Evolution and Creationism

[Syron]

Actually, I realy can't be bothered with this, think what you want. Shall we get back to the specifics of evoltion.

[Hunt57]

I'd get involved in this conversation as I am pretty well versed in evolution and phylogeny, but since Syron has taken up an obvious "straw man" position, I'll save myself the annoyance.

When crustaceans rule the world... :wack

[KingOfTheIsles]

As soon as we make a specific evolution thread, we stop talking about evolution. :mad

[Syron]

I'd get involved in this conversation as I am pretty well versed in evolution and phylogeny, but since Syron has taken up an obvious "straw man" position, I'll save myself the annoyance.

When crustaceans rule the world...

I've taken up a straw man position? If you look at the definition of the straw man position, that is exactly what the other side is doing. The whole reason why I said it's pointless talking about the "advanced" nature of humanity is that i've gotten a succession of comments that seem to be bringing up things I've already said, thats why i can't be bothered with it it's not a straw man position, look into it before you start going around making accusations. In fact, is your last comment not in a way a straw man position? Or are you the kind of person who gets annoyed at something and then promptly do it yourself?

I didn't say stop talking about evolution, I said that we should start it and not talking about some stupid superiority contest, read what i say before you say that. i will happily converse with you about your theories about evolution, I simply am not going to waste my precious time that I have on the net (because of modem trouble) talking about something where others are ignoring what i'm saying. Get your facts straight before you walk into a discussion, which btw you have still to make any constructive comment in.

[Portuguese Rebel]

First of all i would like to say that Evolution and the existance of God are not alternatives in the sense theistic fundamentalists want it to be. In fact, the theory of evolution says NOTHING regarding the existance or inexistance of a god or gods.

Most supporters of the theory of evolution are god believers. Evolution is not, like i've see written on numerous occasions, an atheist theory. Scientific theories are never atheist or theist by nature. They assume from the start that no divine intervention has taken place during observations and don't use the "god factor" in their making. This does not imply that there is no god.

Also I would like to say that scientifically this is a dead question, no matter how many times i've seen sentences like these in creationist site on the internet and on american fundamentalist publications:

"Scientists are questioning evolution"
"Evolution is being abandoned by scientists"
"Evolution has been disproven"
"Scientists accept micro-evolution but not macro-evolution"
"Dr. [insert unqualified and/or fake scientist here] trashes evolution"


This is simply a flat out lie. but don't take my word for it. Just buy reputed scientific magazines and take a look at the biology articles. The theory of evolution is THE basis for all biological work concerning Natural History. Is that not enough? Go to Yahoo chatrooms and find Biology. Enter and ask for qualifications of the people there and what do they think about the theory of evolution.

Buy a scientific book on evolution and then compare it with an anti-evolution publication. With today's scientific knowlage, the only thing that keeps people from accepting/understanding evolution is their religious view of the world and the fact that they feel somewhat insulted by the propect of being just another animal and not the center in the creation of the universe.

[LegionnaireX]

First of all i would like to say that Evolution and the existance of God are not alternatives in the sense theistic fundamentalists want it to be. In fact, the theory of evolution says NOTHING regarding the existance or inexistance of a god or gods.

Actually it does very much so. Evolution is meant to prove that we need no creator. That life and the universe could have sprouted out of a hole in "nothing land" without a creator.

Most supporters of the theory of evolution are god believers.

Are you going to back this up with any statistics? I'm fairly certain that most theists are creationists.

Also I would like to say that scientifically this is a dead question,

I'm afraid not. Evolution is far from proven. There are many solid arguements against evolution. I have tried to present some but I must be incapable of doing so because of my age. If you are going to tell me that I kiss a Gods ******, than I must say that you kiss atheistic-evolutions ******. If you are going to tell me to read an evolution textbook, than I want you to read a creationism book. Its fair that way.

This is simply a flat out lie.

How? How do you know it is. Share some "lies" with us.

[KingOfTheIsles]

Actually it does very much so. Evolution is meant to prove that we need no creator. That life and the universe could have sprouted out of a hole in "nothing land" without a creator.

No it doesn't. We still don't know how the first life was created, there is a theory, but that is different to evolution. Evolution on it's own does NOT prove that there is no creator.

Are you going to back this up with any statistics? I'm fairly certain that most theists are creationists.

Most theists may well be creationists, but that is different from most backers of evolution believing in God. Think about it.

I'm afraid not. Evolution is far from proven. There are many solid arguements against evolution. I have tried to present some but I must be incapable of doing so because of my age. If you are going to tell me that I kiss a Gods ******, than I must say that you kiss atheistic-evolutions ******. If you are going to tell me to read an evolution textbook, than I want you to read a creationism book. Its fair that way.

