EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[ragordon168]

you don't know what a crooked animal is. thats quite telling and surprising i must say.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_YniKlbPh2...1600-h/animal_oddity_crooked_neck_giraffe.jpg

i never said species don't cahnge suddenly, i said the fossil record shows sudden changes not over time changes, so that dissproves evolution.

so you mean we dig up a dinosaur and a bird fossil from different time periods and since their different but similar it means there was a 'sudden change' from dinosaur to bird. what if the difference between time periods was millions of years and we found a dinosaur with bones similar to birds and feathers (oh wait we already have)

what, i've never said that. i showed you an exmaple of a crooked animal.

but humans on the other hand would not have survived if evolution and it's theory of natural selection was true.

you know that apes cannot stand on 2 legs for very long especially the ones put forward by evolution as our "ancestors". they walked on all 4. now in order for us to have evolved out of them we would have gone through a great deal of bone changes specialy around our lower back. so a creature that is not fully ape and not fully human by default and logic would be weaker thus that creature could not have climed trees and could not have been a fast runner, meaning it was a crooked animal with crooked bones and thus was a very easy pray target for many other creatures. .

1. get this tatood on your arm so you remember. we are not descended from modern apes!!!!

we share a common anscestor from millions of years ago. the human anscestor developed some mutation that allowed it to walk of two legs for extended periods which evolved over time to give us our current posture. no 'crooked' bones involved.

i think i'm just wasting my breath, none of you guys are open minded, you've all convinced yourselves that evolution is true.

because the evidence supports that conclusion, your grasping at straws looking for any tiny thing to try and score points but people a lot smarter than you or me have already gone over it and explained it all.

 

[Autodidact]

what, i've never said that. i showed you an exmaple of a crooked animal.

but humans on the other hand would not have survived if evolution and it's theory of natural selection was true.

you know that apes cannot stand on 2 legs for very long especially the ones put forward by evolution as our "ancestors". they walked on all 4. now in order for us to have evolved out of them we would have gone through a great deal of bone changes specialy around our lower back. so a creature that is not fully ape and not fully human by default and logic would be weaker thus that creature could not have climed trees and could not have been a fast runner, meaning it was a crooked animal with crooked bones and thus was a very easy pray target for many other creatures.

i think i'm just wasting my breath, none of you guys are open minded, you've all convinced yourselves that evolution is true.

Right. We're basing our opinion on the evidence, with no preconceived agenda. You refuse to accept any scientific conclusion that differs from your odd, un-Islamic interpretation of your religion, and you're calling us close-minded.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

i'm just really interested in eselam's reasoning that humans couldn't have possibly survived once they first became what we consider fully human. i will try to rebuttal you, once you've actually explained why we couldn't have survived.

I'm betting that he is using the standard neophyte thought that 'humans have no claws, no fur, no fangs. We are relatively slow runners, and have weak muscles gram-for-gram compared to most other animals".....so surely such a weak newborn would have been caught and eaten by a saber-tooth tiger hundreds of thousands of years ago.....blah blah blah.
You know. The standard.
Buuuuut, I'll admit to also being curious if he has a new take on this old myth. :areyoucra

....snip.....
because the evidence supports that conclusion, your grasping at straws looking for any tiny thing to try and score points but people a lot smarter than you or me have already gone over it and explained it all.

Many dozens of times over 275 pages so far. Yet still he clings to the idea that it is everyone else who is 'close-minded'.

D'oh! Autodidact beat me to it! :bow:

 

[Autodidact]

what, i've never said that. i showed you an exmaple of a crooked animal.

but humans on the other hand would not have survived if evolution and it's theory of natural selection was true.

you know that apes cannot stand on 2 legs for very long especially the ones put forward by evolution as our "ancestors". they walked on all 4. now in order for us to have evolved out of them we would have gone through a great deal of bone changes specialy around our lower back. so a creature that is not fully ape and not fully human by default and logic would be weaker thus that creature could not have climed trees and could not have been a fast runner, meaning it was a crooked animal with crooked bones and thus was a very easy pray target for many other creatures.

i think i'm just wasting my breath, none of you guys are open minded, you've all convinced yourselves that evolution is true.

For at least the fifth time, you do not understand what ToE says about this or anything else.

 

[Autodidact]

can you stop saying i don't understand evolution, you might give someone the wrong idea.

Oh, I see, you actually understand the theory, so when you say that it says things completely different from what it actually says, you're just lying?

