Are there any creationists willing to debate?

[tailfeather]

well, girl, you have no sense of humor nor intelligence, i reccomend you do something to prove me wrong

 

[fortheloveofmike]

I think fortheloveofmike is a troll, not sure. If he's not, fortheloveofmike, for your own sake, please read up on evolutionary biology before you come here and start to ask questions like "how do reptiles turn into birds? why would there suddenly be thousands of birds?"

Alright, here goes... Evolution in a nutshell. We start with a species. Let's call it "A" for the sake of simplicity. Now, A is doing fine and dandy in its population group, surviving and thriving in a state of stasis. Unfortunately for A, however, something happens to disrupt the stasis, be it a climate change, change in the ecology, whatever. Now, A begins to manifest certain adaptive mutations because either a large number of the population are dying off, causing boom-bust type dynamics in the gene pool and making the turnover of actual individuals in the population group very high and thus increasing the chance that a mutation or number of mutations will occur (due to the increased number of births/deaths allowing for more diverse genetic combonation), or, for some reason, the species shows a unconscious "evolutionary drive" or something.

As a result, members of A begin mutating in ways that are both more and less beneficial in whatever new circumstances A finds itself. The less beneficial mutations are taken care of through natural selection, and the more beneficial traits are passed down... Now, multiply by a great amount of time, and A becomes "B," a wholly different and more well-adapted, and thus more able to survive species than the original A.

Thorough enough for you, buddy?

 

[troodon]

sophismata, you are retarded, its obvious that trolls have never existed

well, girl, you have no sense of humor nor intelligence, i reccomend you do something to prove me wrong

As of right now, I am really hoping you are an atheist pretending to be a YEC because you are not representing the principles of Christianity. Flaming people with insults is not a good way to get others to listen to you.

 

[fortheloveofmike]

i still challenge any evolutionist out there to give me a specific example of intermediate stages from one species to another. please dont give me links to the homepages of your evolutionist websites, i want specific examples.

 

[fortheloveofmike]

Well, reptiles evolved into dinosaurs during the middle Triassic and theropod dinosaurs (arboreal or terrestrial, we know not) evolved into birds in the early to middle Jurassic. I can detail the scenarios if you like.

please. i would love to hear details of how reptiles turned into birds. especially since you dont even know whether it was arboreal or terrestrial. you must have tons of details, considering you dont even know where it lived. mwuahahaha.

 

[troodon]

i still challenge any evolutionist out there to give me a specific example of intermediate stages from one species to another. please dont give me links to the homepages of your evolutionist websites, i want specific examples.

Two of us gave you links to examples; some of them were links to threads on this website. They weren't links to evolutionist websites.

please. i would love to hear details of how reptiles turned into birds.

Well, the climbing hypothesis is that the protoflying dinosaurs were species that spent a lot of time in the trees. These animals would use their wings (arms) as airfoils to aid in gliding from tree to tree. Eventually, the evolution of flapping gave these flyers more power which lengthened the potential distances of their glides. The terrestrial hypothesis (which is held by the majority of researchers) mostly involves small, running dinosaurs using their wings (arms) as small, control surfaces that aided them as they lept after flying insects. Another variant is these dinosaurs using their wings (arms) as airfoils which help them run up extremely steep surfaces. There are many other variants (and if anyone else wants to post some, feel free) which I won't detail because just about every researcher has his own little hypothesis as to how it happened exactly.

especially since you dont even know whether it was arboreal or terrestrial.

If you have an easy way to tell whether a dinosaur was capable of climbing trees or not I would love to see it.

you must have tons of details, considering you dont even know where it lived. mwuahahaha.

You must be able to sleep at night, considering there are so many falsifications of a global flood posted on this website. mwuahahaha

 

[Pete Harcoff]

i still challenge any evolutionist out there to give me a specific example of intermediate stages from one species to another. please dont give me links to the homepages of your evolutionist websites, i want specific examples.

Here's a specific example taken from the talkorigins transitionals faq. I included the reference, too, so you can look it up.

