his "perfect conditions" experiment.

And lastly, you need macroevolution, that is one species changing forms into another. Which again, your fossil record doesn't show and even if it were true, why don't we see it today.

Since January of 2000, more than 220,000 kinds of animals have become extinct. Yet we have not seen one new evolution. How does life sustain itself if all the animals die but no new ones take their place?

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:34 AM on December 9, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And as for evidence of a disrupted geologic column, as noted in New Scientist and Nature[i], two new fossilized fish finds are 50 million years out of date. These new finds are making it harder for evolutionists to explain the gradual changes in a fish with the amount of time they claim these changes happened.
"This is because it further reduces the time available for them to have theoretically ‘evolved’ from non-fish, and to have developed their highly complex nervous system and mode of breathing along the way."

Or how about the find that showed plants with the ability to reproduce were found in an earlier level than plants that did not have the ability to reproduce.
"Choristospore gametangiophores are usually associated with Mesozoic and Cenozoic Dasycladales, but the new data on Uncatoella show that this form of reproduction had already developed by the Early Devonian."
(Science)

Again, how about a piece from a naturalist publication. This article is about the pipiscid group of animals.

"Formerly thought to be restricted to the Upper Carboniferous, remains of possible pipiscids have now been discovered in Cambrian strata.9 If the identification is correct, this find suddenly ages the pipiscids by nearly five geologic periods."

This one is from Nature:
"Vertebrates have just recently been found in the Early Cambrian of south China. These are agnathan fish, whose previous undisputed earliest appearance had been in the Lower Ordovician."

That's a big jump, but that's not the only one. This ones from Paleontology, 1997
‘…the widespread Lystrosaurus, hitherto regarded as characteristic of the Lower Triassic, cannot be used in isolation as a biostratigraphical zone fossil … The occurrence of Lystrosaurus in Late Permian rocks indicates that isolated specimens of the genus should no longer be used for biostratigraphical purposes … use of Lystrosaurus alone could be misleading. This is obviously unfortunate, since Lystrosaurus is the most common genus in many assemblages and so most likely to be encountered in the course of stratigraphical work.’

How about sponges. In the Journal of Paleontology, To show that Lystrosaurus was no fluke in terms of the crossing of the Permo-Triassic boundary, consider the sponge genus Neoguadalupia oregonensis. Formerly assumed to be found in strata no younger than Permian, it has been discovered in the Triassic (and Upper Triassic at that) in Oregon.

Back to the Journal of Paleontology, let's look at the K-T (Cretaceous-Tertiary) boundary. Recently camptochlamys were found occurring in the K-T beds of the North Slope, Alaska:

‘The occurrence of Camptochlamys extends the chronostratigraphic and geographic range of this genus, previously unknown from any strata above the uppermost Jurassic (Tithonian) of Europe and unknown from any strata in North America.’

Here's another embarassing one:
According to the Geologic Society of America...a Cretaceous fossil has turned up in Tertiary strata. Formerly restricted to Upper Cretaceous rocks, members of the gastropod Parafusus have been found in large numbers in the Palaeocene rocks of northeastern Mexico.


What does all this prove? Well, two recent comprehensive databases of the stratigraphic occurrence of fossils give a clear answer to this question. Dr. W. Maxwell and Dr. M. Benton, in their book Paleobiology, have compared the stratigraphic ranges of all of the fossil vertebrate families (excluding Aves, which have a spotty fossil record) as perceived in 1966-1967, and again in 1987. For 96 families, there was no change in stratigraphic range. Another 87 fossil families went through a decrease in their accepted stratigraphic range. Yet considerably more families (150) underwent an increase in the amount of strata which they overlap. This trend is even more evident in fossil marine families. In just ten years (1982-1992), 513 fossil families underwent a decline in their stratigraphic range. A decline in range may mean that the first and/or last occurrence had been misidentified. But whatever the cause, the number of fossil-range declines is dwarfed by the 1026 families that enjoyed an increase in either their first occurrence, or their last occurrence, or both.

