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
     Animals against evolution
       Incredible creatures that defy evolution

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

    
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RofGpGwPfX8

visit this link and watch the video.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 7:19 PM on September 21, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

good one huh?


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 8:24 PM on September 21, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

answer please


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 8:41 PM on September 21, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

visit this link and watch the video.

I finally did and after 5 seconds it demonstrated that it's crap, whoever made this video doesn't understand the theory of evolution or biology.  They made the claim that evolution happens by "time and chance".  Since evolution doesn't happen by chance, this video isn't worth watching, like all of your scientific sources on evolution, it's worthless.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:18 AM on September 22, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

that is a 40 minute video, u watch 5 seconds and call it crap. watch the whole video before u claim it 100% rong.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 2:13 PM on September 22, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

that is a 40 minute video, u watch 5 seconds and call it crap. watch the whole video before u claim it 100% rong.

In the first 5 seconds it showed that whoever made this video doesn't know what they are talking about, why should I watch any more of it???
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:22 AM on September 24, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

it shows creatures that cant b explained by evolution.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:11 AM on September 25, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

it shows creatures that cant b explained by evolution.

There is NO life that can't be explained by evolution.  And why should I expect this video to be accurate when in the first 5 seconds it proves it doesn't know what evolution is.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:45 AM on September 25, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

evolution says life is 1 big accident


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 7:43 PM on September 25, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

evolution says life is 1 big accident

No it doesn't.  From here:
EvoChance

"Darwinism is widely misunderstood as a theory of pure chance. Mustn't it have done something to provoke this canard? Well, yes, there is something behind the misunderstood rumour, a feeble basis to the distortion. one stage in the Darwinian process is indeed a chance process -- mutation. Mutation is the process by which fresh genetic variation is offered up for selection and it is usually described as random. But Darwinians make the fuss they do about the 'randomness' of mutation only in order to contrast it to the non-randomness of selection. It is not necessary that mutation should be random for natural selection to work. Selection can still do its work whether mutation is directed or not. Emphasizing that mutation can be random is our way of calling attention to the crucial fact that, by contrast, selection is sublimely and quintessentially non-random. It is ironic that this emphasis on the contrast between mutation and the non-randomness of selection has led people to think that the whole theory is a theory of chance.

Even mutations are, as a matter of fact, non-random in various senses, although these senses aren't relevant to our discussion because they don't contribute constructively to the improbable perfection of organisms. For example, mutations have well-understood physical causes, and to this extent they are non-random. ... the great majority of mutations, however caused, are random with respect to quality, and that means they are usually bad because there are more ways of getting worse than of getting better. [Dawkins 1996:70-71]"

People who understand evolution know it is not about chance, it  is not an accident.  Your source leads off with this monumental mistake.  If it can't even get the basics right why bother to watch it further?


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 07:38 AM on September 26, 2007 | IP
Bombardier-Beetle

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Bombardier Beetle example

Now most of you have probably heard of the bombardier beetle, but I'm going to tell you about it anyway.

Okay, here's a scenario. You're walking down a path, you look down, and there's this little beetle, about one half an inch long. Then, right behind it, is a huge bullfrog, and you're thinking, "Man, that beetle has no chance of ever getting away from that bullfrog." Then, the bullfrog makes his move. You blink, and the next thing you know, the frog is running off, the beetles still there, and there's a strange aroma in the air. OK, the aroma stinks. You wonder how all this could happen, that the beetle could scare off a bullfrog that is four or five times its size?

Well, I'll tell you. That little beetle is a wonder. In fact, it's practically a miniature fire breathing dragon, just the fire comes out the other end. Now, how does this miniature "dragon" shoot out a spray that is not only noxious, but is also heated to 212º F, a temperature hotter than boiling water? This little beetle was studied, and it was discovered that the beetle has two chemicals stored in its body, hydrogen peroxide dissolved in water, and hydroquinine. If you mixed the two chemicals, the peroxide would oxidize the hydroquinine. But the beetle adds an inhibitor to stop the hydrogen from oxidizing the hydroquinine. These chemicals are mixed in the beetle with no reaction. When a predator such as a bullfrog comes along, the beetle squirts the chemicals into a combustion chamber. He then mixes in two enzymes, catalase and peroxidase, a catalyst(a catalyst is a chemical that makes chemical reactions happen extremely fast, without any actual change to the catalyst itself, allowing the catalyst to be used over, and over...)The chemicals and the the enzymes mix and produce another chemical, quinine, which smells bad. He holds these chemicals in storage chambers which he has in his body.

