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
     Evidence for Creation?
       Is there any?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I believe i also already answered this. The comets that were expelled from the earth facing the sun formed crystalline comets, while the water and rock expelled from the other side formed amorphous comets.

This is incorrect because the earth is too close to the sun for amorphous dust grains to remain amorphos.  The comets that contain amorphous dust grains formed outside the orbit of pluto, anything near an earth orbit would melt and crystalize, so your point is disproven.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:45 PM on July 26, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You prove my point. This should have been eliminated but this is an actual feature we see in human eggs. How did it evolve? You say yourself it should have been eliminated from the gene pool.

Obvoiously it didn't prevent fertilization.  Support your claim, I think you just made this up.  Evolution does happen so your example is invalid.  Like I said, making things up doesn't count.

Explain the coating of human eggs.

Easy, a product of evolution.  The coating and the sperm cells evolved millions of years before humans, I fail to see what the problem is.  Sperm and egg in mammals had been working fine for those millions of years, why wouldn't it work in humans, which are mammals.

(Edited by Demon38 7/26/2009 at 10:05 PM).
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:52 PM on July 26, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Your expaination fails because it is not physically possible for water to be under the crust of the earth, too hot for one thing.  And you could provide no evidence to support this claim.  As for deuterium, no, it is present in the universe, not just in water on earth, so it is obvious that comets that contain a high concentration of deuterium and are older than the earth did not acaquire this from earth water.  Deuterium is evidence for an old universe.

All of your objections are based on the plate tectonics theory. The hydroplate theory says that the earth was not as hot before the flood as it is now, and magma was formed afterwards from friction of the sliding plates. This makes these objections invalid. And you have not explained how comets have such a high concentration of deuterium, much higher than interstellar space. I dont know how this could possibly be evidence for an old universe. Your claim that it is is ridiculous and unsupported.

No, magama has been around a lot longer than that.  Magma is not produced by plates sliding around, this is another mistake.  From here:
Magma

"Magma, molten or partially molten rock beneath the earth’s surface. Magma is generated when rock deep underground melts due to the high temperatures and pressures inside the earth."

So let's add geology to the subjects you don't understand.


Once again using evidence from plate tectonics, which i am saying is false. You have not responded to many of the evidences against subduction that were in the link that i posted.

Sorry, I can't take your sights seriously because they don't do any real research and don't understand science.  they base their silly claims on wishful thinking and a fairytale.

let's look at one of their claims:

"If trenches have been on earth for hundreds of millions of years, many trenches should now be buried. Some should even have been lifted above sea level. Such ancient trenches have never been found. "

What an idiotic statement!  As my source plainly tells us, "A trench marks the position at which the flexed, subducting slab begins to descend beneath another lithospheric slab."

So no, they shouldn't have been filled in or lifted above the sea.  Now you see why I discount your incredibly bad sources.


Once again my source plainly shows how subduction is impossible.

With a crazy, unsupported fantasy.  That's not science, that's dark age superstition.

The evidence i gave you for comets having 20 times the concenration of deuterium than intersteallar space is dark age superstition?
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 12:12 AM on July 27, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The comets that contain amorphous dust grains formed outside the orbit of pluto, anything near an earth orbit would melt and crystalize, so your point is disproven.

Proof for this?
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 12:14 AM on July 27, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Obvoiously it didn't prevent fertilization.  Support your claim, I think you just made this up.  Evolution does happen so your example is invalid.  Like I said, making things up doesn't count.

http://naturalsciences.sdsu.edu/classes/lab2.5/lab2.5.html#anchor29711530
"Egg cells have a jellylike coating which provides them with protection from their environment. When the whipping tail of a sperm cell propels it to the outside jelly coating of the egg cell, the sperm secretes special enzymes (proteins) which allow it to penetrate the jelly to reach the membrane of the egg cell. The egg cell "recognizes" the sperm cell and engulfs it."

Very basic human biology. And saying evolution happens so my argument is invalid? Come on you debate alot you know you cant say things like that to disprove the argument. This is a reason why evolution DOESNT happen which is what we're arguing about.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 12:22 AM on July 27, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The evolution of sexual reproduction.  I think that is an interesting question.  I don't know how sexual reproduction evolved.  But the point is, it's been around for a long time once it did evolve.  And the fossil record shows that it has been very successful in allowing a countless multitude of evoluton to occur - especially over the past 600 million years.

The diversity of life on earth is an amazing thing to behold.  Totally staggering.  I don't blame someone for thinking there must be a God involved.  But all the evidence points to a totally naturallistic explanation - evolution.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 01:15 AM on July 27, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The diversity of life on earth is an amazing thing to behold.  Totally staggering.  I don't blame someone for thinking there must be a God involved.  But all the evidence points to a totally naturallistic explanation - evolution.

All the evidence? you just admitted you dont know how sexual reproduction evolved. What about that evidence? And all the same evidence can be looked at as evidence for creation. No evidence has been put forth that cannot support creation.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 01:46 AM on July 27, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The hydroplate theory says that the earth was not as hot before the flood as it is now, and magma was formed afterwards from friction of the sliding plates. This makes these objections invalid.

Hydorplate theory, you mena Brown's failed hypothesis, from here:
Hydroplate Theory
"According to Walter Brown's "hydroplate theory" subterranean water burst through the Earth's crust causing a catastrophic worldwide flood. It's best understood by comparison to legitimate scientific theories such as plate tectonics. To begin with "hydroplate theory" is a hypothesis, not a legitimate scientific theory. It neither makes the broad predictions, nor has it survived the rigorous scrutiny required of a scientific theory. Inconsistencies of the "hydroplate hypothesis" have been widely noted, but obvious methodological shortcomings are less well documented.
The hydroplate hypothesis is based not on empirical observation, but on biblical predictions. The hypothesis is justified not by discovering predicted geological features, but by consistency with the Bible. The process of constructing explanations to conform with beliefs (texts) is known as apologetics. The explanations themselves are "just so stories""

So Hydroplate theory has been falsified, it's not true, it hs been totally disproven.

As to the earth not being hot, wrong again, from here:
hot core of earth

"For all this, however, Marone says, the vast majority of the heat in Earth's interior—up to 90 percent—is fueled by the decaying of radioactive isotopes like Potassium 40, Uranium 238, 235, and Thorium 232 contained within the mantle. These isotopes radiate heat as they shed excess energy and move toward stability. "The amount of heat caused by this radiation is almost the same as the total heat measured emanating from the Earth." "

Since these radioactive isotopes have half lives of billions of years, we know the earth's core has been hot for billions of years, it was never cool.  Your claim is disproven again.

And you have not explained how comets have such a high concentration of deuterium, much higher than interstellar space.  

Why wouldn't gravity clump deuterium together in deep space?  that's the simple answer.  Your claim that water existed under the earth's surface has been disproven yet you still cling to it and reject the evidence that it's impossible.  Sorry, it's your claim that has been disproven no matter how many times your repeat it.  So there, I've explained it.

I dont know how this could possibly be evidence for an old universe. Your claim that it is is ridiculous and unsupported.

Then why do the experts on comets support this claim, how many comets have you personally examimed?  What makes your silly claims more valid than the real data?  

Once again using evidence from plate tectonics, which i am saying is false.

And you're wrong.  From here:
Plate tectonics
"Over the next thirty years a lot of new and surprise discoveries were made as new technologies were developed for exploring the ocean floor . The discovery of volcanic activity on the ocean floor in the middle of the Antlantic that turned out to be part of a long, unbroken mountain chain of undersea volcanoes was the most ground-breaking discovery that supported the theory of continental drift. Scientists developed instruments for measuring earthquake activity around the world and began plotting the locations of earthquakes. They all got together and started drawing a new map of the world that showed volcanic and seismic (earthquake) activity was concentrated along certain areas that looked like the margins of huge crustal plates. During the 1960s several scientists published papers that reviewed the preponderance of evidence that had been gathered for the theory of continental drift and it soon came to be known as the theory of plate tectonics. "

Plate tectonics have been understood for over 50 years, in that time nothing has been found that falsified them.  Certainly you haven't and you haven't given us any evidence that does.

You have not responded to many of the evidences against subduction that were in the link that i posted.

I already falsified your claim that sliding plates produce magma, doesn't that falsify your claim?

Once again my source plainly shows how subduction is impossible.

And once again, your source flies in the face of modern geologic facts, it is clearly wrong.  Subduction is an observable fact.

The evidence i gave you for comets having 20 times the concenration of deuterium than intersteallar space is dark age superstition?

It is impossible superstition, can not have happened.  It is based on impossibilities that can not have happened.  So yes, it's dark age superstition.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:54 AM on July 27, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Very basic human biology. And saying evolution happens so my argument is invalid? Come on you debate alot you know you cant say things like that to disprove the argument. This is a reason why evolution DOESNT happen which is what we're arguing about.


Where does your source say anything about what you claim?  Sperm evolved, Egg cells evovled, your claim that they couldn't evolve together is disproven.  You haven't given us any evidence that evolution hasn't happened.  As has been stated, sexual reproduction evovled long before mammals showed up, any problem mutations were selected against long before mammals even existed.  I don't know what your point is.  Male and female sexual reproduction is easily explained by evolution, we see all the evidence for it, you have provided nothing to falsify it.

