Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Atlanta Georgia

#71620 Jan 21, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
For example, consider the fossil evidence. If Darwinism were true, the fossil evidence should show lots of gradual change, with one species slowly grading into the next. In fact, it should be hard to tell where one species ends and another begins. But that's not what we find.
That's not true at all. There have been billions of humans that have lived on earth and we only have a few thousand or so fossilized humanoid remains. Fossilization is a very rare thing and we have no fool proof method of locating them.

In Darwin's lifetime there were only a very few fossilized remains found. He noted in his writing that Africa would be the logical place to find human remains. In the early 1900's we started to find lots of fossils in Africa because of his intuition.

Since that time we have found proof that humans did evolve there in Africa...both archaeological and DNA converged, modern humans are first found in Africa about 200,000 years ago.

Try all you want, but evolution is true and will stand.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#71621 Jan 21, 2013
Dragons are real. They are in control. lol

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Atlanta Georgia

#71622 Jan 21, 2013
Cybele wrote:
Dragons are real. They are in control. lol
I have one for a pet...he lives in my tool shed..:-)

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Atlanta Georgia

#71623 Jan 21, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do Atheist have such a hard time with definition of such easy words.
Here let me help you out.
athe·ist\ˈā-thē-ist\
noun
: one who believes that there is no deity
ag·nos·tic\ag-ˈnäs-tik,əg -\
noun
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Religion
noun
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Faith
noun
: firm belief in something for which there is no proof
There that should help you out.
Yeah, you believe in nothing.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#71624 Jan 21, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL really!
"You mean the dating that is increasingly written as "BCE" and CE"?"
Why do you think science is switching to those dating system? Think hard now.
International uniformity, that is why. Only a small portion of the world used AD and BC.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#71625 Jan 21, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Posted earlier by derek4
Challenging Darwin's Myths
Edited. Content removed for space.
http://www.arn.org/docs/dardoc1.htm
Survival of the fittest is an antiquated and not wholely accurate phrase. It has never actually described biological evolution and I am surprised to see it still bandied about. Of course it is generally in more uneducated quarters that one finds the perpetuation of these sorts of things. It does have the "might makes right" quality that lends itself well to castigating that which one doesn't like. Perhaps that is why it is still in vogue amongst the anachronistic.

I see that others have pointed out some of the shortcommings of this rehashed attack reported above.

I find it most interesting that so many have the willfull ignorance to claim, despite 150 years of research and an ever growing body of evidence, that there is no evidence to support evolution. That they do this in favor of a creator or designer for which there is no evidence what so ever, is more interesting.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#71626 Jan 21, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not playing games, I want answers. Because if there was one, you would be posting them by now, wouldn't you?
The bible actually tells you that and Science proves that and yet you still don't know?
Hint: We are literally made of star dust.
I find myself reluctant to post a response, because so often it seems when I do, I come off sounding like an attack. However, your point poses questions for which I would gladly receive your answers.

For instance. Of what significance is this star dust have on life? I mean to say, it sounds sort of romantic and other worldly, but does it make a difference?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#71627 Jan 21, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
For example, consider the fossil evidence. If Darwinism were true, the fossil evidence should show lots of gradual change, with one species slowly grading into the next. In fact, it should be hard to tell where one species ends and another begins. But that's not what we find.
We have a continuum of change from

Austropithecus afarensis, through sediba, through H Habilis, Erectus, Heidelburgensis, archaic Sapiens, to modern Sapiens.

These merge so well that often placement of new finds is hotly contested as to which partition it belongs to. This is exactly what you are claiming never happens. There are really no gaps left.

Then you have OPPOSING camps of creationists, arguing with EACH OTHER as to whether Archeopteryx was really a bird, or was really a dinosaur.

Hilarious! That is EXACTLY the kind of argument that only exists among those faced with the impossible - trying to force convergent forms into the "eternally separate" boxes they imagine must be there.

The truth is, Archie (and 30+ other bird/dino intermediate species) demonstrate exactly what evolution predicted. That is:

Divergence with modern forms as you go back in time.

Convergence with contemporary forms (i.e. of the same period).

We see it with dogs and cats.
We see it with hominids and apes.
We see it with mammals and reptiles.
We see it with birds and therapod dinosaurs.
We even see it with amphibians and lobe-finned fish.
Early dinos and archosaurs.
Wherever we look.

