What if creationism is true?

[idav]

If creationism is true, that would not necessarily tell us who God is, and what his agenda are.

If creation were true, knowing how would give a clue as to an agenda and possibly paint a picture of gods attributes.

Also knowing how it wasnt done eliminates possibilities.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

And as I keep pointing out: The evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. It "only" explains the diversity of species and how something complex can spring from something simple if given enough time.

Thats my point. Diversity of species within the kind. There are many species of dogs, but guess what, they are all dogs. I could easily maintain that God created every animal and insect to be able to produce different varieties of its own kind. You cannot prove this to be untrue. So my point is, at least keep the playing field at 50/50 instead of passing off one view as true, when it is absolutely not. Then once you do that, we can weigh the pros and cons of both views, using our reason and logic.

The origin of life is another topic and if we are to discuss it there is a few suggestions on that as well. The cells of today, with all there parts are "infinitly" more complex than the first string of DNA would have been. It's not like the first form of life ever where like the cells of today. As I also pointed out earlier, the simplest one cell organisms today are extremely more complex than what we would have found at the beginning.

I fail to see the point here.

DNA are just a bunch of amino acids which during the right conditions form strings and fold themselves in specific 3D forms. In the "beginning" it would probably have been just a string of a few amino acids forming either DNA or RNA and because of their attribute of being able to copy themselves it would be the only thing needed for evolution to kick in.

See, here is the problem. You are making it seem as if DNA is "just a bunch of amino acids." But this is an understatment. Amino acids come in 80 different types, but only 20 are found in living organisms, so you would have to literally isolate the correct ones from the other ones not needed. They have to be linked together in the right sequence in order to produce protein molecules. This wouldnt be hard to do if you were implying you INTELLIGENCE to all this and started selecting them one at a time. But without intelligence, this was all unguided without any help whatsoever. Then you have to consider the left-handed amino acids and right handed, and only the left handed ones work with us. It takes one hundred amino acids to make one protein molecule. And this is just the first step!!! And the structure and construction of DNA is even more complicated than this.

There is no sharp line to be drawn to tell when a string of DNA is complex enough to be called a lifeform. It is a slow process beginning with extremely simple constitutions of amino acids forced by the laws of physic to form certain chains with ability to copy.

"Extremely simple constitutions of amino acids". There is nothing simple about it. These amino acids were almost "hand picked", since only certain ones can be used to form the right biological functions. Michael Behe said that the probability of linking together just one hundred amino acids to create one protein molecule by chance would be the same as a blind-folded man finding one marked grain of sand somewhere in the vastness of the Sahara Desert, and doing it not once, but three different times. It is clear where the evidence points.

True. But as shown above that has nothing to do with it since a living cell wasn't formed just like that from non living materia. The living cell is quite high up on the evolutionary ladder if you involve the first, very simple forms of DNA/RNA.

But in order to even get to the point where you have cells at all, you still need the amino acids. You have to get the amino acids, separate them from the ones you dont need, and put them in the right sequence to make just one protein molecule. And you still created life yet. Need to repeat this process 200 times, because it takes at least 200 protein molecules to make just one living cell. There is already a high improbability that this blind and unguided process can make one protein molecule, let alone 200. So you have improbability x 200, which equals, more improbability. To say that it is highly unlikely that this occurred is an understatement.

Here on the other hand, you are wrong. Evolution does explain, and in great detail as well, the complexity of life. It explains perfectly how complexity forms from simplicity.

So the main purpose for a birds wings are for flying, right? So, how did birds evovle wings?? If wings are for the purpose of flying, how did evolution know it was going to need wings to fly?? And spare me the "thats not how it worked" stuff, because that is how it worked. Birds evovled wings. Wings are for flying. That is its purpose. How did evolution know??

The immense amount of evidence supporting the theory of evolution exist whether you like it or not. And evolutionary biology is a science as good as any. The results, backing up the theory, has been reached using the scientific method.

Sooooo, where is all of this evidence??? Please tell me. What is the best piece of evidence that we have for evolution?? I cant wait to see this.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

But you are right. Evolution has no eyes and no agenda. It simply is. The individual animal, best suited to pass it's genes on survives. The offspring goes through the same process and the species gets more and more fine tuned to their enviorment. It is very simple, really.

I agree. If a mother rabbit produces two offspring, one that can hop 70 mph, and the other 10mph, the one that can hop 70mph is better suited for survival, because it can hop away faster from predators. So if it passes along the "fast hopping" gene, it will produce a ton of fast hopping rabbits, and thus, we have a rabbit that can hop 70mph. Got it. That part is simple. But that is more along the lines of natural selection. What I am talking about is the actual evovling of the animal. The whole "the whale used to be a land dwelling animal" crap. That never happened. That is more than natural selection, that is more like a man turning in to a werewolf.

