Creation Vs Evolution

[Guest Davka]

Could you elaborate on the difference between an open and closed system. I was always taught the 2nd law of Thermodynamics was good evidence against evolution and would like more info on why it is not please.

Are you talking about the Big Bang? Because that has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. It's a different branch of science altogether. Astrophysics.

 

The Theory of Evolution deals with how complex life came from simple life, and how complex life forms diverged into different species. It doesn't deal with the origin of the universe, or even the origin of life for that matter. It's about the emergence of life from a simple single-celled form to the myriad of complex forms in the world today. The law of conservation of energy doesn't even come into the picture.

[Legion]

Could you elaborate on the difference between an open and closed system. I was always taught the 2nd law of Thermodynamics was good evidence against evolution and would like more info on why it is not please.

Hey there Uncleamin. I'll take a stab at this.

 

A thermodynamically closed system has no input or output of energy or matter. And they are doomed to "run down" like a watch which has been wound and then left to sit.

 

A thermodynamically open system is has input, output, or both of matter or energy. And these kind of systems can and do create and maintain order.

 

Organisms are thermodynamically open. We are constantly metabolizing.

[Legion]

Davka I thought that was an excellent summary of the scientific process.

[Guest Jdiddy]

Jdiddy I like the idea that someone had (I wish I could remember who) about turning the tables.

 

Let me, kindly I hope, put some pressure on you.

 

Let's throw out and disregard evolution for a moment. To hell with evolution.

 

What is your hypothesis (guess) about how all the various species came to be? And, this is very important, what predictions does this hypothesis make so that we may verify it?

 

I believe that created many different types of creatures with each kind having a unique DNA genome capable of producing many diff variations of that kind, Yet the potential for variation was not infinite but limited and fixed,no new information is ever added through either mutation or recombination of DNA.

no matter how many times you reshuffle the genes of a canine, you cannot produce a line of qualitatively new creatures that become a new kind such as primates.

Okay, but I can't see where you made any predictions. Without predictions we have no way to verify.

 

I am really trying here Jdiddy, but I'm not sure why. Let me stop being so formal for a moment and speak plainly to you.

 

I think when many religious people see the word "evolution" they see that they are being accused of being a "monkey" or "ape". And this offends them.

 

Is this happening with you? Please be honest.

 

srry your right i didnt predict at work, no time at the moment, though i do have a prediction closing at the moment, will have to predict later, no coming from a monkey doesnt offend me in that sense, it does go against what i believe to be true however, will post later tonight if I can.

[Guest Davka]

Davka I thought that was an excellent summary of the scientific process.

Thank you! I live to serve.

 

(At least, that's what my wife says)

[florduh]

coming from a monkey doesnt offend me in that sense

 

You're still misstating it.

 

Nobody claims we came from monkeys!!!!! Again - Nobody claims we came from monkeys!!!!!

 

We both came from a common ancestor! Get it?

You guys like to lie about what evolution is so you can refute moronic statements such as "we came from monkeys." You can't refute (with any evidence) what evolution actually states, so you make up shit.

 

Existing fossil evidence in abundance demonstrates macro-evolution. There are 'missing links' as you like to assert, that aren't missing at all. Micro-evolution is occuring rapidly enough to observe during your lifetime. Misunderstanding and misrepresenting the facts because it challenges your Bronze Age superstition is disingenuous and not worthy of serious discussion.

[Ouroboros]

Question, Do you all believe that things stop evolving?

No, because there are documented cases of new mutations in nature.

[Guest Jdiddy]

Question, Do you all believe that things stop evolving?

No, because there are documented cases of new mutations in nature.

