Creationists are selfish and un-American

[Danyc]

You consider this a fact?

Hahah, oh, quite.

We know what creationism is, Mark. It's useless.

 

[Chalnoth]

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.

And what happens, then, when a species splits in to two species? This has been observed to happen again and again, after all. It happened in the lizard example I gave before, and it happened with Darwin's finches. When one population is split into two, and those two populations are allowed to evolve over time independently, eventually they just won't interbreed any longer. Forever after, then, they will just continue to get more and more different (for as long as the descendants survive).

What you have above is a pretty accurate portrayal of how evolution works, except that it neglects the fact of speciation, of species splitting into more species.

 

[Chalnoth]

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.

Why should I bother? You'll just ignore it. Why don't you find a single Australopithecus fossil that was found alongside a fossil with anatomy identical to modern humans?

 

[Allegory]

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?

Perhaps you can enlighten me, then, as to what creationism does for us other than distract people from doing actual research.

 

[LittleNipper]

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.

What is determining the age is the composition of the minerals the foscil is made up of and not the actual age of bone.

 

[flatworm]

What is determining the age is the composition of the minerals the foscil is made up of and not the actual age of bone.

No, what determine the age of the fossils are the ages of strata above and below it. Now, unless you've come up with some way of slipping mineralized remains between existing rock layers without leaving any evidence of disturbing them, that pretty much closes the case.

 

[DamonWV]

And what happens, then, when a species splits in to two species? This has been observed to happen again and again, after all. It happened in the lizard example I gave before, and it happened with Darwin's finches. When one population is split into two, and those two populations are allowed to evolve over time independently, eventually they just won't interbreed any longer. Forever after, then, they will just continue to get more and more different (for as long as the descendants survive).

What you have above is a pretty accurate portrayal of how evolution works, except that it neglects the fact of speciation, of species splitting into more species.

yes i have watched , and read documentaries of Darwins finches. The conclusion is that finches micro evolove.. meaning their was changes with in their species to adapt to the new or changed environment. It also is made quite clear that the finches never ceased to be nothing more than a finch, just a change in a part of its body, it beak. The change is something acceptable to adapt and survive to its environment, but my point is , its not evolving into a fish, or a dog, or some other species, it merely is just a bird, of the bird species kingdom Also the changes that took place happen to change within a short period of time, not millions of years. It only takes a couple generations to change part of its anatomy.

 

[Nathan45]

yes i have watched , and read documentaries of Darwins finches. The conclusion is that finches micro evolove.. meaning their was changes with in their species to adapt to the new or changed environment. It also is made quite clear that the finches never ceased to be nothing more than a finch, just a change in a part of its body, it beak. The change is something acceptable to adapt and survive to its environment, but my point is , its not evolving into a fish, or a dog, or some other species, it merely is just a bird, of the bird species kingdom Also the changes that took place happen to change within a short period of time, not millions of years. It only takes a couple generations to change part of its anatomy.

I really don't see what the controversy is about... you agree that the finches evolved, and that this is due to natural selection. ( it would take many more than a "couple" generations, though, lol, but you get the point )

The point is that small changes like this, they add up:

first it's the beak... later it'll be the method of flight, or the limbs...
What happens if you introduce a predator to one of the islands? what kind of changes would you expect to see in the finches on that island?
Let them all evolve separately for a few million years and see what happens.

And a finch is never going to turn into a dog.. The odds of a dog independently evolving twice are incredibly low.

But given enough time ( millions of years ) and the proper circumstances it could evolve into something that is nothing like a finch. ( but still a bird, of course ).

The point of the finches is that it shows that microevolution can produce novel traits. If you extrapolate that given a longer time frame, you get macro evolution. And that's what the fossil record shows.

 

[Danyc]

I really don't see what the controversy is about... you agree that the finches evolved, and that this is due to natural selection. ( it would take many more than a "couple" generations, though, lol, but you get the point )

The point is that small changes like this, they add up:

first it's the beak... later it'll be the method of flight, or the limbs...
What happens if you introduce a predator to one of the islands? what kind of changes would you expect to see in the finches on that island?
Let them all evolve separately for a few million years and see what happens.

And a finch is never going to turn into a dog.. The odds of a dog independently evolving twice are incredibly low.

But given enough time ( millions of years ) and the proper circumstances it could evolve into something that is nothing like a finch.

The point of the finches is that it shows that microevolution can produce novel traits. If you extrapolate that given a longer time frame, you get macro evolution. And that's what the fossil record shows.

Is this to say that macroevolution is simply a lot of microevolution?

I think the answer is yes, I just want to make sure.

 

[Vene]

Is this to say that macroevolution is simply a lot of microevolution?

I think the answer is yes, I just want to make sure.

Yes. Especially since the term "macroevolution"just means evolution at or above the species level and microevolution is variation within a species. At least, if you're using the biological definition. And there is no barrier between them. Just like there is no barrier between walking 10 feet and 10 miles. One just takes longer.

 

[Chalnoth]

It also is made quite clear that the finches never ceased to be nothing more than a finch, just a change in a part of its body, it beak.

