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
     Just answer this...
       Humans from apes? How?

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

    
imjustsayin

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This whole debate seems to be the "Let Christians prove their point" channel.  If someone could answer these question, I'd be satisfied.
Has evolution stopped? If not, then why don't apes still have human babies?  What happened to the first human baby evovled from an ape? Who did it mate with, since we know that humans and apes do not produce offspring? Considering that apes are supposed to be our nearest evolutionary relative, and I do not see how we could have evolved from them, please tell me how we could have evovled from the primordial soup that science teaches us about?  
Keep in mind  that not only organized religions need faith to persist, so do theories.    


-------
imjustsayin
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 12:57 PM on August 23, 2003 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Has evolution stopped? If not, then why don't apes still have human babies?

If you think that evolution is saying that a monkey suddenly gave birth to a human baby then that is very wrong.

In the case of human evolution we didn't evolve from monkeys but from a common ancestor long ago.
This is just like how you are related to your cousins, through a common ancestor: your grandparents.

In a basic sentence evolution says that long ago we had a primitive ape ancestor. Over many hundreds of generations this species changed until it looks like us. We call ourselves human now.

This answers your next question:

What happened to the first human baby evovled from an ape? Who did it mate with, since we know that humans and apes do not produce offspring?

Each generation can mate with the last because they are not very different from each other. But if you compare two creatures many hundreds of generations apart then it is very likely that they cannot breed because they are so different.

The mechanism for evolution is very complicated in detail but the basic method is very simple and logical:
When a creature reproduces it passes its genes down to its offspring. But a few random errors occur in the copying, these are known as mutations which change small area of the DNA coding.

This means that in a population of a species every member will have slightly different DNA. This is how DNA fingerprinting works in forensics - they can know who a person is by looking for a unique pattern that noone else is likely to share.

This variation is how evolution is able to work. Evolution picks out the good variants from the bad. But how does it do this? Well evolution isn't alive of course - it's a process!

What happens is simply to do with natural survival. In the wild creatures with advantages tend to survive to reproduce and creautures with disadvantages tend to not make it.
DNA is the blueprint for a creature - if the blueprint changes then so does the creature. Even a subtle change in a creature can give it an advantage, or harm it.

So creatures with useful DNA will have a better chance of reproducing than creatures with not so good DNA. This is the principle of natural selection - on average the good DNA will be passed down and built upon in subsequent generations. DNA will get better and better and bad DNA will be weeded out.

Here I am sure you can see that evolution has no goal - it isn't heading for a specific design. Evolution is simply the process of DNA changing over time.

Of course there are a lot more complications than this, for example how good DNA is depends on where the creature is. If a creature has a gene that helps cool it down then this would be very useful in the desert but very harmful in the arctic. If a creature's DNA is good for an environment then the creature is said to be adapted to that envionment.
The idea of evolution is that the mechanism of mutation and natural selection will lead DNA to adapt to the environment it is in.

I hope this has at least informed you to what evolution is about, even if you decide to not accept evolution as fact.
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 7:50 PM on August 23, 2003 | IP
imjustsayin

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think it's clear that I am related to my cousin because of my grandparents. I also know that my great-great-great (and so on) ...grandparents were also humans.  Being a research scientist has taught me a thing or two about DNA, and I do know that manipulation and mutation of DNA does not cause evolution of new species but death.  I've manipulated the DNA of single-celled organisms (Tetrahymena thermophila) and cultured them out to at least 600 generations.  Guess what? They are still single celled at the end, but for those whose DNA has been altered by 4600 base pairs (just enough to disrupt the production of one protein) they die.  Do you really think that this common ancestor's mutated DNA could cause the evolution of entirely new species?


-------
imjustsayin
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 04:13 AM on August 24, 2003 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well all I did was answer the questions you asked.

and I do know that manipulation and mutation of DNA does not cause evolution of new species but death
Then how do you account for the observed mutations that every human recieves?

but for those whose DNA has been altered by 4600 base pairs (just enough to disrupt the production of one protein) they die

4600!!!! No wonder! We aren't talking about anything like that number of nucleotides changing per generation. I think the number is around 100 at most in humans.

I've manipulated the DNA of single-celled organisms (Tetrahymena thermophila) and cultured them out to at least 600 generations.  Guess what? They are still single celled at the end
How did you manipulate the DNA? What part did you manipulate? What were you expecting to happen?

Do you really think that this common ancestor's mutated DNA could cause the evolution of entirely new species?
yes

Take chimps, at some point there was only one common ancestor species. That split into two separate paths, one evolved into homnids and another evolved into chimps. Evolution isn't a straight line but a tree with different species branching off.
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 2:14 PM on August 24, 2003 | IP
imjustsayin

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

4600 base pairs manipulated by deletion of the bases inserted by homologous recombination to form a truncated protein is not a lot of DNA.  We have billions of base pairs in each cell.  Changing 100 nts/generation may be enough to cause Down's Syndrome, Sickle Cell, and/or Muscular Distrophy in humans, but at the end of each generation we are still humans, nothing else.
The common ancestor thing still doesn't work for me.  Just give me examples of where there has been fossil evidence of and ape/man (the missing link).  I don't mean fossil evidence of a man who died in a crouched position (probably starving and cold) versus a man who was buried and was therefore unearthed "erect".
Finally (for now), since evolution is still an ongoing process, what new species are on the horizon? I don't mean genetically engineered hybridoma type species, but brand spanking new ones that are proof of modern evolution.


-------
imjustsayin
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 5:48 PM on August 24, 2003 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Changing 100 nts/generation may be enough to cause Down's Syndrome, Sickle Cell, and/or Muscular Distrophy in humans, but at the end of each generation we are still humans, nothing else.
But over many generations the small changes accumulate.
If a species is split and some of them go on an island and some of them stay on the mainland then both will diverge separate ways because they can't interbreed and share their genes. Creationists accept this as "microevolution" but don't offer any good reason why if the groups should continue to diverge, why they won't eventually end up being unable to mate with one another.

Mutation is random so the chance of both species following the same path is incredibly low. If two groups of an animal that are split keep diverging then surely eventually they will become so different that they cannot breed.

This kind of long divergence takes a lot of generations to happen. So it is no wonder we don't see it happening all over the place. We either see two very different variants of a species that are still able to mate or seperate species which are similar but can't mate.



