Creationists are selfish and un-American

[DamonWV]

To Chalnoth

Please don't tell me that missing toes and limbs constitute evolution of a new being.. Please don't tell me your using that as evidence..
Also you say in my generation and in the last couple, there is no change , that we wouldn't see.. But why would I assume that change would occur in a generation or two. I would think we would have some type of documentation from our earliest writings of some ancient dialect of man showing changes .. I mean we have been around for a long time according to you all.. Surely we would have some type of history of change. Or even see it, but humans are just the same now, as they were back then..
Not including people over time that had bone diseases and deformities, or mutations of their bodies , where they didn't quite develop right, but thats right their deemed missing links from a piece of a tooth and an entire picture drawn of a person half ape half human

 

[atomweaver]

To Chalnoth

Please dont tell me that missing toes and limps constitute evolution into a new being.. Please dont tell me your using that as evidence..
Also you say in my generation in the last couple, there is no change , or we wouldnt see.. But why would I assume that change would occur in a generation or two. I would think we would have some type of documentation from our earliest writings of some ancient dialect of man showing changes .. i mean we have been around for a long time according to you all.. surely we would have some type of history of change. Or even see it, but humans are just the same now, as they were back then..
Not including people that had bone diseases and deformities, or mutations of theit body , where they didnt quite develop right, but thats right their deemed missing links from a pice of a tooth and an entire picture drawn of a person half ape half human

Piece of tooth?

 

[Allegory]

So "Lucy" was an animal that likely serviced humans. Her seeming abilities might only indicate that monkeys, apes, etc., were once more capable than they are presently and have be degenerating since the FALL.

Answer one question for me:

Do you hate America? It's beginning to sound like you do.

 

[Chalnoth]

So "Lucy" was an animal that likely serviced humans. Her seeming abilities might only indicate that monkeys, apes, etc., were once more capable than they are presently and have be degenerating since the FALL.

Well, then, there's a really, really easy way to find evidence for this hypothesis: find a human skeleton near an australopithecus skeleton.

Too bad the latest australopithecus skeleton found is around 3 million years old, and the youngest human skeleton is around 100,000 years old.

 

[Chalnoth]

To Chalnoth

Please dont tell me that missing toes and limps constitute evolution into a new being.. Please dont tell me your using that as evidence..

It's a small change. Add up enough small changes, and you end up with a separate species. For example, here are the small changes that separate us from chimpanzees:

1. Our body hair is shorter and thinner (we have the same number of follicles).
2. Our brain case is larger.
3. Our face is flatter with smaller brow ridges.
4. We have extra room in our mouths for our tongues to move (necessary for speech).
5. The ratio of our arms to legs is smaller.
6. Our feet are more adapted to walking than grasping.
7. We have no baculum (penis bone).

Each one of these is individually a small change. Add them all together, though, and the whole is a pretty significant change. The most significant difference being, of course, our large brain and the resultant social capabilities. But each of these changes progressed along a series of small, incremental changes. And eventually, after around 4-6 million years, we have modern humans.

Also you say in my generation in the last couple, there is no change , or we wouldnt see.. But why would I assume that change would occur in a generation or two. I would think we would have some type of documentation from our earliest writings of some ancient dialect of man showing changes .. i mean we have been around for a long time according to you all.. surely we would have some type of history of change. Or even see it, but humans are just the same now, as they were back then..

Okay. Take lactose intolerance. Lactose intolerance is an evolved trait whereby the gene to digest lactose is turned off in adults, in order to assist with weaning. In civilizations where milk production has been around for some time, however, there is a prevalence of lactose tolerance among adults. This seems to be one such recent change.

Not including people that had bone diseases and deformities, or mutations of theit body , where they didnt quite develop right, but thats right their deemed missing links from a pice of a tooth and an entire picture drawn of a person half ape half human

The ostrich people I cited are an entire tribe with this particular shape of foot. This isn't a "deformity" in the sense that it isn't a fluke. It's a whole population of people that have the same trait. This is, in short, evolution in action.

 

[Morcova]

So "Lucy" was an animal that likely serviced humans. Her seeming abilities might only indicate that monkeys, apes, etc., were once more capable than they are presently and have be degenerating since the FALL.

