Why do men have nipples?

[tarekabdo12]

That's why I can't think humans evolved from monkeys
It's very hard for evolution to explain why man walks on 2 legs. Actually walking on 2 legs doesn't pose any advantage for man. It makes him liable for attacks ad decreases his ability to run fast and escape dangers thus he's more liable for attacks in open fields. With 2 legs man can't climb the trees like monkeys do, he also can't run as fast as a cheetah. Being with 2 legs caries more danger to man, so according to evolution theory man should have evolved to have 4 legs like a monkey not the opposite. [Another impasse of the evolutionary claim is that bipedalism does not serve the "gradual development" model of Darwinism. This model, which constitutes the basis of evolution, requires that there should be a "compound" stride between bipedalism and quadrupedalism. However, with the computerized research he conducted in 1996, the English paleoanthropologist Robin Crompton, showed that such a "compound" stride was not possible. Crompton reached the following conclusion: A living being can either walk upright, or on all fours.100 A type of stride between the two is impossible because it would involve excessive energy consumption. This is why a half-bipedal being cannot exist.] (Evolution Deciet, Haroun Yehia)

 

[tarekabdo12]

[FONT=&quot]A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 41,000 forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 4 power 1000=10 power 600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension. The number 4 power 1000 is the equivalent of 10 power 600. This means 1 followed by 600 zeros. As 1 with 12 zeros after it indicates a trillion, 600 zeros represents an inconceivable number. The impossibility of the formation of RNA and DNA by a coincidental accumulation of nucleotides is expressed by the French scientist Paul Auger in this way: We have to sharply distinguish the two stages in the chance formation of such as nucleotides by chemical events. The production of nucleotides one by one - which is possible- and the combination of these with in very special sequences. The second is absolutely impossible. For many years, Francis Crick believed in the theory of molecular evolution, but eventually even he had to admit to himself that such a complex molecule could not have emerged spontaneously by coincidence, as the result of an evolutionary process: An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a
miracle.
The Turkish evolutionist Professor Ali Demirsoy was forced to make the following confession on the issue: In fact, the probability of the formation of a protein and a nucleic acid (DNA RNA) is a probability way beyond estimating. Furthermore, the chance of the emergence of a certain protein chain is so slight as to be called astronomic. A very interesting paradox emerges at this point: While DNA can only replicate with the help of special proteins (enzymes), the synthesis of these proteins can only be realized by the information encoded in DNA. As they both depend on each other, either they have to exist at the same time for replication, or one of them has to be "created" before the other
Evolution deceit , Haroun Yehia

If you are going to say that the human cell evolved , I'd tell you that the same example is still applied on yeast cell , algae and plant cells which are still extremely complicated. So life can't start without an original creator.

In addition, many single-celled forms of life exist, but no known forms of animal life have 2, 3, 4, or 5 cells . Known forms of life with 6–20 cells are parasites, so they must have a complex animal as a host to provide such functions as respiration and digestion. If macroevolution happened, one should find many transitional forms of life with 2–20 cells—filling the gap between one-celled and many-celled organisms.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]There must be a creator so stop convincing people with your fairy tails.
[/FONT]

​

 

[Jose Fly]

Well Tarekabdo, you're showing all the classic creationist behaviors. First you claim that no new species or genetic sequences have evolved. But once you're provided examples of those things, rather than use that as a springboard to actually studying the subject, you just wave it away as no big deal. You did the same with explanations for ERVs, population genetics, and mutations. And you did the same thing with the fossil record too.

Some people at this point would realize that everything they had said on the subject turned out to be wrong, and the sources they were relying on for information were giving them bad info. All that would cause them to think, "You know what? Maybe I'm wrong on this whole thing. Since just about everything I've said on the subject is so easily shown to be wrong, it's probably very likely that my overall position is wrong too."

Now don't get me wrong here...I've only ever seen one creationist do anything like that before. Instead, most just retreat further into their denialism and ignorance.

