To me it doesn't really matter. What needs to be looked at in this whole debate is the agendas that both sides have. Evolutionists look at the world through the experiments they can perform and the results they observe, which helps them predict things about the world. Creationists are bringing up this whole debate to push the bible into schools and spread their ideas. I just don't think the Bible has a place there.
You know there is nothing wrong with religion being taught in your home or in your privite school, sure it's gonna harsh or mellow but thats your choice. The problem I have is we belong to a club called the USA, as members we pay dues called taxes to support public government run schools and those schools should be run according to the club handbook, the United States Constitution. Now, the Constitution says our club steers clear of religion, thats the deal we made! If we pay for it with taxes it cant have religion in it thats in the pesky bi-laws so as long as were all paying, no religion in schools!
I'm a form of Agnostic, yes I could see a "higher power" did create the known universe but I haven't seen any physical evidence so I don't believe in any religion. My stand point on evolution isn't yes we in fact did come from primates or fish, I believe we did evolve from something (unknown to us currently) and as time went on we adapted to different environments to become what we know as humans.
Honestly for me, what does it matter? Let's say in 50 years we find out XYZ happened... so? Yes I may change my views on the matter but not so much my entire life will be completely alterd, knowing or not knowing of creation or evolution is not at the top of my list... nor is it any where near the middle of the list. Some people want to know, hell some people dedicate their entire life to finding the answer.
From what I see every now and then new evidence is descovered pointing more to evolution then creationism. I don't know if you heard or read about it, but scientist linked Dinosaours to Small birds such as chickens.
Alot of people forget that the condition of seperate church and state is as much to protect religion from government. Do you really want schools teaching your brand of faith? If the government adopts your faith, then it can also start making changes to it. If a government subsidizes a faith than it can start dictating terms.
From what I see every now and then new evidence is descovered pointing more to evolution then creationism. I don't know if you heard or read about it, but scientist linked Dinosaours to Small birds such as chickens.
Without even looking at the article (since this is nothing new) I'll say:
Indeed. Walk outside sometime and just observe your local birds. They're predatory, they're territorial, they nest, they have light hollow bones like many later dinosaur species. They have four-chambered hearts. They have similar bone structure. And of course... DNA
In Biology, 1)birds, 2) dinosaurs, and 3) crocodiles make up the group "Archosaurs" under the class of Reptilia. This is a recent change, before birds made up their own class called Aves.
It may seem strange to put birds under reptiles, but reptiles aren't really anything specific. It's basically where all the animals that don't fit between fish and mammals go (unless they're amphibian).
Watch a blue-jay skip across a yard and tell me that doesn't remind you of a raptor
I don't know the genetic history of the Platypus so I can't really comment on its anscestors or how it has speciated over time...what I can say is that Nasica is right in that something doesn't necessarily have to make sense to US. That was the problem with astronomy for centuries, people wanted to create a model of the Solar System that was asthetically pleasing, so they put the Earth in the center of everything...and then they put the sun in the center of the galaxy. Look past your own preconcieved notions of what is functional or a good example of adaptation..odds are, that animal's DNA knows better than you what is good for the animal
From what I see every now and then new evidence is descovered pointing more to evolution then creationism. I don't know if you heard or read about it, but scientist linked Dinosaours to Small birds such as chickens.
Without even looking at the article (since this is nothing new) I'll say:
Indeed. Walk outside sometime and just observe your local birds. They're predatory, they're territorial, they nest, they have light hollow bones like many later dinosaur species. They have four-chambered hearts. They have similar bone structure. And of course... DNA
In Biology, 1)birds, 2) dinosaurs, and 3) crocodiles make up the group "Archosaurs" under the class of Reptilia. This is a recent change, before birds made up their own class called Aves.
It may seem strange to put birds under reptiles, but reptiles aren't really anything specific. It's basically where all the animals that don't fit between fish and mammals go (unless they're amphibian).
Watch a blue-jay skip across a yard and tell me that doesn't remind you of a raptor
Oh I read about it a week or two ago in the Palm Beach Post, maybe they descovered more information on it. I didn't know it was that old of a story, but no matter still quite interesting.
Without even looking at the article (since this is nothing new) I'll say:
Indeed. Walk outside sometime and just observe your local birds. They're predatory, they're territorial, they nest, they have light hollow bones like many later dinosaur species. They have four-chambered hearts. They have similar bone structure. And of course... DNA I know...it's amazing...they went from giant lizards to tiny cute birds in the blink of an eye without so much as a single transition fossil...nature is amazing. Hollow Bones: Nearly all vertebrate bones are hollow with the exception of fish bones...nature discovered that hollow bones were more efficient than solid bones a LONG time ago. Hollow bones are not at all exclusive to birds or dinosaurs. Four Chambered hearts: All mammals and birds have four chambered hearts...about reptile hearts: The wall between the two ventricles in a reptile heart is incomplete, this leads people to say that reptiles have three chambered hearts, when in reality, it's a four chambered heart with an incomplete wall. There are modern reptiles with four chambered hearts (the crocodile is an example) which leads one to believe that a three/four chambered heart has nothing to do with evolution, since crocodiles are supposed to be some of the oldest animals in the world (by evolution scientists) Actually, the Crocodile's heart is very "evolved" as it can switch between normal and low oxygen conditions. An interesting problem for evolutionists who believe that crocodiles are some of the oldest animals in the world. You know what...my dog has similar bone structure to any other quadraped you could possibly name, at least it's just as similar as a bird's is to a dinosaur...does that mean that they all dogs evolved from the same quadraped? DNA: Everything has DNA...what's your point?
In Biology, 1)birds, 2) dinosaurs, and 3) crocodiles make up the group "Archosaurs" under the class of Reptilia. This is a recent change, before birds made up their own class called Aves.
and why did they make that change? Some new evidence? Or just supposition based on their desire for dinosaurs to have evolved into birds. I'm legitimately curious, what new evidence came up that caused them to do that? If any.
It may seem strange to put birds under reptiles, but reptiles aren't really anything specific. It's basically where all the animals that don't fit between fish and mammals go (unless they're amphibian).
Watch a blue-jay skip across a yard and tell me that doesn't remind you of a raptor Okay...it doesn't...at all...it has never even occured to me.
Oh I read about it a week or two ago in the Palm Beach Post, maybe they descovered more information on it. I didn't know it was that old of a story, but no matter still quite interesting.
Well, Draenor, you wouldnt ask that question if you knew how things decomposed. Decomposition occurs when micro-organisms act on a substance. Chances are good that if the T-Rex was fossilized it was probably covered pretty airtight with some sort of material (volcanic ash, heavy rock fall, etc), which could keep the tissue in an airtight compartment. Then once the area around the tissue fossilized it definitely would be airtight, thus keeping the T-Rex tissue in good condition. A similar thing happens with Mastadons and Wooly Mammoths that get frozen. We can get to their tissue just fine, its just damaged from the freeze. Its not living as in... still alive. Its living as in it once belonged to something that was alive, if that was what you're getting at.
As for my beliefs regarding evolution vs. creationism, there really is only one point where divine creation could've occurred, and that is the creation of the first cell. As of yet, we dont know how a cell would be created (though we know how organic molecules can form from inorganic molecules when certain conditions are present), so if you want to stick God into the creation of life thats where you do it. You could also say that a divine being created the universe, dictated its laws, and thus life was created because it derived from those laws.
The problem with people who dont believe in evolution really comes from the fact that they dont really understand it. I think the South Park episode where Ms Garrison teaches evolution sums it up pretty well:
Ms. Garrison: All right, kids, it is now my job to teach you the theory of evolution.
Ms. Garrison: Now I, for one, think evolution is a bunch of *bullcrap*! But I've been told I have to teach it to you anyway. It was thought up by Charles Darwin and it goes something like this...
[she goes up to a large poster of evolution and begins pointing things out with her pointer]
Ms. Garrison: In the beginning, we were all fish. Okay? Swimming around in the water. And then one day a couple of fish had a retard baby, and the retard baby was different, so it got to live. So Retard Fish goes on to make more retard babies, and then one day, a retard baby fish crawled out of the ocean with its...
[she waves her left hand limply]
Ms. Garrison: ...mutant fish hands... and it had butt sex with a squirrel or something and made this.
[she points to a prehistoric mammal rodent]
Ms. Garrison: Retard frog-sqirrel, and then *that* had a retard baby which was a... monkey-fish-frog... And then this monkey-fish-frog had butt sex with that monkey, and that monkey had a mutant retard baby that screwed another monkey... and that made you!
[she faces the class, with the new girl among them looking around]
Ms. Garrison: So there you go! You're the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt sex with a fish-squirrel! Congratulations!
Cartman: [impatient for a Nintendo Wii, hops out of his chair and leaves the room, shouting] Haahhh! I can't take it anymore! Haaaaah!
Ms. Garrison: [thinking Cartman understands evolution] Yeah? You see? I *knew* that would happen.