"Krishtalka & Stucky (1985) documented smooth transitions in the common early Eocene artiodactyl genus Diacodexis. The fossil record for these animals is very good (literally hundreds of new specimens have been found in Colorado and Wyoming since the 1970's). Analysis of these specimens found gradual species-species transitions for every step of the following lineage, including the origination of three different familes: Diacodexis secans-primus is the first artiodactyl species known. Immediately a new group of animals split off that gave rise to the Wasatchia and Bunophorus genera (not further discussed by this particular paper). Meanwhile, the main lineage of D. s-primus continued, and became D. s-metsiacus. Two species split off from D. s-metsiacus: one was D. gracilis, the other was an as-yet-unnamed new species "Artiodactyla A", which gave rise to "Artiodactyla B"; these two were the first members of the new families Homacodontidae and Antiacodontidae. Meanwhile, D. s- metsiacus continued changing and became D. s-kelleyi. Another species forked off, D. minutus. Slightly later another species forked off, D. woltonensis, which apparently was the first member of the new family Leptochoeridae. Meanwhile, D. s-kelley continued changing and became D. s-secans.

Krishtalka, L., and Stucky, R.K. 1985. Revision of the Wind River Faunas. Early Eocene of Central Wyoming. Part 7. Revision of Diacodexis (Mammalia, Artiodactyla). Am. Carnegie Mus. 54:413-486."

 

[JohnR7]

Read Introduction to Evolutionary Biology over at talk.origins. At the very least, have a glance at the first three sections (What is Evolution?, Common Misconceptions about Evolution and Genetic Variation). That should help clear up some of the misconceptions people seem to be working with here.

talkorigins: Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology. It unites all the fields of biology under one theoretical umbrella. It is not a difficult concept, but very few people -- the majority of biologists included -- have a satisfactory grasp of it.

So why does talkorigins feel that the majority of biologists do not seem to be able to grasp the concept of evolution when it is suppose to be so simple of a concept?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

So why does talkorigins feel that the majority of biologists do not seem to be able to grasp the concept of evolution when it is suppose to be so simple of a concept?

The article was written by a single author and the phrase was "satisfactory grasp". Obviously, it's up to the author's opinion to determine what the qualifier "satisfactory" means. If, for example, the author specializes in evolutionary biology (not saying he does), then he might consider anyone outside of his field as not having a "satisfactory grasp" simply because they don't specialize in it.

Personally, I wouldn't go reading too much into that statement.

 

[Aaron11]

Well, the climbing hypothesis is that the protoflying dinosaurs were species that spent a lot of time in the trees. These animals would use their wings (arms) as airfoils to aid in gliding from tree to tree. Eventually, the evolution of flapping gave these flyers more power which lengthened the potential distances of their glides. The terrestrial hypothesis (which is held by the majority of researchers) mostly involves small, running dinosaurs using their wings (arms) as small, control surfaces that aided them as they lept after flying insects. Another variant is these dinosaurs using their wings (arms) as airfoils which help them run up extremely steep surfaces. There are many other variants (and if anyone else wants to post some, feel free) which I won't detail because just about every researcher has his own little hypothesis as to how it happened exactly.

my favorite part of your story of how reptiles turned into birds was how you called it a hypothesis. not even developed enough to become a theory. but then you believe it and consider it to be fact.

 

[Aaron11]

also, id like for you guys to do something with that darned duck-billed platypus. where does he go in this great order of evolution. or should i say, where does he come from?

 

[fortheloveofmike]

sorry everybody, i got so carried away with my postings, i forgot to check if i was logged on. the last two posts made by aaron11 were actually made by me. my bad.

 

[fortheloveofmike]

Here's a specific example taken from the talkorigins transitionals faq. I included the reference, too, so you can look it up.

"Krishtalka & Stucky (1985) documented smooth transitions in the common early Eocene artiodactyl genus Diacodexis. The fossil record for these animals is very good (literally hundreds of new specimens have been found in Colorado and Wyoming since the 1970's). Analysis of these specimens found gradual species-species transitions for every step of the following lineage, including the origination of three different familes: Diacodexis secans-primus is the first artiodactyl species known. Immediately a new group of animals split off that gave rise to the Wasatchia and Bunophorus genera (not further discussed by this particular paper). Meanwhile, the main lineage of D. s-primus continued, and became D. s-metsiacus. Two species split off from D. s-metsiacus: one was D. gracilis, the other was an as-yet-unnamed new species "Artiodactyla A", which gave rise to "Artiodactyla B"; these two were the first members of the new families Homacodontidae and Antiacodontidae. Meanwhile, D. s- metsiacus continued changing and became D. s-kelleyi. Another species forked off, D. minutus. Slightly later another species forked off, D. woltonensis, which apparently was the first member of the new family Leptochoeridae. Meanwhile, D. s-kelley continued changing and became D. s-secans.

