Creation vs. Evolution: take 139486

ChristianFAQed said:

What do you mean evidence for my position?

You can't answer those questions, that is my evidence. Evolution can't explain those things, therefore it does not make sense, that is my position

Click to expand...

ChristianFAQed said:

What do you need an alternative for? Evolution isn't true, thats the alternative, find a better theory.

It's not my opinion that evolution can't answer those things.

Click to expand...

Molal said:

So, what's the deal? Why are you here?

Click to expand...

Mallon said:

He's a troll. Just ignore him.

Click to expand...

ChristianFAQed said:

The same reason everyone else is here, to give my opinion.

I didn't see anything on the evolution of why catipillars developed a metamorphosis process.

I didn't see anything about why an advanced species only has one predecesor species.

I didn't see anything about how male and female evolved together.

These severe holes in your theory that need to be addressed in order to say it is a fact. You can tell me what aligns with evolution all you want, but you can't explain the things that don't align.

If we found out that half the earth had places that things fell up instead of down and some parts fell left instead of down, then we would have to rethink the law of gravity because it can't explain that. The evolutionary theory cannot explain these simple questions therefore should be taken back to the drawing board.

Click to expand...

Molal said:

Evolution of caterpillars

To talk about advanced species means you have no idea what evolution is. Look at this site for help in your evolution education: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Male and female evolution:

http://www.amazon.com/Male-Female-Evolution-Human-Differences/dp/1557985278
and
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/citation/197/4300/215

Do you see how wrong you are?

Click to expand...

ChristianFAQed said:

I believe there is a mass misconception between adaptation and evolution. Adaptation allows species to survive,

Click to expand...

evolution makes man from a monkey.

Click to expand...

You get a new flu shot every year because the virus adapts, it is still a virus and it is still the flu.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

ChristianFAQed said:

I didn't see anything in there about how male and female came to exist... gonna have to be more specific. I saw how monogamy was chosen of polygamy and other irrelevant things but I saw nothing on how male and female came to exist.

None of those explained why the duckbilled platypus which uses electrolytes to sense food only has one predecessor (the electrolytes make it an advanced species much like a dolphin's sonar)

You haven't proved me wrong yet, links to different sites with vague articles don't prove anything

Click to expand...

Molal said:

Evolution of caterpillars

Click to expand...

Mallon said:

To be honest, that's a pretty lousy link.
This link better describes why the argument that butterfly metamorphosis was too complex to have evolved is bunk:
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Butterfly_metamorphosis_is_too_complex_to_have_evolved

Honestly, though, let's just drop it. As scientists, we get the last laugh since his tax dollars pay our research.

Click to expand...

ChristianFAQed said:

Wow

"Butterflies probably first evolved about 150 million years ago, appearing at about the same time as the flowering (or angiosperm) plants. Of the 220,000 species of Lepidoptera, about 45,000 species are butterflies, which probably evolved from moths. Butterflies are found throughout the world, except in Antarctica, and are especially numerous in the tropics. They fall into eight families: Papilionidae (swallowtail butterflies), Pieridae (whites), Danaidae (milkweeds), Satyridae (browns), Morphidae (morphos), Nymphalidae (nymphalids), Lycaenidae (blues), and Hesperidae (skippers)."

that is your evidence? It may or may not have come from a moth... okay, how did a moth become metamorphic... I also noted the "probably" which means we don't know but we make it sound like we do, no one will ever tell us we just made it up because we're scientists and don't do that sort of thing

Click to expand...

1. While many details remain to be worked out, the path of evolution of the insect metamorphosis is documented in the diversity of living insect species. Some, such as silverfish, are born as miniature adults, having no significant metamorphosis, save for being sexually immature. Cockroaches and grasshoppers show distinctive juvenile stages, with the adults of most species being winged, and the nymphs of all species having wing buds. Dragonflies have significantly different juvenile stages. Other species show a partial pupal stage. The pupal stage frees the juvenile stage from having to resemble adults at all and opens the way for the development of the caterpillar stage.
2. According to entomological studies, it is strongly suggested that the larvae of holometabolic insects (those who undergo a complete metamorphasis) are, essentially, precocious embryos that had hatched before they assumed the adult or nymphal forms.
3. According to entomologists, one important reason for the development of a larval stage in most holometabolic insects is because the larvae hold different ecological niches than the adults, and thus, avoid intraspecific competition.
4. Complexity does not indicate design. This argument is based on and derives from the God of the Gaps fallacy.
5. add more responses"

Mallon said:

Can someone please post a note in the Creationism subforum letting them know that one of their trolls got out?

Click to expand...

1. The vast majority of sexual organisms do not have separate sexes. They are hermaphrodites, having aspects of both of what we consider separate genders.
2. Separate sexes seem to have begun by specialization and a kind of social parasitism. Most hermaphrodite species mate once per reproductive cycle, fertilizing the eggs of another of their species while at the same time being fertilized. However, some hermaphrodite species have "false males", individuals who forgo the fertilization their own eggs to mate multiple times as males. This gives them a competitive advantage over other members of their species, as they will have produced multiple broods of eggs by proxy, and they, themselves, are not burdened by having to personally develop their own fertilized eggs. If enough "false males" appear in a population, it will no longer be advantageous for hermaphroditic members to remain so and selection pressure should drive them towards completely separate genders. An example of this occurs in modern day garden snails (genus Helix), when, during mating, each snail stabs their partner with a calcite "love dart" in an attempt to inject its partner with a hormone that induces constriction of the vas deferens, thus cutting off the flow of sperm. This way, each snail tries its best to fertilize as many of its partners' eggs as possible, while only getting a minimum of its own eggs fertilized in order to conserve its resources.
3. In most ciliated protists and most bacteria, gender and reproduction are not linked concepts. These organisms swap genetic material, either a micronucleus in the former, or a plasmid in the latter, changing themselves. This is entirely separate from reproduction, which involves mitosis in the former, and fission and or budding in the latter. Sexuality in the sense we understand could evolve from this easily by adding a process whereby a cell which recognizes it is near a potential mate buds off a daughter cell to mate so that it may retain its own identity.
4. Eukaryotic sex developed from either the micronucleus swapping of ciliates or the fusion of isogametic or anisogametic cells produced by some flagellates.
5. The technical term for species that lack sexual dimorphism is isogamy, and it is rather trivial to show a transition between an asexual species and a sexually isogamous species. Sexual reproduction doesn't actually require dimorphism to occur. Isogamous species are not asexual. Sexual reproduction is defined through gamete meiosis, and not gender dimorphism. Dimorphism is a secondary sexual characteristic, which is not as old as sexual reproduction itself.
6. Complexity does not indicate design. This argument is based on and derives from the God of the Gaps fallacy.
7. add more responses