Lula posts:

WARRENI POSTS:

Read your own words...the highlighted part...."evolution of new species".

This is the crux of the debate. Variety within kind is not evolution; neither is natural selection.

Evolution of new and different species is macro-evolution, exactly the same as what Time-Life describes and shows drawings. To date, while theories showing Darwin's "molecules to man natural transformation" in which new higher genetic info is gained, have evolved, none have been proven.

In order to be true, Darwin's Evolution requires improvement. Macro-Evolutionists try to use mutations as the mechanism that cross species evolution occurred in the past. In order for this to happen, mutations must be 100% beneficial all the time, however, just the opposite is true.

With very few exceptions, mutations can't produce a higher organism. Mutations are considered damage to a single DNA unit, injuring the individual.

Thought that should be quoted once more.

The Creationists still owe us their "theory" on how G-d stops two breeds from evolving into two types of animals different enough to be accepted as "different" by Creationists.

We can demonstrate, in a lab, that animals change between generations and that those changes grow more substantial over many generations. From that we can extrapolate that such change could explain the diversity of animal and plant life we have on earth. So far the theory, unproven as it will always remain, has been confirmed by everything we found.

Creationists CANNOT demonstrate how any god can affect or effect anything at all. So we have nothing to extrapolate from.

Evolution might be totally wrong and Creationism might be totally right; nevertheless, the one is a science (because it can be demonstrated, tested, and makes predictions) and the other isn't (unless somebody demonstrates it, tells us how to test it, and makes a prediction based on it).

 

lula,

As long as you insist on defining your own terms and making ludicrous and unsupported assertions regarding what is and is not science, I don't see how we can have a discussion and pretend that we're talking about the same thing.

I reiterate: the distinction between "micro-" and "macro-" evolution is false dichotomy, posited by creationists because it suits their purposes. Evolution is change over time. That's not "having it both ways." That is the classic definition of evolution. The time it takes go from a fish-like organism to a salamander-like organism is considerably larger in scope than the time it takes to go from one protist to another. Here's the trick: because you can't see it with your own eyes, it doesn't make it "false." Do you accept that your body is composed of atoms with protons and neutrons in a nucleus orbited by electrons? Why? Can you see them? No, and neither can you directly observe large-scale evolutionary processes. But the process is the same, irrespective of time scale.

No, science does not assume that the majority of mutations are beneficial, and whoever suggested that to you lied. Yes, the vast majority of (non-silent) mutational events are detrimental to the organism, and that's why selection is important. If you hadn't been so hung up on the taxonomically-nonsensical creationist notion of "kinds" when you quoted my earlier post, you'd have seen (and understood?) my statement that directed mutations lead to the evolution of new species. Selective pressures favor mutations that do confer an advantage to an organism in a particular environment, and this leads to changes in allele frequencies in a population and often leads to speciation.

Evolutionary theory requires "improvement" only in a very loose sense of the term: a mutation that confers some selective advantage in a particular environment at a particular point in time. An "improvement" by your standards doesn't really mean anything in the natural world. A retrovirus may be one of the simplest and most perfect organisms that has ever existed.

What is a DNA unit, anyway?

 

WARRENI POSTS:



Note what is highlighted...

If what you say is true, then there should be millions of fossils of creatures in the in-between stages of transformation... where are they? Produce them and we'll have some real science to discuss.

Are you descended from the apes? Could you explain how this happened?

 

lula,

There are many items in the fossil record that could be called transitional. The issue here is that the term "transitional" is controversial at best. It implies an old way of thinking, the use of a "key" characteristic to define a taxonomic group rather than shared evolutionary history. I can show you feathered reptiles and whales that walk on land. Is that what you want?

No, I am not "descended from apes" and neither are you. Don't get too excited. This is a common creationist misapprehension, sometimes deliberate and sometimes not. You cannot point to some larger clade like hominids or cetaceans or arachnids or annelids and say, "This modern group descends from this other modern group." That's not how evolution works. You and I and all other modern humans are descendants of ape-like ancestors. As for the process, I just described it to you, several times.

