What they won't say about Evolution.

Originally posted by Camelop�rdalis

Originally posted by Facefirst


When did ever the scool pensum for science classes contain referances to God?

Get a grip. Everything evolutionists have accused us creationists for through the last couple of hundred years, is now about to be slammed right back in their faces. With science!Exactly how he does it, I hope Man never understands fully, but atleast we know that it is highly complex stuff, and stuff which needs technology to be created or generated. At the same time God limited our lifespan to 120 years, at the time of the flood, God also either did something with the athmosphere, or something to our vision or brains. The rainbow became visible for us. These things can all be rationally explained using what we know today. But still it is debunked as bogus before the debate even started, because of the simple formulae: God=Church=Misbehaviour=Fascism=Wedontf'''''wantthat! Grow up, open your eyes, and instead of just listening and reading, try some thinking on your own. Add two and two for yourself, weigh the possibilities.

First off, no insults are needed here. The insults here really show who needs to "grow up."

Second, I went to Catholic school. God was mentioned in all of my science books. In fact, the only teaching I received of Evolutionary thinking while at that school was a flimsy debunking! Thanks be given to the author of the book "Inherit The Wind."

"Slammed back in their faces with science?" Now that I would like to see.
I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale as well......

As you said "I hope man never understand's fully" That is embracing ignorance. You have a brain and I would expect God to want you to use it in order to figure out the mysteries of the universe instead.

Go believe what you want. I have my beliefs and I adhere to them as the facts and logic dictates. Not some folk tales.

Originally posted by ShiftTrio
Like I said, You dont give GOD any credit, Story and All Stories like it do not make sense.
I have faith in GOD and I am a firm believer of Evolution.

If calculating the age of the universethousands of years ago with the exact same precission as modern science, is a mere story to you some bushmen invented to explain lightening, then I really feel sorry for you. I give God ALL the Credit, not just a slap on his shoulders when he is good to have to fill up a blank space in some bogus theory.

I think at least compared Evolution is Much more plausable and Vanity is a Sin, We are not special , only the Chosen one are LOL =) J/k .

And what has the gift of a Book of All Wisdom to do with science? You are judging yourself here, don't you see?

Have Faith GOD is there, he just is much more creative than the folk tale told in the bible.

Also (and I am no expert) But they found a direct DNA link to us and eariler versions of Us (at least thats what the Walking with Man series said on Discovery)

Yes, and you also find "direct links" between earlier versions of the Mercedes-Benz as you do in the latest in aeroplane technology. You're confused by time since you don't understand what Einstein infact said when he stated E=MC^2. To me that's a hillarious joke. I would have gone further and said U=RE^3, and we would probably laugh our witts away.

It is also very hard to beleive that the Majority 90% of Sceintific mind say it is what happend as well.

Until a better option with PROOF! is shown, it just makes much more sense.

For God's sake, do I have to proove that one species doesnot evolve from another species without intelligent interference? There is not a shred of proof. However, an object of a species who has had it's gened manipulated by humans. That's your macro evolution. It happens in labs around this world as we speak, but with billions of years worth of fossil material, hundreds of years with close examination of nature, it has never been observed. Unless for some salamanders maybe, I'll believe that one, they are designed to do what they do. They don't evolve, they choose to change sex, they choose to let their tail go, they choose whenever they need to do something. It's a freaking reptile for God's sake.

I think what you're asking is.. What are we all originated from?
The origin of life is believed to be in the fusion of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and a few other crucial elements in lightning strikes in the early Earth days.
They certainly have been able to create viriuses (virii?) in laboratories, as well as 'gas bubbles' that display the 7 requirements for life (MRS GREN).
This is how we are all interconnected.
If you mean in literal terms, then perhaps all from the famous fish that swam out of the sea?

