Macroevolution examples

Supporters of Creationism believe that there are no example(s) of Macroevolution - put simply most supporters of creationism don't believe that living things have become more complex over time. This is a broad generalisation but it will fit most peoples understanding of the concepts.

From Wikipedia:

Some Creationists have also adopted the term "macroevolution" to describe the form of evolution that they reject. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species ("microevolution"), but deny that one species can evolve into another ("macroevolution"). These arguments are rejected by mainstream science, which holds that there is ample evidence that macroevolution has occurred in the past

Basically when creationists use "macroevolution" they mean "evolution which we object to on theological grounds", and by "microevolution" they mean "evolution we either cannot deny, or which is acceptable on theological grounds".

There are several examples that prove common ancestory (something creationists don't generally believe in) and this is simply the idea that different animals share the same common origin so for example all dogs and all cats share a common ancestor.

Creationists have a bit of a probem though when evolutionary science predicts and proves parts of macroevolution.

Example 1: Endogenous retroiviruses.

Endogenous retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. Basically what happens is that a virus leaves some of its Genetic material (DNA) inside the genome of the animal infected. This bit of genetic code becomes part of that animals genome (its own genetic code) and is passed on - especially if it is an egg or sperm cell.

Us Humans can have as much as 1% of our genome made up of these old viruses. This means we are carrying around about 30,000+ of these old virus artifacts. As this genetic material is passed on for many years it can provide a clear line of descent.

Guess which other animals share the same virus sequences as us?

From Monkeys to Humans we all have the same Virus DNA
The attached pictures shows how particular virus (HERV-K) code has been found in several primates from Monkeys to Humans. This is strong evidence for a common ancestry as the genetic material is the same after being passed on from the original infection.

Cats provide another example.

The small cats (e.g. the jungle cat, European wildcat, African wildcat, blackfooted cat, and domestic cat) share a specific retroviral gene insertion. All of these 'small' cats evolved later and broke away from the larger cats. Only these small cats share the same virus dna (retrogene)

In contrast, all other carnivores which have been tested lack this retrogene.

I am trying to make this accessible by the way so that the majority of people interested in understanding these facts will be able to with some limited scientific knowledge.

If anyone thinks I'm dumbing anything down then I'm sorry - I just want as many people to understand the implications of such scientific evidence.

Allow me to join Delta's admirable attempt to 'dumb things down' concerning evolution and address the single most common criticism I hear in these kinds of threads.

*clears throat*

Don't listen to creationists who thrive on misrepresenting the scientific perspective in an attempt to cloud the waters of debate. No one is claiming we evolved from apes - we evolved from a common ancestor!


Sorry, I had to get that out of my system, everytime I hear some yokel get uppity and proclaim "I didn't come from no monkey!" I just wanna puke.

Be patient Delta, I'm sure someone will be a long shortly with links and quotes from, I dunno, Paula Abdul to illustrate in detail just how wrong you are. :D

"And God said to Peter: I shall make monkey and I shall make man and never the two shall interbreed, until the age of extreme fetishist internet pornography"

Oxford Professor of Theology, Paula Abdul

bravo delta9! :thumbsup:

Talk Reason: arguments against creationism, intelligent design, and religious apologetics

delta 9 uk:

Quote:

---

Supporters of Creationism believe that there are no example(s) of Macroevolution - put simply most supporters of creationism don't believe that living things have become more complex over time. This is a broad generalisation but it will fit most peoples understanding of the concepts.

From Wikipedia:
Some Creationists have also adopted the term "macroevolution" to describe the form of evolution that they reject. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species ("microevolution"), but deny that one species can evolve into another ("macroevolution"). These arguments are rejected by mainstream science, which holds that there is ample evidence that macroevolution has occurred in the past
Basically when creationists use "macroevolution" they mean "evolution which we object to on theological grounds", and by "microevolution" they mean "evolution we either cannot deny, or which is acceptable on theological grounds".

---

That's just slander. There are detailed scientific differences between macro and microevolution. They are two different processes. completely different. One is a natural part of life, and one is nonexistant and has never been observed. Oh and by the way, creationists didn't invent either term. That would be self defeatist. The evolutionists infented the terms and when we point out that they're totally different, they don't like that.

Macroevolution - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Quote:

---

According to Talk.Origins, the terms macroevolution and microevolution were first used by evolutionary Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko in a German-language book in 1927, and were introduced to English-speaking biological community in 1937 by Filipchenko's former student Theodosius Dobzhansky. They have continued to be used by evolutionists, although many evolutionists argue that there is no real difference between the two terms. However, the terms appear to be used much more by creationists than evolutionists, probably leading to the false belief held by many evolutionists that creationists invented the term.

---

On herv's Human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs)—evolutionary “junk” or God’s tools? :

Quote:

---

Contrary to being â??junkâ?� DNA, HERVs are thought to play at least three major roles. One role is to control the regulation of genes (the expression of proteins from genes).1 Members of the HERV-K family are typically found in areas near genes.1 The regulatory role of HERVs has been demonstrated in the liver, placenta, colon, and other locations.1 It was recently reported that an endogenous retrovirus in sheep was necessary for maintaining pregnancy, as it was important in the formation of the placenta.3 HERVs also play a role in disease, and have been linked to various cancers and male infertility.1

How do biblical creationists view the roles of HERVs?
Obviously, there is no problem understanding that HERVs have roles in regulating genes (a God-designed function) and causing disease (due to mutations in HERVs as a result of the Fall). It has been suggested that HERVs and other transposable elements played a role in rapid genetic changes that occurred post-Flood to allow humans and animals to adapt to different environments, as suggested by the AGEing (altruistic genetic elements) mechanism.5 One article states, â??Whether these repeated sequences [referring to transposable elements] are now â??junk DNAâ?? is a complex issue.â?�4 Biblical creationists do not think that HERVs are â??junkâ?� DNA, but much work needs to be done to gain a greater understanding of the role of HERVs in the past and present. The difference is our starting pointâ??the Word of God versus the word of man.

---

Quote:

---

Cats provide another example.

The small cats (e.g. the jungle cat, European wildcat, African wildcat, blackfooted cat, and domestic cat) share a specific retroviral gene insertion. All of these 'small' cats evolved later and broke away from the larger cats. Only these small cats share the same virus dna (retrogene)
In contrast, all other carnivores which have been tested lack this retrogene.

---

This is microevolution. Not increase in information. This is genetic variability. Creationists believe in this. They believe all cats came from a common anscestor - a cat. They don't believe that cats and dogs came from a common anscestor - that's magical fantasy land.

Except it's not a "retroviral gene insertion". (what an imaginative name was made up there) As a side note, it's commonly understood that when animals breed different characteristics and become more specialized they can have a loss of genetic information. I think it's possible this may be the case with thie cats as well. There are other possibilites perhaps.

Rubbish

It shows clear common descent and you don't like it.

You ignored what this post is about.

I'm too busy to argue with someone like you today.