That is a huge calculation error. So there is evidence that shakes up the geologic column. Evolutionists just claim it's new information and go on again dating new fossil finds waiting for the next monkey in the wrench. You know, if my car underwent this many changes in that short amount of time, I would buy a new car. If a plane underwent this many changes in this amount of time, it would be grounded. But on goes the geologic column.


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:17 AM on December 9, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And I would just like to add one more response to Mark's original post.

Name one scientist who doesn't believe in evolution.

Well, the New York Times ran a piece back in 1999 that reported only 55% of the scientific community believes in evolution. That was the New York Times so please, don't take my word for it, check it yourself.

So, no, not everyone, including scientists believe in evolution.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:21 AM on December 9, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Well, let's take a look at that fossil record, from the mouth of some of your contemporaries."

No let's not.  You've all ready proven that you are dishonest with quotes, so all the quotes you post here are quote mined, taken out of context and don't mean anything.

But let's look at some quotes not taken out of context:
From the American Anthtopological Association.
"Be it moved that the American Anthropological Association affirms the necessity of teaching evolution as the best scientific explanation of human and nonhuman biology and the key to understanding the origin and development of life, because the principles of evolution have been tested repeatedly and found to be valid according to scientific criteria."

From the American Association for the Advancemetn of Science:

"During the past century and a half, the earth's crust and the fossils preserved in it have been intensively studied by geologists and paleontologists. Biologists have intensively studied the origin, structure, physiology, and genetics of living organisms. The conclusion of these studies is that the living species of animals and plants have evolved from different species that lived in the past. The scientists involved in these studies have built up the body of knowledge known as the biological theory of the origin and evolution of life. There is no currently acceptable alternative scientific theory to explain the phenomena."

From the American Institute of Biological Sciences:

"The theory of evolution is the only scientifically defensible explanation for the origin of life and development of species. A theory in science, such as the atomic theory in chemistry and the Newtonian and relativity theories in physics, is not a speculative hypothesis, but a coherent body of explanatory statements supported by evidence. The theory of evolution has this status. The body of knowledge that supports the theory of evolution is ever growing: fossils continue to be discovered that fill gaps in the evolutionary tree and recent DNA sequence data provide evidence that all living organisms are related to each other and to extinct species. These data, consistent with evolution, imply a common chemical and biological heritage for all living organisms and allow scientists to map branch points in the evolutionary tree.
Biologists may disagree about the details of the history and mechanisms of evolution. Such debate is a normal, healthy, and necessary part of scientific discourse and in no way negates the theory of evolution. As a community, biologists agree that evolution occurred and that the forces driving the evolutionary process are still active today. This consensus is based on more than a century of scientific data gathering and analysis."

I could go on and on.  The point is, every responsible scientist who studies the evidence agrees, evolution is a fact, it happens.  You can take all the out of context quotes you want, that still will not change reality.  You can continue to lie all you want, that won't change reality.  So throw out a couple of more of those dishonest qoutes, I got a real  good chuckle out of them.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:10 PM on December 9, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"And you cite Archeaopteryx  as your transitional form. You need millions of transitional forms, not just one. And to use Archeaopteryx, evolutionists don't even believe he's a transitional form anymore."

No you don't need millions of transitional forms.  You fail to understand the process of fossilization.  Every living thing that dies does not become a fossil, only a tiny percentage of them become fossilized.  Archaeopteryx is still a transitional fossil, it has dinosaurian characteristics and avian characteristics.  Once again, you lie for God by trying to somehow claim that Dr. Alan Feduccia doesn't support evolution, when in reality Feduccia believes Archeaopteryx evolved from an earlier archosaur.  He is in the minority in this position, but he doesn't deny Archeaopteryx evolved.  
The first Archeaopteryx fossils were thought to be small therapod dinosaurs because they showed no feather impressions, how much more transitional can you get?!  And when you look at Archeaopteryx in light of recent fossil finds, it becomes even more apparent.  We have found dinosaurs with real, unambiguous feathers, let me repeat that, dinosaurs with feathers.  First we find dinosaurs without feathers, then we find dinosaurs with feathers, then we find a creature, Archeaopteryx, with mixed dinosaur and bird characteristics.  How can you not call this transitional?  Yes, it probably wasn't directly ancestral to modern birds, but you have provided nothing to make anyone doubt that Archeaopteryx is an excellent transitional fossil!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:28 PM on December 9, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Well, the New York Times ran a piece back in 1999 that reported only 55% of the scientific community believes in evolution. That was the New York Times so please, don't take my word for it, check it yourself.