Finally (for now), since evolution is still an ongoing process, what new species are on the horizon? I don't mean genetically engineered hybridoma type species, but brand spanking new ones that are proof of modern evolution.
Noone can predict evolution, it depends on too many variables you have to predict first, like the environment.
If you are meaning a brand new large mammal then you will probably be disapointed. It would take many generations for species to diverge. We have only been looking in the last 100 years or so.
To observe speciation you would have to see the species as one beforehand and then witness them a few generations later not being able to interbreed.
The chances of us being here at the right time to observe such an event is extremely low.
Instead what we see is similar creatures, yet different species and different creatures, yet same species.
The most useful thing would be to look at

I don't think people spend time looking for speciation though. It would mean having to forcefully prove if two animals could mate..and not many people are up for that!
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 7:37 PM on August 24, 2003 | IP
imjustsayin

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Divergent evolution isn't going to work either.  The so-called divergent evolution of foxes, rabbits/hares, etc. doesn' t hold to the  theory because they can all mate within the species.  There hasn't ever been a new species of either of these animals that has not been able to interbreed because despite years of living apart and adapting to different environments they are still the same species with different genes that code for fur color.  
I realize that you just have bought into the theory because you've been fed the "evidence" for so long, you have begun to justify it.  If you have spent some time in a lab, then you would have seen that no matter how much you manipulate the data and organisms, you will not be able to create life or another species.  Evolution cannot really be proven, but as you may say neither can creation or any other "theory".  The take home message is that you haven't really proven anything.  You have just made a story that might fit what has been found.
By the way, I don't think that you should have to force animals to mate, but zoos do it all the time to keep their exhibits going (pandas, white tigers, etc.). Besides, the animals don't have to mate to reproduce. All one has to do is harvest sperm and eggs from the supposed incompatible species and see if the egg becomes fertilized.
As for looking for new species, big or small, I just want to know the last species to evolve from something else.  Did all the transitional species go to somewhere isolated to evolve and join the rest  of the world when fully evolved?  Did they not have bones to fossilize? I am a Cell biologist, so large mammals don't really interest me, but witnessing the change in populations of cells over hundreds (possibly thousands considering three years of research) of generations has shown me that changing DNA, environment, food source, etc. (all things that I have done) does not cause a single-celled organism to become anything but a single-celled organism.  Since evolution takes hundreds of generations, why didn't the cells become anything else?  
You'll say that I haven't accounted for some other obscure variable, and I'll disagree.  Your argument is that every living being has a common ancestor, but my argument is  that every living thing has a common creator.  Different sized animal fossils doesn't prove evolution of different species anymore than different sized humans (presently) proves that we are different species.  


-------
imjustsayin
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 09:05 AM on August 25, 2003 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

multicelled life appeared 1.2 billion years ago.
Single celled life appeared over 3.5 billion years ago.

Obivously single cell to multicell is a very difficult task as it took 2.3 billion years to happen.
2,300,000,000 years.
Obviously can't know the generation time. But saying it is an hour and we have 8760 hours in a year and so:
20,148,000,000,000 generations it taken for multicelled life to evolve.
That is over 20 trillion generations which is staggering. So it is no wonder that even if you perform 10,000 generations in a lab you won't see it happen.

Also of course there is the possibility that it took 20 trillion generations to happen because the event required certain conditions to be in place that were very unusual.
In which case any lab experiment to evolve single celled life into multicelled life will fail unless those conditions are reproduced.

There hasn't ever been a new species of either of these animals that has not been able to interbreed because despite years of living apart and adapting to different environments they are still the same species with different genes that code for fur color.

There are examples, here is a link to an article that someone showed me:
speciation


 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 1:35 PM on August 25, 2003 | IP
imjustsayin

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Little success, doesn't mean NO success in breeding.  If they can breed then they are the same species and therefore, no evolution has occurred...only adaptation to different environments.
The time frame on single cell "evolution" is made that way to compensate for the fact that no one has seen a new species evolve, so it must have happened trillions of years ago.  I don't believe the earth is that old.


-------
imjustsayin
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 1:27 PM on August 27, 2003 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The time frame on single cell "evolution" is made that way to compensate for the fact that no one has seen a new species evolve, so it must have happened trillions of years ago.  I don't believe the earth is that old.

No that time frame is determined from multicelled fossils, which do not exist before 1.2 billion years ago. Single cell fossils are found all the way up to 3.5 billion years ago.

I am not suprised you don't believe the Earth is that old. So how old do you think it is? And how do you account for the many Creationists who believe in an old Earth because of the evidence?
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 3:45 PM on August 27, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, just to help you out, though I'm merely a junior in high school, it didn't all just happen at once. It was over millions of years that this might or might not have taken place.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 1:55 PM on October 2, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dear Friends,

I read about three years ago about a cross between a camel and a llama that had recently taken place in Saudi Arabia.  it seems that quite a goodly number of years ago a proto camel existed in North America. The present-day animals that we know and love as "camels" are a subset that migrated to Asia.

The animals whise decendents we know as "lamas" migrated to South America.

The article had a photo of the "llamel" or "cama". I think it was a cama, which looked a lot like a llama.

Of course it's well known that many different species can interbreed. It's also quite well known that the progeny of such unions are almost always unable to reproduce.

That the above occurs,  forcefully suggests that species evolve.


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:11 PM on October 21, 2003 | IP
KeeJoJo

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Go to keyword NOVA and you can see for yourself that there is only dna for what we are
today.  We did not come from a ape monkey
not from birds or anything else.  Nove has a web site that show they were wrong about
Eve.   The original Mother of all.  There is only
one of you and me and only one dna from the
beginning.  There is a God and a Jesus Christ but start with God and the miracles of the Universe and the human soul and Miracle body that we live in.God Bless You !!JoJo


-------
JoJo
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 6:35 PM on November 3, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You have no idea what you're talking about!  You're desperate enough to completely deny reality.  Evolution is a fact, we evolved from more primitive lifeforms.  Wishful thinking and 3000 year old myths don't compare with modern science and real facts...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:28 PM on November 4, 2003 | IP
Charchuk

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This link may help in some regards to the Eve question.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/050200sci-genetics-evolution.html
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 5:23 PM on November 4, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Guys I got news for you, your not going to find your answers to your questions by asking some scientist, but you can only find the truth in God's Word- the Bible. I might only be 12 years old but I know that God is the Creater of the universe and that he is my Savior. And you now what else he can be yours too. Just admit that your a sinner and believe that Jesus, God's son died on the cross for you and comit your life to him. I't not hard andJesus is the only way to Heaven(John 14:6)! God has a perpose fore your life and he has given you the choice whether or not you want to die and go to Heaven or not. If you want to accept Jesus as your Savior Just say this simple prayer: Dear God' i know I'm a sinner and I believe that you gave your son Jesus to die on the cross for my sins. I want  you to come into my heart and be Lord of my life. Amen
If you just prayed that simple prayer and really ment it, if you were to die right now you would go to Heaven. I'm praying for those of you who have harden your hearts towards God.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 4:52 PM on December 10, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You can still be a good Christian and accept evolution, in fact most Christians world wide do just that.  The only answers the theory of evolution provides is an explaination for the diversity of life on the planet and how it evolved from a common ancestor.  Evolution does not equal atheism.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 6:08 PM on December 10, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just to counter your point, Demon, no Christian who believes in the word of God would believe in evolution. God makes it quite clear in His word that animals breed after their own kind, meaning if they can bring forth, in other words reproduce, it will be after their own kind.

We see that in science. When you cross two species not after their own kind, you get an offspring, but that offspring cannot reproduce.

