Debunking evolution

[Jam Jam]

Hey brother and sisters in christ I pray you're doing well. I need help in debunking evolution this is the evidence I got against evolution so far. Please tell me what you think much love and god bless: Jam

1. Lack of intermediate species

If the creatures today evolved from other kinds of creatures we would expect to find in the fossil record there intermediate or transitional forms there should be lots of examples of this instead we find fully formed fossils with a few debateable transitional fossils this is a real problem for evolution Darwin said "why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against this theory." (origins of species page 413)
Fully formed organisms appear abruptly in the fossil record for example the first bats and birds are indeed fully fleged flyers more over the oldest know turtle in the fossil record is fully formed we have no intermediates between turtles and cadalasaurs which are the organisums evolutionists claim turtles came from and the "imperfection of the fossil record excuse will not work because organisums like trutles leave excellent fossils but still show no intermediates this is because evolution is a delution. the imperfect fossil record excuse will still not work because a biochemist Michael denten in his book called evolution a theory in crisis says 97.7 % of living orders of land vertebrates are fossilized including 79.1% of living familys of land vertebrates are represented as fossils 87.8 excluding birds. Infact all 32 mammal orders apear abruptly and fully formed so the idea the fossil record is incomplete is false.

2. The Cambrian explosion

The Cambrian explosion is a good refutation of evolution aswell. the word Cambrian refers to early period of geological history. Scientist Stephen Meyer Notes: "during this geological period many new and anatomically sophisticated creatures appeared suddenly in the sedimentary layers of the geologic column without any evidence of simpler ancestral forms in the earlier layers below"
(Darwins doubt page 7) If evolution is true and these creatures in the Cambrian evolved from simpler forms the earlyer layers below should contain such forms but they do not this is a serious problem for evolution. Another aspect of the Cambrian explosion is brought up by John d moris "the Cambrian explosion constitutes a major episode in the history of life. If evolution were true, one would expect the record to start with one type of animal life then increase to two and so on. Yet fossil studies have shown that essentially all phyla were present at the start each distinct from the others and each fully equipped to function and survive." "Even vertebrate fish were present in the lower Cambrian......there is no evolutionary tree found in the fossils as Darwin and his disciples have claimed. Rather it is more like a lawn than a tree." (the real nature of the fossil record in creation page 228)

3. The chance of abiogenesis (evolution)
Zoologist and physiologist G A Kurkut defined abiogenesis as: "the theory that all living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form"
The idea of abiogenesis states that ammonia carbon dioxide water and other gases at the time of the early earth were jump started either by lightning or radiation which acted as an energy source to somehow form the first singal celled organism life from non life a cell contains among other things proteins which are formed by amino acids however sicentist Stephen Meyer calculated if one factors in the need for proper bonding and homocurality. "The probability of constructing a rather short functional protein at random becomes so small (1 chance in 10 to the power of 125) as to approach the universal probability bound of 1 chance in 10 to the power of 150, the point at which appeals to chance becomes absurd given the probabilistic resources of the entire universe." (evidence for design in physics and biology. Page 75)
More over he calculated that to generate a single fuctional protein of 150 amino acids exceeds 1 chance in 10 to the power of 180. Stephen notes "it is extremely unlikely that a random search through all the possible amino a sequences could generate even a single relatively short functional protein in the time available since the beginning of the universe"

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Hey brother and sisters in christ I pray you're doing well. I need help in debunking evolution this is the evidence I got against evolution so far. Please tell me what you think much love and god bless: Jam

I think you should focus less on "debunking" and more on learning about how evolution works.

 

[The Barbarian]

Hey brother and sisters in christ I pray you're doing well. I need help in debunking evolution this is the evidence I got against evolution so far. Please tell me what you think much love and god bless: Jam

(Barbarian sighs)

Another one who read some foolishness and quote-mined "proof that even evoutionists don't believe in evolution." Let's gete started.