LMAO you post a link to CreationWiki and your genesis website again....

Dude, give it up - the rest of the scientific community has it covered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

This is microevolution. Not increase in information. This is genetic variability. Creationists believe in this. They believe all cats came from a common anscestor - a cat. They don't believe that cats and dogs came from a common anscestor - that's magical fantasy land.

---

Read it properly or I will no longer respect your ability to cut and paste something ever again! I was giving another example of HERV-K insertion and how they are passed down.

READ MORE - POST LESS

This is common descent another really good example.

Nobody liked my link? :(

Quote:

---

Read it properly or I will no longer respect your ability to cut and paste something ever again! I was giving another example of HERV-K insertion and how they are passed down.

READ MORE - POST LESS

This is common descent another really good example.

---

I know what you were doing. You conclusion is based upon the already made assumption that " Endogenous retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. ". You state this like a fact when it's not a fact at all.

What orginally was hastilly and foolishly called junk dna by evolutionists, after research there has been more and more functions found for these so called useless remnants. It's alot like the old vestigial organs myth. Over 100 organs were pronounced useless leftovers of evolution. This was once a popular idea for evolution, but as it turns out, the list of vestigial organs has shrunk to almost nothing.

You're blinded by your pressupposition. It looks like humans and some primates have the same "junk" dna but you fail to consider that they're not junk at all, and they serve a common purpose created by a common design.

So it's similar with the cat arguement. It could be argued that they both had the dna but when the larger cats became more spe cialized they lost that information. Or maybe there's another reason why.

We're dealing with a topic that is one of the most incredibly complicated of all sciences. I don't even come close to understand all of the technical data and terms and no doubt neither do you.

There are four major kinds of junk DNA:

introns, internal segments in genes that are removed at the RNA level;

pseudogenes, genes inactivated by an insertion or deletion;

satellite sequences, tandem arrays of short repeats; and

interspersed repeats, which are longer repetitive sequences mostly derived from mobile DNA elements.


Some of the now known functions of what was once thought useless are genome structure and function, gene regulation and rapid speciation.

Here are some ideas of what the dna might be also. They don't rule out the possibility that there is some truly junk dna, but not like evolutionists think of it, but rather as previously useful dna that has been affected by mutations. But there is still much work to be done in weeding out the working dna that currently serves a purpose with the other stuff.

Quote:

---

All non-coding sequences could have been created with functions, but some have lost their functions due to Godâ??s purposeful limitations, and/or accumulation of mutations post-Fall. This would fit in with our observation of the rest of creation, where, though the perfection of Godâ??s design can be seen, it has become obscured by consequences of the Fall, allowing death and suffering to enter the world.

There is the possibility that some of the elements, such as the mobile elements in particular, have never had designed functions. Rather, they are pieces of degenerate DNA affected by the Fall that randomly move about and mutate genomes, causing only deleterious effects.

....The ability of DNA sequences to rearrange and/or to move about in the genome or even between genomes, was originally a heretical idea for both evolutionist and creationist, but now is one that is strongly supported as being an integral part of gene regulation. Many systems utilizing similar recombination and rearrangement mechanisms are necessary for important cellular functions, such as the process of DNA repair, rearrangement of DNA segments to form the genes for the thousands of different antibodies, the yeast mating type switching system, the flagellar switching system of Salmonella, and the antigen switching system of the malaria parasite. Therefore, the second scenario seems the most likely.

---

So no, it's not established as a fact that " Endogenous retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. " And it shows how far you're willing to go to believe in evolution. The evidence is showing more and more that the genome is more complex than we ever expected.

Quote:

---

The evolutionary claim that pseudogenes and their respective variations are shared between primates in a nested hierarchy, and can only be explained through common evolutionary descent, is found wanting. Evidence for pseudogene function continues to accumulate, and is much more significant than the actual number of known functional pseudogenes. In addition, pseudogene-related phenomena show considerable differences between â??closeâ?? primates, and are neither self-consistent nor in agreement with other phylogenetic interpretations. Furthermore, pseudogene deployment and alteration are governed by strongly non-random events. Unless evolutionists can rigorously demonstrate that pseudogene-related phenomena cannot occur independently in different primates, their â??shared mistakesâ?? argument should be rejected.

---

Are pseudogenes ‘shared mistakes’ between primate genomes?

Quote:

---

"And God said to Peter: I shall make monkey and I shall make man and never the two shall interbreed, until the age of extreme fetishist internet pornography"

Oxford Professor of Theology, Paula Abdul

---

Heehee! Now all she needs is her own www.answersfrompaula.org site and voila! Instant credibility! :D

blue devil said:

Quote:

---

Quote:
"And God said to Peter: I shall make monkey and I shall make man and never the two shall interbreed, until the age of extreme fetishist internet pornography"

Oxford Professor of Theology, Paula Abdul

Heehee! Now all she needs is her own www.answersfrompaula.org site and voila! Instant credibility!

---

Quote:

---

Character assassination

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Character assasination)
Jump to: navigation, search

Character assassination is an intentional attempt to influence the portrayal or reputation of a particular person, whether living or a historical personage, in such a way as to cause others to develop an extremely negative, unethical or unappealing perception of him or her. By its nature, it involves deliberate exaggeration or manipulation of facts to present an untrue picture of the targeted person. For living individuals, this can cause the target to be rejected by his or her community, family, or members of his or her living or work environment. Such acts are typically very difficult to reverse or rectify, therefore the process is likened to a literal assassination of a human life. The damage sustained can be life-long and more, or for historical personages, last for many centuries after their death.

In practice, character assassination usually consists of the spreading of rumors and deliberate misinformation on topics relating to one's morals, integrity, and reputation.

In politics, perhaps the most common form of character assassination is the spread of allegations that a candidate is a liar. Other common themes may include allegations that the candidate is a bad or unpopular member of his family, has a bad relationship with his spouse or children, is disrespected by his former co-workers, or routinely engages in disturbing, socially unacceptable behavior, such as sexual deviancy.

---

It's amazing to hear most people speak of the Theory of Evolution as if it were a Law. Scientists have found bone fragments from Aust. Afarensis, Aust. Gigantus, Homo Habilis, Homo Sapien-Sapien, etc.

But it seems that no one finds things that are between species. Isn't that odd?

If A morphs into B, wouldn't we find more A.1, A.2, A.3... than either A.0 or B.0?

And this theory doesn't even make sense on the face. For example, the theory says that certain species have qualities about them that enable them to "win out" over their rival species. So, then we say, well what are those qualities. We look at the ones that survive and say, "Yes, these are the qualities."

So basically, the theory of evolution says the ones that survive are the ones who have the qualities of the ones that survived.

This is a tautology. It means nothing.

But find anyone who tries to go against this Theory-cum-Law and they are cast as the anti-scientist.

No proof of evolution exists. It's just a matter of opinion.

The fact that the fossil record indicates that many life forms have become extinct does not support evolution. The fossil record just proves that many life forms have become extinct. The idea that some of the life forms are similar in some ways is not surprising. However, this similarity does not mean one is the progenitor of the other.

