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 in Schools
       Same as Forced Religion?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
pocket

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

are you serious? why?
 


Posts: 15 | Posted: 7:35 PM on January 15, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ROFL... Wow. No, I'm not serious, dummie. Jeesh. lol


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 8:18 PM on January 15, 2006 | IP
pocket

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This is really only my second forum, and it seems a little less formal compared to the last one. They had rules so strict, I stopped going. If you would even breathe an off topic idea, you were reprimanded. What dorks.

Back on topic- did anybody read "God, the devil, and Darwin"? I watched a debate on intelligent design with the author, Niall Shanks. This guy is my new hero.

 


Posts: 15 | Posted: 10:00 PM on January 15, 2006 | IP
Pallim

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry to go off topic again but are there even admins at this forum? O.o

And what is this book you speak of about?
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 01:45 AM on January 16, 2006 | IP
pyrocidalmaniac

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, I haven't even looked through the first page at all, but I'm going to post anyways.  (and yes I'm a no0b, so deal with it)

I think that both creationism and evolutionism should be introduced in schools, but since neither one of them has been proven that neither should be taught as fact.  Our society is so focused on giving people freedom of choice yet we have no choice in what we can believe in school.  Why not tell it as it is?  There are two major theories out there, one is creationism and one is macroevolutionism.  Both are theories.  Both have evidence to prove and disprove.  Don't teach one as fact and the other as false.  Give kids some choice.

I don't know.  That's just what I think it should be.
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 7:14 PM on May 5, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think that both creationism and evolutionism should be introduced in schools, but since neither one of them has been proven that neither should be taught as
fact.


Creationism was disproven over 200 years ago.  Creation by God can never be scientific.
Evolution is an observed fact, the theory of evolution explains it.

Our society is so focused on giving people freedom of choice yet we have no choice in what we can believe in school.

Science isn't "believed" or "disbelieved" it is accepted based on the evidence.  The theory of evolution has such a preponderance of evidence that virtually no biologists rejects it.
Science isn't a democracy, students shouldn't never be allowed to "choose" what they want to believe in.  How does that work?  I choose not to believe in the theory of gravity?  I choose not to believe 1 +1 = 2?  That's a ridiculous idea.

Why not tell it as it is?

Sure and the way it is, evolution is an observed fact, the theory of evolution explains it.  There is such a preponderance of evidence supporting the theory of evolution that over 99.9% of the world's biologists accept it.  There is no evidence that falsifies the theory of evolution.  Creationism was disproven over 200 years ago.  Intelligent Design is not science.

There are two major theories out there, one is creationism and one is macroevolutionism.

But creationism was completely debunked over 200 years ago.  Should we also teach them the earth is flat?  That the sun orbits the earth?  The theory of evolution is an unfalsified scientific theory, all evidence found to date in multiple disciplines supports it.
So, as far as diversity of life on earth goes, there's only one theory, the theory of evolution.

Both are theories.

But only one is a valid theory, the TOE.  Creationism has been disproven.

Both have evidence to prove and
disprove.


There is no evidence supporting creationism and much disproving it.

Give kids some choice.

Why?!?  That's the absolute worst thing we can do!

I don't know.  That's just what I think it should be.

Do more research.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:47 PM on May 5, 2006 | IP
pyrocidalmaniac

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But creationism was completely debunked over 200 years ago.  Should we also teach them the earth is flat?  That the sun orbits the earth?  The theory of evolution is an unfalsified scientific theory, all evidence found to date in multiple disciplines supports it.
So, as far as diversity of life on earth goes, there's only one theory, the theory of evolution.


Ok, I see what you're saying, but how was creationism disproved?  It may not be scientific, but how has it been disproved scientifically?  ALL evidence found to date supports it?  What about the Cambrian Explosion?  In the 1900's  Charles Walcott (a paleontologist) discovered more than 60,000 fossils in a section of the Cambrian layer of strata, which (according to Darwin and evolution) would hold only the simplest of life forms.  There were pleanty of "simple" life forms in those fossils, but there were also fossils from every major animal phylum that exists today.  How do you explain that?

Science isn't "believed" or "disbelieved" it is accepted based on the evidence.  The theory of evolution has such a preponderance of evidence that virtually no biologists rejects it.
Science isn't a democracy, students shouldn't never be allowed to "choose" what they want to believe in.  How does that work?  I choose not to believe in the theory of gravity?  I choose not to believe 1 +1 = 2?  That's a ridiculous idea.


You could be right, but don't say that virtually every biologist accepts evolution.  You and I both know that's not true.  In fact, the number of biologists that believe in evolution is decreasing every day due to the amount of evidence that proves it wrong.

Sure and the way it is, evolution is an observed fact, the theory of evolution explains it.  There is such a preponderance of evidence supporting the theory of evolution that over 99.9% of the world's biologists accept it.  There is no evidence that falsifies the theory of evolution.  Creationism was disproven over 200 years ago.  Intelligent Design is not science.

What evidence?  Give me five examples of hardcore evidence that prove evoltuion.  Site your references.  And Intelligent Design may not be science, but at least I have purpose in my life.

Why?!?  That's the absolute worst thing we can do!

So, you believe that abortion is wrong too?

Do more research.

I am.
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 12:17 PM on May 6, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What about the Cambrian Explosion?  In the 1900's  Charles Walcott (a paleontologist) discovered more than 60,000 fossils in a section of the Cambrian layer of strata, which (according to Darwin and evolution) would hold only the simplest of life forms.


I don't know the exact number. Perhaps it's 60,000, perhaps it isn't. At any rate, a lot fossils were found; they were not the simplest life forms at all. The ToE does not predict the Cambrian Period should hold the simplest forms of life. We have found a great many of those fossils in periods before the Cambrian. All in all, the Cambrian is consistent.

There were pleanty of "simple" life forms in those fossils, but there were also fossils from every major animal phylum that exists today.  How do you explain that?


The misconception is that all or the great majority of those phylas appeared within the Cambrian age and never before, which is not true.

You could be right, but don't say that virtually every biologist accepts evolution.  You and I both know that's not true.


It is true. Out of the tens of thousands of biologists world wide, there are under 500 biologists who publically disagree with the ToE. 500 is probably pretty generous at that.

At the same time, there are more biologists whose first names are a form of "Steve" that publically agree with the ToE--around 250 more--than all the biologists who disagree with the ToE combined:

Project Steve

As for the claim that scientists in support of the ToE are dropping daily... Pure, un-supportable speculation. You won't find any numbers to support that.

What evidence?  Give me five examples of hardcore evidence that prove evoltuion.  Site your references.


I've answered the request to find evidence of Evolution... at least 10 times on this board alone, all responses to different people. Please, this is an example of burden of proof that just makes you sound silly. There are countless thousands of resources almost anywhere you look. For a great start, try typing into Google, "Evidence for Evolution."

And Intelligent Design may not be science, but at least I have purpose in my life.


Intelligent Design does not allude to any purpose in life. Not that it matters. Islam has a purpose, but so do the religions of Judaism and Buddhism. At the very least, two of them are incorrect. Add in Hinduism, Christianity, the hundreds of Native American religions... only one of them teaches the right purpose, and that's assuming any of them do so. Having a purpose won't help in this debate.

Give kids some choice.


Why?!?  That's the absolute worst thing we can do!


So, you believe that abortion is wrong too?


I really doubt Demon was talking about choice in any other respect besides the choice between ID and the ToE.

There are two major theories out there, one is creationism and one is macroevolutionism.


I don't necessarily understand what you mean by theory. Creation is not a scientific theory, if that's what you're getting at, and neither is Intelligent Design. Evolution is a scientific theory, simply because it fits the definition and rules of a scientific theory.

Creation and ID cannot be tested or proven false. Because they potentially deal with an omnipotent, supernatural being, as well as any actions that being might have made, their claims are impossible to test or disprove.

For instance, if God made the world in six days, but skewed the evidence so that it appeared that He wasn't involved at all, science would be unable to show otherwise.


(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 5/6/2006 at 1:38 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 1:36 PM on May 6, 2006 | IP
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

youve probably been asked this a million times too, but has macroevolution ever been observed?
 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 2:25 PM on May 6, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

youve probably been asked this a million times too, but has macroevolution ever been observed?


Many times.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 3:06 PM on May 6, 2006 | IP
pyrocidalmaniac

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

^how?  And I did look up "evidence for evolution" on Google a while ago.  Most of the articles said that the best ways to prove evolution are through fossils and homology.

I don't know the exact number. Perhaps it's 60,000, perhaps it isn't. At any rate, a lot fossils were found; they were not the simplest life forms at all. The ToE does not predict the Cambrian Period should hold the simplest forms of life. We have found a great many of those fossils in periods before the Cambrian. All in all, the Cambrian is consistent.


Ok, maybe I'm just stupid, but would you mind explaining what you mean a bit better?

The misconception is that all or the great majority of those phylas appeared within the Cambrian age and never before, which is not true.

again, I'm not completely sure what you mean.

I've answered the request to find evidence of Evolution... at least 10 times on this board alone, all responses to different people. Please, this is an example of burden of proof that just makes you sound silly. There are countless thousands of resources almost anywhere you look. For a great start, try typing into Google, "Evidence for Evolution."

Ok, like I said before, I looked it up and the main two arguments were fossils and homology.  If fossils were proof, then why don't we see links between the evolutions of different species?  Even if it occured through leaps of mutation there would be enough "links" to prove evolution, right?  And in homology, you notice that the forearm of a human and the forearm of a bird are very similar, so it would make sense that they came from a common ancestor.  However, if you study their genetic makeup you realize that these homologous structures come from quite different genes in different species.  So instead of gaining these structures through the genetic code of a common ancestor, we already had them and they've been passed on through our species alone.