When an enemy such as our bullfrog comes along looking for a lunch, the beetle squirts the chemical's into combustion chambers, adding two enzymes which act as "anti-inhibitor's." The chemicals and the the enzymes mix and produce another chemical, quinine, which smells bad. This all happens at a extremely fast rate, fast enough to heat the chemicals to 212º F, and generating a lot of pressure. Finally, when there's enough pressure, the bombardier beetle opens the valves which he has at the end of his combustion tube, and KA-BOOM. Good-bye predator.

Scientists have also found that some species can shoot out this spray at the rate of 500 pulses per second. Now how could this beetle have evolved from a ordinary beetle as evolutionists say? I mean, think about this. Now here is the first bombardier beetle, and it decides that it needs a weapon against all these predators that are roaming around. So it decides to evolve one. So a million years later, it has somehow evolved all the chemicals, including the inhibitor, and the combustion chamber. So One beetle decides to mix the chemicals with the anti inhibitor. And BOOM, oops, the beetle forgot to make the valves so that the chemical mixture could escape. End of beetle, end of any future descendants. Or, maybe it has everything but the inhibitor and anti-inhibitor. Well, without the inhibitor to stop the chemical reaction, the chemicals go BOOM, end of beetle, end of family tree. I could go on all day with different scenarios, but I don't want to bore you much more than I already have.

OK, Now lets say that the bombardier beetle for some reason decides to wait until it has everything to work the system, but wait, it would never get that far. Why? Because according to the theory of evolution creations evolve from genetic mistakes, and if the mistake happens to be good, then natural selection eliminates the animal that it descended from and it stays. But, if the mutation is bad, or doesn't matter, then the mutated beetle just dies out, along with any future descendants. Now, since the bombardier beetle can't use it's "cannon" until everything is evolved, then it won't have any advantage over its predecessors for quite a while, so the bombardier beetle would die out before it could evolve his"cannon" enough to use.
 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 10:51 AM on October 3, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Scientists have also found that some species can shoot out this spray at the rate of 500 pulses per second. Now how could this beetle have evolved from a ordinary beetle as evolutionists say? I mean, think about this. Now here is the first bombardier beetle, and it decides that it needs a weapon against all these predators that are roaming around.


Wrong. Organisms do not decide they need to evolve something. You're confusing adaptation with evolution. Adaptation is, for example, when a human decides he wants a car so he can get to work faster, so he buys one. He does not decide to evolve faster legs.

So it decides to evolve one.


Wow. You might want to find out what evolution actually is.

So a million years later, it has somehow evolved all the chemicals, including the inhibitor, and the combustion chamber. So One beetle decides to mix the chemicals with the anti inhibitor. And BOOM, oops, the beetle forgot to make the valves so that the chemical mixture could escape. End of beetle, end of any future descendants.


That's natural selection for you. The inappropriate variants don't reproduce--only the appropriate ones do. It makes things very easy when only the beetles that don't explode reproduce.

Or, maybe it has everything but the inhibitor and anti-inhibitor. Well, without the inhibitor to stop the chemical reaction, the chemicals go BOOM, end of beetle, end of family tree. I could go on all day with different scenarios, but I don't want to bore you much more than I already have.


How about this one?

  1.  Insects produce quinones for tanning their cuticle. Quinones make them distasteful, so the insects evolve to produce more of them and to produce other defensive chemicals, including hydroquinones.
  2. The insects evolve depressions for storing quinones and muscles for ejecting them onto their surface when threatened with being eaten. The depression becomes a reservoir with secretory glands supplying hydroquinones into it. This configuration exists in many beetles, including close relatives of bombardier beetles (Forsyth 1970).
  3. Hydrogen peroxide becomes mixed with the hydroquinones. Catalases and peroxidases appear along the output passage of the reservoir, ensuring that more quinones appear in the exuded product.
  4. More catalases and peroxidases are produced, generating oxygen and producing a foamy discharge, as in the bombardier beetle Metrius contractus (Eisner et al. 2000).
  5. As the output passage becomes a hardened reaction chamber, still more catalases and peroxidases are produced, gradually becoming today's bombardier beetles.


You lose. Better create another user name, because there's no way you actually expected to blow evolution out of the water with a factually incorrect instance of irreducible complexity...

OK, Now lets say that the bombardier beetle for some reason decides to wait until it has everything to work the system, but wait, it would never get that far. Why? Because according to the theory of evolution creations evolve from genetic mistakes, and if the mistake happens to be good, then natural selection eliminates the animal that it descended from and it stays. But, if the mutation is bad, or doesn't matter, then the mutated beetle just dies out, along with any future descendants. Now, since the bombardier beetle can't use it's "cannon" until everything is evolved, then it won't have any advantage over its predecessors for quite a while, so the bombardier beetle would die out before it could evolve his"cannon" enough to use.