Some people really believe that evolutionists believe that a chimpanzee could give birth to a human and to be honest, if you thought thats what evolution is, who on Earth would believe it? They dont understand that sexual reproduction and genetics result in genetic variety, and environmental stresses mean that certain individuals will survive and reproduce and others will die. This changes the gene pool for that species, along with mutation. You know... every human being has an average of 2.5 mutations (though these are usually on DNA that doesnt do anything).
Then there are people who think the Earth is 6,000 years old. There's really no talking to these people because they dont really possess any form of rational thought.
Your assertion that there are no transition fossils is simply incorrect. Biologists have been linking late-period therapod dinosaurs with avians from the very early days of classification. Hollow Bones: Nearly all vertebrate bones are hollow with the exception of fish bones...nature discovered that hollow bones were more efficient than solid bones a LONG time ago. Hollow bones are not at all exclusive to birds or dinosaurs. Avian bones are very specialized in their structure through a process called ossification. The bones of birds are genuinely hollow (in other words it's not just a marrow cavity), their structure is quite unique. Except as seen in the later therapod dinosaur fossils.
Four Chambered hearts: All mammals and birds have four chambered hearts...about reptile hearts: The wall between the two ventricles in a reptile heart is incomplete, this leads people to say that reptiles have three chambered hearts, when in reality, it's a four chambered heart with an incomplete wall. There are modern reptiles with four chambered hearts (the crocodile is an example) which leads one to believe that a three/four chambered heart has nothing to do with evolution, since crocodiles are supposed to be some of the oldest animals in the world (by evolution scientists) Actually, the Crocodile's heart is very "evolved" as it can switch between normal and low oxygen conditions. An interesting problem for evolutionists who believe that crocodiles are some of the oldest animals in the world. Like I stated earlier, there is no common linkage between reptile species. Try to find a trait all reptiles share and I assure you, you'll fail. The unique situation occurs in that crocodiles, dinosaurs, and birds have four-chambered hearts (as you said, the same as mammals). Makes sense, considering that the branch of dinosaurs is younger than the line most modern reptiles evolved from. The younger the species line the more complex the biology. Hence, four-chambered hearts. You know what...my dog has similar bone structure to any other quadraped you could possibly name, at least it's just as similar as a bird's is to a dinosaur...does that mean that they all dogs evolved from the same quadraped?
You won't like my answer because the answer is YES. Since dogs are a single species of course they all evolved from a single quadraped...the wolf. It's interesting you bring this up, because it shows the link of birds to dinosaurs. Birds and late-therapod dinosaurs are both bipedal!
DNA: Everything has DNA...what's your point? Indeed. I was referring to DNA comparison. Strictly speaking from DNA, the crocodile is more closely related to Aves than to alligators. I'm sure that means little to you however.
In Biology, 1)birds, 2) dinosaurs, and 3) crocodiles make up the group "Archosaurs" under the class of Reptilia. This is a recent change, before birds made up their own class called Aves.
and why did they make that change? Some new evidence? Or just supposition based on their desire for dinosaurs to have evolved into birds. I'm legitimately curious, what new evidence came up that caused them to do that? If any. DNA linking the T-Rex you mention below to birds would be one aspect of the evidence. Everything I've listed is evidence linking birds to therapodal dinosaurs.
It may seem strange to put birds under reptiles, but reptiles aren't really anything specific. It's basically where all the animals that don't fit between fish and mammals go (unless they're amphibian).
Watch a blue-jay skip across a yard and tell me that doesn't remind you of a raptor Okay...it doesn't...at all...it has never even occured to me. Do you know what it means when a bird chirps?
This is what science is all about, replacing old theories with new theories based on evidence garnered using the scientific method. The hypothesis was that organic matter as old as the dinosaurs couldn't be adequately preserved as a fossil. That hypothesis is obviously wrong. Did you notice in that link explaining the T-rex to bird connection?
An Argument Against Intelligent Design: Why the Watchmaker Was Blind
Scientists are a very interesting group of people. They are intelligent, cunning, and driven. In a way, they are the best treasure hunters in the world. Whether their motive is to share or to horde, scientists make it their life goal to discover a fountain of information. When a new fountain is discovered, it is typical for rival scientists to pick apart the new treasure, and to be skeptical. However, they have one very commendable quality; they are creatures of evidence, and therefore they know what information they need to be proven. Once enough evidence has been presented, the new development will be accepted as a general fact. Such is the story of evolution.
Up until a little more than a century ago, there were two different views on the origin of species. These are evolution and creation. Evolution is very commonly defined as a change in gene frequency over time. Obviously, change has taken place in the universe. The Earth is not the same as it was millions—let alone billions—of years ago. The life forms on it, including humans, are not safe from this series of change (Scott, 265-266). Creation, on the other hand, uses holy scripture to dictate that there is a fixity of species. An example of this would be the story of Genesis from the Bible, where God creates the entire world, as well as mankind (Mayr, 4). As this field of science slowly matured, the evolutionists began growing in numbers, and started forming relatively concrete ideas. Among these were the discovery of unidentifiable fossils and the immensity of the age of the Earth during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (Mayr, 5).
As stated by evolutionary scientist Steven Gould, “Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolutions—paths that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce” (qtd. in Blumberg, 19-34). And then, in 1859, Charles Darwin published the finishing blow to creationism, The Origin of Species. With a hill of evidence, much of which came from the islands of the Galapagos, evolution was now considered a standard among the scientific community (Blumberg, 19-34). We now had evolution to explain why things like bacteria became immune to penicillin, and could therefore understand and treat deadly diseases.
However, despite this scientific landmark, there remains a group of people—roughly estimated to be 44% of adult Americans—who reject this idea even in the face of insurmountable evidence (Scott, 263). Their forerunner is “intelligent design.” This group is made up mostly of religious-literalists, some becoming pseudo-scientists that dedicate their lives to proving evolution wrong. The debates between evolutionists and creationists have been raging with much intensity for over a century. In this essay, I will outline some of the major arguments these proponents of intelligent design, and analyze their inadequacies.
Evolution’s greatest downfall is that it is so controversial. It explains arguably the most important question ever posed by mankind: How did we get here? Not only does it try to accomplish this against the grain of previous beliefs, it does so with a concept that is so highly improbable that it is simply easier to believe in a higher being (Dawkins, 30). In short, natural selection is critiqued as being so improbable that it’s impossible. Creationist beliefs are spawned from the idea that what we see is too complex to have been randomly created by an automated algorithm. They typically fall back on this same fallacious argument that “it looks designed, it must be designed.” This has spawned many infamous phrases and arguments against evolution. These include, for example, astronomer Fred Hoyle’s often-referenced Boeing 747 analogy, in which he explains that the idea of a “spontaneous origin of life is as improbable as a hurricane blowing through a junkyard and having the luck to assemble a Boeing 747” (Dawkins, 30).
However, one could argue that the existence of a higher being—an intelligent designer—is much more the victim of this argument than evolution. A supreme being that can create not only life, but the entire universe, is much more complex and improbable than a miniscule equation of chance played out over millennia (Dawkins, 30). Such ratcheting is the vehicle that brought the first living creature to our current life forms.
Another such example of a famous metaphorical argument for intelligent design was coined by William Paley in his book, Natural Theology — or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity Collected from the Appearances of Nature. In it, he makes the case that if one was to stumble upon a working watch in a remote area, one would not simply speculate that the watch was naturally occurring. With its intricate and complex design, it had to have been created by an unseen watchmaker. In reply, Dawkins wrote The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design. He contested that things like a watch can evolve; early forms are initially created out of necessity, and out of further necessity, they are changed and evolved into the complex thing we have today. Therefore, the driving force wasn’t a pre-seen design, but a present necessity: the watchmaker was blind, not with sight.
Yet another argument opponents to evolution use is that there are too many gaps in the lineage of organisms. While it’s obviously true that not all fossils have been discovered yet and can leave some gaps, it’s also true that some animals simply just don’t leave fossils. Smaller animals’ bone structures are incapable of fossilization due to their make-up. In this case, their entire lineage is a gap, when focusing solely on fossil records (Dawkins, 31). Also, what creationists fail to realize is that this argument, too, hurts their own side than evolutionists’. While there are gaps in records, there also exists evidence between these gaps; creationism holds absolutely no respectable records for intelligent design (Dawkins, 31).
Creationists also refuse to believe in evolution because the idea of being a relative to every single life form, including monkeys, rodents, and insects, is revolting (Dawkins, 31). For thousands of years, humans have always looked for a way to distinguish ourselves from the inferior animals. However, it’s simply ignorant to let a feeling like this have dominance over a rational belief of origin. The way one feels about a topic doesn’t sway its truth in the slightest.