And also, evolution is a theory of millions of years of death. Romans tells us that death came into the world as a result of Adam's sin. So we had to have man before death, that's obviously contrary to the theory of evolution.

And lastly, evolution and natural selection are slow and painful processes. If the theory were true, many intermediate forms or transitional forms would die just because of the harmful mutations. What kind of God had to use evolution to create. Why couldn't He get it right the first time.

And Jesus Christ Himself refers to the beginning as when God created Adam and Eve, man and woman. So we can see that any Christian who believes in evolution, despite what the pope might think, has compromised the infallible Word of God with a theory that man can't prove. That Christian isn't going to be bringing many folks to heaven with him.

And the true theory of evolution, the way Darwin spelled it out in his book does equal atheism. Darwin himself was an atheist. Yes, he was a preacher boy at one point, but make no mistake about the man. He was a racist who hated God and his theory was to take the Creator out of the creation.

And another point which evolutionists don't seem to mention in breath with Darwin is that the man's original theory states that man is a common ancestor with his food. If you read his book he believes all cells of life are connected. That the monkey isn't just a cousin of man but also a cousin of the banana he eats.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 09:24 AM on December 12, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Just to counter your point, Demon, no Christian who believes in the word of God would believe in evolution. "

And yet, the majority of world wide Christians do accept evolution.  Creationists are clearly the lunatic fringe.  

"God makes it quite clear in His word that animals breed after their own kind, meaning if they can bring forth, in other words reproduce, it will be after their own kind."

That's only your interpretation of God's word.  Examining the evidence makes it plain that life evolves.  It is intellectually perverse to deny the overwhelming evidence that life evolves.

"We see that in science. When you cross two species not after their own kind, you get an offspring, but that offspring cannot reproduce."

What this has to do with evolution is beyond me, it is a strawman arguement that has nothing to do with the TOE.  Kind is a poorly defined word used by creationists to somehow make a point, but fuzzy definitions do not make a scientific theory.  

"And also, evolution is a theory of millions of years of death. Romans tells us that death came into the world as a result of Adam's sin. So we had to have man before death, that's obviously contrary to the theory of evolution."

But that is clearly impossible since the entire fossil record shows that death was at work for billions of years before man.  Oil fields are formed over 100s of thousands of years by pressure on organic material, they couldn't possibly have formed if death has only been active for 6000 years.

"And lastly, evolution and natural selection are slow and painful processes. If the theory were true, many intermediate forms or transitional forms would die just because of the harmful mutations."

Another patently false statement.  Why would transitional organisms have harmful mutations.  The fact is mostmutations are neutral, the environment they express themselves in determines whether the mutation is harmful or beneficial.  Thransitional forms have obviously accumulated a number of beneficial mutations and would be just as viable organisms as any other.  Look at clearly transitional animals alive today, the lungfish and the platypus are 2 examples and they are doing just fine, I'd like to know what harmful mutations they possess.

"He was a racist who hated God and his theory was to take the Creator out of the creation. "

Darwin was a racist to the same extent as every other European of the time.  The TOE is not racist, nor does it promote racism.  And your rant about him hating God and the TOE was designed to take the Creator out of creatin is merely a lie.

"And another point which evolutionists don't seem to mention in breath with Darwin is that the man's original theory states that man is a common ancestor with his food. If you read his book he believes all cells of life are connected. That the monkey isn't just a cousin of man but also a cousin of the banana he eats. "

This statement is just pathetic.  All life comes from a common ancestor, too much evidence to deny it.  Instead of debating with solid arguements, which you can't do, you make silly statements that really mean nothing.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:20 PM on December 12, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Silly statements. That quote is directly from Darwin's own book on page 243 in my version. You would think you would at least read something before you refute a point.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 08:01 AM on December 14, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And just to counter your "what the world believes" argument.

Science once taught that the earth was round, science once taught that bigger objects fall faster than smaller objects and science even once taught that if you're sick you have bad blood so you need to get rid of the bad blood.

So the fact that some Christians believe in evolution does not mean it's a valid point.

Majority does not equal right. That would be like saying prior to 1820, most of the world took part in the slave trade, does that mean it was right.

And we don't have billions of year old fossils, by the way, Demon. Supposed life didn't spring up til 350 million years ago.

Your statement is a misrepresentation of even evolutionists facts.

And I don't know what in the world you mean by neutral mutations. Almost all mutations are harmful. They might not prove to be harmful to the species but that is only because they don't carry the same mutation on the same neucliotide. And every one of us has defective or mutated genes. In fact, the only thing we don't see in science are the supposed beneficial mutations required to make evolution. And don't even cite the fruit fly. The fact that they were able to mutate a fruit fly with more wings, only he didn't develop the extra muscles in order to fly so this supposed "beneficial" mutation means the fruit fly can't fly and will die. Or that he has extra eyes only that the extra eyes throw off his tracking so this fly is literally blinded by having too many eyes.

And of course transitional forms, if there were any would suffer death. That's one of the biggest obsticles to the so called dinosaurs to birds theory. How do you get a dinosaurs heart to transition to a bird's heart within the two organs are completely different in nature and function and have two distinctly different purposes. Two dinosaurs don't just give birth to an animal with a completely different heart. Man, do some research already.

All you're doing is spitting out rhetoric with nothing to back up your points.

And the oil field arguments. Even evolutionists have proven that you can make vast amounts of oil in relatively short periods of time with the proper amount of pressure on dead organisms, i.e. a Biblical Flood.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 08:15 AM on December 14, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Science once taught that the earth was round, science once taught that bigger objects fall faster than smaller objects and science even once taught that if you're sick you have bad blood so you need to get rid of the bad blood."

You don't understand the modern scientific method.  It builds on what has gone before, it changes according to the latest data, it doesn't stagnate by claiming something is 100% "truth".  This is it's biggest strength, scientists actively try to disprove theories.  Creationism was thoroughly falsified over 200 years ago by christian geologists.  It is rigthly considered by the scientific community a crackpot belief held only by the lunatic fringe.  
A billions of years old Earth and evolution, on the other hand, have not been falsified, these theories are supported by all the evidence and every day more evidence is found to support them.  Yes we can confidently say that the Earth is billions of years old.  Yes we can also say evolution is a fact, we see it happening today and the Theory of Evolution is the only theory that explains how life is related and why it evolves.

"And we don't have billions of year old fossils, by the way, Demon. Supposed life didn't spring up til 350 million years ago."

Yes we do have fossils and evidence of life going back 3.5 BILLION years.  You are really lousy at research, I'd like to know where you get your faulty information from...
From here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11882895&dopt=Abstract

"Structures resembling remarkably preserved bacterial and cyanobacterial microfossils from about 3,465-million-year-old Apex cherts of the Warrawoona Group in Western Australia currently provide the oldest morphological evidence for life on Earth and have been taken to support an early beginning for oxygen-producing photosynthesis. Eleven species of filamentous prokaryote, distinguished by shape and geometry, have been put forward as meeting the criteria required of authentic Archaean microfossils, and contrast with other microfossils dismissed as either unreliable or unreproducible. These structures are nearly a billion years older than putative cyanobacterial biomarkers, genomic arguments for cyanobacteria, an oxygenic atmosphere and any comparably diverse suite of microfossils."