 

Lula posts:





Please, no word games, Warreni. You know as well as I of what I'm speaking...it's the missing links of Darwin's evolution tree....the fossils between your hypothetical ape-like ancestor and modern man. Evolution depends on a staggering number of rough drafts which lived in the unobserved past, have gone extinct, and replaced by their evolved descendants. They're missing because no one has ever seen one.

As each type evolves into something else, (you called it "large scale evolutionary process"), there there should be a staggering number in-between types, each stage gaining more and more traits of the dexcendant while losing traits of the ancestor.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution claims fish evolved into amphibians, that reptiles evolved into birds, that apelike creatures evolved into man. If fish evolved into amphibians, there should be distinct lifeforms along the way, say, 90% fish, 10% amphibian, then 80/20. Unless and until these transitional forms are found, proof of your so called "large scale evolutionary process", then and only then, will we have some real science to discuss.






Then your faith is according to the gospel of Darwin and his followers.

Mine is in Almighty God and according to His word in the Biblical account which provides us with the starting point for the history of mankind. My ancestors date back to Adam and Eve. (Pssst...and so do yours!)

It is difficult, for some, to understand that there is no such thing as a "transitional" animal.

No branch is "transitional".

If we ever find a "transitional" fossil, in the sense the Creationists understand the word, Darwin's theory would have been proven wrong.

"Random chance", "transitional", "macro-evolution": three words that have nothing to do with Darwin's theory.

Unfortunately it takes some reading to understand Darwin's theory and most Creationists openly admit that they won't do that.

Leauki,

Have you ever heard of or read Jeremias Wells, "History of Western Civilization"?

He writes that after Adam and Eve committed Original Sin, mankind's intellect was darkened, his will weakened, and his tendencies were subjected to evil inclinations. His unruly nature divided society into 2 camps based on 2 opposing principles...."A camp of those who live solely for the pleasures of this world and one for those who order themselves and society for the glory of God. Therein lies the drama."

As far back as Copernicus, a "war" began pitting science against religious truths. Many in scientific circles regarded Genesis and Christianity as an obstacle to scientific progress. They declared the religious truths of Adam and Eve, Original Sin and Christ's Redemption as legend, myth, or misconception, etc.

With an outlook on disproving that the universe and man were created by God, science developed new theories and views and hypotheses. Darwin's Theory of Evolution is essentially a set of ideas promoted by atheistic or agnostic scientists, naturalists, and materialists.

To most people, Darwin's Theory of (Natural) Evolution essentially means that over billions of years, all present forms of life---plant, animal and human---"evolved" or emerged from a common cell by chance processes without a transcendent Creator anywhere in the picture.

Granted, there are many conflicting versions of Darwin's Theory. Once older theories run into conceptual problems, newer versions emerge, their proponents always hoping to find the elusive mechanism for how this macro-evolutionary process occurred/is occurring.

Evolutionists still have to show a clear pattern of descent with modification both conceptually and from evidence in the fossils. If Eovlution did occur, it should be possible to show lineages and to establish phylogeny (a closely identified "tree" structure ancestry), but this has not been done.

There are no fossils that show these "transitional" lineages, none whatsoever.

Anyone who believes they descended from an ape-like creature believes on Darwinian faith becasue that camp has shown no proof of its claim.

The following quote is from ReMine, The Biotic Message.

"Life was designed to resist all naturalistic interpretations. Therefore, the biomessage sender had to defeat the appearance of lineage. This was done with diversity (which) is the antithesis of lineage. Diversity destroys the semblance of lineage...Diversity thwarts phylogeny.

