Evolution true or false?

[ForeRunner]

Did you fail to notice the contradictory language use by the author of the site? In one case he calls the birds distinct species. Then he say they just think they are a different species. Then option number 3 pops up when he says that there are subspecies of a salamanders. So then, they are different species, or just think they are different species, or they are subspecies. Well, that certainly makes for a valid definitive claim for change of species. The problem is there are raging gaps in between species, and no fossil evidence can support your claims.

The fact that there are no distict boundries between species is just what we would expect to find within evolution. If creationism were true then we should easily be able to find a boundry between all species, which we do not find at all.

There is bucket loads of fossil evidence. Visit your friendly neighborhood universty and check out the library.

This also raises another question. If the little fossil evidence evolutionists point to is as old as claimed, how can they turn around and claim that the crust of the earth is being assimilated on one side while added to from the other, and not cause a contradiction of their own claims?

Don't quite understand what you are saying here. How is plate tectonics and evlution contradictory?

 

[kingreaper]

Did you fail to notice the contradictory language use by the author of the site? In one case he calls the birds distinct species. Then he say they just think they are a different species. Then option number 3 pops up when he says that there are subspecies of a salamanders. So then, they are different species, or just think they are different species, or they are subspecies.

They are single species with many subspecies, which if only the ends existed would be two seperate species, so we could cause a speciation by just killing all but the ends, and if you just consider the ends you will think they are seperaate species already

Well, that certainly makes for a valid definitive claim for change of species. The problem is there are raging gaps in between species, and no fossil evidence can support your claims.

The ring species is an example of where what would be two species are connected by a continuous thread of intermediates

This also raises another question. If the little fossil evidence evolutionists point to is as old as claimed, how can they turn around and claim that the crust of the earth is being assimilated on one side while added to from the other, and not cause a contradiction of their own claims?

Because not all the crust gets destroyed, it's not like the oldest crust always gets destroyed first, meaning there can be surviving samples from a long time ago

 

[Split Rock]

If you want to know the truth, that can be disproved. How are there videos of things that you have done, before????????

Do you think that the Giant Omnipotent Purple Cucumber is stupid??? Those videos are all FAKE, of course! Just like your memories of childhood, etc.

I ask again, can you prove me wrong??

 

[Ondoher]

If you want to know the truth, that can be disproved. How are there videos of things that you have done, before????????




How is that weird theory anything like 'extreme creationist "science".'

For one thing, That 15 min theory is easy to prove wrong. Creationism IS NOT! !

Actually, you are missing the point. The claim that the world was created 15 minutes ago, complete witha false history, including memories and video tapes, etc. is an entirely unfalsifiable claim although entirely consistent with the evidence. In short, it is useless. This is no different from any claim of apparent age, including some creationist claims, it cannot be tested.

 

[ForeRunner]

Yes acualy I will. There was an article in times not to long ago that explained that scientist found that certian states of mind release certian chemicals in the brain that are harmfull to your body. For instance they found that poeple with cronic depresion release a chemical that couses arthrightes(can't spell sorry) thus destoying joins including the knee joint. Hope this is satisfactory.

Degradation of cartilage is much, much different than a complete re-structuring of a joint. Unless you think that if a ramp breaks it can become a pulley system

 

[Split Rock]

Exaclty, scientist have found the of the complete DNA strand, some of it is doramate. When a simple bug was studied it was found that the bugs DNA strand was ready and able to adapt in a way that would change it's apearence. If creation was formed to adapt like this, who's to say that the "different spiecies" that are claimed to have become another where not that first spiecies, just dramaticly different in form and function? Humans for example lived a much more rugged life 5000 years ago they needed stronger bodies to deal with the life style, but as time passed and knowlege increased, they didn't need such sturdy bodies, or as much hair.(for warmth) Expaditionist find bones of old humans and because the bones are thicker and the brain is smaller that supposedly means that evolution is supported, because the structure of the body closely resembled an ape. I think this same evedence only further supports creationism, because it shows how the God incripted information can adapt to certian enviromental or lifestyle changes. Humans have a very different level of inteligance when compared to any animal, we where not apes we where humans. Apes will not become humans, they will stay apes, no matter how much one looks like the other, or how much time passes.

What you are talking about here IS Evolution! You are saying we changed over time from organisms that had smaller brains and stockier bodies, etc. However, you are trying to put barriers between us and other animals that really don't exist. While we are smarter than most animals, a whale's and a chimpanzees' brains are just as complex as ours. Now maybe we have "souls" and they do not... I will conceed that to you if you wish, but physically and genetically we are not much different from other animals.

 

[Zen_Woof]

Greetings again.