Intelligent Design does not allude to any purpose in life. Not that it matters. Islam has a purpose, but so do the religions of Judaism and Buddhism. At the very least, two of them are incorrect. Add in Hinduism, Christianity, the hundreds of Native American religions... only one of them teaches the right purpose, and that's assuming any of them do so. Having a purpose won't help in this debate.

I wasn't using that to help in this debate.


 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 4:06 PM on May 6, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, like I said before, I looked it up and the main two arguments were fossils and homology.
 If by homology you are speaking about the homologous DNA sequences that  point to shared ancestory then, Yes...In some instances the homologous DNA is proof positive of a shared ancestor between two species.

If fossils were proof, then why don't we see links between the evolutions of different species?
 We do...You need to update your resources on this.
Even if it occured through leaps of mutation there would be enough "links" to prove evolution, right?
There are...Please update your resources.
And in homology, you notice that the forearm of a human and the forearm of a bird are very similar, so it would make sense that they came from a common ancestor.  However, if you study their genetic makeup you realize that these homologous structures come from quite different genes in different species.
Huh?  What the heck are you talking about?  Where did you get this information? do you have a link?
So instead of gaining these structures through the genetic code of a common ancestor, we already had them and they've been passed on through our species alone.
Uh...No...But hey if you have a scientific source for this then please post it.

 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 9:48 PM on May 6, 2006 | IP
pyrocidalmaniac

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If by homology you are speaking about the homologous DNA sequences that  point to shared ancestory then, Yes...In some instances the homologous DNA is proof positive of a shared ancestor between two species.

I meant more structural homology, which is the study of similar structures in different species.

We do...You need to update your resources on this.

Then give me some examples.  You're just saying "there are" doesn't mean there are.  Could you give me some resources then?  Apparently the resources I had weren't enough.

Huh?  What the heck are you talking about?  Where did you get this information? do you have a link?

Ok, look at this graph:

It would makes sense that all these species came from one original ancestor with a homologous bone structure.  But in order for the structures to be passed on the DNA sequence with that structure would have to be passed on to it's offspring, but in each of these species, it is a different DNA sequence that makes up the information for a species forearm.

And I got this information from a science book.

Uh...No...But hey if you have a scientific source for this then please post it.

If we didn't already have them, and we didn't inherit them, then where did we get that genetic information?
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 11:35 PM on May 6, 2006 | IP
pyrocidalmaniac

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Here's an article about structural homology:
http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-V3/3evlch21.htm

THE GENE BARRIER—In spite of efforts to see similarities in structures of various animals, the DNA barrier continues to defy the evolutionists. Even the genes themselves are totally different in mankind than in other animals, each of which has unique gene arrangements.

   "It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. The attempt to find 'homologous' genes, except in closely related species, has been given up as hopeless." —*Sir Gavin De Beer, Homology, an Unsolved Problem, (1971).

   *De Beer then asks a penetrating question:

   "But if it is true that through the genetic code, genes code for enzymes that synthesize proteins which are responsible (in a manner still unknown in embryology) for the differentiation of the various parts in their normal manner,—what mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same 'patterns,' in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked that question in 1938, and it has not yet been answered." —*Op. cit., p. 18.

Thus, according to 'De Beer, since it is the genes that control structure, function, and appearance —how can different animal types have similar appearance when they have different genes?

   This point is extremely important!

The entire matter is a great mystery which evolutionists cannot fathom. How can there be similarities among life forms with different genes—different DNA codes? In desperation, *S.C. Harland, in Biological Reviews (11:8311936), suggests an answer from fantasyland: As an example, he discussed the eye. Harland says that, yes, it is true that genes are different for each creature, but for some mysterious reason many of their eyes are still very much alike! The solution is obvious, he explains: When each species evolved into new species, its genes changed but its eye structures did not change! It has eyes that are different than what its genes say they should be!

Harland is here theorizing that genes do not control the inheritance of characteristics! The science of genetics began when Gregor Menders 1866 research was discovered in 1900. By 1907, Columbia University scientists had established that the genes controlled heredity. Yet, after decades of fruit fly and other genetic experiments, Harland says it cannot be true—for if it were, it would destroy evolutionary theory! With every speculation they offer, evolutionists get themselves more deeply into trouble. Thus it has been for over a hundred years. But, fortunately, there are open-minded scientists who are willing to face the facts:

   "The older text-books on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. Thus the ‘pentadactyl’ [five bone] limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and the flipper of a whale, and this is held to indicate their common origin.

   "Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene-complex, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down." —*Randall, quoted in *William Fix, The Bone Peddlers, p. 189.
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 11:48 PM on May 6, 2006 | IP
pyrocidalmaniac

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You can also look at Chapter 13 of this article:

Click Here
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 12:18 AM on May 7, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, I see what you're saying, but how was creationism disproved?  

Christian geologists realized over 200 years ago that there was no evidence for a world wide flood and much evidence to falsify it.  They also realized that the earth must be many times older than a mere 6 - 10 thousand years.  This disproved classic creationism.

ALL evidence found to date supports it?

Yes all evidence found in multiple fields supports the theory of evolution.

What about the Cambrian Explosion?

The Cambrian explosion is a fascinating period in the history of life on earth, but it fits in well with the theory of evolution.

In the 1900's  Charles Walcott (a paleontologist) discovered more than 60,000 fossils in a section of the Cambrian layer of strata, which (according to Darwin and evolution) would hold only the simplest of life forms.  There were pleanty of "simple" life forms in those fossils, but there were also fossils from every major animal phylum that exists today.  How do you explain that?

So what, we are now finding the fossilized ancestors of Cambrian life from the {re-Cambrian period.  These major phyla did not appear full blown, as new evidence has shown, they evolved from Pre-Cambrian life forms.

You could be right, but don't say that virtually every biologist accepts evolution.  You and I both know that's not true.  In fact, the number of biologists that believe in evolution is decreasing every day due to the amount of evidence that proves it wrong.

This is simply not true.  The numbers of biologists that accept evolution is NOT decreasing, just the opposite.  Over 99.9% of the world's biologists accept evolution.  Here's a typical quote from the world of science, this one's from the SOCIETY OF VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY

"The fossil record of vertebrates unequivocally supports the hypothesis that vertebrates have evolved through time, from their first records in the early Paleozoic Era about 500 million years ago to the great diversity we see in the world today. The hypothesis has been strengthened by so many independent observations of fossil sequences that it has come to be regard, ed , as a confirmed fact, as certain as the drift of continents through time or the lawful operation of gravity."

The theory of evolution is so strongly supported by evidence, that it is considered a fact.  And with all the new evidence discoverd almost daily, the theory of evolution is becoming stronger all the time.

What evidence?  Give me five examples of hardcore evidence that prove evoltuion.

From the University of California Berkeley,
Berkeley

"1) Fossil evidence
The fossil record provides snapshots of the past that, when assembled, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change over the past four billion years. The picture may be smudged in places and may have bits missing, but fossil evidence clearly shows that life is old and has changed over time. "

"2) Homologies
Evolutionary theory predicts that related organisms will share similarities that are derived from common ancestors. Similar characteristics due to relatedness are known as homologies. Homologies can be revealed by comparing the anatomies of different living things, looking at cellular similarities and differences, studying embryological development, and studying vestigial structures within individual organisms."

"3) Distribution in time and space
Understanding the history of life on Earth requires a grasp of the depth of time and breadth of space. We must keep in mind that the time involved is vast compared to a human lifetime and the space necessary for this to occur includes all the water and land surfaces of the world. Establishing chronologies, both relative and absolute, and geographic change over time are essential for viewing the motion picture that is the history of life on Earth."

"4) Evidence by example
Although the history of life is always in the past, there are many ways we can look at present-day organisms, as well as recent history, to better understand what has occurred through deep time. Artificial selection in agriculture or laboratories provides a model for natural selection. Looking at interactions of organisms in ecosystems helps us to understand how populations adapt over time. Experiments demonstrate selection and adaptive advantage. And we can see nested hierarchies in taxonomies based on common descent."

"5) Genetic variation
There are three primary sources of genetic variation, which we will learn more about:
Mutations are changes in the DNA. A single mutation can have a large effect, but in many cases, evolutionary change is based on the accumulation of many mutations.
Gene flow is any movement of genes from one population to another and is an important source of genetic variation.
Sex can introduce new gene combinations into a population. This genetic shuffling is another important source of genetic variation."

To that quick list, we can add, off the top of my head:

Biogeography.  Where living animals and fossils are found supports the theory of evolution and nothing else.

Endogenous Retroviruses.  These infect organisms, mark their DNA and then are passed down through that line.  How these retroviruses mark organisms on earth can only be explained by evolution.  For example, humans and chimpanzees share 7 endogenous retroviruses, the only way this is possible is if they share a common ancestor.

So there, very quickly, are seven lines of evidence supporting evolution.  I defy you to produce even one, valid, piece of evidence that falsifies it.  

And Intelligent Design may not be science, but at least I have purpose in my life.

So you need ID to have purpose in your life?!?
Do you base your purpose on the validity of any other scientific theories?  Does the theory of gravity give you problems?  How about the electromagnetic theory?  I got news for you, scientific theories aren't proposed to give purpose to one's life, they are proposed to explain natural phenomenon.  I don't need a magic skyman to give purpose to my life, I do fine on my own...

So, you believe that abortion is wrong
too?


What has that have to do with letting kids decide if they want to learn falsified myths instead of real science?  You didn't answer my post about letting kids decide for themselves about other disciplines of science, should we let them decide if the earth is flat?  If the sun orbits the earth?  How about the germ theory of disease, should we let them learn that disease is really caused by demons?  Come on, get real...