So to reiterate, every single trait, ability, and species we've ever seen arise has done so via evolution. Every population we've ever studied over time has evolved. Evolution is so ubiquitous, it's trivially easy to make it happen on a whim. And when we look at the fossil and genetic records, we see exactly what we would expect if all life on earth were the product of a multi-billion years long process of evolution.

But you're trying to tell me that somehow, when we weren't looking, new traits, abilities, and species came about completely differently and directly contradictory to what's represented in the fossil and genetic records. And not only that, the mechanism you're advocating (special creation by gods) is something no one has ever seen; no one's ever seen a god create even a single grain of sand, let alone an entire species, yet you're trying to tell me that's what happened, rather than the mechanism we see in action all around us, every day?

If that's truly the argument you're making, then you'd better bring something really big to the table. And let me tell you, ignorance of basic science, copied text from known charlatans, and YouTube videos from loonies ain't it. If that's really all you've got, then just say so and I'll be totally content to let that speak for itself.

 

[Jose Fly]

That's why I can't think humans evolved from monkeys
It's very hard for evolution to explain why man walks on 2 legs. Actually walking on 2 legs doesn't pose any advantage for man. It makes him liable for attacks ad decreases his ability to run fast and escape dangers thus he's more liable for attacks in open fields. With 2 legs man can't climb the trees like monkeys do, he also can't run as fast as a cheetah. Being with 2 legs caries more danger to man, so according to evolution theory man should have evolved to have 4 legs like a monkey not the opposite. [Another impasse of the evolutionary claim is that bipedalism does not serve the "gradual development" model of Darwinism. This model, which constitutes the basis of evolution, requires that there should be a "compound" stride between bipedalism and quadrupedalism. However, with the computerized research he conducted in 1996, the English paleoanthropologist Robin Crompton, showed that such a "compound" stride was not possible. Crompton reached the following conclusion: A living being can either walk upright, or on all fours.100 A type of stride between the two is impossible because it would involve excessive energy consumption. This is why a half-bipedal being cannot exist.] (Evolution Deciet, Haroun Yehia)

LOL! Earlier in this thread, you admitted that Harun Yahya was not a good source, but here you are quoting from him again, as if nothing had ever happened.

Again, the fact that you have to go back to someone you admitted was deceitful speaks volumes about you and your position.

 

[tarekabdo12]

There's no current convincing explanation concerning the transition from a class to a totally different class. How can you explain the total change of a life system in nature by randomization? This is absurd and illogical and you are just playing with scientific findings and twisting them to fit your ludicrous views. It's an egregious desire to totally abjure your creator's endowments. Giving you heart, lungs, mouth, eyes and health with its various aspects and you totally repel him without conclusive evidence. It's a shame.

 

[Jose Fly]

There's no current convincing explanation concerning the transition from a class to a totally different class.

How in the world do you know? Just a bit ago you didn't know that new species and genetic sequences have been observed to evolve, how population genetics works, or even how common mutations are.

Given all that, you're actually trying to put yourself forth as an authority on evolutionary relationships between taxa? Who exactly do you think is going to take anything about evolution merely on your say so?

How can you explain the total change of a life system in nature by randomization? This is absurd and illogical and you are just playing with scientific findings and twisting them to fit your ludicrous views. It's an egregious desire to totally abjure your creator's endowments. Giving you heart, lungs, mouth, eyes and health with its various aspects and you totally repel him without conclusive evidence. It's a shame.

And this gets back to what I figured was really going on with you, way back at the beginning of this thread. This isn't about data or science for you; it's all about religion. You just wouldn't admit it.

 

[camanintx]

There's no current convincing explanation concerning the transition from a class to a totally different class.

The problem is you are comparing two modern organisms and imagining one becoming the other in one big step. Just as humans were not all that different from other primates 195,000 years ago, primates were not all that different from other mammals were not all that different from other vertibrates 200 million years ago. Stop looking at all of the differences in the leaves and try to imagine the tree that they all came from.