Nonsense. Since we don't know there is an infinite number of possible, completley natural explanations that might or might not be found later. It's not evolution or ID, it's Evolution, ID or something completley different that we don't know of yet. Disproving evolution wouldn't be the proof of ID. All serious scientists would just say: "Ok, evolution is obviosly not the explanaition, now let's find out what is."

No, either we are here by God, or some kind of naturalistic reason. Any naturalistic explanation would fall other "naturalistic reason". So that still only leaves two options.

Before species with two sexes there where probably just cell division as reproductive process. Then a possibility would be that one type of species were able to mix their DNA in the reproductive process, something that is favourable when it come to natural selection since the differences becomes bigger, thus speeding up the process. But I must say that I am not sure. I would have to look into that further.

Please do. In order to even say "one type of species were able to mix their DNA in the reproductive process".....to even say that is presupposing compatibility, when compatibility is what is being questioned. There is no plausible answer to this on a naturalistic view. Males of ever reproducing organism excluding plants have just what it takes to reproduce with the opposite sex. You cannot get this kind of order from something that is unorderly.

It's not like males and females evolved their genitals separetley until they were "finished" and fitted together perfectly. As an example: Say that one special type of cell mutate over time (due to copying errors and radiation. This is very common) into a type of cell that has the ability to mix with other cells of the same kind to produce offspring with DNA from both its "parents". This would as I said be favourable. The next generation would be, let's say a hundred cells where a few of them (by chance) had a slight difference which made the "mixing" process easier or less costly (regarding energy). That would mean that that kind of cell would have a bigger chance of reproducing, thus increasing the amount of cells with that typical attribute. Parallelly would also another kind of cell develop, namely one who would be better to mix with that kind of cell I explained above. This would mean that we would have taken the first tiny steps towards a penis and a vagina and two sexed species. This is hard to explain but it is forced to happen (if that first change happen by chance, which is not at all impossible).

Keep trying my friend.

Acctually, many plants species are also two sexed. And many animals are not. ID is not the best explanation in any case since it has no evidence at all. The only thing you have based ID on so far is, in your opinion, the lack of evidence for real scientific theories. ID is a vauge hypothesis without any evidence at all.

ID is more plausible. If you are walking through a junkyard and you see a fully functional Boeing 747, is it more logical to conclude that a whirling tornado whirled its way in to the junkyard and accidentally assembled it, or, to conclude that man, using its intelligent mind, assembled it. DNA is more complex than what is in question. There is evidence for ID, we know ID when we see it, but people deny ID if it has religous implications, but any other time it is widely accepted. It blows my mind.

This is also why the Bible is unrelyeable. People don't even know what was written from the beginning. When a contradiction is pointed out, people do everything they can to find a slightest chance of something being a translation error, no matter how improbable. If this is the case of every contradiction, then there is lots and lots of translation mistakes. A rather weak source of information.

No matter how improbable? Wait a minute, it is improbable that there were mistakes made while translating Greek words to English?? I dont think so. And you are right, there are copyist errors in the bible, the majority are with numbers. But there are some minor copyist errors with certain words. This is not unlikely at all.

 

[shawn001]

"There are many species of dogs, but guess what, they are all dogs."



Once Large and Wolf-like, Coyotes Ultimately Became Much Smaller

"When the last ice age ended more than 10,000 years ago, many large species of mammals went extinct and others underwent changes in appearance."

"Coyotes changed from large, pack-hunting dogs to the smaller canines we know today and wolves essentially remained the same. Changes in body size occurred for coyotes because large prey and their large competitors were disappearing, the researchers find."

Once Large and Wolf-like, Coyotes Ultimately Became Much Smaller - Kansas City, Missouri News

To bad you really don't understand evolution and where mammals came from in the first place to become a dog.

There were no "dogs" millions of years ago, so where did they come from?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I'm done debating evolution with you. I'm not debating science with someone who hasn't read anything about it, doesn't know anything about it, and refuses to do either. Debating it is pointless. I'm not going to debate someone who is willfully ignorant and has demonstrated that blind faith is preferable to logic and reason.

You know what, thats fine, because all I said was that we only see animals produce their own kind. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats. Now, what part of what I said is in error? So you are done debating evolution with me because I am stating the facts? But ok, we are done debating evolution. I have bigger fish to fry anyway

That's because you believe the earth is only six thousand years old and created by some imaginary sky fairy. Evolution is a slow process taking millions of years. Understand first that beliefs and faith are not science, nor based on logic and reason, and then come back and debate me on the topic when you actually have something to debate.