From here:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/early_earth_010110.html

"The earliest known evidence for life and for a hydrosphere is estimated at 3.85 billion years ago, and the oldest microfossils are 3.5 billion years old."

So yes, we do have fossil evidence for life from 3.5 billion years ago, so my statement is not a misrepresentation of the facts.  You owe me an apology, but you don't seem to have a stomach for the truth, so I won't hold my breath.

"And I don't know what in the world you mean by neutral mutations. Almost all mutations are harmful."

Neutral mutations are mutations that are neither harmful or beneficial.  Yes there are harmful mutations, but there are also beneficial mutations.  Nylon eating bacteria are bacteria that underwent a random mutation that allowed them to metabolize mylon, a man made material invented in the 1940's.  The mutation would have been neutral if it hadn't expressed itself in an environment that had nylon.  Now the mutated bacteria had a whole new food source.  So I stand by my statement, most mutations are neutral, the environment determines, for the most part, if it is beneficial or harmful.  The average human has about 100 neutral mutations in their genetic makeup and these mutations do not stop them from reproducing.

"And of course transitional forms, if there were any would suffer death."

Then why do modern, living transitional animals still survive?  The lungfish and the platypus are excellent examples of thriving transitional lifeforms that counter your ridiculous arguement.

"How do you get a dinosaurs heart to transition to a bird's heart within the two organs are completely different in nature and function and have two distinctly different purposes."

A dinosaur heart and bird heart are completely different in nature and function?!  Are you on drugs?!  They are both hearts, they are powerful muscles  that pump blood through a circulatory systems.  How are they dfferent?  We see all kinds of hearts in nature today, from primitive to the complex and all intermediates, not only is it plausible that it occurred, it is the leading theory, birds evolved from therapod dinosaurs.  And we've all ready seen that dinosaurs evolved true feathers before  birds, even a creationist can see the link!

"Two dinosaurs don't just give birth to an animal with a completely different heart."

And this is not what the TOE says at all, you still have no idea what evolution is!  But a population of dinosaurs, seperated from the parent population, and subjected to different environmental pressures can over many generations, evolve an avian heart.

"Man, do some research already."

This coming from someone who's bungled every fact they've presented...

"And the oil field arguments. Even evolutionists have proven that you can make vast amounts of oil in relatively short periods of time with the proper amount of pressure on dead organisms, i.e. a Biblical Flood. "

You really like to make stupid statements with nothing to back them up, don't you.  Show me one "evolutionist" who makes this claim, until then you're just making that up!

from here:
http://www.sjgs.com/oil.html

"Most geologists today agree that crude oil forms over million of years from the remains of tiny aquatic plants and animals that are exposed to the combined effects of time and temperature."

That's millions of years, so no oil could have formed it the Earth was only a couple of thousand years old.  Oh, and a world wide flood has also been totally falsified.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:32 AM on December 15, 2003 | IP
E-man217

|        |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

For your efforts Demon38 I salute you!I think your doing a fine job representing evolution in a number of treads.


-------
Am I mearly the dream of a five year old version of me?And of the five year old, a dream of a hippo?<br>Reality is how you percieve it!
 


Posts: 13 | Posted: 11:23 PM on December 16, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks E-man217, but I need all the help I can get.  If you have anything add, jump right in!

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:19 AM on December 17, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, I totally agree.

That is, the part about you needing help.  And lots of it.

Look. I'm no scientist, but just how the heck can their be single and multiple celled organisms if they came from a common ancestor?
Eveloution--a fact? of coarse! (In X-men comics.)
It is just as thought up as Peter Pan. O, but it has "science" mixed with it! Yeah, I forgot. But---just a question--- how are false embryos drawn to look similar by Charels Darwin proved wrong several years ago that is still tought in textbooks--- a "scientific" fact? HERE'S a fact--Jesus i Christ and God is our Savior.

email your input at BlackHeart314@aol.com
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 9:14 PM on December 18, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Bluster away, but you can't change reality!  Your point boils down to "I don't understand it, so Goddidit!"

"Look. I'm no scientist, but just how the heck can their be single and multiple celled organisms if they came from a common ancestor?"

I'll agree with the first part of this, you are certainly no scientist!  As to multicelled organisms coming from a common ancestor, why they evolved from single celled organisms.  You make it seem like this is some kind of problem when there is none.

"Eveloution--a fact? of coarse! (In X-men comics.)"

Ha ha, no, evolution happens, we see it, we use it, it is obvious in the fossil record.  It is accepted by virtually every biologist.

"It is just as thought up as Peter Pan. O, but it has "science" mixed with it."

No it's not made up, it's the only explaination for the diversity of life on our planet, there is no other theory.  Creationism was falsified over 200 years ago.  And you haven't offered any evidence to revive it.

"But---just a question--- how are false embryos drawn to look similar by Charels Darwin proved wrong several years ago that is still tought in textbooks--- a "scientific" fact? "

What the hell?!  I don't remeber Darwin drawing any embryos, you wouldn't happen to mean Haeckal would you?  and no, they are not taught as accurate in modern text books.

From THE PALEONTOLOGICAL SOCIETY

"Evolution is both a scientific fact and a scientific theory. Evolution is a fact in the sense that life has changed through time. In nature today, the characteristics of species are changing, and new species are arising. The fossil record is the primary factual evidence for evolution in times past, and evolution is well documented by further evidence from other scientific disciplines, including comparative anatomy, biogeography, genetics, molecular biology, and studies of viral and bacterial diseases.
Evolution is also a theory -- an explanation for the observed changes in life through Earth history that has been tested numerous times and repeatedly confirmed. Evolution is an elegant theory that explains the history of life through geologic time; the diversity of living organisms, including their genetic, molecular, and physical similarities and differences; and the geographic distribution of organisms. Evolutionary principles are the foundation of all basic and applied biology and paleontology, from biodiversity studies to studies on the control of emerging diseases."





 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:43 PM on December 18, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fine, Then, demon38. Then what exactly do you believe in? Here's the facts---

Modern "Scientific" theories are wrong.

God created the universe, and told the so called "bronze age sheepherders" to write it. Although divided into many diffrent versions, the Bile still has all the true facts.

And also, the earth is not millions of years old. Where you there to see it?

---BlackHeart314@aol.com
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:55 PM on December 19, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And addition to above---
Where did the space for the universe come from?

Where did matter come from?

Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

How did matter get so perfectly organized?

Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?

When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kindsince this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

When, where, why, and how did:
Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
Single-celled animals evolve?
Fish change to amphibians?
Amphibians change to reptiles?
Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes,reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
 
How did the intermediate forms live?