 

[Jose Fly]

The problem is you are comparing two modern organisms and imagining one becoming the other in one big step. Just as humans were not all that different from other primates 195,000 years ago, primates were not all that different from other mammals were not all that different from other vertibrates 200 million years ago. Stop looking at all of the differences in the leaves and try to imagine the tree that they all came from.

He can't. He just told us that doing so would be equivalent to "repelling" his god. And I'd bet that would be a pretty psychologically traumatic event for him.

 

[tarekabdo12]

He can't. He just told us that doing so would be equivalent to "repelling" his god. And I'd bet that would be a pretty psychologically traumatic event for him.

It's not a psychological trauma, I'm sapient and I know who I am arguing with and how they think and I'm a very calm person. But I'm just giving my opinion.

 

[Jose Fly]

So do you think a person can be an observant, good Muslim and an "evolutionist" at the same time?

 

[tarekabdo12]

The problem is you are comparing two modern organisms and imagining one becoming the other in one big step. Just as humans were not all that different from other primates 195,000 years ago, primates were not all that different from other mammals were not all that different from other vertibrates 200 million years ago. Stop looking at all of the differences in the leaves and try to imagine the tree that they all came from.

Isn't it supposed that the amphibians emerged from fish, according to evolutionary theory, so what's the tree. And you say that mammals looked like other creatures long time ago so what difference did this make and what creature are these? Probably you mean those of other classes so still there's a great way for these random mutations and a total change of a form of life with drastic changes in the characters they have. I'm always expecting from you-evolutionists-to wade into the world of the unknown to dodge from rational conversations.

 

[tarekabdo12]

LOL! Earlier in this thread, you admitted that Harun Yahya was not a good source, but here you are quoting from him again, as if nothing had ever happened.

Again, the fact that you have to go back to someone you admitted was deceitful speaks volumes about you and your position.

I didn't admit that he's decietful, I only said that he had done a mistake. So I take what my mind accepts regardless of who writes it.

 

[tarekabdo12]

Well Tarekabdo, you're showing all the classic creationist behaviors. First you claim that no new species or genetic sequences have evolved. But once you're provided examples of those things, rather than use that as a springboard to actually studying the subject, you just wave it away as no big deal. You did the same with explanations for ERVs, population genetics, and mutations. And you did the same thing with the fossil record too.

Some people at this point would realize that everything they had said on the subject turned out to be wrong, and the sources they were relying on for information were giving them bad info. All that would cause them to think, "You know what? Maybe I'm wrong on this whole thing. Since just about everything I've said on the subject is so easily shown to be wrong, it's probably very likely that my overall position is wrong too."

Now don't get me wrong here...I've only ever seen one creationist do anything like that before. Instead, most just retreat further into their denialism and ignorance.

So to reiterate, every single trait, ability, and species we've ever seen arise has done so via evolution. Every population we've ever studied over time has evolved. Evolution is so ubiquitous, it's trivially easy to make it happen on a whim. And when we look at the fossil and genetic records, we see exactly what we would expect if all life on earth were the product of a multi-billion years long process of evolution.

But you're trying to tell me that somehow, when we weren't looking, new traits, abilities, and species came about completely differently and directly contradictory to what's represented in the fossil and genetic records. And not only that, the mechanism you're advocating (special creation by gods) is something no one has ever seen; no one's ever seen a god create even a single grain of sand, let alone an entire species, yet you're trying to tell me that's what happened, rather than the mechanism we see in action all around us, every day?

If that's truly the argument you're making, then you'd better bring something really big to the table. And let me tell you, ignorance of basic science, copied text from known charlatans, and YouTube videos from loonies ain't it. If that's really all you've got, then just say so and I'll be totally content to let that speak for itself.

This is rather a literary work. I see that you are a little flurried.

 

[Jose Fly]

I didn't admit that he's decietful, I only said that he had done a mistake.

So why not email him and let him know so he can correct it? Or are you going to allow his "mistakes" to be repeated by unknowing Muslims?

So I take what my mind accepts regardless of who writes it.

So why don't you "take" the consensus conclusion of every paleoanthropologist in the world?