Originally posted by robertfenix
Okay this is a simple one. IF life on earth was strictly a function of evolution then please show how a Human is connected to a spider, or how about how a human is connected to a reptile or how about how a human is connected to a fly. So for you evolutionists who deny that at least SOME form of creation was required please provide for me a logical flow chart that allowed the evolution of ONE single organisim to self divide into totally seperate genus's of creatures. Each of which share no conclusive genetic trait in common.

IMO the world was started with KEY genus divisions in regards to living things. Whether animal (including insectoid) or plant. And from those primary divisions life slowly evolved and refined its self and either adapted or died off allowing for other variations to take its place.

We all share a couple common traits;
1) We all live
2) We are based on carbon compounds (as compared to Silicon or Germanium)

All animals have blood of some sort (correct me if i'm wrong)
the more advanced ones have some form of vision, adapted to their requirements
it's the small things like that

Originally posted by Camelop�rdalis

Originally posted by ShiftTrio
Like I said, You dont give GOD any credit, Story and All Stories like it do not make sense.
I have faith in GOD and I am a firm believer of Evolution.

If calculating the age of the universethousands of years ago with the exact same precission as modern science, is a mere story to you some bushmen invented to explain lightening, then I really feel sorry for you. I give God ALL the Credit, not just a slap on his shoulders when he is good to have to fill up a blank space in some bogus theory.

LOL, Do you know how they calculate the age of the universe .. Explain Dinosaurs, they are 250 Million years ago. I mean, now your just ranting..
There is one thing to not belive in Evolution and other to be totaly ignorant. I am dumbfouned by you lack or theroy and pure Ignorance, Some people on the board who dont belive in it at least understand that certain things are truths. You are just "Blinded". Which is fine.

God bless you.

I wont be a part of ignorance

The earliest scriptures about God (e.g. Genesis and similar) are believed to date no earlier than 10,000 BC.
The age of the universe is very scientifically calculated actually, and can be done to a feasable level of accuracy... Also, technically, it's time 0, but still.

Facefirst

You say you went to Catholic school. Since when did Catholic dogma faithful to the Bible? They don't get anything right. The Catholic Church is nothing but the educational system which correctly enough was overcome a couple of hundred years ago. Being a man of reason, I can't in my wildest imagination understand why someone would send anyone to Catholic Church or even enter one of their giant ladies to look at how they demonstrate their hate and ignorance towards the Law of God from the second you enter the door. Who allowed them to have art on the walls like that? Who allowed them to hold sunday mass? Who allowed unmarried men to become high priests? Who allowed them to even add stones to the nuns burden by denying them their Godgiven assignment they have already payed for? Don't even get me started on the Catholic Church. But let's try to keep this a thread about Creationism, not art, wealth and decadence in Vatican. It was better for them if they were cast into the sea with a millstone around their necks.

Subject please! Creationism is prooved all over the world as we speak. Natural evolution. Give me a break. And me saying "grow up" has doubtfully anything to do with insults. To grow up is usually something positive. So grow up! Into the Light!

Originally posted by Camelop�rdalis
Don't even get me started on the Catholic Church. But let's try to keep this a thread about Creationism, not art, wealth and decadence in Vatican. It was better for them if they were cast into the sea with a millstone around their necks.

Subject please! Creationism is prooved all over the world as we speak. Natural evolution.

I was mentioning where I first learned of creationism and evolution. I could not be more in agreement with you on my feelings towards the Catholic Church.

But as to creationism being proved all of the world? I would like to see that proof please.

You call yourself a man of reason yet you deny the theory of Evolution that is one of the most logical things in the world?
Its straight forward, I've explained the logic behind it hundreds of times.
Radiation (background) -> DNA Mutations -> Offspring with DNA mutations -> Natural Selection -> Passes on.
I am not saying it is the ONLY reason for the human being existance, but the theory itself's logic is sound, just the implications that people dont like.

Read my earlier post about how evolution and creationism in fact back each other up. Please.