All the evidence? you just admitted you dont know how sexual reproduction evolved. What about that evidence? And all the same evidence can be looked at as evidence for creation. No evidence has been put forth that cannot support creation.

no it can't.  We see asexual reproduction, we see simple exchanging of genetic material, we see organisms that can reproduce both asexually and sexually, we see organisms that reproduce only by sexual reproduction.  there are no boundries between them, evolution is the best explaination for this.  Your claim has always been the worthless "Goddidit" and then you can offer no evidence to support this claim, in fact, you can offer no evidence that your god even exists.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:20 AM on July 27, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

we see all the evidence for it, you have provided nothing to falsify it.


Come on Demon 38 - just give us the evidence that sexual reproduction evolved. Remember the different structures need to develop independantly and in a complementary fashion in males and females and all by random mutations and selection of the best ones. I need to see this evidence.

Thanks



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 07:46 AM on July 27, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:46 AM on July 27, 2009 :
we see all the evidence for it, you have provided nothing to falsify it.


Come on Demon 38 - just give us the evidence that sexual reproduction evolved. Remember the different structures need to develop independantly and in a complementary fashion in males and females and all by random mutations and selection of the best ones. I need to see this evidence.

Thanks



AS I noted earlier, in a species of fungi the difference between "male" and "female" is a point mutation.  That's as simple as you can get for sexual differentiation.  Therefore it's not unreasonable to postulate a similar genetic difference occurred long ago that eventually led to all the various sorts of sexual reproduction we now observe.  

Speaking of evidence, note the title of this thread - evidence for creation.  At this point the creationists have yet to provide a single valid and scientific bit of evidence for creationism.  The best idea creationists have put forward is the insipid "theory" of hydroplates.  

Perhaps the creationist strategy is to kill off scientists by causing them to laugh themselves to death?



-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 10:28 AM on July 27, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from jango at 12:46 AM on July 27, 2009 : And all the same evidence can be looked at as evidence for creation. No evidence has been put forth that cannot support creation.


No, this is not correct.  I've noticed that this comment has been made a couple of times here.  For instance, the nested biological hierarchy we see among organisms fits the evolutionary model.  There is no reason for such relationships to be observed if all creatures were created in a single act of special creation.



-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 10:34 AM on July 27, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hydorplate theory, you mena Brown's failed hypothesis, from here:
Hydroplate Theory
"According to Walter Brown's "hydroplate theory" subterranean water burst through the Earth's crust causing a catastrophic worldwide flood. It's best understood by comparison to legitimate scientific theories such as plate tectonics. To begin with "hydroplate theory" is a hypothesis, not a legitimate scientific theory. It neither makes the broad predictions, nor has it survived the rigorous scrutiny required of a scientific theory. Inconsistencies of the "hydroplate hypothesis" have been widely noted, but obvious methodological shortcomings are less well documented.
The hydroplate hypothesis is based not on empirical observation, but on biblical predictions. The hypothesis is justified not by discovering predicted geological features, but by consistency with the Bible. The process of constructing explanations to conform with beliefs (texts) is known as apologetics. The explanations themselves are "just so stories""

So Hydroplate theory has been falsified, it's not true, it hs been totally disproven.


I see nothing in this quote that disproves the hydroplate theory. Where is the evidence?

Why wouldn't gravity clump deuterium together in deep space?  that's the simple answer.

Your saying gravity is like some kind of deuterium magnet? The whole point is that the deuterium concentrations in interstellar space are so much less than those found in comets. If it was just space dust clumping together the deuterium concentration would be much less.

And you're wrong.  From here:
Plate tectonics
"Over the next thirty years a lot of new and surprise discoveries were made as new technologies were developed for exploring the ocean floor . The discovery of volcanic activity on the ocean floor in the middle of the Antlantic that turned out to be part of a long, unbroken mountain chain of undersea volcanoes was the most ground-breaking discovery that supported the theory of continental drift. Scientists developed instruments for measuring earthquake activity around the world and began plotting the locations of earthquakes. They all got together and started drawing a new map of the world that showed volcanic and seismic (earthquake) activity was concentrated along certain areas that looked like the margins of huge crustal plates. During the 1960s several scientists published papers that reviewed the preponderance of evidence that had been gathered for the theory of continental drift and it soon came to be known as the theory of plate tectonics. "

Plate tectonics have been understood for over 50 years, in that time nothing has been found that falsified them.  Certainly you haven't and you haven't given us any evidence that does.


Yes plates move, that is true in both theories. But subduction does not occur. You continue to ignore my source on why this is true. Do you have no arguments against it?

And once again, your source flies in the face of modern geologic facts, it is clearly wrong.  Subduction is an observable fact.

Once again, disprove the evidence in the source.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 1:23 PM on July 27, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Where does your source say anything about what you claim?  Sperm evolved, Egg cells evovled, your claim that they couldn't evolve together is disproven.  You haven't given us any evidence that evolution hasn't happened.  As has been stated, sexual reproduction evovled long before mammals showed up, any problem mutations were selected against long before mammals even existed.  I don't know what your point is.  Male and female sexual reproduction is easily explained by evolution, we see all the evidence for it, you have provided nothing to falsify it.

I ask you to explain the coating on human egg cells and you did not. This is proof against evolution. Male and female sexual reproduction is not easily explained by evolution and i just gave you evidence to falsify it. You said yourself that you did not believe the coating on egg cells existed because it would not evolve. My source shows that it does, so you yourself must say evolution cannot happen in that instance.

no it can't.  We see asexual reproduction, we see simple exchanging of genetic material, we see organisms that can reproduce both asexually and sexually, we see organisms that reproduce only by sexual reproduction.  there are no boundries between them, evolution is the best explaination for this.  Your claim has always been the worthless "Goddidit" and then you can offer no evidence to support this claim, in fact, you can offer no evidence that your god even exists.

Evolution cannot explain this as i explained above.



 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 1:28 PM on July 27, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, this is not correct.  I've noticed that this comment has been made a couple of times here.  For instance, the nested biological hierarchy we see among organisms fits the evolutionary model.  There is no reason for such relationships to be observed if all creatures were created in a single act of special creation.

There is no reason why a variety of creatures is not evidencce for a Creator and his creativity.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 1:30 PM on July 27, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The best idea creationists have put forward is the insipid "theory" of hydroplates.

Evolutionists and their insipid beliefin subduction. Proved impossible in my earlier link.


 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 1:32 PM on July 27, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If evolution were true we would see many half developed organs in many different species. Instead we see only fully developed, fully functional organs. There should be an abundance of evolving characteristics in organisms. All organisms are complete, which is evidence for creation.

How would veins and arteries evolve? There is no advantage in a half developed tube, it would be bad for the organism. Evolution cannot produce functional characteristics in a short time, and there is no intermediate forms between fully developed tubes, like arteries, and animals without these tubes.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 1:53 PM on July 27, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why do we not see an abundance of transitional species now? Why are the links between monkeys and humans not living? Is it because they were not as viable as humans or monkeys? In this case they would not have evolved at all from monkeys. No evidence of a living transitional species is seen. There should be an abundance of them if evolution is true.

Why is there no two celled life? There are many one celled organisms, and organisms with 6-20 cells are parasites which require a complex animal as a host, and cannot live without one. Where are the organisms with 2-5 cells? These are surely necessary in the process of a one celled organism evolving into a multicellular organism.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 1:57 PM on July 27, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from jango at 10:38 PM on July 25, 2009 :
Are you saying that sexual reproduction is an irreducibly complex system and therefore couldn't have evolved? Just be aware that Behe said under oath that no irreducibly complex system that couldn't have evolved has ever been found.

You believe everything Behe says?



No - just the stuff that supports our side!




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:47 PM on July 27, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No - just the stuff that supports our side!

Haha good one derwood





 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 3:58 PM on July 27, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from jango at 12:30 PM on July 27, 2009 :
No, this is not correct.  I've noticed that this comment has been made a couple of times here.  For instance, the nested biological hierarchy we see among organisms fits the evolutionary model.  There is no reason for such relationships to be observed if all creatures were created in a single act of special creation.

There is no reason why a variety of creatures is not evidencce for a Creator and his creativity.


You seemed to have missed the part about the nested hierarchy.  If evolution is an accurate description of how biological organisms changed over time, then we should see a set of shared, related characteristics for those creatures that evolved from a common ancestor.  This is what we find.

On the other hand, if all creatures were made by special creation, then we should see unique features that aren't related to other among creatures.  There should not be a nested hierarchy.



-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 4:25 PM on July 27, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from jango at 12:53 PM on July 27, 2009 :
If evolution were true we would see many half developed organs in many different species. Instead we see only fully developed, fully functional organs. There should be an abundance of evolving characteristics in organisms. All organisms are complete, which is evidence for creation.


No, no, no...you obviously don't understand evolution.  Each creature is complete in itself.  We should not expect to see half organs, that would be magic.  



-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 4:26 PM on July 27, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from jango at 12:57 PM on July 27, 2009 :
Why do we not see an abundance of transitional species now? Why are the links between monkeys and humans not living? Is it because they were not as viable as humans or monkeys? In this case they would not have evolved at all from monkeys. No evidence of a living transitional species is seen. There should be an abundance of them if evolution is true.

Why is there no two celled life? There are many one celled organisms, and organisms with 6-20 cells are parasites which require a complex animal as a host, and cannot live without one. Where are the organisms with 2-5 cells? These are surely necessary in the process of a one celled organism evolving into a multicellular organism.