The Fall: Something that christians insist happened yet refuse to provide any evidence of.

 

[DamonWV]

It's a small change. Add up enough small changes, and you end up with a separate species. For example, here are the small changes that separate us from chimpanzees:

1. Our body hair is shorter and thinner (we have the same number of follicles).
2. Our brain case is larger.
3. Our face is flatter with smaller brow ridges.
4. We have extra room in our mouths for our tongues to move (necessary for speech).
5. The ratio of our arms to legs is smaller.
6. Our feet are more adapted to walking than grasping.
7. We have no baculum (penis bone).

Each one of these is individually a small change. Add them all together, though, and the whole is a pretty significant change. The most significant difference being, of course, our large brain and the resultant social capabilities. But each of these changes progressed along a series of small, incremental changes. And eventually, after around 4-6 million years, we have modern humans.


Okay. Take lactose intolerance. Lactose intolerance is an evolved trait whereby the gene to digest lactose is turned off in adults, in order to assist with weaning. In civilizations where milk production has been around for some time, however, there is a prevalence of lactose tolerance among adults. This seems to be one such recent change.


The ostrich people I cited are an entire tribe with this particular shape of foot. This isn't a "deformity" in the sense that it isn't a fluke. It's a whole population of people that have the same trait. This is, in short, evolution in action.

ABout lactose intolerance

ScienceNOW: Milk tolerance Evolved more than once. “Recent instance of human evolution!” is the cry of evolutionists this week (that phrase coming from The New York Times), who are cheering an analysis of mutations that have led to lactose tolerance in various human populations.
But what’s the real story? Simply put, the genetic mutations that allow some humans to properly digest milk throughout life are different between various people groups:

The researchers sequenced the DNA of 110 individuals and tested them for milk tolerance. They found three new mutations in the same stretch of DNA as the European variant. The mutations turned up in varying frequencies in the Masai and other Nilo-Saharan populations in Tanzania and Kenya, in Afro-Asiatic speaking Kenyans, and in the Beja from Sudan.
​

In other words, lactose-tolerant individuals can digest milk due to a variety of mutations. But are these the sort of information-adding mutations molecules-to-man evolution would require? Of course not. The Science NOW article explains that: “All humans digest mothers’ milk as infants, but [when] cattle were domesticated it became advantageous for [humans] to digest milk, and lactose tolerance evolved.” All humans are able to digest milk from birth; the mutations allowing lifelong lactose tolerance don’t “add” any new ability; they merely cause a malfunction in the automatic shutdown of lactose digestion in children. The article also notes that this mutation may have happened as recently as 3,000 years ago.
Of course, scientists glorify evolution for providing this mutation—which, while perhaps beneficial, is still a loss of information: “Anthropologist Ken Weiss at Pennsylvania State University in State College adds that the study is an elegant example of how evolution can find several different solutions to the same problem.” What’s agonizing is that, based on the superficial hype some news organizations give to this story, some may come to believe evolution is that much more “proven.”

 

[Chalnoth]

ABout lactose intolerance

ScienceNOW: Milk tolerance Evolved more than once. “Recent instance of human evolution!” is the cry of evolutionists this week (that phrase coming from The New York Times), who are cheering an analysis of mutations that have led to lactose tolerance in various human populations.
But what’s the real story? Simply put, the genetic mutations that allow some humans to properly digest milk throughout life are different between various people groups:

The researchers sequenced the DNA of 110 individuals and tested them for milk tolerance. They found three new mutations in the same stretch of DNA as the European variant. The mutations turned up in varying frequencies in the Masai and other Nilo-Saharan populations in Tanzania and Kenya, in Afro-Asiatic speaking Kenyans, and in the Beja from Sudan.
​

In other words, lactose-tolerant individuals can digest milk due to a variety of mutations. But are these the sort of information-adding mutations molecules-to-man evolution would require? Of course not. The Science NOW article explains that: “All humans digest mothers’ milk as infants, but [when] cattle were domesticated it became advantageous for [humans] to digest milk, and lactose tolerance evolved.” All humans are able to digest milk from birth; the mutations allowing lifelong lactose tolerance don’t “add” any new ability; they merely cause a malfunction in the automatic shutdown of lactose digestion in children. The article also notes that this mutation may have happened as recently as 3,000 years ago.
Of course, scientists glorify evolution for providing this mutation—which, while perhaps beneficial, is still a loss of information: “Anthropologist Ken Weiss at Pennsylvania State University in State College adds that the study is an elegant example of how evolution can find several different solutions to the same problem.” What’s agonizing is that, based on the superficial hype some news organizations give to this story, some may come to believe evolution is that much more “proven.”

