Questions for Evolutionists

[Buffy]

It never ceases to amaze me how evolutionists have evolved their religion over the years. I know, as you are unable to scientifically back up your hypothetical points, you have to change your terminology. So now, since abiogenesis cannot be supported, it is no longer considered by evolution's acolytes to be a part of evolution...the definition has "evolved," as it were. Also, since "macro" changes from say reptile to mammal cannot be substantiated, that too has been removed form the lexicon.

If you read Darwin, there's no reference to abiogenesis. Similarly, "macro-evolution" is a term that has been adopted by the creationist/ID proponents to reconcile observable evidence of evolution with religious teachings that insist on a young earth or a controlling creator. Usually Punctuated Equilibrium theory has been pointed to as "evidence" of a "belief" in macro-evolution, in fact this theory still upholds genetic changes (Bio will jump on me if I say "mutation") still are the cause of "large" changes, not an interventionist creator. Macro-evolution is a colloquial term and has been used in many places, but it really does not have any agreed upon meaning in biology. Saying people are changing their stories based on your own creative reinterpretation of history is not really very convincing!

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[bumab]

In evolutionary terms, an individual CANNOT adapt. Only a species can. This means that only genes passed at conception are adaptations. Only mutations that affect the gametes can alter an individuals inhereted genetic make-up and can be passed to offspring (this also assumes that such mutations occur in viable individuals and produce viable offspring).

 

That's what I was attempting to say in a hurry. Thanks for clarifying it. If an individual has "adapted" (by which I mean has a different genetic makeup allowing for increased likelihood of reproduction), it will pass on it's genes and the population will "evolve."

[Dark Mind]

Proof on what? On why I'm leaning towards Creation? How do you prove a belief? By trying to make it appear as fact like "The Big Bang"? Because that's a belief.

Okay, I just started to read this forum, and I stumbled across this post (first 5 or something) and I read on hoping that this statement would not go unchallenged. 4 or 5 posts later... here I am typing :naughty:.

 

Okay, who's going to back me up that there is enough evidence to prove that the Big Bang happened, or is this going to be like Black Holes (No one has ever seen one or anything enter them, so therefore they don't exist... Yeah, right...:rolleyes: ).

 

As far as I know, there have been experiments conducted to determine the origin of our Universe (where we're all speeding away from) using some sort of plates that detect the radiation that was given off during the Big Bang, and they found what they were looking for :friday:(I believe those plates were mockingly called "The face of God." :smart:), and I believe there have also been other such ventures to prove that this "theory" is, in fact, true.

 

Okay, I'm done for now, time to read the rest of these :angel:.

[goku]

adaptation does not change an animal into a being capable of speaking or working complex math equations. there is without a dout no need in nature for math, science, or speaking. why would humans evolve to have these capabillities, leaving their primate ancestors and all other animals behind?

 

scientists studying a frog:

scientists said to the frog, jump frog jump. the frog jumped 12 inches.

next they cut off one of the frog's front legs, jump frog jump, the frog jumped 8 inches.

they cut off the other front leg, jump frog jump, the frog jumped 6 inches.

then they cut off one of the back legs, jump frog jump, the frog jumped 3 inches.

finally they cut off the last leg, jump frog jump, the frog didn't jump.

scientists concluded that a frog with no legs can't hear.

see more at DRDINO.COM

[goku]

strange that some one said "black holes"

last night i saw a special on supermassive black holes. after watchin it i realized that i now could, milk more cows faster and get more milk per-cow,

do my own taxes,

buy a new truck and lawnmower.

thank you supermassive black holes thank you.

people are dying of cancer and decease. but at least we now know without a dout, because they broke off a peice and tested it, that supermassive black holes exist. good to see research time and money well spent.

 

how many of you have DSL.

[Little Bang]

The word intellectually challenged comes to mind.

[goku]

i understand how intellectually challenging it must be trying to fathum my intellect. just kidding. all this big word use makes me feel uhhhhhhhh nothing really. does it make you feel smarter?

by the way, intellectually challenged is two words.

 

did you know the word crap comes from Thomas Crapper, who was a man that made toillets in the early 1900's.

[Little Bang]

Your correct it is two words, and Thomas Crapper made the first flush toilet and that kind of toilet was called a crapper.

[Southtown]

This thread is in the crapper. LOL

[goku]

where in the crap do evolutionists get BILLIONS of years?

[paultrr]

Might define you're question a bit. The earth is approx. 4.5 billion years old and the universe is about 14 billion years old. So which are you asking about? The first stems from radioactive dating of rocks and other material. The second stems from the measurment of C and other factors.