So, no, not everyone, including scientists believe in evolution."


No but all the scientists that study the life sciences, geology, astronomy, they all accept evolution.  From here:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

"According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14%"

I say your claim is bogus, all the polls I've seen have life science scientists overwhelmingly supporting evolution.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:35 PM on December 9, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"First, evolution, the way that evolutionists claim it happened, has to happen in 5 ways."

Ha Ha Ha, you really know nothing about the Theory of evolution!  Happens 5 ways?!?  No, all evolution needs to occur is life, where it came from makes no difference. But I'll play along...

"First you need, Cosmic evolution. Their leading theory of course is the Big Bang which is all sizzle and no steak. There's plenty of evidence to show the young earth. If anyone wants some, please post I'll be glad to oblige."

No you don't need Cosmic evolution for life on Earth to evolve...And no there is no evidence to show the earth is young, none.  And I've seen the sorry caliber of your evidence, so don't bother posting it.  And the Big Bang has plenty of evidence backing it, so it is definitely not all sizzle and no steak....

"Second, you need molecular evolution. Afterall, the periodic table is full of elements, yet the Big Bang model accounts for less than 10%. Where did all the other elements come from."
Again, this isn't included in the Theory of evolution, and how do you figure the Big Bang only accounts for less than 10%?  Caught you in another lie!

"Third, you need Stellar evolution. Where did the stars come from? Now, no one has seen a new star "evolve"

Again, no you don't, evolution doesn't deal with this.  And yes, we have seen how stars form, don't you ever do any research on your own?!  You're really making an ass out of yourself!
From here:
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/1995/44/

"Eerie, dramatic pictures from the Hubble telescope show newborn stars emerging from "eggs" — not the barnyard variety — but rather, dense, compact pockets of interstellar gas called evaporating gaseous globules (EGGs). Hubble found the "EGGs," appropriately enough, in the Eagle nebula, a nearby star-forming region 7,000 light-years from Earth in the constellation Serpens."

So yes, we have seen where stars come from, how they form, so we know quite a bit about them, and guess what, no hand of God involved.  

"Fourth, now you need organic evolution. That is you need to show how life evolved from matter. Again, something we have never seen, ever, despite what Stanley Miller claims in his "perfect conditions" experiment"

I'll reiterate one more time, the Theory of evolution does NOT require this!  Biochemists are working on this right now.  The Miller/ Urey
experiments were quite successful in showing that organic compounds could form from inorganic materials.  

"And lastly, you need macroevolution, that is one species changing forms into another. Which again, your fossil record doesn't show and even if it were true, why don't we see it today."

Finally!  The only point that has anything to do with the Theory of Evolution!  And as usual, you got it wrong!  The fossil evidence for reptile to mammal evolution is overwhelming, then there is the evidence for fish to amphibian evolution, then there is the evidence for dinosaur to bird evolution.  And of course we have seen speciation today, look up the Farhoe Island mouse, or better yet, nylon eating bacteria.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:55 PM on December 9, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon, you've got to be kidding. First of all, your so called "eggs" have been proven to be nothing more than gases clearing revealing stars that we could not see before.

If your argument went to court any freshmen law student could throw this out. Talk about lieing.

And then you're citing the Miller experiment. Even evolutionists don't use that because of the obvious doctored conditions. How many things are wrong with that experiment. Let's look at them shall we.

First of all, Miller took oxygen out of his gaseous mixture because he knew oxygen would break apart any amino acids he was able to form because oxygen will break down ammonia, which is what Miller included in his experiment. See, oxygen is one of those catch 22's. You can't have life without yet, by itself it will break down the building blocks of life so you can't have evolution with it.

Secondly, Miller Miller's experiment produced a 'racemic' mixture of amino acids (which by the way, would not have 'survived' the chemical processes had he not intelligently 'trapped' them).

