A Question That Evolutionist Couldn't Answer

The question all "Fundy creationists" need to ask themselves is simply put...

Why would you take the word of ancient sheep herders over academically trained scientists...

the answer they always have is "because its in the bible"... but what they fail to realise is that the bible was written by the hand of man, inspired or otherwise... which means its also subject to mans folly...

none the less these "debates" are extremely amusing

There is no Micro/macro evolution. Those concepts only exist within Creationist circles. It's easy to catch people off guard when you hit them with psychobabble, but it doesn't make your psychobabble valid.

The suggestion that Micro and Macro are separate, implies that small changes can't be accumulative over a long period of time. How does that suggestion make any sense? "Oh, well you can have immediate changes, but 100 million years of constant change couldn't possibly start to look different." well, yea, actually it can.

Creationists used to ask for examples of observable changes, and when we found them in bacteria, they reverted back to what basically amounts to "Well, you haven't collected every bone, of every species, that ever walked the earth, and recorded each into a perfect time line, so I don't believe you!".

It get tiresome. I wish some of you would just embrace the fact that you are anti-science.

a reply to: Saylesie17

If it was that simple to just keep the plant alive, then why did that "someone" need to flood the earth in the first place? Why couldn't that "someone" just kill off all the problem people with single targeting smiting? Why was it necessary to flood all of the world to accomplish this goal? Sounds like a bit of an overkill. Oh and THEN, to confound matters more, erase ALL evidence that a global flood occurred in the geologic record while keeping some plants alive that have apparently existed longer than the planet has existed.

originally posted by: TechUnique

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
Ok...I have a serious question.

As apposed to what, Mocking questions?
Second line.

I have another serious question:

You've asked us to view several sources you've posted. I've done so.

I've provided several sources for you to check out, primarily the Evolution 101 page at Berkeley's website which lays out all the principles of Evolution remarkably well. Have you looked at that website, at all?

It doesn't seem like you have because you're still repeating the same common misconceptions about the TOE. Turnabout is fair play... if we're required to view your sources, you should have the decency to look at ours.

Here it is again so you don't have to weed back through the thread: Evolution 101

Theory does not mean truth. so prove it

a reply to: Answer

the funny thing here is a lot, IF not most of us have already seen the sources he's posted...

I've been here for quite a while and I've seen all of them, including the video in the OP many times, but other Creationists that have been banned for their hostility after several heated arguments where their side of the debate is utterly destroyed by members who understand the actual science behind their position.

The end result is always the same.... Frustration.... Insults... Post ban

and they never learn.... Nor do they ever read the evidence

a reply to: Akragon

Have you noticed on that many evolution threads are not made by people who do believe/understand it but the ones activly attempting to disprove it and when shown the evidence they just ignore it and after a while run away.

I wish they would come clean and admit it is just because "The Bible" why they don't believe in it and the fact "The Bible" puts down all other animals but humans.
I love the fact we are all connected to every living thing, I find it more amazing and wonderful that God made evolution and the laws of everything than any tale in the bible.

I am going to the zoo at weekend because it is valentines day (nope before you think that lol ) and Iam going to Ooooo OOooo Oooo at my Chimpanzee brothers and sisters and gaze into their eyes attempting to connect to their soul.

Yes all animals have a soul...it's in their eyes.
Anyhow Iam fantasizing myself a bit...back to the walking dead .

a reply to: Saylesie17

Actually, in science, thats exactly what a theory means. Your thinking of a hypothesis. A theory is a set of facts and a well substantiated explanation aquired via the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

a reply to: Saylesie17

Theories ARE proven. They are BUILT on the evidence that proves them. Scientists don't just arbitrarily make up theories then invent evidence to support them. That would be religion. Scientists collect a bunch of evidence then use that evidence to design theories that explain the evidence. A scientific theory is probably the most proven concept that humans could believe in.

a reply to: TechUnique

Biological evolution is simply defined as a change in allele frequencies within a species population over time. Note the OP has done enough research that he cannot deny that this process is real and is routinely observed. The interviewer in the video, who is a bully, also acknowledges that what he refers to as 'microevolution' exists. So there is an acknowledgement by the OP and the interviewer that there is support for evolution (in contrast to most "anti-evolutionists"), just not the type they mean.