As far as doing more research, good for you, but you should stay away from creationist sources and stick to the most objective method we have of studying the natural world, the scientific method.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:46 AM on May 7, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I meant more structural homology, which is the study of similar structures in different species.
Then your orginal assertion that  "fossils and homology"  
are main two arguments supporting evolution is incorrect.  You need to learn more about the theory of evolution before you start making such claims.

Then give me some examples.  You're just saying "there are" doesn't mean there are.  Could you give me some resources then?  Apparently the resources I had weren't enough.
Now you are lecturing me about providing links?!!!  Please!!!  Anyway here is a site that provides quite a few examples.

Transitionals

It would makes sense that all these species came from one original ancestor with a homologous bone structure.  But in order for the structures to be passed on the DNA sequence with that structure would have to be passed on to it's offspring, but in each of these species, it is a different DNA sequence that makes up the information for a species forearm.
 Uhm...Yeah the Frog and human forearms have different DNA because they are different structures.  Why would anybody think differently?   On the other hand, it would make sense if both the frog and human forearms have the same homeobox or HOX genes to direct their formation during the early stages of embryonic development...And guess what?...They do!!!  This is evidence of shared ancestory.   Google "homeobox genes" or "Hox genes" if you want to learn more.

If we didn't already have them, and we didn't inherit them, then where did we get that genetic information?
Uhm...You have not really studied genetics have you?  Google "population genetics".  I think if you read up on the subject you will find it to be less confusing.  
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 12:43 PM on May 7, 2006 | IP
pyrocidalmaniac

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Christian geologists realized over 200 years ago that there was no evidence for a world wide flood and much evidence to falsify it.  They also realized that the earth must be many times older than a mere 6 - 10 thousand years.  This disproved classic creationism.

#1.  A world-wide flood has nothing to do with the animals on earth being created or evolving, but here's some evidence anyways.

a.  Almost EVERY culture in the world has or has had a legend of a world-wide flood.  (maybe not scientific evidence, but it shouldn't bee ignored)
b. How else could Mammoths have been completely frozen in Alaska, Siberia, and other high elevated locations?
c. It has been proven (by Mount St. Helens in Washington State) that cataclysmic events can produce canyons and layers of strata within minutes, and how else would the Grand Canyon and other such basins and canyons have been formed?
d. Hugh Miller wrote decades ago that the entire British Isles are underlaid by billions of fish fossils, not laid down by normal sedimentary deposits, but many of these have arched backs distended gills, open mouths as if trying to get oxygen but caught with silt in their gills instead and destroyed by the billions by a cataclysmic sedimentary context.  This would take a world wide flood.  (http://www.layevangelism.com/advtxbk/sections/sect-10/sec10-5.htm )

And there's more I could post.  The world also could have been created, but be more than 10,000 years old.

The Cambrian explosion is a fascinating period in the history of life on earth, but it fits in well with the theory of evolution.

No it doesn't.  There are NO intermediate links found within this "explosion".  There are NO signs that macroevolution happened within this time period.  Theses specimens looked as though they were placed in this strata.  This is a quote from  Dr. Richard Dawkins (a prominent macroevolutionist):
"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there [speaking of the Cambrian Expolsion], without any evolutionary history.  [We] agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record.  The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and [we] reject this alternative."

Even a certified evoltutionary biologist admits there are major flaws in the fossil record.

This is simply not true.  The numbers of biologists that accept evolution is NOT decreasing, just the opposite.  Over 99.9% of the world's biologists accept evolution.  Here's a typical quote from the world of science, this one's from the SOCIETY OF VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY

"The fossil record of vertebrates unequivocally supports the hypothesis that vertebrates have evolved through time, from their first records in the early Paleozoic Era about 500 million years ago to the great diversity we see in the world today. The hypothesis has been strengthened by so many independent observations of fossil sequences that it has come to be regard, ed , as a confirmed fact, as certain as the drift of continents through time or the lawful operation of gravity."

The theory of evolution is so strongly supported by evidence, that it is considered a fact.  And with all the new evidence discoverd almost daily, the theory of evolution is becoming stronger all the time.


That quote had no evidence in it.  All it said was "there is evidence".  I see no actual evidence.

From the University of California Berkeley,

1) and 2):  I have shown scientific evidence against both of those already, and if that evidence wasn't clear then I can find more.

3) and 4):  I don't understand.

5):  There has been NO evidence for a "good" or "positive" mutation ever.  Mutations TAKE AWAY DNA not add.  The rest of this I don't understand very well.

6):  Even the frozen mammoths found in places far away from large enough quantities of water?  Even fish fossils on high elavation and other locations away from water?  I would think it would prove a world-wide flood more than evolution.

7):  That makes sense and you have an argument there, but I'm going to research it more.

As for the rest of your post, you're right.  I need to do more research and studying before I come to those kinds of conclusions.  And I have looked at both creationist and evolutionist articles (admitidly mostly creationist).
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 5:58 PM on May 7, 2006 | IP
pyrocidalmaniac

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Then your orginal assertion that  "fossils and homology"  
are main two arguments supporting evolution is incorrect.  You need to learn more about the theory of evolution before you start making such claims.


First off, my assertion came from an evolutionists article I read, not my own lips.  Second, why is it incorrect?

lol, lecturing?  I asked you if you could show me some resouces.  No need to get upset.

As for the article: I read through it and the explinations this lady uses are good except that very few of her examples actually have explinations.  Also, in her article she says:
"The discovery of Archeopteryx only two years after the publication of The Origin of Species was seen a stunning triumph for Darwin's theory of common descent. Archeopteryx has been called the single most important natural history specimen ever found, "comparable to the Rosetta Stone" (Alan Feduccia, in "The Age Of Birds")."
Then, in another article I read this :
http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm
"The Archaeopteryx fossils with feathers have now been declared forgeries by scientists. 'Allegedly, thin layers of cement were spread on two fossils of a chicken-size dinosaur, called Compsognathus. Bird feathers were then imprinted into the wet cement' according to Dr. Walt Brown"

Uhm...Yeah the Frog and human forearms have different DNA because they are different structures.  Why would anybody think differently?   On the other hand, it would make sense if both the frog and human forearms have the same homeobox or HOX genes to direct their formation during the early stages of embryonic development...And guess what?...They do!!!  This is evidence of shared ancestory.   Google "homeobox genes" or "Hox genes" if you want to learn more.

So, now it's been proven that humans come from frogs instead of primates right (note: this is sarcasm)?  Now, to get serious: I'm currently studying up on HOX genes and I'll post about it once I've investigated further.

Uhm...You have not really studied genetics have you?  Google "population genetics".  I think if you read up on the subject you will find it to be less confusing.  

I will, but it would really be helpful if you guys could just give me links since the resouces I seem to be finding don't make you very happy.
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 6:29 PM on May 7, 2006 | IP
pyrocidalmaniac

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, I read up a bit on HOX genes.  It's a very confusing process to me, but I think I got the gist of it.  These HOX genes act as "turn ons" or "turn offs" in the process of developing bodies, right?  So, we see many of these HOX genes are the same in very diverse species such as the fly and the mouse.  Sometimes when there is a mutation in these HOX genes it can result in extra limbs and many other strange phenomenon such as a sixth finger on humans.  

So, lets say that we have a fish swimming around.  It reproduces resulting in the mutation of a HOX gene which causes one of this offspring's fins to function less like a fin and more like a cat's leg.  This would be one of the ways evolution could expand right?
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 7:07 PM on May 7, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First off, my assertion came from an evolutionists article I read, not my own lips.  Second, why is it incorrect?
The most compelling evidence supporting the theory of evolution is genetic evidence.

lol, lecturing?  I asked you if you could show me some resouces.  No need to get upset.
Look you did more than just ask me for sources when you said Then give me some examples.  You're just saying "there are" doesn't mean there are..  If you want to have an honest discussion then don't play games...There...Now I lectured you.
Then, in another article I read this :
http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm
"The Archaeopteryx fossils with feathers have now been declared forgeries by scientists. 'Allegedly, thin layers of cement were spread on two fossils of a chicken-size dinosaur, called Compsognathus. Bird feathers were then imprinted into the wet cement' according to Dr. Walt Brown"
 Archaeopteryx is not an issue and I don't trust anything about science that comes out of the mouth of Walt Brown.  Go to the Archaeoteryx thread if you want to learn more.  The bottom line is there are transistional fossils out there.

So, now it's been proven that humans come from frogs instead of primates right (note: this is sarcasm)?  Now, to get serious: I'm currently studying up on HOX genes and I'll post about it once I've investigated further.
Good, maybe if you learn too much you can teach me a thing or two
I will, but it would really be helpful if you guys could just give me links since the resouces I seem to be finding don't make you very happy.
Just google "genetics" if you find a site associated with an accredited university science department or a respected science publication like "Nature" then the information should be ok.
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 7:10 PM on May 7, 2006 | IP
pyrocidalmaniac

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The most compelling evidence supporting the theory of evolution is genetic evidence.

Like I said, I was just quoting.  If you would like to prove your statement then feel free to do so.

Look you did more than just ask me for sources when you said  Then give me some examples.  You're just saying "there are" doesn't mean there are..  If you want to have an honest discussion then don't play games...There...Now I lectured you.

Haha, it's true though.  If I were to say "I have met an extraterrestrial" you wouldn't believe it unless I gave you photographs and/or video recording along with my statement.  And thank you for providing that site, btw.  I do get tired of having to do all the searching myself and realizing the sites I found weren't sufficient.

Archaeopteryx is not an issue and I don't trust anything about science that comes out of the mouth of Walt Brown.  Go to the Archaeoteryx thread if you want to learn more.  The bottom line is there are transistional fossils out there.

Alright whatever.

Good, maybe if you learn too much you can teach me a thing or two

If you say so.