The problem is that most people carry the theory of evolution to an extreme. Like the autobiogenisis idea and the idea that evolution is always toward a better more complex animal.

Autobiogenisis is against the natural laws of this particular universe. Autobiogenisis requires that organic life, the most organized matter in our universe, originated from less organized matter. This idea is not science but rather is wishful thinking.

Autobiogenisis by random chance would require more time than a few billions of years. This is why the world of science is clutching desparately at the notion that life must have come from outer space. But even with this "pie in the sky" idea there is not sufficient time involved to turn chaos into life. The everything from nothing or "big bang" idea doesn't help evolution it just adds to the wishful thinking.

The idea that the theory of evolution dictates that as organisms evolve they gain complexity is just plain not contained in the theory. Evolution theory says that as the environment changes the oganisims evolve adaptations and the best adaptation survives. This does not mean that this adaptation is more complex but rather only better for suvival in that particular environment.

The missing link debates are premature at this point because the theory of evolution has so far failed to justify it's own exsistance, scientifically.

You wouldn't necessarily find 'between-species' remnants, for lots of reasons. One, there may not *be* such things. Evolutionary change may happen quickly and dramatically. Mutation results in beneficial alteration, that increases survival trait. Say, binocular vision. If said mutation is inherited, and it significantly increases chance of survival, it will spread rapidly, and before long, there won't be any members left with monocular vision. And there might not be any intermediary steps, like 1.5-eyed creatures.

Secondly, when you're talking about the size of the planet, and millions of years of time, not a whole lot remains that we *can* see, just from the sheer wasting effects of weather and natural events over immense spans of time. We get to see the minute fraction of what survives in the geologic record from such distant times, surely not even one one hundredth of one percent of what was actually there.

And random chance doesn't necessarily 'require more time than a few billions of years'. Let's say you have 1000 6-sided dice and you roll them. What are the odds that they will all come up 6's? 6^1000 power, or 1.4166e+778 to 1 against it. Okay, pretty darned unlikely. However, it's just as likely to happen the very first roll of the dice as it is on the twelve trillionth time, or whatever. Obviously, the more rolls the greater the likelihood that it will happen (and reaching *certainty* that it will happen eventually, given enough time), but nothing at all says that something unlikely cannot happen quickly, even immediately. That's random chance for you -- you just never know when it will happen. That's what makes it random.

Also, you're thinking about this in a myopic kind of way. While it's not necessarily likely that a few billions of years would result in the random chance that begins life *on any particular planet*, there are trillions of stars, maybe more, with probably quadrillions or quintillions of planets and all of them got billions of years of rolling the dice too. So if it only happens on one planet out of a billion, because the odds are low, even so, there are a whole lotta planets. Could be we got one of the lucky rolls of the dice. I've seen no evidence to the contrary, anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Marsh Wiggle

But it seems that no one finds things that are between species. Isn't that odd?.

---

Not at all. If it is different enough to merit 'between' status, it is different enough to merit naming as a separate species... I have never understood this argument.
Creationists more than anyone else should undertand the concept that if you haven't found proof of something yet, doesn't mean it isn't/wasn't ever there... :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Marsh Wiggle

The problem is that most people carry the theory of evolution to an extreme. Like the autobiogenisis idea and the idea that evolution is always toward a better more complex animal.

---

Evolution doesn't always make a good progression. Someone mentioned how a rabbit has to eat it's own turds to properly get the nutrients.

BTW, couch-potato, I liked your link up there - thanks! I got absorbed in it for about an hour; some fascinating stuff there. Especially the monumental amount of evidence, coming from many fields, from all different directions, that supports the 'common ancestor' theory. Whoever wrote that even included things that would *invalidate* evolutionary theory...if such things existed.

Most interesting, I thought, was the stuff about human tails, and how there was an example of a family who had tails, which was passed on through three generations. Obviously we did have an ancestor, evolutionarily-speaking, that had a tail. And even now, when we have evolved past the point of needing the tail, sometimes it still pops up, even for multiple generations.

Also interesting was the stuff about eyes, and how mammalian eyes with their blind spot are defective compared to the eyes that cephalapods evolved, which do not have the blind spot. There's no reason for us to have that defect, except that our evolutionary ancestors had that same blind spot and passed it on to us, whereas the cephalapods evolved along a different branch and did it a little bit better.

Very good and meticulously-researched article, that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

I know what you were doing. You conclusion is based upon the already made assumption that " Endogenous retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. ". You state this like a fact when it's not a fact at all.

---

Show me a scientific journal that says otherwise.

I studied these, retroviruses in particular - especially HIV and HERV-K. HERV-K has been active very recently (past 100,000 years or so) in our genome.

Other virus remnants are MILLIONS of years old - but that doesn't fit your ideas either now, does it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

What orginally was hastilly and foolishly called junk dna by evolutionists, after research there has been more and more functions found for these so called useless remnants. It's alot like the old vestigial organs myth. Over 100 organs were pronounced useless leftovers of evolution. This was once a popular idea for evolution, but as it turns out, the list of vestigial organs has shrunk to almost nothing.

---

Well that's utter rubbish - there are loads of examples in the animal and plant kingdoms.

For those who don't know Vestigal Organs are left-over remnants from previous stages in evolution. There are many examples from Humans with tails (from our primate days) to leg bones of whales (as they evolved from land mammals) and all manner of much harder to spot remnants.

Creationists have a hard time with this as you can well imagine.

Here's a list of "Almost Nothing"

Ostrich Wings

Atavisms like Whales with Hind Legs
or Humans with tails!

wings in earwigs

I could go on but its just getting boring. There are molecular examples too. You know it and I know it.

Well, I know it ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

You're blinded by your pressupposition. It looks like humans and some primates have the same "junk" dna but you fail to consider that they're not junk at all, and they serve a common purpose created by a common design.

---

Keywords: Kettle, Black, Calling, Pot

I didn't say it was junk - I said it was retroviral DNA. HIV does the same thing - I didn't study 2 years of Virology for nothing.

My pressupposition doesn't exist - it's in your head.

That DNA did serve a purpose, for a Virus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

So it's similar with the cat arguement. It could be argued that they both had the dna but when the larger cats became more specialized they lost that information. Or maybe there's another reason why.

---

Well, they were just a couple of examples - I'm sure you could come up with "maybe's" for all of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

We're dealing with a topic that is one of the most incredibly complicated of all sciences. I don't even come close to understand all of the technical data and terms and no doubt neither do you.

---

Well, sorry to burst your bubble but I DO, remember I have a degree in this stuff - you have a creationist website. To be honest - it isn't THAT complicated - only if you don't like the results and have to make up something to fit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

There are four major kinds of junk DNA:.....

---

I know all this and you can copy and paste as much as you like from answersingenesis but it WILL NOT convince anyone that YOU know it, or that any of it is based on non-biased evidence.

