A simple question for creationists.

[idea]

Modern highly resolved Tree Of Life, based on completely sequenced genomes.

genome sequencing is not proof of parent/child relationships because genes can be transmitted through HGT.

read this: The Tree of Life. by Brig Klyce

read this: Horizontal gene transfer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

our genes do not just come from our parents (they can also come from infections, mosquito bites, etc. etc.) so common genes does not equate to common ancestry.


read the new research:

http://blogs.openaccesscentral.com/blogs/bmcblog/entry/beyond_the_tree_of_life
"[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]The Tree of Life is a powerfully attractive representation of an evolutionary process and pattern that has been severely challenged by the discovery of extensive horizontal gene transfer...[/FONT]

 

[outhouse]

you think the Cambrain explosoin is psuedoscienc? ... you need to get out a little more...

most creationist in a arguement that cannot back will twist words and statements in a act of desperation, I see you carry the tradition well.

 

[tumbleweed41]

genome sequencing is not proof of parent/child relationships because genes can be transmitted through HGT.

Parent/child can indeed be evidenced through genome sequencing.

our genes do not just come from our parents (they can also come from infections, mosquito bites, etc. etc.) so common genes does not equate to common ancestry.

Yes, modern geneticists are well aware of horizontal gene transfer and the effects that has on the limitations of the modern tree of life.

 

[muslim-]

I think that connecting the existence of fossils to the idea that the universe wasn't created , a logical fallacy.

The idea of evolution has been almost hijacked by atheists who try to make the word "evolution" imply atheism. Some claim it supports their beliefs that theres no such thing as a Creator, but it doesnt.

I think evolution is a very broad general concept, and that concept may be very true, but the question is, how, and to what extent. Its all in the details. Simply connecting two fossils (if possible) then saying see? All life came from a single cell and therefore theres no God, has not only one logical problem, but two.

1- Concluding that life came from a single cell.
2- Saying that IF life came from a single cell, then theres no Creator.

As for quoting the Bible on the age of the earth or creation, I leave that to those who know biblical quotes better than me. But assuming it were true, to us the Bible doesn't represent the idea of creationism or "religion" anyway, simply because theres more than one religion.

In Islam theres a hadeeth that says something about change in the height of humans over long periods of time, but I wont mention it because I dont think I can use it to support or reject evolution.

The problem when talking about evolution is that people (creationists and atheists alike) usually get caught up in vague terms (like evolution) and make many assumptions when doing so.

 

[outhouse]

genome sequencing is not proof of parent/child relationships because genes can be transmitted through HGT.

read this: The Tree of Life. by Brig Klyce

read this: Horizontal gene transfer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

our genes do not just come from our parents (they can also come from infections, mosquito bites, etc. etc.) so common genes does not equate to common ancestry.

This is simply describing a unknown factor in the tree that exist.

a creationist tactic to use known information then using imagination in the gaps of their knowledge to form a guess that has sound bites to build up their unfounded side.


in a May 2010 article in Nature, Douglas Theobald[39] argued that there was indeed one Last Universal Common Ancestor to all existing life and that horizontal gene transfer has not destroyed our ability to infer this.






, the prevalence and importance of HGT in the evolution of multicellular eukaryotes remain unclear

 

[EarthAlive]

This is simply describing a unknown factor in the tree that exist.

a creationist tactic to use known information then using imagination in the gaps of their knowledge to form a guess that has sound bites to build up their unfounded side.


in a May 2010 article in Nature, Douglas Theobald[39] argued that there was indeed one Last Universal Common Ancestor to all existing life and that horizontal gene transfer has not destroyed our ability to infer this.






, the prevalence and importance of HGT in the evolution of multicellular eukaryotes remain unclear

I see your evidence goes no further than wikipedia. Say no more. Wikipedia says it, you believe it!

 

[outhouse]

I think that connecting the existence of fossils to the idea that the universe wasn't created , a logical fallacy.

The idea of evolution has been almost hijacked by atheists who try to make the word "evolution" imply atheism. Some claim it supports their beliefs that theres no such thing as a Creator, but it doesnt.

I think evolution is a very broad general concept, and that concept may be very true, but the question is, how, and to what extent. Its all in the details. Simply connecting two fossils (if possible) then saying see? All life came from a single cell and therefore theres no God, has not only one logical problem, but two.

1- Concluding that life came from a single cell.
2- Saying that IF life came from a single cell, then theres no Creator.

As for quoting the Bible on the age of the earth or creation, I leave that to those who know biblical quotes better than me. But assuming it were true, to us the Bible doesn't represent the idea of creationism or "religion" anyway, simply because theres more than one religion.