Because what your posts have referred to so far has nothing to do with the actual ToE.

that picture was just one of the many million "beneficial" mutations that "supports" evolution. thats my proof now wheres yours?

I'm going to say this once, and hope I don't have to repeat myself. If I do, I will expect you to pay me one frubal each time I have to repeat it, and to say in the thread that you have done so. I have probably said this here at RF at least 100 times, and I'm getting really tired of it.

SCIENCE ISN'T ABOUT PROOF. IT'S ABOUT EVIDENCE.

So you shouldn't be asking me for proof, but for evidence.

Now think about it. You have this idea in your head about what ToE is that doesn't in any way match the actual theory. So when I present the evidence, you're not going t understand how it support ToE, because you don't know what ToE is (or you choose to lie about it, according to you.)

I recently spent time presenting about half of this evidence to a creationist who failed to even acknowledge it, let alone respond.

I am (barely) willing to go through it again for you, if you promise to stay around, read, understand, ask questions, and respond to the evidence. It will take around 100 pages. Here's how it will go: first I'll explain what ToE actually says. That will take 3-4 posts. Then, once you understand it, I'll begin presenting the huge, enormous, overwhelming, cumulative, consilient evidence that persuaded the consensus of skeptical biological scientists it was true--over 100 years ago.

Do you want to do it?

 

[Autodidact]

why do you say it doesn't?

It has nothing to do with evolution. Or, to put it differently, ToE predicts these individuals would probably not survive in the wild. If it was a result of a mutation (which it isn't) that mutation would not be reproduced, and would die out. Do you see why?

 

[camanintx]

you know that apes cannot stand on 2 legs for very long especially the ones put forward by evolution as our "ancestors". they walked on all 4. now in order for us to have evolved out of them we would have gone through a great deal of bone changes specialy around our lower back.

Science suggests that there is not as large a difference between quadrupeds and bipeds as you would believe.

Why go bipedal? Locomotion and morphology in Australian agamid lizards

 

[Gharib]

can you guys give me some room, how can i reply to all these posts take it easy OK.

i think we should open a new thread what do you guys recon, my treat.

 

[Gharib]

warm up question for eveyone:

Natural Selection Cannot Account for the
Complex Structures in Living Things
The theory of evolution maintains that those living organisms
that best adapt to their environment have
more opportunities to survive and multiply, and therefore,
they can pass on their advantageous characteristics
to subsequent generations, and species evolve by
way of this “mechanism.”
But the fact is that the mechanism in question—known
as natural selection—cannot cause living things to
evolve, nor endow them with any new features. It can
only reinforce existing characteristics belonging to a
particular species.
In any given region, for example, those rabbits able to
run fastest will survive, while others die. After a few
generations, all the rabbits in this region will consist
of fast-running individuals. However, these rabbits
can never evolve into another species—greyhounds or​

foxes, for instance.

 

[Gharib]

one more warm up

Just as an Earthquake Cannot Improve a City,
Neither Are Mutations Advantageous to Develop
Living Things
Mutations are caused by random changes in the DNA
in which all the information concerning the human
body’s characteristics is encoded. Mutations occur
due to outside agents such as radiation or chemicals.
Evolutionists maintain that such random genetic
changes can cause living things to evolve. The fact is,
though, that mutations are always harmful to living

​

things, do not develop them, and can never endow
them with any new functional features (such as wings
or lungs, for instance). Mutations either kill or deform
the afflicted organism. To claim that mutations improve
a species and endow it with new advantages is
like claiming that an earthquake can make a city more
advanced and modern, or that striking a computer
with a hammer will result in a more advanced model.
Indeed, no mutation has ever been observed to increase—​

much less improve—genetic information.

up to now i have kind of been playing with you guys, but it is time for evolution to come to an end, just like all things eventually do.

 

[tumbleweed41]

one more warm up

Just as an Earthquake Cannot Improve a City,
Neither Are Mutations Advantageous to Develop
Living Things
Mutations are caused by random changes in the DNA
in which all the information concerning the human
body’s characteristics is encoded. Mutations occur
due to outside agents such as radiation or chemicals.
Evolutionists maintain that such random genetic
changes can cause living things to evolve. The fact is,
though, that mutations are always harmful to living
things, do not develop them, and can never endow
them with any new functional features (such as wings
or lungs, for instance). Mutations either kill or deform
the afflicted organism. To claim that mutations improve
a species and endow it with new advantages is
like claiming that an earthquake can make a city more
advanced and modern, or that striking a computer
with a hammer will result in a more advanced model.
Indeed, no mutation has ever been observed to increase—​

much less improve—genetic information.

up to now i have kind of been playing with you guys, but it is time for evolution to come to an end, just like all things eventually do.