All underlined portions in the above quote are incorrect.

When you explain how the proposed evolutionary pathway I've supplied is wrong, get back to us and try again.


(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 10/3/2007 at 1:20 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: 1:20 PM on October 3, 2007 | IP
Bombardier-Beetle

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

http://www.findingdarwinsgod.com/excerpt/index.html

Read this and I think you will understand what the intent of evolution is,
written by
Kenneth R. Miller
biology professor at Brown University
 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 1:46 PM on October 3, 2007 | IP
Bombardier-Beetle

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

BTW,

your cut and paste strategies don't point out the humor, thus you take aim at the literal meaning which is amateur.

refer to the Ph.D. in Biology excerpt above to understand why your position is right and wrong, and hopefully you will see the truth yourself.

there is no conflict only the appearance of one.
 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 1:59 PM on October 3, 2007 | IP
Bombardier-Beetle

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Organisms do not decide they need to evolve something. You're confusing adaptation with evolution."

Uh bugs don't decide or drive cars and they don't carry money to buy conveniences.



"You might want to find out what evolution actually is."

Wow, you might want to explain if you mean micro or macro evolution when you say evolution.

"That's natural selection for you. The inappropriate variants don't reproduce--only the appropriate ones do. It makes things very easy when only the beetles that don't explode reproduce."

Thats the point, there is no proper sequence to produce said bug without it dying.

1.  Insects produce quinones for tanning their cuticle. Quinones make them distasteful, so the insects evolve to produce more of them and to produce other defensive chemicals, including hydroquinones.
 2. The insects evolve depressions for storing quinones and muscles for ejecting them onto their surface when threatened with being eaten. The depression becomes a reservoir with secretory glands supplying hydroquinones into it. This configuration exists in many beetles, including close relatives of bombardier beetles (Forsyth 1970).
 3. Hydrogen peroxide becomes mixed with the hydroquinones. Catalases and peroxidases appear along the output passage of the reservoir, ensuring that more quinones appear in the exuded product.
 4. More catalases and peroxidases are produced, generating oxygen and producing a foamy discharge, as in the bombardier beetle Metrius contractus (Eisner et al. 2000).
 5. As the output passage becomes a hardened reaction chamber, still more catalases and peroxidases are produced, gradually becoming today's bombardier beetles.

Yes those are the folks who prove the bug exists, well done.


"You lose. Better create another user name, because there's no way you actually expected to blow evolution out of the water with a factually incorrect instance of irreducible complexity..."

Well with your help defining Michael Moore skills in type biting, you appear to be a political spin machine rather then a sensible human.
You must be a product of evolution which is gonna get walked over.

To bad you will be selected out ;)
 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 2:23 PM on October 3, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Bombardier-Beetle at 1:46 PM on October 3, 2007 :
http://www.findingdarwinsgod.com/excerpt/index.html

Read this and I think you will understand what the intent of evolution is,
written by
Kenneth R. Miller
biology professor at Brown University



I've read Miller's entire book. Kenneth Miller happens to be the premier critic against irreducible complexity, which includes your beloved bombardier beetle.

Furthermore, Ken Miller doesn't disagree with anything I've said to you in my response. You ascribe "intent" to evolution as though it is a conscious entity. Evolution doesn't "intend" anything. Species don't "intentionally" evolve. It is a natural process that favors those that reproduce.

Uh bugs don't decide or drive cars and they don't carry money to buy conveniences.


Bugs don't decide to have offspring with certain genetic mutations, either.

Wow, you might want to explain if you mean micro or macro evolution when you say evolution.


As the good Dr. Kenneth Miller explains in his book Finding Darwin's God, "micro" and "macro" evolution are colloquial, meaningless terms not used within the field.


Thats the point, there is no proper sequence to produce said bug without it dying.


There is no proper sequence to produce an exploding beetle without it dying. You're absolutely right. Of course, there are proper sequences to produce bombardier beetles from beetles having no explosive chemicals.


Yes those are the folks who prove the bug exists, well done.


Possible evolutionary pathways for allegedly irreducibly complex systems disprove the allegation of irreducible complexity, such as that of the bombardier beetle. The sequence cited at TalkOrigins does a lot more than prove the bombardier beetle exists.


refer to the Ph.D. in Biology excerpt above to understand why your position is right and wrong, and hopefully you will see the truth yourself.

there is no conflict only the appearance of one.