 

Micromutations yes! Macromutations not so much. Noone has seen macro evolution actually occur, are there fossils? sure, is that great evidence? not really, just got done watching a dvd about the subject, and though there are fossils, there is no evidence that the fossil ever gave birth to a baby that was like it. There are lots of mutations that occur, though unlike evolution states most mutations are destructive, not contructive. Can a cockroach become immune over time to pesticide if used over and over again over time? sure, but there are limitations ie: a cockroach will never be immune to a sledge hammer. there are siamese twins, but they havent mutated to where if they had kids they would automatically be siamese twins, and though we might find a fossil of siamese twins several times maybe even thousands of times from throughout history, its not an example of macromutation.

Wikipedia says(first thing i looked up)- macromutation is essentially when a sudden large-scale mutation produces a characteristic. This theory has generally been disregarded as the major explanation for adaptation, since a mutation on this scale is regarded as more likely to be detrimental than beneficial.

 

While macromutations appear to be the only explanation for differences such as the number of body segments among arthropods, at the genetic level where the original change occurs, very few changes to genes may actually be necessary to result in the large physical change. Some genes control other genes and the higher the level of control, the larger the change it can make (see Homeobox). Biologists make a distinction between changes to the genotype, and the resulting body structure resulting from those genes phenotype.

 

For example, polydactyly individuals have a large resulting change in their body structure (extra toes), but can result from a small change in their genotype. This is not the only possible cause of such changes. They can also result from errors during development, but such non-gene changes are not inherited by future generations.

 

Something else to think about here as well, and I am surely not saying that all do this, but there have been several hoaxs that have been perpetrated in the cause of evolution ie: piltdown man, nebraska man, orce man, archaeoraptor, ardipith ecus ramidus to name a few, some of which where in text books for 40 yrs!!! Do you ever stop to think some of these scientist perpetrate these things bc you only get funding for supporting evolution ideas? You know what they want to be the debate? Not over whether creation or evolution is right, but which flavor of evolution is right. How about lets try and find the truth.

 

Paleontologist Robert C in his book "vertabrate Paleontology and Evolution" says "We have no intermediate fossils between rhipsidistian fish and early amphibians" (the theory of land animals evolving from fish)

 

See the Pastuer's law of biogenesis, then look into abiogenesis (life from chemicals combining) is still yet unproven.

 

These are a few of things that I have found, that dont really negate totally evolution, but they are cause for some thought.

 

Im really just starting to delve into evolution and the supporting factors, so I look forward to discussing this over the next few days as time permits.

[Guest Jdiddy]

It was Robert Carroll not just Robert C srry about that. and im not sure how to edit my posts yet on this site.

[Antlerman]

Questions about evolution, not trying to be an ass either just questioning.

 

Why did all the monkeys not mutate into humans? Why do we still have monkeys, is there ever going to be a missing link, half human half money?

 

<snipping out equally ill-informed bad arguments>

The fact you would ask the question about monkeys this way betrays that you in fact have not studied biology, and do not understand what the Theory of Evolution is well enough to be valid in any criticism of it. I won't waste my time arguing points with someone who doesn't understand the theory in the first place.

 

I highly recommend you read this about so-called Creation "Science". http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/creation.htm There is a link at the bottom of each page to go to the next page of it. Creation Science is Fraudulent Science and a Bad Philosophy, as he well puts it.

 

When you finish reading through it, then come back and bring up specific arguments once your understanding of science improves.

[Guest Jdiddy]

Questions about evolution, not trying to be an ass either just questioning.

 

Why did all the monkeys not mutate into humans? Why do we still have monkeys, is there ever going to be a missing link, half human half money?

 

<snipping out equally ill-informed bad arguments>

The fact you would ask the question about monkeys this way betrays that you in fact have not studied biology, and do not understand what the Theory of Evolution is well enough to be valid in any criticism of it. I won't waste my time arguing points with someone who doesn't understand the theory in the first place.

 

I highly recommend you read this about so-called Creation "Science". http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/creation.htm There is a link at the bottom of each page to go to the next page of it. Creation Science is Fraudulent Science and a Bad Philosophy, as he well puts it.

 

When you finish reading through it, then come back and bring up specific arguments once your understanding of science improves.