1. Lack of intermediate species

If the creatures today evolved from other kinds of creatures we would expect to find in the fossil record there intermediate or transitional forms there should be lots of examples of this

Let's test your belief. Give me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if we can find a transitional form.

instead we find fully formed fossils with a few debateable transitional fossils this is a real problem for evolution

Let's look at what an honest YE creationist says about it. Kurt Wise is a strict YE creationist, with a PhD in a relevant field. He convinced that evolution is false. Yet, he admits:

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39

Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

Wise puts his faith in his particular interpretation of Genesis, so he's convinced that someday, creationists will be able to explain this evidence. He honestly admits that today, they cannot.

Darwin said "why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against this theory." (origins of species page 413)

Look at the list of transitionals cited by your fellow creationist. Not one of them was known in Darwin's time.

Fully formed organisms appear abruptly in the fossil record for example the first bats and birds are indeed fully fleged flyers

Actually, the ancestors of birds were flying before there were birds. So it's not surprising that the first birds could fly. They were clumsy at it, however. Likewise, the earliest known bat is only slightly adapted to fly.

more over the oldest know turtle in the fossil record is fully formed we have no intermediates between turtles and cadalasaurs which are the organisums evolutionists claim turtles came from

Pappochelys is a very primitive turtle with no shell, but gastralia already modified into a very primitive plastron.

It came a bit before Odontochelys:
Odontochelys semitestacea, a fossil species, possesses a complete plastron, broad dorsal ribs, and a series of neural plates; however, it lacks a fully developed carapace. Authorities contend that this species is evidence that the carapace evolved after the plastron. This evidence also suggests that the carapace of later turtles arose from neural plates that hardened over time to become flat sections of bone (osteoderms) supported by wide dorsal ribs.
turtle - Origin and evolution | reptile

Are you beginning to suspect that there's something wrong with your argument?

Infact all 32 mammal orders apear abruptly and fully formed so the idea the fossil record is incomplete is false.

Name three of them, and we'll take a look to see what there might be.

Apprently, you've never actually read that book. I happen to have it. Would you like to hear what Denton has to say about evolution?

2. The Cambrian explosion
If evolution is true and these creatures in the Cambrian evolved from simpler forms the earlyer layers below should contain such forms but they do not this is a serious problem for evolution.

It turns out that multicellular life existed prior to the Cambrian,and many features of later organisms first appeared before the Cambrian. Would you like me to show you?

3. The chance of abiogenesis (evolution)

Abiogenesis is not about evolution. If God had just magically poofed the first organism into being, evolution would work exactly as it does now. Indeed, in The Origin of Species, Darwin suggested that God did just that.

However, God says that the Earth brought forth living things, so we have His word that it happened naturally. So if you argue that abiogenesis is the foundation of evolution, then God has endorsed evolution.

Copying this stuff from other websites and pasting it on boards where there are people who understand biology, is not a very wise thing to do.

 

[USincognito]

I've never understood why Creationists are so enamored with the Cambrian - a 50 million year period with no fish, sharks, whales, birds, dinosaurs, land mammals, land plants, land insects, etc. etc. - is somehow evidence that evolution didn't happen?

 

[The Barbarian]

I've never understood why Creationists are so enamored with the Cambrian - a 50 million year period with no fish, sharks, whales, birds, dinosaurs, land mammals, land plants, land insects, etc. etc. - is somehow evidence that evolution didn't happen?

It's a remarkable time, though. Primarily, it's the advent of fully armored bodies, which allowed a vast number of adaptations to develop in a very short time, a few million years or so.

However, it's true that the vast majority of organisms we know about today, did not exist in the Cambrian, and evolved much later.

 

[Jam Jam]

The barbarian. Hey thanks for replying. First off I didnt mean to offend anyone because you seem quite angry about the post. Any way lets get started.

1.why are you sighing at me Im a Christian looking for help on debunking this absurd theory let me start by saying this I believe in God and God did not use evolution to create us its says in the Bible "creatures shall bring forth after their kind" it didnt say other kinds turning in to other kinds its say it shall bring forth after their kind.


