Prove it

I encourage anyone who believes in evolutionism that you make the some comparisons instead of just accepting what sounds right in someone elses article. If you haven't made the comparison yourself then how do you know that what you believe in is true?

Click to expand...

I could say exactly the same thing about you and the bible. But I won't.

Napoleon said:

Jet Black :: Thank you for the link but it didn't prove anything factual. There are similarities between humans and primates but that doesn't make us the same species. The human chromosome is signifcantly longer than any of the primates chromosome and it takes 2 primate chromosomes to make a similar match.

Click to expand...

it is not just the chromosomal evidence, I think you must have really skimmed the article, or failed to understand it's implications. We know that it requires the merging of 2 chromosomes to make one human chromosome, and that is actually the whole point of that, since it is an indicator that after the homonid line split off from the rest of the apes, there was a chromosome fusion event in some individual, and this individual is now the ancestor of all humans that are alive. The human chromosome has telomeres in the middle of the chromosome, wheras normally telomeres only exist on the ends of chromosomes. All the banding patterns, centromere remnants and everything point to this being a chromosome fusion event, and funnily enough, there are available chromosomes to fuse in the rest of the apes which make their chromosomes more closely match the human. This is a very clear indicator of common descent.

The article is compeling and can convince anyone not willing to make the connection of this fact.

Click to expand...

it seems to me that you didn't understand it. nor have you made any comment on HERVs or morphology. I suggest you look up comparisons of the banding patterns of the entire ape karotype too, since they match extremely well.

When it comes to my parents descending from a primate line that split off at some point in time, I find this hard to believe. Mainly because of what I already know.

Click to expand...

incredulity does not make a good argument unfortunately. so what do you already know?

Recently a horse had mated with a zebra and a striped horse had been born. But the horse and zebra are from the same species. This is the same as if a caucasian female had mated with an african american. They would produce another human of different color and size however it is the same specie so it is possible.

Click to expand...

no it is not at all. Horses and Zebra are different species, although taxonomy is not a perfect art. The offspring of these various hybrids are generally sterile, and that puts them into different species. they are not always sterile though. However they do have a common ancestor, and their gene pools are largely isolated, allowing this genetic drift to separate the species even further. Just look at the difference in the numbers of chromosomes between the various horses, zebra and donkeys.

Humans living in the himalayas who have changed in skills and apperence is part of adaptation, not evolution. It didn't take millions of years for their change to take place. If you have to lift something heavy over a period of time you become strong and soon it becomes easy. Your body would adapt to the situation and change to help you complete this task. This isn't evolving because if the child at any time decided to stop then the muscles would break down and become weaker, his child could then becomes as weak as you before having to lift something heavy. This is the difference between adaptation and evolution. Evolution is permanent.

Click to expand...

no, there are actual physiological differences between different humans living in different environments that are not the result of adaptation (where I class adaptation as changes to the body after birth), it is not simply adaptation. If you don't believe me, I suggest you look it up.

Napoleon said:

3) When the bible says that Rome taxed the entire world, do you believe the native americans were also taxed?

Yes. For they were still on the continent's that Rome had power over. Where is the evidence that Native Americans had come over here before?

Click to expand...

First let me say good for you and thanks for taking the time to read through some of the links that were provided to you. It's very refreshing to see that for a change.

But I need to add... Oh My!

Roman chroniclers never mention any conquest of people's similar to the native Americans. There really wasn't the ship building or navigational technology at the time for them to have migrated in sufficient numbers to have produced the populations that were found in the Western Hemisphere. At the precise time of the supposed world tax the Hopewell people were building mounds in America. And way way back around 10,000 B.C. we have evidence all across North America of the Clovis peoples already living here predating even the founding of Rome by 9,300 years.

I do hope you'll rethink your conclusion.

Other historical evidence falsifies that too. for example the Chinese and Japanese were not taxed by the Romans. The Celts in Scotland weren't either, which is why the Roamns built Hadrian's wall.