When, where, why, how, and from what did:
  Whales evolve?
  Sea horses evolve?
  bats evolve?
  Eyes evolve?

  Ears evolve?

  Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

Which evolved first how, and how long, did it work without the others)?
The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
The immune system or the need for it?

There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?

How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?

When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

*How did photosynthesis evolve?

*How did thought evolve?

*How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?

*What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?

What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?

*Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?

*What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?

*Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?


After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.


Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)

Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?

Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?

Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?

What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?

Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?
It is all they have been taught.
They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).
They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.
They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.

Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don’t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?

Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?

What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents said, "Either there is a God or there is not.  Both possibilities are frightening."

Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools?  If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks?  It is just a religious worldview.

Aren’t you tired of faith in a system that cannot be true?   Wouldn’t it be great to know the God who made you, and to accept His love and forgiveness?

Would you be interested, if I showed you from the Bible, how to have your sins forgiven and how to know for sure that you are going to Heaven?  If so, email me.
See www.creationscience.com for more tough questions for evolutionists.

Thanks to drdino.com created by dr. Kent Hovind

input by BlackHeat314
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:09 PM on December 19, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Modern "Scientific" theories are wrong."

No they are not, you have no evidence to back this outlandish statement up with, your merely ranting.

"And also, the earth is not millions of years old. Where you there to see it?"

No, it's over 4 BILLION years old.  Was I there to see it?  Of course not.  But the evidence is overwhelming.  You can't refute it, none of your creatinist websites can refute it.  Once again, your inane ranting doesn't change reality.  This is a quote from the American Geophysical Union:

"Science employs a logical and empirical methodology to understand the natural world. Scientific research entails observation of natural phenomena, formulation of hypotheses as tentative, testable statements to explain these phenomena, and experiments or observations to test these hypotheses. Scientific theories, like evolution and relativity and plate tectonics, are hypotheses that have survived extensive testing and repeated verification. Scientific theories are therefore the best-substantiated statements that scientists can make to explain the organization and operation of the natural world. Thus, a scientific theory is not equal to a belief, a hunch, or an untested hypothesis. Our understanding of Earth's development over its 4.5 billion-year history and of life's gradual evolution has achieved the status of scientific theory. "

You have no experts to back up your assertion, your claim that if no one was there to see it is ridiculous.  Your desperate wish that the Earth is only 6000 years old is just that a desperate wish that flies in the face of reality.

"Where did the space for the universe come from?"

Don't know for sure, theoretical physists are working on it.  Just because we don't know yet doesn't mean Goddidit.  What does this have to do with evolution???

"Where did matter come from?"

The theory is it formed about a billion years after the Big Bang when the sub atomic particles cooled enough to combine into matter.  What does this have to do with evolution???

"Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?"

You make it sound like the 'laws' where independently assigned to matter and energy.  Most likely they are intrinsic properties of matter and energy.  What does this have to do with evolution???

"How did matter get so perfectly organized?"

Explain "perfectly organized'....matter conforms to the laws of physics and chemistry which we have some understanding of...What does this have to do with evolution???

"Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?"

Not really a good question the way it's stated but the theory is all energy and matter in our universe originated with the Big Bang.  What does this have to do with evolution???

"When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?"

When?  about 3.8 billion years ago according to the evidence so far.  Where here on Earth, we're not sure about any other planets. How?
Biochemists are still trying to igure this out, as was said before, organic molecules can form out of inorganic matter.  What does this have to do with evolution???

"With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?"

Sexual reproduction didn't arise in single cell organisms but in multicellular organisms.  That's your first mistake.  Single individual organisms don't evolve, populations of organisms evolve, so your silly idea that a single sexually reproducing organism formed and then died of lonliness because it had nothing to reproduce with is another mistake.
There are organisms that reproduce asexually, there are other organisms that don't reproduce sexually but just exchange genetic material and then there are organisms that reproduce sexually.  Sexual reproduction has it's advantages, it increases genetic diversity in a population, it gets rid of harmful mutations more quickly and it fixes beneficial mutations more quickly.  

"Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kindsince this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)"[b]

"Want" has nothing to do with it.  Since only the organisms that DID successfully reproduce are the ones we would see, your question doesn't make sense.  If there were organisms that didn't concern themselves with reproducing, they would leave no ancestors.  The genetic imperative is to continue the species, it is not a desire but a hard wired instinct.  Read Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene".

[b]"How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)"


English letters into Chinese letters has nothing to do with the genetic code.  We have seen mutations produce new "information", ever heard of nylon eating bacteria?  Just because you don't understand the science of genetics doesn't mean Goddidit...

"Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?"

Possible?  Yeah, it's possible, but highly unlikely since we so many transitions in nature.
You have failed to address any of the examples of either living trransitional animals that defy your statement that intermediates would not survive, why is the platypus still alive, why is the lungfish still thriving?  

"Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?"

This is untrue.  Natural selection works on the genetic information available, including mutations, so it would not tend to keep a species stable.  It would work to select  the organisms that are best suited for a particular niche in their environment.  If the environment changed, natural selection account for mutated organisms better suited to the new environment arising, how is this keeping a species stable????

"When, where, why, and how did:
Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
Single-celled animals evolve?
Fish change to amphibians?
Amphibians change to reptiles?
Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes,reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)"


This is getting ridiculous!  There are plausible explainations for all these, I'm not here to do your research for you.  Look them up yourself, or don't you have the guts to research them, afraid reality will destroy your primitive magical beliefs?

"How did the intermediate forms live?"

All ready answered this one, you haven't responded.  You can't seem to understand that intermediate forms still live today, they are haveing no problem living.  The platypus and the lungfish were my examples, you can keep ignoring reality all you want and repeating the same questions ad infinitum, but your clearly wrong!

"When, where, why, how, and from what did:
 Whales evolve?
 Sea horses evolve?
 bats evolve?
 Eyes evolve?

 Ears evolve?

 Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?"


Again, look them up yourself unless you're too scared the answers will destroy your fragile faith.

"Which evolved first how, and how long, did it work without the others)?
The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
The immune system or the need for it?"


All explained by the theory of evolution.  Pick out one and I'll discuss it in depth, you can't possibly expect me to respond to your assinine hit and run post.  So pick one out and I'll answer it in detail.  I know you'll just ignore me again, you really are intellectually dishonest.

"There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?"

No examples of symbiosis that defy the theory of evolution, name one...

"How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design? "

None of the above!  Unintelligent design easily accounts for mimicry.

"When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution. "[/b]

But since we see other animals have emotions, your wrong about the TOE not being able to account for them.

"*What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds? "

Only one kind of evolutionist, what do you mean by 8 or 10 different kinds??!

"What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?"

The coelecanth was discovered in 1938, how does this disprove evolution.  You know the modern coelecanths are very different from their prehistoric ancestors.  Excellent example of evolution!

"*Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?"

That we would find transitional fossils between classes of animals, like between fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and mammals, reptiles and birds.  And we have, so those predictions have been verified, owverwhelming evidence for evolution.  and lets not forget we have seen macroevolution in our lifetime.