I think the proper term is it never ceased to be anything other than a finch. The different species can definitely be considered something "more" than a finch, because of this new adaptation (the changed beak shape). They're no longer "just" finches, but finches with modified beaks.

As Nathan45 mentioned, if you wait long enough, these slow modifications will make it so that the finch no longer is recognizable, until you look closely.

Consider, for a moment. Do we look anything like fish? Certainly not at first glance. But when you look more closely, it becomes apparent that we are still fish, though highly modified fish (no surprise, really: our last ancestor that lived underwater for its entire life lived some 380 million years ago or so...that's a hell of a long time for small changes to add up). Where, pray tell, is it apparent that we are but modified fish? Well, the most obvious clue is our embryo. Our embryos look amazingly like the embryos of all vertebrates at an early stage. This includes fish. Here's a shot of a human embryo:
http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Bones/Gill_Arches/Images/Meckel4.jpg

In fish, the embryo at this stage looks almost identical, and "arches" become gills. They don't become gills in us, of course. Instead, the same structures that fish use to support their gills are used in mammals to make up the structure of our lower face:
http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Bones/Gill_Arches/Images/Meckel3.jpg

How do we know that these structures are just modified fish structures? Well, one way is by looking at the genes. We can now look at the genetic development of these structures, and show that the exact same genes that develop the gills in fish are used, in modified form, to develop these facial structures. Furthermore, these modifications make no sense except in the light of evolution. For example, because these structures are modified from gill structures, the nerves that connect to them take winding and torturous paths through the head and face. They don't go straight to the structures they connect to, but make rather illogical twists, turns, and loops. Furthermore, two of our middle ear bones, have one nerve that connects to them, while the third has a nerve that takes an entirely different path. Why is this?

Well, it's explained perfectly by our evolutionary past: this third middle ear bone is a modified form of a bone in the reptile jaw:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex2

None of this makes any sense except in the light of evolution. It makes sense if we are modified fish. It doesn't make sense if a designer made us from scratch.

 

[Nathan45]

Is this to say that macroevolution is simply a lot of microevolution?

I think the answer is yes, I just want to make sure.

Yes, you are correct.

It seems like to creationists, "Macroevolution" is defined as anything that can't be seen within a reasonable timeframe... but we still have the fossil evidence and DNA similarities to prove it happened... I mean, look at a chihuaha and then look at a great dane... we know historically that these all came from dogs/wolves. And that's just the results of a few thousand years... so immagine what could happen in a few million?


anyways,
With DNA you can prove macroevolution using the same methods they use to prove plagiarism in court...

for example, when a work of writing or something is plagiarized, it will often have the same errors and the same styles and the same quirks, all in the same places...

we see that in the genetic code... with endogenous retroviruses... you'll see the same retrovirus insertions in the DNA of, say, chimps and humans, and in the exact same places... Now, this DNA doesn't do anything, it's just left over from an ancestral viral infection, which inserted non-coding DNA into the genome. But you'll see the same insertions in the same places in chimps and humans.( some slightly modified by mutations over time. ) So you can use this to prove that chimps and humans had a common ancestor. Overall, chimps and humans share something like 96% of the same DNA, including non-coding DNA.... there's no reason for the non-coding DNA to be that similar unless the species are closely related.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I choose to scoff at the scorn of atheistic nationalism that led us into two world wars

Say whaaaaa? Now atheism is responsibily for WW1 and 2?

This is just too wacky for words.

 

[Vene]

Say whaaaaa? Now atheism is responsibily for WW1 and 2?

This is just too wacky for words.

Yeah, come on people. We're responsible for the 100 years war, not any world war.

 

[Inan3]

Ok im curious, when you say this what does it mean to you?

I fail to see how you are not of this world. Could you explain how?

There is a "world" system that is contrary to the Kingdom of God. It is ruled by a spiritual kingdom..the kingdom of darkness who's ruler is satan. When I received Christ as my Saviour I was translated out of the kingdom of darkness into His kingdom spiritually. I am now in this world but no longer under the rule of satan. I am not a part of the kingdom of darkness. I am not a part of his system. I am in this world but not a part of it. I serve another kingdom and live by its rules. I look for satan's rule to be put down when Christ returns. Hopefully soon.

 

[Inan3]

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.

But that explanation doesn't make sense. If all humans will ever become is a different sort of human than how did an ape become a human? Why not a different sort of an ape?

 

[Inan3]

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.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh so THIS is how you debate. So enlightening!

 

[Vene]

But that explanation doesn't make sense. If all humans will ever become is a different sort of human than how did an ape become a human? Why not a different sort of an ape?

Hominids are a different sort of ape. We are tailless bipeds with opposable thumbs.

 

[Inan3]

Hominids are a different sort of ape. We are tailless bipeds with opposable thumbs.

...

 

[Inan3]

Hominids are a different sort of ape. We are tailless bipeds with opposable thumbs.

No, we are not apes at all. We are manKIND. Not apeKIND.