2. The Cambrian explosion8
So im going to quote icr.org "
invertebrate creature in the ancient ocean, with all its "hard parts" on the outside, managed to evolve into the first vertebrate -- that is, the first fish-- with its hard parts all on the inside.

Yet the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery, and many theories abound.9

Other gaps are abundant, with no real transitional series anywhere. A very bitter opponent of creation science, paleontologist, Niles Eldredge, has acknowledged that there is little, if any, evidence of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record. Instead, things remain the same!

It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations. . . .10

So how do evolutionists arrive at their evolutionary trees from fossils of oganisms which didn't change during their durations?

Fossil discoveries can muddle over attempts to construct simple evolutionary trees -- fossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hodge podges of defining features of many different groups. . . . Generally, it seems that major groups are not assembled in a simple linear or progressive manner -- new features are often "cut and pasted" on different groups at different times.11(you hear that that means the missing link you found for the turtle is false)

As far as ape/human intermediates are concerned, the same is true, although anthropologists have been eagerly searching for them for many years. Many have been proposed, but each has been rejected in turn.

All that paleoanthropologists have to show for more than 100 years of digging are remains from fewer than 2000 of our ancestors. They have used this assortment of jawbones, teeth and fossilized scraps, together with molecular evidence from living species, to piece together a line of human descent going back 5 to 8 million years to the time when humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor.12

Anthropologists supplemented fragmentary fossil evidence with DNA and other types of molecular genetic evidence from living animals to try to work out an evolutionary scenario that will fit. But this genetic evidence really doesn't help much either, for it contradicts fossil evidence. Lewin notes that:

The overall effect is that molecular phylogenetics is by no means as straightforward as its pioneers believed. . . . The Byzantine dynamics of genome change has many other consequences for molecular phylogenetics, including the fact that different genes tell different stories.13

3 the chance of abiogenesis
Saying "God did it" just because you cant explain the argument is not biology I personally love the Lord if loving the Lord is wrong I dont wanna be right but you saying that just tells me you have no other way to explain it im not trying to be rude just saying. God would not use evolution as his way to create us, in evolution death is the winner and who brings death in the Bible, Satan
Also Charles Darwin did not believe in God if he did show me proof. Lastly dont be mean to me I love you and im just trying to give people hope that the Bible is real and God is real. Anyway God bless you: Jam

 

[Jam Jam]

more over there is lots of evidence that the earth is not billions of years old like the pointing robinsons effect: the pointing Robinsons effect is basicly the effect of micrometeoric material in our solar system solar wind and solar radiation blows this micrometeoric material out of our solar system at speeds of 11000 mph in 10000 years all the micrometeoric material would have been gone but there still is lots of micrometeoric material in our solar system today which refutes that the earth is billions of years old. Also there are helium in rocks this helium leaks out of the rocks uranium and thorium generate helium in these rocks now if this was going on for thousands of years it wouldnt be a problem however if this has been happening for billions let alone millions of years our atmosphere would be flooded with helium but to your suprise there is none to very little helium up in the atmosphere.

 

[scottyp588]

I'm just going to waste a reply and take a second to laugh.

Please continue to site YE propaganda in the hopes that people will change their minds and disregard actual scientific evidence.

 

[dayofgrace]

Hey brother and sisters in christ I pray you're doing well. I need help in debunking evolution this is the evidence I got against evolution so far. Please tell me what you think much love and god bless: Jam

1. Lack of intermediate species

If the creatures today evolved from other kinds of creatures we would expect to find in the fossil record there intermediate or transitional forms there should be lots of examples of this instead we find fully formed fossils with a few debateable transitional fossils this is a real problem for evolution Darwin said "why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against this theory." (origins of species page 413)
Fully formed organisms appear abruptly in the fossil record for example the first bats and birds are indeed fully fleged flyers more over the oldest know turtle in the fossil record is fully formed we have no intermediates between turtles and cadalasaurs which are the organisums evolutionists claim turtles came from and the "imperfection of the fossil record excuse will not work because organisums like trutles leave excellent fossils but still show no intermediates this is because evolution is a delution. the imperfect fossil record excuse will still not work because a biochemist Michael denten in his book called evolution a theory in crisis says 97.7 % of living orders of land vertebrates are fossilized including 79.1% of living familys of land vertebrates are represented as fossils 87.8 excluding birds. Infact all 32 mammal orders apear abruptly and fully formed so the idea the fossil record is incomplete is false.