See, what you're not telling everyone is that amino acids are found in two forms, generally termed 'right' and 'left' handed in lay terms. They are chemically identical (i.e., they have the same number of each atom of their structure), but are put together in mirror image of each other, much like your right and left hand. Living things consist of left handed amino acids. When a living thing dies, some of the left handed amino acids begin switching to right handed. A mixture of both is poisonous to life! So, what Stanley Miller really produced was destructive to all life, not the building blocks of life!

I'll borrow a quote to sum up the Miller Experiment, "The experiment had the wrong starting conditions. It employed the wrong methods. It yielded the wrong products. Other than that, it was a wonderful experiment!"

What Miller produced would kill life, not begin it.

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 08:22 AM on December 10, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And how could you possibly say evolution doesn't need to happen in five ways all evolution needs to occus is life.

Where did the matter come from that began life in the first place? We all know that matter cannot be created or destroyed according to our own physical laws, so where did the matter come from?

And what's the evidence for the Big Bang? You said there was plenty where is it?

And what does the mouse of bacteria have to do with how you get a single celled organism into a human being?

You're showing signs of micro evolution but you have yet to give any proof for macro evolution.

And you say all the polls you've seen, yet you site one that was done 16 years ago.

And yes you do need millions of transitional forms. Evolutionists believe in gradual changes, from the mouth of Richard Dawkins, "all you need is enough time."

So it is a gradual process, as the theory is taught. So you would need millions of transitional forms. You would need not one but several just to get from ape to man. Either that are you're putting forth the theory that one ape gave birth to a human.

And I understand completely how fossilization occurs, but you didn't address the transitional forms by explaining fossilization.

And proof of feathered dinosaurs, where is it? What was originally believed to be feathers on some dinosaurs were nothing more than collagen fibers. But if you have proof of dinosaurs with feathers, let's see it. And I have another question, how does reptile 3 chamber heart evolve into a bird's 4 chamber heart?

As for your proof, I hope you are not going to cite that ridiculous article in National Geographic in which even the evolutionary community said that what they proposed was absurb. The one that had pictures of T-rex and a raptor with feathers even though there's no evidence to support that.

And out of one mouth you say that you only need life to occur and where it came from doesn't matter. But then your own quotes assume a creation of matter but do not address it. So where did the matter come from?

And better yet, cite one example of matter adding new information to the genome, just one.


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 08:39 AM on December 10, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But you did not address any of the problems in the geologic column of the fossil record either.

Your responses remind of evolutionary science. You throw out what you don't want to respond to, and when you give an answer you provide only half the picture.

Everything you have given as responses is under debate even in the evolutionary circles. But no one will be able to tell you any different.

It's really quite apparent where you are coming from. I'd like to quote to you from a book I love to read.

"All they that hate me love death."
That's from the Book of Proverbs, 8:36. Nice name by the way, demon.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 08:47 AM on December 10, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Of course I wouldn't expect you to address any of the origin of life questions because there is very little science to support it.

Of course, you'll accuse me of misquoting or taking out of context. But as usual, I will cite the source so if there is any discrepancy someone can look this up for themself.

This is from Richard Hutton, the producer of the Evolution series recently aired on PBS.
"The origin of life. There is little consensus at all here...lots of theories little science. That's one of the reasons we didn't cover it in this series. The evidence wasn't very good..." That was from Hutton's Washington Post Online Forum shortly after the series aired.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 08:55 AM on December 10, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Demon, you've got to be kidding. First of all, your so called "eggs" have been proven to be nothing more than gases clearing revealing stars that we could not see before."

Show me where this is true.  The point is we now know much about star formation and it is a natural process, no supernatural forces involved.  If stars are forming today without any help from God, then it is evident that they formed naturally from the Big Bang.  Show me any concrete evidence to the contrary, because you haven't done so yet.

"And then you're citing the Miller experiment. Even evolutionists don't use that because of the obvious doctored conditions. How many things are wrong with that experiment. Let's look at them shall we."

