Evolution vs. Creationism

[NeoTrio]

Man, I heard even NoAnswerInGenecyst* warned against using this argument.

* Oooohhh, I'm so clever, I can play with words too.

 

[mikeynov]

the germ isnt a theoery its what it is. you didnt excactly disprove what i wrote besides what i said about theories which no matter how you say it its not fact. its an assuption with a lot of science in it. So you add scientific proof throw in asumptions from your hypothesis and boom you get a theory. You just made the hypothesis seem more real. please give me a specific theory that proves evilution. just one, so i can disprove it.

As a consideration, you may not wish to talk about matters beyond the scope of your knowledge and experience.

In this case, you seem to have no working understanding of science, but that doesn't stop you from speaking strongly on the subject.

 

[Sphere]

the germ isnt a theoery its what it is. you didnt excactly disprove what i wrote besides what i said about theories which no matter how you say it its not fact. its an assuption with a lot of science in it. So you add scientific proof throw in asumptions from your hypothesis and boom you get a theory. You just made the hypothesis seem more real. please give me a specific theory that proves evilution. just one, so i can disprove it.

First, lets try to at least spell it correctly. I know you think its very clever to put in EVILution, but this merely shows you as trolling. So stop.

Second, you aren't paying attention to what's being said around here. You clearly have a warped view on what a scientific theory is, and evolution.

You are practicing what is called willful ignorance. You will dispute any evidence brought to this table regardless of its proven content. Reason and logic go out the door when the attitude you present shows up. Unless of course you're really interesting in learning evolution(which I sincerely doubt). Refrain from the blatant trolling. Thanks

 

[The Bellman]

the germ isnt a theoery its what it is. you didnt excactly disprove what i wrote besides what i said about theories which no matter how you say it its not fact. its an assuption with a lot of science in it. So you add scientific proof throw in asumptions from your hypothesis and boom you get a theory. You just made the hypothesis seem more real. please give me a specific theory that proves evilution. just one, so i can disprove it.

From this post it's clear you have very little understanding of science and how it works. I'll give you a couple of clues.

A germ exists - it is a fact. Germ THEORY explains the behaviour and affects of the germs.

Evolution exists - it is a fact (ie., animals change over time, the frequency of allelles within a gene pool changes). Evolutionary THEORY explains how evolution works.

Throwing out evolutionary theory on the basis that it is 'just a theory' is precisely as reasonable as throwing out germ theory on the basis that it is 'just a theory'. In science, theories don't 'become' facts; they become better and better supported, but never stop beign theories. In science, a 'theory' is a hypothesis that has been repeatedly confirmed as accurate by observation. The more observation confirms it, the more secure it is. Germ theory is very secure. So is evoltuionary theory.

 

[william jay schroeder]

I will admit my lack of scientific proof in details but ive have not seen any at all from you. you just say its wrong and do not prove how. As for the germ i told you what makes up a Bacteria cell and what is involved in it functioning. And you did not answer to the other post if life has a beginning what is its beginning because you cant in your assuption create life from nothing. So if atoms were broke done to its beginning it would never end but thats highly unlikely. So to begin with something, something or someone had to create it. Im not a creationist apologetic, But i dont see any profe of your great scientific intelligence, except telling me im wrong. Like i said show me one theory that proves evolution and i will look and find info that proves it wrong.

 

[mikeynov]

I will admit my lack of scientific proof in details but ive have not seen any at all from you. you just say its wrong and do not prove how. As for the germ i told you what makes up a Bacteria cell and what is involved in it functioning. And you did not answer to the other post if life has a beginning what is its beginning because you cant in your assuption create life from nothing. So if atoms were broke done to its beginning it would never end but thats highly unlikely. So to begin with something, something or someone had to create it. Im not a creationist apologetic, But i dont see any profe of your great scientific intelligence, except telling me im wrong. Like i said show me one theory that proves evolution and i will look and find info that proves it wrong.

Translation: "I would like you to spend your valuable time teaching me about evolution, so I can turn around and link you to a goofey creationist webpage in reply, because I assume my conclusions."

Roger that.

 

[william jay schroeder]

Translation: "I would like you to spend your valuable time teaching me about evolution, so I can turn around and link you to a goofey creationist webpage in reply, because I assume my conclusions."

Roger that.