I have read a creationist book, called the Bible. I didn't care for it very much. Too much of this "God" fellow. :smile There are arguments against evolution, but most are clearly wrong, and are vastly outnumbered by the points for evolution.

[glorfindel87]

Originally posted by Portuguese Rebel@Sep 18 2004, 07:18 AM

Most supporters of the theory of evolution are god believers.

That is absurd. To believe in evolution but believe in god is really insane. What is the "god" for any way if he does nothing and did nothing? But then again evolution is absurd and I suppose that those who believe it are the same. I agree with the falsity of some of those "Creationists" statements, some of them anyway. For starters, scientists are questioning evolution, but they have been doing that for years. Thats not news. Evolution is sadly not being abandoned by scientists. Evolution has been disproven on many of its points. I agree with the scientists here: to believe in macro-evolution would make them more absurd than they are now.

[KingOfTheIsles]

That is absurd. To believe in evolution but believe in god is really insane. What is the "god" for any way if he does nothing and did nothing?

He may have created the Universe, and the first single-celled organism, and then let evolution happen. It is not insane at all.

For starters, scientists are questioning evolution, but they have been doing that for years. Thats not news. Evolution is sadly not being abandoned by scientists. Evolution has been disproven on many of its points. I agree with the scientists here: to believe in macro-evolution would make them more absurd than they are now.

Are you gonna give facts, or just make random, general statements with no point, let alone evidence?

[Syron]

Originally posted by glorfindel87+Sep 18 2004, 07:58 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td> (glorfindel87 @ Sep 18 2004, 07:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Portuguese Rebel@Sep 18 2004, 07:18 AM

Most supporters of the theory of evolution are god believers.

That is absurd. To believe in evolution but believe in god is really insane. What is the "god" for any way if he does nothing and did nothing? But then again evolution is absurd and I suppose that those who believe it are the same. I agree with the falsity of some of those "Creationists" statements, some of them anyway. For starters, scientists are questioning evolution, but they have been doing that for years. Thats not news. Evolution is sadly not being abandoned by scientists. Evolution has been disproven on many of its points. I agree with the scientists here: to believe in macro-evolution would make them more absurd than they are now. [/b][/quote]
I know quite a few christians that believe in evolution and god, they are not technically incompatible ideas. In fact you know one too, the pope! Evolution has not been disproved on any points as any scientist to do so would be as famous as darwin (i think this has already been said), and I'd ask you to back up what you said with actual cases. Evolution is only absurd if you don't understand it.

[LegionnaireX]

I know of a few websites that show flaws in evolution. They are a bit biased but thats what you'll find on any evolution/creationism website. Here they are:

www.DarwinismRefuted.com

This one shars a load of info. It is creationist.

www.Big-Bang-Theory.com/

Then one shows the imporbability and near impossibility of evolution. Creationist, while not as biased.

www.Evolution-Facts.org

Shares a ****** load of info concerning the problems in evolution.

[Erik]

Originally posted by glorfindel87@Sep 18 2004, 07:58 AM
For starters, scientists are questioning evolution, but they have been doing that for years. Thats not news. Evolution is sadly not being abandoned by scientists. Evolution has been disproven on many of its points. I agree with the scientists here: to believe in macro-evolution would make them more absurd than they are now.

Scientists question everything, thats what makes them scientists!
In science there are always a few scientists that dont beleive the current theories, but the vast majority of scientists support the current evolution theory at least in big lines.

There are however a lot of people CLAIMING to be scientists, who want to prove evolution wrong out of religious reasons.
They might (or might not) have a degree in something, but they dont apply scientific method to their 'studies' so you should not consider them scientists.

You should also note that the current evolution theory isn't the same Darwin's theory, There have been revisions to it, just like with any other scientific theory. and there might still be some revisions to come, science isn't static (like religion), but ever trying to improve. Religious people like to point out the flauws in the original theory, but all flauws have been corrected already.

[Wild Bill Kelso]

Originally posted by legionaireX@Sep 18 2004, 10:09 PM
I know of a few websites that show flaws in evolution. They are a bit biased but thats what you'll find on any evolution/creationism website. Here they are:

www.DarwinismRefuted.com

yes this site is very flawed. All one has to do is read things like this

"The genetic laws discovered by Mendel proved very damaging to the theory of evolution."

So Darwin didnt know that traits are transferred by genes? How does this hurt the theory of evolution? The traits are still passed from one generation to the next.

After reading this I dont want to waste my time with the rest of this site.