Evolutionists don't use it at all because it has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, it's all about abiogenesis.  The experiment was a success because it showed that organic compounds could form from inorganic elements, nothing more, nothing less.  Look at more recent studies for how far we've come in the last 40 years.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:40 PM on December 10, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"And how could you possibly say evolution doesn't need to happen in five ways all evolution needs to occus is life."

I can say that evolution doesn't need rest on 4 of the 5 points you made becasue it doesn't have anything to do with them.

"Where did the matter come from that began life in the first place? We all know that matter cannot be created or destroyed according to our own physical laws, so where did the matter come from?"

Doesn't matter where the matter came from, biologists don't concern themselves with that, theoretical physicists worry about that.  The matter came from God poofing it into existance, doesn't matter, evolution still takes place.  It formed from 11 dimensional branes colliding, doesn't matter evolution still takes place.  And it appears that particles can spontaneously pop into existance, so you can't assume matter can not be created or destroyed.

"And what's the evidence for the Big Bang? You said there was plenty where is it?"

Evidence for the Big Bang?  Let's see, the universe is expanding, it's not a stretch to say it started out in one infinitely dense point.  We can see this expansion.  Cosmic background radiation, this was a prediction by the Big Bang theory that there would be residue from the intense heat that accompanied the birth of our universe, this has been found, the prediction has been proved valid, more evidence for the Big Bang.  What evidence do you have that falsifies the Big Bang Theory?
Oh, and by the way, where in the Theory of evolution does it mention the Big Bang?  I'll tell you where, nowhere!

"And what does the mouse of bacteria have to do with how you get a single celled organism into a human being?
You're showing signs of micro evolution but you have yet to give any proof for macro evolution."


You said macroevolution doesn't occur, I supplied examples of macroevolutionary changes!  A new species is macroevolution!  And bacteria that can suddenly eat nylon, what more do you want!  And you convieniently ignored all the fossil evidence for macroevolution, or the clearly living transitional animals alive today, like the lung fsh, and the platypus.

"And yes you do need millions of transitional forms. Evolutionists believe in gradual changes, from the mouth of Richard Dawkins, "all you need is enough time."

So it is a gradual process, as the theory is taught. So you would need millions of transitional forms. You would need not one but several just to get from ape to man. Either that are you're putting forth the theory that one ape gave birth to a human."


So what is the problem?  There are several stages, we've seen them in the fossil record!  I am not putting forth the theory that an ape gave birth to a human, that's your strawman arguement.  Single organisms don't evolve into new organisms, populations of organisms evolve!  And evolution can work at different rates depending on the pressure of natural selection.  This doesn't prove your point at all.

"And I understand completely how fossilization occurs, but you didn't address the transitional forms by explaining fossilization."

Then why do you expect to find millions of transitional forms when you know that just a tiny percentage of organisms get fossilized!  We have found more than enough fossils that clearly show evolution in action and more and more are found every day.  You tell me why biologists are so sure mammals evolved from reptiles, explain how we see reptilian teeth becoming more and more advanced, how the reptilian 2nd jaw is reduced more and more as the retilian fossilized skeletons get more and more mammilian until it is no longer a jaw joint, but the bones of the mammilian inner ear?  Just denying reality is no debate, and that's all you've been doing.  

I'm still waiting for either your excuse for misquoting Dr. Collin Patterson or an apology, but I'm not holding my breath!

"And proof of feathered dinosaurs, where is it? "

Ask and you shall receive!  From here:
http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc98/6_27_98/fob1.htm

"Dramatic evidence emerged in 1996 with the discovery of a Chinese theropod, Sinosauropteryx, that bore a coat of downy fibers, perhaps the evolutionary forerunners of true feathers.

A few researchers, however, have pecked at the theory, arguing instead that birds evolved from four-legged arboreal reptiles. They regard any similarity between birds and dinosaurs as an example of convergent evolution, by which two independent groups grow to look alike. These critics maintain that Sinosauropteryx’s fibers were not down but actually a reptilian frill.

