Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You already used that argument once and like I said, no one has used those drawings in the last 30 years. It was proven wrong by "evolutionists", not Creationists.
Also, why can't you argue with your own words? You are just copying-and-pasting from other sites. It would be a good way to show us that you understand your arguments if you could paraphrase them instead of using other peoples' words.
Pretty sweeping claims there; it's time to back them up. Please list a half dozen speciation events and provide their Gitt measures of information before and after the speciation (or just the change in information). Please be sure to include instances of polyploid plant speciation. And don't forget to demonstrate that the organisms have any information at all by Gitt's definition.Actually, speciation is observed today, but it is always a loss of meaningful information (under Gitt's measurements), it has also never been observed to happen in humans.
Ok, I'll agree that comparative embryology is not good evidence for evolution. Does that mean that the entire theory falls apart now?Why pretend that textbooks have not gone well beyond the evidence in promoting Darwin's theory?
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2007/04/20/lstrongglemgtextbook_watch_l_emg_why_pre
http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...ond-the-evidence-in-promoting-darwins-theory/
Are you kidding me? Speciation has been shown to happen in the lab numerous times. I'll give fruit flies as just one example of a new species.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cg...0.1086/338370&erFrom=2392568407353087184Guest
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Also, it's "species" not "specie".
Ok, I'll agree that comparative embryology is not good evidence for evolution. Does that mean that the entire theory falls apart now?
But do you admit that it HAS been used in less than 30 years contrary to what you stated earlier?
Ok, about the lack of evidence, I could recomend the book "The World Without Us".
The author, forgot his name, gaves several examples of evolution in action. One that is happening today:
Chernobyl.
We barelly can keep people away from Chernobyl poisoned lands, let alone animals. And birds, deers and the like started to fill the region, for no other reason than that was their house.
Of course they die early. Scientists notice most migratory birds of the area now don't survive the trip, and can't make it back to Russia.
But the amazing thing is, they are maturing way faster. Nature, says the author, seems to try to push a mega quantity of birds in the hope some ones develop mutations to survive the hostile enviroment.
The book has other great examples, too. A worth reading
Sorry I neglected to give you the site info so you can read it for yourself.
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_06.html
"The thesis that Archaeopteryx was a "half-bird" that could not fly perfectly was popular among evolutionist circles until not long ago. The absence of a sternum (breastbone) in this creature was held up as the most important evidence that this bird could not fly properly. (The sternum is a bone found under the thorax to which the muscles required for flight are attached. In our day, this breastbone is observed in all flying and non-flying birds, and even in bats, a flying mammal which belongs to a very different family.) However, the seventh Archaeopteryx fossil, which was found in 1992, disproved this argument. The reason was that in this recently discovered fossil, the breastbone that was long assumed by evolutionists to be missing was discovered to have existed after all. This fossil was described in the journal Nature as follows:
The recently discovered seventh specimen of the Archaeopteryx preserves a partial, rectangular sternum, long suspected but never previously documented. This attests to its strong flight muscles, but its capacity for long flights is questionable.124"
This is the evidence against evolution? Wow. I had no idea it was so pathetic.But I can give you more. Not that you will believe any of it but it is as much evidence as you give to me. Only this evidence is against ToE.
This page may have something to say about presentations of Lucy (although I doubt it), but it says nothing about the scientific evidence, which are the actual bones. The only "evidence" presented is bald assertions.
The Yale DNA Hybridization Scandal: Introduction
"The problems became quickly apparent -- namely, that there was a far wider scatter of values than Sibley and Ahlquist had published, and this was just 1/8 of their data[...]
This is the evidence against evolution? Wow. I had no idea it was so pathetic.
This page may have something to say about presentations of Lucy (although I doubt it), but it says nothing about the scientific evidence, which are the actual bones. The only "evidence" presented is bald assertions.
I have no idea whether there was actually a problem with early DNA hybridization studies of humans, chimpanzees and gorillas. I also don't care, since we now have the complete genome sequence of two of them and the third is nearly finished. Whether there were experimental questions about the early work doesn't matter, since their conclusions have now been confirmed and greatly extended by direct sequencing.
Why on earth would you be looking at twenty year old data when we have vastly better data today, date which shows that this piece of "evidence against evolution" is nonsense?
Why would this be a problem for the TOE? They didn't know that the sternum existed until they found a new specimen. You are acting like it's a bad thing that theories change when new evidence is presented.