 

 

Ill be the first to admit i have been misinformed about evolution in the past, but I have learned alot today regarding evolution, and your quote of me from earlier today, well lets just say i see the error in that arguement. I will check out your link tomorrow and look forward to my education in all things evolution, but just curious so far what about the post i just made about all the hoaxes and such? humor me. I mean i cant learn everything in a day right?

[Ouroboros]

Question, Do you all believe that things stop evolving?

No, because there are documented cases of new mutations in nature.

 

Micromutations yes! Macromutations not so much.

Micro makes macro. Very simple.

 

Just like a watch is made from components, which are made from yet other parts. Slowly change the small parts, and components, and eventually you have a new kind of watch.

 

There are no distinct line between what is "macro" and what is "micro". It only means from the "larger perspective" and from the "smaller perspective." And the outside of every living creature on this planet, color, skin, hair, wing, legs, fingers, eye, ears, are all encoded in the DNA. It is proven. Every detail of your physical body is encoded in that string of DNA, except for the amount of cells, ratio, and health of them, because that part depends on life and diet.

 

The whole "micro but not macro" argument is invalid.

 

Language is an example, real and provable, to have evolved from micro to macro as well. Slightly small changes in pronunciation, spelling, grammar, over time, creates new languages. Study linguistics, and you'll know what I mean.

[Ouroboros]

I will check out your link tomorrow and look forward to my education in all things evolution, but just curious so far what about the post i just made about all the hoaxes and such? humor me. I mean i cant learn everything in a day right?

Why would a couple of hoaxed disprove evolution? Especially when other scientists are the ones revealing them as such.

 

Turn the tables for a second, and consider this:

 

Does false Christians disprove Christianity?

 

Well, if a hoax for evolution disprove evolution, then a hoax in Christianity would disprove Christianity. Right?

 

So how many hoaxes do you think we can find in the Christian history? And how many of those were revealed by Christians and how many by scientists?

[ShackledNoMore]

Why did all the monkeys not mutate into humans? Why do we still have monkeys, is there ever going to be a missing link, half human half money?

I think that this has already been well covered as the thread evolved (no pun intended), that man did not evolve from monkeys, from apes, from any other contemporary primates, but rather they evolved from a common ancestor.

 

Why are the clams found on mountain tops of mount Everest that are "dated" to millions of yrs old still look the same as todays clams? After evolving for millions of yrs why no change?

.

.

.

why would a fish that was thought to be extinct for 80 million yrs (Coelacanth that was found off the coast or in a river in Indonesia recently, and still not have evolved above what we already had from fossdil records dated back to 80 million yrs?

Species evolve as a result of evolutionary pressure. The conditions over which an organism or community of organisms must compete for life vary vastly, and therefore some species will naturally evolve more rapidly than others to adapt to the conditions they need to survive. Most mutations makes the individual organism less likely to survive than it's peers. Consider cockroaches. Wildly successful. Little evolutionary change over a long period of time. The cockroach's genetics has served it well.

 

Certain microbes, on the other hand, have not had such an easy road (I know this is micro-evolution here, bear with me as I make an illustration and then address the world of macro-evolution). With the advent of antibiotics, there has been intense pressure on them and they have had to rapidly evolve a resistance to antibiotics in order to survive. This pressure to adapt to the conditions of life is what drives more rapid evolution, and if there is less pressure a particular species then evolution will be slower. Now let's look at something like a flying squirrel, in intermediate state for developing flight. You're trying to escape from a predator. If you're a better glider, you're going to be more suited to escaping predators than your peers and more likely to survive. With continued pressure, in a case like this, to avoid predators, you're going to evolve faster than a well adapted generalist like a cockroach.

 

How old is the world to you guys?

About four and a half billion years old. There is good, solid evidence for this based on decades of rigorous scientific research.

 

If we are constantly evolving then how can you say that the shark has evolved all it needs to to live in its environment?