Besides you don't know what you are talking about as Introns are not junk DNA, a non-coding sequence isn't junk.

More creationist twaddle and pseudo-science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

Here are some ideas of what the dna might be also. They don't rule out the possibility that there is some truly junk dna, but not like evolutionists think of it, but rather as previously useful dna that has been affected by mutations. But there is still much work to be done in weeding out the working dna that currently serves a purpose with the other stuff.

---

So let's just pretend that its not retroviral DNA then and say God put it there and then evolution went and ruined it with mutation. Makes perfect sense..... :wtf:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

So no, it's not established as a fact that " Endogenous retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. " And it shows how far you're willing to go to believe in evolution. The evidence is showing more and more that the genome is more complex than we ever expected.

---

LOL, this really is silly now. Endo-genous retro-virus - That sort of literally tells you what it means...

They ARE viruses IT IS A FACT and there is a shitload of science to back it up. A couple of French chaps even made one in the Lab last year - be sure :thumbsup:

I don't need to "believe in evolution" - this doesn't require faith.

You on the other hand offer NO EVIDENCE of your claim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta9 UK

I don't need to "believe in evolution" - this doesn't require faith..

---

A brilliant end to a very very good post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Marsh Wiggle

The missing link debates are premature at this point because the theory of evolution has so far failed to justify it's own exsistance, scientifically.

---

Read this - save some time:
Arguments creationists should not use - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Here's a couple for you too nature:

Quote:

---

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Straw man argument)
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the logical fallacy. For other uses, see Straw man (disambiguation).

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

---

and

Quote:

---

Pseudoscience is any body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific or is made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the basic requirements of the scientific method.[2][3][4][5]

The term pseudoscience is based on the Greek root pseudo- (false or pretending) and science (derived from Latin scientia, meaning knowledge). The first recorded use was in 1843 by French physiologist François Magendie[1] considered a pioneer in experimental physiology.

The term has negative connotations, because it is used to indicate that subjects so labeled are inaccurately or deceptively portrayed as science.[6] Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating a "pseudoscience" normally reject this classification.

As it is taught in certain introductory science classes, pseudoscience is any subject that appears superficially to be scientific or whose proponents state is scientific but nevertheless contravenes the testability requirement, or substantially deviates from other fundamental aspects of the scientific method.[7] Professor Paul DeHart Hurd[8] argued that a large part of gaining scientific literacy is being able to distinguish science from pseudo-science such as astrology, eugenics, quackery, the occult, and superstition.[9] Certain introductory survey classes in science take careful pains to delineate the objections scientists and skeptics have to practices that make direct claims contradicted by the scientific discipline in question.[10]

Beyond the initial introductory analyses offered in science classes, there is some epistemological disagreement about whether it is possible to distinguish "science" from "pseudoscience" in a reliable and objective way.[11]

Pseudosciences may be characterised by the use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims, over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation, lack of openness to testing by other experts, and a lack of progress in theory development.

---

----

Your hero and his website have nullified their own credibility just fine without my help, I'm happy to say. Does this mean I can look forward to you acknowledging the questions I provided about Mortenson? Feel free to refute any of what I wrote there if you're feeling up to it, I am really interested to hear how having a Phd in history of geology qualifies anyone to lambast others across the multiple fields that comprise evolutionary science. All that I ask is you leave the circular-reasoning at the door, quoting AiG as supporting evidence doesn't work if AiG validity itself is in question. But then I'm sure you'd provide just another YEC website... *yawn*

I digress - I just think it's funny that you keep quoting data from them as valid proof for your positions, when they're anything but valid or proof.

Quote:

---

I don't need to "believe in evolution" - this doesn't require faith..

---

Quite so and well said. :thumbsup:

Lol, I just finished reading some of the theocratic BS over on Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics. Very entertaining!

I like especially how they recommend you argue science with evolutionists: first, get them to accept that the Bible in general, and Genesis in particular, are the literal truth. (E.g., that the world isn't billions of years old, just a few thousand, and was created in 6 days, blah blah blah.)

This statement was also enlightening: "Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christiansâ?? presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts."

Translation: "Our 'science' rests on the foundation of first assuming that everything written in the Bible is the literal truth." Well, gee, that's a convenient tack to take. So, no real facts or observations to support stuff, just...the Bible. In other words, if you accept that I'm right and you're wrong first, *then* we can argue. ROFL!

That ain't science. But if you wanna get high by huffing on logic errors, that place is really entertaining!

I'm also not entirely sure they believe what they preach (and make no mistake, there's far more preaching going on there than anything one might mistake for science). The site is clearly a money-making enterprise, and they wouldn't be the first folks to want to tap into Christian gullibility and rake in some easy bucks by telling (and selling) a subset of the populace exactly what they want to hear, however distorted or downright incorrect it may be.

Quote:

---

Lol, I just finished reading some of the theocratic BS over on Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics. Very entertaining!

---

Good stuff huh? :D I still can't get over the gall it requires to have a 'statement of faith' like...

Quote:

---

"No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."

---

..and then still expect to be taken seriously!

Chritians acknoledge they have a presuppositions they take to the evidence. Evolutionists don't. That is a fallacy.

If slandering a person who's worked hard to learn more about geology then you ever will makes you feel better, i suppose that's what you'll do blue devil.

Yes, evolution does require faith. You are in severe error if you don'tr recognise that. It requires believe that all those bones in the ground had intermediate evolutionary offspring. It requires belief to come to the conclusion that the earth formed by a big band and life formed from non organic chemicals. You wern't there. You can't say for a fact it happened. Anything that cannot be observed with empirical science from the beggining to the end to establish the results is relegated to the area of belief.


delta 9uk said:

Quote:

---

Show me a scientific journal that says otherwise.

---

Oh you mean from the evolutionary dominated media?

Quote:

---

I studied these, retroviruses in particular - especially HIV and HERV-K. HERV-K has been active very recently (past 100,000 years or so) in our genome.

---

so what if it has? That doesn't mean anything. You'd be suprised what mutations can do.

Quote:

---

Other virus remnants are MILLIONS of years old - but that doesn't fit your ideas either now, does it?

---

This is a total assumption based on your belief system. It's just total garbage. How do they know how old it is? carbon dating?? ha. Carbon dating can only be used up to about 100,000 years if I remember correctly.

Quote:

---

Well that's utter rubbish - there are loads of examples in the animal and plant kingdoms.

For those who don't know Vestigal Organs are left-over remnants from previous stages in evolution. There are many examples from Humans with tails (from our primate days) to leg bones of whales (as they evolved from land mammals) and all manner of much harder to spot remnants.

Creationists have a hard time with this as you can well imagine.

Here's a list of "Almost Nothing"

Ostrich Wings

Atavisms like Whales with Hind Legs
or Humans with tails!

wings in earwigs

---

these have all been proven erronious. They've programmed you so well, you won't even reject thier indoctrination when they've discarded it themselves.