Its a fractal pattern repeating itself on ever larger scales, precisely following the dictates of the nested hierarchy.

And thats just vertebrates.

We see it in plants, in insects, in pretty much every thing.

The SAME nested hierarchy is independently confirmed by comparison of the non-functional variations in pseudogenes, unbiquitous proteins, and ERVs across species. Confirmed, conformed, and yet again confirmed.

Slam dunk, end of story. Evolution happened.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#71628 Jan 21, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"most insects breath through a trachael system that starts on the surface of the body as openings called spriracles"
And your point?
You are clearly stating that insects breath through their surface (skin) of their body's. they clearly do not have " nostrils with the breath of life (Genesis 6:17, 7:14-15, 22). "
So why is it that you claim that I need to brush up on my entomology?
Noah was commanded to take into the ark all the animals on land in whose nostrils was the breath of life (Genesis 6:17, 7:14-15, 22). There is no reason to believe that all the varieties of insects were on the ark because they breathe through their skin and do not have nostrils. They could have survived on floating matter or by burrowing in the mud. Some of the insects may have been on the ark in the fur of the animals or in nooks and crannies of the ark. The Bible does not teach that they had to be on board.
Now I will point out to you what you need to brush up on. These fish you talk about, here let me quote you "Genetic and molecular evaluation of these fish species reveal that they all developed from a single ancestor species"
And that my boy is the definition of a "Kind" macro evolution is one kind changing to another kind. No macroevolution happened here just microevolution.
My point appears to be that you got caught dispensing erroneous information based on your ignorance of a subject. Corroboration appears in the form of your arrogant response to backfill your weakness. I am not stating that. There is a difference between using the surface of the skin to take up oxygen and a plumbing system of tubes designed to do the same thing. Clearly you know little of biology. This leads me to wonder how much more you know so little about. I would also note that you like to twist words and spin. A trait I have found to be typical of used car salesmen, pornographers and creationists posting on this forum.

Again, you need to brush up on your entomology for a number of reasons, not the least of which is how they respire. Since it is clear you are in an area where your knowledge is lacking, I will restate the point that breathing through the skin is not the same as breathing through openings in the skin. Animals like amphibians,(toads, frogs and salamanders) can breath by oxygen absorption through the skin. In fact, some salamander species do not have lungs. This is what your terminology means when you say breathing through there skin. You wrote it as if it were a fact when ascribing that ability to insects. It is not. Oxygen enters an insect through holes on the body surface much like that one in the middle of your face. Do you understand yet or would you like me to try even simpler terms?

Even after being educated by a professional, you continue to make the same error in describing insect respiration. That sort of behavior would leave one to wonder what else you are capable of willfully maintaining in error.

You really like to double down on your ignorance don't you. While it is possible for some species to survive as you say, some simply could not. In fact most could not. What do you suppose that they would eat while hunkered down in a corner of the yak pens on the ark?

I see. You are truly amazing. When you can't refute something. Redefine to a point that you can refute it. I think you would make a great pimp.

That would be macro evolution. You can spin it all you want Nancy, but it is what it is by the biological definition that you apparently can't break under normal means.

Debbie, it has been a pure pleasure conversing with someone of your ability. I shall have to wash my monitor three times just to get the taint off it.

“Al Qur'an is Revolution ”

Since: Oct 12

Islam is Future

#71629 Jan 22, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Erm, life evolved on the planet to become accustomed to "day and night."
Binary gender reproduction is the worst of all the reproductive systems.
The rest is meh. That's not a "system," it's just the way things are, and there is no balance at all, again, if there was balance nothing would ever change. Without change nothing would be here.
i don't think so.. see it as linked-system each others.. its designed perfecly..'not coincidental'

how the universe always keep in balance all of things all the time without designed?

“Al Qur'an is Revolution ”

Since: Oct 12

Islam is Future

#71630 Jan 22, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Because science is not making a claim in favor of any particular religion.
:)

science could be a part of particular religion in holistic concept.. i mean in holistic 'definition'.. its a linked-system

“Why does my ignorance”

Level 5

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#71631 Jan 22, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>I'm certainly not saying it's good. It's just yet another thing that the aristocracy cannot be bothered with. Sort of like compulsory health insurance instead of nationalized healthcare.
....But I'm sure most doctors don't want to be government employees on a salary so any number of absurdities become scientific "fact". Not much point in taking this where it needs to go.
Huh? What?