Your objection means nothing. This is an example of humans evolving. Other mutations unequivocally show the addition of new functionality, so it's irrelevant that this particular one is just the destruction of some functionality (in this case the destruction of the mechanism to turn of the lactase gene).

Here's an example of recent evolution (within the last 36 years) that produced new functionality in a species of lizards:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/still_just_a_lizard.php

One population of lizards developed valves in their digestive system to more efficiently digest plant matter.

 

[DamonWV]

Your objection means nothing. This is an example of humans evolving. Other mutations unequivocally show the addition of new functionality, so it's irrelevant that this particular one is just the destruction of some functionality (in this case the destruction of the mechanism to turn of the lactase gene).

Here's an example of recent evolution (within the last 36 years) that produced new functionality in a species of lizards:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/still_just_a_lizard.php

One population of lizards developed valves in their digestive system to more efficiently digest plant matter.

But their still izards right ? Even us, were still humans right ? No changes in species from something to something else , just from lactose intolerance.

 

[Vene]

But their still izards right ? Even us, were still humans right ? No changes in species from something to something else , just from lactose intolerance.

Hey, look macroevolution.

And by the way, humans evolved lactose tolerance, not intolerance.

 

[Chalnoth]

But their still izards right ? Even us, were still humans right ? No changes in species from something to something else , just from lactose intolerance.

Yes. This is how evolution works. We are humans. We are still apes. We are still primates. We are still mammals. We are still tetrapods. We are still vertebrates. We are still bilaterans. We are still animals. We are still eukaryotes. And so on and so forth. The tree of life is just that: a branching tree. Every form of life still maintains the record of its history within itself.

You don't get one form of life turning into something else entirely. You get one form of life changing into a different sort of its previous form. All humans will ever become is a different sort of human. All rabbits will ever become is a different sort of rabbit. All pine trees will eve become is a different sort of pine tree. And so on and so forth. This is the way evolution works. Another way of describing evolution is descent with modification.

 

[DamonWV]

I know what our saying. I recognize this as Micro evolution , changes with in a species, but they are still the same species. Natural selection adaption with in a species - " the strong survive, the weak die off " but their still the same species, regardless of their changes. Examples would been Darwins birds of the Galapolos <sp> islands. These finches who adapted to the different climates were still birds. Their beak variations changed to adapt to the need of food source. Which studies have showed that variations in beak length can change with in a generation or two, not millions of years.
Then i come to macro evolution where we as a species, and every kind, will remain exactly what they are .. they dont change into a complete new species. There is no evidence for this.

 

[Vene]

I know what our saying. I recognize this as Micro evolution , changes with in a species, but they are still the same species. Natural selection adaption with in a species - " the strong survive, the weak die off " but their still the same species, regardless of their changes. Examples would been Darwins birds of the Galapolos <sp> islands. But these finches who adapted to the different climates were still birds. they beak variations changed to adapt to the need of food source. Which studies have showed that variations in beak length can change with in a generation or two, not millions of years.
Then i come to macro evolution where we as a species, and every kind, will remain exactly what they are .. they dont change into a complete new species. There is no evidence for this.

I'm going to assume you missed this when I first posted it, so I'll post it again.

Observed macroevolution.

 

[truth above all else]

Well, then, there's a really, really easy way to find evidence for this hypothesis: find a human skeleton near an australopithecus skeleton.

Too bad the latest australopithecus skeleton found is around 3 million years old, and the youngest human skeleton is around 100,000 years old.

Says who, please provide the raw data relating to this claim, also what dating methodology was employed . In the fullness of time you will see how foolish the aforementioned claim is.The so called austrapatheticus example is associated with much reckless speculation.Variation among ape fossils is sufficiently great such that any scientist with a fired up imagination and a desire for research funds could easily pick out some features in a fossil and decide that they are prehuman.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

Reminds me of the episode of the boondocks episode where MLK comes back... If one of the geniuses of the past were to reject evolution.. :o

 

[LewisWildermuth]

If it didn't make me sound like a conspiracy theorist, I'd say that the Republicans are driving the US down a road that ends in Banana Republic. You'll probably pass Brazil and Argentina going in the opposite direction in a few years.