Just google "genetics" if you find a site associated with an accredited university science department or a respected science publication like "Nature" then the information should be ok.

lol, because articles coming from sites like that would suuport evolution, right?  And don't worry I found one.  It was just a little confusing though.  Here's the link, maybe you could clarify the article for me (I read up until the blue letters that read "Rates of Evolution under Resonable Assumptions"
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/genetics.html
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 7:32 PM on May 7, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

5):  There has been NO evidence for a "good" or "positive" mutation ever.  Mutations TAKE AWAY DNA not add.


You're joking, right?


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 10:20 PM on May 7, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

World wide flood:
a.  Almost EVERY culture in the world has or has had a legend of a world-wide flood.  (maybe not scientific evidence, but it shouldn't bee ignored)

Except Egyptian, Chinese, sumarian, histories, to name a few, go from before the flood, continue unbroken through the time of the flood and after the flood.  Why wasn't there a major interruption in their written histories?  How could they even have an unbroken written history if they were completely wiped out?  Of course many cultures have flood legends, many cultures began near rivers!  History falsifies a world wide flood.

b. How else could Mammoths have been completely frozen in Alaska, Siberia, and other high elevated locations?

They weren't, from here:
Mammoths

"The reports of frozen mammoths with well-preserved flesh are greatly exaggerated. Parts of cadavers have been well preserved, but in all cases, the internal organs were rotted, or the body was partly eaten by scavengers, or both, before the animal became frozen. The Berezovka mammoth, perhaps the most famous example, showed evidence of very slow decay and was putrefied to the point that the excavators found its stench unbearable (Weber 1980). The best preserved mammoth, Dima, was an infant; its small size and starved condition permitted quicker freezing, and even it had a little decomposition (Guthrie 1990, 7).
There are probably several different causes of the deaths of frozen mammoths and other animals, including the following:
Sinking in muddy silt (Guthrie 1990, 7-24).
Drowning/burial in flash floods carrying a heavy load of silt.
Predation, followed by winter freezing, followed by burial in silt carried by snowmelt (Guthrie 1990, 81-113).
Fall in a landslide, as a thawed riverbank gives way under the animal's weight. The landslide and subsequent soil creep can bury and preserve the animal (Kurtén 1986, chap. 9)."

So there you go, no evidence for a world wide flood.

c. It has been proven (by Mount St. Helens in Washington State) that cataclysmic events can produce canyons and layers of strata within minutes, and how else would the Grand Canyon and other such basins and canyons have been formed?

Ridiculous!  Mt. St. Helen's canyons and layers were made of volcanic ash.  Again, from here:
MtStHelen

"The sediments on Mount St. Helens were unconsolidated volcanic ash, which is easily eroded. The Grand Canyon was carved into harder materials, including well-consolidated sandstone and limestone, hard metamorphosed sediments (the Vishnu schist), plus a touch of relatively recent basalt.
The walls of the Mount St. Helens canyon slope 45 degrees. The walls of the Grand Canyon are vertical in places.
The canyon was not entirely formed suddenly. The canyon along Toutle River has a river continuously contributing to its formation. Another canyon also cited as evidence of catastrophic erosion is Engineer's Canyon, which was formed via water pumped out of Spirit Lake over several days by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The streams flowing down Mount St. Helens flow at a steeper grade than the Colorado River does, allowing greater erosion.
The Grand Canyon (and canyons further up and down the Colorado River) is more than 100,000 times larger than the canyon on Mount St. "

No evidence for a world wide flood.

d. Hugh Miller wrote decades ago that the entire British Isles are underlaid by billions of fish fossils, not laid down by normal sedimentary deposits, but many of these have arched backs distended gills, open mouths as if trying to get oxygen but caught with silt in their gills instead and destroyed by the billions by a cataclysmic sedimentary context.  This would take a world wide flood.

Here's what I found about Hugh Miller:
Miller

""Earth in Upheaval", and, more recently, by Richard Milton in "The Facts of Life"(p.110).  Neither author seems to understand the more recent work on the fossil fish of the Old Red Sandstone (e.g., Mykura, 1991 has citations to older and more recent papers);  or realize that Miller, in later publications, refutes the claim that this or any part of the geologic column can be explained as the result of a global flood.  Miller also refutes claims that large fossil accumulations like this can be explained by catastrophic global flood processes. "

Pretty sneaky trying to use Miller to support your position when Miller didn't support it himself!  No evidence of a world wide flood here.

And there's more I could post.  The world also could have been created, but be more than 10,000 years old.

It could be, but there is no evidence to support that conclusion.

Classic creationism was based on a young earth, a world wide flood and organisms being unchanging by "kind".  All three of these points has been disproven.

No it doesn't.  There are NO intermediate links found within this "explosion"

So what!  Intermediates are found before this so called explosion, the ancestors of these organisms, that appearred to explode out of nowhere have been found, they lived earlier in the Pre-Cambrian.  So yes, the theory of evolution does explain the Cambrian explosion!
From here:
Cambrian

"Then, between about 570 and 530 million years ago, another burst of diversification occurred, with the eventual appearance of the lineages of almost all animals living today. This stunning and unique evolutionary flowering is termed the "Cambrian explosion," taking the name of the geological age in whose early part it occurred. But it was not as rapid as an explosion: the changes seems to have happened in a range of about 30 million years, and some stages took 5 to 10 million years."

So, overall, we're talking 30 million years, plenty of time for evolution.

There are NO signs that macroevolution happened within this time period.  Theses specimens looked as though they were placed in this strata.  This is a quote from  Dr. Richard Dawkins (a prominent macroevolutionist):

Wrong.  And your quote is seriously out of date.

Dawkins had this to say in 1997:
CambrianII

"There are rare instances in which the soft parts of animals are preserved as fossils. One case is the famous Burgess Shale which is one of the best beds from the Cambrian Era (between 500 million and 600 million years ago) mentioned in this quotation. What must have happened is that the ancestors of these creatures were evolving by the ordinary slow processes of evolution, but they were evolving before the Cambrian when fossilizing conditions were not very good and many of them did not have skeletons anyway. It is probably genuinely true that in the Cambrian there was a very rapid flowering of multicellular life and this may have been when a large number of the great animal phyla did evolve. If they did, their essential divergence during a period of about 10 million years is very fast. However, bearing in mind the Stebbins calculation and the Nilsson calculation, it is actually not all that fast. There is some recent evidence from molecular comparisons among modern animals which suggests that there may not have been a Cambrian explosion at all, anyway. Modern phyla may well have their most recent common ancestors way back in the Precambrian."

Your point is refuted!

And there is MUCH evidence of macroevolution in the Precambrian, from here:
PrecamLife

"Evidences of macroscopic life forms are now found as early as 680 myr ago in the form of worm burrows (Pagel, 1999, p. 881). And several modern phyla are now claimed to appear in the Precambrian and thus are not part of the supposed 'Cambrian Explosion.' These are:
Phylum Porifera (Sponges Brasier, Green and Shields, 1997, p. 303)
Phylum Mollusca (Fedonkin and Waggoner, 1997, p 868)
(This may be a proto-Mollusc rather than a true mollusc--Campbell 2001)
Phylum Annelida (Cloud and Glaessner, 1982, p. 788)
Phylum Cnidaria (Conway Morris, 1998, p. 29)
Phylum Arthropoda (Waggoner, 1996, p. 190)"

Again, you are wrong, there are many intermediates from the Precambrian.  You just have to look at the latest research.

Even a certified evoltutionary biologist admits there are major flaws in the fossil record.

Of course there are flaws in the fossil record, every biologist knows that.  Only a very small percentage of organisms fossilize.  Of those, natural processes destroy many before they can be found.  And the ones that do survive, well, we've only found a small percentage of them so far.  Everyday new fossils are found that support the theory of evolution.  What you haven't been able to show us is any biologist that admits there are any flaws in the theory of evolution.

That quote had no evidence in it.  All it said was "there is evidence".  I see no actual evidence.

It wasn't intended to show any evidence.  You made the claim that confidence in evolutionary theory is decreasing.  It isn't.  The quote showed the overall consensus of the scientific community on the theory of evolution.  And the consensus is that there is so much evidence supporting it, it's a fact.

Man, this post is getting too long!  I'll answer the rest in another post.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:30 PM on May 7, 2006 | IP
pyrocidalmaniac

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 10:20 PM on May 7, 2006 :
5):  There has been NO evidence for a "good" or "positive" mutation ever.  Mutations TAKE AWAY DNA not add.


You're joking, right?


Care to demonstrate?

 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 12:00 AM on May 8, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Care to demonstrate?

Here's a whole list of beneficial mutations:
GoodMutations

Here's the short list, check out the page for better explainations.

"1.)  Adaptation to High and Low Temperatures by E. coli.
2.)   Adaptation to Growth in the Dark by Chlamydomonas.
3.) Selection for Large Size in Chlamydomomas
4.) Adaptation to a Low Phosphate Chemostat Environment by a Clonal Line of Yeast
5.) Evidence of genetic divergence and beneficial mutations in bacteria after 10,000 generations
6.) Adaptation of yeast to  a glucose limited environment via gene duplications and natural selection
7.) Molecular evidence for an ancient duplication of the entire yeast genome
8.) Evolution of a new enzymatic function by recombination within a gene.
9.) Changes in the substrate specificities of an enzyme during directed evolution of new functions
10.)  12% (3 out of 26) random mutations in a strain of bacteria improved fitness in a particular environment."

In humans, again, the short list, read the site, from here:  
GoodHumanMutations

"gene variants of PAI-1 and ACE account for a significant portion of the between-individual variability of circulating PAI-1 antigen concentrations in a general population without clinical evidence of atherosclerosis.

The LPL Ser447-Stop mutation therefore should have a protective effect against the development of atherosclerosis and subsequent CAD.

These associations provide evidence for a common mutation that appears to confer beneficial lipid and lipoprotein profiles amongst an adult male population with regard to risk of CAD.