Originally posted by browha
You call yourself a man of reason yet you deny the theory of Evolution that is one of the most logical things in the world?
Its straight forward, I've explained the logic behind it hundreds of times.
Radiation (background) -> DNA Mutations -> Offspring with DNA mutations -> Natural Selection -> Passes on.
I am not saying it is the ONLY reason for the human being existance, but the theory itself's logic is sound, just the implications that people dont like.

Read my earlier post about how evolution and creationism in fact back each other up. Please.

The theory of evolution should not be considered a theory and should only be a hypothesis because so far the only evidence that supports it is circumstantial. It is a well thought out idea that is just that an idea.

Ok so you say that they have shown in a lab how life formed on earth so lets review that experiment shall we. In 1953, University of Chicago graduate student, Stanley Miller, working with Nobel Prize Laureate Harold Urey, simulated what they proposed was the make-up of the early atmosphere in a brilliantly conceived laboratory experiment. This "reducing" atmosphere contained hydrogen (H), methane (H+C), ammonia (H+N), and water vapor (H+O), but no free oxygen. By sending an electric spark (simulating lightning) through the mixture they succeeded in producing some simple amino acids, the building blocks of life and other organic compounds, and claimed a great triumph for evolution. This concept continues to be propagated today in "every" textbook and is used in support of the evolutionary, naturalistic way of thinking.

But now with more knowledge it has become abundantly clear that Earth's atmosphere has always had free oxygen. Water vapor readily breaks down into hydrogen and oxygen. Furthermore, we find oxidized minerals in rocks of every supposed age. Cells, whose ancestors are thought to have pre-dated the evolution of photosynthesis, likewise contain evidence that they lived in the presence of oxygen.

There are other problems with the experiment as well. The amino acid mixture produced contained only a few of the many necessary for even "simple" life, but many not used by any life. All amino acids were of both left and right-handed varieties, while life uses only left handed. Since the spark which formed the amino acids would much more readily have destroyed them, they had to be purposely removed from the system in a trap, thus concentrated in a manner most unnatural. Furthermore, such molecules could not have been stable without an ozone shield surrounding Earth.

Let's review. The experiment had the wrong starting conditions. It employed the wrong methods. It yielded the wrong products. Other than that, it was a wonderful experiment!

And BTW scientists have not created virus's from scratch they have either altered exsisting virus's or spliced together DNA from other organism's to make new ones.

[Edited on 5-5-2004 by BlackJackal]

And BTW scientists have not created virus's from scratch they have altered exsisting virus's to make new ones.
Actually wrong, they have constructed, literally, from scratch, an organism ( I'm confident it was a virus, but not 100% sure) that had I think 170-something alleles, very basic, but nonetheless, a virus.

But now with more knowledge it has become abundantly clear that Earth's atmosphere has always had free oxygen.
Incorrect... When all the oceans were vapour (I think about 5 billion years ago) and the Earth was one hot molten ball, as taught in modern chemistry books, there was absolutely no free oxygen. If there had been, it would have reacted with Methane straight away.

Water vapor readily breaks down into hydrogen and oxygen
It doesnt! Rain clouds... rain.. humidity...
The energy required to break an OH bond is 463 kjmol ^ -1. This means that to break down one mole (6.023 x 10 ^ 23 molecules) requires enough energy to lift one kilogram 962,000 metres.


I'm not a biologist so I cant REALLY comment on the amino acids without a lot of research..

Furthermore, we find oxidized minerals in rocks of every supposed age.
Ok, taught at AS-level chemistry;
Mg (s) + H20 (g) -> MgO (s) + H2 (g)

You can create quite a few metal oxides through displacement. I believe iron rusts even if completely submerged. Anyway, I'm talking about an age before we had rocks. When everything was completely molten.

Cells, whose ancestors are thought to have pre-dated the evolution of photosynthesis, likewise contain evidence that they lived in the presence of oxygen.
They've found bacteria that lives near volcano vents deep underwater where there is literally 0 light. Photosynthesis isnt NEEDED for life, it's a much easier and more efficient way of sustaining life/finding energy sources, but it isnt absolutely crucial.