Yet another argument used by creationists is that evolution is merely a theory, and that it doesn’t have enough substantial proof to be considered fact. Thus is one of the most often-recited arguments against teaching evolution in schools. However, there is a difference between a general “theory” and a scientific theory. In general terms, a theory is something that is unproven, or a “hunch.” A scientific theory is fully sound and is supported by evidence and a series of hypotheses, such as the theory of heliocentrism, cell theory, atomic theory, and plate tectonics (all of which, by the way, are typically universally accepted by creationists) (Scott, 264). In fact, the National Academy of Sciences, in 1984, declared that:
Evolution pervades all biological phenomena. To ignore that it occurred or to classify it as a form of dogma is to deprive the student of the most fundamental organizational concept in the biological sciences. No other biological concept has been more extensively tested and more thoroughly corroborated than the evolutionary history of origins (qtd. in Scott, 264).
One of the final, seemingly sound arguments that creationists use is a completely theological one. Basically, they just give up, sit back, and point out the majesty of something so simple yet so beautifully complex. One such example that is usually a “sweet spot” for creationists that fall back on this argument is the eye. How could an eye simply appear? How could we one day, due to a mutation, gain an organ that gives us such an abstract sense like sight? Well, one such explanation could be that humans developed a partial eye, which is better and more adept at survival than having no eye. Scientists have uncovered many species of animals, specifically those that live underwater or in dark caves, that have limited sight from underdeveloped eyes. Also, an evolutionist could turn the question back to the creationist, and ask why a perfect, infinitely complex God would create eyes that are full of flaws, such as a natural blind spot? An omnipotent God would most assuredly be able to make something better when starting from scratch (Blumberg, 19-34).
Despite all the evidence proving evolution, there still exists this relatively large minority of those that disagree. These people hold firm that the universe was created in a brief amount of time and hasn’t changed since. These creationists refuse to accept the wall of evidence that supports the scientific theory of evolution. Their arguments against evolution are trivial at best, and sometimes are actually more detrimental to their own position than to the evolutionists. Some of these proponents of intelligent design have become a type of pseudo-scientist that are actively searching for evidence to prove a divine creation; none has been found, however. The scholarly scientific community still upholds the truth of a change in gene frequency over time. Despite its improbability, it is still more probable than a complex supreme being, and is supported by evidence. Natural selection, it seems, will be the eventual winner, much like heliocentrism is looked at today by the same creationists.
Works Cited
Blumberg, Mark S. Basic Instinct: The Genesis of Behavior. New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press, 2005.
Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design. New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc, 1996.
---. “The Illusion of Design.” Annual Editions: Physical Anthropology, (2007/2008): 30-31.
Mayr, Ernst. What Evolution Is. New York: Basic Books, 2001.
Paley, William. Natural Theology — or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity Collected from the Appearances of Nature. New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 2006.
Scott, Eugene C. “Antievolution and Creationism in the United States.” Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 26 (1997): 263-289.
_____________________________________ "Io rido, e rider mio non passa dentro; Io ardo, e l'arsion mia non par di fore." -Machiavelli
Your assertion that there are no transition fossils is simply incorrect. Biologists have been linking late-period therapod dinosaurs with avians from the very early days of classification. Hollow Bones: Nearly all vertebrate bones are hollow with the exception of fish bones...nature discovered that hollow bones were more efficient than solid bones a LONG time ago. Hollow bones are not at all exclusive to birds or dinosaurs. Avian bones are very specialized in their structure through a process called ossification. The bones of birds are genuinely hollow (in other words it's not just a marrow cavity), their structure is quite unique. Except as seen in the later therapod dinosaur fossils.
Four Chambered hearts: All mammals and birds have four chambered hearts...about reptile hearts: The wall between the two ventricles in a reptile heart is incomplete, this leads people to say that reptiles have three chambered hearts, when in reality, it's a four chambered heart with an incomplete wall. There are modern reptiles with four chambered hearts (the crocodile is an example) which leads one to believe that a three/four chambered heart has nothing to do with evolution, since crocodiles are supposed to be some of the oldest animals in the world (by evolution scientists) Actually, the Crocodile's heart is very "evolved" as it can switch between normal and low oxygen conditions. An interesting problem for evolutionists who believe that crocodiles are some of the oldest animals in the world. Like I stated earlier, there is no common linkage between reptile species. Try to find a trait all reptiles share and I assure you, you'll fail. The unique situation occurs in that crocodiles, dinosaurs, and birds have four-chambered hearts (as you said, the same as mammals). Makes sense, considering that the branch of dinosaurs is younger than the line most modern reptiles evolved from. The younger the species line the more complex the biology. Hence, four-chambered hearts. You know what...my dog has similar bone structure to any other quadraped you could possibly name, at least it's just as similar as a bird's is to a dinosaur...does that mean that they all dogs evolved from the same quadraped?
You won't like my answer because the answer is YES. Since dogs are a single species of course they all evolved from a single quadraped...the wolf. It's interesting you bring this up, because it shows the link of birds to dinosaurs. Birds and late-therapod dinosaurs are both bipedal!
DNA: Everything has DNA...what's your point? Indeed. I was referring to DNA comparison. Strictly speaking from DNA, the crocodile is more closely related to Aves than to alligators. I'm sure that means little to you however.
In Biology, 1)birds, 2) dinosaurs, and 3) crocodiles make up the group "Archosaurs" under the class of Reptilia. This is a recent change, before birds made up their own class called Aves.
and why did they make that change? Some new evidence? Or just supposition based on their desire for dinosaurs to have evolved into birds. I'm legitimately curious, what new evidence came up that caused them to do that? If any. DNA linking the T-Rex you mention below to birds would be one aspect of the evidence. Everything I've listed is evidence linking birds to therapodal dinosaurs.
It may seem strange to put birds under reptiles, but reptiles aren't really anything specific. It's basically where all the animals that don't fit between fish and mammals go (unless they're amphibian).
Watch a blue-jay skip across a yard and tell me that doesn't remind you of a raptor Okay...it doesn't...at all...it has never even occured to me. Do you know what it means when a bird chirps?
This is what science is all about, replacing old theories with new theories based on evidence garnered using the scientific method. The hypothesis was that organic matter as old as the dinosaurs couldn't be adequately preserved as a fossil. That hypothesis is obviously wrong. Did you notice in that link explaining the T-rex to bird connection?
All very interesting.
As much as I would love to go through and answer all of this right now, my primary research site is down at the moment (actually for the last day or so), and as I am no expert in the field of genetics, I can't go through and take this point by point.
I will say this though about the soft tissue...the hypothesis that organic matter cannot be preserved for millions of years isn't necessarily wrong...you look at something like that and think "well maybe there is a way to preserve it for millions of years" I look at something like that and go "well maybe it's not millions of years old afterall"
It's a simple matter of interpretation of evidence.
Oh...and about transition fossils: I'm fully aware of the fossils that evolutionists rely on to affirm their beliefs...I look at those fossils and have myself a good laugh...at both the number of them, and at the stretches being made.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
i believe in creation. was raised baptist. and i somewhat believe in evolution. i do think animals evolve (sp) to better survive in the world. but i dont believe it goes so far as for us to come from apes.
i believe in creation. was raised baptist. and i somewhat believe in evolution. i do think animals evolve (sp) to better survive in the world. but i dont believe it goes so far as for us to come from apes.
I never understood how you can believe in short-term evolution, but not long-term evolution. If you believe that animals evolve to survive better due to the evidence of the past century or so, imagine the changes that could have occured millions upon millions of years ago. I mean, if you can believe that an animal can loose its hair, gain brain matter, and walk upright to better survive in the world, isn't is more than plausible that we came from apes?
_____________________________________ "Io rido, e rider mio non passa dentro; Io ardo, e l'arsion mia non par di fore." -Machiavelli
i believe in creation. was raised baptist. and i somewhat believe in evolution. i do think animals evolve (sp) to better survive in the world. but i dont believe it goes so far as for us to come from apes.
It's not a matter of having "come from apes". We are apes. Look at yourself in a mirror some day...really look. You sir are a primate. Everything about you from your facial expressions, to your hand, to your social behavior, to your grooming habits (assuming you groom yourself)...
i believe in creation. was raised baptist. and i somewhat believe in evolution. i do think animals evolve (sp) to better survive in the world. but i dont believe it goes so far as for us to come from apes.
I never understood how you can believe in short-term evolution, but not long-term evolution. If you believe that animals evolve to survive better due to the evidence of the past century or so, imagine the changes that could have occured millions upon millions of years ago. I mean, if you can believe that an animal can loose its hair, gain brain matter, and walk upright to better survive in the world, isn't is more than plausible that we came from apes?
I can explain that to you quite easily, because I believe in the same thing.
The problem is, Short-term evolution (which I will henceforth refer to as micro evolution) is a misnomer...micro-evolution refers to speciation and adaptation, something that creationists do not contest. We KNOW that these things exist in nature...Darwin's finches were an example of such "micro evolution" The mutations that result in micro evolution do not add new information to the DNA of an organism, it simply gets switched around. Latent strands of DNA become active, active strands become latent, etc. But something like a reptile growing feathers, does not happen because a reptile does not have the information in its DNA to grow feathers. A reptile can adapt to its environment according to the information in its DNA, it cannot add information into its DNA to "evolve"
Evolution contends that many of these micro evolution mutations over long periods of time cause what is called macro evolution. The problem with this belief is that no matter how many micro evolution mutations occur, no new information is ever added to the DNA. THIS is where creationists and evolutionists don't see eye to eye. Think of it this way, no matter how many times you multiply 0, it's still going to be 0. A reptile can have a billion mutations, none of them will cause it to grow feathers because none of those mutations can add information to its DNA.