First of all, your source...Harun Yahya-THE COLLAPSE OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IN 50 THEMES

Second of all...

1. Biologists the world over are, and always have been, unanimous in their agreement that complex structures did not arise by chance. The theory of evolution does not say they did, and to say otherwise is to display a profound absence of understanding of evolution. The novel aspect that Darwin proposed is natural selection. Selection is the very opposite of chance.
   
   Selection of randomly introduced variation is known to be able to produce complex formations, including functional circuits (Davidson 1997; Thompson 1996) and robots (Lipson and Pollack 2000). Creationists have never proposed a reason to explain why the same processes would not produce the same results in nature.
2. The principles by which evolution works, including random variation and recombination and natural selection, have proven successful and useful for designing new drugs (Coghlan 1998), for designing better enzymes for detergents (Pollack 2000), and, as genetic algorithms, for many other applications.

Source

 

[Gharib]

one more warm up just for the fun of it

Fish that Ruined Evolutionists’
Dreams:Coeoelecanth​

Evolutionists used to depict the Coelecanth, a fish
known only from fossils dating back 400 million years,
as very powerful evidence of a transitional form between
fish and amphibians. Since it was assumed that
this species had become extinct 70 million years ago,
evolutionists engaged in all kinds of speculation re-​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

garding the fossils. On 22 December 1938, however, a
living Coelecanth was caught in the deep waters of the
Indian Ocean. More than 200 other living specimens
have been caught in the years that followed.
All the speculation regarding these fish had been unfounded.
Contrary to what evolutionists claimed, the
Coelecanth was not a vertebrate with half-fish, half-amphibian
characteristics preparing to emerge onto dry
land. It was in fact a bottom-dwelling fish that almost never
rose above a depth of 180 meters (590 feet). Moreover,
there were no anatomical differences between the living
Coelecanth and the 400-million-year-old fossil specimens.​

This creature had never “evolved” at all.

 

[Gharib]

First of all, your source...Harun Yahya-THE COLLAPSE OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IN 50 THEMES

yes spot on.

Second of all...

1. Biologists the world over are, and always have been, unanimous in their agreement that complex structures did not arise by chance. The theory of evolution does not say they did, and to say otherwise is to display a profound absence of understanding of evolution. The novel aspect that Darwin proposed is natural selection. Selection is the very opposite of chance.

nothing in that article speaks about chance. and nothing in this first post indicates to be an answer to it.

Selection of randomly introduced variation is known to be able to produce complex formations, including functional circuits (Davidson 1997; Thompson 1996) and robots (Lipson and Pollack 2000). Creationists have never proposed a reason to explain why the same processes would not produce the same results in nature.

are you comparing robotics to actual life and nature?

The principles by which evolution works, including random variation and recombination and natural selection, have proven successful and useful for designing new drugs (Coghlan 1998), for designing better enzymes for detergents (Pollack 2000), and, as genetic algorithms, for many other applications.
Source

can you show me some of these principal with which evolutionists work. and you are only talking about drugs, my friend, don't evolutionists have many thousands of other examples, using just those ones dissproves evolution. surely there has to be many more in support of this great theory.

 

[tumbleweed41]

one more warm up just for the fun of it

Fish that Ruined Evolutionists’
Dreams:Coeoelecanth​

Evolutionists used to depict the Coelecanth, a fish
known only from fossils dating back 400 million years,
as very powerful evidence of a transitional form between
fish and amphibians. Since it was assumed that
this species had become extinct 70 million years ago,
evolutionists engaged in all kinds of speculation re-​

garding the fossils. On 22 December 1938, however, a
living Coelecanth was caught in the deep waters of the
Indian Ocean. More than 200 other living specimens
have been caught in the years that followed.
All the speculation regarding these fish had been unfounded.
Contrary to what evolutionists claimed, the
Coelecanth was not a vertebrate with half-fish, half-amphibian
characteristics preparing to emerge onto dry
land. It was in fact a bottom-dwelling fish that almost never
rose above a depth of 180 meters (590 feet). Moreover,
there were no anatomical differences between the living
Coelecanth and the 400-million-year-old fossil specimens.​

This creature had never “evolved” at all.