Sounds like you dont wish to debate but deny. Always going around the subject. Give me a theory for evolution and i will show it to be wrong If i can. Just one at a time. So what about the beginning of things. no explination?

 

[The Bellman]

Sounds like you dont wish to debate but deny. Always going around the subject. Give me a theory for evolution and i will show it to be wrong If i can. Just one at a time. So what about the beginning of things. no explination?

Perhaps you should go back to the basics and read some elementary texts on the subject. Perhaps then you'll learn that "the beginning of things" has nothing to do with evolutionary theory.

 

[Ondoher]

Sounds like you dont wish to debate but deny. Always going around the subject. Give me a theory for evolution and i will show it to be wrong If i can. Just one at a time. So what about the beginning of things. no explination?

How about this.

A retrovirus is a bit of RNA packaged in a protein envelope. When it infects a cell, it first uses an enzyme called reverse transcriptase to turn its RNA into a DNA equivilent, and then using a different enzyme called integrase, it inserts this DNA into a random location of the nuclear DNA of the cell.

In doing this it can sometimes trick the cell into expressing its genome and thereby producing more virus particles.

If this cell is a germ cell, and that germ cell goes on to produce an offspring, then this inserted retroviral DNA will be an integral part of the DNA of that offspring. This is called an endogenous retrovirus (ERV).

Since this is now an integral part of the offspring, then it will also be inherited by any of its descendents. So, it would be quite easy to determine parantage by comparing such genetic features an endogenous retroviruses. In fact, we should be able to build whole family trees based on this data, as new ERV's are added to other branches of this growing family tree.

Now, if common ancestry is true, then when should find that analysis of ERV data in different species will build family trees of species that are consistent with the family trees made from other data, such as anatomy. And this is precisely what we find, as in this image:

This image comes from the data in this particular peer-reviewed paper: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/18/10254.

This alone is pretty strong evidence for common ancestry.

 

[william jay schroeder]

How about this.

A retrovirus is a bit of RNA packaged in a protein envelope. When it infects a cell, it first uses an enzyme called reverse transcriptase to turn its RNA into a DNA equivilent, and then using a different enzyme called integrase, it inserts this DNA into a random location of the nuclear DNA of the cell.

In doing this it can sometimes trick the cell into expressing its genome and thereby producing more virus particles.

If this cell is a germ cell, and that germ cell goes on to produce an offspring, then this inserted retroviral DNA will be an integral part of the DNA of that offspring. This is called an endogenous retrovirus (ERV).

Since this is now an integral part of the offspring, then it will also be inherited by any of its descendents. So, it would be quite easy to determine parantage by comparing such genetic features an endogenous retroviruses. In fact, we should be able to build whole family trees based on this data, as new ERV's are added to other branches of this growing family tree.

Now, if common ancestry is true, then when should find that analysis of ERV data in different species will build family trees of species that are consistent with the family trees made from other data, such as anatomy. And this is precisely what we find, as in this image:

This image comes from the data in this particular peer-reviewed paper: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/18/10254.

This alone is pretty strong evidence for common ancestry.

i notice words such as, sometimes trick, and should find, not excactly convincing, and to use a cell model and blow it up to assume it fits everything is not scientific fact. Your human species that dont exsist dont help, those transitional species. there should be a lot of them. all the bones found have all been proven insuffiecent or just false.

 

[Ondoher]

i notice words such as, sometimes trick, and should find, not excactly convincing, and to use a cell model and blow it up to assume it fits everything is not scientific fact. Your human species that dont exsist dont help, those transitional species. there should be a lot of them. all the bones found have all been proven insuffiecent or just false.

You did not appear to actually address the proffered argument. Care to try again?

 

[william jay schroeder]

You did not appear to actually address the proffered argument. Care to try again?

no i do not all this is a wast of time. its all rambling any ways, i thought i would give it a try but its just not my field. but your all still wrong and when you find the truth it will be to late. i hope this doesnt happen. enjoy your fun here. and dont think any of your post remotly makes me wonder. Science does not comfort my heart Christ does.

 

[NeoTrio]

(Waves back)

Whoops, I thought I just saw someone waving a hand at me.

no i do not all this is a wast of time. its all rambling any ways, i thought i would give it a try but its just not my field. but your all still wrong and when you find the truth it will be to late. i hope this doesnt happen. enjoy your fun here. and dont think any of your post remotly makes me wonder. Science does not comfort my heart Christ does.