Yeah, I believe that some imaginary sky fairy with intelligence created all of this complexity in this world. I believe that we get our intellect from a being of intellect. You believe that during a million years, things started magically coming to life on its own, and we get our intellect from inanimate ojects. I think i will stick to theism here.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Here, let me help you....

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. -- Deuteronomy 22:23-24

But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die. ... For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her. -- Deuteronomy 22:25-27

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. -- Deuteronomy 22:28-29

And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. -- Numbers 31:15-18

So, I am trying to figure out where is God allowing rape???

 

[McBell]

You believe that during a million years, things started magically coming to life on its own, and we get our intellect from inanimate ojects. I think i will stick to theism here.

Three months and you have not learned a single thing about evolution.
Three months and you are still hiding behind your strawmen.
Three months and you still have not refuted a single thing concerning evolution.

Most impressive.

 

[shawn001]

Three months and you have not learned a single thing about evolution.
Three months and you are still hiding behind your strawmen.
Three months and you still have not refuted a single thing concerning evolution.

Most impressive.

amen

New Research Proves Single Origin Of Humans In Africa

New Research Proves Single Origin Of Humans In Africa

New Research Confirms 'Out Of Africa' Theory Of Human Evolution

New Research Confirms 'Out Of Africa' Theory Of Human Evolution

Ancient Humans Were Mixing It Up: Anatomically Modern Humans Interbred With More Archaic Hominin Forms While in Africa


Ancient humans were mixing it up: Anatomically modern humans interbred with more archaic hominin forms while in Africa


New Human Species Discovered: Mitochondrial Genome of Previously Unknown Hominins from Siberia Decoded

New human species discovered: Mitochondrial genome of previously unknown hominins from Siberia decoded


Mitochondrial Eve

Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[johnhanks]

You know what, thats fine, because all I said was that we only see animals produce their own kind. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats. Now, what part of what I said is in error?

Call_of_the_Wild seems very sportingly to have set out to give us all a graphic illustration of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I suppose if your understanding of evolution is practically nil, never seeing a dog give birth to a cat really is clinching refutation.

 

[Leafar]

Thats my point. Diversity of species within the kind. There are many species of dogs, but guess what, they are all dogs.

First of all: The domestic dog is a sub species to Gray wolf together with i.e. Dingo and 37 other subspecies. So there is not "many species of dogs". There is different breeds of dogs but there is only one species (the one being canis lupus familiaris). Wikipedia would help you out alot I think.

I could easily maintain that God created every animal and insect to be able to produce different varieties of its own kind. You cannot prove this to be untrue. So my point is, at least keep the playing field at 50/50 instead of passing off one view as true, when it is absolutely not. Then once you do that, we can weigh the pros and cons of both views, using our reason and logic.

True. I cannot prove that God didn't do it. But there is no evidence supporting that position as oposed to the theory of evolution. I keep to evidence, rationality and facts, thank you very much.

See, here is the problem. You are making it seem as if DNA is "just a bunch of amino acids." But this is an understatment. Amino acids come in 80 different types, but only 20 are found in living organisms, so you would have to literally isolate the correct ones from the other ones not needed. They have to be linked together in the right sequence in order to produce protein molecules. This wouldnt be hard to do if you were implying you INTELLIGENCE to all this and started selecting them one at a time. But without intelligence, this was all unguided without any help whatsoever. Then you have to consider the left-handed amino acids and right handed, and only the left handed ones work with us. It takes one hundred amino acids to make one protein molecule. And this is just the first step!!! And the structure and construction of DNA is even more complicated than this.

Here you go:
"Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments that involved simulating some of the hypothetical conditions of the early Earth in a laboratory.[1] Other equally fundamental biochemicals, such as nucleotides and saccharides can arise in similar ways. In all living things, these biochemicals are organized into more complex molecules, including macromolecules, such as proteins, polysaccharides, and nucleic acids. These three molecules are essential for all life functions and make up all living organisms. The construction of these macromolecules is mediated by nucleic acids and enzymes, that are themselves synthesized through biochemical pathways catalysed largely by proteins. Which of these various classes of organic molecules first arose, and how they formed the first life, is a major topic in the discipline of abiogenesis." - wiki on abiogenesis

You can see that it is definitley a possibility even though it is yet to be proven.

So the main purpose for a birds wings are for flying, right? So, how did birds evovle wings?? If wings are for the purpose of flying, how did evolution know it was going to need wings to fly?? And spare me the "thats not how it worked" stuff, because that is how it worked. Birds evovled wings. Wings are for flying. That is its purpose. How did evolution know??