2. The Cambrian explosion

The Cambrian explosion is a good refutation of evolution aswell. the word Cambrian refers to early period of geological history. Scientist Stephen Meyer Notes: "during this geological period many new and anatomically sophisticated creatures appeared suddenly in the sedimentary layers of the geologic column without any evidence of simpler ancestral forms in the earlier layers below"
(Darwins doubt page 7) If evolution is true and these creatures in the Cambrian evolved from simpler forms the earlyer layers below should contain such forms but they do not this is a serious problem for evolution. Another aspect of the Cambrian explosion is brought up by John d moris "the Cambrian explosion constitutes a major episode in the history of life. If evolution were true, one would expect the record to start with one type of animal life then increase to two and so on. Yet fossil studies have shown that essentially all phyla were present at the start each distinct from the others and each fully equipped to function and survive." "Even vertebrate fish were present in the lower Cambrian......there is no evolutionary tree found in the fossils as Darwin and his disciples have claimed. Rather it is more like a lawn than a tree." (the real nature of the fossil record in creation page 228)

3. The chance of abiogenesis (evolution)
Zoologist and physiologist G A Kurkut defined abiogenesis as: "the theory that all living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form"
The idea of abiogenesis states that ammonia carbon dioxide water and other gases at the time of the early earth were jump started either by lightning or radiation which acted as an energy source to somehow form the first singal celled organism life from non life a cell contains among other things proteins which are formed by amino acids however sicentist Stephen Meyer calculated if one factors in the need for proper bonding and homocurality. "The probability of constructing a rather short functional protein at random becomes so small (1 chance in 10 to the power of 125) as to approach the universal probability bound of 1 chance in 10 to the power of 150, the point at which appeals to chance becomes absurd given the probabilistic resources of the entire universe." (evidence for design in physics and biology. Page 75)
More over he calculated that to generate a single fuctional protein of 150 amino acids exceeds 1 chance in 10 to the power of 180. Stephen notes "it is extremely unlikely that a random search through all the possible amino a sequences could generate even a single relatively short functional protein in the time available since the beginning of the universe"

It is very good, for someone who was created

 

[Jam Jam]

Hi please look at the two replys I sent you. I hope you're doing well I'll be praying for you.

 

[The Barbarian]

The barbarian. Hey thanks for replying. First off I didnt mean to offend anyone because you seem quite angry about the post.

I wasn't trying to get you angry. I guess I was a little insensitive about it. As someone else mentioned, presenting stuff that even most creationists don't use anymore, kinda brings out the sarcasm.

1.why are you sighing at me

The first step should have been to investigate the issue and learn something about it. I know as well as anyone that it's easy to see a website set up by a professed Christian, and assume that he's trustworthy. Turns out, it's not always true.

Im a Christian looking for help on debunking this absurd theory

Knowing what it is would be a huge help for you. At this point, I don't think you do.

let me start by saying this I believe in God and God did not use evolution to create us its says in the Bible "creatures shall bring forth after their kind"

Douay
Genesis 1:24 24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

KJV
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Which is true enough. It's just that God says it's happening by natural means. He doesn't specify how that happens exactly, but evolution fits it better than anything else we have.

2. The Cambrian explosion8
So im going to quote icr.org "
invertebrate creature in the ancient ocean, with all its "hard parts" on the outside, managed to evolve into the first vertebrate -- that is, the first fish-- with its hard parts all on the inside.

That's pretty weird. The evidence shows that chordates (and therefore vertebrates) evolved from unarmored organisms, originally with only a notochord, and no vertebrae at all. ICR lacks people who really know much about biology, but that's a remarkable goof, even for a layman.