This is a rare example of an inherited functional human disorder in which a mutation affecting splicing still permits some correct splicing to occur and this has a beneficial effect to the phenotype of the patients.

Gbeta3-s appears to be associated with enhanced immune cell function in humans.

Our findings suggest that certain polymorphisms of the factor VII gene may influence the risk of myocardial infarction. It is possible that this effect may be mediated by alterations in factor VII levels. "

And, of course, we all know that genomes can increase in size...

So there you have it, and to repeat EntwickelnCollin's question, "You're joking, right?"
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:21 AM on May 8, 2006 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from pyrocidalmaniac at 7:00 PM on May 7, 2006 :
Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 10:20 PM on May 7, 2006 :
5):  There has been NO evidence for a "good" or "positive" mutation ever.  Mutations TAKE AWAY DNA not add.


You're joking, right?


Care to demonstrate?



adaptations of bacteria in resistance to anti-biotics

hundreds of recorded finches that have adapted different shaped beaks for collecting different types of food

a white moth that adapted a black color because of factories that covered gray tree trunks with black soot

certain people's unique immunity from the bubonic plague in europe that kept them alive while over 1/3 of the region died

really, when you think about it, a mutation is only beneficial or detrimental depending on the environment of the creature which has that mutation.  if a cave-dwelling rodent had a mutation that caused its neck to be longer, then that mutation would probably not be advantageous.  but if that same rodent lived in tall grasslands, then the same mutation might be beneficial.

also, mutations do not neccessarily "take away dna."  a mutation occurs when a segment of the dna strand is either changed, added, or subtracted.  there are any number of ways in which this can occur.  in a dna strand there are four basic components, usually referred to in diagrams as A, T, C, and G.  A is always paired with T; C is always paired with G.  a mutation can change a C to a T, or a G to a C or any other combination.  when this happens, it changes how the whole gene strand affects the entire organism.  natural selection does a good job of weeding out the genes that are not efficient at surviving and reproducing in their environment, so that each generation that lives on is better suited to the environment it lives in.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 12:34 AM on May 8, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1) and 2):  I have shown scientific evidence against both of those already, and if that evidence wasn't clear then I can find more.

Evidence against the fossil record?!?  I must have missed that, mainly because it doesn't exist...  The fossil record shows a progression of life forms in strict chronological order, an order that supports only evolution.
No fossils found to date falsify this.  From here:
FossilSequence

"Since 1859, paleontologists, or fossil experts, have searched the world for fossils. In the past 150 years they have not found any fossils that Darwin would not have expected. New discoveries have filled in the gaps, and shown us in unimaginable detail the shape of the great 'tree of life'. Darwin and his contemporaries could never have imagined the improvements in resolution of stratigraphy that have come since 1859, nor guessed what fossils were to be found in the southern continents, nor predicted the huge increase in the number of amateur and professional paleontologists worldwide. All these labors have not led to a single unexpected finding such as a human fossil from the time of the dinosaurs, or a Jurassic dinosaur in the same rocks as Silurian trilobites."

What other theory explains the order of the fossil record?  Site your resources please.
We make successful predictions of what we'll find in the fossil record and where, based solely on the theory of evolution.  Look up  Tiktaalik roseae, paleontologists found it based on where and at what time a fish/amphibian intermediate should exist.  Their prediction was correct.  
And how about intermediate fossils, what other theory explains them?  How about the evolutionary lineages we do have, despite the haphazard nature of fossilization.  Look at the synapsid line, the reptile to mammal line of fossils.  Let's see what your explaination is for them.  
In review, I haven't seen you present any evidence for any other theory explaining the fossil record.  The consensus of the scientific community, the experts who dedicate their life to studying these fossils, is that the fossil record supports evolution and nothing else.

Homologies, once again, I don't see where you showed evidence against it.  Organisms are broken down into increasingly similar groups.  There is no other logical reason for these relatioinships EXCEPT for common descent!  How do you explain the fact that a whale is more structurally similar to a human than a whale shark?  I mean, whale sharks and whales live in the same environment, move the same way, baleen whales and whale sharks eat the same thing. Yet the whale has a fin more like my hand than a fishes fin, it has a mammilian spine that moves like other mammals, not like a fishes, it still has vestigial hips.  Can you answer any of these questions based on another theory?  No, homologies point directly to common descent and only common descent.

Distribution in time and space, where we find animals can sometimes be best explained by evolution.  The Dodo bird, for example, evolved from a bird that could fly, it came to Mauritius and over millions of years evolved to be large and flightless since there were no other large predators on the island.  

Evidence by example is that we can recreate evolution in the lab and we can observe it happening today.  And we do both.

5):  There has been NO evidence for a "good" or "positive" mutation ever.  Mutations TAKE AWAY DNA not add.  The rest of this I don't understand very well.

And as you have been shown in many other posts, you are wrong.  Not only is there evidence for positive mutations, we have directly observed them, they are a fact.  And while mutations can decrease the size of the genome, they can also add to the size of the genome, this too, is an observed fact.

6):  Even the frozen mammoths found in places far away from large enough quantities of water?

6):  Even the frozen mammoths found in places far away from large enough quantities of water?

There are no frozen mammoths that cast any doubt on the theory of evolution.  If you still think there is, give me the specific example so I can refute it...

Even fish fossils on high elavation and other locations away from water?

Sea life fossils found at high elevations can easily be explained by tectonic plate movemnt.
Shellfish fossils found near the top of Mt. Everest are there because at one time the top of Mt. Everst was the bottom of the Tethys sea.  Again, if you have a specific example, let's here it...

As for the rest of your post, you're right.  I need to do more research and studying before I come to those kinds of conclusions.  And I have looked at both creationist and evolutionist articles (admitidly mostly creationist).

You deserve credit for your continuing research, that's half the fun of doing these debates!  You would be doing yourself a favor to look at more mainstream scientific sources, even if you don't accept what they say, at least you would have a better understanding of evolution to argue against...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:46 AM on May 8, 2006 | IP
pyrocidalmaniac

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Except Egyptian, Chinese, sumarian, histories, to name a few, go from before the flood, continue unbroken through the time of the flood and after the flood.  Why wasn't there a major interruption in their written histories?  How could they even have an unbroken written history if they were completely wiped out?  Of course many cultures have flood legends, many cultures began near rivers!  History falsifies a world wide flood.

How do we know their cultures began before the flood (this isn't a critical question, but I'm truly curious)?  We don't even know when the flood happened (if it did).  And even though most cultures lived close to rivers, why do almost all these legends include a God being angry and one man building a boat that carried a lot of animals?

Still historical evidence for flood.

They weren't, from here:

ok, I can understand that these mammoths weren't completely preserved.  But that article even says, "Drowning/burial in flash floods carrying a heavy load of silt."

Still evidence for flood.

Ridiculous!  Mt. St. Helen's canyons and layers were made of volcanic ash.  Again, from here:

True, but it still proves that cataclysmic (sp?) events can create canyons.  Your article says, "Another canyon also cited as evidence of catastrophic erosion is Engineer's Canyon, which was formed via water pumped out of Spirit Lake over several days by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers."  So canyons CAN be made when a lot of water runs through them, right?  Then, scientifically, what would happen if enough water to create a world-wide flood were to run through something like that?

Still evidence.

So what!  Intermediates are found before this so called explosion, the ancestors of these organisms, that appearred to explode out of nowhere have been found, they lived earlier in the Pre-Cambrian.  So yes, the theory of evolution does explain the Cambrian explosion!

Out of curiosity:  I haven't looked too hard yet, but is there any record of land animals in the Cambrian Era?  I know it's mostly aquatic, but your quote says, "almost all animals living today".  I'll look some more, but do you have a link for that information?

Wrong.  And your quote is seriously out of date.

HAHAHA!!!  My quote came from 1996.  One year before yours.  Hmmmm...first Hugh Miller, now Richard Dawkins.  Contradicting themselves.

What you haven't been able to show us is any biologist that admits there are any flaws in the theory of evolution.

I've seen plenty.  You just wouldn't accept them, so I don't bother putting them up.
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 8:28 PM on May 8, 2006 | IP
pyrocidalmaniac

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from RoyLennigan at 12:34 AM on May 8, 2006 :
Quote from pyrocidalmaniac at 7:00 PM on May 7, 2006 :
Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 10:20 PM on May 7, 2006 :
5):  There has been NO evidence for a "good" or "positive" mutation ever.  Mutations TAKE AWAY DNA not add.

You're joking, right?


Care to demonstrate?



adaptations of bacteria in resistance to anti-biotics

hundreds of recorded finches that have adapted different shaped beaks for collecting different types of food

a white moth that adapted a black color because of factories that covered gray tree trunks with black soot

certain people's unique immunity from the bubonic plague in europe that kept them alive while over 1/3 of the region died

really, when you think about it, a mutation is only beneficial or detrimental depending on the environment of the creature which has that mutation.  if a cave-dwelling rodent had a mutation that caused its neck to be longer, then that mutation would probably not be advantageous.  but if that same rodent lived in tall grasslands, then the same mutation might be beneficial.

also, mutations do not neccessarily "take away dna."  a mutation occurs when a segment of the dna strand is either changed, added, or subtracted.  there are any number of ways in which this can occur.  in a dna strand there are four basic components, usually referred to in diagrams as A, T, C, and G.  A is always paired with T; C is always paired with G.  a mutation can change a C to a T, or a G to a C or any other combination.  when this happens, it changes how the whole gene strand affects the entire organism.  natural selection does a good job of weeding out the genes that are not efficient at surviving and reproducing in their environment, so that each generation that lives on is better suited to the environment it lives in.


Alright.  That makes sense.  Except for one of those things.

adaptations of bacteria in resistance to anti-biotics

The adaption isn't actually a profitable mutation.  It is a mutation that takes away certain DNA that prevents less food and other material from entering the bacteria.  So it is helpful in that it keeps the bacteria from dying of the antibiotic, but now that bacteria and its offspring don't take in as much food therefore being a major hinderance (sp?).

