Evolutionists and credentialism

[plindboe]

Your right about the rabbits. they are very fast and breed like my sister.
What about a suger glider? Cute. not fast, not agressive, and has no protection.

The protection is right there in the name of the species. Hint: It's not sugar.

Sheep. What did they evolve from?

Peter

 

[Chalnoth]

In response to the OP:

Nope, this is primarily a creationist tactic. Heck, there have even been a few people who have tried to "sneak through" by getting a Ph.D. solely for the purpose of having credentials to fight the evil evilutionists. It is not those on the side of evolution that are hung up on credentials, but creationists. Those of us on the side of evolution care about evidence and logic. That most scientists accept the theory of evolution as being an accurate explanation of how life diversifies should be reason to investigate the evidence, not reason to accept it on its face.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Logicalthinker wrote:
Lots of Gaps. That is why the scientific community cannot agree. Fossil gaps, Gaps in complexity, dismissed with a "what if" or a "could have".
The scientific community does agree; evolution occurred and is still occurring.
The earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Gaps in domestic animals. Where did the chicken come from? If not for man these animals probably would not survive.
Chickens are domesticated wild fowl from India. If you are speaking evolutionary terms, chickens are birds and evolved from raptors (dinosaurs).

Evolution takes millions of years. Thats weird that it only took 6,000 years for wild animals to evolve into docile non defensive animals. like sheep.
I lived on a sheep farm for 30 years; farmers deliberately pick individual animals to breed from, larger body for meat, smaller head for easier lambing, sheep that do not loose their wool in the spring and summer for their wool etc. The animals with less faverable traits you eat.
First domesticated animal is supposedly a dog. that happened 6,000 yrs ago. The bible says they were created domestic. That makes more sense than a 6,000 year evolutionary transformation.
This is easily done along the same lines as the sheep above

LINK
Evolution is the theory of survival of the fittest, adaption, and natural selection. If that was the case why are there cute creatures and plants. Wouldn't everything have evolved to protect itself? How does sheep protect itself? They don't. Wolves can go in and pick which one it wants. They just run around and make lots of noise so the humans can come and protect them.
Wild sheep are excellent climbers that live in mountainous areas, they servive in the wild because their ability to move through their terrain is better than their predators
This wild sheep is an ancestor of our modern domesticated sheep, historically found on the islands of Corsica, Sardinia and Cyprus. Rams can grow to 4 feet tall at the shoulder with the ewes a little smaller. They have a coarse, brown coat with black stripes under which a soft woollen winter “bodywarmer” is shed in summer.


LINK
Your correct we have made many discoveries in science. It does not dismiss God.
Why had no one ever seen a rainbow before Noah?
Here is a little bible science for you. In the bible it says the earth was surrounded by water.
THAT’S NOT SCIENCE IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM; IT IS MAGICAL MYSTICISM.
The bible is nothing more than a translation of a translation of a translation of a book that no longer exists.
NOT A SINGLE COPY OF THE ORIGIN WRITING EXISTS ANYWHERE.
Genesis1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

God made the air in between the waters. waters in the heavens and waters on the Earth. This would create a nice canopy around the planet, that kept heat in. The whole Earth was tropical. Thats why tropical plant fossils are every where.

Plus according to Genesis the plants were watered by a mist that came out of the ground.

Genesis 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
Magical mysticism and not a shred of science.

We know this is possible. We still see this happen today, just not at the same scale.

Evaporation and precipitation happens that is observable. Correlating that with magical mysticism is not science and if you knew anything about physics, geology, biology or any other number of sciences you would be embarrassed to even suggest it.
Now when the great flood happened all the water that was above came down to the earth,
You cannot have water in space the pressures and temperatures are all wrong. Try to educate youself before making such idiotic suggestions.

LINK

opened the Earth to space for the first time and froze mammoth's in Siberia with food still in his mouth.
My granddad had a heart attack whilst eating supper; he died with green beans in his mouth.

and for the first time in history man saw sunlight filter through rain drops. They saw a rainbow for the first time. That is why Noah and his family were in awe of it. They had never seen one. They didn't understand how it happened, but we do.

Magical mysticism or are you saying physics is wrong.

LINK
Than prove it wrong.
Easy

Hominid family tree.

LINK


If you really want to learn something; ask one question at a time and stick to the subject.

Asking 20 questions at once does not show intelligence and is not supporting evidence for magical mysticism

 

[MoonLancer]

If so, then the ninety-nine percent of scientists who believed in a flat earth five-hundred years ago must've been right about that too.

i think you have confused who thought the earth was flat.