There is no complete theory on this subject yet, though there are a few interesting hypothesies. You could just google "evolution of wings" and find a reasonable amount on the subject.

Sooooo, where is all of this evidence??? Please tell me. What is the best piece of evidence that we have for evolution?? I cant wait to see this.

The wiki article "Evidence of common descent" is among the longer ones I've seen. It lists:

1. Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
1.1 Genetics
1.1.1 Universal biochemical organisation and molecular variance patterns
1.1.2 DNA sequencing
1.1.3 Endogenous retroviruses
1.1.4 Proteins
1.1.5 Pseudogenes
1.1.6 Other mechanisms
1.2 Specific examples
1.2.1 Feline endogenous retroviruses
1.2.2 Chromosome 2 in humans
1.2.3 Cytochrome c
1.2.4 Human endogenous retroviruses
1.2.5 Recent African origin of modern humans
2 Evidence from comparative anatomy
2.1 Atavisms
2.2 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
2.3 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
2.4 Nested hierarchies and classification
2.5 Vestigial structures
2.6 Specific examples
2.6.1 Hind structures in whales
2.6.2 Insect mouthparts
2.6.3 Other arthropod appendages
2.6.4 Pelvic structure of dinosaurs
2.6.5 Pentadactyl limb
2.6.6 Recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes
2.6.7 Route of the vas deferens
3 Evidence from paleontology
3.1 Fossil record
3.1.1 Extent of the fossil record
3.2 Limitations
3.3 Specific examples
3.3.1 Evolution of the horse
4 Evidence from geographical distribution
4.1 Continental distribution
4.2 Island biogeography
4.2.1 Types of species found on islands
4.2.2 Endemism
4.2.3 Adaptive radiations
4.3 Ring Species
4.4 Specific examples
4.4.1 Distribution of Glossopteris
4.4.2 Distribution of marsupials
4.4.3 Migration, isolation, and distribution of the Camel
5 Evidence from observed natural selection
5.1 Specific examples of natural selection in the lab and in the field
5.1.1 Antibiotic and pesticide resistance
5.1.2 E. coli long-term evolution experiment
5.1.3 Humans
5.1.4 Lactose intolerance in humans
5.1.5 Nylon-eating bacteria
5.1.6 PCB tolerance
5.1.7 Peppered moth
5.1.8 Radiotrophic fungus
5.1.9 Urban wildlife
6 Evidence from observed speciation
6.1 Specific examples
6.1.1 Blackcap
6.1.2 Drosophila melanogaster
6.1.3 Hawthorn fly
6.1.4 London Underground mosquito
6.1.5 Madeira House Mouse
6.1.6 Mollies
6.1.7 Thale cress
6.2 Interspecies fertility or hybridization
6.2.1 Polar bear
6.2.2 Raphanobrassica
6.2.3 Salsify
6.2.4 Welsh groundsel
6.2.5 York groundsel
7 Evidence from artificial selection
8 Evidence from computation and mathematical iteration
8.1 Specific examples
8.1.1 Avida simulation

Number 6 should especially interest you.

Check it out. Sorry that I can't link you to it. I'm new here and need 15 posts before I can do that X/

I agree. If a mother rabbit produces two offspring, one that can hop 70 mph, and the other 10mph, the one that can hop 70mph is better suited for survival, because it can hop away faster from predators. So if it passes along the "fast hopping" gene, it will produce a ton of fast hopping rabbits, and thus, we have a rabbit that can hop 70mph. Got it. That part is simple. But that is more along the lines of natural selection. What I am talking about is the actual evovling of the animal. The whole "the whale used to be a land dwelling animal" crap. That never happened. That is more than natural selection, that is more like a man turning in to a werewolf.

It's the exact same process. There is no difference between macro- and microevolution. The fact that some rabbits could hop faster was due to something. Longer legs, more muscle mass, more effective disposal of energy or whatever. So the genes, in control of these attributes where the ones carried on. Then the long legged rabbit gets offspring where one of them has the same size as himself and one has just a little longer. And so it goes until you have the first rabbit with "normal" legs and it's (far distant) offspring with enormously long legs. Then a change in enviorment makes long ears bad, thus forcing the long legged rabbit to develop short ears, etc. etc. etc.

In the end (after millions of years) you have something that is just as different as we are from the common ancestor that we share with elephants. The evolution doesn't magically stop when a distant offspring has changed "to much", it keeps going until it goes exstinct.

No, either we are here by God, or some kind of naturalistic reason. Any naturalistic explanation would fall other "naturalistic reason". So that still only leaves two options.