The plumage on the new Chinese dinosaurs brushes away such arguments because it is identical to bird feathers, says Currie. The structures have a central shaft with parallel barbs on either side, report Ji Qiang and Ji Shu-An of the National Geological Museum in Beijing, Currie, and Mark A. Norell of the American Museum of Natural History in New York at a press conference on June 23 at the National Geographic Society in Washington, D.C., and in the June 25 Nature."

Notice they mention Sinosauropteryx and what could be proto feathers, but the 2 new dinosaurs they are discussing, Protarchaeopteryx robusta  and Caudipteryx zoui, have unmistakable feathers!  And they are dinosaurs!  So science has provided the evidence to support my claims, ready to admit you're wrong, again!  Here are a couple of other coroborating sites:
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinos/Protarchaeopteryx.shtml

"Protarchaeopteryx had feathers covering its short arms, most of its body, and as a fan on its short tail. Its feathers were symmetrical, which indicated that it did not fly (modern-day flightless birds have symmetrical feathers; flying birds have asymmetrical ones). Protarchaeopteryx's feathers may have been used for insulation, retaining in its body heat."

From here: http://www.amonline.net.au/chinese_dinosaurs/feathered_dinosaurs/feathers_effect.htm

"Caudipteryx and Protarchaeopteryx were small dinosaurs that had a downy covering of feathers over most of their bodies, but also had longer, more complex feathers on their arms and tails, arranged like those of modern birds. These long feathers had a central shaft with barbs of equal length on either side."

There you go, positive proof that some dinosaurs had feathers!

"And out of one mouth you say that you only need life to occur and where it came from doesn't matter. But then your own quotes assume a creation of matter but do not address it. So where did the matter come from?"

What?!  Your claim was that evolution needs to explain where matter came from, I explained that this is not a concern for evolution, the theory of evolution does not address it and it doesn't matter in the least where matter came from for evolution to be true.  Where did I contracict my self?  Let me spell it out for you, all the theory of evolution deals with is the diversity of life on Earth and how it evolved over time, none of your points on the Big Bang, the creation of matter, how life first formed, have anything to do with the TOE.

"And better yet, cite one example of matter adding new information to the genome, just one."

Well, I could mention any number of beneficial mutations in humans alone, but the example I gave earlier, nylon eating bacteria, is certainly new information being added to the genome.  Nylon didn't exist before the 1940's, so the bacteria could not have been pre adapted to metabolize it!  So the developement of this new characteristic can only be an additon to the genome, new information being added.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:39 PM on December 10, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"But you did not address any of the problems in the geologic column of the fossil record either"

What problems with the geologic column?!  Geologists know that plates can shift, can overturn, there are reasons when things are found in the wrong chronological context.  These reasons leave evidence that geologists can recognize.  
You forget that over 200 years ago christian geologists determined that the earth could not possibly be only a few thousand years old, and all the evidence we've found since backs that up!  there is absolutely no evidence that the earth is young, none!

From the USGS:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

"Ancient rocks exceeding 3.5 billion years in age are found on all of Earth's continents. The oldest rocks on Earth found so far are the Acasta Gneisses in northwestern Canada near Great Slave Lake (4.03 Ga) and the Isua Supracrustal rocks in West Greenland (3.7 to 3.8 Ga), but well-studied rocks nearly as old are also found in the Minnesota River Valley and northern Michigan (3.5-3.7 billion years), in Swaziland (3.4-3.5 billion years), and in Western Australia (3.4-3.6 billion years). [See Editor's Note.] These ancient rocks have been dated by a number of radiometric dating methods and the consistency of the results give scientists confidence that the ages are correct to within a few percent. An interesting feature of these ancient rocks is that they are not from any sort of "primordial crust" but are lava flows and sediments deposited in shallow water, an indication that Earth history began well before these rocks were deposited. In Western Australia, single zircon crystals found in younger sedimentary rocks have radiometric ages of as much as 4.3 billion years, making these tiny crystals the oldest materials to be found on Earth so far. The source rocks for these zircon crystals have not yet been found. The ages measured for Earth's oldest rocks and oldest crystals show that the Earth is at least 4.3 billion years in age but do not reveal the exact age of Earth's formation."

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:46 PM on December 10, 2003 | 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.