All species have the potential to be a transitional species.  If at some point humans evolve into another species, then you and I would be transitional species.  

Your reasoning concerning the evolution of monkeys and humans or whatever number of multicellular organisms doesn't even make sense.



-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 4:32 PM on July 27, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from jango at 12:12 AM on July 27, 2009 :

Once again my source plainly shows how subduction is impossible.


Who is your source?  I missed it.




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 4:43 PM on July 27, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Who is your source?  I missed it.

Here you go. sorry it was a little ways back.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Trenches5.html#wp4480432
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 4:57 PM on July 27, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, no, no...you obviously don't understand evolution.  Each creature is complete in itself.  We should not expect to see half organs, that would be magic.

We should see organs that are in the process of evolving. According to evolution organs evolved with slow changes over time. New organs must evolve, and where are those new organs? What organ in any animal is evolving?

If an organism is evolving wings, the first few mutatuions in this direction would yield an appendage with no ability for flight, just a deformed version of the appendage. It would take many hundreds and most likely thousands of mutations to form a useful wing. We see no such appendages or organs in this intermediate stage.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 6:52 PM on July 27, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

All species have the potential to be a transitional species.  If at some point humans evolve into another species, then you and I would be transitional species.  

Your reasoning concerning the evolution of monkeys and humans or whatever number of multicellular organisms doesn't even make sense.


It makes perfect sense. Why are the transitional species between monkeys and humans not living? They are more viable than monkeys, since they evolved from monkeys, but monkeys are here and the transitional species are not.

And if evolution is true it is logical that single celled organisms would evolve into organisms with two cells and so on. Why are there no 2-5 celled organisms? ther should be an abundance of them, since they would be some of the first living creatures to evolve. And even all 6-20 cell organisms are parasitic, requiring a complex host. These could not survive on their own. How does evolution explain this?
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 6:58 PM on July 27, 2009 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It makes perfect sense. Why are the transitional species between monkeys and humans not living? They are more viable than monkeys, since they evolved from monkeys, but monkeys are here and the transitional species are not.


No monkeys that are alive today are ancestors of us. Transitional species were more able to survive and lived on while the originals did not. Additional changes occurred to the transitionals, and they too died off, unable to compete with their better suited relatives.

A good analogy is human civilization. Western civilization began in the Middle East. There were many transitional forms of civilization since then, yet Middle East civilization lives on. Here's the key: It's not the same Middle East civilization that it was before. Likewise, the monkeys that are alive today are not the same monkeys that were alive before.





(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 7/27/2009 at 7:05 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: 7:02 PM on July 27, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No monkeys that are alive today are ancestors of us. Transitional species were more able to survive and lived on while the originals did not. Additional changes occurred to the transitionals, and they too died off, unable to compete with their better suited relatives.

A good analogy is human civilization. Western civilization began in the Middle East. There were many transitional forms of civilization since then, yet Middle East civilization lives on. Here's the key: It's not the same Middle East civilization that it was before. Likewise, the monkeys that are alive today are not the same monkeys that were alive before.


just clarifying, the monkeys today are ancestors of the monkeys that humans also evolved from? So humans did not evolve from the current monkeys but from the monkeys that these monkeys evolved from?
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 8:10 PM on July 27, 2009 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from jango at 8:10 PM on July 27, 2009 :
No monkeys that are alive today are ancestors of us. Transitional species were more able to survive and lived on while the originals did not. Additional changes occurred to the transitionals, and they too died off, unable to compete with their better suited relatives.

A good analogy is human civilization. Western civilization began in the Middle East. There were many transitional forms of civilization since then, yet Middle East civilization lives on. Here's the key: It's not the same Middle East civilization that it was before. Likewise, the monkeys that are alive today are not the same monkeys that were alive before.


just clarifying, the monkeys today are ancestors of the monkeys that humans also evolved from? So humans did not evolve from the current monkeys but from the monkeys that these monkeys evolved from?



Correct. There are very few life forms that have not undergone extremely significant change over millions of years. Sharks are a good example of an exception, but even then, the species of sharks that exist today are not the same species of sharks that existed, say, during the time of the dinosaurs. Evolution is only as effective as it is fluid -- it is the process of genetic change itself rather than specific genes that ultimately allow life to survive through enormous environmental turmoil and competition from other life.

What this also means, of course, is that searching for one transitional species between two others is a wild goose chase. Life doesn't evolve in a fixed unit of time or number of generations. Evolution between species is an amalgamation of hundreds, sometimes millions of successive generations, and the changes between each generation are minuscule by themselves. There isn't just one magic generation out of all of them that suddenly represents a new species.

The true transitionals are each individual offspring of each individual parent. That's why we say that every organism that reproduced is in fact a transitional, and it's true. You parents are, after all, genetically different from your grandparents, and you are genetically different from your parents. You are also genetically different from your great great great great grandparents, but try finding just one generation out of all your great grandparents that represents "the" transitional form between you and your great great great great grandparents. That would be silly. Instead, we acknowledge that all of those who passed down your genes are transitional.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 7/27/2009 at 8:54 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: 8:45 PM on July 27, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Correct. There are very few life forms that have not undergone extremely significant change over millions of years. Sharks are a good example of an exception, but even then, the species of sharks that exist today are not the same species of sharks that existed, say, during the time of the dinosaurs. Evolution is only as effective as it is fluid -- it is the process of genetic change itself rather than specific genes that ultimately allow life to survive through enormous environmental turmoil and competition from other life.

What this also means, of course, is that searching for one transitional species between two others is a wild goose chase. Life doesn't evolve in a fixed unit of time or number of generations. Evolution between species is an amalgamation of hundreds, sometimes millions of successive generations, and the changes between each generation are minuscule by themselves. There isn't just one magic generation out of all of them that suddenly represents a new species.

The true transitionals are each individual offspring of each individual parent. That's why we say that every organism that reproduced is in fact a transitional, and it's true. You parents are, after all, genetically different from your grandparents, and you are genetically different from your parents. You are also genetically different from your great great great great grandparents, but try finding just one generation out of all your great grandparents that represents "the" transitional form between you and your great great great great grandparents. That would be silly. Instead, we acknowledge that all of those who passed down your genes are transitional.


This is a very good explanation of evolution. This shows how the fossil record does not support evolution. We should see a multitude of fossils that are nearly the same as animals we see  today, but just one or two minor changes. Instead we see jumps, which support creation. All the animals, present and fossilized were created as their own species. There is no slow change in the fossil record. All new features are seen in jumps.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 7/27/2009 at 8:54 PM).




 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 9:10 PM on July 27, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from jango at 7:10 PM on July 27, 2009 :
just clarifying, the monkeys today are ancestors of the monkeys that humans also evolved from? So humans did not evolve from the current monkeys but from the monkeys that these monkeys evolved from?


In addition to what EntwickelnCollin said, the common ancestor for both humans and monkeys (old world or new world) was at least 80 million years ago and most likely some sort of lemur-type creature.

For human evolution, the more typical approach is to look at early hominids such as Australopithecus afarensis and latter guys like H. habilis.


(Edited by Mustrum 7/27/2009 at 9:29 PM).


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 9:19 PM on July 27, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from jango at 8:10 PM on July 27, 2009 :

This shows how the fossil record does not support evolution. We should see a multitude of fossils that are nearly the same as animals we see  today, but just one or two minor changes. Instead we see jumps, which support creation. All the animals, present and fossilized were created as their own species. There is no slow change in the fossil record. All new features are seen in jumps.



We do see both gradual and quicker changes, as would be expected based on what we know of genetics.  For examples of how organisms can change in relatively minor ways to fit an environment look up ring species.  In such cases we find that while individuals within each population in a ring will mate with individuals from populations most closely related to them, they will not mate with individuals from populations that are less closely related.  



-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 9:28 PM on July 27, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I see nothing in this quote that disproves the hydroplate theory. Where is the
evidence?


The post shows that hydroplate theory is not a scientific theory and is not based on any evidence.  It's based wishful thinking.  I thought I had already showed you hydorplate theory is impossible when I showed you that below the earth's crust it's too hot for water to remain liquid.  This is due mostly to the radioactive elements in the earth that keep it hot.  Since these radioactive materials have half lives measured in billions of years, we know theearths temperature below the surface has always been too hot for water.  and we see no evidence of it.  rock does not float on water and there is no evidence of the pillars you claimed hold up the crust.  there's also no evidence of ejection holes for when this underground water suposedly jetted out.
No, ,hydroplate theory is totally falsified.  And it's telling you've ignored the evidence that disproves it.

Your saying gravity is like some kind of deuterium magnet?

Not at all but heavy deuterium would naturally be pulled together, that's how gravity works.

The whole point is that the deuterium concentrations in interstellar space are so much less than those found in comets.

That's because as the left over material from the solar system formation started to clump together, it's mass increased and it would then attract even more particles.  that's how accretion works.  When you say concentrations in interstellar space, what are you talking about.  If particles of deuterium were too far away to be attracted by the gravity of other masses of course their concentration will be lower than larger chanks that grow more massive and therefore attract more particles.  

If it was just space dust clumping together the deuterium concentration would be much less.

Why?  Show us your evidence that comets should have a lower concentration of deuterium.  And then show us why impossible underground water should have a high concentration of deuterium, as you claim.