This is rather a literary work.

Thank you!

I see that you are a little flurried.

Not at all. You have still failed to counter the logic contained in that post, i.e.:

Every single trait, ability, and species we've ever seen arise has done so via evolution. Every population we've ever studied over time has evolved. Evolution is so ubiquitous, it's trivially easy to make it happen on a whim. And when we look at the fossil and genetic records, we see exactly what we would expect if all life on earth were the product of a multi-billion years long process of evolution.

But you're trying to tell me that somehow, when we weren't looking, new traits, abilities, and species came about completely differently and directly contradictory to what's represented in the fossil and genetic records. And not only that, the mechanism you're advocating (special creation by gods) is something no one has ever seen; no one's ever seen a god create even a single grain of sand, let alone an entire species, yet you're trying to tell me that's what happened, rather than the mechanism we see in action all around us, every day?

If that's truly the argument you're making, then you'd better bring something really big to the table. And let me tell you, ignorance of basic science, copied text from known charlatans, and YouTube videos from loonies ain't it. If that's really all you've got, then just say so and I'll be totally content to let that speak for itself.

And I really am curious if you think a person can be both a good, observant Muslim and an "evolutionist" at the same time.

 

[tarekabdo12]

Every single trait, ability, and species we've ever seen arise has done so via evolution. Every population we've ever studied over time has evolved. Evolution is so ubiquitous, it's trivially easy to make it happen on a whim. And when we look at the fossil and genetic records, we see exactly what we would expect if all life on earth were the product of a multi-billion years long process of evolution.

Every single has evolved, how? and the genetic record, how? and fossil record, how?

 

[tarekabdo12]

But you're trying to tell me that somehow, when we weren't looking, new traits, abilities, and species came about completely differently and directly contradictory to what's represented in the fossil and genetic records. And not only that, the mechanism you're advocating (special creation by gods) is something no one has ever seen; no one's ever seen a god create even a single grain of sand, let alone an entire species, yet you're trying to tell me that's what happened, rather than the mechanism we see in action all around us, every day?

We didn't see God create but we should understand this from what we see in His creation. We also didn't see a fish evolve into an amphibian.

 

[tarekabdo12]

So why don't you "take" the consensus conclusion of every paleoanthropologist in the world?

paleoanthropologist give their findings not formulate them and if they do so they give their own views not facts.

 

[tarekabdo12]

[FONT=&quot]The claimed mechanisms of evolution:[/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]Mutation: multiple studies were carried upon the drosophila and none gave useful results. All the results were deformities and damages. Because mutations are mindless they can't be assumed to create a perfect system. The only claimed example is the sickle cell anemia, which is actually a disease. It represents the non-evidence based arguments carried by evolution defenders since malaria can't survive in the short-lived RBCs. Some minds may consider this an advantage, but how can this disease prove the appearance of new organs? It remains a myth. People with sickle cell disease exhibit the probability that 25% of their off springs would have fatal Sickle cell disease and another 25% getting attacked by the deadly malaria so how can this be considered an advantage? Actually the fact that mutations are random cancels the probability that they are creative because their bad effects would exceed their building actions, if they build. This is already observed in the survivors of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl. No new characters appear, however devastating effects tend to occur thus actually natural selection would be against the mutant not with him. You can't assume that subjecting the body or the germ cells to radiation would improve their characters. And since the claimed transition between phyla is very complicated as random mutations can't create a completely developed organ in one generation. For a fish to reach land it must acquire many characters at a time which is logically impossible. These fish must solve the weight bearing problem by acquiring a new skeletal and muscular system. Terrestrial animals consume about 40% of their energy for bearing the weight of their bodies which is not a problem for fish at all. In addition, they must acquire a full excretory system unlike fish which excrete ammonia directly through their bodies into the surrounding water. On land the creatures must have a mechanism to preserve their body temperature since the changes in temperature occur more rapidly and vigorously than that in water. Furthermore, they must acquire a full change in their respiratory systems. All these changes are impossible from the logical point of view to have evolved by chance and suddenly. If these changes occur more gradually they won't give any advantage for natural selection and the same factor causing useful mutation as claimed is also prone to cause devastating mutation at the same time which would endanger the life of the mutant even before appearance of good traits. There is o evidence that mutations can occur in a useful pattern only, but actually all the proved mutations were found to be dangerous. Since mutations occur randomly they are mostly harmful especially in a well-formed creature as fish which are totally adapted for their environment and are in no need to change it. You can never assume that subjecting a living organism to direct radiation would be helpful to him, in fact it would lead to mutations and consequently cancers.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It's very unfair to consider the amphibian's metamorphosis as an example for the alleged evolution as the metamorphosis was found to be a very sophisticated genetic program within the amphibian's DNA and any error during expression of this program is fatal to the organism. This means it is not an example for acquisition of new characters by any means as its characteristic life style is already programmed in its genes like any other creature. [/FONT]