"*What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human? "

What isn't scientific about it?  And agian, what does this have to do with evolution???

"Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)"

Yes the answers I've provided are reasonable, and are accepted as fact by the scientific community.  Science never "proves" anything "true", proofs are for math.  The answers reflect reality.  

"Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?"

The answers science provides on the TOE are not based on faith at all, they are based on the evidence in nature.

"Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?"

Yes it is.  The theory of evolution is science afterall.  And evolution is fact, the theory of evolution explains the mechanisms behind evolution, but it is a fact that life evolves.  Only the superstitious lunatic fringe even questions this.

"What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?"

The TOE is a scientific theory, it says nothing about lifestyle, society, attitude or eternal destiny.  Reasonable, intelligent people accept it for what it is (again, you don't believe in the TOE, you accept it or reject it based on the evidence).

"Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?
It is all they have been taught.
They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).
They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.
They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda"


Reasonable, intelligent people accept the TOE because it is overwhelmingly supported by all the evidence we have so far.  No other reason.
Your slimey insinuation for other motives is 100% wrong.

"Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don’t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)? "

Science doesn't support the TOE with outdated, disproved, questionable or inconclusive evidences.  You have failed to show this.  Piltdown man was a hoax exposed by evolutionary scientists, recapitulation hasn't been used to support evolution in 80 years or longer, Archaeopteryx is an excellent example of a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds, you haven't been able to disprove this, Lucy is another excelletn example of evolution, how is Australopithecus afarensis outdated or inconclusive or a hoax?, same Java man, Neanderthal man is another excellent example of evolution, the fossils describing horse evolution are another exccellent example for evolution and vestigal organs are also support for evolution, explain why any of these are not evidence for evolution, if you have the guts...

"Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?"

In our modern world, any parents that would deny their children the chance to learn real science, learn about the TOE, which is considered the unifying theme of biology and instead insist that primitive superstitious myths be taught, has no right being a parent.

"What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents said, "Either there is a God or there is not.  Both possibilities are frightening."

But learning the truth is worth any risk.  Yeah, either there is a god or there isn't, but who said it is the Christian god?  Either there is a god called Odin or there isn't, either there is a god called Allah or there isn't, either there is a god called Budda or there isn't...
And most Christians worldwide accept the TOE anyway.

"Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools?  If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks?  It is just a religious worldview."

I'm afraid of the idea of creationism being taught in schols because it has been proven wrong, it is supestitious nonsense and if it was taught widely as the truth it would set back knowledge 100's of years.  Evolution is not a religion nor is it a worldview, it is a scientific theory that explains the diversity of life on Earth.  It is one of the most well supported theories in science.  

"Aren’t you tired of faith in a system that cannot be true? "

I have no faith in the TOE I accept it solely on the strength of the evidence, which is overwhelmingly conclusive, evolution is a fact.

"Wouldn’t it be great to know the God who made you, and to accept His love and forgiveness?"

This has nothing to do with the TOE, as stated above, most Christians accept the TOE.

"Would you be interested, if I showed you from the Bible, how to have your sins forgiven and how to know for sure that you are going to Heaven? "

No need, I've read the Bible cover to cover many times.

"Thanks to drdino.com created by dr. Kent Hovind "

Kent Hovind is boob, a charleton, not a real doctor and the worse kind of evangelical huckster.  He uses faulty arguements debunked years ago and has no use for real science.  Do yourself a favor and avoid him like the devil.

In conclusion, all you've proved is you are too lazy or afraid to do your own research, you have a minimal grasp on what science is, you have no understanding of what the theory of evolution is and you believe in supertstitious nonsense.  And you still haven't provided one shred of evidence in support of creationism.
If you want to debate any of the myriad claims you made, start a thread about any ne of them, and I'll be happy to debate you on them in depth.  But judging by your previous posts, I don't think you';re capable of having a real debate...
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:27 PM on December 19, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Don't know why the board didn't log me as Demon38, but that was me who made the previous post!

                             Demon38
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:30 PM on December 19, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You still did not answer many of my questions.

However, I would like to talk about the ceolacanth some more. You said it is an exellent example of eveloution, and I agree--micro eveloution, that is. What did you start with---a ceolacanth.
What did you end up with----a ceolacanth. Sorry, but, that's not eveloution.
By the way, I know how you are always talking about "Evidences" for eveloution, so please list them.

---BlackHeart314@aol.com
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:11 AM on December 20, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"You still did not answer many of my questions."

And you offered no rebutals to the ones I did answer...Are you conceding that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, that transitional fossils are to be found, that the evolution of sexual reproduction is likely, that the platypus and lungfish are examples of thriving intermediate organisms...
I said pick any one of your points and start a post on it and I'll discuss it in depth.  You asked for evidence for evolution, that's a good start, I'll reply later tonight (I'm a little busy right now).

"However, I would like to talk about the ceolacanth some more. You said it is an exellent example of eveloution, and I agree--micro eveloution, that is. What did you start with---a ceolacanth.  What did you end up with----a ceolacanth. Sorry, but, that's not eveloution."

Why isn't it evolution?  The modern coelecanth is not the same species as the fossilized coelecanth, they lived in different environments, so this is an example of MACRO evolution.  Macro evolution is defined as a change at or above the species level.  The fact that it's still a coelecanth doesn't affect the fact that this is an example of evolution one wit.
Macro evolution and micro evolution are essentially the same thing, macro evolution is just an accumulation of micro evolutionary changes.  Where is the barrier that prevents these micro evolutionary changes from building up over time to produce a macro evolutionary change?  You chided me for not answering some of your questions, how about you answer this one...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:53 PM on December 20, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"By the way, I know how you are always talking about "Evidences" for eveloution, so please list them."

The Fossil record - 100's of thousands of fossils have been found in well dated rock strata.  These fossils show a distinct pattern.
The further back in the fossil record you go the lifeforms are more and more dissimilar to modern life.  The TOE predicts that a modern organism will never be found in a past rock strata with more primitive organisms.  you will never find a human skeleton fossilized with a tyrannosaurus rex from 70 million years ago.  This prediction has not been falsified, we have never found an out of date fossil.  This is in direct contradiction to Creationism which posits that all life was wiped out at the same time by a world wide flood, except for that taken by Noah on the ark.  If this was true we would expect to find similar lifeforms buried in the same rock strata, say, rhinos with triceratops, dolphins with icthyosaurs, condors with pteranadons.  We don't, Creationism has failed to explain the pattern of the fossil record, therefore it is falsified, proven wrong.  Well, how do we explain different life forms living in different time periods?  Once again the fossil record sheds some light on this question.  There are 1000's of clearly transitional fossils.  These are fossils that blend characteristics from different classes of organisms.  We have found intermediates between fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and birds, reptiles and mammals, as well as more specific transitions, like series of fossils illustrating whale evolution, horse evolution and hominid evolution.  The fossil record gives us consistant, unambiguous evidence of systematic change throughout the entire history of life on earth.  This is called descent with modification and it is explained by the TOE.