Yes plates move, that is true in both theories. But subduction does not occur.

subduction is overwhelming supported by the evidence, from here:
Subduction

"Since the 1970s, a vast amount of evidence was found in structural geology, seismology, petrology and isotope geochemistry that subduction is taking place. Observations seen as evidence for subduction include:

1. The existence of Wadati-Benioff zones, elongated regions of high seismic activity within the crust and mantle that are explained as huge shear zones. These zones are located beneath oceanic trenches and seem to indicate a slice of crustal material is moving downward through the mantle. They form one of the best arguments for subduction.
2. 3D models of the mantle made with seismic tomography show cold zones of sinking material exactly in the regions where plate tectonics predicts slabs of crust are subducting into the mantle.
3. Petrologic research of rocks from mountain belts has yielded countless pressure-temperature-time paths. Paths for the axial zones of mountain belts (the metamorphic core) show many mountain chains went through a period of "deep burial". This is explained by plate tectonics (subduction followed by obduction).
4. The existence of eclogite in many mountainbelts indicates material was "pushed" to depths far into the mantle (depths up to over 200 km are found). In plate tectonics this is explained by the slab pull force which occurs at mid-ocean ridges.
The existence of major geologic shearzones (sutures) in most mountain belts.  paleomagnetic and mineralogic studies show the rocks that are now lying next to each other were originally thousands of kilometers apart. In other words: a piece of the crust is missing. Structural geology has shown these missing pieces of crust are not located directly underneath the shearzones or laterally. Instead, they seem to have moved along the sutures into the mantle (this is supported by shear indicators in the shear zones). This is again strong evidence that subduction took place and mountains form by the "continental collision" of tectonic plates.
5. Rare earth isotope compositions of volcanic rocks that formed above subduction zones are similar to those of sediments on top of the subducting plate. If there are lateral differences in the isotope composition of sediments on subducting plates, these lateral differences are also found back in the composition of the magma that rose from the deeper part of the subduction zone."

You continue to ignore my source on why this is true. Do you have no arguments against it?

too long, pick the point that you think is the best evidence and I'll respond.

I ask you to explain the coating on human egg cells and you did not.

Yes i did, it evolved long before mammals existed.

This is proof against evolution.

No it isn't.  

Male and female sexual reproduction is not easily explained by evolution and i just gave you evidence to falsify it.

It is easily explained by evolution.  Your example is invalid because it shows an utter lack of understanding of evolution.  the mechanisms for sexual reproduction evolved long before mammals existed, mammals inherited this seuccessful strategy.  You have tried touse a strawman argument to disprove it, you have failed.

You said yourself that you did not believe the coating on egg cells existed because it would not evolve.

No I didn't, show me where I said that or retract the claim.

My source shows that it does, so you yourself must say evolution cannot happen in that instance.

You're joking, right?  Show us that this a coating doesn't exist around a reptilian egg and show us reptilian sperm doesn't have acrosome, since we evolved from reptiles.  Human reproduction didn't evolve out of nothing, mammals inherited from what had gone before.  Once again, your argument isn't logical, it doesn't make sense.

Evolution cannot explain this as i explained above.

You don't understrand how evolution works, you don't understand biology.  You explained nothing.

There is no reason why a variety of creatures is not evidencce for a Creator and his creativity.

As explained, the variety of life is in a nested hierarchy.  A creator would not have to constrain himslef in hthis manner.  In fact, he would be an idiot if he did.  So the pattern we find in life falsifies an intelligent designer and supports evolution.  You really haven't made any arguments on the nested hierarchy of life besides "Goddidit" that's really all you have.

Evolutionists and their insipid beliefin subduction.

Subduction is real, hydroplate theory is falsified.  You haven't been able to respond to those falsifications.

If evolution were true we would see many half developed organs in many different species.

Some invertabrates have a simple muscular tube that pumps rhythmicly to pump blood, then we see fish with a 2 chambered heart, reptiles with a 3 chambered heart and birds and mammals with a 4 chambered heart.   Half developed is an inacurate phrase because all these hearts are fully formed, but clearly the more complex hearts evolved out of simpler hearts.  

Instead we see only fully developed, fully functional organs.

Once again you demonstrate your ignorance of evolution, every organ it produces is fully functional.  Are you ever going to do any real research????

There should be an abundance of evolving characteristics in organisms. All organisms are complete, which is evidence for creation.

Nope, creation is 4,000 year old myth and a myth that has ben disproven.  Common descent is a fact.  

There is no advantage in a half developed tube, it would be bad for the organism.

And of course, evolution doesn't predict this.  Get a clue.

Evolution cannot produce functional characteristics in a short time, and there is no intermediate forms between fully developed tubes, like arteries, and animals without these tubes.

Yes it can, and now we some of the genes that account for the formation of these functional charateristics.  there are many intermediate forms, as I showed with the different kinds of hearts.  Just as there are many intermediates for veins and arteries.

Why do we not see an abundance of transitional species now?

We do, you just don't understand evolution and biology so you don't know what to look for.  the duckbilled platypus is an obvious transitional species between reptile and mammal.

Why are the links between monkeys and humans not living?

Humans are not directly related to monkeys, still don't understand evolution, do you.

No evidence of a living transitional species is seen.

Duckbilled platypus.  And look up ring species to see another example and learn how speciation occurrs.

Why is there no two celled life?

God hates the number 2.

There are many one celled organisms, and organisms with 6-20 cells are parasites which require a complex animal as a host, and cannot live without one. Where are the organisms with 2-5 cells?

That's not how evolution works.  but we do see how one celled organisms turn into multicelled organisms.

These are surely necessary in the process of a one celled organism evolving into a multicellular organism.

No they're not.  You just don't do any research at all.  There are many theoretical paths to go from single celled organisms to multicelld organisms and it is believed that it happened many times in different ways in the evolution of life on earth.  Once such theory is The Colonial Theory which says groups of the same organism gather together and over time different cells assume different functions.  What's compelling about this is we see this happen today, groups of ameobas group together and eventually different ameobas assume different functions.  So we see single celled organisms becoming multicelled organisms is quite easily explained, we see it happening today.  No need for 2 celled or 3 celle organisms.

We should see organs that are in the process of evolving.

And as I showed with the hearts, we do see evidence of organs evolving.

What organ in any animal is evolving?

All of them!

If an organism is evolving wings, the first few mutatuions in this direction would yield an appendage with no ability for flight, just a deformed version of the appendage.

what about a flying squirrel?  It doesn't have a deformed appendage and it glides, it's arms and legs function normally but it has the added advantage of being able to glide.  Guess you've never did any research on the origins of flight.  At no time would an animal have a useless appendage.  but mutations that benefit an animal in a different way could be co-opted for a different purpose.

It would take many hundreds and most likely thousands of mutations to form a useful wing.

No it wouldn't and at no time would any of those mutations produce a usless or half formed appendage.

We see no such appendages or organs in this intermediate stage.

Yes we do, fins to legs in transitional fish, second jaw joint to inner ear bones in reptile to mammal evolution.  Your claim is disproven since we DO see such appendages in intermediate states.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:44 PM on July 27, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The post shows that hydroplate theory is not a scientific theory and is not based on any evidence.  It's based wishful thinking.  I thought I had already showed you hydorplate theory is impossible when I showed you that below the earth's crust it's too hot for water to remain liquid.  This is due mostly to the radioactive elements in the earth that keep it hot.  Since these radioactive materials have half lives measured in billions of years, we know theearths temperature below the surface has always been too hot for water.  and we see no evidence of it.  rock does not float on water and there is no evidence of the pillars you claimed hold up the crust.  there's also no evidence of ejection holes for when this underground water suposedly jetted out.
No, ,hydroplate theory is totally falsified.  And it's telling you've ignored the evidence that disproves it.


First evidence for the radioactive elements? Not saying i dont believe you just want an article or something to read up on it. The water was trapped under the rock as iv said many times, the rock was not floating. Ejection holes as you say is the whole mid oceanic ridge.

Not at all but heavy deuterium would naturally be pulled together, that's how gravity works.

Gravity pulls all things equally according to their mass. Why would so much deuterium be concentrated in comets? Where is the source of the high concentration?

That's because as the left over material from the solar system formation started to clump together, it's mass increased and it would then attract even more particles.  that's how accretion works.  When you say concentrations in interstellar space, what are you talking about.  If particles of deuterium were too far away to be attracted by the gravity of other masses of course their concentration will be lower than larger chanks that grow more massive and therefore attract more particles.

Concentration means that the relative amount of deuterium compared to other elements is much higher in comets. This means this ratio of deuterium to ther elements should be the same in space as it is in the comets, but it is not.

Why?  Show us your evidence that comets should have a lower concentration of deuterium.  And then show us why impossible underground water should have a high concentration of deuterium, as you claim.

My argument is that they have a much higher concentration of deuterium. The underground water had a high concentration of deuterium because this explains both the high level of deuterium in the ocean and the even higher level in comets.

too long, pick the point that you think is the best evidence and I'll respond.

Ok heres one from my source:

"Subduction cannot occur along an arc. Subduction is geometrically possible only along a straight line. (The arc-and-cusp pattern of ocean trenches shows subsidence, not subduction.)"

Yes i did, it evolved long before mammals existed.

Oh really? what animal did it originate in? Where is your evidence?

No I didn't, show me where I said that or retract the claim.

Ok this is what i said:
"Easy. The coating of the human egg which requires the acrosome of the sperm for fertilization to occur. The female mutates to form the coating, but the sperm doesnt have the acrosome. No fertilization occurs."