[Syron]

I'd like you to actually present some of these "falacies" yourself and see if you actually understand evolutionary theory. Not one of the those sites actually gives any shred of evidence that such theories are wrong, the most they say is that the theories may be slighly innaccurate, perhaps you should read the sites before quoting them.

I'd be the first to say that some parts of evoltionary theory maybe innaccurate such as the specifics of the natural selection process, that in no way makes it completely wrong. There are many scientist out there who want to prove Darwin wrong, not because they don't like the theory as these sites seem to suggest but because they'll be immortalised if they actually find that the theory isn't completely correct.

Scientific ideas adapt and change according to new evidence, saying that because there are new ideas that everything that came before is totally wrong is completely missing the point.

Edit: The mendel thing is exactly why i'd ask people to put foreward ideas themselves instead of just posting a site, Mendels experiments proved there was a biological basis for evolutionary theory, just because Darwin didn't know there were genes doesn't mean it doesn't support what he said. Theories evolve and change, but are only accepted as such when there is actually evidence such as Mendels.

[LegionnaireX]

I am only 12 and have limited knowledge on evolution. I can't make a sophisticated arguement against it as of now. But I know enough about it to know that it is far from proven, and the fossil record evidence is dubious at best. The theory does not rest on a giant bolder. Its rests on a thin thread waiting to be broken. Evolution is an attempt to explain our beginnings with out a creator, just like Genisis is an attemped to explain our beginning by the Creator.

Human Evolution: The Legacy of the Fossil Evidence

Human evolution has many issues, including the realities of genetics, biochemistry, design theory, irreducible complexity, DNA structure, and information systems. However, the reality of the human fossil record alone is enough to reject the theory of human evolution all together. Here are just a few of the major problems with the alleged fossil record of the past century:

Ramapithecus was widely recognized as a direct ancestor of humans. It is now established that he was merely an extinct type of orangutan.

Piltdown man was hyped as the missing link in publications for over 40 years. He was a fraud based on a human skull cap and an orangutan's jaw.

Nebraska man was a fraud based on a single tooth of a rare type of pig.

Java man was based on sketchy evidence of a femur, skull cap and three teeth found within a wide area over a one year period. It turns out the bones were found in an area of human remains, and now the femur is considered human and the skull cap from a large ape.

Neandertal man was traditionally depicted as a stooped ape-man. It is now accepted that the alleged posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind.

Human Evolution: The Current Tree

Human evolution has its currently fashionable specimens that lead from small ape-like creatures to Homo sapiens. These are examples of the most recent alleged links:

Australopithecus afarensis, or "Lucy," has been considered a missing link for years. However, studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have shown that she was merely a pygmy chimpanzee that walked a bit more upright than some other apes. She was not on her way to becoming human.
Homo erectus has been found throughout the world. He is smaller than the average human of today, with a proportionately smaller head and brain cavity. However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that he was just like current Homo sapiens. Remains are found throughout the world in the same proximity to remains of ordinary humans, suggesting coexistence. Australopithecus africanus and Peking man were presented as ape-men missing links for years, but are now both considered Homo erectus.
Homo habilis is now generally considered to be comprised of pieces of various other types of creatures, such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus, and is not generally viewed as a valid classification.

Human Evolution: The Most Recent Find
In July 2002, anthropologists announced the discovery of a skull in Chad with "an unusual mixture of primitive and humanlike features." The find was dubbed "Toumai" (the name give to children in Chad born close to the dry season) and was immediately hailed as "the earliest member of the human family found so far." By October 2002, a number of scientists went on record to criticize the premature claim -- declaring that the discovery is merely the fossil of an ape.

Human Evolution: The Theory Has No Support in the Fossil Record
Human evolution is a theory in denial. With all of this fossil evidence (or lack thereof) it becomes increasingly clear to an earnest seeker that human evolution did not happen at all.

yes this site is very flawed. All one has to do is read things like this

"The genetic laws discovered by Mendel proved very damaging to the theory of evolution."

So Darwin didnt know that traits could be transferred by genes? How does this hurt the theory of evolution? The traits are still passed from one generation to the next.

After reading this I dont want to waste my time with the rest of this site.

Genetics don't allow for series of random mutations, which randomly spread throughout a population, which end up creating a totally new species with a different body structure and different organs. It just makes no sense. A frog has a completely different structure than a fish. And what allows a fish to genetically mutate into a frog. It is un-needed and unneccessary for this to occur.

Not one of the those sites actually gives any shred of evidence that such theories are wrong, the most they say is that the theories may be slighly innaccurate, perhaps you should read the sites before quoting them.