What? That's just outright wrong. Ruling out one naturalistic explanation doesn't imply God. It was earlier believed that the different seasons of the year was due to how close the earth was to the sun. This naturalistic explanation was disproven. That didn't mean God makes the season happen. We soon found what did, namely the tilt of the Earths axis. Surprise, another naturalistic explanation.

So if evolution is disproven, there might very well be another, completley natural explanation.

ID is more plausible. If you are walking through a junkyard and you see a fully functional Boeing 747, is it more logical to conclude that a whirling tornado whirled its way in to the junkyard and accidentally assembled it, or, to conclude that man, using its intelligent mind, assembled it. DNA is more complex than what is in question. There is evidence for ID, we know ID when we see it, but people deny ID if it has religous implications, but any other time it is widely accepted. It blows my mind.

Just once, there would be interesting to see an accurate analogy.

 

[Krok]

Just once, there would be interesting to see an accurate analogy.

You have to realize that creationists don't have the ability to see that planes don't reproduce. They just can't see that using the example of a plane is a really, really bad analogy to what happens to reproducing organisms. They'll just use it again next time! :yes:

 

[johnhanks]

DNA are just a bunch of amino acids which during the right conditions form strings and fold themselves in specific 3D forms.

If we're going to argue biology, we'd better get our facts right. DNA is a polymer of nucleotides, not amino acids. String a bunch of amino acids together and you get a protein. The nucleotide sequence of a cell's DNA encodes the amino acid sequences of its proteins, hence - perhaps - the confusion.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

First of all: The domestic dog is a sub species to Gray wolf together with i.e. Dingo and 37 other subspecies. So there is not "many species of dogs". There is different breeds of dogs but there is only one species (the one being canis lupus familiaris). Wikipedia would help you out alot I think.

My point is, they are all dogs. I dont care how many species of dog there are, or subspecies. First of all, the word "species" is not even a clear cut definition of what it even is. Scientist are divided on this, for the most part. But at face value, the gray wolf, domestic dog, dingo, coyote, wolf, fox, jackal, are all dogs. You can break them down in to as many little groups as you want to, but they are all dogs.

True. I cannot prove that God didn't do it. But there is no evidence supporting that position as oposed to the theory of evolution. I keep to evidence, rationality and facts, thank you very much.

And there is also no evidence supporting evolution. Show me the evidence. All we have seen is, dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats. Have you ever seen anything beyond this??? I dont think you have. No one has ever seen an animal produce a different kind of animal. We only see animals produce different varieties of their own kind. There is no evidence for evolution. It is a religion.

Here you go:
"Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments that involved simulating some of the hypothetical conditions of the early Earth in a laboratory.

No no no no no :no: The Miller-Urey experiment has already been proven to be bogus. First of all, they had to have the proposed early enviorment of the earth "fixed" so they could get the desired result that they wanted. Later science experiments found out later that the earth's early enviorment wasn't similar to the one that was used in the Milller-Urey experiment. So the experiment is dead. It is surprising that you naturalists will continue to use this experiment as evidence that life can come from nonlife, when the experiment was already proven wrong. Science has already proven it to be wrong, yet you people continue to use it as if it is a fact. This is an act of dishonesty.

[1] Other equally fundamental biochemicals, such as nucleotides and saccharides can arise in similar ways. In all living things, these biochemicals are organized into more complex molecules, including macromolecules, such as proteins, polysaccharides, and nucleic acids. These three molecules are essential for all life functions and make up all living organisms. The construction of these macromolecules is mediated by nucleic acids and enzymes, that are themselves synthesized through biochemical pathways catalysed largely by proteins. Which of these various classes of organic molecules first arose, and how they formed the first life, is a major topic in the discipline of abiogenesis." - wiki on abiogenesis

You can see that it is definitley a possibility even though it is yet to be proven.

The more complexity you get, the more evidence there is of intelligent design. In abiogenesis, there isn't even a good theory of how lifeless materials got together and formed a living cell, a cell that is more complex than a space shuttle. The evidence just isn't there. It just isn't. Scientist are scratching their heads right now, they dont know what is going on. Intelligent Design people. That is more plausible.

There is no complete theory on this subject yet, though there are a few interesting hypothesies. You could just google "evolution of wings" and find a reasonable amount on the subject.

Sure sure lol.

