Macroevolution:

[PsychoSarah]

I wonder why the evolutionists want to argue about meanings of “evolution, transitional, speciation, adaptation, etc. and the changing of one breed of horse into another breed of horse but never want to start “in the beginning”.

I'm fine with talking about abiogenesis. It just has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. In fact, where the first life came from is entirely irrelevant to evolution as a theory. Evolution is only about how existing life changes over time, no more, no less. Since this is a creationism vs. evolution debate subforum, it doesn't make sense to go on a tangent about an unrelated theory.

Life from Nonlife

“Life comes from life” is a fundamental law of biology, and yet formation of the first living thing must violate this law. How this could happen still stumps scientists

by Kevin Anderson

Oh, you mean the guy that has been the director of the Van Andel Creation Research Center since 2003? I can't find any papers on abiogenesis from him, and despite how long he has been a microbiologist, his number of published papers is a bit low.

Also, abiogenesis experiments were successful in generating protocells in 2013. Feel free to look up the work of Jack Szostak on this matter.

Information of Life

Life consists of more than all the physical parts working in unison—it requires the information to run the parts. Scientists still don’t understand where this information could have come from.

by Brian A. Catalucci

Brian A. Catalucci's education background has nothing to do with abiogenesis. In fact, it has nothing to do with biology at all. His degrees are in aerospace technology and computer science engineering. He's not an expert source on abiogenesis, so his input is entirely meaningless.

Irreducible Complexity

Darwinian evolution requires that every complex component of life arose step-by-step. The discoveries of genetics and cell biology have highlighted this impossibility, which scientists still can't explain.

by Nathaniel Jeanson

Irreducible complexity was disproven decades ago. Also, what exactly is the point of these quotes from people that receive money for pushing creationism at the cost of having actual scientific careers? The lack of papers published by these guys is sad.

These guys have these flaws in common:
1. few papers published relative to the length of time they have had their degrees. In fields progressing as quickly as microbiology, genetics, and cell biology, individuals active in their field can have their authorship on more than 10 papers in a year. I can't find any by Nathaniel Jeanson. With Kevin Anderson, all I can find is claims that he has authored "more than 20 papers in scientific journals". While I can't find the year he got his degree, even assuming it was the same year he became director of that creation research center, that wouldn't be very many papers for a career of over a decade.
2. Associations with creationist companies.
3. They haven't participated in any formal research on abiogenesis.

At least all of them have legitimate college degrees, though, even if one of them doesn't have any in biology or chemistry.

 

[tevans9129]

At least all of them have legitimate college degrees, though, even if one of them doesn't have any in biology or chemistry.

One can almost always count on the source being attacked, if it disagrees with their views, at least that has been my experience. It matters not to me where the information comes from, if it can be proven true. How often have "real" scientists presented inaccurate assertions?

BTW, how about evolutionists that depend on grants and a salary from companies, universities that promote evolution. Especially, when they require a belief in evolution as a prerequisite for a job?

How about this list, are they all unqualified to offer their opinions?

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

This list is only the ones that were not afraid of losing their jobs, grants if they went public with their views.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One can almost always count on the source being attacked, if it disagrees with their views, at least that has been my experience. It matters not to me where the information comes from, if it can be proven true. How often have "real" scientists presented inaccurate assertions?

BTW, how evolutionists that depend on grants and a salary from companies, universities that promote evolution. Especially, when they require a belief in evolution as a prerequisite for a job?

When someone relies on bogus sources it is not really a flaw in an argument when that error is pointed out.

And you have it backwards. The sources that you use require scientists not to use the scientific method and they have to agree to the results before hand. No university does that. No company does that. You are projecting your sins upon others again.

 

[pitabread]

BTW, how about evolutionists that depend on grants and a salary from companies, universities that promote evolution.

Evolutionary biology has real-world applications. It's not 'promoted' just for the sake of it. It's actually useful.

 

[Kylie]

Now you know why Paul refers to evolution as "endless genealogies."

1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

Notice he compares it to fables and says it:

1. ministers questions
2. does not edify Christ

It's almost as if he had us here at CF in mind when he said that.

Wow, that's a stretch, even for you.

I sincerely doubt that ANYONE alive back then had any idea of species changing over time. So to claim that Paul was talking of evolution requires some serious back up, not just your fitting of an idea into what's in the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wow, that's a stretch, even for you.

I sincerely doubt that ANYONE alive back then had any idea of species changing over time. So to claim that Paul was talking of evolution requires some serious back up, not just your fitting of an idea into what's in the Bible.

I always find it rather amusing that creationists try to use the argument "you can't prove me wrong, so I don't need any evidence". Of course that is shown to be part of their "belief system" by the countless different sects of Christianity.

 

[Kylie]

No, I will not be convinced unless folks have enough "evidence" they can use to answer my questions, which obviously you do not have since you did not answer the questions that I asked.