Homologies - Homologies are common structures between organisms.  All mammals have the same bones, even though they are adapted to different purposes, they all stem from the same general bone structure.  Comparative anatomists work out the relationships between these homologies.  They compare their conclusions with the sequences found in ancestral forms found in the fossil record.  Look at the transition of the double jaw joints of early mammal like reptiles (therapsida) illustrated in the fossil record.  Through millions of years, this second joint  grows smaller and eventually the bones of this second jaw joint become the tiny bones of the mammilian inner ear, they are homologous.

Biogeography - There is a tremendous diversity to life on Earth, where did it come from?  The TOE says that bio diversity comes from local predecessor species or species that migrated to there current location that have adapted to their different environments.  Scientists test this by examining the organisms in the area and the fossils found in the same area to see if they have similar structures.  If they do then they are most likely related.  If they don't, then the current species must have migrated to their present location.    This concept is best illustrated by isolated island habitats.  Hawaii has only one native species of mammal, a bat.  It is no less hospitable than other tropical areas, why no other native mammals?  On the other hand, it has 1/4 of all the different species of drosophila flies in the world, it has over a thousand different species of snails.  The TOE explains this, the Hawiian islands are isolated from other islands and the mainland, they were never attached to the mainland.  So the few colonizer species that did manage to reach the islands would proliferate and evolve to fill many of the different ecological niches present.  The Theory of Evolution predicts this will happen and on many islands, this is exactly what we see.  The Galapagos Islands played a big part in Darwin formulating the theory of evolution.

Molecular Biology -  The code used to turn nucleotide sequences into amino acid sequences is the same in all organisms.  Proteins in all organisms ae composed of the same set of 20 amino acids.  These 2 facts are overwhelming evidence for the common ancestory of life on Earth.  All life builds amino acids in the same way and all life on earth is composed of the proteins made from the same 20 amino acids.

Here are the best evidences of evolution I can think of.  There are others.  Let's hear your comments on these...


(Edited by Demon38 12/21/2003 at 03:18 AM).
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:08 AM on December 21, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You still did not answer many of my questions.

Ah but they aren't really your questions aren't they.
Its a copy paste job from hovinds site.

Why should we answer questions you have just copy pasted?


====Void posting under Guest
(whats that password again?)

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 08:24 AM on December 23, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

see the following and make your decision:

http://www.equip.org/free/DE382.pdf

http://www.equip.org/free/CP0103.pdf

http://www.equip.org/free/CP0117.pdf

http://www.equip.org/free/DA060.pdf

http://www.equip.org/free/CP0116.pdf

And a great book: http://www.equip.org/store/details.asp?SKU=B511

Like I said, be open minded whatever side you are on, make your decision and make a rational one...
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:45 PM on December 30, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"see the following and make your decision:"

Pure rubbish!  Your sources do not understand the Theory of Evolution or science!  Pick any point from that collection of trash and let's discuss it.  So far you've done a terrible job of debating your point, and I'm still waiting for you to address some of the erroneous points you've made and I've countered...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:45 PM on December 31, 2003 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Like I said, be open minded whatever side you are on, make your decision and make a rational one...

With a decietful statement like "The scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports creationism" in the second article perhaps you should tell them to get an open mind.

The first article was okish.

The second article is just lies and misinformation. They confuse evolution with abiogensis and cosmogony througout and also make lying statements

The third one also confuses evolution with abiogensis and cosmogony as well as saying "can one species transform into another one? No". That is wrong, we have observed one species evolving into another one.

The fourth article is scripture analysis which I am not interested in

In the fith one they seem to suggest that electromagnetic fields do not exist! And then they claim Creationism and science fit! Seriously - read it.

The fourth article in fact says that Creationism is not against science, it merely wants to overthrow macroevolution. This is decietful. They don't mention that Creationism is also after the demise of radiodating, geology (as Creationists throw the majority of geological methods into doubt), cosmology, much of biology and genetics and also they don't like anything which makes deductions of the past unless it fulfills their pre-assumed thoughts on the matter.

So no, it is not science. As Demon38 said, bring up the best argument against evolution you can find in any of those arguments and he, or I will easily be able to set the record straight.
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 08:08 AM on January 2, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I believe that Creationism can be a scientific anaylsis. You look at what biologists and archealogist have found and draw your own conclusion. My belief is Creationism.
You say the fossil record supports evolution more than creation, but I have found just the opposite. I encourage you the take a look at this website:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c006.html

I'm not asking that you believe it, just consider it.

by the way, there is a lot more on that site than just that page, maybe you should surf around it and consider the other conclusions creationist have made
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:42 AM on January 3, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"I believe that Creationism can be a scientific anaylsis. You look at what biologists and archealogist have found and draw your own conclusion. My belief is Creationism."

But Creationism has been disproven, the Earth cannot possibly be only a few thousand years old.  This has been know for over 200 years.  So how can you logically believe in Creationism?

I looked at the web site you posted, it's filled with typical, debunked creationist lies.

"Abrupt appearance of animals. All the different, basic kinds of animals appear abruptly and fully functional in the strata - with no proof of ancestors."

This is demonstratably wrong.  Animals did not appear abruptly, we see ample evidence of transitional forms, like Archaeopteryx, Acanthostega and all the lines of change show in the fossil record, like the synapsid reptiles to mammals transition.  Please explain why these obvious transitional animals are not transitional.  Animals (and plants) in the fossil record do show that they changed over time.

"Sufficient fossils. There is a continuing lack of evidence for Evolution despite an enormous number of fossils. Although scientists will continue to discover new varieties of fossil animals and plants, it is generally agreed that the millions of fossils already discovered (and the sediments already explored) provide a reliable indication of which way the evidence is going. That is, there will continue to be little or no fossil evidence found to support Evolutionism."

Another lie, the fossil record is excellent evidence for evolution.  We see that the farther back in time we go, the more dissimilar to modern life the fossils are.  The general concensus of the scientific community is that evolution is a fact.  99.8% of scientists involved in biology and geology agree that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and life evolves.

"Rapid coal formation. The old Evolutionary theory about coal forming in swamps is wrong. There is increasing evidence that massive coal deposits were formed in deep flood waters. Various coal layers in the U.S. consist mainly of sheets of tree bark abraded from huge masses of uprooted trees. The bark layers were buried in mud and carbonized into coal. Coal formation is relatively quick when heat is applied."

Nope, another out right lie, no evidence that coal formed quickly in deep flood waters.  Your source conveniently neglects to give any coroborating evidence to support this statement.  From here:
coal formation

"Most of our coal was formed about 300 million years ago, when much of the earth was covered by steamy swamps. As plants and trees died, their remains sank to the bottom of the swampy areas, accumulating layer upon layer and eventually forming a soggy, dense material called peat.
Over long periods of time, the makeup of the earth's surface changed, and seas and great rivers caused deposits of sand, clay and other mineral matter to accumulate, burying the peat. Sandstone and other sedimentary rocks were formed, and the pressure caused by their weight squeezed water from the peat. Increasingly deeper burial and the heat associated with it gradually changed the material to coal. Scientists estimate that from 3 to 7 feet of compacted plant matter was required to form 1 foot of bituminous coal."