The wiki article "Evidence of common descent" is among the longer ones I've seen. It lists:

1. Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
1.1 Genetics
1.1.1 Universal biochemical organisation and molecular variance patterns
1.1.2 DNA sequencing
1.1.3 Endogenous retroviruses
1.1.4 Proteins
1.1.5 Pseudogenes
1.1.6 Other mechanisms
1.2 Specific examples
1.2.1 Feline endogenous retroviruses
1.2.2 Chromosome 2 in humans
1.2.3 Cytochrome c
1.2.4 Human endogenous retroviruses
1.2.5 Recent African origin of modern humans
2 Evidence from comparative anatomy
2.1 Atavisms
2.2 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
2.3 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
2.4 Nested hierarchies and classification
2.5 Vestigial structures
2.6 Specific examples
2.6.1 Hind structures in whales
2.6.2 Insect mouthparts
2.6.3 Other arthropod appendages
2.6.4 Pelvic structure of dinosaurs
2.6.5 Pentadactyl limb
2.6.6 Recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes
2.6.7 Route of the vas deferens
3 Evidence from paleontology
3.1 Fossil record
3.1.1 Extent of the fossil record
3.2 Limitations
3.3 Specific examples
3.3.1 Evolution of the horse
4 Evidence from geographical distribution
4.1 Continental distribution
4.2 Island biogeography
4.2.1 Types of species found on islands
4.2.2 Endemism
4.2.3 Adaptive radiations
4.3 Ring Species
4.4 Specific examples
4.4.1 Distribution of Glossopteris
4.4.2 Distribution of marsupials
4.4.3 Migration, isolation, and distribution of the Camel
5 Evidence from observed natural selection
5.1 Specific examples of natural selection in the lab and in the field
5.1.1 Antibiotic and pesticide resistance
5.1.2 E. coli long-term evolution experiment
5.1.3 Humans
5.1.4 Lactose intolerance in humans
5.1.5 Nylon-eating bacteria
5.1.6 PCB tolerance
5.1.7 Peppered moth
5.1.8 Radiotrophic fungus
5.1.9 Urban wildlife
6 Evidence from observed speciation
6.1 Specific examples
6.1.1 Blackcap
6.1.2 Drosophila melanogaster
6.1.3 Hawthorn fly
6.1.4 London Underground mosquito
6.1.5 Madeira House Mouse
6.1.6 Mollies
6.1.7 Thale cress
6.2 Interspecies fertility or hybridization
6.2.1 Polar bear
6.2.2 Raphanobrassica
6.2.3 Salsify
6.2.4 Welsh groundsel
6.2.5 York groundsel
7 Evidence from artificial selection
8 Evidence from computation and mathematical iteration
8.1 Specific examples
8.1.1 Avida simulation

Number 6 should especially interest you.

Check it out. Sorry that I can't link you to it. I'm new here and need 15 posts before I can do that X/

All of these could mean common designer. All of this could easily mean that the same designer used the same blueprint for its creation. My point is, science, as a WHOLE, cannot be used to explain the origin of its own domain, as it keep stressing.

It's the exact same process. There is no difference between macro- and microevolution. The fact that some rabbits could hop faster was due to something. Longer legs, more muscle mass, more effective disposal of energy or whatever. So the genes, in control of these attributes where the ones carried on. Then the long legged rabbit gets offspring where one of them has the same size as himself and one has just a little longer. And so it goes until you have the first rabbit with "normal" legs and it's (far distant) offspring with enormously long legs. Then a change in enviorment makes long ears bad, thus forcing the long legged rabbit to develop short ears, etc. etc. etc.

Even if the rabbit developed shorter ears, it would still be a rabbit. And thats my point, there are changes. But there are limits to the changes. A rabbit will never grow wings due to a chance of its enviorment. There are limits.

What? That's just outright wrong. Ruling out one naturalistic explanation doesn't imply God. It was earlier believed that the different seasons of the year was due to how close the earth was to the sun. This naturalistic explanation was disproven. That didn't mean God makes the season happen. We soon found what did, namely the tilt of the Earths axis. Surprise, another naturalistic explanation.

Well, lets wait patiently for a new naturalistic explanation, because so far the one that has been given has been bogus.

Just once, there would be interesting to see an accurate analogy.

The analogy is saying that it is more probable for the events in the analogy to take place than for a cell to be assembled by a blind and unguided process.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You have to realize that creationists don't have the ability to see that planes don't reproduce. They just can't see that using the example of a plane is a really, really bad analogy to what happens to reproducing organisms. They'll just use it again next time! :yes:

First of all, the analogy wasn't used to demonstrate planes reproducing.

 

[Leafar]

You have to realize that creationists don't have the ability to see that planes don't reproduce. They just can't see that using the example of a plane is a really, really bad analogy to what happens to reproducing organisms. They'll just use it again next time! :yes:

It is a really hard thing to grasp for some people that doesn't want to know what it's about:ignore:

If we're going to argue biology, we'd better get our facts right. DNA is a polymer of nucleotides, not amino acids. String a bunch of amino acids together and you get a protein. The nucleotide sequence of a cell's DNA encodes the amino acid sequences of its proteins, hence - perhaps - the confusion.