Originally posted by amantine
Let me adjust the term junk DNA to non-coding DNA. In what used to be called junk DNA some coding genes have been found. Non-coding DNA is morphologically independent. It doesn't matter what other function it has, if the shape or functioning of the creature is not changed the code of the DNA, we can use it for constructing reliable trees. Even if this turns out wrong, which I highly doubt, we still have the cytochrome and retrovirus DNA. Pseudogenes are non-coding DNA and can therefore also be used. Why? Because they don't influence the chance of survival for the organism.

And 10 years ago we thought that the tonsils served absolutely no purpose but now people are beginning to understand what purpose that they serve. Tonsils are strategically located near the entrance to the breathing passages where they can catch incoming infections. They sample bacteria and viruses. After sampling the germs they then help form antibodies to those germs as part of the body's immune system to resist and fight future infections

I may be wrong and I will admit it after scientists remove the non-coding DNA and study the effects on the organism. If this proves to have no effect on the organism then I will admit that I am wrong but until then I say prove it.

Read my links to articles published in well-known magazines! Unless you think that organism that are better adapted to their environment are not a beneficial change, you are wrong.

I have looked at the study and I don�t see what all the fuss is about. Creationist have never argued against adaptability in organisms. The E. Coli were put into a glucose-limitied median so if they did not learn to adapt they would die. The E Coli slowed their reproduction during the median generations as they learned to adapt. After they learned to adapt they started reproducing faster again. In the title and the conclusion it refers to parallel changes in gene expression, which is just a neutral change. The author does not prove that a beneficial mutation has occurred just that the organism adapted to the new environment via a parallel change.

If the DNA correlations show that two organism from different phylums (for animals) or divisions (for plants) are more closely related than two organisms from the same genus or family. Otherwise we may simply have been decieved by looks when we made our first trees without the help of DNA. I find the difference between phylums or divisions and genes or family large enough to show that there's something weird going on.

Robert May is a UK Chief Scientist. In New Scientist magazine (July 1, 2000) on page 5 he stated, �We share half our genes with the banana.� One can only guess (with a fertile imagination) what the common ancestor between people and bananas looked like In addition, there are fish that have 40% the same DNA as people, but hopefully no evolutionist would claim that the fish are 40% human � or people are half bananas.
How about them apples or should I say banna�s

Amino acids don't have to channel that energy. They just have bump into eachother by random movements and form chains. It doesn't have to happen a lot. Once in every 100 million years is enough. When that first self-replicating chemical complex is made, it can simply use the energy of heat at first and of light or reduction of chemicals later to get the energy needed to make copies of itself.

That idea is why I don�t even consider abiogenesis, it is way too far-fetched. And it has never been duplicated in the lab.

Yes, there has been a very well-documented case. Read my links to the work of Jenski.

Reference: the above argument.

The fact that we share half our genes with the banana doesnt mean that they are from the same ancestor. If we share the same hair colour, it doesnt mean all people with blonde hair come from the same person.
You see?
The big deal about the E Coli is that if it didnt adapt, it'd die out. It did adapt.
That's quite a large point of evolution, adapting to a new environment. E.g. brown moths and white moths. Polar bears. etcetcetc

Originally posted by browha
And BTW scientists have not created virus's from scratch they have altered exsisting virus's to make new ones.
Actually wrong, they have constructed, literally, from scratch, an organism ( I'm confident it was a virus, but not 100% sure) that had I think 170-something alleles, very basic, but nonetheless, a virus.

Yes you are right and I edited my post after you had quoted mine. They have create a virus but it was not from scratch it was from splicing together exsisting organism DNA.

But now with more knowledge it has become abundantly clear that Earth's atmosphere has always had free oxygen.
Incorrect... When all the oceans were vapour (I think about 5 billion years ago) and the Earth was one hot molten ball, as taught in modern chemistry books, there was absolutely no free oxygen. If there had been, it would have reacted with Methane straight away.