What both the OP and interviewer seem to mean by evolution is speciation. The interviewer states there are 14 different definitions of species. Many of these arise from complexities in reproductive methods, particularly of asexual organisms, such as bacteria, and hermaphroditic organisms. In sexually reproducing organisms, speciation is generally defined as the point at which two populations have diverged enough that they can no longer produce fertile offspring. Speciation is merely a single time point on a timeline of genetic changes. It is not the definition of biological evolution.

Both the interviewer and the OP are correct: speciation is proof of evolution, just not the kind they want. However, any change within a species over time is also proof of evolution. Beyond semantics however, what I think confuses the biologists shown in the interview (which was edited...creatively) is when the interviewer refers to a change in "kind". Assuming he is referring to a biological phylogenetic group larger than species, he should first clarify what he means by 'kind'. Does he mean genus? family? Kingdom? What group? If you want to talk science, it's better to speak science.

I think what the interviewer wants to hear is someone provide documented proof of something like a snake evolving into a mammal or some other highly divergent phylogenetic group. This is in no different than speciation in that it is but another series of points on a genetic timeline. The only way we can actually prove a large supra-species level change is is to watch it happen and document the entire process. So we would have to take a group of snakes, split them into two different controlled environments (say, hot vs. cold), and then allow several rounds of reproduction until we see some change in 'kind'. Long reproduction times make this experiment rather difficult and long-term (even longer than a PhD thesis.) The short reproduction times of bacteria make them more amenable to these questions. Directed evolution studies are a commonplace tool in molecular biology labs. They are used to find new variants on individual genes, proteins, or some desired growth/metabolic trait. But even in these experiments, you won't see the formation of a new 'kind', such as a eukaryote. The reason being, the growth environments need to change much more than variations in bacterial growth medium.

The creationists are indeed correct when they say the fossil records may show clear and gradual changes, but are not proof of evolution. It is merely correlation. It is a strong correlation in support of the theory, but not proof. However, as stated in the beginning, we already have proof of evolution because we have observed it countless times in the lab, nature, and even human pathogens. What we do not have is definitive proof of a change of whatever the interviewer and presumably OP mean by 'kind'.

Given the simplicity and logic of genetic evolution, and the obvious extensions of the evolutionary processes that we have observed as real, the only reason I have seen that people become so vehemently anti-evolution is because in the end, like it or not, it is interpreted by many to have religious implications. We all know from reading this comical thread is that nothing, not even a lion from a bird, will convince them, because it threatens their very most core foundational beliefs. And although the OP refuses to address his religious beliefs in order to "stay on topic", experience tells us all that he does indeed believe in god. This is relevant, and the only way the OP can prove that statement wrong is by lying to me. Religion will always be here, just constantly changing; evolving.

i think that many well meaning posters have gone out of their way to try and improve the life of a closet troll.

this boils down to some kind of cult-based trolling.

lets try a different version.

METEOROLOGY is wrong, weather comes from THOR. all you meteorology people have is some science number mumbo-jumbo stuff. But I have the Holy Works of Stan Lee, Larry Lieber, and Jack Kirby... so no matter what you say, i can just keep reading and knowing the truth about the weather.

so there.

i thank all you well meaning people for trying but im afraid that Sisyphus pushing that rock comes to mind.

oh well, YOU TRIED

praise thor

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I'll give it a go.

All of the labels are man made definitions to help us understand the world we live in. It is useful when describing things to be able be precise, so we group things into categories.

If we start at the highest level, we can group thing into "alive" or "not alive" once we can all agree on what we accept as a definition as "alive".

we look at the alive things and immediately we can see that there are two very distinct groups that match our definition of alive. And we name them "plants" and "animals". We could just've easily simply called them "life type A" and "life type B". We separate them, amongst other things, by there cellular make up.

Looking at "life type B" (Animals) the task starts to become quite difficult, so we group by common characteristics.

We might simply say, any animal with fur, we will call a mammals. (Please let me know if you disagree that we are mammals.)

We might say, all of these animals with an exoskeleton, we will call insects, these scaly animals are reptiles. and those flying animals are birds.

I'm sure you can apply the process to the point where we identify a particular individual species.

Working the other way, its easy to see that the larger group to which you belong, as an animal, includes those that we identify as apes.

At this point it worth pointing out that we are not just talking about physical appearance, genetics plays a major part in modern taxonomy.