And I'll use answersingenesis as much as I want. Its just character assasination and it's an attempt to slander me and my resources of information to shut me down without even attempting to approach an argument.

Quote:

---

I could go on but its just getting boring. There are molecular examples too. You know it and I know it.

---

No there's arn't.

Quote:

---

I didn't say it was junk - I said it was retroviral DNA. HIV does the same thing - I didn't study 2 years of Virology for nothing.

---

I don't care if you do or not. The four categories I mentioned are all according to evolutionists labeled junk dna, the earliest example being the pseudogenes by a asian scientist back in around1972.

Quote:

---

That DNA did serve a purpose, for a Virus.

---

non proven assumption.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
We're dealing with a topic that is one of the most incredibly complicated of all sciences. I don't even come close to understand all of the technical data and terms and no doubt neither do you.

---

Well, sorry to burst your bubble but I DO, remember I have a degree in this stuff - you have a creationist website. To be honest - it isn't THAT complicated - only if you don't like the results and have to make up something to fit.

---

You may have a degree in that stuff, but you're no mr. Crick.

Quote:

---

They ARE viruses IT IS A FACT and there is a shitload of science to back it up. A couple of French chaps even made one in the Lab last year - be sure

---

No it's not a fact. And you can't prove it. no else has. Even if they did make one so what. It only proves it can be created by intelligent design, nothing more. It reminds me of the deceptive
miller urey experiment.

Quote:

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Marsh Wiggle

The missing link debates are premature at this point because the theory of evolution has so far failed to justify it's own exsistance, scientifically.

Read this - save some time:
Arguments creationists should not use - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

---

Actually he's right by defenition evolution isn't even a theory.

Quote:

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Marsh Wiggle
But it seems that no one finds things that are between species. Isn't that odd?.

stinkyattic said:

Not at all. If it is different enough to merit 'between' status, it is different enough to merit naming as a separate species... I have never understood this argument.
Creationists more than anyone else should undertand the concept that if you haven't found proof of something yet, doesn't mean it isn't/wasn't ever there...

---

When Darwin was alive he said that the lack of transitional fossils was the biggest weakness for his idea of evolution. But there was still a lot of work to be done in the field of archeology. But now after over a hundred years we have huge and huge amounts of bones, but there is virtually no intermediate fossils. Even Gould himself said that this was paleontologies "trade secret".

Most people who believe in evolution are completely ignorant of this. The truth is there should be massive amounts of transitionary fossil. Where are they? I think they're asking the wrong question. Because they don't exist.

Jamstigator said:

Quote:

---

Secondly, when you're talking about the size of the planet, and millions of years of time, not a whole lot remains that we *can* see, just from the sheer wasting effects of weather and natural events over immense spans of time. We get to see the minute fraction of what survives in the geologic record from such distant times, surely not even one one hundredth of one percent of what was actually there.

---

You've exposed one of the biggest challanges to the lack of anthropologic evidence jamstigator. You're right the natural enviroment would waste away dead animal remains fairly quickly. Not too long ago, thousands and thousands of american bison were slaughtered accross the midwest and there bones left there to ...turn into fossils? No! they've deteriorated long long ago. But evolutionary theory doesn't factor in this equation.

Any scientist worth his salt will tell you that fossils form in the abscense of oxygen. They have to be covered quickly in order for that to happen. The formation and evidence of the fossil record and sedimentary layers fit wonderfully with a past worldwide flood. It doesn't fit with evolution. And don't try to say that a small percentage of carcasses were buried quickly somehow. Go bury up your grandmother and see if she's a fossil. The evidence just doesn't fit with evolution.

Quote:

---

And random chance doesn't necessarily 'require more time than a few billions of years'. Let's say you have 1000 6-sided dice and you roll them. What are the odds that they will all come up 6's? 6^1000 power, or 1.4166e+778 to 1 against it. Okay, pretty darned unlikely. However, it's just as likely to happen the very first roll of the dice as it is on the twelve trillionth time, or whatever. Obviously, the more rolls the greater the likelihood that it will happen (and reaching *certainty* that it will happen eventually, given enough time), but nothing at all says that something unlikely cannot happen quickly, even immediately. That's random chance for you -- you just never know when it will happen. That's what makes it random.

---

The probability of the chance formation of a hypothetical functional â??simpleâ?? cell, is be worse than 1 in 10 to the 57800 power. This is a chance of 1 in a number with 57,800 zeros. there are about 10 to the 80 power (a number with 80 zeros) electrons in the universe. Even if every electron in our universe were another universe the same size as ours that would â??onlyâ?? amount to 10160 electrons.

There are no odds. That's the point. It's impossible. Some things have no posibility. This is one of them.

Quote:

---

Also, you're thinking about this in a myopic kind of way. While it's not necessarily likely that a few billions of years would result in the random chance that begins life *on any particular planet*, there are trillions of stars, maybe more, with probably quadrillions or quintillions of planets and all of them got billions of years of rolling the dice too. So if it only happens on one planet out of a billion, because the odds are low, even so, there are a whole lotta planets. Could be we got one of the lucky rolls of the dice. I've seen no evidence to the contrary, anyway.

---

I think the statistics would include this. The never say the change on one planet in the universe. That terminoligy is never used.

jamstigator:

Quote:

---

Most interesting, I thought, was the stuff about human tails, and how there was an example of a family who had tails, which was passed on through three generations. Obviously we did have an ancestor, evolutionarily-speaking, that had a tail. And even now, when we have evolved past the point of needing the tail, sometimes it still pops up, even for multiple generations.

---

vistigial organs are one of the most dangerous myths of evolution. For instance, they used to think that the appendix was a useless leftover from evolution. This was all widely believed. Even though some of the beneficial functions of the appendix have been known for decades, many high school biology textbooks still indoctrinate students into the belief that the appendix is a useless vestigial testimony to evolution.

Humans do not have a tail! This is one of the oldest myths about evolution ever!

Here's another refutation from the very helpful and credible ANSWERS IN GENESIS ! website :

Embryonic development

Quote:

---

Some of you have heard that man has a â??tail boneâ?� (also called the sacrum and coccyx), and that the only reason we have it is to remind us that our ancestors had tails. You can test this idea yourself, although I donâ??t recommend it. If you think the â??tail boneâ?� is useless, fall down the stairs and land on it. (Some of you may have actually done thatâ??unintentionally, Iâ??m sure!) What happens? You canâ??t stand up; you canâ??t sit down; you canâ??t lie down; you canâ??t roll over. You can hardly move without pain. In one sense, the sacrum and coccyx are among the most important bones in the whole body. They form an important point of muscle attachment required for our distinctive upright posture (and also for defecation, but Iâ??ll say no more about that).

So again, far from being a useless evolutionary leftover, the â??tail boneâ?� is quite important in human development. True, the end of the spine sticks out noticeably in a one-month embryo, but thatâ??s because muscles and limbs donâ??t develop until stimulated by the spine (Fig. 8). As the legs develop, they surround and envelop the â??tail bone,â?� and it ends up inside the body.