Yet the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery, and many theories abound.

It's not really that difficult to see. Genetics and comparative anatomy show a very different process than the one the ICR dreamed up without evidence. If you'd like to see it, start a new threat on "evolution of vertebrates" and we'll talk about it.

Other gaps are abundant, with no real transitional series anywhere.

Let's test your belief. Name me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if there's a transitional form. Which two would you like?

A very bitter opponent of creation science, paleontologist, Niles Eldredge,

You obviously never met him. He seems to be pretty happy guy, with an engaging, if occasionally sharp sense of humor.

has acknowledged that there is little, if any, evidence of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record. Instead, things remain the same!

Well, let's take a look...

One striking aspect of these extinction/rebound episodes in life's history is the extraordinary rapidity with which they occur. The Cretaceous extinction about 65 million years ago, which took away the last of the dinosaurs, and perhaps as much as 90 percent of all the other forms of Cretaceous life, took place within the span of a million years. Now, a million years is certainly a long period of time by some standards, but it is an eyeblink in geologic history. Events occurring within less than a million years' time can create patterns of abrupt change in the fossil record: in many places around the world, fossils can be traced up into the highest layers of Cretaceous rocks when, all of a sudden, they just disappear. And the rocks immediately above preserve representatives of the initial repopulation, life's rebound after the collapse. The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life's history - not the artifact of a poor fossil record.
Eldredge and Tattersall The Myths of Human Evolution

So how do evolutionists arrive at their evolutionary trees from fossils of oganisms which didn't change during their durations?

Let's go back to my first reply:
Pappochelys is a very primitive turtle with no shell, but gastralia already modified into a very primitive plastron.

It came a bit before Odontochelys:
Odontochelys semitestacea, a fossil species, possesses a complete plastron, broad dorsal ribs, and a series of neural plates; however, it lacks a fully developed carapace. Authorities contend that this species is evidence that the carapace evolved after the plastron. This evidence also suggests that the carapace of later turtles arose from neural plates that hardened over time to become flat sections of bone (osteoderms) supported by wide dorsal ribs.
turtle - Origin and evolution | reptile

Stuff like that. Transitional forms show the process.

Fossil discoveries can muddle over attempts to construct simple evolutionary trees -- fossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hodge podges of defining features of many different groups. . . .

See above. You've been misled about that. In fact, one of the more convincing facts is that we don't see transitional forms where they shouldn't be. No bones in insects, no feathers on mammals.

Generally, it seems that major groups are not assembled in a simple linear or progressive manner --

That was Darwin's discovery. It's more like a bush than a ladder.

new features are often "cut and pasted" on different groups at different times.

You perhaps didn't read very closely.

(you hear that that means the missing link you found for the turtle is false)

No, that's wrong, too. For example, enlarged gastralia transition into a plastron in the series of prototurtles, demonstrating the evolution of the shell.

As far as ape/human intermediates are concerned, the same is true, although anthropologists have been eagerly searching for them for many years. Many have been proposed, but each has been rejected in turn.

Well, let's test that belief. Tell us which of these skulls are human and how you decided.

All that paleoanthropologists have to show for more than 100 years of digging are remains from fewer than 2000 of our ancestors.

There are many more than 2000 hominin fossils. But 2000 shows us a lot. Let's see how you do with that...

Which of these pelvises are from humans and which are from apes?

And our ancestry does not go back to chimpanzees. No scientist says it does. Chimps have been evolving about as long as we have.

Anthropologists supplemented fragmentary fossil evidence with DNA and other types of molecular genetic evidence from living animals to try to work out an evolutionary scenario that will fit.

It has worked remarkably well, for example, it confirms the anatomical data, which shows humans and chimpanzees diverged after the ancestor of chimps and humans diverged from the ancestors of gorillas. And the ancestor of those three species diverged earlier from the ancestors of orangs.

Which is what the genetic data says, as well. This is a complete mystery to creationists, but makes perfect sense with regard to the evidence.

