🐵 E V O L U T I O N 🐵

[Guest bleeds]

And now you guys are assuming I'm gonna be a teacher? Who bought the Jump to Conclusions mat?

 

 

Office Space. hehehe

[1stSuperScot]

If you're willing to wait a few hundred million years, I'm sure someone would be willing to show you.

 

Ah yes, time,the magical ingredient needed to possibly make the statistically impossible happen. That is always convenient.

Surely there are a few hundred million examples in the fossil record?

[Middle]

Ah yes, time,the magical ingredient needed to possibly make the statistically impossible happen. That is always convenient.

Surely there are a few hundred million examples in the fossil record?

 

I find it ironic you'd argue the "magical ingredient." I'm guessing that's how you assume we got here? Poof?

[BluePirate]

Middle - that was an interestingly long comment with absolutely no mention of an example illustrating the existence of evolution. For someone that was so quick to declare us ignorant, you certainly now seem reluctant to point to a few examples.

[Sacredbomb]

How old-fashioned are we getting here? The evolution side has its limits as far as time is concerned.

[1stSuperScot]

I find it ironic you'd argue the "magical ingredient." I'm guessing that's how you assume we got here? Poof?

 

Yes! When you boil it down, we all place our faith in something. I have examined the possibilities and chosen one way.

[Middle]

Middle - that was an interestingly long comment with absolutely no mention of an example illustrating the existence of evolution. For someone that was so quick to declare us ignorant, you certainly now seem reluctant to point to a few examples.

 

Really? You're going to go down that path?

 

I told you what to do. Google it. I'm disappointed you'd sidestep my entire post with that. First off, I think you don't quite understand what evolution means; it's the change of the genetic makeup of a population over time. It's not an ape turning into a human, it's not a finch turning into another finch. Single animals cannot evolve; it is the genetic mutations that drive genetic change. You should look into the Cell Theory. We can put the components together, get the surrounding environment right, input the right amount of energy, and cells just won't work. The only thing on the planet that can create new cells is other cells. With the advancement of genome mapping, we've found that it's very telling to study the genetic makeup of cells in order to determine lineage of cells. Mitochondrial DNA is EXTREMELY useful in this. The genome of mitochondria (the result of an early eukaryotic cell engulfing a ATP-rich bacterium ... see: Endosymbiotic theory) is extremely small. Because it's small and independent of the nucleic DNA, scientists are able to track back where organisms diverged. The interesting thing is that all of this information corroborates the idea of genetic change over time (evolution).

 

I really don't think rattling off examples will be a strong argument. Something as complex as evolution, as I said before, requires an understanding of not just basic chemistry, but organic chemistry, genetics, molecular biology, cell biology, ecology, and many other disciplines. But if you want trivial examples...

 

• Dolphins grow a pair of legs and then lose them while in the womb
• Whales and other aquatic mammals have vestigial pelvic and leg bones
• Cells are remarkably similar. Even distant of relatives as Bacteria and Eukaryotes have similarities
• All genetic material is exactly the same. From a microbial lifeform on the thermal vents of the deep sea to the genetic material in your body, it's all the same base groups (G, A, T, and C, with Uracil replacing Thymine on RNA)
• Humans have vestigial structures. Wisdom teeth, when you get goosebumps (a response seen in animals with fur, it raises the hairs and creates a buffer, as well as "puffing up" in response to stress), we grow and lose a tail while in the womb, the coccyx is a vestigial tail
• Blind Mole Rats have eyes that are completely covered by skin
• The fossil record is surprisingly indicative of evolution despite the delicate nature of both fossil formation and the continuing existence once a fossil is formed
• Dandelions reproduce asexually, yet they still have the sexually motivated/evolved petals
• Numerous pseudogenes in the human genome which (as the name implies) have no function (are essentially "turned off") but are active in our closest mammal relatives

 

Trivial, pretty much missing the point examples. But you wanted some, there you go. Tear 'em apart.

[BluePirate]

Okay. You’re right, rattling off your examples is indeed a weak argument. Those are disproved in almost every creationism article. The reason you think I don’t understand evolution may be because the discussion was about macro-evolution NOT micro-evolution, which does seem to be happening around us. However, saying that because micro-evolution exists proves the existence of macro-evolution is a rather hasty generalization.

[DaveTV1]

I don't believe in evolution. I do believe in adaptation. We all adapt to our surroundings. As the old saying goes: "When in Rome". I've seen minor changes in what God has created. I've had the chicken pox, I'm immune to it. I seriously doubt, that I'll get shingles. I have herpes simplex I, is that a horrible disease ? no. If it spread elsewhere, then it might be a horrible disease. But, a fever blister is just that.