In Islam theres a hadeeth that says something about change in the height of humans over long periods of time, but I wont mention it because I dont think I can use it to support or reject evolution.

The problem when talking about evolution is that people (creationists and atheists alike) usually get caught up in vague terms (like evolution) and make many assumptions when doing so.

If you did a little research you find out there is no debate about the validity of evolution.

it is taught in every major university around the world as HIGHER LEARNING

creation on the other hand is outlawed from poisoning childrens minds in public schools.



there is a direct link with understanding evolution and ones education.

 

[outhouse]

I see your evidence goes no further than wikipedia. Say no more. Wikipedia says it, you believe it!

that was straight from a creationist link.


No my brother is a biology proffessor. There is no debate about evolution, only those who are mostly theist thatrefuse to learn because of their religious background.

Putting theism before science is a mistake ancient man made for thousands of years, I refuse to make the same mistake as men who didnt know the world was round and religion faught to keep it flat. No difference with evolution at all.

the world is round and evolution is both scientific theory and fact. get used to it, its here to stay my friend

 

[EarthAlive]

There is no debate about evolution, only those who are mostly theist thatrefuse to learn because of their religious background.

Yes evolution has happened, but there is a massive debate over which mechanisms have caused this evolution and what mechanisms are driving evolution and this will never be solved, and also if evolution itself has been gradual or if it has taken place rapidly etc this will never be solved either. There are always debates on how evolution has happened, there are huge debates about evolution with scientists all putting across their own interpretation of it, creationism doesn't even come into it. Some users on this forum seem to think evolution has been solved, they really have no idea. We know very little. It also doesn't help when users keep equating evolution with Darwin, Darwin's theory is just one interpretation of evolution, many others exist. There are actually evolutionist books out there which criticise Darwin more than the creationists do.

 

[cablescavenger]

Also a good one is Amazon.com: The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution (9780618619160): Richard Dawkins: Books

Reading this one currently myself, it is quite informative.

That is on my to do list.

 

[waitasec]

I challenge you to provide one modern textbook on biology that uses the Haeckel diagrams.

Just one.

hmmmm. nothing.

i await with bated breath...:no:

 

[EarthAlive]

hmmmm. nothing.

i await with bated breath...:no:

The Haeckel diagrams were used in textbooks for over 100 years, infact the diagrams still remained in school textbooks long after scientists privately worked out they were frauds. You think that is honest do you?

The diagrams no longer appear in textbooks, they all went in 2001 but im sure you already know that, so you are not waiting for a response, you have obviously set that question up to make the other user look uneducated on this matter. But yes it has been 10 years now since they have been removed, but that does not justify the over 100 years of them being in science textbooks.

Biology Text Illustrations More Fiction Than Fact - NYTimes.com

 

[outhouse]

Yes evolution has happened

you are right

Darwin's theory is just one interpretation of evolution, many others exist.

Wrong ToE is very simply. and no other valid interpretation exist.

there are many things we dont know about gravity but the apple falls. Its exactly the same with evolution. things evolve.



there is ZERO evidence linking ancient mans myths as any possible source for any origin of life at all, in any shape or form.

 

[outhouse]

The Haeckel diagrams were used in textbooks for over 100 years, infact the diagrams still remained in school textbooks long after scientists privately worked out they were frauds. You think that is honest do you?

The diagrams no longer appear in textbooks, they all went in 2001 but im sure you already know that, so you are not waiting for a response, you have obviously set that question up to make the other user look uneducated on this matter. But yes it has been 10 years now since they have been removed, but that does not justify the over 100 years of them being in science textbooks.

Biology Text Illustrations More Fiction Than Fact - NYTimes.com

isnt that winderful that evolution corrects itself and evolves as more knowledge is known.

Unlike like those that substitute theology for science.




A typical creationist tactic is to find mistakes and gaps in our knowledge because its all they have. A desperate attempt to protect ancient mans theology that was never correct to begin with.

It would be great if creationist had a guess of their own about the origins and evolution of life. None can agree because they use a myth for their foundation.

 

[EarthAlive]

Wrong ToE is very simply. and no other valid interpretation exist

Yes the theory of evolution - Which has never been solved and never will be, we have hundreds of scientists all claiming different mechanisms, which ones are right and which ones a wrong? It all comes down to interpretation. Some scientists claim natural selection is important for evolution, others oppose it. When looking at some fossils, some will say they see evidence for gradualistic evolution others completey oppose that and argue for rapid evolution or jumps. There was recently major news that a form of lamarckism has occured and been documentated, this does not fit in with neo-darwinism. Look at how many non-Darwinian evolution theories there are, you would be suprised. And this is nothing new, Alfred Wallace in his later years became a staunch opponent of Darwins theory of evolution and put across his own theory of evolution instead.

