Baiting the non-evolution people

Baiting the non-evolution people - Printable Version

+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: The Kyra Memorial Spin Room (/forum-540.html)
+---- Thread: Baiting the non-evolution people (/thread-275555.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

Baiting the non-evolution people - georgia_tech_swagger - 01-21-2008 04:10 PM

http://www.enn.com/wildlife/article/29620

RE: Baiting the non-evolution people - EastStang - 01-21-2008 04:39 PM

But tell me, when has an elephant become a donkey, except for perhaps Ron Paul? In all seriousness, non-evolutionists will tell you that there is adaptive micro-evolution and there is selective breeding in some circumstances. Who can seriously contest that breeders of racehorses try and maximize speed and durability? But its still a horse. Or that a finch in one area may have a slightly different beak than say a finch in another area. But its still a finch. But a change in species type of evolution contemplated by Darwin is still unproven and even unfounded. No one has found a fish that became a bird or a bird that became a land animal or any land animal that became a human. So when you take a broad swipe at non-evolutionists, at least understand what we debate. Is there evolution within a species? Most will tell you, yes.

RE: Baiting the non-evolution people - Machiavelli - 01-21-2008 05:06 PM

or a bird that became a land animal ........

ever hear of an ostrich. NEXT!!!!!!!!!!!

fish>>>>>amphibian>>>>>>>reptile>>>>>>>>mammal

RE: Baiting the non-evolution people - Fanatical - 01-21-2008 05:21 PM

EastStang Wrote:a land animal or any land animal that became a human.

except for these of course:
[Image: hominids2.jpg]

but hey who's counting?

RE: Baiting the non-evolution people - THE NC Herd Fan - 01-21-2008 07:29 PM

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:http://www.enn.com/wildlife/article/29620

Doesn't bait me, I believe in Microevolution it is proven that animals evolve to meet their environment. Over time cave dwelling salamanders have lost skin pigmentation and their eyes. They have not turned in to blind white monkeys.

There is no proven documentation of Macroevolution. Humans share over 90% of the genetic makeup of rats, did we evolve from rats or apes?

RE: Baiting the non-evolution people - Machiavelli - 01-21-2008 07:39 PM

We share a common ancestor. Rats don't turn into people. Think of a twig on a tree. Rats and Apes share a branch.

RE: Baiting the non-evolution people - THE NC Herd Fan - 01-21-2008 07:40 PM

Fanatical Wrote:
EastStang Wrote:a land animal or any land animal that became a human.

except for these of course:

but hey who's counting?

Part and it is only part of the fallacy with this illustration is lack of DNA material from any of these to show a progression from ape to human. If there was any useable DNA from any of these, I'm sure Darwinists would be cloning these to prove their case. Some of these "links" are probably nothing more than mutations that died out quickly leaving very few skeletal remains to study. Others are some type of Ape that died out due to changing environmental conditions.

RE: Baiting the non-evolution people - Fo Shizzle - 01-21-2008 08:13 PM

I couldnt give a rats ass about evolution....Im more concerned about REVOLUTION!!!

RE: Baiting the non-evolution people - Zero - 01-21-2008 09:14 PM

THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:Part and it is only part of the fallacy with this illustration is lack of DNA material from any of these to show a progression from ape to human.

Actually, the DNA evidence showing the link between the two is very strong, and the more we learn about the two genomes, the more we find to support evolutionary theory.

Sadly, early hominids did not have the foresight to preserve their DNA for us.

RE: Baiting the non-evolution people - Fanatical - 01-22-2008 12:54 AM

Just to make things clear. The elephant story is an example of evolution, not the theory of. Evolution does happen; your cousin and yourself are not clones but still come from the same grandparents. As for the theory, sequencing of bone structure, reproducion methods, and cell development that has been observed over known geological timescales obviously isn't enough.

THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:Some of these "links" are probably nothing more than mutations that died out quickly leaving very few skeletal remains to study.

Yes, because out of the hundreds of thousands of hominids living at those times only the small amount of freaks somehow were preserved. Not the normal ones that outnumbered them by a few thousand.

THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:Others are some type of Ape that died out due to changing environmental conditions.

Change "Others" with "All except the last one", and you've pretty much summed up the current state of our evolutionary family.