3 the chance of abiogenesis

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. If God magically made the first organisms, that wouldn't have made any difference to evolution.

Saying "God did it" just because you cant explain the argument is not biology

True. That's creationism.

I personally love the Lord if loving the Lord is wrong I dont wanna be right but you saying that just tells me you have no other way to explain it im not trying to be rude just saying.

If you love Him, why not just accept it the way He did it? Once you let Him make the decisions, there's no more worry about creationism or about science.

God would not use evolution as his way to create us

If you read Genesis, you'll find that we were brought forth from the earth like other animals, but then He gave us the breath of life and directly made us "living souls."

So evolution can explain our bodies, not our souls.

in evolution death is the winner and who brings death in the Bible, Satan

Since Jesus, you don't have to fear death any more. If Jesus came to save us from a physical death, He failed. We will all die someday. That's not the death that He defeated.

Also Charles Darwin did not believe in God if he did show me proof.

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence from The Origin of Species

Lastly dont be mean to me

I'm not being mean to you; I'm trying to help you. Creationism is a stumbling block for you. It does not matter at all to your salvation whether you're a creationist or not. But it can prevent many people from coming to God, if they assume the false modern doctrine of creationism is an essential Christian belief.

I'm just trying to give people hope that the Bible is real and God is real.

That's a worthy goal. Don't do anything to convince them that He isn't real. Creationism is a very efficient atheist-maker. It's O.K. to believe it, but please don't tell people that it's necessary to be a Christian; you will drive away many people who might otherwise have come to Him.

Anyway God bless you: Jam

May God bless you and keep you.

 

[Jam Jam]

I wasn't trying to get you angry. I guess I was a little insensitive about it. As someone else mentioned, presenting stuff that even most creationists don't use anymore, kinda brings out the sarcasm.

I understand.



The first step should have been to investigate the issue and learn something about it. I know as well as anyone that it's easy to see a website set up by a professed Christian, and assume that he's trustworthy. Turns out, it's not always true.



Knowing what it is would be a huge help for you. At this point, I don't think you do.

I think your wrong on this one my brother in christ I know what evolution is thats why I dont believe in it. Do you think a just God would allow things like survival of the fittest?


Douay
Genesis 1:24 24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

KJV
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Which is true enough. It's just that God says it's happening by natural means. He doesn't specify how that happens exactly, but evolution fits it better than anything else we have.

It said in the Bible "man brought death in the World." if man brought death in the World then how could evolution happen if we need death to evolve to man?



That's pretty weird. The evidence shows that chordates (and therefore vertebrates) evolved from unarmored organisms, originally with only a notochord, and no vertebrae at all. ICR lacks people who really know much about biology, but that's a remarkable goof, even for a layman.



It's not really that difficult to see. Genetics and comparative anatomy show a very different process than the one the ICR dreamed up without evidence. If you'd like to see it, start a new threat on "evolution of vertebrates" and we'll talk about it.



Let's test your belief. Name me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if there's a transitional form. Which two would you like?

Just before I start have you heard of "punctuated equilibrium" lets see what some honest evolutionists "Stephen Jay gould" and "niles eldredge" say about this. They tried to find a good thoery to explain it but they still can't to this day.

Ok, firstly can you find a transitional form between Neandertal and man? Even if you can its been proven that Neandertals have 30% bigger brains than us and more muscle mass and stronger bones so that proves the opposite off evolution.

Lastly, termites, termites have little creatures in them that break down there food when they chew now we have these little creatures inside of us that digest our food we cant live without these creatures and they cant live without us. Which one evolved first?



You obviously never met him. He seems to be pretty happy guy, with an engaging, if occasionally sharp sense of humor.



Well, let's take a look...