This is what you said:
"So the female that developes this mutation dies off without reproducing, the mutation is elliminated from the gene pool of the population.  Natural selection weeds out harmful mutations and keeps the beneficial ones.  The mutation you describe would be harmful and quickly elliminated.  That's how evolutin works."

You say the mutation i described would be eliminated, but it is an actual characteristic of human egg cells. So you have disproven evolution.

You're joking, right?  Show us that this a coating doesn't exist around a reptilian egg and show us reptilian sperm doesn't have acrosome, since we evolved from reptiles.  Human reproduction didn't evolve out of nothing, mammals inherited from what had gone before.  Once again, your argument isn't logical, it doesn't make sense.

You are assuming evolution is true for your arguments and starting from there. You are trying to prove it not already saying its true so the parts where observation contradicts it arent true. And it does not matter if you say this system evolved in mammals or reptiles, the point is the system cannot evolve.

As explained, the variety of life is in a nested hierarchy.  A creator would not have to constrain himslef in hthis manner.  In fact, he would be an idiot if he did.  So the pattern we find in life falsifies an intelligent designer and supports evolution.  You really haven't made any arguments on the nested hierarchy of life besides "Goddidit" that's really all you have.

Yes a creator wouldnt have to do it like this, but he could. Why not?

If evolution were true we would see many half developed organs in many different species.

Some invertabrates have a simple muscular tube that pumps rhythmicly to pump blood, then we see fish with a 2 chambered heart, reptiles with a 3 chambered heart and birds and mammals with a 4 chambered heart.   Half developed is an inacurate phrase because all these hearts are fully formed, but clearly the more complex hearts evolved out of simpler hearts.

I dont believe my argument was against the evolution of the heart but rather the evolution of veins and arteries.

And of course, evolution doesn't predict this.  Get a clue.

Evolution does not predict that tubes such as arteries will evolve? It predicts one mutation will create the circulatory system in its fully developed form?

Just as there are many intermediates for veins and arteries.

Are you talking of an insects open circulatory system? Still a long way off of mammalian circulatory system.

We do, you just don't understand evolution and biology so you don't know what to look for.  the duckbilled platypus is an obvious transitional species between reptile and mammal.

How do you explain the poisonous spurs on the platypus? Where are these in mammals?  surely they are advantageous.

Humans are not directly related to monkeys, still don't understand evolution, do you.

Ok where are the links between humans and their ancestors. Why are they not living?

God hates the number 2.

Good evidence. Do you have no answer for this?

That's not how evolution works.  but we do see how one celled organisms turn into multicelled organisms.

No evolution works by small changes over time. A one celled organism would evolve into a two celled organism. This is the obvious transition.

No they're not.  You just don't do any research at all.  There are many theoretical paths to go from single celled organisms to multicelld organisms and it is believed that it happened many times in different ways in the evolution of life on earth.  Once such theory is The Colonial Theory which says groups of the same organism gather together and over time different cells assume different functions.  What's compelling about this is we see this happen today, groups of ameobas group together and eventually different ameobas assume different functions.  So we see single celled organisms becoming multicelled organisms is quite easily explained, we see it happening today.  No need for 2 celled or 3 celle organisms.

But why arent there any two celled organisms? This is the logical step up from single celled organisms.

And as I showed with the hearts, we do see evidence of organs evolving.

Each of the hearts was designed for the organism it is in.

what about a flying squirrel?  It doesn't have a deformed appendage and it glides, it's arms and legs function normally but it has the added advantage of being able to glide.  Guess you've never did any research on the origins of flight.  At no time would an animal have a useless appendage.  but mutations that benefit an animal in a different way could be co-opted for a different purpose.

A flying squirrels arms are thousands of mutations away from both normal arms and wings. Where are the links? Why are none seen?

No it wouldn't and at no time would any of those mutations produce a usless or half formed appendage.

Evidence for this?

Yes we do, fins to legs in transitional fish, second jaw joint to inner ear bones in reptile to mammal evolution.  Your claim is disproven since we DO see such appendages in intermediate states.

Evidences of these transitional fish? Many of your claims are unsupported or based on the assumption that evolution is true.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 10:33 PM on July 27, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Mustrum could you give a quick explanation of what you mean by a "nested biological hierarchy" and how this is evidence against creation?

Thanks
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 11:38 PM on July 27, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First evidence for the radioactive elements? Not saying i dont believe you just want an article or something to read up on it. The water was trapped under the rock as iv said many times, the rock was not floating. Ejection holes as you say is the whole mid oceanic ridge.

From here:
Earth's Radioactivity

"EARTH'S natural radioactivity has been measured for the first time. The measurement will help geologists find out to what extent nuclear decay is responsible for the immense quantity of heat generated by Earth.

Our planet's heat output drives the convection currents that churn liquid iron in the outer core, giving rise to Earth's magnetic field. Just where this heat comes from is a big question. Measurements of the temperature gradients across rocks in mines and boreholes have led geologists to estimate that the planet is internally generating between 30 and 44 terawatts of heat.

Some of this heat comes from the decay of radioactive elements. Based on studies of primitive meteorites known as carbonaceous chondrites, geologists have estimated Earth's uranium and thorium content and calculated that about 19 terawatts can be attributed to radioactivity. But until now there has been nothing definitive about exactly how much uranium there is in the planet, says geologist Bill McDonough of the University of Maryland in College Park. "There are fundamental uncertainties."

There is one way to lessen this uncertainty, and that is to look for antineutrinos. These particles are the antimatter equivalent of the uncharged, almost massless particles called neutrinos and are released when uranium and thorium decay to form lead. If antineutrinos are being created deep within the planet they should be detectable, because they can pass through almost all matter.

Now, the KamLAND antineutrino detector in Kamioka, Japan, has counted such antineutrinos. An international team of scientists analysed the data and found about 16.2 million antineutrinos per square centimetre per second streaming out from Earth's core. They calculate that the nuclear reactions creating these particles could be generating as much as 60 terawatts, but are most likely putting out about 24 terawatts (Nature, vol 436, p 499). "We have made the first measurements of the radioactivity of the whole of Earth," says John Learned, who heads the KamLAND group at the University of Hawaii in Manoa. The KamLAND group's finding is like unwrapping a birthday present, says McDonough."

As to ejection holes, from here:
No ejection holes

"The escaping waters would have eroded the sides of the fissures, producing poorly sorted basaltic erosional deposits. These would be concentrated mainly near the fissures, but some would be shot thousands of miles along with the water. Such deposits would be quite noticeable but have never been seen."

Gravity pulls all things equally according to their mass. Why would so much deuterium be concentrated in comets? Where is the source of the high concentration?

the source is the cosmic debris left over from the formation of the solar system and gravity could pull together large concentrations of it.

Concentration means that the relative amount of deuterium compared to other elements is much higher in comets. This means this ratio of deuterium to ther elements should be the same in space as it is in the comets, but it is not.

What are you talking about?  Are you talking about free floating particles in space?  You keep talking a bout the concentration of deutirium in space, and you won't explain what that means.  If some deutirium was close enough for gravity to attract it together, it would accrete, clump together, and as it got bigger it would attract more nearby deutirium.  If some particles were too far away, they would not be attracted.  where's the problem.

My argument is that they have a much higher concentration of deuterium.

A much higher concentration than what????

The underground water had a high concentration of deuterium because this explains both the high level of deuterium in the ocean and the even higher level in
comets.


So the only reason this supposed underground water had a high level of deuterium is because your theory doesn't work if it doesn't...That's your only evidence????  that's not science it's wishful thinking.

"Subduction cannot occur along an arc. Subduction is geometrically possible only along a straight line. (The arc-and-cusp pattern of ocean trenches shows subsidence, not subduction.)"

Looks like subduction can occur along an arc, from here:
Ring of Fire

"The Pacific Ring of Fire (or sometimes just Ring of Fire) is an area where large numbers of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions occur in the basin of the Pacific Ocean. In a 40,000 km horseshoe shape, it is associated with a nearly continuous series of oceanic trenches, volcanic arcs, and volcanic belts and/or plate movements. The Ring of Fire has 452 volcanoes and is home to over 75% of the world's active and dormant volcanoes. It is sometimes called the circum-Pacific belt or the circum-Pacific seismic belt.

About 90% of the world's earthquakes and 80% of the world's largest earthquakes occur along the Ring of Fire. The next most seismic region (5–6% of earthquakes and 17% of the world's largest earthquakes) is the Alpide belt, which extends from Java to Sumatra through the Himalayas, the Mediterranean, and out into the Atlantic. The Mid-Atlantic Ridge is the third most prominent earthquake belt.[1][2]

The Ring of Fire is a direct result of plate tectonics and the movement and collisions of crustal plates.[3] The eastern section of the ring is the result of the Nazca Plate and the Cocos Plate being subducted beneath the westward moving South American Plate. A portion of the Pacific Plate along with the small Juan de Fuca Plate are being subducted beneath the North American Plate. Along the northern portion the northwestward moving Pacific plate is being subducted beneath the Aleutian Islands arc. Further west the Pacific plate is being subducted along the Kamchatka Peninsula arcs on south past Japan. The southern portion is more complex with a number of smaller tectonic plates in collision with the Pacific plate from the Mariana Islands, the Philippines, Bougainville, Tonga, and New Zealand. Indonesia lies between the Ring of Fire along the northeastern islands adjacent to and including New Guinea and the Alpide belt along the south and west from Sumatra, Java, Bali, Flores, and Timor."