“Al Qur'an is Revolution ”

Since: Oct 12

Islam is Future

#71632 Jan 22, 2013
evolution is a 'reflection' of his own 'obsession'

"Space and time are illusions of our perception"(Quantum Physics)

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#71633 Jan 22, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
"You mean the dating that is increasingly written as "BCE" and CE"?"
Why do you think science is switching to those dating system? Think hard now.
Gee, I don't know, Langoliers.
I guess that gives us many aspects to consider.
Oh! I just used two words which were originally astrological terms!

“Why does my ignorance”

Level 5

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#71634 Jan 22, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>A species is a division of individuals grouped by virtue of their common capabilities to be fruitful and multiply within a given work area or ecosystem niche.
So you have loosely covered the reproduction species concept and the niche species concept.

The niche one doesn't work when examined, because niches aren't real. They're created by species who favor exploiting parts of the environment over all others. Selection then favors those individuals who are better at exploiting that one part of the environment and runaway natural selection produces a specialist species. This especially happens when like species are living in the same geographic area - they specialize in order to not compete with each other (a more accurate way of saying this is that natural selection favors individuals who are specialists if there are other specialists around).

But the niche didn't exist before the species as a separatable thing from the overall environment. The species produced that by creating a resource and then monopolizing it.

So niche is really a shorthand for saying "the specific part of the environment exploited by a species."

The reproductive species concept doesn't work too well, either, b/c lots of species can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Ruffed grouse and sprouse grouse, white tail deer and mule deer, and on and on. In the laboratory, lots of species can produce offspring that otherwise wouldn't b/c of mating practices or social behavior - hamadryas baboons and olive baboons, for example, various birds, lizards, salamanders, etc.

So a species not necessarily bounded by reproduction; gene flow can happen between closely related species. Moreover, all free living species have parasites and pathogens that sometimes inject their DNA into the species' gene pool.

How can we call a species a bounded unit if it's DNA can change through transposons and mutagens?

Well, we cannot. Species are best defined through a DNA centered framework. Species are loosely bounded gene pools that can be invaded by outside DNA, through gene flow and pathogens, and mutation.

When you understand this rather difficult concept, then the fossil record becomes clear. Species are loosely bounded gene pools traveling through time, changing over time - they are dynamic and not static, they are loosely bounded and not perfect.

“Why does my ignorance”

Level 5

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#71635 Jan 22, 2013
neutral observer wrote:
<quoted text>
To suggest that there is evolution within the human species is not pc. One must cling to the notion that we are all pretty much equal in our abilities. To do otherwise would be to engage in eugenics much like the nazis did.
With billions of humans evolution has hit a dead end. We evolve through non evolutionary means. It is our technology which evolves... not our genes.
Small isolated communities evolve in order to survive. Humanity survives by using the grey matter we were all born with. Not much different than the grey matter our ancestors were born with when they first left Africa. We are post evolutionary. Unless a comet or something were to wipe about 99.9% of us out anyway.
I am not concerned with it being PC.

The human species is currently undergoing rapid evolution, strongest in our immune systems and second strongest in our central nervous system.

Here is just one study. There are lots now.

"The gene ASPM (abnormal spindle-like microcephaly associated) is a specific
regulator of brain size, and its evolution in the lineage leading to Homo sapiens was driven by strong positive selection. Here, we show that one genetic variant of ASPM in humans arose merely about 5800 years ago and has since swept to high frequency under strong positive selection. These findings, especially the remarkably young age of the positively selected variant, suggest that the human brain is still undergoing rapid adaptive evolution."

http://www.eebweb.arizona.edu/faculty/nachman...