One striking aspect of these extinction/rebound episodes in life's history is the extraordinary rapidity with which they occur. The Cretaceous extinction about 65 million years ago, which took away the last of the dinosaurs, and perhaps as much as 90 percent of all the other forms of Cretaceous life, took place within the span of a million years. Now, a million years is certainly a long period of time by some standards, but it is an eyeblink in geologic history. Events occurring within less than a million years' time can create patterns of abrupt change in the fossil record: in many places around the world, fossils can be traced up into the highest layers of Cretaceous rocks when, all of a sudden, they just disappear. And the rocks immediately above preserve representatives of the initial repopulation, life's rebound after the collapse. The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life's history - not the artifact of a poor fossil record.
Eldredge and Tattersall The Myths of Human Evolution

You just admited the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record "the record jumps and all the evidence shows the record is real the gaps we see reflect real events in lifes history" now im confused because you said there are no gaps in the fossil record yet you quote someone who admits it.



In the Bible in genesis its says a long time ago "there were giants in those days" there have been many finding of human giants fossilized That dates "millions" of years ago at the time when we were supposedly "evolving"
That causes a big problem for evolution. Also have you heard of the inca stones that date "millions" of years ago there's drawing of men riding dinosaurs how is this possible? Dinosaurs were extinct when man evolved. look it up on google.

See above. You've been misled about that. In fact, one of the more convincing facts is that we don't see transitional forms where they shouldn't be. No bones in insects, no feathers on mammals.


That was Darwin's discovery. It's more like a bush than a ladder.

NASA relesed news that there was a world wide flood 4000 years ago. Don't believe me? Look it up on google.

Almost finished.
The senora desert is huge in the senora desert the wind only blows one way this is called desertification this is how the desert grows scientists did an in depth study on this desert and came to the conclusion that this desert is only 6000 years old. Why is that?

Lastly I love you brother and hope to see you in heaven one day but if you want to believe you came from a rock thats fine but dont try to make me believe it because thats not the way God did it. God bless much love: jam

 

[Jam Jam]

I accidentally wrote my reply in the quote. So just look in the quote and its there sorry about this

 

[The Barbarian]

NASA relesed news that there was a world wide flood 4000 years ago.

You've been misled. It was a huge flood, but not world wide. It happened when the Mediterranean Sea broke though the Bosphorus and filled what is now the Black Sea. And it was more like 7,000 years ago.

Almost finished.

Yep.

The senora desert is huge in the senora desert the wind only blows one way this is called desertification

Prevailing winds don't necessarily make deserts. Prevailing winds of cool, dry air (usually from mountains) make deserts.

this is how the desert grows scientists did an in depth study on this desert and came to the conclusion that this desert is only 6000 years old. Why is that?

Prevailing winds changed after the last ice age. It happened in the Sahara, too. It was once a pastureland with lots of animals and people.

Lastly I love you brother and hope to see you in heaven one day but if you want to believe you came from a rock

God says we came from the earth, just as the other living things did. I think you should believe Him.

May God bless you and keep you.

 

[The Barbarian]

NASA on sea levels about 4,000 years ago:

Most glacial melting ended by about 7,000-6,000 years ago. Because of slowly diminishing adjustments of Earth's lithosphere to ice sheet removal, sea level falls near formerly ice-covered regions and rises along the margins of the vanished ice sheets. Since the mid-Holocene, ~6,000 to 4,000 years ago, sea level has receded at many coastal sites and tropical ocean islands far from glacial influences, as water is "siphoned" away from the central equatorial ocean basins into depressions peripheral to former ice sheets. The weight of glacial meltwater added to the oceans also depresses far-field continental shelves, pushing the shoreline upward while lowering local sea level. While rates of sea level rise have generally remained fairly stable over the past few thousand years, high resolution proxy sea level records detect subtle changes related to the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age (Kemp et al., 2011).
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_10/

(My emphasis)

 

[USincognito]

"Ok, firstly can you find a transitional form between Neandertal and man?"

Jam Jam, were did you get the impression that Neanderthals evolved into humans? And you do realize that transitional does not necessarily mean ancestral, right?

"NASA relesed news that there was a world wide flood 4000 years ago. Don't believe me? Look it up on google."

I don't believe you because that never happened.

"there have been many finding of human giants fossilized"

That never happened because no such giants ever existed.