Also, the whole thing about the finches makes sense because that is microevolution.  I have no problem believing in microevolution.  It's macroevolution that I don't agree with.

natural selection does a good job of weeding out the genes that are not efficient at surviving and reproducing in their environment

Lol, you do realize that all this is based on chance right?  The chances of one of those beneficial mutations are slim. It is believed that only 10% of DNA is used.  Then you've got less than half of the mutations affecting this 10% of the DNA being neutral mutations (no positive or negative effect).  Once you've subtracted that about 99.9% of the rest of the mutations are harmful or fatal.  The remainder are beneficial mutations.  (more sarcasm) Yup, sounds like natural selection does a pretty good job.

Oh, and all this information came from here:
Population genetics
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 8:43 PM on May 8, 2006 | IP
pyrocidalmaniac

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evidence against the fossil record?!?

Ok, I'm researching up on this more and I'll have my answer later.  (mainly cause I'm lazy and really tired right now  =P)

No, homologies point directly to common descent and only common descent.

Again, I proved it wrong by showing you that the DNA sequence that makes up most "homologies" is completely different.  And for the ones that are the same: those examples make it seem we're closer related to frogs and flys than we are primates.

And part of it is the way we were raised as children.  You were raised to see a homology and say "What an exellent example of common decent!"  While I was raised to say "what an exellent example of common engineering!"  So, in other words, you see decent, I see engineering in homologies. I think homologies provide a great example that there is a very knowledgable God out there that obviously knows how to make good skeletal structures and what not.

Distribution in time and space, where we find animals can sometimes be best explained by evolution.

Oh ok, I'll do some studying up on that later.  I need a nap first.

Distribution in time and space, where we find animals can sometimes be best explained by evolution.

That I don't doubt due to the fact that we observe microevolution which I don't dispute.  But have we actually ever witnessed animals literally changing phyla?
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 8:53 PM on May 8, 2006 | IP
pyrocidalmaniac

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Shellfish fossils found near the top of Mt. Everest are there because at one time the top of Mt. Everst was the bottom of the Tethys sea.

I've never heard of this nor seen evidence for it.

You deserve credit for your continuing research, that's half the fun of doing these debates!  You would be doing yourself a favor to look at more mainstream scientific sources, even if you don't accept what they say, at least you would have a better understanding of evolution to argue against...

I agree with you for once!  I just love to debate.  And I'm not on here more or less to prove you all wrong, but to learn more about the evolutionary theory apart from creationist sources.  For instance, I had NO idea HOX genes existed before I joined this forum.

And I've tried some of those "mainstream scientific sources".  Honestly, I'm not even out of high school yet, so those sources are really confusing to me.
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 8:58 PM on May 8, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How do we know their cultures began before the flood (this isn't a critical question, but I'm truly curious)?  We don't even know when the flood happened (if it did).  And even though most cultures lived close to rivers, why do almost all these legends include a God being angry and one man building a boat that carried a lot of animals?

Written records from Egypt begin from around 3100 B.C., that would be over 5,000 years ago.  Traditionally, creationists claim the flood occurred 4,000 years ago.  You're the one claiming there was a flood, you tell me when it occurred.  Anyway, we have unbroken written records from 5,000 years ago for Egypt, no mention of a world destroying flood.  So some of the earliest civilized people DON'T have a myth about a giant flood.  So according to the standard flood claims, Egypt existed before the flood, during the flood and after the flood.
We also have archaeological evidence that prior to the written records, a primitive civilization sprung up over 10,000 years before that.  So we have evidence that this area was civilized at least 15,000 years ago.  See here:
AncientEgypt

As to why so many cultures have similar flood myths, obviously, younger cultures took the same myths from older cultures.

No historical evidence here at all.  And very strong evidence that falsifies the flood.

ok, I can understand that these mammoths weren't completely preserved.  But that article even says, "Drowning/burial in flash floods carrying a heavy load of silt."

Of course they could have been buried in a flood, there have been uncounted numbers of floods here on earth, where is the evidence that this was a world wide flood?  what is the date for when this mammoth died and was buried?  How does this correspond to your other evidence?  That's the thing, if there was a world wide flood, it should have left evidence all over the world, at the same level in the geologic column.  Since the entire geologic column exists intact in over 30 places around the world, why don't we see evidence of this flood at the same level all over the world?

NO evidence for a world wide flood.

True, but it still proves that cataclysmic (sp?) events can create canyons.  Your article says, "Another canyon also cited as evidence of catastrophic erosion is Engineer's Canyon, which was formed via water pumped out of Spirit Lake over several days by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers."  So canyons CAN be made when a lot of water runs through them, right?  Then, scientifically, what would happen if enough water to create a world-wide flood were to run through something like that?

Except we can understand how rushing water can carve canyons through volcanic ash in a matter of days.  The grand canyon could not have been carved out in a matter of days (or years, or even centuries).  It is impossible for rushing water to create the 1600 m. tall cliffs of the Grand canyon, IF the earth was soft enough (and we know it was not), the errosion rate would have completely swept the soft earth away, it couldn't have left the vertical sides of the Grand canyon.  No geologist supports a rapid formation of the Grand Canyon.  Can't you see the difference between unconsolidated volcanic ash and multiple layers that each took millions of years to form?

No evidence for a world wide flood and much evidence to falsify it.

Out of curiosity:  I haven't looked too hard yet, but is there any record of land animals in the Cambrian Era?  I know it's mostly aquatic, but your quote says, "almost all animals living today".  I'll look some more, but do you have a link for that information?

No, not to my knowledge.  The first evidence of land animals appears in the Silurian period,
from about 443 million years ago to 416 million years ago.  In my quote it says the lineages of almost all animals living today.  Chordates have a notocord and have bilateral symetry.
The first chorodate found is Pharyngula, found in the late Precambrian.  All tetrapods living today stem from this lineage.   When they talk about most major phyla appearring in the Cambrian, phyla is a classification based on the most basic body plans.

Here's the Dawkins quote you used:

"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there [speaking of the Cambrian Expolsion], without any evolutionary history.  [We] agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record.  The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and [we] reject this alternative."

Yes, he aknowledges a gap in the fossil record, but you seem to have missed the part where he rejects divine creation.  Now why is that?  Because he knows the fossil record is flawed, not that evolution is flawed.  My quote of Dawkins certainly doesn't contradict what he said earlier, it explains it.  The fossil record is far from perfect and we understand why.  But on top of that, 12 years is a long time in science and in those 12 years we have found a great amount of evidence that supports evolution in the Precambrian and Cambrian.  As it stands, all evidence found from the Precambrian and the Cambrian periods fully supports the theory of evolution.

I've seen plenty.  You just wouldn't accept them, so I don't bother putting them up.

What you have to do is name names and give us the evidence these biologists use to falsify the theory of evolution, you haven't done this yet.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:34 AM on May 9, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, I'm researching up on this more and I'll have my answer later.  (mainly cause I'm lazy and really tired right now  =P)

I'm here whenever you're ready...

Again, I proved it wrong by showing you that the DNA sequence that makes up most "homologies" is completely different.  And for the ones that are the same: those examples make it seem we're closer related to frogs and flys than we are primates.

How did you prove it wrong?  Didn't Fredguff set you straight with HOX genes?  I'll have to
start a new thread on homologies...

And DNA sequences DON'T show we are more closely related to frogs or flies.  Humans and chimpanzees are the most physiologically similar organisms, their genetic sequences also match 98%.  They also share 7 endogenous retroviruses.  According to you they are not related by a common ancestor, give us a better explaination of their matching characteristics.

So, in other words, you see decent, I see engineering in homologies. I think homologies provide a great example that there is a very knowledgable God out there that obviously knows how to make good skeletal structures and what not.

Then you should be able to give us a good, logical reason for why animals are grouped by their physiology... All mammals have common characteristics, why is that?  If organisms live in similar environments, why don't they have similar characteristics?  Some birds and bats fly and live in the same environments, why don't bats have identical wings to birds?  Why do these birds and bats have different lungs?  The fact is there is no logical reason for animals in disimilar environments to be have essentially the same structures, like all mammals have hair, the same basic skeletal structure, warm blood, produce milk, ect., except for common descent.  Please explain to us in detail how homologies demostate excellent design...

That I don't doubt due to the fact that we observe microevolution which I don't
dispute.


Since biologists don't make a distinctiion between micro and macroevoltuion, how do you define it and why?

But have we actually ever witnessed animals literally changing phyla?

Well, in the fossil record we have, but phyla is a manmade classification.  The only thing that matters in nature is species.  We have seen new species arise, both in nature and in the lab, so we have observed macroevolution.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:56 AM on May 9, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I've never heard of this nor seen evidence for it.

From here:
MtEverest

"Mount Everest, like the rest of the Himalayas, rose from the floor of the ancient Tethys Sea. The range was created when the Eurasian continental plate collided with the Indian subcontinental plate about 30 to 50 million years ago. Eventually the marine limestone was forced upward to become the characteristic yellow band on the top of Mount Everest. Beneath the shallow marine rock lies the highly metamorphosed black gneiss (foliated, or layered, rock) of Precambrian time, a remnant of the original continental plates that collided and forced up the Himalayas."

And the Himilayas are still rising today.

I agree with you for once!  I just love to debate.  And I'm not on here more or less to prove you all wrong

Yeah, it's fun to debate with reasonable, intelligent people.  And half the fun for me is learning even more about science from both the people I debate with and the research I do to support my points.

And I've tried some of those "mainstream scientific sources".  Honestly, I'm not even out of high school yet, so those sources are really confusing to me.