Jet Black said:

no it is not at all. Horses and Zebra are different species, although taxonomy is not a perfect art. The offspring of these various hybrids are generally sterile, and that puts them into different species. they are not always sterile though. However they do have a common ancestor, and their gene pools are largely isolated, allowing this genetic drift to separate the species even further. Just look at the difference in the numbers of chromosomes between the various horses, zebra and donkeys.

Click to expand...

Just to expound on this, as Jet Black didn't give the numbers:

Zebras have 16 chromosome pairs. Domesticated horses have 32. Wild horses (Pryzawlskis horses) have 33. Donkeys have 31. And this is just a representative sample. This IS exactly the major difference in genetic structure that Creationists seem to claim cannot happen - macroevolution - change in genetic structure on a large scale leading to incompatibility in breeding.

Moreover, we can SEE areas between the species listed above which have undergone chromosomal fusion (much as the Chimpanzee - human chromosomal fusion has been documented).

Cheers,

The San Diego Atheist

Napoleon said:

So far I have only recieved insults and snide remarks and no proof.

Click to expand...

As you sow, so shall you reap.

Napoleon said:

In response to the Moons orbit, who controls the orbit of the moon?

Click to expand...

It is not a "who" it is a "what", that what is gravity.

Routerider said:

I nearly choked on my beer reading this, I didn't catch it the first time around, I only caught it from your response...God I love this place.

Click to expand...

"1) From what I've learned in school and some research of my own, it's basically the theory that a small change in a species can change the way they act and/or look."

Its much more than just that. Its changes through Mutation and Natural Selection. Many small changes can create a new species that can no longer breed with its older self. When that happens, the two species can no longer share mutations and can then change apart from each other very easily.


"2) Depends on how you look at it. If you take the current translations of the bible then the answer would be No."

But remember, a translation is just a translation, you must interpret that translation. If gods creation says a literal reading is wrong, I would assume that it would be our interpretation that is wrong, not gods creation. That it shouldn't be taken literally.


"3) Yes. For they were still on the continent's that Rome had power over. Where is the evidence that Native Americans had come over here before?"

There is plenty of evidence, The Mayans for example, are known to have been here for at least 3000 years. However, as others have said, there is no evidence of the taxing of the celts, or the chinese.

So it should become obvious that when they say "the entire world" it means from a writters point of view, and not a literal point of view.


"4) But that doesn't mean that I can't disprove any of it... A theory is thought of and then evidence is brought up to try and prove the theory."

Its also much more complicated than that. Often a hypothesis is made, that hypothesis makes predictions that are testable. The scientist then goes and look for that evidence. It should be mentioned that a theory can never be proven, only falsified. So the scientists look for evidence that would falsify their theory.

Yes, your right, it doesn't mean you cant disprove it, but it does mean that you may not understand what you are trying to disprove. Many creationist sites are not known for their truthfulness or honesty and without a some knowledge of the science they are talking about, it's often very easy to believe their lies, as they hide them well. The thing is, before you can argue against something, you need to understand it.

Napoleon said:

[snip]

Click to expand...

Napoleon said:

I am serious about this topic, since most of you if not all believe that I am un-informed about evultion then please give me some kind of direction as to what you believe evolution is. Books, links, and any information of the such is more than welcome. So far I have only recieved insults and snide remarks and no proof.

Click to expand...

Uummm... didn't you say ion your opening post that we are not supposed to use links?

In response to the Moons orbit, who controls the orbit of the moon? Satelites and space stations have guidence systems to keep them in orbit. Without that they would fall to earth or float through space. The moons and planets that orbit around our star while orbiting through our galaxy around a black hole would take a mathmatical genius to pull off such a feat. If something called "Orbit" keeps things from falling to earth then could you explain how "Orbit" works?

Click to expand...

It's not nearly as difficult as you make it sound. Some satelites now are intended to be in a geosynchronous orbit, which means that they're always above the same part of earth, and that takes a fair amount of effort. This was not attempted with early satelites like Sputnik, however, so all that putting THEM in orbit involved was getting the satelite to the proper speed and height above the earth. The moon already has a distance and speed that can allow it a stable orbit, and since there's no air whose friction could cause it to lose its speed, it stays that way for the same reason that Sputnik did.