 

[Vene]

Well, if Adam was created with a navel, it would be evidence of a gestation that he never experienced; likewise, if he was made with an ERV in his genome, it would be evidence of a viral infection that never occurred. The same goes for the first created monkey.

Provide evidence that Adam ever existed. Also provide evidence that he was created with a navel. And why you're at it, explain why your God is a deceiver for placing the same ERVs in the same spots of the genome of the rhesus monkey and chimpanzee. link

Genome similarities are overrated IMHO. After all, "Junk" DNA, which shows us to be more different, is not Junk.

You mean like the broken vitamin c gene present in the great apes (including humans), that is broken in the exact same way in every species, but which is present (unbroken) in other mammals? link link

 

[sfs]

i think you have confused who thought the earth was flat.

Virtually no educated person in Europe thought the earth was flat 500 years ago.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Virtually no educated person in Europe thought the earth was flat 500 years ago.

The last "scholary" work I am aware of that decribed a flat earth was the Forth Book of the Christian Topography of Cosmas Indicopleutes written in about the 6th century. He was opposed to the pagan doctrine of the sphere. Of course the ancient Greeks knew the world was spherical and Erasthoenes did a pretty good job of estimating the circumference.

 

[Michael1975]

In evolution, does the change in animals happen during their lifetime or do their children come out changed? (Just asking, my science teacher isn't really helpful)

 

[Paulos23]

In evolution, does the change in animals happen during their lifetime or do their children come out changed? (Just asking, my science teacher isn't really helpful)

Any change would be any mistakes in the transference of DNA code to the child from the parent. Once the child is born, no more change can be done to the DNA.

It is worth noting that any change from parent to child is going to be gradual and any new beneficial traits will take time to move through out the population. Populations evolve, individuals don't.

This link will help explain it more: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

 

[sfs]

The last "scholary" work I am aware of that decribed a flat earth was the Forth Book of the Christian Topography of Cosmas Indicopleutes written in about the 6th century. He was opposed to the pagan doctrine of the sphere. Of course the ancient Greeks knew the world was spherical and Erasthoenes did a pretty good job of estimating the circumference.

Putting "scholarly" in quotation marks was probably a good idea. Cosmas wasn't really a scholar (he was a merchant by profession), and his flat-earth views neither reflected educated Christian opinion of the time nor had significant influence on later thought.

 

[Michael1975]

Any change would be any mistakes in the transference of DNA code to the child from the parent. Once the child is born, no more change can be done to the DNA.

It is worth noting that any change from parent to child is going to be gradual and any new beneficial traits will take time to move through out the population. Populations evolve, individuals don't.

This link will help explain it more: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Why does this take millions of years to create new species?

 

[Chalnoth]

In evolution, does the change in animals happen during their lifetime or do their children come out changed? (Just asking, my science teacher isn't really helpful)

Well, the change that happens during a person's lifetime typically can't be inherited, so isn't relevant to evolution. There are a series of mutations in each of us (~150 or so) that are not in our parents, but this, too, isn't really a good description of evolution. This is just the source of the variation upon which evolution acts.

Evolution acts on the the level of species. The idea is simply thus: imagine we have 50% of the population with trait X, and 50% of the population with trait Y (this could be a different color of hair, height, whatever). For whatever reason, people with trait X are more likely to successfully reproduce. This means they are either more likely to survive, or are better at attracting the opposite sex, or whatever. Either way, on average, those with trait X have more children.

Thus, the next generation, since the people with gene X had more children, they make up a larger percentage of the population. If this pressure remains for a few generations, soon nearly every member of the population will have trait X, and trait Y will be rare.

Eventually, one of the hundreds of mutations that occur in each of us might lead to a trait Z of the same type as X and Y. This trait might disappear because it's no good. Or it might stick around and not do much of anything. Or it might make people with this trait more likely to survive, making the descendants with this trait Z come to dominate the population after a number of generations.

Or, conversely, the selective pressures might change, and suddenly people with trait Y start having more children than those with trait X (or Z). Then the population switches back: trait Y comes to dominate.

Anyway, that's a very, very basic view. If you want to know more in detail, I highly recommend UC Berkeley's evolution site:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

It's quite understandable, and they provide a good rough overview of how evolution occurs, and why we are so confident that it does, indeed, occur.

 

[flatworm]

Why does this take millions of years to create new species?