RE: Baiting the non-evolution people - Bourgeois_Rage - 01-22-2008 08:31 AM

THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:Part and it is only part of the fallacy with this illustration is lack of DNA material from any of these to show a progression from ape to human.

Sorry, you lose. The available DNA evidence confirms evolution.

Remember, the theory of evolution was around for about 100 years before DNA was discovered. And it could have been disproven when the DNA sequences of apes were compared. Instead, it was confirmed.

Also, need I point out the semi-recent discovery of Tiktaalik Roseae?
[Image: Tiktaalikandco.jpg]

But I guess from a creationist perspective you now want to see the transitional species between all of those fish-land-animal hybrids. Well guess what, science will probably find another link in the chain, and creationists will rant and rave about there's just another gap.

RE: Baiting the non-evolution people - THE NC Herd Fan - 01-22-2008 08:55 AM

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Remember, the theory of evolution was around for about 100 years before DNA was discovered. And it could have been disproven when the DNA sequences of apes were compared. Instead, it was confirmed.

Also, need I point out the semi-recent discovery of Tiktaalik Roseae?

But I guess from a creationist perspective you now want to see the transitional species between all of those fish-land-animal hybrids. Well guess what, science will probably find another link in the chain, and creationists will rant and rave about there's just another gap.

So the fact that man's DNA sequences are similar to apes proves evolution? Our DNA sequences are similar to rats too. This proves nothing. 05-nono

It just as easily proves Intelligent Design; the design for life follows the same pattern due to the design of the environment. Evolution = small changes over millions of years, then why aren't there millions of transitional fossils? There are not only missing links between man and ape, but across the whole evolutionary chain.

RE: Baiting the non-evolution people - Fanatical - 01-22-2008 09:46 AM

The DNA support for evolution is not only that we share some DNA sequencing, put also the amount of similar sequencing and the progression over time.

linky
[Image: hominid_divergence.gif]

Times of divergence and phylogeny of hominoids, as estimated from immunological data.
In this study it was seen how proteins were recognized by immune systems. Similar proteins would be more similarily recognized, and the above findings were found.

We know that we are related to mice, but we have been able to see that we are more closely related to primates; and, more so to chimps than to gibbons.

And BTW, every fossil is a "transitional fossil", every fossil has not been found, every animal does not fossilize. There are more species on the Earth today than fossil species found, yet there have been far more species that have existed than exist today. Unfortunately, we aren't going to find every species fossilized.

RE: Baiting the non-evolution people - Bourgeois_Rage - 01-22-2008 11:02 AM

THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:So the fact that man's DNA sequences are similar to apes proves evolution? Our DNA sequences are similar to rats too. This proves nothing. It just as easily proves Intelligent Design; the design for life follows the same pattern due to the design of the environment. Evolution = small changes over millions of years, then why aren't there millions of transitional fossils? There are not only missing links between man and ape, but across the whole evolutionary chain.

Did I use the word prove? Nope. The theory of evolution can always be unseated, however it is increasingly unlikely. I know it is tough to argue against evolution so you have to make up arguments to argue against.

There are plenty of transitional fossils, check out horse evolution, whale evolution, bird evolution. Those are just off the top of my head. But time for another lesson. It takes very specific circumstances to recover a fossil. Most organisms do not form fossils. So most are probably lost forever. If what you think is true, don't you think it is very odd that of all the fossils found they seem to be all exceptions?

Like I said, the DNA evidence confirmed the tree of life structure. Sure rats share some common DNA (1/4th of the genes), but not as much as the Hominids share with each other. Chimps and humans share something near 99% of genes.

Since you seem to think that DNA proves (your word) Intelligent Design, perhaps you'd like to start by defining what Intelligent Design is. (Some people think that it is God createdlife and tinkers with it occasionally, which others think that aliens might be doing the designing. What kind of inept designer is this guy that has to keep on redesigning everything and then killing it off and then starting over? Maybe he's using Windows 98?) And then you can tell us exactly how DNA proves it.