Also, creationists don't believe that the Earth is millions upon millions of years old.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
i believe in creation. was raised baptist. and i somewhat believe in evolution. i do think animals evolve (sp) to better survive in the world. but i dont believe it goes so far as for us to come from apes.
It's not a matter of having "come from apes". We are apes. Look at yourself in a mirror some day...really look. You sir are a primate. Everything about you from your facial expressions, to your hand, to your social behavior, to your grooming habits (assuming you groom yourself)...
You is an Ape
Again...you could do that with almost any animal...look at a dog...now look at a cat.
How many differences do they REALLY have on the surface? Their skeletons are similar
Their faces are no more different than a human and an ape's...their social behaviors are similar (both dogs and cats tend to be social creatures in the wild)...hell, even their grooming habbits are the same, they are both constantly licking themselves. The only functional difference that's really visibly apparent between a cat and a dog is a cat's retractable claws.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
The problem is, Short-term evolution (which I will henceforth refer to as micro evolution) is a misnomer...micro-evolution refers to speciation and adaptation, something that creationists do not contest. We KNOW that these things exist in nature...Darwin's finches were an example of such "micro evolution" The mutations that result in micro evolution do not add new information to the DNA of an organism, it simply gets switched around. Latent strands of DNA become active, active strands become latent, etc. But something like a reptile growing feathers, does not happen because a reptile does not have the information in its DNA to grow feathers. A reptile can adapt to its environment according to the information in its DNA, it cannot add information into its DNA to "evolve" Does not "add new information to the DNA of an organism, it simply gets switched around"? And what if it switches a trillion times? Do you know how amino acids work when deciphering all those G's, T's, C's, and A's? If it gets switched around, you'll get completely different codons resulting in radically different amino acids that together can make a shaggy dog give birth to a hairless pup--or if it was done a trillian times, you could eventually get amino acids that could give a dog a scale-type of coating. Do dogs have the DNA coding for scales? No, of course not. But small changes can happen on such a large scale that it eventually gets to that point. Think of a graph that's exponentially increasing at .000000000001. Obviously, it's not going to change much when living at a short point in time, but if you can look at the entire enormous graph, you'll see drastic change--something as drastic as maybe birds coming from dinosaurs.
The problem with a reptile being incapable of growing feathers is slightly unfair. Much like your belief of creation happening all at once, you think that evolutionists think that changes happened all at once. No, a reptile cannot grow feathers, but small changes, such as a reptile slowly starting to gain small hair-like things on their scales, helping them keep warmer in an ice age, could get more and more hair-like folicles, eventually becoming today's feathers on birds. Larger dinosaurs also became smaller birds because, during these ice ages, the larger dinosaurs died out, because it takes a lot more to heat a large dinosaur than a small little bird.
Evolution contends that many of these micro evolution mutations over long periods of time cause what is called macro evolution. The problem with this belief is that no matter how many micro evolution mutations occur, no new information is ever added to the DNA. THIS is where creationists and evolutionists don't see eye to eye. Think of it this way, no matter how many times you multiply 0, it's still going to be 0. A reptile can have a billion mutations, none of them will cause it to grow feathers because none of those mutations can add information to its DNA. Once again, I think you should do some more research on how DNA replication works. It would prove what you're saying about DNA just simply isn't happening. Also, creationists don't believe that the Earth is millions upon millions of years old. While you're doing that research on DNA, try to read up some about carbon dating, argon dating, and etc. and see how scientists know how old some fossils are, and that the Earth simply cannot be around 6,000 years old.
_____________________________________ "Io rido, e rider mio non passa dentro; Io ardo, e l'arsion mia non par di fore." -Machiavelli
Originally posted by Draenor Again...you could do that with almost any animal...look at a dog...now look at a cat. How many differences do they REALLY have on the surface? Their skeletons are similar Their faces are no more different than a human and an ape's...their social behaviors are similar (both dogs and cats tend to be social creatures in the wild)...hell, even their grooming habbits are the same, they are both constantly licking themselves. The only functional difference that's really visibly apparent between a cat and a dog is a cat's retractable claws.
You're not helping your case... You're proving that both cats and dogs, being quadrupeds and mammals, came from a common ancestor long ago.
And about their faces being no more different than a human and an ape's, that is completely untrue. Humans are orthognathic, and like apes, are capable of facial expressions, while dogs and cats have a static face (don't remember the term).
_____________________________________ "Io rido, e rider mio non passa dentro; Io ardo, e l'arsion mia non par di fore." -Machiavelli
The problem is, Short-term evolution (which I will henceforth refer to as micro evolution) is a misnomer...micro-evolution refers to speciation and adaptation, something that creationists do not contest. We KNOW that these things exist in nature...Darwin's finches were an example of such "micro evolution" The mutations that result in micro evolution do not add new information to the DNA of an organism, it simply gets switched around. Latent strands of DNA become active, active strands become latent, etc. But something like a reptile growing feathers, does not happen because a reptile does not have the information in its DNA to grow feathers. A reptile can adapt to its environment according to the information in its DNA, it cannot add information into its DNA to "evolve" Does not "add new information to the DNA of an organism, it simply gets switched around"? And what if it switches a trillion times? Then you'll have the SAME DNA you started with, it'll just be switched around. Do you know how amino acids work when deciphering all those G's, T's, C's, and A's? If it gets switched around, you'll get completely different codons resulting in radically different amino acids that together can make a shaggy dog give birth to a hairless pup--or if it was done a trillian times, you could eventually get amino acids that could give a dog a scale-type of coating. Do dogs have the DNA coding for scales? No, of course not. But small changes can happen on such a large scale that it eventually gets to that point. Think of a graph that's exponentially increasing at .000000000001. Obviously, it's not going to change much when living at a short point in time, but if you can look at the entire enormous graph, you'll see drastic change--something as drastic as maybe birds coming from dinosaurs.
Look bud...if you can find a dog that has a mutation that has allowed it to grow scales, you'll be a rich man...but since it has never happened, and will never happen, you get to be poor for the rest of your life like the rest of us
The problem with a reptile being incapable of growing feathers is slightly unfair. Much like your belief of creation happening all at once, you think that evolutionists think that changes happened all at once. No, a reptile cannot grow feathers, but small changes, such as a reptile slowly starting to gain small hair-like things on their scales, helping them keep warmer in an ice age, could get more and more hair-like folicles, eventually becoming today's feathers on birds. Larger dinosaurs also became smaller birds because, during these ice ages, the larger dinosaurs died out, because it takes a lot more to heat a large dinosaur than a small little bird. No, I don't think that the changes happened all at once...I don't think that they happened at all...it's you that believes that the changes occured at all..and until you can find some piece of real evidence that such a change CAN occur, other than fossils of extinct species' of birds..I'm not buying it. Like I said before, you go out and find a case in which information is added to DNA, and every female evolution scientists will want to sleep with you and give you money. Good luck finding it.
Evolution contends that many of these micro evolution mutations over long periods of time cause what is called macro evolution. The problem with this belief is that no matter how many micro evolution mutations occur, no new information is ever added to the DNA. THIS is where creationists and evolutionists don't see eye to eye. Think of it this way, no matter how many times you multiply 0, it's still going to be 0. A reptile can have a billion mutations, none of them will cause it to grow feathers because none of those mutations can add information to its DNA. Once again, I think you should do some more research on how DNA replication works. It would prove what you're saying about DNA just simply isn't happening.
Once again, I am aware of how DNA works, and I am aware that no matter how many mutations an organism undergoes, it never EVER EVER EVER EVER adds information to the animal's DNA...like I said, I don't care if you have one mutation or trillions, if none of them add information to the DNA, then evolution does NOT occur...you want to go out and prove me wrong, instead of telling me to learn more about it, you go out and find me a case where information was added into DNA during a mutation, and I'll shut up. Just to preempt you: Bacteria immunities are not new information, if they were, we wouldn't even be having this discussion because I would probably be on board with evolutionists.
Also, creationists don't believe that the Earth is millions upon millions of years old. While you're doing that research on DNA, try to read up some about carbon dating, argon dating, and etc. and see how scientists know how old some fossils are, and that the Earth simply cannot be around 6,000 years old. Already done that...maybe you should do some research on accuracy scales, carbon 14 dating, and the consistency with which rocks are dated using radiometrics. Here's a fun one: Why can rocks at the bottom of the grand canyon be dated as younger than the ones at the top when using your precious dating methods? Think it hasn't happened? it has.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Originally posted by Draenor Again...you could do that with almost any animal...look at a dog...now look at a cat. How many differences do they REALLY have on the surface? Their skeletons are similar Their faces are no more different than a human and an ape's...their social behaviors are similar (both dogs and cats tend to be social creatures in the wild)...hell, even their grooming habbits are the same, they are both constantly licking themselves. The only functional difference that's really visibly apparent between a cat and a dog is a cat's retractable claws.