You are of cource right. My bad, even though the point of my argument still stands.

My point is, they are all dogs. I dont care how many species of dog there are, or subspecies. First of all, the word "species" is not even a clear cut definition of what it even is. Scientist are divided on this, for the most part. But at face value, the gray wolf, domestic dog, dingo, coyote, wolf, fox, jackal, are all dogs. You can break them down in to as many little groups as you want to, but they are all dogs.

There is only one species of dogs, if you by dog mean (canis lupus familiaris/the domesticated dog). The reason why the definition of species is a little bit vauge is because the transition from one species to another makes it difficult to draw a line. It's like trying to divide a string of numbers, let's say 1-10. 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 We could say that it has to be at least two numbers apart to be a new species. That would mean that 1-2-3 are the same species but 4-5-6 is another one. The problem is that if you use 3 as base, then it belongs to both 1-2-3 and 3-4-5 which would implicate that 1-2-3-4-5 are all of the same species. It's hard to draw a clear enough line just because of the very slow transition from one species to another.

And there is also no evidence supporting evolution. Show me the evidence. All we have seen is, dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats. Have you ever seen anything beyond this??? I dont think you have. No one has ever seen an animal produce a different kind of animal. We only see animals produce different varieties of their own kind. There is no evidence for evolution. It is a religion.

First off: Yes, there is evidence. I guess you didn't read what I showed you. And I described the process as well that there is not a magical barrier forcing species to stop develop so they don't become a new species.

No no no no no :no: The Miller-Urey experiment has already been proven to be bogus. First of all, they had to have the proposed early enviorment of the earth "fixed" so they could get the desired result that they wanted. Later science experiments found out later that the earth's early enviorment wasn't similar to the one that was used in the Milller-Urey experiment. So the experiment is dead. It is surprising that you naturalists will continue to use this experiment as evidence that life can come from nonlife, when the experiment was already proven wrong. Science has already proven it to be wrong, yet you people continue to use it as if it is a fact. This is an act of dishonesty.

I would like to read an article on it if you have one. I mean from a scientist describing what the experiment took into account that wasn't there. I am interested in abiogenesis so it would be fun to read.

The more complexity you get, the more evidence there is of intelligent design. In abiogenesis, there isn't even a good theory of how lifeless materials got together and formed a living cell, a cell that is more complex than a space shuttle. The evidence just isn't there. It just isn't. Scientist are scratching their heads right now, they dont know what is going on. Intelligent Design people. That is more plausible.

You're just repeating yourself. Do you copy paste from a manuscript? As I have said, the first thing that formed, opening up for evolution wasn't a cell. And to hell with space shuttles and airplanes, the analogies are irrelevant. And as I keep repeating (cause I obviously have to) the lack of scientific theories for how life came to be doesn't incline an intelligent designer, it only means that we simply don't know how life came to be.

All of these could mean common designer. All of this could easily mean that the same designer used the same blueprint for its creation. My point is, science, as a WHOLE, cannot be used to explain the origin of its own domain, as it keep stressing.

It could also mean that it was aliens with that sort of blueprint. It doesn't make it probable, especially since we know how genes work but aliens or God for that matter are nowhere to be found.

Even if the rabbit developed shorter ears, it would still be a rabbit. And thats my point, there are changes. But there are limits to the changes. A rabbit will never grow wings due to a chance of its enviorment. There are limits.

Please tell me where these limits go. How big can the legs be, how small can the ears be and at which point in the transition from legs to fins is the magical line stopping it from happening.

Well, lets wait patiently for a new naturalistic explanation, because so far the one that has been given has been bogus.

You do that. And since the theory of evolution has not convinced you it is wise of you to state that you simply don't know where we come from.

The analogy is saying that it is more probable for the events in the analogy to take place than for a cell to be assembled by a blind and unguided process.

I have allready given you that and pointed out why it's irrelevant since no cell ever have just assembled by blind unguided process. Nobody claims that it happened so why is that analogy relevant?

 

[waitasec]

Well, that is why you study the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus to be able to determine who God is and what his agendas are.

how embarrassing..

 

[icekold]

agreed, it would not..thus the need for contact with his creation. Wheather it be Krishna or Christ, Buddha or Plato to inform man of some basic owners manual for spiritual living.