Now, when you get down to species level, science has a fairly clear definition of how to differentiate a species. Can they produce viable offspring? If they cant, they are a different species. (this definition is not applicable at individual level. If you are sterile, or physically incompatible (lion and tabby) this does not make you a separate species.

Speciation has been observed, and can currently be observed in many habitats around the globe.

Adaption + Speciation

Most people, creationists or otherwise seem happy to accept that species can change appearance in response to various environmental pressures, and these, changes can be observed and even caused. (dog breeders for example)

Any species, if divided could eventually find itself no longer able to breed with former members of its group, these two groups could look identical and yet would be separate species. So our creationist might say "yeah, but they're still birds".

If these two hypothetical groups are exposed to different environmental pressures, they could well develop to look remarkably different.

Or not so.

Lets say that our two groups above are mammals, and the environmental pressures cause them to develop alon different lines. We'll give it a couple of million years after the speciation event and go and take a look, and then ask the question, are cats and dogs really that different? In fact, the bone structure of pretty much all mammals is identical. (A bold claim i know, but the truth is, without adding or subtracting any bone in a mammalian skeleton, you can produce any other mammal by just changing the size and shape.)

I hope, that if your question about a common ancestor was genuine, this goes some way towards an answer.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Sigh... You know there was a girlfriend dig in there but you ruined it...

thanks a lot...

my curiosity always gets the best of me in these threads actualy...

I admit I don't know a damn thing about evolution.. Not only that but I am in fact a creationist as well...

I believe God created the universe and the laws within it including evolution... Billions of years ago!!

What fascinates me is that the biblical creationist will completely ignore any evidence that will show the bible to be wrong... they won't even glance at it... but they will gladly accept the most ridiculous things that could be considered "evidence" that even remotely shows the bible to be true...

Ken ham is the KING of this way of thinking... he pushes the idea that all animals were vegetarians before "the fall" which is boarder line insanity LOL

You should read his website and the things he believes... It is truly amazing...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Saylesie17

If it was that simple to just keep the plant alive, then why did that "someone" need to flood the earth in the first place? Why couldn't that "someone" just kill off all the problem people with single targeting smiting? Why was it necessary to flood all of the world to accomplish this goal? Sounds like a bit of an overkill. Oh and THEN, to confound matters more, erase ALL evidence that a global flood occurred in the geologic record while keeping some plants alive that have apparently existed longer than the planet has existed.

Apparently, god can only kill people with natural forces.

The Red Sea and Plagues in Exodus.
The Great Flood in Genesis.
Fire from the sky to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.
Various deaths by lions and random fire.
Earth swallowed a few people.

For some reason, he decided to use the "Angel of Death" against first born sons in Egypt. What kind of god has need for an Angel of Death? I guess the all-powerful god can't just snap his fingers and take someone out when he's feeling like a dick.

My personal favorite is the story about the 42 kids who were mauled by bears for making fun of Elisha's bald head. I guess the lesson is that bald people REALLY can't take a joke... maybe god is bald.

2 Kings 2:23:

And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

2 Kings 2:24:

And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

But hey, as TechUnique said, when you really look into the Bible, it makes a lot of sense.

a reply to: [post=18983546]peter vla I disagree, A theory is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct.

a reply to: Saylesie17

So jump of a bridge to dispell the myth of the theory of gravity.

a reply to: Saylesie17

Youre more than welcome to disagree. It doesnt change the fact that evolution is an observable and repeatable fact. Gravity is also a "Theory". I don't ever see people arguing that it isnt real though.

originally posted by: Saylesie17
Theory does not mean truth. so prove it

This again, really?

Can you do us a favor and post the definition of scientific theory?

Actually, I'll save you the trouble.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions. They describe the causal elements responsible for a particular natural phenomenon, and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (e.g. electricity, chemistry, astronomy). Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a conjecture, hypothesis, or guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative).

a reply to: Akragon

Yup me also I think Bod (thats what I call her) made the laws and rolled the dice.
I am sure she is very proud of us humans and very proud of evolution.

Ah heck Okay you got me I have a banana valentine gift for Lucy the chimp .

a reply to: boymonkey74

Damnit... you ruined it again!

I was thinking banana chips and movie.... Curious George is my personal fav