You are right most chemistry books do teach that right now but if you read the latest scientific journals you will find that the previously accepted model is becoming obsolete through newly discovered evidence.

Since the organic molecules needed for the biological processes, eg. sugars and amino acids etc. are unstable in the presence of compounds such as O2, H2O, CO2. In fact, under such conditions, 'biological' molecules would be destroyed as fast as they could be produced. It would be impossible to produce such molecules in the presence of an oxidizing atmosphere.

In presence of such evidence most theorists (key word here, not scientists but theorists) in 1930 rationalized that the only way to avoid this problem was to propose that the earth's first atmospheric conditions were dramatically different from those that exist today. The only feasible alternative atmosphere envisaged to provide a 'protective' environment for organic reactions, was a reducing atmosphere - one which had little or no free oxidizing compounds present. The reducing atmosphere theory has held for 70 years however in 2000 oxidized minerals in rocks were found that predated the supposed abiogenesis date. I have the article around here somewhere so I will dig it up and give you the bibliographical reference.


[Edited on 5-5-2004 by BlackJackal]

Originally posted by browha
The fact that we share half our genes with the banana doesnt mean that they are from the same ancestor. If we share the same hair colour, it doesnt mean all people with blonde hair come from the same person.
You see?
The big deal about the E Coli is that if it didnt adapt, it'd die out. It did adapt.
That's quite a large point of evolution, adapting to a new environment. E.g. brown moths and white moths. Polar bears. etcetcetc

Anything can adapt to a new enviroment unless it is completly unacceptable to the organism. Thats not evolution thats survival of the fittest.

As far as the bannana is concerned that is just used as an arguement against the idea that just because you share DNA that means your closer to that species.

Originally posted by BlackJackal
Anything can adapt to a new enviroment unless it is completly unacceptable to the organism. Thats not evolution thats survival of the fittest.

Evolution is adaptation brought about by changes in the enviorment of the creature in question. The creature then either evolves to adapt to those changes or does not survive.

Evolution and survival of the fittest are one and the same. You evolve to survive.

[Edited on 5-5-2004 by Facefirst]

Originally posted by Facefirst

Originally posted by BlackJackal
Anything can adapt to a new enviroment unless it is completly unacceptable to the organism. Thats not evolution thats survival of the fittest.

Evolution is adaptation brought about by changes in the enviorment of the creature in question. The creature then either evolves to adapt to those changes or does not survive.

Evolution and survival of the fittest are one and the same. You evolve to survive.

[Edited on 5-5-2004 by Facefirst]

Yes it is microevolution and a neutral change because it is just adaptability to a new enviroment. Its not like they can now inject a new nerve agent into cells. They did not gain anything new in the change just adapted to living in a new enviroment. If changed back to the original enviroment they would have to re-adapt if they had been gone too long.

Originally posted by BlackJackal

Originally posted by Facefirst

Originally posted by BlackJackal
Anything can adapt to a new enviroment unless it is completly unacceptable to the organism. Thats not evolution thats survival of the fittest.

Evolution is adaptation brought about by changes in the enviorment of the creature in question. The creature then either evolves to adapt to those changes or does not survive.

Evolution and survival of the fittest are one and the same. You evolve to survive.

[Edited on 5-5-2004 by Facefirst]

They did not gain anything new in the change just adapted to living in a new enviroment. If changed back to the original enviroment they would have to re-adapt if they had been gone too long.

Things are most certainly gained... .and sometimes lost. Birds come to mind...... Flight for some birds, loss of flight for some other species of bird. Or the Wood Pecker's ability to drill through trees to get to it's food. Or the Hummingbird's unique wing-flapping ability. Those things were all new means to survive.