You are ignoring the obvious fact that Archaeopteryx has the skeleton of a small theropod dinosaur, rather than a bird. Here is a comparison between the skeleton of Archaeopteryx, Comsognathus and a modern bird. Archaeopteryx has a long tail, jaws and teeth, pelvus, and claws like that of a theropod, not like a modern bird. http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/tutorials/origin_and_early_evolution_birds[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Archaeopteryx Misconception[/FONT]In response to the question whether there is any fossil evidence for "reptile-bird evolution," evolutionists pronounce the name of one single creature. This is the fossil of a bird called Archaeopteryx, one of the most widely known so-called transitional forms among the very few that evolutionists still defend.
Archaeopteryx, the so-called ancestor of modern birds according to evolutionists, lived approximately 150 million years ago. The theory holds that some small dinosaurs, such as Velociraptors or Dromaeosaurs, evolved by acquiring wings and then starting to fly. Thus, Archaeopteryx is assumed to be a transitional form that branched off from its dinosaur ancestors and started to fly for the first time.
However, the latest studies of Archaeopteryx fossils indicate that this explanation lacks any scientific foundation. This is absolutely not a transitional form, but an extinct species of bird, having some insignificant differences from modern birds.
I'm giving holes.
Not exactly gaping holes, are they? They are just tiny spots where our understanding was wrong. You showed that comparative embryology is wrong (which most scientists agree with you), gave old data about the similarities between humans and other apes, and that we didn't find a full specimen of Archaeopteryx until recently. They in no way, shape, or form disprove the TOE. We have seen speciation, we have a fossil record to show that life has gone from simple to complex, we have seen the genetic similarities between humans and other apes. What more do you want, oh Doubting Thomas?
But I can give you more. Not that you will believe any of it but it is as much evidence as you give to me. Only this evidence is against ToE.
The Yale DNA Hybridization Scandal: Introduction
German scientist Ernst Haeckel's Fraud
"Despite the fact that Haeckels embryo drawings have long since been exposed as fraudulent, the profoundly dishonest pro-evolution movement is, astonishingly, STILL presenting his artwork as "proof" of Darwins theory. Ironically, no one has been more vigorous in exposing this travesty than Dr. Gould, the worlds staunchest proponent of Darwins great myth.
I doubt that there is any evidence in the world that you will accept at this point. You have gotten it into your head that anything that says evolution is real is automatically wrong. You prejudge any evidence we could possibly give you. There is no point in me even trying anymore.It has been claimed that you have seen speciation and a fossil record but show me the beef. Not some article that is biased to put down creationism but show me the actual evidence.
Why? because I don't trust these "evidences", that's why. No one has shown me that they are true evidences they just say they are. I'm sorry that's not enough for me. I would rather believe God and His account. On top of that are you saying you NEVER look at any evidence that is that old?
You are not providing "holes." You are nitpicking about this of that other fossil, or old evidence from 20 years ago which was found to be questionable. Even if Archaeopteryx was not a transitional (which it is) how does that falsify evolution? If an experiment from 20 years ago was inappropriate, how does that falsify evolution?I'm giving holes.
The Tree of Life Collapsing
"In the 1990s, research into the genetic codes of living things worsened the quandary faced by the theory of evolution in this regard. In these experiments, instead of the earlier comparisons that were limited to protein sequences, "ribosomal RNA" (rRNA) sequences were compared. From these findings, evolutionist scientists sought to establish an "evolutionary tree." However, they were disappointed by the results.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Archaeopteryx Misconception[/FONT]In response to the question whether there is any fossil evidence for "reptile-bird evolution," evolutionists pronounce the name of one single creature. This is the fossil of a bird called Archaeopteryx, one of the most widely known so-called transitional forms among the very few that evolutionists still defend.
Archaeopteryx, the so-called ancestor of modern birds according to evolutionists, lived approximately 150 million years ago. The theory holds that some small dinosaurs, such as Velociraptors or Dromaeosaurs, evolved by acquiring wings and then starting to fly. Thus, Archaeopteryx is assumed to be a transitional form that branched off from its dinosaur ancestors and started to fly for the first time.
However, the latest studies of Archaeopteryx fossils indicate that this explanation lacks any scientific foundation. This is absolutely not a transitional form, but an extinct species of bird, having some insignificant differences from modern birds.
Does the human embryo go through stages of evolution?
Quick-read this article:
The idea that the human embryo retraces the stages of evolution has been exposed as false for many years. Yet the idea persists.
The human embryo is human from the moment of conception, and shows no evidence of evolution.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?