If you want evidence, why are you not studying biology? Why do you think that I, out of all the people in the world, must have the answers to your questions?

No. Have I made any claims about my ancestors? Have I presented anything as scientific fact that I cannot answer questions when asked? From the images of billions of fossils, how many can you show that were not complete, recognizable creatures? The biology "tree of life", there are many of them and not all of them are the same so which one is correct, with provable evidence, and which ones are incorrect?

Right, so you admit you can't do something, yet you completely agree that there is sufficient evidence to show that there was someone living back in 295BC who was your great great great.....great great grandparent.

And yet you discount the evidence science has that shows that evolution actually takes place.

Why the double standard?

Answer all of my questions and you will become the authority I go to for answers to my questions, can you do that?

Dude, I'm not an authority on biology. I'm just someone who has an interest in it. If you want to learn about it, go and study it. There are even free online courses that will teach you more about evolution than you'll ever get from me!

 

[tevans9129]

I always find it rather amusing that creationists try to use the argument "you can't prove me wrong, so I don't need any evidence". Of course that is shown to be part of their "belief system" by the countless different sects of Christianity.

Jimmy says that he does not know the answer to my question although my question came from a chart that he provided.

I don't know what came before Eohippus.

OK, does anyone know, do you have any verifiable evidence or did Eohippus just magically appear and then "evolution" took over from there?

Has there been any different species coming from the Equus caballus and if so what evidence?

I cannot find an answer, can you provide one that can be verified as fact?

BTW, if you want to prove me wrong, ask me questions that I cannot answer...and yes, that works both ways.

 

[pitabread]

OK, does anyone know, do you have any verifiable evidence or did Eohippus just magically appear and then "evolution" took over from there?

Has there been any different species coming from the Equus caballus and if so what evidence?

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 2B

 

[tevans9129]

It just has absolutely nothing to do with evolution

OK, then do I understand correctly that "evolution" only applies to change within a species? Does it not have to start with something before there can be a species in any category?

Horse evolution seems to come up quite often but the chart I was referred to seems to show it starting with Eohippus and ending with Equus caballus is that in error? Does that mean it started with Eohippus and ended with Equus caballus and there was no evolution before and has been none since?

 

[tevans9129]

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 2B

Really, can you quote from the article answering my question? I did not see it.

 

[bhsmte]

One can almost always count on the source being attacked, if it disagrees with their views, at least that has been my experience. It matters not to me where the information comes from, if it can be proven true. How often have "real" scientists presented inaccurate assertions?

BTW, how about evolutionists that depend on grants and a salary from companies, universities that promote evolution. Especially, when they require a belief in evolution as a prerequisite for a job?

How about this list, are they all unqualified to offer their opinions?

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

This list is only the ones that were not afraid of losing their jobs, grants if they went public with their views.

Serious projection.

 

[bhsmte]

OK, then do I understand correctly that "evolution" only applies to change within a species? Does it not have to start with something before there can be a species in any category?

Horse evolution seems to come up quite often but the chart I was referred to seems to show it starting with Eohippus and ending with Equus caballus is that in error? Does that mean it started with Eohippus and ended with Equus caballus and there was no evolution before and has been none since?

You really need to brush up on the theory of evolution. Clearly, your knowledge of the theory is lacking.

 

[tevans9129]

Serious projection.

A typical type of non-answer but then I am accustomed to them.

 

[tevans9129]

ou really need to brush up on the theory of evolution. Clearly, your knowledge of the theory is lacking.

Well, apparently yours is not much better, you cannot answer my questions. I know, you have excuses why you do not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jimmy says that he does not know the answer to my question although my question came from a chart that he provided.

So what? There will always be unanswered questions in science. That we can't answer all questions is never a valid excuse to deny it.

I cannot find an answer, can you provide one that can be verified as fact?

BTW, if you want to prove me wrong, ask me questions that I cannot answer...and yes, that works both ways.

What question do you want answered? And do you realize that you have already moved the goal posts so far that you have in effect admitted that man is not only an ape, but a primate?

 

[bhsmte]

Well, apparently yours is not much better, you cannot answer my questions. I know, you have excuses why you do not.

Keep up with the entertainment.

 

[bhsmte]

A typical type of non-answer but then I am accustomed to them.

Quite accurate though, based on the content of your posts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, apparently yours is not much better, you cannot answer my questions. I know, you have excuses why you do not.

Now, now. You claimed to value honesty. He made a correct observation. You should not attack others when your lacks are so apparent. You should learn what you are attacking. You can't refute that which you do not understand.

 

[pitabread]

Really, can you quote from the article answering my question? I did not see it.

It's a list of identified fossils for Perissodactyls or Perissodactyl-like fossils, including Orohippus, Hyracotherium, and Radinskya, among others.

 

[tevans9129]

Evolutionary biology has real-world applications. It's not 'promoted' just for the sake of it. It's actually useful.

Did someone say that it was not useful?