You're making this to easy...
Again, your source... Harun Yahya-THE COLLAPSE OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IN 50 THEMES

You really should study before you post...

1. The modern coelacanth is Latimeria chalumnae, in the family Latimeriidae. Fossil coelacanths are in other families, mostly Coelacanthidae, and are significantly different in that they are smaller and lack certain internal structures. Latimeria has no fossil record, so it cannot be a "living fossil."
2. Even if the modern coelacanth and fossil coelacanths were the same, it would not be a serious problem for evolution. The theory of evolution does not say that all organisms must evolve. In an unchanging environment, natural selection would tend to keep things largely unchanged morphologically.
3. Coelacanths have primitive features relative to most other fish, so at one time they were one of the closest known specimens to the fish-tetrapod transition. We now know several other fossils that show the fish-tetrapod transition quite well.

Source

 

[Gharib]

one more, what the heck, i can't resist

Birds’ Wings Cannot Be the Work of Chance​

Evolutionists maintain that birds evolved from reptiles—
though this is impossible, and a bird’s wing
alone is sufficient to prove this. In order for evolution
of the kind claimed to have taken place, a reptile’s
forearms would have to have changed into functional
wings as the result of mutations taking place
in its genes—and quickly! And this is not feasible.
First of all, this transitional life form
would be unable to fly with only half-developed
wings. It would also be deprived
of its forearms. That would mean it was
essentially deformed and therefore—
according to the theory of evolution—
would be eliminated.
In order for any bird to fly, its wings
​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

had to be fully formed in every detail. The wings
should be soundly attached to the chest cavity. The
bird would need to have a light skeletal structure allowing
it to take off, maintain its balance in the air and
move in all directions. Its wing and tail feathers would
have to be light, flexible and in aerodynamic proportion
to one another. In short, everything would have to
operate with a flawless coordination in order to make
flight possible. How could this inerrant structure in
birds’ bodies have resulted from a succession of random​

mutations? That question has no answer.

 

[tumbleweed41]

nothing in that article speaks about chance. and nothing in this first post indicates to be an answer to it.

Mutations are caused by random changes in the DNA in which all the information concerning the human body’s characteristics is encoded. Mutations occur due to outside agents such as radiation or chemicals.
Evolutionists maintain that such random genetic changes can cause living things to evolve.

are you comparing robotics to actual life and nature?

Are you comparing life to earthquakes and striking a computer with a hammer?

is
like claiming that an earthquake can make a city more
advanced and modern, or that striking a computer
with a hammer will result in a more advanced model.

can you show me some of these principal with which evolutionists work. and you are only talking about drugs, my friend, don't evolutionists have many thousands of other examples, using just those ones dissproves evolution. surely there has to be many more in support of this great theory.

Enzymes, bacteria, viruses, mosquitoes, fruit flies etc...

 

[Autodidact]

warm up question for eveyone:

Natural Selection Cannot Account for the
Complex Structures in Living Things
The theory of evolution maintains that those living organisms
that best adapt to their environment have
more opportunities to survive and multiply, and therefore,
they can pass on their advantageous characteristics
to subsequent generations, and species evolve by
way of this “mechanism.”
But the fact is that the mechanism in question—known
as natural selection—cannot cause living things to
evolve, nor endow them with any new features. It can
only reinforce existing characteristics belonging to a
particular species.
In any given region, for example, those rabbits able to
run fastest will survive, while others die. After a few
generations, all the rabbits in this region will consist
of fast-running individuals. However, these rabbits
can never evolve into another species—greyhounds or​

foxes, for instance.

1. It's against forum rules (and the law) to steal other people's work without attribution.
2. Harun Yahya is a doughnut-hole, an idiotic criminal who doesn't understand evolution any better than you do. Like you, this does not stop him spouting off about it.
3. He only talks about 1/2 of the theory. Of course natural selection can't alone account for new species evolving--it takes descent plus modification as well. Two parts of the the theory.

As I have now said at least 4 times, you can't discuss the theory until you understand what it says. None of us are going to defend a non-existent theory. When you're ready to learn what the actual ToE says, I'm ready to teach you.