You might want to read Miller's entire book, specially the sections on irreducible complexity.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 10/3/2007 at 3:04 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: 3:02 PM on October 3, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

When TNT goes off it is a caotic disscharge of particles. The Big Bang theroy is simmilar. Now how does the extreem order of life come from that kind of dissorder?


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 5:50 PM on October 3, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from SilverStar at 5:50 PM on October 3, 2007 :
When TNT goes off it is a caotic disscharge of particles. The Big Bang theroy is simmilar. Now how does the extreem order of life come from that kind of dissorder?


Start a separate topic. There's no need to derail anything.





-------
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: 6:05 PM on October 3, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I was responding to the idea that evolution is anything but caotic


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 6:38 PM on October 3, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I was responding to the idea that evolution is anything but caotic

The Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:52 PM on October 3, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Besides making numerous mistakes on how evoplution works, I missed where Bombardier-Beetle refuted EntwickelnCollin posts...Once again, why couldn't the bombardier beetle evolve it's defense mechanism?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:31 AM on October 4, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

evolution says life is 1 big accident

it isnt an accident? then u are saying it was desighned.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 6:56 PM on October 4, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

it isnt an accident? then u are saying it was desighned.

Unintelligently...
Chalk up natural selection as something else you don't understand.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 7:50 PM on October 4, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How, how did life get here in the first place? And by that I mean in the univers.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 7:55 PM on October 5, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How, how did life get here in the first
place?


Arose naturally from non living processes.  Do you have any evidence for any other explaination?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:38 PM on October 5, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I thought that spontaneous regeneration was proven wrong. How would all of the complex systems of even that of a bacteria? I do not need to find evidence of another way, only debunk evidence for life coming from nonlife.



-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 8:55 PM on October 9, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It's fairly certain that we'll be able to recreate life within the next couple decades. It's such an obvious prediction that it's doubtful the scientists responsible will receive that many awards for it.


-------
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: 12:48 AM on October 10, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I thought that spontaneous regeneration was proven wrong.

Spontaneous generation was proven wrong by Pasteur, that is, complex life can grow spontaneously from soup broth.  So yes, he did disprove this.  However, Pasteur did no experiments on how life first formed.  So no, he did not prove abiogenesis wrong, he never even experimented with it.

How would all of the complex systems of even that of a bacteria?

Who said the first life was bacteria?

I do not need to find evidence of another way, only debunk evidence for life coming from nonlife.

No one has been able to do that yet.  How do you propose life arose on earth?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:57 PM on October 10, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

look, just watch the video and try 2 refute it.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:07 PM on October 18, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

look, just watch the video and try 2
refute it.


Already proved that whoever made the video doesn't understand evolution or science.  Why bother refuting scientifically ignorant claims?  We already know they are false.
If you think there are any compelling arguments, post them but we are sick of you spewing out a ton of bogus claims that you don't understand.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:35 PM on October 18, 2007 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from creationest6 at 10:07 PM on October 18, 2007 :
look, just watch the video and try 2 refute it.





Transitional forms of giraffes exist, so why can't they have evolved long necks?


-------
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: 11:28 PM on October 18, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i read demon38s claim of non chance evo, and there isn't one single ounce of proof for non random evo.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 4:26 PM on October 28, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i read demon38s claim of non chance evo, and there isn't one single ounce of proof for non random evo.

Nonsense, you still don't understand evlution.  Let's look at some examples of non random evolution.  From here:
NonRandomEvolution

"Chlamydomonas is a unicellular green algae capable of photosynthesis in light, but also somewhat capable of growth in the dark by using acetate as a carbon source. Graham Bell cultured several clonal lines of Chlamydomonas in the dark for several hundred generations. Some of the lines grew well in the dark, but other lines were almost unable to grow at all. The poor growth lines improved throughout the course of the experiment until by 600 generations they were well adapted to growth in the dark. This experiment showed that new, beneficial mutations are capable of quickly (in hundreds of generations) adapting an organism that almost required light for survival to growth in the complete absence of light."

Why did the beneficial mutations quickly spread through the populations?  Because those organisms without them died off.  This is how natural selection works, and this is non random evolution.  And this is only one example out of thousands.  
I don't expect you to reply to this post, you usually ignore the posts that destroy your claims, but you really should learn a little about what evolution is, it's clear you've been looking at poor sources.  You really have no idea what evolution is or how it works.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 09:05 AM on October 29, 2007 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's a very interesting, and excellent, example of natural selection in action that Demon gave.

I think people get confused about how evolution works.  Some have the mistaken notion that evolution happens by chance.  Not so.  Evolution follows that path of 'what works', driven by the process of natural selection.  

