Creation vs. Evolution: take 139486

[Molal]

I believe there is a mass misconception between adaptation and evolution. Adaptation allows species to survive, evolution makes man from a monkey. You get a new flu shot every year because the virus adapts, it is still a virus and it is still the flu.

There are several different species of dog, but there is no evidence that a dog was ever anything but a dog.

Evolution is easy to look at in a broad perspective but when you get into the the details it loses all evidence.

For example, we went from worms that had miniature feet like things and then the next thing on the chart from the Cambrian era is a Lobster with several feet, a body, and eyes.... So how did we get from this worm thing to the lobster thing without any transitional fossils? No evidence that multiple legs evolved, no evidence that a head evolved at all, no evidence that even eyes evolved. they just Poof, were there.

Some might say that we are missing the transitional fossils but even the top evolutionists are at a loss because they find it highly unlikely that we should be missing this many fossils.

I'm all for adaptation and speciation, but once it crosses from one animal to another animal entirely, it loses all validity.

I recommend you check out this webpage:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/PSCF12-97Miller.html

and this webpage:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

Both will help dispell your misunderstanding on transitional fossils, in particular transitional fossile between the precambrian and cambrian.

This website, http://www.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/cambrian.htm
provides background on the early palaeozoic with lots of links you can click on and get more info!

Enjoy

 

[ChristianFAQed]

Actually, there is no evidence that they came from wolves. They can bred with wolves but no real evidence that they actually came from wolves.

You really don't know that dogs came from wolves, you're just guessing because they are similar. When it comes down to it, not all evolutionists agree that dogs came from wolves because the evidence is not conclusive.

 

[Mallon]

When it comes down to it, not all evolutionists agree that dogs came from wolves because the evidence is not conclusive.

Actually, all evolutionists, and, in fact, most creationists, believe that dogs are descended from wolves. Just check out anything AiG has ever published on dog "kinds". For example:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/OneBlood/chapter2.asp

 

[Molal]

Actually, there is no evidence that they came from wolves. They can bred with wolves but no real evidence that they actually came from wolves.

You really don't know that dogs came from wolves, you're just guessing because they are similar. When it comes down to it, not all evolutionists agree that dogs came from wolves because the evidence is not conclusive.

The evidence is highly conclusive, a simple google search will provide a mass of information for you to trawl through.

 

[ChristianFAQed]

I'd give those websites the time of day if I hadn't read 3 sites with the counter argument. Evolutionists cannot agree on a single thing. There are several scientists who are baffled by the lack of transitional fossils found. They have said that their should be many more, but their isn't and they can't find them. Though many have decided to not care and keep going with evolution despite the lack of evidence does not change the fact that you can't find them and there for can't prove anything.

 

[ChristianFAQed]

A simple google search is what I did and what i found were discrepencies and disagrements, no conlcusions

 

[Molal]

I'd give those websites the time of day if I hadn't read 3 sites with the counter argument. Evolutionists cannot agree on a single thing. There are several scientists who are baffled by the lack of transitional fossils found. They have said that their should be many more, but their isn't and they can't find them. Though many have decided to not care and keep going with evolution despite the lack of evidence does not change the fact that you can't find them and there for can't prove anything.

The difference is though, those website provide actual evidence.

And your unwillingness to see the otherside really draws the line in the sand, does it not.

 

[Theogonia]

A simple google search is what I did and what i found were discrepencies and disagrements, no conlcusions

And yet you provide none of them.

You're a typical creationist I'm sorry to say, stuffing your fingers in your ears and yelling "but I'm right!".

 

[Molal]

A simple google search is what I did and what i found were discrepencies and disagrements, no conlcusions

The theory of evolution is a well researched, well evidenced theory that provides predictions (which have been found to be true).

 

[ChristianFAQed]

Do the details even matter? I don't have my sources with me at work so I can't give you much more than I gave you, so why don't you give me details.

Please describe the evolution of the Hand.

What was the first species to have a hand?
How did it get a hand?
etc.

 

[Molal]

Do the details even matter? I don't have my sources with me at work so I can't give you much more than I gave you, so why don't you give me details.

Please describe the evolution of the Hand.

What was the first species to have a hand?
How did it get a hand?
etc.

No, we have provided lots of evidence, you have provided none. Your excuse for not providing any evidence is evidence itself that you know nothing about evolution.

You failed.

 

[Molal]

No, we have provided lots of evidence, you have provided none. Your excuse for not providing any evidence is evidence itself that you know nothing about evolution.

You failed.

And this is a typical creationists attack. Ask for evidence, in this case transitional fossils (do not provide any evidence for counterpoint) - the question gets shot down and the creationist moves onto another topic. In the process moving the goalposts.

And still the creationist fails to provide any evidence whatsoever.