It has adapted well enough to survive to this point and be successful. If it is to continue to survive, and if it's future environment provides evolutionary pressures, it will need to adapt further.

[Guest Marty]

Hi, I just created this acct upon the urges of a co-worker and friend. I am curious as to how anyone can really believe that gravity is actually fact, and can throw out some reasons why they believe it to be so. I dont want to start a bash fest or anything like that, just a convo in how they believe in gravity, then see how some ppl that are one here might be supporters of intelligent falling science. On a side note I am curious as to why gravity is the only science tought in schools when you really cant factually 100% prove gravity, or intelligent falling, to me both sides should be tought, with neither being right or wrong. It seems to me that gravity takes as much or more faith to believe than god pushing things down to the ground. (just my thoughts)

[Guest Marty]

Yes, I have a college education, been to biology classes etc...

 

...I have not heard about the vitamin C thing, but we all need water, so does every other animal on the planet, does that prove creation or evolution??...

 

 

Why did all the monkeys not mutate into humans? Why do we still have monkeys, is there ever going to be a missing link, half human half money?

 

Why are the clams found on mountain tops of mount Everest that are "dated" to millions of yrs old still look the same as todays clams? After evolving for millions of yrs why no change?

 

0+0=0, 0*0=0, 0/0=0, where can somethng be created without something else being added? At some point something had to be added in order to create the universe right?

 

why would a fish that was thought to be extinct for 80 million yrs (Coelacanth that was found off the coast or in a river in Indonesia recently, and still not have evolved above what we already had from fossdil records dated back to 80 million yrs? Just asking bc i have never seen anything evolve besides behaviors.

 

How could you have taken biology classes and yet still have these kind of questions? I find it hard to believe you could sit through college level biology classes and not have these questions answered...(and not be able to spell "taught").

[florduh]

How could you have taken biology classes and yet still have these kind of questions?

 

You can't.

 

Is it April 1 again already?

[Antlerman]

Something else to think about here as well, and I am surely not saying that all do this, but there have been several hoaxs that have been perpetrated in the cause of evolution ie: piltdown man, nebraska man, orce man, archaeoraptor, ardipith ecus ramidus to name a few, some of which where in text books for 40 yrs!!! Do you ever stop to think some of these scientist perpetrate these things bc you only get funding for supporting evolution ideas? You know what they want to be the debate? Not over whether creation or evolution is right, but which flavor of evolution is right. How about lets try and find the truth.

 

Paleontologist Robert C in his book "vertabrate Paleontology and Evolution" says "We have no intermediate fossils between rhipsidistian fish and early amphibians" (the theory of land animals evolving from fish)

 

See the Pastuer's law of biogenesis, then look into abiogenesis (life from chemicals combining) is still yet unproven.

 

These are a few of things that I have found, that dont really negate totally evolution, but they are cause for some thought.

 

Im really just starting to delve into evolution and the supporting factors, so I look forward to discussing this over the next few days as time permits.

Very well I see. You are hoping to gain some understanding about something you have only learned about through the religious critics of it.

 

Before we begin, I'd like to share a small extract of a favorite quote of mine that illustrates the whole fallacy of these pseudo-scientists who create these fallacious arguments against the science of Evolution, while themselves largely not being scientists. The beauty of this quote is that at the end of the day with the so-called Creation Scientists you have nothing. You do not have an alernative science. All you have this entity that exists solely by virtue of its antagonism towards science. This is an extract from a statement on Evolution from the Botanical Society of America:

Evolution continues to be of paramount usefulness, and so, based on simple pragmatism, scientists use this theory to improve our understanding of the biology of organisms. Over and over again, evolutionary theory has generated predictions that have proven to be true. Any hypothesis that doesn’t prove true is discarded in favor of a new one, and so the component hypotheses of evolutionary theory change as knowledge and understanding grow.

 

<snip>

 

What would the creationist paradigm have done? No telling. Perhaps nothing, because observing three wheat species specially created to feed humans would not have generated any questions that needed answering. No predictions are made, so there is no reason or direction for seeking further knowledge.