 

Like as was already said: This thread is in the crapper.

[goku]

you answered the question fine, thank you.

how accurate are these dating methods?

[Erasmus00]

see more at DRDINO.COM

 

Ken Hovind, whose site you are referencing, has been largely discredited. His doctorate is from a diploma mill, and his arguments are spurious at best. Here are scientific refutations http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/ and notice that many of Hovind's arguments are found here http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp which is a list that Answers in Genesis (young earth creationists) maintains of arguments young earth creationists should not use.

-Will

[goku]

more questions for evolutionists,

what fuel is the sun burning?

how much energy is it releasing?

if it's reactions are nuclear, how did it start?

can the amont of kinetic energy be greater than the amont of potential energy?

are there any pictures of planets orbitting any stars?

how do scientists calculate the distance of stars?

 

stupid people are always so blissfully unaware of just how dumb they really are-- Patric Star

[Fishteacher73]

more questions for evolutionists,

what fuel is the sun burning?

how much energy is it releasing?

if it's reactions are nuclear, how did it start?

can the amont of kinetic energy be greater than the amont of potential energy?

are there any pictures of planets orbitting any stars?

how do scientists calculate the distance of stars?

 

stupid people are always so blissfully unaware of just how dumb they really are-- Patric Star

Wow...Maybe its just me but thats all cosmology....NOT EVOLUTION. Don't junk up a thread because you disagree with it. Either discuss it or leave it alone. I just wasted 4 or 5 minutes reading through useless crap that does not belong in this thread.

Please be advised this is a warning from a Mod. Thank you.

[Fishteacher73]

It never ceases to amaze me how evolutionists have evolved their religion over the years. I know, as you are unable to scientifically back up your hypothetical points, you have to change your terminology. So now, since abiogenesis cannot be supported, it is no longer considered by evolution's acolytes to be a part of evolution...the definition has "evolved," as it were. Also, since "macro" changes from say reptile to mammal cannot be substantiated, that too has been removed form the lexicon.

 

I suppose science can't evolve. Too bad the Earth isn't flat and the sun orbits the Earth. Are we to be stagnante and obstinate like religion? I think there is huge amounts of evidence to support evolution. Read my first post in this thread.

 

To clarify the terms even more---

 

In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenesis, not nowadays generally used). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, is also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to the origin of those higher taxa.

 

Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species.

 

Another way to state the difference is that macroevolution is between-species evolution of genes and microevolution is within-species evolution of genes. ---John Wilkins http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

 

 

Here is one of the scientists who have converted after a sincere look at the evindence:

--"David Pilbeam, of the Boston Museum, was a lifetime expert in the field of paleoanthropology (the study of fossil man). In an article written for Human Nature magazine in June 1978, entitled, "Rearranging our Family Tree," he reported that discoveries since 1976 had changed his view of human origins and man's early ancestors. Pilbeam ranked so high in the field, that he was the advisor to the government of Kenya in regard to the establishment of an international institute of the study of human origins.------- (Edit by Fish)

Shortly afterward, Richard Leakey himself summed up the problem on a Walter Cronkite Universe program, when he said that if he were to draw a family tree for man, he would just draw a large question mark. And he added that, not only was the fossil evidence far too scanty for any real certainty about anything related to man's evolutionary origins, but there was little likelihood that we were ever going to know it."

 

Human origins are very recent and the evidence in this case will be rare (fossil record wise) but, a simple genetic comparison DOES show our relation to the apes.. Yet there is plenty of evidence that shows the process in many many other organisms. To segregate out humans from the process is absurd and a bit self-important, IMO. To hold that human development in the Homo realm is still a bit undecided is wise. The specific steps and anscestors in that regard are still (and more than likely will always) be a bit up for interpetation. This in no way invalidates the concept of evolution.

[Skippy]

Human origins are very recent and the evidence in this case will be rare (fossil record wise) but, a simple genetic comparison DOES show our relation to the apes.

It shows just about as much relation to mice... Similarity in chromosomes proves a common designer as easily as it does a common ancestor.

 

"If chromosome number means anything, if this DNA really means something, then I would point out that the opossum, the redwood tree and the kidney bean all have 22 chromosomes and therefore they are identical triplets — which of course is ridiculous.

 

You say that apes and humans have similar DNA. The truth of the matter is, the chimpanzee has the same number of chromosomes as the tobacco plant. And they both have more than humans have. So the similarity would break down right there."