Your source is wrong.

Oh really? what animal did it originate in? Where is your evidence?

From here:
Original Sex

"Paleontologists found the F. dorothea fossils in 2005 on an ancient seafloor in the South Australian outback. The ropelike creatures were tightly packed into groups that resemble those of modern sponges and corals. These living invertebrates use a reproductive technique that releases floating eggs and sperm to produce mass births of many offspring, called larval spatfalls. In a paper that appeared last week in the journal Science, the researchers argue that the way the F. dorothea fossils were found suggests they might have used the same body positions to ensure sexual success. "We can't say 'definitely' about something that happened 565 million years ago," said Mary Droser, study co-author and professor of earth sciences at the University of California, Riverside. "But it's very likely that this was sexual reproduction."
F. dorothea are part of the so-called Ediacaran biota, the first multicellular life-forms to evolve beyond bacteria, plankton, and algae. The intriguing animals were common from about 580 million years ago until the start of the Cambrian Explosion about 540 million years ago, when the fossil record began to include the lineages of almost all living animals."

So sexual reproduction is at least 580 million years old.

You say the mutation i described would be eliminated, but it is an actual characteristic of human egg cells. So you have disproven evolution.

Yeah, when did it evolve?  do reptiles have this, do amhibians, do fish?  And why do you think a sperm couldn't fertilize this?  You've presented nothing that remotely disproves evolution.

You are assuming evolution is true for your arguments and starting from there.

No, I'm not assuming anything.  Evolution is a conclusion drawn from the evidence and so much evidence has been gathered, so many tests have been done on it, so many predictions have been validate, that it's an accepted fact in biology.  

You are trying to prove it not already saying its true so the parts where observation contradicts it arent true.

It's already true.  You're cherry picking things you don't understand and trying to use them as evidence against evolution.  Here you're looking at an egg dell coating and sperm composition that has been evolving for overf 580 million years and saying "ah ha!  it works so well it couldn't have evolved!" Like it's a new argument and  hundreds of thousands of biologists haven't examined this before.  

And it does not matter if you say this system evolved in mammals or reptiles, the point is the system cannot evolve.

Why not?  Because it works so well in mammals and reptiles and amphibians, etc.?  As you've been shown, sex has been around for hundreds of millions of years, yes it can evolve and yes it did evolve!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:05 AM on July 28, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes a creator wouldnt have to do it like this, but he could. Why not?

Because it's stupid and inefficient!  Why make a animal that spends all it's time in the sea have lungs?  Why make whales get the bends?
Why not give whales gills?  This is exactly the pattern we would see if life evolved.  Did God do this to deceive us?  Why do all mammals, reptiles and amphibians have just 4 legs?  It's questions like this where your only response is "Goddidit" and when it comes ot science that's a worthless answer.

I dont believe my argument was against the evolution of the heart but rather the evolution of veins and arteries.

So you're just goin to ignore the post on the hearts.  It shows just what you asked for, the stages in heart evolution.  As to arteries and veins, simple aquatic organisms don't need them, evey cell that is in contact with water can get nutrients and eleiminate wastes.  But when animals moved to land, they couldn't do that, they needed this liquid to be self contained.  So simple tubes did this and in order for life to get bigger and more complex, the circulatory system became more complex.
You never supported your claim "There is no advantage in a half developed tube, it would be bad for the organism."   Once again, nothing in evolution is half formed, you've been corrected on this but you continue to use the phrase.  And you haven't supported your claim that a simpler circulatory system would be bad, earthworms have a simpler circulatory system than mammals and they do just fine.

Evolution does not predict that tubes such as arteries will evolve?

It doesn't predict anything will be half formed.  Everything produced will be fully functional.  Like I said, you still don't understand how evolution works.

Are you talking of an insects open circulatory system? Still a long way off of mammalian circulatory system.

Yes and there are less complex circulatory systems and more complex circulatory systems, it's a progression best explained by evolution.

How do you explain the poisonous spurs on the platypus? Where are these in mammals?  surely they are advantageous.

Yes, they would be advantageous on mammals, but evolution doesn't work to give every animal the most advantageous characteristics.  The poisonous spurs are a trait from reptiles.  When you make comments like this it really shows your ignorance of evolution, why would other mammals have to have poison spurs?  As to the platypus, it is transitional between reptiles and placental mammals.  It lays reptilian eggs, if has one exit point from it's body like reptiles (mammals have two).  Then it has mammalian hair, high body temperature and although it produces milk, it doesn't have mammilian nipples.  It has both reptilian and mammailian characteristics.

Ok where are the links between humans and their ancestors.

Look them up yourself!  It would do you some good to look at real scientific sources instead of the apologetic crap you get your information from.

Why are they not living?

They went extinct.

No evolution works by small changes over time. A one celled organism would evolve into a two celled organism. This is the obvious transition.

And since we see single celled oranisms becoming multicelled organisms without having 2 then 3 celled organisms, you are wrong.  You don't know how evolution works, and you don't look at real research.  

But why arent there any two celled organisms? This is the logical step up from single celled organisms.

They don't have to!  What don't you undrstand???  A population of ameobas combine to form a colony then the individual ameobas specilize their function!  Why do you keep insisting there has to be 2 celled organisms when I showed you why they are not needed????

Each of the hearts was designed for the organism it is in.

You have no evidence, while we can see how changing the genetic code can turn a 1 chambered heart into a 2 chambered heart.  We can see what genes control the formation of fins in fish.  In other words we are now strating to understand the actual mutations that causes these structural changes.  And still no evidence of a designer.

A flying squirrels arms are thousands of mutations away from both normal arms and wings. Where are the links? Why are none seen?

But you said for a wing to develope it would deform the appendage too much for it to be of any use.  A flying squirrel's arms are not deformed and are just as functional as a regular squirrel.  Your claim is disproven.

Evidence for this?

Evidence of evolution not producing any half formed appendages or useless appendages?  
We can look at the genetic origins of many characteristics now.  We see no useless or half functional characteristics, all are fully formed and functional.  And as I've said evolution doesn't predict that there would be any half formed characteristics.

Evidences of these transitional fish?

I already gave them to you in a previous post:

Fish to amphibian transitional fossils:

Panderichthys
Elpistostege
Hynerpeton
Acanthostega
Ichthyostega
Labyrinthodonts
Tiktaalik roseae

Many of your claims are unsupported or based on the assumption that evolution is true.

Yeah, like I didn't already give you a list of clearly transitional fossils of fish to amphibians.  And evolution isn't an assumption, it's a conclusion drawn from the evidence.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:55 AM on July 28, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"The escaping waters would have eroded the sides of the fissures, producing poorly sorted basaltic erosional deposits. These would be concentrated mainly near the fissures, but some would be shot thousands of miles along with the water. Such deposits would be quite noticeable but have never been seen."

This source is wrong. The basalt would not be eroded because the water chamber was located above the basalt of the ocean floor. The waters eroded the granite continental plate, and the basalt floor of the ocean buckled up to form oceanic ridges.

the source is the cosmic debris left over from the formation of the solar system and gravity could pull together large concentrations of it.

This does not answer the high concentration of deuterium.

What are you talking about?  Are you talking about free floating particles in space?  You keep talking a bout the concentration of deutirium in space, and you won't explain what that means.  If some deutirium was close enough for gravity to attract it together, it would accrete, clump together, and as it got bigger it would attract more nearby deutirium.  If some particles were too far away, they would not be attracted.  where's the problem.

Ok ill take it from the beginning. The deuterium concentration is the relative amount of deuterium to normal hydrogen. Comets have twenty times higher concentration than interstellar space, which means if for every 1000 hydrogen atoms there was one deuterium atom in intersteallar space, there would be twenty in a comet. This shows that the source of comets could not be space, because if comets were formed from accretion of particles in interstellar space they would have twenty times less deuterium. Feel free to ask if you need any farther clarification.

Looks like subduction can occur along an arc, from here:
Ring of Fire

"The Pacific Ring of Fire (or sometimes just Ring of Fire) is an area where large numbers of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions occur in the basin of the Pacific Ocean. In a 40,000 km horseshoe shape, it is associated with a nearly continuous series of oceanic trenches, volcanic arcs, and volcanic belts and/or plate movements. The Ring of Fire has 452 volcanoes and is home to over 75% of the world's active and dormant volcanoes. It is sometimes called the circum-Pacific belt or the circum-Pacific seismic belt.

About 90% of the world's earthquakes and 80% of the world's largest earthquakes occur along the Ring of Fire. The next most seismic region (5–6% of earthquakes and 17% of the world's largest earthquakes) is the Alpide belt, which extends from Java to Sumatra through the Himalayas, the Mediterranean, and out into the Atlantic. The Mid-Atlantic Ridge is the third most prominent earthquake belt.[1][2]

The Ring of Fire is a direct result of plate tectonics and the movement and collisions of crustal plates.[3] The eastern section of the ring is the result of the Nazca Plate and the Cocos Plate being subducted beneath the westward moving South American Plate. A portion of the Pacific Plate along with the small Juan de Fuca Plate are being subducted beneath the North American Plate. Along the northern portion the northwestward moving Pacific plate is being subducted beneath the Aleutian Islands arc. Further west the Pacific plate is being subducted along the Kamchatka Peninsula arcs on south past Japan. The southern portion is more complex with a number of smaller tectonic plates in collision with the Pacific plate from the Mariana Islands, the Philippines, Bougainville, Tonga, and New Zealand. Indonesia lies between the Ring of Fire along the northeastern islands adjacent to and including New Guinea and the Alpide belt along the south and west from Sumatra, Java, Bali, Flores, and Timor."