"Also have you heard of the inca stones that date "millions" of years ago..."


1. "Ica" stones, not Inca.
2. No, they are not dated to millions of years ago. They're dated to the 1960s and 1970s.
3. They are known to be a hoax.

 

[The Barbarian]

Ok, firstly can you find a transitional form between Neandertal and man?

Modern humans didn't evolve from Neandertals. Try again.

Even if you can its been proven that Neandertals have 30% bigger brains than us and more muscle mass

That's why. Muscle mass requires brain. It's why men tend to have larger brains than women.

and stronger bones so that proves the opposite off evolution.

And yet, we are here, and they are gone.

Lastly, termites, termites have little creatures in them that break down there food when they chew now we have these little creatures inside of us that digest our food we cant live without these creatures and they cant live without us. Which one evolved first?

Roaches. Wood roaches are transitional...

What is the creature on the left? If you said, “cockroach”, give yourself a lump of coal. But if you said, “termite”, give yourself a PEZ dispenser with your favorite cartoon character. It is in fact a specimen of Mastotermes darwiniensis, a large and primitive termite that lives in Australia (they get all the cool critters). It looks like a roach because termites evolved from roaches, and this particular genus contains primitive members that still resemble their roach cousins in many respects. On the flip-side, roaches of the wood-eating genus Cryptocercus have many termite-like features, including obligate gut flora and parental care of nymphs. The termites that we’re familiar with – the little white things that eat houses – are simply the nymph stage of an otherwise roach-like insect, and Cryptocercus nymphs look an awful lot like termites themselves.
Transitional Species in Insect Evolution

 

[The Barbarian]

You just admited the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record "the record jumps and all the evidence shows the record is real the gaps we see reflect real events in lifes history"

As you just learned (the termite thing) "gaps" often turn out to be filled in later when we find more evidence. As you see, there is a nice transitional between cockroaches and termites. And of course, anatomically modern humans aren't descended from Neandertals (except it appears that they did occasionally exchange genes). Want to try again?

now im confused because you said there are no gaps in the fossil record

Yes, you are confused. I didn't say that. I merely asked you to give us any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'd see if there was a transitional.

You mentioned two. One was just an error. Humans didn't evolve from Neandertals. The other was a failure; there's a living transitional in evidence.

Try again?

BTW, even more devastating to creationism, there are no transitionals where they shouldn't be. No feathered mammals; no bees with bones.

 

[Jam Jam]

You say that we don't come from Neandertals but scientific research says otherwise "The Neanderthal genome project published papers in 2010 and 2014 stating that Neanderthals contributed to the DNA of modern humans, including humans outside sub-Saharan Africa, as well as a few populations in sub-Saharan Africa" so what are you talking about my brother in christ?

 

[The Barbarian]

You say that we don't come from Neandertals

I said we didn't evolve from Neandertals. Anatomically modern humans were co-existent with Neandertals, and (as I mentioned earlier) did occasionally exchange genes.

Barbarian, earlier:
And of course, anatomically modern humans aren't descended from Neandertals (except it appears that they did occasionally exchange genes).

But anatomically modern humans did not evolve from Neandertals. We are cousins, two separate sub-species of H. sapiens.

but scientific research says otherwise

No, that's wrong. Interbreeding populations does not mean one evolved from the other.

"The Neanderthal genome project published papers in 2010 and 2014 stating that Neanderthals contributed to the DNA of modern humans, including humans outside sub-Saharan Africa, as well as a few populations in sub-Saharan Africa" so what are you talking about my brother in christ?

See above. Suppose you have two breeds of dog. Both of them evolved from wolves; indeed some biologists consider all dogs to be a subspecies of wolf.

Now Bagel, the dog lying at my feet right now, has basset and beagle genes. This does not necessarily mean that beagles evolved from bassets or that bassets evolved from beagles. It means they both evolved from wolves, and split off sometime in the past to two separate populations. Being races of the same species, they can still exchange genes with other breeds, and even wolves.

Does that help?