 

Do we as humans adapt to our surroundings? yes. Do animal's ? yes. Can I as a human being, withstand 10 degrees below zero ? Can I withstand 118 degrees ? yes. Would I need central heating and air conditioning ? no.

 

I haven't seen evolution. I have seen selective breeding and pollination. I will say that Darwin on the H.M.S. Beagle was right in some ways, but wrong in many others. I have seen more of where we have went backwards in time, than forward.

 

I think it's all hereditary. Certain animal's, can't procreate with other animal's. We will never see a Dogcat in our lifetime, or anyone's lifetime. It's not feasible. This is basic biology folks. We can have clones, but you can't have a mix of corn and cabbage. Unless, it's on a plate. God forbid, that I ever have to eat Corned Beef Hash or a Reuben Sandwich in my lifetime, again.

 

[Middle]

Okay. You’re right, rattling off your examples is indeed a weak argument. Those are disproved in almost every creationism article. The reason you think I don’t understand evolution may be because the discussion was about macro-evolution NOT micro-evolution, which does seem to be happening around us. However, saying that because micro-evolution exists proves the existence of macro-evolution is a rather hasty generalization.

 

Disproved? The fact that there's a bone, with no current use, in whales, something you can cut out and hold in your hand, is not real? Or the observable growth and loss of a tail and legs? I've yet to see any "creationist" argument against why all genetic material is based on the same molecules and is vastly similar in all organisms or why all cells generally operate in the same way. Or how we can trace lineage through mitochondrial DNA (that's where the "out of africa" theory comes from because all mitochondrial DNA in humans points to the same place in Africa).

 

There's no such thing as micro-evolution. The very definition of evolution is genetic change of populations over time. Adaptation could be considered "micro-evolution," but evolution is evolution; there's no short term vs long term. Building on that, I never mentioned "micro-evolution" much less citing it as my belief in "macro-evolution." As I told you, Blue, it's very hard to explain it without getting into paragraphs of scientific mumbo-jumbo which will make me look like I'm talking out of my rear-end even more than I already am. I apologize for seeming like such a [explative deleted] towards you; you're one of the last folks on here I want to be a rude moron towards. I just get huffy with science and forget who I'm bantering with.

[clawsnstripes]

Maybe you should go back to my post. Never said I was "a scientist all my life." Nice try, though.

 

i thought i read that as well. maybe i need new glasses, maybe the magic edit button?

 

[Straw]

you're one of the last folks on here I want to be a rude moron towards. I just get huffy with science and forget who I'm bantering with.

 

 

Middle, this begs the question, who do you want to be a rude moron towards? :whome:

[BluePirate]

Disproved? The fact that there's a bone, with no current use, in whales, something you can cut out and hold in your hand, is not real?

 

There's no such thing as micro-evolution. The very definition of evolution is genetic change of populations over time. Adaptation could be considered "micro-evolution," but evolution is evolution; there's no short term vs long term.

 

Yep, disprove. Whales never had legs. The structures that were once claimed to be vestigial legs are now known to actually be necessary for reproduction. This structure is only found in the male and anchor the muscles attached to the penis. My intentions aren't to get under your skin... honestly. I genuinely disagree with many of the theories evolutionists stuck down my throat while in public school.

 

Micro-evolution states that all living organisms experience mutations and have the ability to develop genetic adaptations. The difference between this and macro-evolution is that micro-evolution only deals with mutations within a species. Macro-evolution, on the other hand, states that such adaptations and mutations allow new species to form. Evolution, at least as I see it, is a highly speculative hypothesis.

 

We weren't discussing molecular biology when you charged in accusing us of being ignorant. That's the main thing I took umbrage with not your cellular chemistry comments. Unquestionably, I would need some extensive reading to be in a position to comment on molecular biology, which is something I'm not going to do.

[Bobama]

Middle, this begs the question, who do you want to be a rude moron towards? :whome:

 

See we should just legalize name-calling in the politics forum. If UT fans and Aggie fans can say whatever they want in the college forum, I don't see why calling someone crazy, or a moron is so bad here.

 

I can take it.

[Straw]

See we should just legalize name-calling in the politics forum. If UT fans and Aggie fans can say whatever they want in the college forum, I don't see why calling someone crazy, or a moron is so bad here.

 

I can take it.

 

Its not nice? :unsure:

 

[BluePirate]

Its not nice? :unsure:

 

Some even say it's mean... :shocked:

[Straw]

Some even say it's mean... :shocked:

 

 

And mean is bad!.... :flowers:

[clobobear]

"This structure is only found in the male and anchor the muscles attached to the penis."