Your source is wrong.


Ok first this source starts by assuming that plate tectonics is completely true and infallible. It does not address the issue which is the geometric impossibility of subduction in anything but a straight line. Think about it. A cusp will require the plate to be pulled apart because the plate will be subducting in different directions.

From here:
Original Sex

"Paleontologists found the F. dorothea fossils in 2005 on an ancient seafloor in the South Australian outback. The ropelike creatures were tightly packed into groups that resemble those of modern sponges and corals. These living invertebrates use a reproductive technique that releases floating eggs and sperm to produce mass births of many offspring, called larval spatfalls. In a paper that appeared last week in the journal Science, the researchers argue that the way the F. dorothea fossils were found suggests they might have used the same body positions to ensure sexual success. "We can't say 'definitely' about something that happened 565 million years ago," said Mary Droser, study co-author and professor of earth sciences at the University of California, Riverside. "But it's very likely that this was sexual reproduction."
F. dorothea are part of the so-called Ediacaran biota, the first multicellular life-forms to evolve beyond bacteria, plankton, and algae. The intriguing animals were common from about 580 million years ago until the start of the Cambrian Explosion about 540 million years ago, when the fossil record began to include the lineages of almost all living animals."

So sexual reproduction is at least 580 million years old.


I was talking about the coating of the human egg not sexual reproduction. Sorry if that wasnt clear.

Yeah, when did it evolve?  do reptiles have this, do amhibians, do fish?  And why do you think a sperm couldn't fertilize this?  You've presented nothing that remotely disproves evolution.

They couldnt fertilize it because the could not get past the layer to the egg. The layer must be broken down by the sperms acrosome. You seem to have come across some evidence you have no answer for.

It's already true.  You're cherry picking things you don't understand and trying to use them as evidence against evolution.  Here you're looking at an egg dell coating and sperm composition that has been evolving for overf 580 million years and saying "ah ha!  it works so well it couldn't have evolved!" Like it's a new argument and  hundreds of thousands of biologists haven't examined this before.

Your making the mistake of believing whatever the majority tells you. Just because the majority believes it does not make it true. An example (i hate this example but oh well) is everyone thinking the world was flat in the 14th century. The majority believed it, but its not true.

Why not?  Because it works so well in mammals and reptiles and amphibians, etc.?  As you've been shown, sex has been around for hundreds of millions of years, yes it can evolve and yes it did evolve!

Once again, not talking about sexual reproduction, but about the coating of the egg cell.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 02:40 AM on July 28, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Because it's stupid and inefficient!  Why make a animal that spends all it's time in the sea have lungs?  Why make whales get the bends?
Why not give whales gills?  This is exactly the pattern we would see if life evolved.  Did God do this to deceive us?  Why do all mammals, reptiles and amphibians have just 4 legs?  It's questions like this where your only response is "Goddidit" and when it comes ot science that's a worthless answer.


Maybe its because these configurations work best. God would know this, so thats what he created.

So you're just goin to ignore the post on the hearts.  It shows just what you asked for, the stages in heart evolution.  As to arteries and veins, simple aquatic organisms don't need them, evey cell that is in contact with water can get nutrients and eleiminate wastes.  But when animals moved to land, they couldn't do that, they needed this liquid to be self contained.  So simple tubes did this and in order for life to get bigger and more complex, the circulatory system became more complex.

These tubes could not have evolved! Thats my point! they need them but it is not possible to evolve these tubes. What sequence would the tubes evolve in? You do not have one mutation and the complete circulatory system pops up! There has to be intermediate stages.

You never supported your claim "There is no advantage in a half developed tube, it would be bad for the organism."   Once again, nothing in evolution is half formed, you've been corrected on this but you continue to use the phrase.  And you haven't supported your claim that a simpler circulatory system would be bad, earthworms have a simpler circulatory system than mammals and they do just fine.

Earthworms have a simpler circulatory system that works. Mammals have a complex circulatory system that works. How do you get from one to the other with small mutations that will all be more beneficial than the previous? It cannot happen.

Yes and there are less complex circulatory systems and more complex circulatory systems, it's a progression best explained by evolution.

There is no way to bridge the gap from one to the other. It seems this is best described by creation.

Yes, they would be advantageous on mammals, but evolution doesn't work to give every animal the most advantageous characteristics.  The poisonous spurs are a trait from reptiles.  When you make comments like this it really shows your ignorance of evolution, why would other mammals have to have poison spurs?  As to the platypus, it is transitional between reptiles and placental mammals.  It lays reptilian eggs, if has one exit point from it's body like reptiles (mammals have two).  Then it has mammalian hair, high body temperature and although it produces milk, it doesn't have mammilian nipples.  It has both reptilian and mammailian characteristics.

Wait i thought evolution worked through natural selection, which is the fittest animals will survive. This would mean that the poison spurs on the platypus should have been passed on because they would increase the animals total fitness.

They went extinct.

If they evolved from monkeys its because they were more fit than monkeys. Why are monkeys here and they arent? And why is there no evidence of them?

They don't have to!  What don't you undrstand???  A population of ameobas combine to form a colony then the individual ameobas specilize their function!  Why do you keep insisting there has to be 2 celled organisms when I showed you why they are not needed????

Explain how the amoebas would evolve to specialize their function.

But you said for a wing to develope it would deform the appendage too much for it to be of any use.  A flying squirrel's arms are not deformed and are just as functional as a regular squirrel.  Your claim is disproven.

The flying squirrels arms are many mutations away from wing or normal arm. The previous mutations would have made it unable to function. It did not just jump from being a normal arm to the arm of a flying squirrel.

Evidence of evolution not producing any half formed appendages or useless appendages?  
We can look at the genetic origins of many characteristics now.  We see no useless or half functional characteristics, all are fully formed and functional.  And as I've said evolution doesn't predict that there would be any half formed characteristics.


What do you mean the genetic origins? By this do you mean we can see every mutation that could change a fin into an arm? I would like to see evidence for that.

I already gave them to you in a previous post:

Fish to amphibian transitional fossils:

Panderichthys
Elpistostege
Hynerpeton
Acanthostega
Ichthyostega
Labyrinthodonts
Tiktaalik roseae


It would take much more than 8 transitional species to get from fish to amphibian. There is no reason why these are not separate species that share characteristics.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 03:00 AM on July 28, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A possible evolution came through an intermediary form that is used by many worms and anthropods today.

This system consists of a tube build purely by a cavity, and the tube actually contracts in a slightly peristaltic (butchered that word I'm sure), motion to push cell fluid around. It's a very primitive system that could easily work for small creatures, a system that hardly requires anything more then cavities that can squeeze.

You can understand that the formation of such things would start with small creatures and develop into better structures futher and further.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 08:11 AM on July 28, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from jango at 4:57 PM on July 27, 2009 :
Who is your source?  I missed it.

Here you go. sorry it was a little ways back.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Trenches5.html#wp4480432

Ah, mechanical engineer Walt Brown, I thought some of the arguments seemed familiar...

His biology related material is a hoot.




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:42 AM on July 28, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from jango at 10:38 PM on July 27, 2009 :
Mustrum could you give a quick explanation of what you mean by a "nested biological hierarchy" and how this is evidence against creation?

Thanks


In biology one can classify organisms based on a number of characteristics.  In particular, in cladistics biologists attempt to classify organisms based on ancestry, or common ancestors.  One way to do this is by looking at shared traits.  For instance, mammals have a spine, hair, etc.  By looking at these characteristics, as well as molecular level stuff, biologists can determine the best way to organize critters.  For example, we know that those creatures that also have a backbone share a more recent common ancestor with mammals than do those creatures who do not have a backbone.

Since we obviously have folks posting here who know biology much better than I do, they might be able to give you a better example.



-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 12:23 PM on July 28, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ah, mechanical engineer Walt Brown, I thought some of the arguments seemed familiar...

His biology related material is a hoot.


Even if this were true the evidence in the link was not biological, it was against subduction.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 1:19 PM on July 28, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In biology one can classify organisms based on a number of characteristics.  In particular, in cladistics biologists attempt to classify organisms based on ancestry, or common ancestors.  One way to do this is by looking at shared traits.  For instance, mammals have a spine, hair, etc.  By looking at these characteristics, as well as molecular level stuff, biologists can determine the best way to organize critters.  For example, we know that those creatures that also have a backbone share a more recent common ancestor with mammals than do those creatures who do not have a backbone.

It seems that Demons example of the platypus does not support this, as it is supposedly an early relative of mammals, while no other mammals have its poison spur which is undoubtedly advantageous and should have been passed on.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 1:47 PM on July 28, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A possible evolution came through an intermediary form that is used by many worms and anthropods today.

This system consists of a tube build purely by a cavity, and the tube actually contracts in a slightly peristaltic (butchered that word I'm sure), motion to push cell fluid around. It's a very primitive system that could easily work for small creatures, a system that hardly requires anything more then cavities that can squeeze.

You can understand that the formation of such things would start with small creatures and develop into better structures futher and further.