"Wrong order for evolution. It has been reported that "80 to 85% of Earth's land surface does not have even 3 geologic periods appearing in 'correct' consecutive order" for Evolution."

Once again, another lie.  Many places have almost the entire geologic column.  Geologists understand how plate tectonics work, how layers can erode or be overturned, but the entire geologic column can be found intact.
From here:
Geologic column

"the entire geologic column is found in 31 other basins around the world, piled up in proper order. These basins are:
The Ghadames Basin in Libya
The Beni Mellal Basin in Morocco
The Essaouira Basin in Morocco(Broughton and Trepanier, 1993)
The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia
The Oman Interior Basin in Oman
The Western Desert Basin in Egypt
The Adana Basin in Turkey
The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey
The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria
The Carpathian Basin in Poland
The Baltic Basin in the USSR
The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR
The Farah Basin in Afghanistan
The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan
The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran
The Manhai-Subei Basin in China
The Jiuxi Basin China
The Tung t'in - Yuan Shui Basin China
The Tarim Basin China
The Szechwan Basin China
The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska
The Williston Basin in North Dakota (Haimla et al, 1990, p. 517)
The Tampico Embayment Mexico
The Bogata Basin Colombia
The Bonaparte Basin, Australia (above this basin sources are Roberston Group, 1989)
The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta(Trendall 1990)
The Parana Basin North, Paraguay and Brazil( (Wiens, 1995, p. 192)
The Cape Karroo Basin (Tankard, 1995, p. 21)
The Argentina Precordillera Basin (Franca et al, 1995, p. 136)
The Chilean Antofagosta Basin (Franca et al, 1995, p. 134)
The Pricaspian Basin (Volozh et al, 2003)"

Now you can base your beliefs on lies and ignorance, it's a free country, but don't expect me to be that stupid.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:27 PM on January 3, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Incredible. I have read all the posts in this thread and watched as Demon quickly and effectively absolutely annihilated every single statement "guest" has made. If nothing else, this thread by itself could convince most people not only of evolution itself, but how close minded, ignorant, and delusional most creationists are. I have constantly come accross people that have refused to believe in evolution, but most of the time it is ignorance. Demon, you have presented plenty of information and evidence for evolution and I would like to congratulate you on your debating skills. "Guest"... if I were you I'd just stay quiet, because you are not helping your case at all. Trying to use false science and misconceptions to prove a point, refusing to respond to counterpoints, and asking questions out of subject are all the halolmarks of a bad debator and/or someone who is either too stubborn and ignorant to see the facts or just plain delusional. I hate to be insulting, but reading your arguements reminded me quite a bit of a certain little thing called the "Chewbaca Defense". The best arguement you have presented so far is God did it and, frankly, that's neither scientific or even a good explanation of what really happen. It was people like you that got copernicus arrested for saying the earth wasn't the center of the universe. For common misconceptions about evolution read the thread I recently posted on this website, it should be near the top...
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 7:44 PM on January 15, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lol, sorry. The above post was mine.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 7:48 PM on January 15, 2004 | IP
Jack Styles

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh boy, sorry about that. The above 2 posts are mine, I had a little trouble loggin in. Anyway, sorry (again) if I'm cluttering up the board for anyone, but I felt I needed to identify myself.
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 8:00 PM on January 15, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Imjustsaying

Surely, you are not a genetic scientist.  You cliam to work with Tetrehymena by breeding them together and at the end of the day (metaphorically) they are still Tetrahymena. Of course they are.

I am just a lowly marine biologist and my genetic background can spot the flaws in your logic instantly.  Allowing their gene pool to mix in a constant environment is not what results in changes in the gene pool.  Isolating subpopulations in vastly different environments is what results in genetic drift and differential selection.  The premise of genetic drift is reproductive isolation, not free exchange of genetic material.

As long as you are allowing them to inbreed under similar selection pressures, they may remain the same forever.  Sharks have been mostly unchanged for about 500 million years.

You might spend less time justsayin and more time justlearnin.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:48 PM on January 27, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[Just give me examples of where there has been fossil evidence of and ape/man (the missing link).  I don't mean fossil evidence of a man who died in a crouched position (probably starving and cold) versus a man who was buried and was therefore unearthed "erect". ]


There are many. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

[Finally (for now), since evolution is still an ongoing process, what new species are on the horizon? I don't mean genetically engineered hybridoma type species, but brand spanking new ones that are proof of modern evolution.]


We are all new species.  We are also all transitional forms.  In fact, I just read an article in Discover how home range changes brought on by changing local climates have resulted in observable gene pool shifts and phenotypic expression in a certain typ of squirrel.

In any event, new species on the horizon is not something terribly worthwhile to ponder.  No animal gives birth to a new species.  Subpopulations become isolated, and drift apart by random genetic change and differential selection.  If you wish to ponder this question, look at genetic changes in species that have disjunct distributions today, such as the scrub jay.  They will be the camel/llama, rhino/tapir, ostrich/emu of the future.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 7:04 PM on January 27, 2004 | IP
alliwantisalife

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It is called gradualism.  The idea of one species giving birth to another is absurd.  Through gradualism and isolation apes slowly evolved.  There is plenty of fossil evidence to support this and not a shred to support creationism.
 


Posts: 61 | Posted: 8:48 PM on February 6, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Through gradualism and isolation apes slowly evolved.


Really?  Can we see some evidence?
And you have dodged or ignored "Guest's" challenge of "Through gradualism and isolation apes slowly evolved."

 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 9:35 PM on February 6, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Really?  Can we see some evidence?"

Sure, just pick up any good anthropology text, or you can look here:homonid

You don't like to do any research do you E-mc2,
you ask all these inane questions and can't be bothered to look it up for yourself.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 01:28 AM on February 7, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry, my post up there, I obviously pasted the wrong thing.  Never mind that.
We have found bones in the dirt, yes.  But nothing that can be shown to be a "transitional form".  The ones that have been
claimed as such, most of them were frauds, the
rest were never made public because they weren't much to be seen.  


And, alliwantisalife, you stoop very low and display your character will your name-calling.

 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 12:15 AM on February 8, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But nothing that can be shown to be a "transitional form".


Tell us EXACTLY what you would call a transitional form.  Is it the same definition eveyone else uses?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:54 PM on February 8, 2004 | IP
alliwantisalife

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And can you show us evidence that god exists?  The bible is a lame excuse incase that is what you were thinking.  First of the guy who wrote the first book wrote it after talking to a bush. I know this because it was written be Moses (I Did research) and it was written during the time in the wilderness(More research).
 


Posts: 61 | Posted: 3:28 PM on February 8, 2004 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]

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