This demonstrates the scientific uselessness of creationism.

While creationism explains everything, it offers no understanding beyond, “that’s the way it was created.” No testable predictions can be derived from the creationist explanation.

Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life.

In those few instances where predictions can be inferred from Biblical passages (e.g., groups of related organisms, migration of all animals from the resting place of the ark on Mt. Ararat to their present locations, genetic diversity derived from small founder populations, dispersal ability of organisms in direct proportion to their distance from eastern Turkey),

creationism has been scientifically falsified

.

 

Is it fair or good science education to teach about an unsuccessful, scientifically useless explanation just because it pleases people with a particular religious belief?

Is it unfair to ignore scientifically useless explanations, particularly if they have played no role in the development of modern scientific concepts? Science education is about teaching valid concepts and those that led to the development of new explanations.

 

<snip>

Read the whole quote here: http://www.botany.org/outreach/evolution.php

 

Now as far as hoaxes that have occurred, the quick response to that is that science did its own policing and outed these few unexpected frauds that happened, but the most important point is that you will not find any noted publisher of scientific information that uses these frauds as a basis for their case for evolution. In no way do these few frauds dismantle the case for evolution, and the integrity of the community disallows them being used.

 

However... on the opposite side of the coin, the Creationist side, you will find frauds and misinformation continue to be used all the time to build their case for an early age of the earth, or other such unsupportable claims. Dinosaur tracks along side man's in Texas has been thoroughly debunked and falsified, yet it continues to be held up as support for their beliefs. That is not just the action of one, but of an entire community. It is fraud at the highest levels.

 

 

To head off at the pass here the obersvation that science has made errors, thereby suggesting a calling into question of its veracity as a system of knowledge, I'd like to direct you to read this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html Here's the opening paragraphs to whet your appetite:

Scientific creationism differs from conventional science in numerous and substantial ways. One obvious difference is the way scientists and creationists deal with error.

 

Science is wedded, at least in principle, to the evidence. Creationism is unabashedly wedded to doctrine, as evidenced by the statements of belief required by various creationist organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationists. Because creationism is first and foremost a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. Authoritarian systems like creationism tend to instill in their adherents a peculiar view of truth.

 

Many prominent creationists apparently have the same view of truth as political radicals: whatever advances the cause is true, whatever damages the cause is false. From this viewpoint, errors should be covered up where possible and only acknowledged when failure to do so threatens greater damage to the cause. If colleagues spread errors, it is better not to criticize them publicly. Better to have followers deceived than to have them question the legitimacy of their leaders. In science, fame accrues to those who overturn errors. In dogmatic systems, one who unnecessarily exposes an error to the public is a traitor or an apostate.

 

Ironically, creationists make much of scientific errors. The "Nebraska Man" fiasco, where the tooth of an extinct peccary was misidentified as belonging to a primitive human, is ubiquitous in creationist literature and debate presentations. So is the "Piltdown Man" hoax. Indeed, creationist propagandists often present these two scientific errors as characteristic of paleoanthropology.

It is significant that these errors were uncovered and corrected from within the scientific community. In contrast, creationists rarely expose their own errors, and they sometimes fail to correct them when others expose them.

 

Another think I'd like to share is the types of logical and argument fallacies that are consistently used by Creationists to support themselves with. One of the more prominent is their use of "Quote Mining" of real scientists to support their views. You can read about that here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html

 

You may wish to spend time at that whole site as it is a wealth of information about this subject for you: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html

 

 

 

Happy reading, and I hope this helps you some.

[Guest Jdiddy]

How could you have taken biology classes and yet still have these kind of questions?

 

You can't.

 

Is it April 1 again already?