Perhaps the discussion is more subtle than folks can comprehend. Do you realize that if evolution must be true in order for all of the current biologic and medical procedures and treatments to work? You don't need fossils. Just look at living things. Or is this the whole idea that humans were somehow created separately from animals (even though we share 99% of their genes. Why is that do you suppose?)

Look at the below and compare the gorilla DNA with the human DNA, also compare chimpanzee with human. Pretty incredible stuff, huh ...

With metta,
Zenda

 

[jesusfreak3786]

Greetings again.

Perhaps the discussion is more subtle than folks can comprehend. Do you realize that if evolution must be true in order for all of the current biologic and medical procedures and treatments to work? You don't need fossils. Just look at living things. Or is this the whole idea that humans were somehow created separately from animals (even though we share 99% of their genes. Why is that do you suppose?)

Look at the below and compare the gorilla DNA with the human DNA, also compare chimpanzee with human. Pretty incredible stuff, huh ...

With metta,
Zenda

Explaning how we are all similer does not explain how we are all different, do you have an evotutionary explination for that?

 

[jesusfreak3786]

What you are talking about here IS Evolution! You are saying we changed over time from organisms that had smaller brains and stockier bodies, etc. However, you are trying to put barriers between us and other animals that really don't exist. While we are smarter than most animals, a whale's and a chimpanzees' brains are just as complex as ours. Now maybe we have "souls" and they do not... I will conceed that to you if you wish, but physically and genetically we are not much different from other animals.

If evolution is the explination of life from one single cell organism, Than what I wrote does not support that, I was refering to how every diffrent spiecies has the capability to adapt to the point where they look different. That would mean that there was a vast amount of diffrent spiecies from the beggining, all having the equpment to stay the same spiecies and yet survive wordly changes. I don't belive that every living creature came from one organism. If you do how do you explian plants?

 

[Nathan David]

I don't have evidence of a turtle evolving into a fish. But here's a land animal evolving into a whale: http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/babinski/whale_evolution.html

 

[Natman]

There are two types of changes commonly referred to by the term "evolution". One is "micro-evolution" - change within a species, and the other is "macro-evolution" - change that results in a new species.

We see all kinds of examples of "micro-evolution" around us constantly. Examples are the various breeds of dogs, cats, horses etcetera. Although a great dane is physically substantially different from a chihauha, they are both "dogs" and, though difficult, capable of interbreeding to possibly produce third breed of dog. Also, as segments of an established species move about geographically, charactersitics that enhance it's survival become more promenant, such as long hair in colder climates and shorter hair in warmer climates. This produces a wide, but limited variation of characteristics within a species (Mendell's Law), but not new species.

However, we can not breed a cat and a dog to produce a "cog", "cag","dat" or a "dot". The reason, we have learned in the last 30 odd years, is because of differences in their DNA. A single pair difference in the length of a multi-milliion-pair DNA molecule, like a zipper missing a tooth, can prevent a successful replication.

The only tool available for "macro-evolution" to work is "mutation", the adding or removing of DNA information. In the natural world (outside of the lab), this is a totally random occurance. The problem is that except in the case of single celled organisms, assuming, by some chance, that an entire organism is mutated (a phenominally improbable task in itself), there would have to exist another organism that has been mutated EXACTLY in the same manner and in close enough proximaty for them to mate and reproduce, or the new species would die off in it's first generation.

As far as life on Earth coming about sponaniously from the "primordial slime" (biogenesis), one must consider it's extreme improbability from a mathematical standpoint, as well as conflicting conditions required for life to begin and continue in earths atomsphere, even millions of years ago (the Miller-Urey controversy).

Scientists consider odds of 1 in 10 to the 50th (1 followed by 50 zeros) to be "statistically impossible". Mathematician Emile Borel calculated the odds of randomly assembling a 100-amino-acid-string, under perfect conditions, to be 1 in 10 to the 125th. He also calculated the odds of producing a 227-amino-acid-string (the smallest known string for a living organism) at 1 in 10 to the 119,000th. This does not include any of the machinery necessary for replication and cell function.

Based on these points, I consider "macro-evolution", "Darwinian evolution", "neo-Darwinian evolution", "punctuated equalibrium" and even "theistic evolution" to be scientifically defunct.

Next, one must consider the geologic and fossil evidence. The fossil record indicates a sudden explosion of fully-formed complexed life, with all known species appearing at once (the Cambrian Explosion). We have evidence of certain species becoming extinct, but no new species being generated.

I believe that all of the evidence, when considered as a whole, points to an "Intelligent Designer".

The commonality of organisms (the knee example) point to a "common designer" rather than to a common ancestor, in a similar manner that a hammer might resemble a mallet or a sledge, parts of a car might resemble similar parts on a baby carrage or a jet airliner.