Most republicans I know (the sane non religious right ones) are waking up. You did notice that the religious right candidate lost almost immediately.

Like creationists are a minority, the religious right is a minority in the party, unfortunately the majority fell asleep and are waking up to a nightmare created in their absence.

 

[Allegory]

But their still izards right ? Even us, were still humans right ? No changes in species from something to something else , just from lactose intolerance.

You don't even know that "lizard" isn't a species, gtfo with trying to convince us evolution doesn't happen.

 

[mark kennedy]

Let's face it, the vast majority of the creationist movement is in the United States, so I think making the "un-American" statement is well justified.

So because most of the Creationist movement is American, Creationism must be un-American. Ok, got it!

So to the creationists, please, I'm begging you, please just show a little bit of modesty and give this fight up.

This largely American movement is un-American and you are begging for the sake of modesty so we should be cowardly and stop fighting. All of fundamentalist activism trembles beneath the brilliance of your logic.

You are doing no good by trying to push your particular brand of The Truth&#8482;. The United States has been a global leader in sciences and technologies for the past hundred years or so, and yet you want to take this country that has given so much to the world and turn it into a place that scorns innovation.

We are leaders in science because we are leaders in making tools and financing research. We are creative in that regard because we are free and our first freedom is our right to free speech, a free press and religion. I choose to scoff at the scorn of atheistic nationalism that led us into two world wars and perpetrated the atrocities of Communist Russian and Chinese athiesm.

Yes you think you're doing good by trying to get creationism or "intelligent design" or whatever into classrooms, but you're not.

I have never advocated teaching either in the classroom, I am also opposed to teaching antithesitic rhetoric in the name of science.

By teaching this particular "controversy" you're doing nothing but hurting yourselves. You think evolutionary theory and biology are threatening to your religion, but the real problem is that you can't see the forest for the trees. If you are successful in getting creationism into classrooms you will do nothing but destroy any chances future generations of American children have in the global marketplace.

Silly, utter, nonsense.

You think people losing low-paying jobs to immigrants is bad? Just wait until you have to start importing scientists and engineers because the natives are receiving an education sub-standard to the rest of the world.

We lead the world in science, industry and creationism. We do so because we are free thinkers and have been for hundreds of years. We will continue to do so because we refuse to have our ideas censored by self proclaimed pontificates of what is in our own best interest.

You lot have your own quaint little view of the world, how you think it was created, but the fact of the matter is that world view does not pay the bills; it doesn't create the medicine; it doesn't help the economy; it doesn't do anything but feed your own hubris. So for the good of the other 60% of the population and the rest of the world at large, just swallow your pride and go with whatever actually works (hint: it's not creationism)

We all have our own opinions and we all use our own.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Danyc]

We all have our own opinions and we all use our own.

Have a nice day
Mark

Woah woah, hold the phone.

A 44-year old man who cannot tell the difference between fact and opinion?

Jeez, they taught us the difference in 1st grade. We must have had at least 10 worksheets on it.

 

[mark kennedy]

Woah woah, hold the phone.

A 44-year old man who cannot tell the difference between fact and opinion?

You consider this a fact?

You lot have your own quaint little view of the world, how you think it was created, but the fact of the matter is that world view does not pay the bills; it doesn't create the medicine; it doesn't help the economy; it doesn't do anything but feed your own hubris. So for the good of the other 60% of the population and the rest of the world at large, just swallow your pride and go with whatever actually works (hint: it's not creationism)

Like the quaint point of view that it was not created does pay the bills, isn't a hubris, and does not precede from unproductive, overinflated egos?

And you think I don't know an opinion from a fact? How many sick days did you take in the first grade?

Jeez, they taught us the difference in 1st grade. We must have had at least 10 worksheets on it.

That would explain the pedantic, circular reasoning. Maybe you should have paid more attention when you got to second grade rather then thinking you knew it all based on ten worksheets you did in the first.