 

 

I went to a christian college! *shock and horror!* *gasp* All they ever talked about was the shortcomings of evolution, but didnt teach it so much. (prolly should have told you guys that right?) Though in public school bio they crammed it down our throats, albeit rather clumsily as i am finding out lol. So thats where im coming from. I now understand evolutions thoughts on a common ancestor guys enough with the friggin monkeys post, i have evolved since then (im sure you all like that) lol.

 

ps everyone makes typos.

 

I have more questions for you guys, but they will have to wait, got to get ready for church

 

Happy Fathers day to everyone.

[Antlerman]

We over-posted, and was hoping you saw my response to you above this one.

[Ouroboros]

Micromutations yes! Macromutations not so much. Noone has seen macro evolution actually occur, are there fossils?

(I didn't answer the other things you said, so I'm going at your post a second time)

 

No, it's hard to see macro evolution in real live action, because it takes a very long time, longer that several generations of people, so it's not something you just study.

 

But macro is a natural continuation of micro. Micro is when you have small changes, while macro is when you have a huge amount of micro changes. So logically, macro must follow from micro.

 

 

sure, is that great evidence? not really, just got done watching a dvd about the subject, and though there are fossils, there is no evidence that the fossil ever gave birth to a baby that was like it. There are lots of mutations that occur, though unlike evolution states most mutations are destructive, not contructive.

And there are a lot of neutral mutations. The idea here is that a mutation in itself is not destructive or constructive in itself, but all mutations are neutral and depending on situation and environment they will either beneficial or not. And some mutations are both.

 

If I recall this right, hemochromatosis is a genetic defect. It is inherited from parent to child. So first of all, we must conclude that it is a mutation, since not all people got it, and if Adam or Even had it, we most likely would see the majority of people in the world have it too. So it's a fairly late dysfunctional genetic mutation. Okay, so it's a sickness, and for people to survive it, they need regular phlebotomy (bloodletting).

 

The interesting part is that a number of people have this disease in Europe. And scientists believe the reason why the number is much higher in Europe than the rest of the world is that a HFE person have more resistance to the plague!

 

I just read in the science article I have that C282Y mutation arose about 1500 to 1000 years ago. And that the regions where the plague hit the hardest have the highest per capital HFE people.

 

So it's easy to conclude, mutations can be both bad and good, simultaneous.

 

Can a cockroach become immune over time to pesticide if used over and over again over time? sure, but there are limitations ie: a cockroach will never be immune to a sledge hammer.

Kind of stupid argument. Sorry. Of course there are things no creature can evolve to become resistant against. No one can be resistant to disaster. We can't evolve to become anti-gravity-pixies. We can't evolve to become black hole resistant. And we can't evolve into beings who travel backwards in time while we spin our thumbs.

 

You do know about the problems with flu and antibiotics etc? The new resistant strains the evolve? It's a fact, and a real and present danger in our world.

 

there are siamese twins, but they havent mutated to where if they had kids they would automatically be siamese twins, and though we might find a fossil of siamese twins several times maybe even thousands of times from throughout history, its not an example of macromutation.

Siamese twins are not caused by a mutation. It's not a genetic defect in that sense. It's more related to problems during the pregnancy, that the two bodies merge early in the process. So it's a bad example.

 

Wikipedia says(first thing i looked up)- macromutation is essentially when a sudden large-scale mutation produces a characteristic. This theory has generally been disregarded as the major explanation for adaptation, since a mutation on this scale is regarded as more likely to be detrimental than beneficial.

Sounds odd.

 

Oh, I see where you go wrong. There are another concept called "macromutation" and another concept called "macro evolution", those two are different things.

 

This is Macroevolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_evolution

This is your Macromutation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macromutation

 

Yes, Macromutation has been disregarded, while Macroevolution has not. Macroevolution is when many micromutations occur.

 

Read this part again: "Most biologists believe that adaptation occurs through the accumulation of small changes, such as the slight differences between parents and their children, some of which can result from mutations. However, an alternative that has been suggested for this process is macromutation..."

 

In other words, your quote about macromutation is about contrasting macroevolution with macromutation.