Hey, science is hard!  The best way to make them less confusing is to keep plugging away at it!  It looks like you're off to a good start.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:10 AM on May 9, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Brief explanation of Hox genes from the link pasted below:

Hox genes act by producing proteins in the developing embryo. These proteins act at the tip of a developmental cascade, turning on their target genes by directly binding to very specific DNA sequences preceding the other gene codes, thus causing these target genes to produce new proteins themselves . Like a set of molecular dominoes, they recruit a host of protein messengers that lay down the pattern of the basic body plan. All these developmental molecules are expressed in highly specific concentrations that percolate across regions of the embryo in a gradient which lets every cell know exactly where it is in relation to its neighbours and, more importantly, exactly what type of cell it is to become if it is to effectively participate in the overall scheme of things. But, one must again ask a question: if all animals utilise this common conserved mechanism with the same or similar genes for development, why don't all animals look exactly alike?

The key determining factors are (1) concentration ; (2) location ; (3) timing ; and (4) target gene specificity . Since common species possess these highly similar developmental genes, differences of body shape are generated by evolutionary changes in the concentration or amounts of the Hox proteins produced; the location of their production in the developing embryo; and the timing with which they become active in the body plan. The fourth factor, target gene specificity, crucially affects the former three, for if a given Hox gene sequence is altered by mutation, the resulting Hox protein that is expressed may not bind to its target genes and therefore will not attain the required concentration in a given location or time. Alternately, it may bind to a different target gene than it does in other members of the species. Any such changes result in alterations in the body form. It is rather like cutting a new groove into the surface of an old key, that, whilst it may not open the same door, it may fit perfectly into an entirely different lock. Such subtle changes in any of these factors may result in acute, catastrophic mutations, such as antennapedia , or slight, subtle alterations with no overt consequences for the animal as a whole.

Hox genes
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 09:07 AM on May 9, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Genetic Redundancy of the Homeotic Complex Permits Evolution of the Body Plan
With the exception of some of the more anterior genes in the complex, mutations in many hox genes resulted in only minor phenotypes that did not affect morphology greatly. Often, in mutations affecting vertebral structure, only one side of the animal was affected, suggesting that there is some plasticity in the response hox code. Hox genes have long thought to play an important role in limb development. However, when limb genes such as A11 or D11 were made, the phenotypes were hardly detectable. On the other hand, once two mutations were put together, the effects were dramatic. For example, the absence of both A11 and D11 results in a severe and life threatening reduction in the radius and ulna. What this result tells us is that the redundancy of the Hox complex permits some flexibility in the response to mutational change.

Redundancy permits a rich potential to allow for evolutionary alterations of the body plan, through the following mutational changes:

variations in the number of homeotic genes, by deletion and or duplication;

increases in the number of hox complexes through whole complex duplication events;

mutations affecting the timing, position or level of homeotic gene activation, which may be most relevant to generate small adptive changes;

alterations in the regulatory interactions between Hox proteins and their targets, through muations of the coding sequenc of Hox genes.

Recently, heterochronic mutations have been made within the hox gene complex by changing the position of a given gene within the complex. When hoxD11 is targeted into D13, a significant limb phenotype results - not from the inactivation of hoxD13 itself but from the inappropriate activation of D11 at the wrong time.

This is the site that I copied the above passage from.
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 09:27 AM on May 9, 2006 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from pyrocidalmaniac at 8:58 PM on May 8, 2006 :
Shellfish fossils found near the top of Mt. Everest are there because at one time the top of Mt. Everst was the bottom of the Tethys sea.

I've never heard of this nor seen evidence for it.

USGS- The Himalayas
About 225 million years ago, India was a large island still situated off the Australian coast, and a vast ocean (called Tethys Sea) separated India from the Asian continent. When Pangaea broke apart about 200 million years ago, India began to forge northward. By studying the history -- and ultimately the closing-- of the Tethys, scientists have reconstructed India's northward journey. About 80 million years ago, India was located roughly 6,400 km south of the Asian continent, moving northward at a rate of about 9 m a century. When India rammed into Asia about 40 to 50 million years ago, its northward advance slowed by about half. The collision and associated decrease in the rate of plate movement are interpreted to mark the beginning of the rapid uplift of the Himalayas.

The Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau to the north have risen very rapidly. In just 50 million years, peaks such as Mt. Everest have risen to heights of more than 9 km. The impinging of the two landmasses has yet to end. The Himalayas continue to rise more than 1 cm a year -- a growth rate of 10 km in a million years! If that is so, why aren't the Himalayas even higher? Scientists believe that the Eurasian Plate may now be stretching out rather than thrusting up, and such stretching would result in some subsidence due to gravity.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:50 AM on May 9, 2006 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from pyrocidalmaniac at 3:43 PM on May 8, 2006 :
Alright.  That makes sense.  Except for one of those things.

adaptations of bacteria in resistance to anti-biotics

The adaption isn't actually a profitable mutation.  It is a mutation that takes away certain DNA that prevents less food and other material from entering the bacteria.  So it is helpful in that it keeps the bacteria from dying of the antibiotic, but now that bacteria and its offspring don't take in as much food therefore being a major hinderance (sp?).

i would have to say its a profitable mutation if it allows for the organism to survive in an environment where it would otherwise die, wouldn't you?  it doesn't matter if individual genes are deleted or added or changed--what matters is the organism created by those genes.  it will be different no matter what change you do to its genes.  and there is plenty for a bacteria to eat, in fact i doubt if bacteria-harming agents are really part of a bacteria's appetite.

Quote from pyrocidalmaniac at 3:43 PM on May 8, 2006 :Also, the whole thing about the finches makes sense because that is microevolution.  I have no problem believing in microevolution.  It's macroevolution that I don't agree with.

face the facts, there is no such distinction in evolution as micro and macroevolution.  the terms simply don't exist in genetics or biology.  there is only change to dna, thats all there is.  change in dna over long periods of time can cause an organism to differ greatly from its ancestors, mostly depending on changes in the environment and how other animals around it fit into the habitat.  there is no difference between the causes of microevolution and macroevolution.

Quote from pyrocidalmaniac at 3:43 PM on May 8, 2006 :natural selection does a good job of weeding out the genes that are not efficient at surviving and reproducing in their environment

Lol, you do realize that all this is based on chance right?  The chances of one of those beneficial mutations are slim. It is believed that only 10% of DNA is used.  Then you've got less than half of the mutations affecting this 10% of the DNA being neutral mutations (no positive or negative effect).  Once you've subtracted that about 99.9% of the rest of the mutations are harmful or fatal.  The remainder are beneficial mutations.  (more sarcasm) Yup, sounds like natural selection does a pretty good job.

the only thing that chance determines in this is the mutation in the organism.  a mutation can be caused by many things, but it is still deemed chaotic.  after this point, though it is very deterministic.  you can talk about chance all you want, but its just not going to make any sense here.  obviously, a gene change that results in a beneficial trait--for that environment--that is unique to that organism is going to give it a much better opportunity to survive and therefore have more offspring than others of its species.  and just as obviously, a gene that is detrimental to an organisms survival is going to be phased out depending on how badly it hinders the organism in the environment it is in.

"It is believed that only 10% of DNA is used."  it is also believed by many people that we only use 10% of our brain and that the universe was created in 6 days.  there are parts in the dna that are theorized to be 'turned off' but a change anywhere in the genome can possibly change the resulting organism.  the genome works as a cohesive unit, if one part changes, the whole message is different.

it makes a lot more sense once you realize that beneficial mutations are selected for.  harmful mutations are phased out because they are tied to the 'weaker' organisms that are created by them.  natural process; survival of the best fit [for the environment]; predator/prey correllation--these are what ensures that the genes most adapted for that specific environment are passed on and not the ones with detrimental mutations.  so, in this sense, there is a much greater chance for beneficial mutations, especially since this has been going on for over 3 billion years.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 11:33 AM on May 9, 2006 | IP
pyrocidalmaniac

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hey, just to let you guys know, I'm gonna take a break from researching and posting on here this week.  I've got a lot of srtuff going on, but I'll try and be back next week.  Thanks for your guys' hospitality and for helping me to learn a lot more.

And, by popular request, I'll give you my definitions for micro and macro evolution.

Microevolution: The theory that natural selection can, over time, take an organism and transform it into a more specialized species of that organism.

Macroevolution: The hypothesis that processes similar to those at work in microevolution can, over eons of time, transform an organism into a completely different kind of organism.

Talk to yah guys l8er
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 11:54 AM on May 9, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Microevolution: The theory that natural selection can, over time, take an organism and transform it into a more specialized species of that organism.

Macroevolution: The hypothesis that processes similar to those at work in microevolution can, over eons of time, transform an organism into a completely different kind of organism.


Ok...Here is some information to ponder while you are away that I culled from some old class notes and the internet...This information might not be entirely correct as science corrects itself with each new discovery.

Evolution is the change in the frequency of allele in a gene pool of a population over time.  It consists of the following six processes:

1. Recombination- Process of “shuffling” of genes by which new combinations can be generated. In recombination through sexual reproduction, the offspring's complete set of genes differs from that of either parent, being rather a combination of genes from both parents.
2. Mutation - A permanent change, a structural alteration, in the DNA or RNA. In humans and many other organisms, mutations occur in DNA. However, in retroviruses like HIV, mutations occur in RNA which is the genetic material of retroviruses. In most cases, such changes are neutral and have no effect or they are deleterious and cause harm, but occasionally a mutation can improve an organism's chance of surviving and of passing the beneficial change on to its descendants.
3. Genetic Drift - Random variation in gene frequency from one generation to another.
4. Assortative Mating - Assortative mating refers to nonrandom, but selected mating according to criteria such as phenotype and proximity.
5. Natural Selection - The hypothesis that genotype environment interactions occurring at the phenotypic level lead to differential reproductive success of individuals and hence to modification of the gene pool of a population. A natural process resulting in the evolution of organisms best adapted to the environment.
6. Gene Flow - The movement of genes from one population to another by way of interbreeding of individuals in the two populations.