Orbit is a product of the fact that objects will continue to travel at the same speed and direction unless something interferes with them. This is one of Newton's laws of motion. The Moon would be travelling in a straight line if Earth's gravity weren't pulling on it. However, earth's gravity pulls on it just enough to continuously curve its path towards earth so that the moon can't fly away from earth. However, the moon has too much momentum for Earth to pull the moon any closer--or at least not in any amount large enough for the moon to crash into the earth within the next billion years. This stable state in which an object's momentum continuously counterracts gravity is called ORBIT.

Here's an experiment you can do to show how the principle of orbit works. Take a large funnel, and throw a marble in it so that it rolls along the inside of the funnel perpendicular to its slope. you'll notice that the marble does not go straight down the funnel, but rolls around the inside of it in circles. That's because its own momentum is counterracting the effects of gravity.

There is one respect in which this is not a good analogy for orbit, which is that the marble will be constantly losing momentum from friction with the funnel and with the air. Once it loses enough of its speed in this manner, it will not have enough momentum to counterract the effects of gravity and will go down through the funnel. Without friction, however, it would not lose its momentum in this manner, so its momentum would continue to counterract gravity and cause it to roll in circles in the funnel until someone stopped it. Because the moon does not encounter any friction in the vacuum of space, there is nothing to stop if from orbitting the earth indefinitely the way the marble would if it did not have any friction either.

I can't believe you didn't learn this in high school physics. Are you not done with high school yet?

I suggest that you learn more about science before you start concluding that the scientists here are wrong about everything.

It should also be noted that because of the Tidal lock of the moon, the earth is transfering its energy to the moon, slowing down the spin of the earth and giving the moon more energy, this is allowing the moon to slowly move away from the earth. So if anything were to happen to the moon, it would be more likely that it would fly away than fall to the earth.

Arikay said:

It should also be noted that because of the Tidal lock of the moon, the earth is transfering its energy to the moon, slowing down the spin of the earth and giving the moon more energy, this is allowing the moon to slowly move away from the earth. So if anything were to happen to the moon, it would be more likely that it would fly away than fall to the earth.

Click to expand...

I didn't know that. How slowly does this process work?

Arikay said:

It should also be noted that because of the Tidal lock of the moon, the earth is transfering its energy to the moon, slowing down the spin of the earth and giving the moon more energy, this is allowing the moon to slowly move away from the earth. So if anything were to happen to the moon, it would be more likely that it would fly away than fall to the earth.

Click to expand...

Interesting Arikay. I have read that Pluto and its moon Charon are tidally locked.

PhantomLlama said:

I didn't know that. How slowly does this process work?

Click to expand...

I think the current figures right now are that the moon is receding from the Earth at about 2 inches per year. The Earths rotation is slowing by a few seconds every hundred thousand or so years. This is actually another testable old earth prediction, as we see from ancient coral formations (corals produce typical day and yearly growth patterns, so we can measure the amount of days in a year) - 100 million year old corals show a year as being about 380 days in length (~23hrs per day), and fossils of corals around 400 million years old show years as being about 410 days long (~21 hrs per day).

BTW, the rate of both the moons recession, and the Earth slowing because of the tidal pull isn't consistent - apparently it has a lot to do with how the oceans and continents are arranged, but I'm not sure enough of my physics in that area to attempt a explanation.

Cheers,

The San Diego Atheist

This site says 3.8cm/year and 1.5ms/century.

LorentzHA said:

I have read that Pluto and its moon Charon are tidally locked.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's quite funky - on one side of Pluto you never see Charon, and on the other it's always there; and on one side of Charon you never see Pluto, and on the other it's always there. That'd be cool to see. If slightly unlikely.

Timo said:

This site says 3.8cm/year and 1.5ms/century.


Yeah, that's quite funky - on one side of Pluto you never see Charon, and on the other it's always there; and on one side of Charon you never see Pluto, and on the other it's always there. That'd be cool to see. If slightly unlikely.

Click to expand...

Yeah that would be strange. Not quite the same, but we just see one side of the moon from Earth.