How would branches of the tube evolve? Are these worms even accepted as ancestors of mammals or did they branch off earlier?
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 1:57 PM on July 28, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This source is wrong. The basalt would not be eroded because the water chamber was located above the basalt of the ocean floor. The waters eroded the granite continental plate, and the basalt floor of the ocean buckled up to form oceanic ridges.

Where re the signs of water ejection errosion in granite?  And since we know aproximately when ocienic ridges formed, we know they haven't formed suddenly in the last 6,000 years.  Your source is wrong.

Ok ill take it from the beginning. The deuterium concentration is the relative amount of deuterium to normal hydrogen. Comets have twenty times higher concentration than interstellar space, which means if for every 1000 hydrogen atoms there was one deuterium atom in intersteallar space, there would be twenty in a comet. This shows that the source of comets could not be space, because if comets were formed from accretion of particles in interstellar space they would have twenty times less deuterium. Feel free to ask if you need any farther clarification.

And gravity and the clumping of this material explains why the concentrations are higher.  Your claim of heavy hydrogen water under the earth and being ejected into space has been falsified.  Plus you never provided an answer for where all the deuterium under the earth came from.

Ok first this source starts by assuming that plate tectonics is completely true and
infallible.


NO it doesn't, it draws conclusions from the evidence.  Your sources are the only ones assuming something, they are assuming their interpretations of the bible are correct and ignoring any real evidence that contradicts it.

I was talking about the coating of the human egg not sexual reproduction. Sorry if that wasnt clear.

Sex has been around for a long time, it has been evolving for 100s of millions of years, I still see no problem with what you're saying.

They couldnt fertilize it because the could not get past the layer to the egg. The layer must be broken down by the sperms acrosome. You seem to have come across some evidence you have no answer for.

Sure I can, evolution.  You haven't showed anything that prevents it.

Your making the mistake of believing whatever the majority tells you.

No, that's youir mistake, your preachers tell you anything and if they claim it's the word of god, you blindly believe them.  I go where the evidence leads, evolution is a fact, common descent is a fact.

Once again, not talking about sexual reproduction, but about the coating of the egg cell.

And if the coating of the egg cell developed a mutation that prevented it from being fertilized, the organism that developed it would be eliminated from the gene pool and so would that mutation.  It's obvious that the sprem could always fertilize the egg cell and there is no contradiction here.  And you misinterpreting the facts proves nothing.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:09 PM on July 28, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Where re the signs of water ejection errosion in granite?  And since we know aproximately when ocienic ridges formed, we know they haven't formed suddenly in the last 6,000 years.  Your source is wrong.

The signs are the ridges. The water eroded the granite, and when the rupture in the crust reached a critical width, the underlying basalt sprung up because of pressures inside the earth forming the mid atlantic ridge. The eroded granite was thrown far from the rupture, some even into space, because of the very fast speed of the escaping water. There are no problems here.

And gravity and the clumping of this material explains why the concentrations are higher.  Your claim of heavy hydrogen water under the earth and being ejected into space has been falsified.  Plus you never provided an answer for where all the deuterium under the earth came from.

Gravity does not explain why concentrations are so high. Ill simplify the problem. This illustrates the problem:
Lets say in space there is one hydrogen atom for every deeuterium atom. If comets were made from this source, in comets there would be one hydrogen for every deuterium. This is not what we find. In comets there would be 20 deuterium atoms for every hydrogen atom. This is not possible if the comets were made from the material in space. This is the ratio of concentrations found.

Sex has been around for a long time, it has been evolving for 100s of millions of years, I still see no problem with what you're saying.

How did the coating evolve? This is not sex but an aspect of sex in humans. There is no way it could have evolved.

Sure I can, evolution.  You haven't showed anything that prevents it.

The coating evolves because of a mutation, so the sperm cant fertilize the egg. The mutation is discarded from the gene pool, so it does not evolve. But its there. So how did it evolve?

No, that's youir mistake, your preachers tell you anything and if they claim it's the word of god, you blindly believe them.  I go where the evidence leads, evolution is a fact, common descent is a fact.

Just so you know, none of the facts i have presented was told to me by preachers.

And if the coating of the egg cell developed a mutation that prevented it from being fertilized, the organism that developed it would be eliminated from the gene pool and so would that mutation.  It's obvious that the sprem could always fertilize the egg cell and there is no contradiction here.  And you misinterpreting the facts proves nothing.

Once again you are using evolution to prove evolution. The sperm could not get through to the egg to fertilize it without the acrosome. This is why this evidence contradicts evolution. And you even said yourself that this, a real trait would not evolve. Its time to admit that evolution could not happen in this instance.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 2:43 PM on July 28, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Im going to be leaving for a few days so i wont be able to make any posts. Ill get back to the debate as soon as i can. I hope it doesnt get too out of hand while im gone

Have a good day everyone!
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 2:46 PM on July 28, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Maybe its because these configurations work best. God would know this, so thats what he created.

Maybe they work best...that's the best you can do.  Pathetic.  Well, you can't respond to the specific examples, so I'll tell you.  Making an air breathing animal spend it's entire life completely in the sea is stupid.  An all powerfull being couldn't figure some way to make it breath water?  so much for being all powerful.  This is just another way to say "Goddidit, I don't understand it, so that's it", a worthless answer.

These tubes could not have evolved!

Why not?  We see a simple closed body cavity, why couldn't it evolve into a circulatory system.

What sequence would the tubes evolve
in?


We have a complete sequence as seen in the animals kingdom from simple to complex, it's a progression.  Just as we see a progression of different hearts and we know how they could have evolved.  So evolution is the best explaination for them.

You do not have one mutation and the complete circulatory system pops up! There has to be intermediate stages.

But we see all the stages of circulatory systems, from simple to complex.  and we know some of the genes that mutated to cause them to become more complex.  From this source we see how a single chambered heart can become a 2 chambered heart:
Heart evolution
"When the scientists blocked Ets1/2 activity (either by inhibiting the Ets1/2 gene, itself, or its upstream modulators), Ciona heart specification was likewise blocked. Alternatively, the over-expression of Ets1/2 in caudal cells caused the cells to switch their fate from tail to heart.

The expanded cardiac field in Ets1/2-activated mutants results in a proportion of animals having a functional, two-chambered heart. "The conversion of a simple heart tube into a complex heart was discovered by chance, but has general implications for the evolutionary origins of animal diversity and complexity", says Mike Levine, a co-author of the paper."

A mutation changes the circulatory system, just what you say can't happen.

Earthworms have a simpler circulatory system that works. Mammals have a complex circulatory system that works. How do you get from one to the other with small mutations that will all be more beneficial than the previous? It cannot happen.

Well, I just showed you a mutation that causes a 1 chambered heart to turn into a 2 chambered heart.  Your point is disproved.

There is no way to bridge the gap from one to the other.

Mutations and natural selection can and do bridge the gap, as shown above.

It seems this is best described by
creation.


No evidence of creation or a creator.

Wait i thought evolution worked through natural selection, which is the fittest animals will survive. This would mean that the poison spurs on the platypus should have been passed on because they would increase the animals total fitness.

Monotremes are not directly ancestral to placental mammals, they are not intermediary, so there's no line of succession.  Geez, do some research!  And when are you going to explain why the platypus has both reptile and mammal characteristics or is your only answer "Goddidit"?

If they evolved from monkeys its because they were more fit than monkeys.

Modern monkeys evolved from ancestral monkeys, what are you talking about?

Explain how the amoebas would evolve to specialize their function.

I don't know offhand, but they do it today, we directl;y observe them doing it!  From here:
Ameoba

"Dictyostelium discoideum is a species of soil-living amoeba belonging to the phylum Mycetozoa. D. discoideum, commonly referred to as slime mold, is a primitive eukaryote that transitions from a collection of unicellular amoebae into a multicellular slug and then into a fruiting body within its life
time."

There uyou go from single celled to multicelled without the "logical" need to go through 2 celled anscesotrs.  Your point is disproven.

The flying squirrels arms are many mutations away from wing or normal arm. The previous mutations would have made it unable to function. It did not just jump from being a normal arm to the arm of a flying squirrel.

Nonsense, if it's arms were unable to function, it wouldn't have survived to become a flying squirrel!  Show us why it's arms would have been non functional to add the webbing it uses to glide.  I see no scenario that would mandiate this.

What do you mean the genetic origins? By this do you mean we can see every mutation that could change a fin into an arm?

Not yet but we're getting there.  We can see the genes that caused fins to form and we can see much more.  Like I said, we can see the genetic origins of characteristics, we can actually see the mutations that caused them to form.  What your answer to that?

It would take much more than 8 transitional species to get from fish to amphibian. There is no reason why these are not separate species that share characteristics.

these are just some of the transitional species in the fish to amphibian line.  Of course they're seperate species, that's how evolution works.  but they show evolving characteristics and are found in a strict chronological order that supports only evolution.  If they were magically created there's no reason they would be found in this order in the geologic column.

It seems that Demons example of the platypus does not support this, as it is supposedly an early relative of mammals, while no other mammals have its poison spur which is undoubtedly advantageous and should have been passed on.

Once again, the platypus is not ancestral to placental mammals, it is a sister group.  Placental mammals and monotremes evolved from a common reptilian ancestor, this is clearly shown by the platypus having both reptilian and mammalian characteristics.  So placental mammals wouldn't inherit the characteristics of the monotremes.

(Edited by Demon38 7/28/2009 at 3:04 PM).
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:48 PM on July 28, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ]
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.