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[jesusfreak3786]

Degradation of cartilage is much, much different than a complete re-structuring of a joint. Unless you think that if a ramp breaks it can become a pulley system

I edited my post after you read it. Over time if human joints where hindering the function of the leg, than the structure would have to change according to adaptation. Even if the change was mearly a differen't type of cartlage, the cell structer would be changed. The information needed to make this change is incripted in our DNA.

 

[Nathan David]

The problem is that except in the case of single celled organisms, assuming, by some chance, that an entire organism is mutated (a phenominally improbable task in itself), there would have to exist another organism that has been mutated EXACTLY in the same manner and in close enough proximaty for them to mate and reproduce, or the new species would die off in it's first generation.

Completely false.

 

[Nathan David]

I edited my post after you read it. Over time if human joints where hindering the function of the leg, than the structure would have to change according to adaptation. Even if the change was mearly a differen't type of cartlage, the cell structer would be changed. The information needed to make this change is incripted in our DNA.

How does the change become "encrypted" in our DNA?

 

[jesusfreak3786]

There are two types of changes commonly referred to by the term "evolution". One is "micro-evolution" - change within a species, and the other is "macro-evolution" - change that results in a new species.

We see all kinds of examples of "micro-evolution" around us constantly. Examples are the various breeds of dogs, cats, horses etcetera. Although a great dane is physically substantially different from a chihauha, they are both "dogs" and, though difficult, capable of interbreeding to possibly produce third breed of dog. Also, as segments of an established species move about geographically, charactersitics that enhance it's survival become more promenant, such as long hair in colder climates and shorter hair in warmer climates. This produces a wide, but limited variation of characteristics within a species (Mendell's Law), but not new species.

However, we can not breed a cat and a dog to produce a "cog", "cag","dat" or a "dot". The reason, we have learned in the last 30 odd years, is because of differences in their DNA. A single pair difference in the length of a multi-milliion-pair DNA molecule, like a zipper missing a tooth, can prevent a successful replication.

The only tool available for "macro-evolution" to work is "mutation", the adding or removing of DNA information. In the natural world (outside of the lab), this is a totally random occurance. The problem is that except in the case of single celled organisms, assuming, by some chance, that an entire organism is mutated (a phenominally improbable task in itself), there would have to exist another organism that has been mutated EXACTLY in the same manner and in close enough proximaty for them to mate and reproduce, or the new species would die off in it's first generation.

As far as life on Earth coming about sponaniously from the "primordial slime" (biogenesis), one must consider it's extreme improbability from a mathematical standpoint, as well as conflicting conditions required for life to begin and continue in earths atomsphere, even millions of years ago (the Miller-Urey controversy).

Scientists consider odds of 1 in 10 to the 50th (1 followed by 50 zeros) to be "statistically impossible". Mathematician Emile Borel calculated the odds of randomly assembling a 100-amino-acid-string, under perfect conditions, to be 1 in 10 to the 125th. He also calculated the odds of producing a 227-amino-acid-string (the smallest known string for a living organism) at 1 in 10 to the 119,000th. This does not include any of the machinery necessary for replication and cell function.

Based on these points, I consider "macro-evolution", "Darwinian evolution", "neo-Darwinian evolution", "punctuated equalibrium" and even "theistic evolution" to be scientifically defunct.

Next, one must consider the geologic and fossil evidence. The fossil record indicates a sudden explosion of fully-formed complexed life, with all known species appearing at once (the Cambrian Explosion). We have evidence of certain species becoming extinct, but no new species being generated.

I believe that all of the evidence, when considered as a whole, points to an "Intelligent Designer".

The commonality of organisms (the knee example) point to a "common designer" rather than to a common ancestor, in a similar manner that a hammer might resemble a mallet or a sledge, parts of a car might resemble similar parts on a baby carrage or a jet airliner.

Son-cerely,
Nate

Amen to that! Write on brother!

 

[jesusfreak3786]

How does the change become "encrypted" in our DNA?

Read my earlier post I explain it there.

 

[kedaman]

If you didn't walk you'd starve to death. Sounds like a good reason to me.

Can you avoid death?

 

[Nathan David]

Read my earlier post I explain it there.

By making up stuff that isn't true about the brain affecting DNA.

The fact is that short of aiming X-Rays at our genitals nothing we do while alive affects the DNA we pass on to our offspring.

 

[Nathan David]

Can you avoid death?

No, but if you have children before you die some of your DNA will be passed on. If you die before reproducing you are an evolutionary dead end.

 

[jesusfreak3786]

By making up stuff that isn't true about the brain affecting DNA.

The fact is that short of aiming X-Rays at our genitals nothing we do while alive affects the DNA we pass on to our offspring.

explain please, and if it wasn't bakced up scientificly I suggest you contact the scientist who descovered it and tell him that.