Krishtalka, L., and Stucky, R.K. 1985. Revision of the Wind River Faunas. Early Eocene of Central Wyoming. Part 7. Revision of Diacodexis (Mammalia, Artiodactyla). Am. Carnegie Mus. 54:413-486."

so peter, let me get this straight. you are telling me that because two animals have similar toes and similar teeth, that one obviously evolved into another. this makes tons of sense.

let me guess what your next point will be....whales have fins, and birds have wings. they look kind of similar, wings and fins do. also, whales have eyes, and so do birds, therefore whales must have evolved into birds.

its the only logical explanation for two species to be so similar.

 

[wblastyn]

how about this for a lack of understanding, philostratus: biogenesis states that every living being comes from another living being. now, life hasnt existed eternally according to evolution. and also, according to evolution there is no supernatural. so please can you explain to me where the first life came from? i dont think you can. this is where "science" (evolution) contradicts with REAL SCIENCE, and evolutionists become puzzled. some may try to argue this point, others like to shove it under the rug with all the other unexplainable points creationists come up with.

Evolution doesn't say anything about the supernatural. God may be required for evolution to work, or for the entire universe to run for that matter.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, evolution just needs life, it doesn't matter where it came from.

 

[troodon]

my favorite part of your story of how reptiles turned into birds was how you called it a hypothesis. not even developed enough to become a theory.

I'd rather have an unproven hypothesis than a falsified theory any day.

but then you believe it and consider it to be fact.

I consider none of those hypotheses to be fact. I do consider the dinosaur-bird link to be very close to fact but as to how it happened is open to much debate and I have found myself changing my mind over the past ~4 months as to the exact scenario.

also, id like for you guys to do something with that darned duck-billed platypus. where does he go in this great order of evolution. or should i say, where does he come from?

Most likely, the platypus split off from the main mammal line a very long time ago, even longer than marsupials. This explains its primitive characteristics and its rarity.

whales have fins, and birds have wings. they look kind of similar, wings and fins do. also, whales have eyes, and so do birds, therefore whales must have evolved into birds.

When in doubt, make fun of the opposing theory by making up your own intentionally rediculous scenarios. Nice. Also, in case you care (which I doubt) the whale fins and bird wings look nothing alike anatomically. The 5(?) digits of whales are very robust and only connected by soft tissue. The 3 digits of birds are hardly recognizable and are fused in order to become robust. Also, the value of eyes as a derived characteristic is practically nonexistant. You should take some cladistics classes.

 

[LOVEequalsLXIX]

panda bears used to be polar bears, but then they decided to go to china. in china, the mom got black spots from rice and then when her babies were born they had black spots too.

 

[LOVEequalsLXIX]

does that explain the intermediate stages well enough for you "fortheloveofmike" ?

 

[Uvas]

yeah, the polar bears took a walk from Turkey, up to the arctic and antartic circles. Then they walked down to China. Or wait, maybe the Panda bear was on the ark. It is so hard to decide what a "kind" actually is nowadays. And if the Panda wasn't on the ark, by what mechanism did he change from a polar to a panda bear?

 

[wblastyn]

nm

 

[Pete Harcoff]

so peter, let me get this straight. you are telling me that because two animals have similar toes and similar teeth, that one obviously evolved into another. this makes tons of sense.

let me guess what your next point will be....whales have fins, and birds have wings. they look kind of similar, wings and fins do. also, whales have eyes, and so do birds, therefore whales must have evolved into birds.

its the only logical explanation for two species to be so similar.

...

You asked for a specific example and didn't want to do the research yourself, so I took the time to find an example for you.

Now, you are trying to dismiss it with a bunch of ignorant hand-waving. If this is the best you can do, then I don't see any point in discussing things further with you.