Once in a great while a child will be born with a â??tail.â?� But is it really a tail? No, itâ??s just a bit of skin and fat that tells us, not about evolution, but about how our nervous systems develop. The nervous system starts stretched out open on the back. During development, it rises up in ridges and rolls shut. It starts to â??zipperâ?� shut in the middle first, then it zippers toward either end. Once in a while, it doesnâ??t go far enough, and that produces a serious defect called spina bifida. Sometimes it rolls a little too far. Then the baby will be born, not with a tail, but with a fatty tumor. Itâ??s just skin and a little fatty tissue, so the doctor can just cut it off. Itâ??s not at all like the tail of a cat, dog, or monkey that has muscle, bones, and nerve, so cutting it off is not complicated. (So far as I know, no one claims that proves we evolved from an animal with a fatty tumor at the end of its spine.)

---

jamstigator:

Quote:

---

Also interesting was the stuff about eyes, and how mammalian eyes with their blind spot are defective compared to the eyes that cephalapods evolved, which do not have the blind spot. There's no reason for us to have that defect, except that our evolutionary ancestors had that same blind spot and passed it on to us, whereas the cephalapods evolved along a different branch and did it a little bit better.

---

This is another false idea that has has been long used by evolutionists, but was proven a long time ago to be false :

Institute for Creation Research - A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry

Quote:

---

After a university talk on creation in which I didnâ??t mention the embryo, a student asked, â??If God created us, why do human embryos have a yolk sac, gill slits, and tail?â?� Before I could say anything, a local professor scolded emphatically: â??Sit down! Hush. We donâ??t believe that anymore!â?�

---

Embryonic development

bluedevil :

Quote:

---

Good stuff huh? I still can't get over the gall it requires to have a 'statement of faith' like...

Quote:
"No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."

..and then still expect to be taken seriously!

---

You know something blue devil scientists who believe in evolution contradict each other in thier hypothesis all the time and there's not a scientist on the planet who's never made a mistake but apparently they're credible scientist because they believe in evolution and the ones I cite arn't because they are a minority and they're Christian. Even Albert Einstein has been wrong before.

One of the things I don't agree with them on is some of thier Christian doctrine. I havn't looked at the article you got that from but perhaps what they're saying is if something in science seems to contradict the bible don't worry because lots of stuff that seems to contradict it has proven to be false before. THat's what I think for myself anyways. You will find that probably every single one of the scientists who worked to develop the evolution you believe in have ideas you do not.

Here's some more info in regards to the tails.

"Primarily due to intense medical interest, humans are one of the best characterized species and many developmental anomalies are known. There are several human atavisms that reflect our common genetic heritage with other mammals. One of the most striking is the existence of the rare "true human tail" (also variously known as "coccygeal process", "coccygeal projection", "caudal appendage", and "vestigial tail"). More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as "pseudo-tails" (Dao and Netsky 1984; Dubrow et al. 1988). Pseudo-tails are not true tails; they are simply lesions of various types coincidentally found in the caudal region of newborns, often associated with the spinal column, coccyx, and various malformations.

In contrast, the true atavistic tail of humans results from incomplete regression of the most distal end of the normal embryonic tail found in the developing human fetus (see Figure 2.4.1 and the discussion below on the development of the normal human embryonic tail; Belzberg et al. 1991; Dao and Netsky 1984; Grange et al. 2001; Keith 1921). Though formally a malformation, the true human tail is usually benign in nature (Dubrow et al. 1988; Spiegelmann et al. 1985). The true human tail is characterized by a complex arrangement of adipose and connective tissue, central bundles of longitudinally arranged striated muscle in the core, blood vessels, nerve fibres, nerve ganglion cells, and specialized pressure sensing nerve organs (Vater-Pacini corpuscles). It is covered by normal skin, replete with hair follicles, sweat glands, and sebaceous glands (Dao and Netsky 1984; Dubrow et al. 1988; Spiegelmann et al. 1985). True human tails range in length from about one inch to over 5 inches long (on a newborn baby), and they can move via voluntary striped muscle contractions in response to various emotional states (Baruchin et al. 1983; Dao and Netsky 1984; Harrison 1901; Keith 1921; Lundberg et al. 1962).

Although human tails usually lack skeletal structures (some medical articles have claimed that true tails never have vertebrae), several human tails have also been found with cartilage and up to five, well-developed, articulating vertebrae (see Figure 2.2.2; Bar-Maor et al. 1980; Dao and Netsky 1984; Fara 1977; Sugumata et al. 1988). However, caudal vertebrae are not a necessary component of mammalian tails. Contrary to what is frequently reported in the medical literature, there is at least one known example of a primate tail that lacks vertebrae, as found in the rudimentary two-inch-long tail of Macaca sylvanus (the "Barbary ape") (Hill 1974, p. 616; Hooten 1947, p. 23).

True human tails are rarely inherited, though several familial cases are known (Dao and Netsky 1984; Ikpeze and Onuigbo 1999; Touraine 1955). In one case the tail has been inherited through at least three generations of females (Standfast 1992)."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I dunno what you would call a tail, but a five inch long tail-looking thing extruded beyond the bottom of the spinal cord, with working vertebrae, that has attached musculature, all the normal skin cells, and which responds to different emotional states -- I call that a tail.

I looked up Vater-Pacini corpuscles to see what they are. They're sensory organs that respond to pressure or vibration - just what you'd want if you were a monkey with a functioning and functional tail in a tree or jungled area. Huh, imagine that. I guess God designed us with some monkey DNA...just to throw us off track and make us think that evolution stuff is fo' real.

Notice it says :

Quote:

---

...Though formally a malformation..

---

HOw can it be a true tail and a malformation too?

I have no problem with there being those characteristics. So in the process of development the spinal column didn't develop the way it's supposed to. So what? So there's hair and muscle and nerve. Ever consider the spinal column just was too long by a malformation and the skin grew around it? I had a freind once who's fingers were little stubs because of a birth malformation. The skin grew around them and he still has mucle and nerves etc. in them. But nobody calls that evolution. This is so superficial and it's not reasonable. It's only judging by appearance. It's not recognising the way the body develops around the spinal column in birth. The spinal column grows out first, and the body grows around it. This is actually the best way for that to happen. But if the spinal column is deformed than it can be too short or too long.

Here's something interesting :

Quote:

---

Human Tails Or Fairy Tales

The subject of human "tails" is an interesting one to say the least. Evolutionists really enjoy bagging this claim around as evidence for evolution. Educated evolutionists usually do not use such "evidence" as support for their theory of origins. This is made aware when Dr. Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education was asked about human tails on a 1999 radio debate with Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons To Believe. Her response follows:

"Actually, thatâ??s [human "tails"] not an evolutionary issue at all ... Itâ??s a matter of developmental biology; itâ??s a matter of what happens when that sperm fertilized that egg, and that egg grew into a baby, and that baby was born. I couldnâ??t give you the exact precise biochemical explanation but probably at some point where the genes instructing how many vertebrae to lay down in that vertebral column duplicated itself a couple extra times, by mistake. It was a faulty transmission of information, so to speak. And this particular individual just ended up getting a few extra vertebral segments. And this doesnâ??t happen very frequently, but, you know there are glitches in the genetic material that produce things like this, just as there are glitches in the genetic material that produce people with six fingers. But if somebody was born with six fingers, you donâ??t think 'Oh no! That takes us all the way back to Acanthostega', with the earliest amphibians some of them had six fingers. Itâ??s not really an evolutionary issue."