The pattern of life at the molecular level of proteins and genes follows message theory precisely. It could hardly be more potent evidence. Life's many molecular phenograms and cladograms fomr a smooth, distince pattern that refutes transposition and unmaking processes. That pattern allows the absence of gradual intergraduation and phylogeny to take on real force as evidence against evolution. That pattern also unifies life and reveals an incredible degree of planning and design."


The actual fossil evidence supports Genesis. In contrast to evolutionary depictions of a "tree or bush like" ancestry, the fossil evidence of both creatures and plants found is one of parallel vertical ancestry. Most of the phyla appear all of a sudden, in the Campbrian Period, the field evidence is that of well preserved unique types of fossils and absolute absence of "transitional", or "intermediate" or "links" life forms.

I am surprised people are calling you anti christian, it was obvious you are christian from the article and you even said that creationism is sacralige cause it basically says "god is stupid".

Taltamir,

I am not Christian. But I understand your point. It is valid.

About me:

http://web.mac.com/ajbrehm/Home/Welcome.html

http://web.mac.com/ajbrehm/Home/About_Me.html

I am telling you a true scientist asks "What if?" For every thesis, there is an antithesis......Either there is a God or there isn't. If there isn't we are doomed to be dust....If there is, we have hope and a destiny......what do you chose? Dirt or Hope?

What does that have to do with the discussion here contained on Creationism?  Leauki has never said he doesn't believe in God.  In fact, I'm fairly certain that he does.  So do I.  But to discount Evolution on the basis of my belief in God when the evidence is so heavily stacked against a young earth and direct creation is, as Leauki put it so succinctly, 'phony and stupid and a big lie'.

If I didn't believe in G-d, some of the things I do on a weekly basis would be pretty stupid. So would some of the things I did earlier in my life. (I once quit a good job to go to Jerusalem and learn Hebrew.)

But the point is really not whether I or anybody believes in G-d or not. Evolution happened and happens regardless of whether there was a Creator Who came to be from nothing and for no reason or whether there was only a universe that came to be from nothing and for no reason.

Evolution does not describe or make statements about the creation of the universe. It is merely a mechanism that works within it.

The god I believe in does not create human beings with deadly diseases built in. He is not the type. But he is fully capable of creating a world in which evolution and other natural mechanisms can create wonderful forms of life:

"Rather, Judaism in that case would call upon its adherents to give even greater reverence than ever before to the one, sole God Who, in His boundless creative wisdom and eternal omnipotence, needed to bring into existence no more than one single, amorphous nucleus and one single law of "adaptation and heredity" in order to bring forth, from what seemed chaos but was in fact a very definite order, the infinite variety of species we know today, each with its unique characteristics that sets it apart from all other creatures."

-- (Orthodox) Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch in 1880.

What Rabbi Hirsch realised in the 19th century was that evolution is not random but follows a system. Survival of the fittest is as systematic as a sieve. While pebbles can be of different sizes due to random events (perhaps some have survived the mill while others split up), few (Sieve Creationists, maybe) would argue that the fact that the smaller pebbles pass the sieve while the larger pebbles do not is due to "random chance". It is quite systematic.

I guess that is the most difficult part to understand for some.

Whenever I meet a Creationist who uses one of the suvjects "random chance" or "creation of the universe" as arguments against evolution, it is clear that he has not understood Darwin's theory (and probably doesn't wish to).

 

There is never reason to discount science based on a belief in G-d. One thing my religion teaches me is that study and research is the way forward. I have to accept evolution because my religion compells me to study and understand it. It's G-d's universe and I have to learn as much about it as I can.

 

 

Leauki,

Could you please identify for me the missing link between man and the apes?  

There is no "missing link". The theory of evolution does not describe or predict transitional forms between species.

Finding a "missing link", aka an animal half "ape" and half "human" would effectively discredit Darwin's theory.

Humans and other apes have a common ancestor, not a "link" between them. The common ancestor was not a transitional form, because there was no "transition" between ape and man. The common ancestor had features similar to most of current species of ape, including humans.