Certain human groups have gained from their adaptations. Example: Some American Indians Tribes in the South West have what is sometimes called the "Thrifty" gene. Since there were times of famine in their enviorment over thousands of years, their bodies store away much more food than most other human ethnic groups. This has resulted in serious obesity and health problems when Western diets were introduced to them. These adaptation traits are currently being studied. Quite fascinating. Now the curious question is, will their bodies adapt to this new change of diet?

Originally posted by Facefirst
Things are most certainly gained... .and sometimes lost. Birds come to mind...... Flight for some birds, loss of flight for some other species of bird. Or the Wood Pecker's ability to drill through trees to get to it's food. Or the Hummingbird's unique wing-flapping ability. Those things were all new means to survive.

Certain human groups have gained from their adaptations. Example: Some American Indians Tribes in the South West have what is sometimes called the "Thrifty" gene. Since there were times of famine in their enviorment over thousands of years, their bodies store away much more food than most other human ethnic groups. This has resulted in serious obesity and health problems when Western diets were introduced to them. These adaptation traits are currently being studied. Quite fascinating. Now the curious question is, will their bodies adapt to this new change of diet?

The problem is scientists cannot prove that Woodpeckers or flightless birds gained there abilities through evolution. You cannot prove that they were not created that way.

As far as humans are concerned, yes we are the most adaptable of all creations and we can adapt to new situations via horizontal changes in microevolution. This proves nothing that was not already known.

For example lets talk about the microevolution of dogs. It has been almost one hundred fifty years since Darwin published his infamous On the Origin of Species in 1859. No speciesorigin has ever been described, however, not even the ubiquitous and popular pup. Dog breeding has resulted in over 400 different varieties, from the Alsatian to the Great Dane, but each remains Canis familiaris�dog. Regardless, evolutionism demands a purely naturalistic explanation for canine origin. Such insistence has led wildlife ecologist I. L. Brisbin to state, �Everything that anyone publishes about the origin of the dog is controversial.�

Let�s see why this is so. The first problem encountered�a major dilemma for Darwinists �is molecular data (DNA sequences) compared to fossils. An essential structure of the typical cell is the mitochondrion. Known as the cellular �powerhouse,� critical chemical reactions occur there, producing the energy compound ATP. Researchers have found that mitochondria contain short segments of DNA, and that this mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is inherited solely from the mother. Secular scientists have since attempted to use mtDNA to trace cryptic evolutionary pathways. Evolutionist James Trefil states, �the amount of difference in [mitochondrial] DNA sequences between any two groups is taken to be a measure of the length of time since those groups shared a common ancestor.� They shouldn�t place too much stock in this technique, however, because �mitochondrial sequences have notoriously high and uneven rates of change.�

Despite using this questionable dating method, molecular biologists assert mitochondrial genomes show dogs arising some 135,000 years ago. This does not agree with the fossils found in sedimentary rock layers. �The earliest accepted dog fossils date from just 14,000 years ago� according to paleontology. Which is correct? Not only that, but �the date and place of domestication [of dogs] continues to be a mystery as well.�

Creationists maintain that dogs were created as dogs and will always be dogs including their dog varieties such as hyenas, wolves, foxes, and jackals. An interesting statement is made by evolutionist Peter Savolainen in the journal Science and sounds almost like he is referring to a pair of dogs trotting off the Ark, �we can say now there was probably one geographic origin [of dogs].� Evolutionist E. H. Colbert suggests this geographic area as eastern Turkey�the Mt. Ararat region! Dogs undoubtedly followed people during their post-Flood migration, which included crossing a possible land bridge between Asia and North America. Indeed, according to DNA taken from fossil canines, dogs of the Western Hemisphere have Asian ancestries.

And to sum things up my favorite quote to ever have been uttered by an evolutionist. The quote comes from British biologist L. Harrison Mathews in the book Introduction to The Origin of the Species

The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory�is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation�both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.

My point is that if evolutionist say that about there own theory how solid can it be?

[Edited on 5-5-2004 by BlackJackal]