Translation: I can't refute the evidence cos I don't know a single word it's talking about, but I'm gonna say you're wrong any way. You're all wrong WHy? Cos I say so! Now I'm gonna turn to my favorite debating technique - preach!

Man, I'm convinced. Praise Lord Jesus.

As for your first argument, I ask: what does that have to do with evolution?

 

[icebreaker]

No idea of the moths and I have read about speciation in fruit flies. BUT if the evidence don't match the theory then the theory has to change. That's exactly what science is all about. Some ideas are not as central to a theory so the theory simply changes to explain the new data but sometimes a scientist must have the guts to admit mistake, go back to the drawing board and start from square one.

The problem with Creationists is that their theory CANNOT change. Otherwise Genesis would consist of 30 books containing theories from astrophysiscs, atomic physics, quantum mechanics, chemistry, biology etc. And the average person wouldn't be able to understand half of it.

It takes more "cahunas" to admit error than to come up with wild ideas to try to defend an undefendable position. One of the greatest scientists in modern history lost a lot of his credibility trying to defend his idea of God not playing dice. In the end even Einstein lost and as far as I know the creationist think tanks don't even have one single scientist with half the intelect of Einstein. And to add to this their scientific "heresies" go against many well established theories and laws from across the board of scientific principles.

So after reading into the fruit fly experiment would you say that it shows good evidence against mutations being a form of introducing new things or creating new speicies if Evolution even uses mutations as a mechanism anymore.

 

[Ron21647]

The sun moves away from the earth at the rate of 5 miles per hour. If we were to go back just 1 million years, the sun would be so hot that the earth, and all it's inhabitants would be dead, and we wouldn't be here.

E

someone may have already posted this, I haven't read the entire thread yet. But just to put some numbers to it, if this were true, the distance would have changed 2.5 million miles just in my lifetime. I think somebody would have noticed by now.

Ron

 

[Tomk80]

So after reading into the fruit fly experiment would you say that it shows good evidence against mutations being a form of introducing new things or creating new speicies if Evolution even uses mutations as a mechanism anymore.

observerd instance of speciation in fruit flies
I wouldn't use that site if I were you. It mixes up evolution and abiogenesis. It's sources are very, very old.
It also makes a false claim regarding the peppered moths. Peppered moths demonstrate natural selection (and are apparently very good at it). That is all they demonstrate.

 

[Ron21647]

i notice words such as, sometimes trick, and should find, not excactly convincing, and to use a cell model and blow it up to assume it fits everything is not scientific fact. Your human species that dont exsist dont help, those transitional species. there should be a lot of them. all the bones found have all been proven insuffiecent or just false.

This has got to be the most egregious example of quote mining I have ever seen.

"sometimes trick" is used in the context that sometimes the virus is inserted into the host DNA in a way that is is passed on to the descendants of the host, and sometimes not. We are only concerned with the ones that have. The ones that don't are not preserved in the DNA and therfore we don't know about them.

"Human species that don't exist" and "transitional species" and "bones that have been found" are not even in his argument. Whu did you even mention them.

Had you even looked at Ondoher's diagram, you would see that all the species named on it are currently living species.

But, since you apparently think you have bested evolution, here is another argument: explain the "twin nested hierarchy of life". You'll probably have to look something up to answer that one, so I really don't expect a rational reply.

Ron

 

[ego licet visum]

Oh no, the Chimpanzee's existence is an evilutionist trick! All the zoos of the world have a gigantic evilutionist conspiracy with robot or hologram monkeys! Have you ever seen a real Chimpanzee in the wild? I don't think so, therefore evilution is wrong praise Jesus!

(I'm gonna get in trouble for this =/)

 

[icebreaker]

observerd instance of speciation in fruit flies
I wouldn't use that site if I were you. It mixes up evolution and abiogenesis. It's sources are very, very old.
It also makes a false claim regarding the peppered moths. Peppered moths demonstrate natural selection (and are apparently very good at it). That is all they demonstrate.

Thanks for the head up on the webpage I will not use it again. I just did a quick search to make sure I was remembering the right things before I post.

 

[Tomk80]

Thanks for the head up on the webpage I will not use it again. I just did a quick search to make sure I was remembering the right things before I post.

Welcome