I've read those sites front and back! They clearly state that evolution has very little true evidence to back it up. They go on to say that it is based upon assumptions and that evolutionists bend new research to fit the evolutionary tree. Evolution has little evidence. The fossil record just comfirms this.

[Erik]

this is from legonairs 'unbiast' www.Evolution-Facts.org

Someone will ask, �But what are the evidences that Creationism is true?� There are two.

First, the only alternative is clearly disproved by a massive amount of findings.

Second,�and if possible �even more solid, we have the very existence of everything about us! Whether it be the whirling of electrons in the atom, the orbit of our world which mysteriously does not decay and crash us into the sun, or the existence of a living creature.

Can anyone, viewing a hummingbird in action and knowing that all its hundreds of organs are packed inside something the size of a marble, believe the myth that, way back, it originated when a lightning bolt hit some dirty seawater?

Come now, not even a four-year-old would believe that one.

Not evolution, but a creative act of God brought everything into existence.

1st The 'massive amount of finding' were not included, so I wont comment on that.

2nd This proves how little these people know about evolution, they think everything was evolved in ONE instance? I thought that was the creationist idea, i thought evolution ment things were created over millions of years?
Even a four-year-old would not beleive everything can be created in one instance... and this is an argument AGAINST evolution? :devil

[KingOfTheIsles]

If humans didn't evolve from apes, how come scientists keep mistaking ape fossils for human ones? It would seem that some scientists can't tell the difference between them, which says to me that we must be related. The absence of a missing link doesn't invalidate the theory.

[Erik]

Originally posted by Wild Bill Kelso@Sep 18 2004, 08:20 AM
"The genetic laws discovered by Mendel proved very damaging to the theory of evolution."

Yes, lets trust this nazi, he must be real smart, killing thousands of innocent jews in auswitch.

[Erik]

Originally posted by legionaireX@Sep 18 2004, 08:37 AM
Genetics don't allow for series of random mutations, which randomly spread throughout a population, which end up creating a totally new species with a different body structure and different organs. It just makes no sense. A frog has a completely different structure than a fish. And what allows a fish to genetically mutate into a frog. It is un-needed and unneccessary for this to occur.

Genetics DOES allow for random mutations.
Random mutation occur all the time, due to radiation, chemicals, or just plain errors in copying.

If random mutations didn't occur bacteria would not be able to evolve (and they are shown to do)
Also, random mutaions are the cause of cancer.

[Wild Bill Kelso]

Originally posted by legionaireX@Sep 18 2004, 10:37 PM
Genetics don't allow for series of random mutations, which randomly spread throughout a population, which end up creating a totally new species with a different body structure and different organs. It just makes no sense. A frog has a completely different structure than a fish. And what allows a fish to genetically mutate into a frog. It is un-needed and unneccessary for this to occur.

Good this is the kind of thing you should be posting to support your ideas! Much better than simply posting a bunch of words written by someone else. This is how you have an active debate, everyone please take notice :

Now my respone to your comment;

Genetics is a mechanism of transfer, think of it like a car taking the same people from A to B. Now, even though most of the time the car takes the same person again and again to the same place, there is no rule saying that the car cannot stop half way, with the driver getting out and a new driver getting in. Now when the car arrives to place B there will be a different person in the car. How is this analogy related to Genetics? Please read below.



Now lets imagine we are looking at the cells developing in a embryo (at a very early stage). At this stage the embryonic cells are dividing at an increbdible rate. Now lets focus on the first cell that will diverge to form the future reproductive areas and liver of the organism. We will look into the nucleas of this cell and watch as the DNA of this cell is bieng copied. DNA transcription is not a flawless process, even though during DNA replication there are enzymes looking for transcription errors ( basically the amino acid sequence is incorrect) and usually find them, there are rare instances when they dont. This is a mutation. Say this mutation will alter the activity a protien produced by the liver in some way. Now perhaps the mutation will not significanlty alter the protiens funtion, but perhaps it will. Since this mutation will also be transfered to the gametes of this organism, the future offspring of this organism will also have the mutation. Usually such mutations can lead to the organisms death as the protien needed for its survival is now damaged, but occasionally it will not and the ogansim may actually have an advantage. This organism now has a differnt genetic compliment than that of the genes passed down to it from its parents. Thats the beauty of DNA, you never know when a mutation will occur.

If as you say, genetics does not allow for random mutations, than all bacterial infections would have been destroyed by penicilin. Unfortunatly for us, mutations occur rapidly in bacterial cells, allowing for daughter cells to be resistant to an anti-biotic while the parent cell was not

If anyone can see a flaw in my logic please point it out. I think I covered my basis but one can never be sure. :

Cheers

WBK


EDIT.. Darn you Erik you beat me to it :p