The creation is the manual, by studying the world we discover what the creator wants.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

There is only one species of dogs, if you by dog mean (canis lupus familiaris/the domesticated dog). The reason why the definition of species is a little bit vauge is because the transition from one species to another makes it difficult to draw a line. It's like trying to divide a string of numbers, let's say 1-10. 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 We could say that it has to be at least two numbers apart to be a new species. That would mean that 1-2-3 are the same species but 4-5-6 is another one. The problem is that if you use 3 as base, then it belongs to both 1-2-3 and 3-4-5 which would implicate that 1-2-3-4-5 are all of the same species. It's hard to draw a clear enough line just because of the very slow transition from one species to another.

Ok, granted. But they are all dogs. All of the animals that I named were all dogs. That is my only point.

First off: Yes, there is evidence. I guess you didn't read what I showed you. And I described the process as well that there is not a magical barrier forcing species to stop develop so they don't become a new species.

The so called evidence that you showed could mean common designer, as I keep pointing out. I could argue once again, that the designer used the same blueprint in making his creation, which is why you have similiarities. Second, as I pointed out before, humans have four more chromosomes than a bat, so does that mean that a bat is four chromosomes away from being human? Of course not.

I would like to read an article on it if you have one. I mean from a scientist describing what the experiment took into account that wasn't there. I am interested in abiogenesis so it would be fun to read.

You can look it up anywhere!!! This is an established fact that the Miller-Urey experiment didnt prove life from non-life.

You're just repeating yourself. Do you copy paste from a manuscript? As I have said, the first thing that formed, opening up for evolution wasn't a cell. And to hell with space shuttles and airplanes, the analogies are irrelevant. And as I keep repeating (cause I obviously have to) the lack of scientific theories for how life came to be doesn't incline an intelligent designer, it only means that we simply don't know how life came to be.

There is no, and there will never be no kind of naturalistic explanation for how life can come from non-life. I keep mentioning the space shuttle to get it through you and everyone elses head that ONE CELL IN YOUR BODY IS MORE COMPLEX THAN A SPACE SHUTTLE. Now how on earth can you accept the fact that a space shuttle comes from intelligent design, but dont accept that the cells in your body, your whole dna structure, are more complex than that of which you already considered to be designed?? This blows my mind. I will tell you why you refuse to accept it, because you are aware of its religous implications. You know that Intelligent Design points towards a transcendent Creator, so you will avoid this implication at all costs, leading you to resort to believing that all of this complexity came from inantimate objects. This is EXACTLY what is going on here. This "we dont know" crap wont cut it. You guys are playing the "It is only designed until it points to a transcendent creator" game. It is silly.

It could also mean that it was aliens with that sort of blueprint. It doesn't make it probable, especially since we know how genes work but aliens or God for that matter are nowhere to be found.

Even if you hypothesize aliens with a blueprint, guess what, you are still hypothesizing intelligent design. All you did was shift the label of "designer" to aliens instead of God. Creationists are saying that this specified complexity comes from a being of intelligence, just like anything else in the world that we can clearly see were designed. We dont believe that lifeless, inantimate, blind, unguided, and unintellible objects or entites can create things as complicated as space shuttles or airplanes. And to be frank, SCIENCE doesn't even tell us this as of yet, and it never will

Please tell me where these limits go. How big can the legs be, how small can the ears be and at which point in the transition from legs to fins is the magical line stopping it from happening.

You can probably breed pigs and eventually get one as big as a bear, but can you get one as big as Texas? No. Roaches can become immune to pesticide, but can they ever become resistant to a sledge hammer? No. There are limits.

You do that. And since the theory of evolution has not convinced you it is wise of you to state that you simply don't know where we come from.

I will wait for another silly naturalistic explanation to make an ATTEMPT to explain these things. I already have my answer to these questions. My answer is found in Genesis, where God created the heavens and the earth, and he created the beast of the field and the birds of the air. On my view, an intelligent being created all of the animals and mankind with their complex dna structures and there purposeful bodily systems that he made for them to live in this fine tuned earth that he created. I dont believe that an inantimate and unguided process can be the origins of intelligence and order. But to each its own.

I have allready given you that and pointed out why it's irrelevant since no cell ever have just assembled by blind unguided process. Nobody claims that it happened so why is that analogy relevant?

Um, nothing in science is guided, so what are you talking about?? The assembling of a cell was in fact a blind and unguided process. There was no intelligent being placing the amino acids in the right sequence to create a protein molecule. There was no intelligent being to give a male a penis and female a vagina so they would be able to sucessfully reproduce. Science is one big unguided concept with no agenda, no intellect, no purpose, and no mind. I understand why you think the idea is completely stupid, but hey, I am not the one claiming that it happened. Open any textbook on cosmology, biology, or abiogensis, and you will see who is claiming what.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

how embarrassing..

About as embarrasing as believing that life can come from nonlife.

 

[McBell]

About as embarrasing as believing that life can come from nonlife.

what life did god come from?