You're not helping your case... You're proving that both cats and dogs, being quadrupeds and mammals, came from a common ancestor long ago.
And about their faces being no more different than a human and an ape's, that is completely untrue. Humans are orthognathic, and like apes, are capable of facial expressions, while dogs and cats have a static face (don't remember the term).
See this is why evolutionists just don't get it.
You want my beliefs to jive with yours, because you believe that cats and dogs started out as the same animal, and just evolved from there...I happen to not believe this...want to talk about promethian species? That's a fun one for evolutionists to deal with. Once again with the cats and dogs though, it's a simple matter of interpretation of evidence. You see humans and apes, you see that they look a little bit similar and you go "hmm...must have come from the same thing" and then in order to rectify that belief, you need to look at every damn quadruped on Earth and go "common anscestor" because they look so similar and have such similar properties.
You want to tell me that dogs can't make facial expressions? Say hello to my dog, Norman:
Clearly Norman can't make facial expressions...give me a break. Anyway, I wasn't referring to facial expressions, you're the one that brought that up...all I said was that humans and apes might have similar facial structures, but so do a lot of animals and we don't go "hmm...that must have come from that animal! You want to get right down to it, a friggen kangaroo has a similar face to a deer...did they come from the same animal too? Oh that kinda throws a wrench in to things doesn't it...seeing as how one is a biped....
The point is...the look of two animal species' faces has nothing to do with whether or not the two animals evolved from one another, as you suggested.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Originally posted by albinofreak The problem with people who dont believe in evolution really comes from the fact that they dont really understand it. I think the South Park episode where Ms Garrison teaches evolution sums it up pretty well: Ms. Garrison: All right, kids, it is now my job to teach you the theory of evolution.
Ms. Garrison: Now I, for one, think evolution is a bunch of *bullcrap*! But I've been told I have to teach it to you anyway. It was thought up by Charles Darwin and it goes something like this...
[she goes up to a large poster of evolution and begins pointing things out with her pointer]
Ms. Garrison: In the beginning, we were all fish. Okay? Swimming around in the water. And then one day a couple of fish had a retard baby, and the retard baby was different, so it got to live. So Retard Fish goes on to make more retard babies, and then one day, a retard baby fish crawled out of the ocean with its...
[she waves her left hand limply]
Ms. Garrison: ...mutant fish hands... and it had butt sex with a squirrel or something and made this.
[she points to a prehistoric mammal rodent]
Ms. Garrison: Retard frog-sqirrel, and then *that* had a retard baby which was a... monkey-fish-frog... And then this monkey-fish-frog had butt sex with that monkey, and that monkey had a mutant retard baby that screwed another monkey... and that made you!
[she faces the class, with the new girl among them looking around]
Ms. Garrison: So there you go! You're the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt sex with a fish-squirrel! Congratulations!
Cartman: [impatient for a Nintendo Wii, hops out of his chair and leaves the room, shouting] Haahhh! I can't take it anymore! Haaaaah!
Ms. Garrison: [thinking Cartman understands evolution] Yeah? You see? I *knew* that would happen.
ROFLMAO!!!!!! Gawd, I haven't laughed so hard in awhile. I hope this is on Youtube or something.
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
The problem is, Short-term evolution (which I will henceforth refer to as micro evolution) is a misnomer...micro-evolution refers to speciation and adaptation, something that creationists do not contest. We KNOW that these things exist in nature...Darwin's finches were an example of such "micro evolution" The mutations that result in micro evolution do not add new information to the DNA of an organism, it simply gets switched around. Latent strands of DNA become active, active strands become latent, etc. But something like a reptile growing feathers, does not happen because a reptile does not have the information in its DNA to grow feathers. A reptile can adapt to its environment according to the information in its DNA, it cannot add information into its DNA to "evolve" Does not "add new information to the DNA of an organism, it simply gets switched around"? And what if it switches a trillion times? Then you'll have the SAME DNA you started with, it'll just be switched around. If you switch around a large multitude of numbers so much, you'll eventually get something that's so completely different that it won't look anything like the same number. Just look at the number 123... If you switch it around to say 321, you've drastically changed the value of the number.
Do you know how amino acids work when deciphering all those G's, T's, C's, and A's? If it gets switched around, you'll get completely different codons resulting in radically different amino acids that together can make a shaggy dog give birth to a hairless pup--or if it was done a trillian times, you could eventually get amino acids that could give a dog a scale-type of coating. Do dogs have the DNA coding for scales? No, of course not. But small changes can happen on such a large scale that it eventually gets to that point. Think of a graph that's exponentially increasing at .000000000001. Obviously, it's not going to change much when living at a short point in time, but if you can look at the entire enormous graph, you'll see drastic change--something as drastic as maybe birds coming from dinosaurs. Look bud...if you can find a dog that has a mutation that has allowed it to grow scales, you'll be a rich man...but since it has never happened, and will never happen, you get to be poor for the rest of your life like the rest of us
First off, it was just hypothetical. Secondly, you can't say it never happened... nothing has been proven otherwise, and I'm sure a dog with scales would have been very poorly adept at surviving, therefore the handful of them that have existed died out.
The problem with a reptile being incapable of growing feathers is slightly unfair. Much like your belief of creation happening all at once, you think that evolutionists think that changes happened all at once. No, a reptile cannot grow feathers, but small changes, such as a reptile slowly starting to gain small hair-like things on their scales, helping them keep warmer in an ice age, could get more and more hair-like folicles, eventually becoming today's feathers on birds. Larger dinosaurs also became smaller birds because, during these ice ages, the larger dinosaurs died out, because it takes a lot more to heat a large dinosaur than a small little bird. No, I don't think that the changes happened all at once...I don't think that they happened at all...it's you that believes that the changes occured at all..and until you can find some piece of real evidence that such a change CAN occur, other than fossils of extinct species' of birds..I'm not buying it. Like I said before, you go out and find a case in which information is added to DNA, and every female evolution scientists will want to sleep with you and give you money. Good luck finding it. I didn't say you think the changes happened all at once, but you act like we're trying to say that they did. Obviously a reptile can't just one day grow feathers... it happens over thousands of millions of years. Some piece of real evidence that such a change can occur? We've found plenty of fragments of evidence and fossils that support it. Find a case in which information is added to DNA? It's called a frameshift mutation, or an insertion. I guess you should call those female "evolution scientists" for me, tell them I'll be waiting.
Evolution contends that many of these micro evolution mutations over long periods of time cause what is called macro evolution. The problem with this belief is that no matter how many micro evolution mutations occur, no new information is ever added to the DNA. THIS is where creationists and evolutionists don't see eye to eye. Think of it this way, no matter how many times you multiply 0, it's still going to be 0. A reptile can have a billion mutations, none of them will cause it to grow feathers because none of those mutations can add information to its DNA. Once again, I think you should do some more research on how DNA replication works. It would prove what you're saying about DNA just simply isn't happening.
Once again, I am aware of how DNA works, and I am aware that no matter how many mutations an organism undergoes, it never EVER EVER EVER EVER adds information to the animal's DNA...like I said, I don't care if you have one mutation or trillions, if none of them add information to the DNA, then evolution does NOT occur...you want to go out and prove me wrong, instead of telling me to learn more about it, you go out and find me a case where information was added into DNA during a mutation, and I'll shut up. Just to preempt you: Bacteria immunities are not new information, if they were, we wouldn't even be having this discussion because I would probably be on board with evolutionists. "never EVER EVER EVER EVER adds information"? Like I said... frameshift mutation and insertion.
Seriously, I don't have time to lecture to you an entire 10th grade biology class to you. If you want to learn what it is you're talking about, go read up on it.
Specifically, "you want to go out and prove me wrong, instead of telling me to learn more about it, you go out and find me a case where information was added into DNA during a mutation, and I'll shut up."
Please do shut up. Also, creationists don't believe that the Earth is millions upon millions of years old. While you're doing that research on DNA, try to read up some about carbon dating, argon dating, and etc. and see how scientists know how old some fossils are, and that the Earth simply cannot be around 6,000 years old. Already done that...maybe you should do some research on accuracy scales, carbon 14 dating, and the consistency with which rocks are dated using radiometrics. Here's a fun one: Why can rocks at the bottom of the grand canyon be dated as younger than the ones at the top when using your precious dating methods? Think it hasn't happened? it has.
Why can rocks at the bottom of the grand canyon be dated as younger than the ones at the top? Because rocks fall down... younger rocks are formed at the top, and fall to the bottom. Also, the grand canyon was formed by a river cutting through it, and water flowing can drastically shift sediments. Once again... please read up on the subject matter before you whip out a few token points that, frankly, have no real grounds.