Dr. Eugenie Scott, 10-11-1999
"The Mike Rosen Show," KOA Radio
http://www.reasons.org/resources/mul...w/19991011.ram

Obviously Dr. Eugenie Scott â?? who is a major opponent to the furthering of Creation Science â?? doesnâ??t feel that "human tails" are an evolutionary issue at all. As she so clearly stated, such mutations happen that equip people with six fingers as well, but this isnâ??t evolution. The idea of "throwbacks" is only an argument for evolution when theyâ??re convenient. For instance, if a fatty extrusion of flesh is located somewhere near an individualâ??s lower back, itâ??s a "tail". If a person grows a sixth finger, or an additional nipple, itâ??s a genetic mistake. This type of flexibility barks at the credibility of the person offering such an argument.

Interestingly enough, the author of this website uses a picture of a Hindu baby who reportedly is the reincarnated version of the "monkey-faced god." I recalled seeing this picture some months back online in an article. There was a very important bit of information that the author of this website chose to exclude for his or her visitors. A follow up documentation ran on Ananova soon thereafter regarding this brow-raising Hindu baby-god. The title, "Doctors fear baby with tail may not have long to live". The opening statement was blunt, and to the point, "Doctors in India fear a baby believed to be the reincarnation of a Hindu god may need urgent surgery." So much for the great evolutionary-throwbacks, eh?

The article moved on to state that, "His family refuse to let him be examined by doctors who think he may have a deformity of the spinal column or a tumour." Like the evolutionists, they are fixated on such a great reason for this "tail", and unfortunately for the boyâ??s sake, this could be a deadly thing. So why would "Visual Evolution" exclude such a thing from their website? It seems to me that they are more interested in passing evolution off as science rather than educating people in the fields of True science. This isnâ??t all the article contains. Dr. Surender Sharma says: "The parents will be making the child's life more difficult if they don't see a pediatrician immediately. The appendage could well be a deformity of the spinal column or a tumour that could require urgent surgery."

The article was concluded with Dr. Bagai saying, "It's time they stopped imagining things. One wishes they understood he could be suffering and may not have long to live." I really feel this works equally as well with the evolutionists who are willing to smear the truth to further their cause. Itâ??s time they stopped imagining things. The website has a nice display of other deceitful images as well, including two images of males with extrusions from their lower backs. Notice that these are not even lined up with the spinal column. This is common among such defects. If they were tails, one would expect them to be lined up somewhat.

Overall, this is a deceitful presentation that should be completely voided or greatly modified to include any form of Truth.

---

TrueAuthority.com - Creation vs Evolution - More Eager Evolutionists

Here's an interesting thought for you :

Quote:

---

What he seems to be saying is this: Although humans do not ordinarily have tails, and thus the genes for tails in humans are usually suppressed, yet humans still retain genes for tailsâ??"structural elements necessary for tail formation in the human genome." According to Ledley, then, though the genes are not expressed and thus are useless baggage, we humans for many millions of years have been carrying those genes and faithfully reproducing them even though they are totally without function.

Presumably, then, we would also be carrying along in our human genetic apparatus other genes that are responsible for all other characteristics seen in our monkey-like ancestors but not seen in man. Following this thinking to its logical conclusion, the human genetic apparatus should still be carrying every gene ever possessed by any of our ancestors, even the genes that make a worm a worm, if indeed a worm was the ancestor of vertebrates.



Warkany reports that while most persons with caudal appendages showed normal general development, caudal appendages have been associated with such malformations as meningocele, spina bifida, chondrodystophy, cleft palate, hemangiomas, syndactyly, hypodactyly and heterotopic anus.4 Can evolutionists identify ancestral states with any of these malformations?

If malformations may possibly be due to the expression of genes inherited from distant ancestors but long suppressed, one can think of interesting suggestions. For example, some human females are born with mammary glands under the armpits. Some bats normally have their mammary glands in that region. Does that mean that human females are carrying long-suppressed genes for mammary glands under the armpits and we humans have a bat in our ancestry? Some human females are born with mammary glands in the groin region. Mammary glands normally occur in the groin region of some whales. Does that mean that human females still possess genes for mammary glands in the groin region that have been inherited from a whale ancestor? Mammary glands, as a matter of fact, have developed in humans in many places, including the back, arms, and legs. How can evolutionary theory help us explain that?

---

Institute for Creation Research - A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry

Look, In the last century the German anatomist, Wiedersheim, claimed there were 180 such vistigial structures in the human body. Since that time, all but a handful of these structures have been proved to be functional. Now I'm told of a protrusion of a spinal column with skin on it and you want me to belive it's a tail?

This is pathetic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

....but there is virtually no intermediate fossils....

---

"Virtually no" intermediate fossils is advertisement talk for "some" intermediate fossils.

The same way that sunlight dishliquid "virtually eliminates all bacteria" really means "doesn't eliminate all bacteria". Virtual just sounds better.

Here's another important point I found:

Quote:

---

Evolutionists have for decades pooh-poohed anyone who says humans evolved from monkeys. They insist we evolved not from monkey-like creatures, but from ape-like creatures (they usually phrase it: â??humans share a common ancestor with apesâ?�).

But monkeys have tails and anthropoid apes don't. If evolutionists believe that the bony tail is evidence that we evolved from monkey-type creatures, why do they insist that we evolved from a common ancestor with apes, which generally don't have tails?

---

Human baby born with tail is not evolution

Quote:

---

Virtually no" intermediate fossils is advertisement talk for "some" intermediate fossils.

The same way that sunlight dishliquid "virtually eliminates all bacteria" really means "doesn't eliminate all bacteria". Virtual just sounds better.

---

That's not what I meant and that's not what the evidence shows. I'm done with this thread for tonight.

Wow you really do believe in ALL of this.....

I'm impressed - it takes more faith than I will ever have to be this blinded.

The scientific review journals are not somehow controlled by 'Evolutionists' (p.s - that's a term you made up btw) but it is the creationists who Guarantee their work will not be published.

Creationism isn't in the peer review journals because it isn't science - as soon as the creationists start actually using science they will get work in the journals - simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

Yes, evolution does require faith. You are in severe error if you don'tr recognise that. It requires believe that all those bones in the ground had intermediate evolutionary offspring. It requires belief to come to the conclusion that the earth formed by a big band and life formed from non organic chemicals. You wern't there. You can't say for a fact it happened. Anything that cannot be observed with empirical science from the beggining to the end to establish the results is relegated to the area of belief.