 

While macromutations appear to be the only explanation for differences such as the number of body segments among arthropods, at the genetic level where the original change occurs, very few changes to genes may actually be necessary to result in the large physical change. Some genes control other genes and the higher the level of control, the larger the change it can make (see Homeobox). Biologists make a distinction between changes to the genotype, and the resulting body structure resulting from those genes phenotype.

 

For example, polydactyly individuals have a large resulting change in their body structure (extra toes), but can result from a small change in their genotype. This is not the only possible cause of such changes. They can also result from errors during development, but such non-gene changes are not inherited by future generations.

Well, see above.

 

Something else to think about here as well, and I am surely not saying that all do this, but there have been several hoaxs that have been perpetrated in the cause of evolution ie: piltdown man, nebraska man, orce man, archaeoraptor, ardipith ecus ramidus to name a few, some of which where in text books for 40 yrs!!! Do you ever stop to think some of these scientist perpetrate these things bc you only get funding for supporting evolution ideas? You know what they want to be the debate? Not over whether creation or evolution is right, but which flavor of evolution is right. How about lets try and find the truth.

How do we find the truth?

 

1) By prayer? Listen and trust our pastor? Read the Bible? Roll the dice? Plant a dead herring under the oak tree during full moon and chant an Anya song?

 

Or

 

2) By studies, examinations, reasoning, scientific experiments, discussion, changing our view, changing the theories when they're wrong, come up with new theories, test them, check, double check, study again, and do more experiments?

 

Oh, I know the answer: criticize scientists and then pray to God for truth, and then change the laws an outlaw evolution.

 

Paleontologist Robert C in his book "vertabrate Paleontology and Evolution" says "We have no intermediate fossils between rhipsidistian fish and early amphibians" (the theory of land animals evolving from fish)

Is that the one they found last year? I can't remember the name of it, but when I do, I'll get you the article.

 

See the Pastuer's law of biogenesis, then look into abiogenesis (life from chemicals combining) is still yet unproven.

Yes, that's true.

 

But meanwhile, people here will complain because usually there's a slight difference between abiogenesis and evolution. Yes, Evolution requires abiogenesis, or any other method of starting life, but... Evolution in itself is really more about how life evolves, not how life came to be. And this is why there are Christians, Jews, and others, who believe that God created the first life, and then Evolution took place. Evolution as a tool in God's hands. So Evolution does not require a natural abiogenesis to be true in itself.

[Guest Davka]

I went to a christian college! *shock and horror!* *gasp* All they ever talked about was the shortcomings of evolution, but didnt teach it so much. (prolly should have told you guys that right?)

OK, that explains a whole lot. I'll try to be more patient with you, but you need to make a promise in return:

 

If you really want to learn what evolutionary theory says (as opposed to what Creationists claim evolutionary theory says), then you need to read the explanations we're giving very carefully. It's a lot of work to type out all this information, so please respect that and take the time to examine what we are saying. Try to respond to each point we are making, without pulling out a ton of "what about this argument against evolution?" questions all at once. All of those questions are answerable, but when you post a dozen at a time it makes it seem like you don't really want the answers, you just want to argue. So, one anti-evolution argument at a time, please.

 

I will also suggest that you check out this website: Evolution 101. It will answer a lot of basic questions about what the theory actually says.

 

Thank you for your consideration.

[Guest Davka]

We can't evolve to become black hole resistant. And we can't evolve into beings who travel backwards in time while we spin our thumbs.

Damn - there go my summer vacation plans!

[Ouroboros]

Damn - there go my summer vacation plans!

I wish I could evolve into a money-making-machine. And I tried eating coins and bills, but I just get constipated. I don't know. Something must be wrong with Evolution since it doesn't work.

[Insanity personified]

I went to a christian college! *shock and horror!* *gasp* All they ever talked about was the shortcomings of evolution, but didnt teach it so much.

 

This explains it.

 

LOLchristiancollegesLOL