_____________________________________ "Io rido, e rider mio non passa dentro; Io ardo, e l'arsion mia non par di fore." -Machiavelli
See this is why evolutionists just don't get it. You want my beliefs to jive with yours, because you believe that cats and dogs started out as the same animal, and just evolved from there...I happen to not believe this...want to talk about promethian species? That's a fun one for evolutionists to deal with. Once again with the cats and dogs though, it's a simple matter of interpretation of evidence. You see humans and apes, you see that they look a little bit similar and you go "hmm...must have come from the same thing" and then in order to rectify that belief, you need to look at every damn quadruped on Earth and go "common anscestor" because they look so similar and have such similar properties. "You see humands and apes, you see that they look a little bit similar and you go 'hmmm...must have come from the same thing'." Yes, and then we see that our DNA is almost identical, and we find fossils of australopithecines, neanderthals, homo erectus, and various other species that not only support this theory, it proves it drastically more factual than any other hypothesis out there.
You want to tell me that dogs can't make facial expressions? Say hello to my dog, Norman:
Clearly Norman can't make facial expressions...give me a break. Anyway, I wasn't referring to facial expressions, you're the one that brought that up...all I said was that humans and apes might have similar facial structures, but so do a lot of animals and we don't go "hmm...that must have come from that animal! You want to get right down to it, a friggen kangaroo has a similar face to a deer...did they come from the same animal too? Oh that kinda throws a wrench in to things doesn't it...seeing as how one is a biped.... Humans and apes do have similar facial structures... but you also said that humans and apes have similar facial structures to dogs and cats, which isn't true in the slightest. Sorry to break it to you, but biology deems Norman as incapable to make facial expressions due to the structure of his face. Just because you see his personality doesn't mean it's a physical expression on his face. Those pictures show him in a regular situation, one in which his mouth is open and is panting, and another in which his eyes are slightly closed... facial expression? I don't see any expression, only an open mouth and closed eyes. That being said though, I'm a dog lover, as well.
A kangaroo does have a similar face to a deer. Did they come from the same animal too? Yes, they did. I don't see how that throws a wrench into things seeing as how one is a biped. Apes from the same genus can be bipedal, quadrupedal, verticle leapers and climbers, arboreal, etc. Changes in locomotion tend to be very easy and recent evolutions in species...
Once again, you're proving evolution more with those kinds of arguments. The point is...the look of two animal species' faces has nothing to do with whether or not the two animals evolved from one another, as you suggested. If two animals have the same facial structure, you can see a common ancestor. If you see two people that look a lot alike, say have a chin and cheekbones that look nearly identical, wouldn't you make the conclusion that they were related? If you can make that inference with humans, why not other animals?
_____________________________________ "Io rido, e rider mio non passa dentro; Io ardo, e l'arsion mia non par di fore." -Machiavelli
Originally posted by albinofreak The problem with people who dont believe in evolution really comes from the fact that they dont really understand it. I think the South Park episode where Ms Garrison teaches evolution sums it up pretty well: Ms. Garrison: All right, kids, it is now my job to teach you the theory of evolution.
Ms. Garrison: Now I, for one, think evolution is a bunch of *bullcrap*! But I've been told I have to teach it to you anyway. It was thought up by Charles Darwin and it goes something like this...
[she goes up to a large poster of evolution and begins pointing things out with her pointer]
Ms. Garrison: In the beginning, we were all fish. Okay? Swimming around in the water. And then one day a couple of fish had a retard baby, and the retard baby was different, so it got to live. So Retard Fish goes on to make more retard babies, and then one day, a retard baby fish crawled out of the ocean with its...
[she waves her left hand limply]
Ms. Garrison: ...mutant fish hands... and it had butt sex with a squirrel or something and made this.
[she points to a prehistoric mammal rodent]
Ms. Garrison: Retard frog-sqirrel, and then *that* had a retard baby which was a... monkey-fish-frog... And then this monkey-fish-frog had butt sex with that monkey, and that monkey had a mutant retard baby that screwed another monkey... and that made you!
[she faces the class, with the new girl among them looking around]
Ms. Garrison: So there you go! You're the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt sex with a fish-squirrel! Congratulations!
Cartman: [impatient for a Nintendo Wii, hops out of his chair and leaves the room, shouting] Haahhh! I can't take it anymore! Haaaaah!
Ms. Garrison: [thinking Cartman understands evolution] Yeah? You see? I *knew* that would happen.
ROFLMAO!!!!!! Gawd, I haven't laughed so hard in awhile. I hope this is on Youtube or something.
It is.
And it's even funnier when you hear "Ms." Garrison say it out loud. :P
_____________________________________ "Io rido, e rider mio non passa dentro; Io ardo, e l'arsion mia non par di fore." -Machiavelli
Originally posted by Draenor If somebody has a specific question or issue with creationism, I'll address it..if not, yeah...you all know what I believe.
Why do you scrutinize evolution with arguments that if used against creationism would immediately debunk it? You basically hold evolution to higher standards than creationism. For example, you say we never "observed" macroevolution so somehow that means it's untrue. Something doesn't need to be observed to be proven true. Ever seen a murder trial? No witnesses, yet there is supporting evidence.
Creationists often note that "observation" is a step in the scientific method but neglect to mention that it refers to the initial observation of some situation that needs explanation (say, the diversity of species on earth today). Explaining those observations involves forming a hypothesis and testing its implications with evidence, which does not require literally watching something with eyeballs. How do you think astronomers, geologists, and archaeologists can work? They cannot directly observe ancient history, yet by a logical analysis of historical evidence, reach reliable conclusions about what happened in the past, on the earth and in other parts of the universe. I creationists and your observation demands are so funny because you take everything in the Bible as true without any observation of your own, anyone who lives today or in recent past! Don't tell me "But those diciples saw him do it", because that's hearsay like if I said "the Devil told me to kill her" and someone believed me and wrote it down as truth, then 5000 years later people tell their children about the day the Devil made Alex kill someone. This isn't science, this is storytelling.
First-person observation is not the only or even always the best sort of evidence relevant in science. Overwhelming physical evidence can often be more convincing and reliable than eye-witnesses in history: the same is true in science, only to a far greater degree because of the sheer amount of converging lines of evidence available to cross-check each other.
Now show me the evidence of creationism without any evolution-crutches like saying "This evolutionary theory isn't true so creationism is the only alternative". There are actually many religions that think they are the only alternative the can exist.
Do you have scientific evidence of Adam and Eve? Scientific evidence of the Devil? Scientific evidence of Mary being a virgin or was she ashamed to admit it ? Any Scientific evidence of Christianity being the true religion? Any scientific evidence you present should have gone through the rigorous scientific method.
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
Comments
On Time? On Target? Never Quit?
Honestly for me, what does it matter? Let's say in 50 years we find out XYZ happened... so? Yes I may change my views on the matter but not so much my entire life will be completely alterd, knowing or not knowing of creation or evolution is not at the top of my list... nor is it any where near the middle of the list. Some people want to know, hell some people dedicate their entire life to finding the answer.
From what I see every now and then new evidence is descovered pointing more to evolution then creationism. I don't know if you heard or read about it, but scientist linked Dinosaours to Small birds such as chickens.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/03/06/feathered.dinosaur/index.html
Haven't seen you in awhile, FilipinoFury.
Alot of people forget that the condition of seperate church and state is as much to protect religion from government. Do you really want schools teaching your brand of faith? If the government adopts your faith, then it can also start making changes to it. If a government subsidizes a faith than it can start dictating terms.
And the platypus does not make sense!!!!!!
Indeed. Walk outside sometime and just observe your local birds. They're predatory, they're territorial, they nest, they have light hollow bones like many later dinosaur species. They have four-chambered hearts. They have similar bone structure. And of course... DNA
In Biology, 1)birds, 2) dinosaurs, and 3) crocodiles make up the group "Archosaurs" under the class of Reptilia. This is a recent change, before birds made up their own class called Aves.
It may seem strange to put birds under reptiles, but reptiles aren't really anything specific. It's basically where all the animals that don't fit between fish and mammals go (unless they're amphibian).
Watch a blue-jay skip across a yard and tell me that doesn't remind you of a raptor
----------
Life sucks, buy a helmet.
Indeed. Walk outside sometime and just observe your local birds. They're predatory, they're territorial, they nest, they have light hollow bones like many later dinosaur species. They have four-chambered hearts. They have similar bone structure. And of course... DNA
In Biology, 1)birds, 2) dinosaurs, and 3) crocodiles make up the group "Archosaurs" under the class of Reptilia. This is a recent change, before birds made up their own class called Aves.
It may seem strange to put birds under reptiles, but reptiles aren't really anything specific. It's basically where all the animals that don't fit between fish and mammals go (unless they're amphibian).
Watch a blue-jay skip across a yard and tell me that doesn't remind you of a raptor
Oh I read about it a week or two ago in the Palm Beach Post, maybe they descovered more information on it. I didn't know it was that old of a story, but no matter still quite interesting.
my turn: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html explain that....70 million year old soft tissue huh?