· [FONT=&quot]Natural selection is not a mechanism that can explain the acquisition of new characters, it only allows the survival of better traits, however it cannot be alleged to cause transfer between creatures since selecting – for example- the faster gazelles to live doesn't induce the appearance of giraffes. It only chooses the predomination of characters already present in the genetic pool.[/FONT]

 

[tarekabdo12]

[FONT=&quot] Pleiotrpic effect of genes: most genes are responsible for information in multiple organs, thus a damage of one gene may lead to drastic effects in multiple body organs. This adds to the complexity of genes and proves that it's very hard they appeared by coincidences.

Pleiotropy Is Not Polygenic Inheritance | Learn Science at Scitable

So how can radom complications shift this extremely complex genome and can it originally form it? It's something totally illogical.
[/FONT]

 

[tarekabdo12]

IN addition, ....

In order for the evolutionist claim concerning "homology" to be taken seriously, similar (homologous) organs in different creatures should also be coded with similar (homologous) DNA codes. However, they are not. Similar organs are usually governed by very different genetic (DNA) codes. Furthermore, similar genetic codes in the DNA of different creatures are often associated with completely different organs.
Michael Denton, an Australian professor of biochemistry, describes in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis the genetic impasse of the evolutionist interpretation of homology: "Homologous structures are often specified by non-homologous genetic systems and the concept of homology can seldom be extended back into embryology." 166
A famous example on this subject is the "five digit skeletal structure" of quadrupeds which is quoted in almost all evolutionist textbooks. Quadrupeds, i.e., land-living vertebrates, have five digits on their fore- and hindlimbs. Although these do not always have the appearance of five digits as we know them, they are all counted as pentadactyl due to their bone structure. The fore- and hindlimbs of a frog, a lizard, a squirrel or a monkey all have this same structure. Even the bone structures of birds and bats conform to this basic design.
Evolutionists claim that all living things descended from a common ancestor, and they have long cited pentadactyl limb as evidence of this. This claim was mentioned in almost all basic sources on biology throughout the 20th century as very strong evidence for evolution. Genetic findings in the 1980s refuted this evolutionist claim. It was realised that the pentadactyl limb patterns of different creatures are controlled by totally different genes. Evolutionist biologist William Fix describes the collapse of the evolutionist thesis regarding pentadactylism in this way:
The older text-books on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. Thus the "pentadactyl" limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and the flipper of a whale, and this is held to indicate their common origin. Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down...167
Another point is that in order for the evolutionary thesis regarding homology to be taken seriously, the periods of similar structures' embryological development-in other words, the stages of development in the egg or the mother's womb-would need to be parallel, whereas, in reality, these embryological periods for similar structures are quite different from each other in every living creature.
To conclude, we can say that genetic and embryological research has proven that the concept of homology defined by Darwin as "evidence of the evolution of living things from a common ancestor" can by no means be regarded as any evidence at all. In this respect, science can be said to have proven the Darwinist thesis false time and time again.



from

Evolution Deceit. com - This website is the interactive version of the book "Evolution Deceit" by HARUN YAHYA

I can conclude that the homology is not a valid excuse.