Mutations may happen randomly.  However, as Demon points out, traits (mutations) that enhance a species survival/reproduction will be passed on to future generations.  Thus natural selection will 'select' those mutations that enable the species to adapt to a changing environment.  

If the species cannot adapt to a changing environment, or is out-competed by another  species, then it may become extinct.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:48 PM on October 30, 2007 | IP
Spyder820

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"You're confusing adaptation with evolution." - EntwickelnCollin

but according to Orion's last post it shows that evolution is the process of natural selection. wouldn't that mean adaptation? In order to survive you need to adapt to your surroundings? Orion even uses the words "adapt to a changing environment" sounds like adaptation and evolution are pretty close if not one and the same.

I do have some questions though because I just found this site today and I havent read any other posts except a few. If we are evolved then how come we still do not continue to change? If you look back as far as images show we all still appear to look the same as we do now? I also want to add how come there are not half-lings, or creatures who still are changing to humans, even humans that appear to havent "evolved" all the way or have actually taken a step backwards.

Just the idea that we came from monkeys doesn't seem right. They are in the same surroundings as us but they don't seem to be changing. if this is true wouldnt zoo monkeys start changing apart from the wild ones? If we evolve from our surroundings wouldn't that mean domestic monkeys would be a lot different then the wild ones? evolving from surroundings also could mean that you would loose a useless trait right?  

"If we learned something new every second of our lives, it would take three million years to exhaust the capacity of the human brain." -Wonders of God's Creation, Moody Video Series

Then how is it that we still have the same brain capacity if we only live an average of 90 years?


I'm also a creationist if you haven't noticed and was wondering if we all came from a common ancestor then who created the ancestor? or did that split into multiple ancestors to create other species? I think there is room for adaption like the thicker coat on an arctic fox protects it in the cold and it being white instead of orange protects it from predators but the fox can not trace back to the same ancestor of a penguin. The two animals are completely different yet live in the same arctic surroundings. I would like to know how a ancestor can create different kinds of animals yet they live in the same environment. like a lion and gazelle. two completely different animals but you state they come from the same thing.

I'm interested in hearing the answers to these and furthering this debate.
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 02:37 AM on November 4, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


but according to Orion's last post it shows that evolution is the process of natural selection. wouldn't that mean adaptation? In order to survive you need to adapt to your surroundings? Orion even uses the words "adapt to a changing environment" sounds like adaptation and evolution are pretty close if not one and the same.


The scientific definition of adaptation is different from evolution. You're confusing the colloquial use of "adaptation" with its scientific definition. In biology, adaptation refers to changes that occur during an organism's life time. For example, I adapted to a winter environment by purchasing a winter coat. To evolve to a winter environment would take many generations; nothing I can do would speed that process up.

I do have some questions though because I just found this site today and I havent read any other posts except a few. If we are evolved then how come we still do not continue to change? If you look back as far as images show we all still appear to look the same as we do now? I also want to add how come there are not half-lings, or creatures who still are changing to humans, even humans that appear to havent "evolved" all the way or have actually taken a step backwards.


First of all, we are still evolving today. A recent study just came out, and it projects that within 100 years, there will exist a discernible difference in appearance and intelligence between the upper and lower classes. Sexual and monetary selection will have presumably progressed to such a point that the rich will only breed with sexually attractive and/or wealthy opposites.

To address your second misconception, the fact of the matter is that there are many transitional forms of hominids. The only way that you could possibly conclude otherwise stems from a lack of proper research. If you dispute the idea that there are transitional hominids in our lineage, all you must do is type into a search engine the following words:

"hominid AND transitional"

Just the idea that we came from monkeys doesn't seem right. They are in the same surroundings as us but they don't seem to be changing. if this is true wouldnt zoo monkeys start changing apart from the wild ones? If we evolve from our surroundings wouldn't that mean domestic monkeys would be a lot different then the wild ones? evolving from surroundings also could mean that you would loose a useless trait right?


First and foremost, natural selection has never required that we lose a useless trait unless that useless trait is also detrimental. Second, monkeys in zoos have not been in captivity nearly long enough for significant evolutionary changes to come about. In zoos, there are hardly any pressures from natural selection to begin with; zoo keepers ensure that almost every monkey survives long enough to breed.


"If we learned something new every second of our lives, it would take three million years to exhaust the capacity of the human brain." -Wonders of God's Creation, Moody Video Series


Then how is it that we still have the same brain capacity if we only live an average of 90 years?


Uh, what? You're going to have to break this down for me because I'm not following an ounce of your logic here.