 

[outhouse]

Yes the theory of evolution - Which has never been solved and never will be, we have hundreds of scientists all claiming different mechanisms, which ones are right and which ones a wrong? It all comes down to interpretation. Some scientists claim natural selection is important for evolution, others oppose it. When looking at some fossils, some will say they see evidence for gradualistic evolution others completey oppose that and argue for rapid evolution or jumps. There was recently major news that a form of lamarckism has occured and been documentated, this does not fit in with neo-darwinism. Look at how many non-Darwinian evolution theories there are, you would be suprised. And this is nothing new, Alfred Wallace in his later years became a staunch opponent of Darwins theory of evolution and put across his own theory of evolution instead.

Yes there is much to be learned, but that does not cut the tree down and replace it with pseudoscience.

a leaf is not even pulled off while trying to paint a clear picture of what is exactly happening.

things evolve, they have done so in a fashion from a common ancestor. Not up for debate as that is not a guess.


attacking the gaps in knowledge is not doing anything to harm the theory. It stands solid.

 

[cablescavenger]

I am a creationist who believes evolution is an intelligently directed process. the fossil record does not really validate the gradualism that Darwin proposed.

Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as early as the mid 19th century,[6] and Charles Darwin saw it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection ...
The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly and from nowhere, centers on three key points: whether there really was a mass diversification of complex organisms over a relatively short period of time during the early Cambrian; what might have caused such rapid change; and what it would imply about the origin and evolution of animals..."

This is what we find in the fossil record:
Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


here are a few quotes from geologists regarding the fossil record.

[FONT=&quot]"Beyond the latest Precambrian there occurred what has appropriately been called an explosion of life forms, many of which seem to be extraordinary experiments in animal design. For a long time it was supposed that the idea of a sudden rise of complex forms of life in the Cambrian Period (on the Proterozoic-Phanerozoic border) was in fact a fallacy created by the nature of the fossil record, and that it simply represented the time when the first shelled creatures began to appear. Since shells are hard objects, they are much more capable of being preserved than soft-bodied creatures. However, from recent research it really does look as though the Earth presented these early organisms with a "clean sheet" upon which to develop all manner of designs." (Dr. David Norman, Prehistoric Life: The Rise of the Vertebrates, pub. Boxtree limited, 1994, p. 32) Dr. Norman is Director of the Sedgwick Museum and lectures on paleontology and evolution at the University of Cambridge

[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

If you wish to deal with scientific matters you need to start thinking critically and using the latest data. If you could use something from this century that would be a start.

You are not wrong that there was some explosion of life when evolution appeared to be in overdrive as many new species turned up. This period was some 570 million years ago, so it was difficult trying to establish the cause.

You see at that time organisms had been very simple, and were not very efficient, then something remarkable happened which caused the explosion of life.

I will let you marvel, as someone far more qualified than me explains what happened:

BBC Earth - Timeline - The Cambrian explosion: Life on the rise

 

[cablescavenger]

Yes the theory of evolution - Which has never been solved and never will be, we have hundreds of scientists all claiming different mechanisms, which ones are right and which ones a wrong? It all comes down to interpretation. Some scientists claim natural selection is important for evolution, others oppose it. When looking at some fossils, some will say they see evidence for gradualistic evolution others completey oppose that and argue for rapid evolution or jumps. There was recently major news that a form of lamarckism has occured and been documentated, this does not fit in with neo-darwinism. Look at how many non-Darwinian evolution theories there are, you would be suprised. And this is nothing new, Alfred Wallace in his later years became a staunch opponent of Darwins theory of evolution and put across his own theory of evolution instead.

--------------------------------------
There is a reason creationism cannot be taught at schools, but evolution can, even in America where some 60% of Americans are religious.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

I am a creationist who believes evolution does happen, however does not believe humans have any common ancestors with apes.

 

[tumbleweed41]

The Haeckel diagrams were used in textbooks for over 100 years, infact the diagrams still remained in school textbooks long after scientists privately worked out they were frauds. You think that is honest do you?

The diagrams no longer appear in textbooks, they all went in 2001 but im sure you already know that, so you are not waiting for a response, you have obviously set that question up to make the other user look uneducated on this matter. But yes it has been 10 years now since they have been removed, but that does not justify the over 100 years of them being in science textbooks.

Biology Text Illustrations More Fiction Than Fact - NYTimes.com

Really? 2001?
Again, I challange you to find one Modern Biology Textbook that uses the Heackel diagrams as "evidence of evolution".
(The last one I could find was from 1944, Animal Biology by Grove and Newell - University Tutorial Press. And even then, no diagram, and Haeckel and his work is mearly mentioned as being historically important to the study of comparative embryology)