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Well, Draenor, you wouldnt ask that question if you knew how things decomposed. Decomposition occurs when micro-organisms act on a substance. Chances are good that if the T-Rex was fossilized it was probably covered pretty airtight with some sort of material (volcanic ash, heavy rock fall, etc), which could keep the tissue in an airtight compartment. Then once the area around the tissue fossilized it definitely would be airtight, thus keeping the T-Rex tissue in good condition. A similar thing happens with Mastadons and Wooly Mammoths that get frozen. We can get to their tissue just fine, its just damaged from the freeze. Its not living as in... still alive. Its living as in it once belonged to something that was alive, if that was what you're getting at.
As for my beliefs regarding evolution vs. creationism, there really is only one point where divine creation could've occurred, and that is the creation of the first cell. As of yet, we dont know how a cell would be created (though we know how organic molecules can form from inorganic molecules when certain conditions are present), so if you want to stick God into the creation of life thats where you do it. You could also say that a divine being created the universe, dictated its laws, and thus life was created because it derived from those laws.
The problem with people who dont believe in evolution really comes from the fact that they dont really understand it. I think the South Park episode where Ms Garrison teaches evolution sums it up pretty well:
Ms. Garrison: All right, kids, it is now my job to teach you the theory of evolution.
Butters: Oh boy!
Ms. Garrison: Now I, for one, think evolution is a bunch of *bullcrap*! But I've been told I have to teach it to you anyway. It was thought up by Charles Darwin and it goes something like this...
[she goes up to a large poster of evolution and begins pointing things out with her pointer]
Ms. Garrison: In the beginning, we were all fish. Okay? Swimming around in the water. And then one day a couple of fish had a retard baby, and the retard baby was different, so it got to live. So Retard Fish goes on to make more retard babies, and then one day, a retard baby fish crawled out of the ocean with its...
[she waves her left hand limply]
Ms. Garrison: ...mutant fish hands... and it had butt sex with a squirrel or something and made this.
[she points to a prehistoric mammal rodent]
Ms. Garrison: Retard frog-sqirrel, and then *that* had a retard baby which was a... monkey-fish-frog... And then this monkey-fish-frog had butt sex with that monkey, and that monkey had a mutant retard baby that screwed another monkey... and that made you!
[she faces the class, with the new girl among them looking around]
Ms. Garrison: So there you go! You're the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt sex with a fish-squirrel! Congratulations!
Cartman: [impatient for a Nintendo Wii, hops out of his chair and leaves the room, shouting] Haahhh! I can't take it anymore! Haaaaah!
Ms. Garrison: [thinking Cartman understands evolution] Yeah? You see? I *knew* that would happen.
Some people really believe that evolutionists believe that a chimpanzee could give birth to a human and to be honest, if you thought thats what evolution is, who on Earth would believe it? They dont understand that sexual reproduction and genetics result in genetic variety, and environmental stresses mean that certain individuals will survive and reproduce and others will die. This changes the gene pool for that species, along with mutation. You know... every human being has an average of 2.5 mutations (though these are usually on DNA that doesnt do anything).
Then there are people who think the Earth is 6,000 years old. There's really no talking to these people because they dont really possess any form of rational thought.
my turn: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html explain that....70 million year old soft tissue huh?
This is what science is all about, replacing old theories with new theories based on evidence garnered using the scientific method. The hypothesis was that organic matter as old as the dinosaurs couldn't be adequately preserved as a fossil. That hypothesis is obviously wrong. Did you notice in that link explaining the T-rex to bird connection?
All very interesting.
----------
Life sucks, buy a helmet.
An Argument Against Intelligent Design: Why the Watchmaker Was Blind
Scientists are a very interesting group of people. They are intelligent, cunning, and driven. In a way, they are the best treasure hunters in the world. Whether their motive is to share or to horde, scientists make it their life goal to discover a fountain of information. When a new fountain is discovered, it is typical for rival scientists to pick apart the new treasure, and to be skeptical. However, they have one very commendable quality; they are creatures of evidence, and therefore they know what information they need to be proven. Once enough evidence has been presented, the new development will be accepted as a general fact. Such is the story of evolution.
Up until a little more than a century ago, there were two different views on the origin of species. These are evolution and creation. Evolution is very commonly defined as a change in gene frequency over time. Obviously, change has taken place in the universe. The Earth is not the same as it was millions—let alone billions—of years ago. The life forms on it, including humans, are not safe from this series of change (Scott, 265-266). Creation, on the other hand, uses holy scripture to dictate that there is a fixity of species. An example of this would be the story of Genesis from the Bible, where God creates the entire world, as well as mankind (Mayr, 4). As this field of science slowly matured, the evolutionists began growing in numbers, and started forming relatively concrete ideas. Among these were the discovery of unidentifiable fossils and the immensity of the age of the Earth during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (Mayr, 5).
As stated by evolutionary scientist Steven Gould, “Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolutions—paths that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce” (qtd. in Blumberg, 19-34). And then, in 1859, Charles Darwin published the finishing blow to creationism, The Origin of Species. With a hill of evidence, much of which came from the islands of the Galapagos, evolution was now considered a standard among the scientific community (Blumberg, 19-34). We now had evolution to explain why things like bacteria became immune to penicillin, and could therefore understand and treat deadly diseases.
However, despite this scientific landmark, there remains a group of people—roughly estimated to be 44% of adult Americans—who reject this idea even in the face of insurmountable evidence (Scott, 263). Their forerunner is “intelligent design.” This group is made up mostly of religious-literalists, some becoming pseudo-scientists that dedicate their lives to proving evolution wrong. The debates between evolutionists and creationists have been raging with much intensity for over a century. In this essay, I will outline some of the major arguments these proponents of intelligent design, and analyze their inadequacies.
Evolution’s greatest downfall is that it is so controversial. It explains arguably the most important question ever posed by mankind: How did we get here? Not only does it try to accomplish this against the grain of previous beliefs, it does so with a concept that is so highly improbable that it is simply easier to believe in a higher being (Dawkins, 30). In short, natural selection is critiqued as being so improbable that it’s impossible. Creationist beliefs are spawned from the idea that what we see is too complex to have been randomly created by an automated algorithm. They typically fall back on this same fallacious argument that “it looks designed, it must be designed.” This has spawned many infamous phrases and arguments against evolution. These include, for example, astronomer Fred Hoyle’s often-referenced Boeing 747 analogy, in which he explains that the idea of a “spontaneous origin of life is as improbable as a hurricane blowing through a junkyard and having the luck to assemble a Boeing 747” (Dawkins, 30).
However, one could argue that the existence of a higher being—an intelligent designer—is much more the victim of this argument than evolution. A supreme being that can create not only life, but the entire universe, is much more complex and improbable than a miniscule equation of chance played out over millennia (Dawkins, 30). Such ratcheting is the vehicle that brought the first living creature to our current life forms.
Another such example of a famous metaphorical argument for intelligent design was coined by William Paley in his book, Natural Theology — or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity Collected from the Appearances of Nature. In it, he makes the case that if one was to stumble upon a working watch in a remote area, one would not simply speculate that the watch was naturally occurring. With its intricate and complex design, it had to have been created by an unseen watchmaker. In reply, Dawkins wrote The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design. He contested that things like a watch can evolve; early forms are initially created out of necessity, and out of further necessity, they are changed and evolved into the complex thing we have today. Therefore, the driving force wasn’t a pre-seen design, but a present necessity: the watchmaker was blind, not with sight.
Yet another argument opponents to evolution use is that there are too many gaps in the lineage of organisms. While it’s obviously true that not all fossils have been discovered yet and can leave some gaps, it’s also true that some animals simply just don’t leave fossils. Smaller animals’ bone structures are incapable of fossilization due to their make-up. In this case, their entire lineage is a gap, when focusing solely on fossil records (Dawkins, 31). Also, what creationists fail to realize is that this argument, too, hurts their own side than evolutionists’. While there are gaps in records, there also exists evidence between these gaps; creationism holds absolutely no respectable records for intelligent design (Dawkins, 31).
Creationists also refuse to believe in evolution because the idea of being a relative to every single life form, including monkeys, rodents, and insects, is revolting (Dawkins, 31). For thousands of years, humans have always looked for a way to distinguish ourselves from the inferior animals. However, it’s simply ignorant to let a feeling like this have dominance over a rational belief of origin. The way one feels about a topic doesn’t sway its truth in the slightest.
Yet another argument used by creationists is that evolution is merely a theory, and that it doesn’t have enough substantial proof to be considered fact. Thus is one of the most often-recited arguments against teaching evolution in schools. However, there is a difference between a general “theory” and a scientific theory. In general terms, a theory is something that is unproven, or a “hunch.” A scientific theory is fully sound and is supported by evidence and a series of hypotheses, such as the theory of heliocentrism, cell theory, atomic theory, and plate tectonics (all of which, by the way, are typically universally accepted by creationists) (Scott, 264). In fact, the National Academy of Sciences, in 1984, declared that:
Evolution pervades all biological phenomena. To ignore that it occurred or to classify it as a form of dogma is to deprive the student of the most fundamental organizational concept in the biological sciences. No other biological concept has been more extensively tested and more thoroughly corroborated than the evolutionary history of origins (qtd. in Scott, 264).