RE: Baiting the non-evolution people - EastStang - 01-22-2008 12:19 PM

Yet the precambian fossil layer seems to have almost all the current species we see today and very few preterate species below that layer. I guess they all melted or something. I guess its about you having "faith" that if you search long enough you'll find those pesky transitional life forms because your scientific "theory" tells you they're there. Oops, I just used that pesky f word. A creationist or a believer in intelligent design merely says, it didn't happen randomly, it happened purposefully. And there is ample proof of that in nature today. And quite frankly, my "faith" in a creator is as firmly based in scientific fact as a scientist's faith that someday evolution will be proven.

RE: Baiting the non-evolution people - Fanatical - 01-22-2008 01:02 PM

EastStang Wrote:Yet the precambian fossil layer seems to have almost all the current species we see today

C'mon now, do you know what that would mean? If that were actually true there would be no discussion at all about evolutionary theory, every scientific body would be all over it and concede that the current evolutionary theory is incorrect. But that hasn't happened, because we don't find 600 million year old rocks housing almost all current species. I'm really curious, where did you find an idea like that?

RE: Baiting the non-evolution people - Bourgeois_Rage - 01-22-2008 01:30 PM

That's like a messed up version of the cambrian explosion claim. Are you kidding me? That's beyond bold. I've seen where cdesign proponentist claim that species form "rapidly" during that time (if you can call 5 million years rapid), but I've never seen anyone claim that all species were formed during that time frame.

RE: Baiting the non-evolution people - I45owl - 01-22-2008 02:09 PM

EastStang Wrote:But tell me, when has an elephant become a donkey, except for perhaps Ron Paul? In all seriousness, non-evolutionists will tell you that there is adaptive micro-evolution and there is selective breeding in some circumstances. Who can seriously contest that breeders of racehorses try and maximize speed and durability? But its still a horse. Or that a finch in one area may have a slightly different beak than say a finch in another area. But its still a finch. But a change in species type of evolution contemplated by Darwin is still unproven and even unfounded. No one has found a fish that became a bird or a bird that became a land animal or any land animal that became a human. So when you take a broad swipe at non-evolutionists, at least understand what we debate. Is there evolution within a species? Most will tell you, yes.

This response is not complete without the associated link:

Quote:The Evidence

We believe creation scientists and the members of SEAO have presented the case for a creator fairly well. They point out, for example, that there are large gaps in the fossil record, that it is a theory and not a fact, and that some Phd's have even begun to doubt it.

"If evolution is true," they might say, "then why can't we observe it today, huh?" They might then go on to add, "and don't even bring up all the different breeds of dogs that all came from the same origins, or other examples of animals adapting to an environment by natural selection, be cause that's all just a theory. And all that genetic 'evidence' that you need to go to college to understand, that stuff's not fair."

RE: Baiting the non-evolution people - EastStang - 01-22-2008 04:10 PM

EastStang Wrote:Yet the precambian fossil layer seems to have almost all the current species we see today and very few preterate species below that layer. I guess they all melted or something. I guess its about you having "faith" that if you search long enough you'll find those pesky transitional life forms because your scientific "theory" tells you they're there. Oops, I just used that pesky f word. A creationist or a believer in intelligent design merely says, it didn't happen randomly, it happened purposefully. And there is ample proof of that in nature today. And quite frankly, my "faith" in a creator is as firmly based in scientific fact as a scientist's faith that someday evolution will be proven.

There is some discussion of this on this site which refers to other works. I did not make this up.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177

You will find lots of biologists jumping in with the same faith based arguments that well we just haven't found them yet. But when pre-cambrian layer you have flora and fauna and at the cambrian layer you have fully developed phila, that's a huge gap. And significantly, you have fish and birds and animals all at that layer, not fish at one layer, then mammals and then birds. So a gradual evolving with millenia of small intermediate steps is just not supported by the fossil records.

RE: Baiting the non-evolution people - Bourgeois_Rage - 01-23-2008 08:13 AM

EastStang Wrote:There is some discussion of this on this site which refers to other works. I did not make this up.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177

I don't think you made it up, but I know that the Discovery Institute did.

I'm not going to rewrite what others before me have long debunked. But if you are interested in getting the whole story and not just what the Discovery Institute feeds you, you can check out the whole background on this article.

Again, I'd like anyone to explain what the 'Theory of Intelligent Design' says. I have yet to see anything except lame attempts to discredit the current Theory of Evolution while completely ignoring the fact of evolution. For some reason a quote about a splinter and a plank comes to mind.