I'm also a creationist if you haven't noticed and was wondering if we all came from a common ancestor then who created the ancestor? or did that split into multiple ancestors to create other species? I think there is room for adaption like the thicker coat on an arctic fox protects it in the cold and it being white instead of orange protects it from predators but the fox can not trace back to the same ancestor of a penguin. The two animals are completely different yet live in the same arctic surroundings. I would like to know how a ancestor can create different kinds of animals yet they live in the same environment. like a lion and gazelle. two completely different animals but you state they come from the same thing.


Again, your confusion is the result of having not conducted proper research on the subject. That said, I'll spare you the time and explain this one for you since it's not all that difficult.

Simply living in the same environment as another animal does not imply that the two different animals come from the same immediate ancestor. Ultimately, all life can be derived from prokaryotic bacteria, but what you're suggesting doesn't make sense. It appears you think that evolution says an arctic fox and a penguin came from the same immediate ancestor simply because they live in similar environments. To put this as plainly as I can, that is not the case. Penguins are birds, so like all birds, their common ancestor would be the raptor, a type of dinosaur that developed feathers and a bird-like skeletal frame. Foxes, of course, are mammals, and developed along with other dog-like life forms.



(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 11/4/2007 at 12:04 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: 12:03 PM on November 4, 2007 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ah nuts - I'm having trouble with the HTML.  

(Edited by orion 11/4/2007 at 4:45 PM).
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 4:37 PM on November 4, 2007 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think we need to clear up some terminology here.  

From the Wikipedia website:

Adaptation:
An adaptation is a positive characteristic of an organism that has been favored by natural selection.[1] The concept is central to biology, particularly in evolutionary biology. The term adaptation is also sometimes used as a synonym for natural selection.



Evolution:
In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next. These traits are the expression of genes that are copied and passed on to offspring during reproduction. Mutations in these genes can produce new or altered traits, resulting in heritable differences between organisms. New traits can also come from transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either non-randomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift.

Natural Selection:
Natural selection is a process that causes heritable traits that are helpful for survival and reproduction to become more common, and harmful traits to become more rare. This occurs because organisms with advantageous traits pass on more copies of these heritable traits to the next generation.[1][2] Over many generations, adaptations occur through a combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and natural selection of those variants best-suited for their environment.[3] In contrast, genetic drift produces random changes in the frequency of traits in a population. Genetic drift arises from the role chance plays in whether a given individual will survive and reproduce.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:47 PM on November 5, 2007 | IP
anathema6

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My two cents worth...

In my opinion there are no gods or god therefore there cannot be a creator.

I never arrived at that opinion overnight, I have always believed it, some of my family would be surprised at me for saying that as I do not make a big deal out of it, I have always believed people can think what they like as long as it does not result in their ideals being forced down my throat and I realise that in some countries I would not be allowed to express my opinion at all so I am fortunate to live where I live. However when we now talk about going back in time and teaching unscientific, unproven and downright lies to kids at school I feel it’s time to stop this nonsense once and for all.
The very thought that this earth on which we live could have been created sends shivers down my(imperfect)spine, humans are animals and our purpose on earth is to consume, destroy and reproduce to ensure further consumption, destruction and reproduction, we have evolved to be masters of this.
This basic fact is almost always overlooked; we share more traits with a flesh eating parasite than almost any other life form. The world would be a beautiful place if it were not for humans; we are blight on the landscape, an ugliness that no amount of embellishment will hide.
I don’t have the answers to life the universe or anything else for that matter but it is all irrelevant to me because just by looking around the world I see complete and utter disregard for life, I despair at the pointlessness of the argument, people get killed for having a different religious background or belief to the next person. What kind of sick world is this?

I had to laugh at some of the statements which try to dispute evolution without actually knowing what it is, I don’t see the point in adding to the nonsense because some people will always shout black when you say white but this subject annoys me because there is no way to appease the hard line religious fanatics of any faith, we are now so politically correct that we have to be careful not to offend a person of any faith but are quite happy to offend a non believer or a rational scientist with some of this creationist claptrap.
I cannot understand why some intelligent people can have blind faith in any religious book, they were all written by humans for the purpose of controlling the populations, and they do this by fear and will continue to scare people into submission. I for one will not change my beliefs, I am fortunate that I feel no fear I only feel free and liberated.
Darwin’s theory has allowed me to see the natural world for what it is and to me it is obvious that natural selection has played a huge role in defining what survives and what will not, if certain environmental conditions are not met we will die out also and some other more suitable species will take our place at the top of the food chain, this may take thousands of years but rest assured it will happen.