One of the final, seemingly sound arguments that creationists use is a completely theological one. Basically, they just give up, sit back, and point out the majesty of something so simple yet so beautifully complex. One such example that is usually a “sweet spot” for creationists that fall back on this argument is the eye. How could an eye simply appear? How could we one day, due to a mutation, gain an organ that gives us such an abstract sense like sight? Well, one such explanation could be that humans developed a partial eye, which is better and more adept at survival than having no eye. Scientists have uncovered many species of animals, specifically those that live underwater or in dark caves, that have limited sight from underdeveloped eyes. Also, an evolutionist could turn the question back to the creationist, and ask why a perfect, infinitely complex God would create eyes that are full of flaws, such as a natural blind spot? An omnipotent God would most assuredly be able to make something better when starting from scratch (Blumberg, 19-34).
Despite all the evidence proving evolution, there still exists this relatively large minority of those that disagree. These people hold firm that the universe was created in a brief amount of time and hasn’t changed since. These creationists refuse to accept the wall of evidence that supports the scientific theory of evolution. Their arguments against evolution are trivial at best, and sometimes are actually more detrimental to their own position than to the evolutionists. Some of these proponents of intelligent design have become a type of pseudo-scientist that are actively searching for evidence to prove a divine creation; none has been found, however. The scholarly scientific community still upholds the truth of a change in gene frequency over time. Despite its improbability, it is still more probable than a complex supreme being, and is supported by evidence. Natural selection, it seems, will be the eventual winner, much like heliocentrism is looked at today by the same creationists.
Works Cited
Blumberg, Mark S. Basic Instinct: The Genesis of Behavior. New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press, 2005.
Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design. New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc, 1996.
---. “The Illusion of Design.” Annual Editions: Physical Anthropology, (2007/2008): 30-31.
Mayr, Ernst. What Evolution Is. New York: Basic Books, 2001.
Paley, William. Natural Theology — or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity Collected from the Appearances of Nature. New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 2006.
Scott, Eugene C. “Antievolution and Creationism in the United States.” Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 26 (1997): 263-289.
_____________________________________
"Io rido, e rider mio non passa dentro;
Io ardo, e l'arsion mia non par di fore."
-Machiavelli
my turn: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html explain that....70 million year old soft tissue huh?
This is what science is all about, replacing old theories with new theories based on evidence garnered using the scientific method. The hypothesis was that organic matter as old as the dinosaurs couldn't be adequately preserved as a fossil. That hypothesis is obviously wrong. Did you notice in that link explaining the T-rex to bird connection?
All very interesting.
As much as I would love to go through and answer all of this right now, my primary research site is down at the moment (actually for the last day or so), and as I am no expert in the field of genetics, I can't go through and take this point by point.
I will say this though about the soft tissue...the hypothesis that organic matter cannot be preserved for millions of years isn't necessarily wrong...you look at something like that and think "well maybe there is a way to preserve it for millions of years" I look at something like that and go "well maybe it's not millions of years old afterall"
It's a simple matter of interpretation of evidence.
Oh...and about transition fossils: I'm fully aware of the fossils that evolutionists rely on to affirm their beliefs...I look at those fossils and have myself a good laugh...at both the number of them, and at the stretches being made.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
_____________________________________
"Io rido, e rider mio non passa dentro;
Io ardo, e l'arsion mia non par di fore."
-Machiavelli
You is an Ape
----------
Life sucks, buy a helmet.
I can explain that to you quite easily, because I believe in the same thing.
The problem is, Short-term evolution (which I will henceforth refer to as micro evolution) is a misnomer...micro-evolution refers to speciation and adaptation, something that creationists do not contest. We KNOW that these things exist in nature...Darwin's finches were an example of such "micro evolution" The mutations that result in micro evolution do not add new information to the DNA of an organism, it simply gets switched around. Latent strands of DNA become active, active strands become latent, etc. But something like a reptile growing feathers, does not happen because a reptile does not have the information in its DNA to grow feathers. A reptile can adapt to its environment according to the information in its DNA, it cannot add information into its DNA to "evolve"
Evolution contends that many of these micro evolution mutations over long periods of time cause what is called macro evolution. The problem with this belief is that no matter how many micro evolution mutations occur, no new information is ever added to the DNA. THIS is where creationists and evolutionists don't see eye to eye. Think of it this way, no matter how many times you multiply 0, it's still going to be 0. A reptile can have a billion mutations, none of them will cause it to grow feathers because none of those mutations can add information to its DNA.
Also, creationists don't believe that the Earth is millions upon millions of years old.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
You is an Ape
Again...you could do that with almost any animal...look at a dog...now look at a cat.
How many differences do they REALLY have on the surface? Their skeletons are similar
Their faces are no more different than a human and an ape's...their social behaviors are similar (both dogs and cats tend to be social creatures in the wild)...hell, even their grooming habbits are the same, they are both constantly licking themselves. The only functional difference that's really visibly apparent between a cat and a dog is a cat's retractable claws.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
_____________________________________
"Io rido, e rider mio non passa dentro;
Io ardo, e l'arsion mia non par di fore."
-Machiavelli
And about their faces being no more different than a human and an ape's, that is completely untrue. Humans are orthognathic, and like apes, are capable of facial expressions, while dogs and cats have a static face (don't remember the term).
_____________________________________
"Io rido, e rider mio non passa dentro;
Io ardo, e l'arsion mia non par di fore."
-Machiavelli
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
And about their faces being no more different than a human and an ape's, that is completely untrue. Humans are orthognathic, and like apes, are capable of facial expressions, while dogs and cats have a static face (don't remember the term).
See this is why evolutionists just don't get it.
You want my beliefs to jive with yours, because you believe that cats and dogs started out as the same animal, and just evolved from there...I happen to not believe this...want to talk about promethian species? That's a fun one for evolutionists to deal with. Once again with the cats and dogs though, it's a simple matter of interpretation of evidence. You see humans and apes, you see that they look a little bit similar and you go "hmm...must have come from the same thing" and then in order to rectify that belief, you need to look at every damn quadruped on Earth and go "common anscestor" because they look so similar and have such similar properties.
You want to tell me that dogs can't make facial expressions? Say hello to my dog, Norman:
Clearly Norman can't make facial expressions...give me a break. Anyway, I wasn't referring to facial expressions, you're the one that brought that up...all I said was that humans and apes might have similar facial structures, but so do a lot of animals and we don't go "hmm...that must have come from that animal! You want to get right down to it, a friggen kangaroo has a similar face to a deer...did they come from the same animal too? Oh that kinda throws a wrench in to things doesn't it...seeing as how one is a biped....
The point is...the look of two animal species' faces has nothing to do with whether or not the two animals evolved from one another, as you suggested.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
_____________________________________
"Io rido, e rider mio non passa dentro;
Io ardo, e l'arsion mia non par di fore."
-Machiavelli
_____________________________________
"Io rido, e rider mio non passa dentro;
Io ardo, e l'arsion mia non par di fore."
-Machiavelli
It is.
And it's even funnier when you hear "Ms." Garrison say it out loud. :P
_____________________________________
"Io rido, e rider mio non passa dentro;
Io ardo, e l'arsion mia non par di fore."
-Machiavelli
Why do you scrutinize evolution with arguments that if used against creationism would immediately debunk it? You basically hold evolution to higher standards than creationism. For example, you say we never "observed" macroevolution so somehow that means it's untrue. Something doesn't need to be observed to be proven true. Ever seen a murder trial? No witnesses, yet there is supporting evidence.
Creationists often note that "observation" is a step in the scientific method but neglect to mention that it refers to the initial observation of some situation that needs explanation (say, the diversity of species on earth today). Explaining those observations involves forming a hypothesis and testing its implications with evidence, which does not require literally watching something with eyeballs. How do you think astronomers, geologists, and archaeologists can work? They cannot directly observe ancient history, yet by a logical analysis of historical evidence, reach reliable conclusions about what happened in the past, on the earth and in other parts of the universe. I creationists and your observation demands are so funny because you take everything in the Bible as true without any observation of your own, anyone who lives today or in recent past! Don't tell me "But those diciples saw him do it", because that's hearsay like if I said "the Devil told me to kill her" and someone believed me and wrote it down as truth, then 5000 years later people tell their children about the day the Devil made Alex kill someone. This isn't science, this is storytelling.
First-person observation is not the only or even always the best sort of evidence relevant in science. Overwhelming physical evidence can often be more convincing and reliable than eye-witnesses in history: the same is true in science, only to a far greater degree because of the sheer amount of converging lines of evidence available to cross-check each other.
Now show me the evidence of creationism without any evolution-crutches like saying "This evolutionary theory isn't true so creationism is the only alternative". There are actually many religions that think they are the only alternative the can exist.
Do you have scientific evidence of Adam and Eve? Scientific evidence of the Devil? Scientific evidence of Mary being a virgin or was she ashamed to admit it ? Any Scientific evidence of Christianity being the true religion? Any scientific evidence you present should have gone through the rigorous scientific method.
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American