Genetic Change can result from:
1.Spontaneous Mutations
2. Induced Mutations
a) Radiation
b) Chemical Mutagens
c) Oxygen Radicals
d) Chronic Inflammation
3. Viruses
4. Aberrant Cell Division

Natural Selection requires the following:
1. There must be heritable variation for some trait.  Examples: beak size, color pattern, thickness of skin, fleetness.
2. There must be must be differential of survival and reproductive ability associated with the trait

I hope this helps.


 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 1:41 PM on May 9, 2006 | IP
pyrocidalmaniac

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Really quickly, take some time to look at this article.  It sounds somewhat creationist, but comes at issues from a scientific approach.  I'm not completely sure what the date of it is, but I know it was written in or after the year 2000.

And I'll probably come on and provide links or make some posts this week, but I'm not going to pursue it as much as I did last week.
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 5:41 PM on May 9, 2006 | IP
pyrocidalmaniac

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And, I forgot to post the link.  Here it is:  =P

http://theunjustmedia.com/Darwinism%20refutes%20true_natural_history.htm#68

 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 5:43 PM on May 9, 2006 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from pyrocidalmaniac at 5:41 PM on May 9, 2006 :
Really quickly, take some time to look at this article.  It sounds somewhat creationist, but comes at issues from a scientific approach.  I'm not completely sure what the date of it is, but I know it was written in or after the year 2000.


And they quote a 1966 text on ichthyosaurs, painting it as a total mystery.


Ichthysaur - Scientific American 2000 The first big discovery occurred on the northeastern coast of Honshu, the main island of Japan. The beach is dominated by outcrops of slate, the layered black rock that is often used for the expensive ink plates of Japanese calligraphy and that also harbors bones of the  oldest ichthyosaur, Utatsusaurus. Most Utatsusaurus specimens turn up fragmented and incomplete, but a group of geologists from Hokkaido University excavated two nearly complete skeletons in 1982. These specimens eventually became available for scientific study, thanks to the devotion of Nachio Minoura and his colleagues, who spent much of the next 15 years painstakingly cleaning the slate-encrusted bones. Because the bones are so fragile, they had to chip away the rock carefully with fine carbide needles as they peered through a microscope. As the preparation neared its end in 1995, Minoura, who knew of my interest in ancient reptiles, invited me to join the research team. When I saw the skeleton for the first time, I knew that Utatsusaurus was exactly what paleontologists had been expecting to find for years: an ichthyosaur that looked like a lizard with flippers. Later that same year my colleague You Hailu, then at the Institute for Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing, showed me a second, newly discovered fossil--the world's most complete skeleton of Chaohusaurus, another early ichthyosaur. Chaohusaurus occurs in rocks the same age as those harboring remains of Utatsusaurus, and it, too, had been found before only in bits and pieces. The new specimen clearly revealed the outline of a slender, lizardlike body.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 8:56 PM on May 9, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Really quickly, take some time to look at this article.  It sounds somewhat creationist, but comes at issues from a scientific approach.  

No, the article makes numerous mistakes, one being it ignores the research and fossil finds that falsify it's claims.

From the article:
"Before then, there is no trace in the fossil record of anything apart from single-celled creatures and a few very primitive multicellular ones. All animal phyla emerged completely formed and all at once, in the very short period of time represented by the Cambrian explosion. (Five million years is a very short time in geological terms!)"

This is incorrect, From here:
PreCamPhyla
"The phyla Porifera, Cnidaria, Mollusca, Echiura, and Chordata (plus
hyolithids, if they are considered a separate phylum) are relatively
well-documented from the late Precambrian; I heard rumor at the last GSA of
Precambrian trilobites (Arthropoda) as well, and there are many problematica, trace fossils, etc. that may represent other phyla."

So the article is completely wrong, phyla did NOT emerge fully formed in the Cambrian explosion, many evolved from the Precambrian.

A half-billion years ago, ...the remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. This moment, right at the start of Earth's Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the world's first complex creatures.57

Except. the evidence shows us this entire statement is wrong.

This article really doesn't use any science, it quote mines real scientists, it misconstrues information and out right lies.  This is typical creationist crap and not worth reading.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:52 PM on May 9, 2006 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The first reference is from the Discovery Institute!  

http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/Cambrian.pdf

Haven't heard much from them since the Dover trial.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:47 AM on May 10, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm hoping to reply very soon. My internet at home is not working correctly, though I have my reply saved on Word and it should be up and running soon enough.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:26 AM on May 10, 2006 | IP
pyrocidalmaniac

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This is incorrect, From here:
PreCamPhyla


Even if there were a few phyla before the Cambrian, how did around 100 animal phyla appear from less than 10 animal phyla within a matter of less than 30 million years?  Never before has a change like this ever happened.  It's scientifically impossible that so few animal phyla could obtain enough evolutionary change to make around 100 phyla.  It's impossible.

The first reference is from the Discovery Institute!  

http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/Cambrian.pdf

Haven't heard much from them since the Dover trial.


uhhh....why is it such a big deal?

Also, I recieved this e-mail from a Dr. Jay Wile regarding HOX genes:

___

HOX genes do not prove evolution.  In
fact, HOX genes make any possible evolutionary mechanism even
HARDER to understand.

In essence, HOX genes help regulate the development of the
embryo.  The thought is that if a HOX gene is mutated, then
the development of the embryo will be altered to the point
that a LARGE evolutionary change can result from just one HOX
mutation.  The problem, of course, is that the HOX genes must
regulate information that is ALREADY THERE.  Thus, the
mutation in a HOX gene might alter the appearance of the
animal in a significant way, but they cannot add NEW organs
to the animal, which is what is necessary for evolution.

Here are a couple of articles that might interest you:


http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0215hox_hype.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4205.asp

Dr. Jay Wile

___

You should check out those articles.  I know they are creationist, but I am truly curious what your answer to those articles would be.
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 12:53 PM on May 10, 2006 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from pyrocidalmaniac at 07:53 AM on May 10, 2006 :
Even if there were a few phyla before the Cambrian, how did around 100 animal phyla appear from less than 10 animal phyla within a matter of less than 30 million years?  Never before has a change like this ever happened.  It's scientifically impossible that so few animal phyla could obtain enough evolutionary change to make around 100 phyla.  It's impossible.


obviously its not impossible because it happened.  and i'd like to understand how you can know so little about evolutionary theory and yet still conclude with such certainty that the cambrian 'explosion' is a scientific impossibility?  a black hole swallowing up more energy than it gives off is a scientific impossibility, but you don't see creationists shouting that it disproves evolution, do you?  well, maybe you do, some of those nuts are really out there with their unwarranted attacks.

it comes down to this, evolutionary change only occurs when there is an environment or niche in an environment to be filled.  say we have one tye of bacteria in a small area of the oceans.  a group of these organisms eventually drift into an area with an eclectic variety of chemicals and with a slightly different type of bacteria inhabiting it.  genetics are mixed, many bacteria die as a result of the change in chemicals, the ones that survive become more specialized (genetically) because of the decrease in variety and number of total bacteria.  now imagine this happening all over the planet at relatively the same time.

just before the cambrian explosion was when the first life ever had inhabited the planet.  so there was an almost endless supply of different environments for them to fit into.  and every time a group of bacteria finds a new niche, it evolves to better fit into that niche.  so all at the same time we have these migrations of protozoa that have found new environments and are rapidly adapting to better reflect their new homes--to have a better chance at survival.

it seems to be extremely likely that the theory of evolution accurately explains the cambrian explosion.  but you'd have to understand it first to know that.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 1:10 PM on May 10, 2006 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

From the article:
An article published in the journal Science in 2001 says: "The beginning of the Cambrian period, some 545 million years ago, saw the sudden appearance in the fossil record of almost all the main types of animals (phyla) that still dominate the biota today."63 The same article notes that for such complex and distinct living groups to be explained according to the theory of evolution, very rich fossil beds showing a gradual developmental process should have been found, but this has not yet proved possible:

This differential evolution and dispersal, too, must have required a previous history of the group for which there is no fossil record.64


The bolded statement is false, the article says nothing about expecting to find "very rich fossil beds", don't you think if it did they would have quoted it also?

Support for a phylogenetic fuse is provided by the discovery of a true crustacean in early Cambrian strata from Shropshire, England, reported by Siveter et al. on page 479 of this issue (3). This fossil phosphatocopid "ostracod" is preserved extraordinarily well, with all its delicate limbs cast in calcium phosphate, allowing it to be assigned to the crustaceans with confidence. Very few fossils of this great antiquity reveal so much detail or can be interpreted with such certainty.

Crustacea are one of the great groups of living arthropods, embracing crabs, shrimps, lobsters, and slaters (4). Hitherto, the oldest undoubted crustaceans came from the late Cambrian "orsten" of southern Sweden (5) (the alleged crustacean Canadaspis, from the mid-Cambrian Burgess Shale, British Columbia, has proved controversial). This allowed some 40 million years from the base of the Cambrian to generate an ancestral crustacean from some primitive arthropod--time enough, indeed. But if crustaceans were already present in the early Cambrian, this pushes back in time the necessary steps in the evolutionary tree of arthropods that led to the crustacean design. It then becomes perfectly plausible that this early radiation happened in the late Precambrian.

This squares with previous critiques, which noted that in the early Cambrian, some arthropods--especially the ubiquitous trilobites--had already differentiated into different kinds with separate geographical distributions. This differential evolution and dispersal, too, must have required a previous history of the group for which there is no fossil record.


Science, vol. 293, no. 5529, 20 July 2001, pp. 438-439


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 2:13 PM on May 10, 2006 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ]
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.