-------
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
Mahatma Gandhi 1869-1948

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Albert Einstein
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 11:35 AM on November 7, 2007 | IP
The_Wizard

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I watched 2 minutes of the video and I was convinced.... that it is the biggest pile of dung I have ever heard. First, teeth are a variant of bone, not fish scale. Any good biologist will tell you that. Scales attach to the skin, teeth attach to bone (skull). There are tooth-like projections which resemble teeth but are not true teeth. Such as a birds Egg Tooth, which is a hard dermal horn used to crack the egg from the inside. It's called a tooth but is not a tooth.

If you want real information on evolution and creationism watch this PBS NOVA episode.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

It deals with the Dover, Pennsylvania school boards attempt to bring creationism into the classroom... and the lawsuit that found Intelligent Design as unscientific/pseudoscience, and The Discover Institute (the main proponent for ID) as a false institute which does no actual research in to the proving or disproving evolution.

The biologist cover all the creationist arguments and shut them down like a rat fill McDonalds.


-------
Never Talkin', Just Keeps Walkin'
Spreadin' His Magic...

The Wizard
 


Posts: 40 | Posted: 11:22 AM on November 14, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'd like to see Creationest6 pick one animal from the peice of crap video and explain to us in detail why it defies evolution...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:52 PM on November 14, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

just watch the video.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 7:12 PM on November 15, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We've already established that the video is crap, that it doesn't understand evolution.  Now I'm asking you to pick out and discuss an animal that YOU think can't be explained by evolution.  This way, we can get into detail and really examine your claim.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:14 PM on November 15, 2007 | IP
The_Wizard

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The medical and scientific communities have specialty fields for a reason. It's to make sure the fields are covered by qualified professionals. When you cross fields without proper credentials and training mistakes are made. It's like the plastic surgery boom of the 90's... dentists and OB/GYNs started to take classes in administering cologen and botox with less then proper time and training. People would end up with misshapen features or facal paralysis.

Would you go to a dermatologist for brain surgery? No! So why would I trust a dentist to instruct me in the ways of biology, genetics, chemistry, geology and physiology, to name a few, as well as faith. How is your 40 minute video going to change 32+ years of my own private scientific study. I understand the multipule complexities needed for evolution to occur. His scales to teeth idea doesn't even work... I picked that out and I shut it off.

The man is a hack.


-------
Never Talkin', Just Keeps Walkin'
Spreadin' His Magic...

The Wizard
 


Posts: 40 | Posted: 11:14 PM on November 15, 2007 | IP
The_Wizard

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OK Creationest6, I stepped up to the plate and watched the entire video. I am going to do a full review of the video and I guarantee you will not like what I have to say.


-------
Never Talkin', Just Keeps Walkin'
Spreadin' His Magic...

The Wizard
 


Posts: 40 | Posted: 11:21 PM on November 16, 2007 | IP
noone

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote "How, how did life get here in the first
place?

Arose naturally from non living processes.  Do you have any evidence for any other explaination?"

Come on now!
Life comes from living creatures. What kind of science did you learn? Do you really believe that?
That requires more faith then any religion.
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 11:29 AM on March 6, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The study of the origin of life is abiogenesis.  Although science hasn't duplicated the process of life from non-life yet, there are clues and ideas about intermediate molecules forming that would lead to the road of life.

Take viruses, for an example.  A virus is basically a RNA or DNA molecule inside a cellular membrane.  It can't reporduce on its own.  It must use the cellular structures found in other cells in order to duplicate replicas of itself.  

Are viruses life?  There's some debate on that issue, mainly because a virus can't reproduce on its own.  A virus is sort of an intermediate enity between life and non-life.  It wouldn't be too hard to imagine going a step or two back from the virus stage where you have a promordial soup with the organic components necessary for life.

It has been found that given the right conditions, organic compounds (amino acids, nucleotides, etc) will form from.  Conditions on the early earth were quite different from what we see today.  

The field of abiogenesis has a long ways to go yet on determining just how life could have come about from non-life environment, but there's nothing to say that it couldn't be done.  We do know of one place where it happened - here on earth!


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:32 PM on March 6, 2008 | IP
noone

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"The field of abiogenesis has a long ways to go yet on determining just how life could have come about from non-life environment, but there's nothing to say that it couldn't be done.  We do know of one place where it happened - here on earth!"

What?...There is nothing to say that it couldn't be done????