---

I think the fossil record is great, it just doesn't agree with your flood myth. Oh well.

Again you fail to understand some of the core mechanisms of evolution.

You do realise that ALL species are pretty much intermediates. We are STILL EVOLVING the fossil record has plenty of evidence of this, plenty. We are all transitional forms.

Remember that classification is a human invention - we "invent" species - they don't exist in nature - nature doesn't compartmentalize things that way. This is an important concept.

We have observed speciation too (but you will just deny it anyway) and not in the lab - in the wild.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

This is a total assumption based on your belief system. It's just total garbage. How do they know how old it is? carbon dating?? ha. Carbon dating can only be used up to about 100,000 years if I remember correctly.

---

Stop now before I hurt myself.

Of course it isn't carbon dating, only a Moron would think that.

Besides, carbon dating is really only useful for dead Carbon (why am I trying to explain this FFS??.....)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

And I'll use answersingenesis as much as I want. Its just character assasination and it's an attempt to slander me and my resources of information to shut me down without even attempting to approach an argument.

---

LOL, you try and shoot down anything I say with answersfromgenesis - can't you see the irony of what you are saying here?

I'm approaching your argument HEAD-ON and the only evidence you supply is the "opinions" of Creationists - that's not science mate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

I don't care if you do or not. The four categories I mentioned are all according to evolutionists labeled junk dna, the earliest example being the pseudogenes by a asian scientist back in around1972.

---

evolution-ists don't exist. They are 'junk' DNA according to evolutionists who want to attack what they don't accept in modern science.

I suggest you learn more about these systems before you try arguing over what is and what isn't Junk DNA. Your definition was falsified and you just copy-pasted a response without understanding what you are arguing about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

You may have a degree in that stuff, but you're no mr. Crick.

---

I will ignore that as if it is the best you can do then good luck on your way out.

Do you have a degree in Genetics? Biochemistry? Microbiology?

If not then I would shut it if I were you. Insults won't help your case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

No it's not a fact. And you can't prove it. no else has. Even if they did make one so what. It only proves it can be created by intelligent design, nothing more. It reminds me of the deceptive
miller urey experiment.

---

Riiiiight, tell that to the thousands of scientists who spend their lives studying this stuff. I would love you to stand in front of my old Microbiology Dr and tell him he doesn't know what he's talking about either.

I'm happy with what I know - you keep kidding yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

Actually he's right by defenition evolution isn't even a theory.
When Darwin was alive he said that the lack of transitional fossils was the biggest weakness for his idea of evolution. But there was still a lot of work to be done in the field of archeology. But now after over a hundred years we have huge and huge amounts of bones, but there is virtually no intermediate fossils. Even Gould himself said that this was paleontologies "trade secret".

---

Rubbish - there are lots of these.

Besides we have already identified errors here....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

Most people who believe in evolution are completely ignorant of this. The truth is there should be massive amounts of transitionary fossil. Where are they? I think they're asking the wrong question. Because they don't exist.

---

OK see attached Skull Pics for fun. This same point is getting boring now - it isn't a good argument for you to use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

You've exposed one of the biggest challanges to the lack of anthropologic evidence jamstigator. You're right the natural enviroment would waste away dead animal remains fairly quickly. Not too long ago, thousands and thousands of american bison were slaughtered accross the midwest and there bones left there to ...turn into fossils? No! they've deteriorated long long ago. But evolutionary theory doesn't factor in this equation.

Any scientist worth his salt will tell you that fossils form in the abscense of oxygen. They have to be covered quickly in order for that to happen. The formation and evidence of the fossil record and sedimentary layers fit wonderfully with a past worldwide flood. It doesn't fit with evolution. And don't try to say that a small percentage of carcasses were buried quickly somehow. Go bury up your grandmother and see if she's a fossil. The evidence just doesn't fit with evolution.

---

I don't even know where to begin with all that. There is so much BS in that couple of lines I could cry.

talk.origins newsgroup

The fossil record shows no such evidence and you are now deluding yourself with your own presupposition. You are so obsessed with the scriptures being accurate that you disregard ANY evidence to the contrary.

"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." - Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

The probability of the chance formation of a hypothetical functional â??simpleâ?? cell, is be worse than 1 in 10 to the 57800 power. This is a chance of 1 in a number with 57,800 zeros. there are about 10 to the 80 power (a number with 80 zeros) electrons in the universe. Even if every electron in our universe were another universe the same size as ours that would â??onlyâ?? amount to 10160 electrons.

There are no odds. That's the point. It's impossible. Some things have no posibility. This is one of them.

---

Yet, I'm using my cells right now and they work just great :) I suppose it must have been god then.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

vistigial organs are one of the most dangerous myths of evolution.

---

There you go again a "myth" isn't something that works in science - that's the realm of faith. Please don't try and mix the two - you are trying to bring science down to the level of creationism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

Humans do not have a tail! This is one of the oldest myths about evolution ever!


Here's another refutation from the very helpful and credible ANSWERS IN GENESIS ! website :

Embryonic development

---

It's neither helpful nor credible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

This is another false idea that has has been long used by evolutionists, but was proven a long time ago to be false :

Institute for Creation Research - A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry

Embryonic development

---

The ICR article attempts to explain the inverted eye "design" mainly on the basis of two points:
1) the photoreceptors are embedded in a layer of retinal pigment epithelial cells which perform important functions and
2) the photoreceptors have a very high metabolic rate which requires a good circulatory system to support them.

Both of these points are quite valid, to be sure. However, neither of them supports the "essential" nature of the inverted design.

Point 1 (the "need" for the epithelial cells to surround the receptors): It is quite possible, and would seem "natural" to any intelligent designer, to design the eye with a surface layer of receptors embedded in an epithelial layer just below that would provide the necessary supportive functions. Immediately below this would be the neural processing layers, out of the way of the light path. The olfactory system has the receptor ciliary portion of the cells on the surface of the nasal sensory epithelium and the neural portions buried below. The auditory system has the receptor hair cells on the upper surface of the basilar membrane surrounded by elaborate membrane systems and the neural portions buried below.

Point 2 (the "need" for an adequate circulatory supply): This is extremely puzzling. Most people who discuss the retina know that the light must pass through the nervous system on the way to the photoreceptors. But most people, including the authors of this note, ignore the fact that the light must also pass through the blood supply, the retinal blood vessels! The arteries and veins that supply the retina are also in the light path! This point renders the argument in the paper completely false. The capillary network in the pigment epithelial layer, so essential to photoreceptor function, must be derived from the blood vessels that lie in the light path. A far superior design would be as outlined above: Superficial photoreceptors underlain by a pigment epithelial layer and a rich blood supply underlain, in turn, by the retinal neural processing layers. The receptors would be the first elements in the light path, they would be surrounded by the proper supportive tissue, they would have a good circulatory supply, and they would still maintain close contact with the neural processing circuitry.