 

[Autodidact]

one more warm up

Just as an Earthquake Cannot Improve a City,
Neither Are Mutations Advantageous to Develop
Living Things
Mutations are caused by random changes in the DNA
in which all the information concerning the human
body’s characteristics is encoded. Mutations occur
due to outside agents such as radiation or chemicals.
Evolutionists maintain that such random genetic
changes can cause living things to evolve. The fact is,
though, that mutations are always harmful to living
things, do not develop them, and can never endow
them with any new functional features (such as wings
or lungs, for instance). Mutations either kill or deform
the afflicted organism. To claim that mutations improve
a species and endow it with new advantages is
like claiming that an earthquake can make a city more
advanced and modern, or that striking a computer
with a hammer will result in a more advanced model.
Indeed, no mutation has ever been observed to increase—​

much less improve—genetic information.

up to now i have kind of been playing with you guys, but it is time for evolution to come to an end, just like all things eventually do.

He's either wrong or lying. I have shown you in this thread actual instances of actual beneficial mutations. So why would you continue to cite a felonious propagandist who's already been proven wrong? You like to look gullible?

 

[Gharib]

1. It's against forum rules (and the law) to steal other people's work without attribution.

it's from Harun Yahya.

2. Harun Yahya is a doughnut-hole, an idiotic criminal who doesn't understand evolution any better than you do. Like you, this does not stop him spouting off about it.

slow down will ya, if he and i didn't understand evolution then why are you threatened so much??? sure you can answer my/his questions.

3. He only talks about 1/2 of the theory. Of course natural selection can't alone account for new species evolving--it takes descent plus modification as well. Two parts of the the theory.

descent doesn't do much, it's not like a cow will give birth to a horse, it will only give birth to a cow.

As I have now said at least 4 times, you can't discuss the theory until you understand what it says. None of us are going to defend a non-existent theory. When you're ready to learn what the actual ToE says, I'm ready to teach you.

i partially agree, evolution is a non-existent theory so theres nothing to defend about it. but still i will dissprove it. thank you for your time.

 

[tumbleweed41]

one more, what the heck, i can't resist

Birds’ Wings Cannot Be the Work of Chance
............................................................
First of all, this transitional life form
would be unable to fly with only half-developed
wings. It would also be deprived
of its forearms. That would mean it was
essentially deformed and therefore—
according to the theory of evolution—
would be eliminated..........................................
​

That question has no answer.

1. The assumption made by the claim is false. Structures and organs function quite well when they are not fully developed. Six-year-olds may not have the strength and agility of adults, but their arms, legs, and so forth function well enough to do a great deal.
2. "Fully developed" is not even well defined. Human eyes do not have the acuity of hawks, the dark sight ability of owls, the color discrimination of some fish, or the bee's ability to see in ultraviolet. With so much more potential possible for the human eye, how can one claim that our own eyes are fully developed?

Half a wing can have any of several uses:

• In insects, half a wing is useful for skimming rapidly across the surface of water (Marden and Kramer 1995; Kramer and Marden 1997; Thomas et al. 2000).
• In larger animals, half a wing is useful for gliding. Airfoils for gliding appear in several different forms in many different animals, including
  • skin between legs on flying squirrels (Petauristinae), scaly-tailed squirrels (Anomaluridae), flying phalangers, and flying lemurs
  • flattened body of the flying snake (Chrysopelea)
  • large webbed feet on gliding tree frogs (Rhacophorus and Polypedates)
  • fins on flying fish (Exocoetidae) and flying squid (Onychoteuthis)
  • expanded lateral membranes supported by elongated flexible ribs on gliding lizards (e.g., Draco)
  • expanded lateral membranes supported by elongated jointed ribs on the Kuehneosauridae from the late Triassic
  • lateral membrane supported by bones separate from the rest of the skeleton on Coelurosauravus jaekeli, an Upper Permian flying reptile (Frey et al. 1997)
  • even an ant (Cephalotes atratus), when it falls, uses its hind legs to direct its aerial descent back to its home tree's trunk (Yanoviak et al. 2005).
• In immature chickens, wing-flapping enhances hindlimb traction, allowing the chickens to ascend steeper inclines. This function could be an intermediate to the original flight of birds. (Dial 2003)
• In some flightless birds (e.g., penguins), wings are used for swimming.
• In some flightless birds, wings are used for startling potential predators.
• Black herons use their wings to shade the water in which they fish.
• Some owls use their wings to hold their prey against the ground.
• Nighthawks, woodcocks, riflebirds, and several species of manakins make noises with their wings as part of sexual displays.
• Partial wings may have other useful functions that nobody has thought of yet.

Source