Are you from some weird Darwin religion sect? Life comes from the living not from the non living. No matter how bad you want to believe that life can be created from non living material it's not going to happen. Kittens come from cats, puppys come from dogs and babies come from humans.
Use the scientific method
The steps of the scientific method are to:

   * Ask a Question
   * Do Background Research
   * Construct a Hypothesis
   * Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
   * Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
   * Communicate Your Results[color=red]

(Edited by noone 3/7/2008 at 1:32 PM).
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 1:31 PM on March 7, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Conditions on earth 3 1/2 billion years ago were quite different from what they are today.  Life is a major factor in the environmental change that has taken place.   The same process cannot happen on earth today.  But life clearly did arise sometime before 3 1/2 billion years ago.  

You can look it up on any reputable science website.  Take a look at www.sciencemag.org and do a search on 'Origin of Life' - you'll get thousands of hits   The journal 'Science' is a prestigeous publication by the AAAS.  Check out other science publications, such as Nature, and you'll see the same result.

The fossil record clearly shows that life has changed from simpler forms to more complex forms over the past 3 1/2 billion years.  That fact (evolution) is supported by hard evidence from across all fields of science - biology, geology, chemistry, physics, astonomy, etc, etc, etc.  Not only that, but evolution is the only theory that can accurately explain life as we see it on earth today.  That's why it is the unifying theory in biology today.

How do you think life arose on earth?
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:53 PM on March 8, 2008 | IP
noone

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You are a idiot! see the below:

Origin of Life - Spontaneous Generation
For millennia, the Origin of Life was thought to be the result of Abiogenesis (also known as "Spontaneous Generation"). The doctrine of Spontaneous Generation holds that organic life could and does arise from inorganic matter. As late as the 17th century, there were recipes to "create" life. Take sweaty rags, wrap them around wheat, and set them in an open jar. In 21 days, you'll "create" mice. For rats, just throw garbage in the street. In a few days, rats will take the place of the garbage. All over the world, in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas, mankind was formulating recipes for "creating" bees, lice, scorpions, maggots, worms, frogs, etc. In 1668, Francesco Redi publicly opposed the idea of Spontaneous Generation. While it was generally accepted that rotting meat generated maggots, Redi disagreed. He maintained that maggots hatched from eggs laid by flies. To test his hypothesis, Redi performed one of the first known experiments to utilize a "control group." Thus began both the death of Spontaneous Generation and the birth of the modern era of scientific development. Redi placed meat in three flasks -- one open, one sealed and one covered with gauze. Maggots appeared in the open flask, as the flies were able to reach the meat. Maggots did not appear in the sealed flask or the flask covered by gauze. At the time, this experiment was not thought to disprove Spontaneous Generation. It merely proved that maggots did not come from meat.

Origin of Life - Louis Pasteur
Spontaneous Generation was thought to be the Origin of Life until the late 1850's. It wasn't until Frenchman Louis Pasteur that this fallacy was finally disproved. In 1859, the French Academy of Science sponsored a Science Fair, the goal being to prove or disprove Spontaneous Generation. Young Pasteur's award winning experiment was a clever variation of earlier experiments performed by John Needham (1713-1781) and Lazzaro Spallanzani (1729-1799). Pasteur filled a long necked flask with meat broth. He then heated the glass neck and bent it into an "S" shape. Air could reach the broth, but gravity acted to trap airborne microorganisms in the curve of the neck. He then boiled the broth. After a time, no microorganisms had formed in the broth. When the flask was tipped so that the broth reached the microorganisms trapped in the neck, the broth quickly became cloudy with microscopic life. Thus, Pasteur disproved Spontaneous Generation. Furthermore, Pasteur proved that some microorganisms are airborne.

Origin of Life - Origin of Species and Modern Day Science Class
Spontaneous Generation was disproved as the Origin of Life in 1859. Ironically, it was this same year that Charles Darwin's Origin of Species was published. From this work arose the modern evolutionary movement, which is now thought to have occurred in six phases: (1) Cosmic Evolution (the origin of space, time, matter and energy from nothing); (2) Chemical Evolution (the development of the higher elements from hydrogen); (3) Stellar and Planetary Evolution (the origin of stars and planets); (4) Organic Evolution (the origin of organic life from a rock); (5) Macro Evolution (the origin of major kinds); and (6) Micro Evolution (the variation within the kinds). Only the sixth phase has been observed and documented. The first five are merely assumed. Interestingly, the fourth assumption is the old doctrine of Spontaneous Generation - organic life developing from inorganic matter (a rock). The sadly comical result is that some modern day textbooks devote a chapter to the work of Francesco Redi and Louis Pasteur, and their success in disproving Spontaneous Generation. Then, a few chapters later, school kids are taught that Spontaneous Generation is the Origin of Life.

(Edited by noone 3/10/2008 at 3:39 PM).
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 1:34 PM on March 10, 2008 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

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