 

 

Wow must be a pretty serious appendage!

[Middle]

i thought i read that as well. maybe i need new glasses, maybe the magic edit button?

 

I appreciate you chiming in, calling me a liar, and then chiming out.

 

Any other productive additions to the topic, clawn, or would you rather attack my integrity some more?

 

I've been in arguments and borderline wars of words with other members of the boards, but I've never been called a liar. You're the first one. I don't appreciate it.

[Guest bleeds]

And mean is bad!.... :flowers:

 

...and violates SDC rules.

[BluePirate]

i thought i read that as well. maybe i need new glasses, maybe the magic edit button?

Claws, I'm the one that said that... not Middle.

 

I never fall for the "I have been a scientist all my life, and I can tell you that evolution is true" line.

[applebutter]

"This structure is only found in the male and anchor the muscles attached to the penis."

 

 

Wow must be a pretty serious appendage!

Probably just heavy due to maceration.

[1stSuperScot]

I can take it.

 

really?

[RETIREDFAN1]

“Primordial Soup” Down the Drain—After 80 Years

by Kyle Butt, M.A.

 

 

For 80 years—two generations—the majority of biology textbooks have propagated the lie that life spontaneously arose in a “primordial soup” near the surface of the ocean. Creationists who have not been duped by the evolutionary hype have pointed out for just as long that not only is the spontaneous generation of life biologically impossible, but the “chemical soup” theory is demonstrably false. Finally, after almost a century, the scientific community has admitted that the chemical soup theory cannot be correct. Nick Lane, from University College London, stated: “Textbooks have it that life arose from organic soup and that the first cells grew by fermenting these organics to generate energy in the form of ATP. We provide a new perspective on why that old and familiar view won’t work at all” (as quoted in “New Research...,” 2010, emp. added).

 

In 1929, J.B.S. Haldane proposed that UV radiation “provided the energy to convert methane, ammonia and water into the first organic compounds in the oceans of the early earth. However, critics of the soup theory point out that there is no sustained driving force to make anything react; and without an energy source, life as we know it can’t exist” (2010). So, with a simple wave of the hand, 80 years of evolutionary indoctrination is dismissed without so much as tinge of guilt about misleading two generations of children and adults. What is even more remarkable, and heartbreaking, is that the “primordial soup” idea is being replaced with another scenario that is equally flawed and biologically impossible. According to the “latest research,” life arose in deep-ocean hydrothermal vents. Yet the “hydrothermal vent” theory has just as many defects and errors inherent in it as the “primordial soup” idea.

 

If history is any indication of what will happen, we can expect to see the “primordial soup” idea remain in textbooks for several more years. Slowly but surely, over the next several decades, it will be replaced with the “hydrothermal vent” theory (or some other that might pop up). After years of indoctrination, the vent theory will be replaced by another, equally implausible scenario that allegedly explains how life spontaneously generated from non-living chemicals millions of years ago. This perpetual cycle of theory replacing theory will continue ad nauseam. The only thing that can stop this vicious, destructive cycle is for the scientific community to admit that spontaneous generation is biologically impossible—a fact that has been verified by every relevant biological experiment for the past 160 years (Lyons, 2009).

 

Yet, if they admit this truth, they are faced with the reality that George Wald so concisely stated more than 50 years ago, when he said that the only alternative to spontaneous generation is “to believe in a single primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position” (Wald, 1954, 191[2]:46). How many times must the evolutionary community admit to indoctrinating millions of children for decades with false ideas before we demand that they be held accountable?

 

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth” is a statement that has been preserved for 3,500 years. To this date not a single scientific discovery has invalidated the statement. How high must the stack of outdated, error-laden, evolutionary-based science textbooks reach before society returns to truths found in the only book that “shall not pass away” (Mark 13:31)?

 

REFERENCES

Lyons, Eric (2009), “Where Did Life Come From?”, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240045.

 

“New Research Rejects 80-Year Theory of ‘Primordial Soup’ as the Origin of Life” (2010), ScienceDaily, February 3,[On-line], URL: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/...00202101245.htm.

 

Wald, George (1954), “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, 191[2]:44-53, August.

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

Copyright © 2010 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Sensible Science" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

 

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

 

Apologetics Press

230 Landmark Drive

Montgomery, Alabama 36117

U.S.A.

Phone (334) 272-8558

http://www.apologeticspress.org

 

This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240319

 

AP Content :: Sensible Science

 

 

[TheShadowKnows]

right on. but who will make the correction in the science books. and got a link?