 

[Mallon]

I'd give those websites the time of day if I hadn't read 3 sites with the counter argument. Evolutionists cannot agree on a single thing. There are several scientists who are baffled by the lack of transitional fossils found. They have said that their should be many more, but their isn't and they can't find them. Though many have decided to not care and keep going with evolution despite the lack of evidence does not change the fact that you can't find them and there for can't prove anything.

You keep saying evolutionists refuse to discuss the evidence, but when challenged on certain points, it seems to be you who is unwilling to discuss. Which scientists are you referring to who are "baffled by the lack of transitional fossils"? What do you make of Probainognathus as a transitional fossil? What about Triadobatrachus? What about those hesperocyonids I mentioned earlier? Are you just going to keep spouting off at the mouth that evolutionists don't know what they're talking about, or are we going to get down to brass tacks here?

 

[Markus6]

Actually, there is no evidence that they came from wolves. They can bred with wolves but no real evidence that they actually came from wolves.

You really don't know that dogs came from wolves, you're just guessing because they are similar. When it comes down to it, not all evolutionists agree that dogs came from wolves because the evidence is not conclusive.

Just to update you on creationist arguments - the normal defence is that the wolf -> dog transition is due to domestication and selective breeding, not evolution. Creationists tend to say that wolfs and dogs are the same 'kind' and so the change is like your adaptation not evolution.

 

[ChristianFAQed]

Oh yeah, you can't answer questions and its my fault...

Explain sex, how did sex evolve, how did a male survive without a female or did they evolve at the same time? And what are the odds of that?

How did the butterfly evolve? Did a catapillar decide one day that it wanted to fly?

How did the duck billed platypus evolve? It is considered an advanced species with only one predecesor, how does that make sense?

You can't answer any of these questions and its my fault? Who said I was a creationist? I just don't believe in evolution. It doesn't make sense

 

[Mallon]

Please describe the evolution of the Hand.

What was the first species to have a hand?
How did it get a hand?
etc.

Please. Before you say that evolutionary theory has not described the evolution of the hand, have a look around the literature first. The evolution of the tetrapod limb is well documented in the fossil record. In fact, a book just came out recently describing even the genetic development of limbs from fins:
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/190715.ctl

See also:
http://homepage.mac.com/wis/Personal/lectures/limb-evolution/LimbEvolution.html
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoLimb.html
http://hometown.aol.com/darwinpage/tetrapods.htm

 

[Molal]

Oh yeah, you can't answer questions and its my fault...

Explain sex, how did sex evolve, how did a male survive without a female or did they evolve at the same time? And what are the odds of that?

How did the butterfly evolve? Did a catapillar decide one day that it wanted to fly?

How did the duck billed platypus evolve? It is considered an advanced species with only one predecesor, how does that make sense?

You can't answer any of these questions and its my fault? Who said I was a creationist? I just don't believe in evolution. It doesn't make sense

And still you provide no evidence for your position.

Provide evidence, that's all we are asking. Evidence for the things you think are impossible.

So, pony up

EDIT: Look at Mallon's posts, he has provided lots and lots of evidence to show you how evolution is possible. Follow his excellent example and do the same.

 

[Molal]

Please. Before you say that evolutionary theory has not described the evolution of the hand, have a look around the literature first. The evolution of the tetrapod limb is well documented in the fossil record. In fact, a book just came out recently describing even the genetic development of limbs from fins:
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/190715.ctl

See also:
http://homepage.mac.com/wis/Personal/lectures/limb-evolution/LimbEvolution.html
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoLimb.html
http://hometown.aol.com/darwinpage/tetrapods.htm

I would rep you, but I have repped you already today..........

 

[Mallon]

It's becoming quite clear that ChristianFAQed is only here to stir trouble. He accuses evolutionists of being unwilling to discuss details, and yet when we've addressed any of the issues he's raised, he has simply tried to convolute the matter by throwing out a rash of unrelated questions in rapid succession. Typical. It's probably best not to encourage him and to just ignore him. It isn't our loss if he choses to continue through life this way.

 

[Molal]

Evolution of the human hand: the role of throwing and clubbing
Richard W Young
J Anat. 2003 January; 202(1): 165–174.
doi: 10.1046/j.1469-7580.2003.00144.x.



ABSTRACT:

It has been proposed that the hominid lineage began when a group of chimpanzee-like apes began to throw rocks and swing clubs at adversaries, and that this behaviour yielded reproductive advantages for millions of years, driving natural selection for improved throwing and clubbing prowess. This assertion leads to the prediction that the human hand should be adapted for throwing and clubbing, a topic that is explored in the following report. It is shown that the two fundamental human handgrips, first identified by J. R. Napier, and named by him the ‘precision grip’ and ‘power grip’, represent a throwing grip and a clubbing grip, thereby providing an evolutionary explanation for the two unique grips, and the extensive anatomical remodelling of the hand that made them possible. These results are supported by palaeoanthropological evidence.