It doesn't. We've seen many examples of new species in the last century. New species can arise very quickly when the conditions are right, for example when two populations are isolated from one another. A sudden change in climate, the introduction of a new potential food source or important predator, and mass extinctions are examples of conditions known to spur speciation.

Sometimes, though, species can stay static for a long time. For example, when all the niches in an ecosystem are filled by fairly specialized and successful species, there may be little need for any of them to change.

This principle is called punctuated equilibrium. Darwin didn't know about it, but it's an important part of modern evolutionary theory.

 

[Chalnoth]

Why does this take millions of years to create new species?

Well, it doesn't always. Animals with fast generation times have been observed to speciate within a very short time. The main point is that it usually takes many generations for a new animal species to arise, because it takes a lot of small changes before members of one group can no longer breed with members of another group of the (previously) same species. While it is, in principle, possible for single-generation changes to cause a member of the population to be unable to interbreed with others, for obvious reasons this doesn't lead to speciation (a species of one doesn't last long, among most animals).

With plants this isn't so much of a limitation. They're more likely to survive certain sorts of dramatic mutations, and can often self-fertilize. As a result, single generation speciation events are actually quite common in plants, and many such events are responsible for some of the diversity among the food that we eat.

 

[Gracchus]

Why does this take millions of years to create new species?

I doesn't always take millions of years. How long speciation takes depends on generation time and the strength of the selective pressure. Fruit flies placed under differing selective pressures in the laboratory (temperature, food source) became separate species in about 200 generations.

Of course if the selective pressure is too great, the population will go extinct instead of evolving. But if the pressure drives down the population, evolution will proceed more quickly, since it will take fewer generations for the changes to become fixed.

 

[Michael1975]

Ok I think I understand, but by millions of years I was referring to evolutionary changes like horses getting hooves when they once had feet like us (correct me if i'm wrong about that). Also, are there really mutations which make feet turn into hooves?

 

[plindboe]

In evolution, does the change in animals happen during their lifetime or do their children come out changed? (Just asking, my science teacher isn't really helpful)

The mutations, that are important in an evolutionary context, occur when the gametes (egg and sperm cells) are produced. They later combine to form a zygote, that will, if all goes well, grow into an individual. I read somewhere that the average individual will carry about 30 new mutations (or perhaps the number was a little higher than that). Most will be neutral and the offspring will pretty much look like the parents and grandparents. Only over many generations certain mutations might accumulate in a population, and we'll end up with a population slightly different than its ancestors.

Peter

 

[flatworm]

Ok I think I understand, but by millions of years I was referring to evolutionary changes like horses getting hooves when they once had feet like us (correct me if i'm wrong about that). Also, are there really mutations which make feet turn into hooves?

Yes, those evolutionary changes required millions of years, and involved many new species. The early ancestors of the horse such as Hyracotherium had feet more like dogs than humans, in that they walked on their toes (digitigrade) rather than on the soles of their feet (plantigrade). They also had pads like dogs and cats, with the precursor to the hoof in the place of the claw. A major part of horse evolution was the shifting of weight from this pad to what is now the hoof wall.

I don't know exactly what mutations produced the hoof, but it would be more accurate to ask "what makes a toenail into a hoof?" and "what makes toes shorten and disappear?". Horses walk, for all intents and purposes, on the nail of a single toe. The remains of one of the original toes are still visible partway up the leg on the inside, commonly known as the "chestnuts".

 

[Michael1975]

Yes, those evolutionary changes required millions of years, and involved many new species. The early ancestors of the horse such as Hyracotherium had feet more like dogs than humans, in that they walked on their toes (digitigrade) rather than on the soles of their feet (plantigrade). They also had pads like dogs and cats, with the precursor to the hoof in the place of the claw. A major part of horse evolution was the shifting of weight from this pad to what is now the hoof wall.

I don't know exactly what mutations produced the hoof, but it would be more accurate to ask "what makes a toenail into a hoof?" and "what makes toes shorten and disappear?". Horses walk, for all intents and purposes, on the nail of a single toe. The remains of one of the original toes are still visible partway up the leg on the inside, commonly known as the "chestnuts".

I see. There's one more question I need to ask, but it's probably obvious. If evolution is caused by mutations, does that mean that there is a mutation to make things smarter?

 

[Logicalthinker]

This is a big horn sheep. Are you kidding me. Man made that into a sheep that produces wool.

Look it has hair not wool. It's a lot taller. Brown not white and you say this all happened in a few thousand years. And primitive man is the one that did it. That is a load if I have ever heard one. There is no way man made the fluffy little sheep we have today. Just Garbage.

God Bless
LT