Another:

"Nonsynonymous differences between human and chimpanzee orthologs showed uneven distribution between the two &#946; sheets of the Sia-recognition domain, suggesting biased mutation accumulation. These data indicate that CD33rSiglec genes are undergoing rapid evolution via multiple genetic mechanisms, possibly due to an evolutionary arms race between hosts and pathogens involving Sia recognition."

http://www.pnas.org/content/101/36/13251.full

Immune system:

"Siglecs (sialic acid-binding Ig-like lectins) are mainly expressed in the immune system. Sn (sialoadhesin)(siglec-1), CD22 (siglec-2) and siglec-15 are well conserved, whereas the CD33-related siglecs are undergoing rapid evolution, as reflected in large differences in repertoires among the different mammals studied so far. In the present paper, we review recent findings on the signalling properties of the CD33-related siglecs and discuss the emergence of both inhibitory and activating forms of this family. We also discuss how Sn may function as a positive regulator of adaptive immune responses and its emerging role as an induced macrophage pattern-recognition molecule for sialylated pathogens, especially enveloped viruses."

http://test.biochemsoctrans.org/bst/036/1467/...

etc., etc.

Humans are undergoing rapid evolution, despite that it may not be pc to do so.

“Why does my ignorance”

Level 5

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#71636 Jan 22, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
Those poor Biblical Creationists have gotten caught in a double bind.
The more kinds they recognize, the more work they impose on Noah and his seven trusty crewman.
The fewer kinds they recognize, the more evolving--excuse me, adapting--they impose on the animals, and in just 4500 years.
Did Noah take only two dogs? That's 35 species in 14 genera.
Did Noah take only two bats? That's 850 species.
Did Noah take only two worms? That's 28,000 species in 18 phyla, which is over half the phyla in the Animal Kingdom.
How about beetles? That's half a million species.
Duane Gish claimed that the concept of kinds can be understood by "any high school student with average intelligence." However, he cannot remember his own system. On page 35 of the 1978 edition of Evolution: The Fossils Say No! hhe assigns a slot each to gibbons, chimpanzees, and gorillas, but 0on page 47, he designates all apes as a "major kind."
hahaha, well said!

“Why does my ignorance”

Level 5

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#71637 Jan 22, 2013
Tinka wrote:
Like the chicken and the egg which came first planet or walking creature...
To walk on you would have had to had something to be walking on...
Why use your legs in mid air having had to develop legs for a reason don't you think? Limbs
Bone scale hair...wonder which came first...Fiber in threads or minerals...
Fiber helps you move along har har...:)
Fins came first, then legs.

Creatures came first, then eggs.

“Why does my ignorance”

Level 5

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#71638 Jan 22, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"most insects breath through a trachael system that starts on the surface of the body as openings called spriracles"
And your point?
You are clearly stating that insects breath through their surface (skin) of their body's. they clearly do not have " nostrils with the breath of life (Genesis 6:17, 7:14-15, 22). "
So why is it that you claim that I need to brush up on my entomology?
Noah was commanded to take into the ark all the animals on land in whose nostrils was the breath of life (Genesis 6:17, 7:14-15, 22). There is no reason to believe that all the varieties of insects were on the ark because they breathe through their skin and do not have nostrils. They could have survived on floating matter or by burrowing in the mud. Some of the insects may have been on the ark in the fur of the animals or in nooks and crannies of the ark. The Bible does not teach that they had to be on board.
Now I will point out to you what you need to brush up on. These fish you talk about, here let me quote you "Genetic and molecular evaluation of these fish species reveal that they all developed from a single ancestor species"
And that my boy is the definition of a "Kind" macro evolution is one kind changing to another kind. No macroevolution happened here just microevolution.
daaaahahahahahahahah!

You are soooo funny when you justify your crazy myths.

“Why does my ignorance”

Level 5

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#71639 Jan 22, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
No sorry I have to burst your bubble.
Macro evolution is one "Kind of animal or plant completely changing to another Kind" there is no proof of this ever happening.
Education faaaaaaiiiiiillllluuuuurrreeee e.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Ferguson Grand Jury Reaches Decision 5 min Analyst 502
blame it on....??? (Aug '13) 8 min SLY WEST 29
How's your weather today? (Mar '12) 14 min whatimeisit 5,093
Bill Cosby 17 min NinaRocks 268
Whatcha' doing? (Apr '12) 27 min SLY WEST 7,192
ozzie = pie? (Nov '13) 28 min Yes 19
Word goes to the Movies (Nov '08) 33 min whatimeisit 14,094
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 51 min wichita-rick 24,062
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr wichita-rick 151,192
Internal Server Errors 3 hr TALLYHO 8541 40

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE