Creation "Science" And The Flood of Noah.

[Lars-E]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Lars-E:
When we claim that evolution involves millions of mutations in the distant past, you object because you want evidence of them happening now. Yet when we provide examples of beneficial mutations happening now, you object that they didn't happen in the distant past!

No, no, no. That's not what I'm saying. Reread my post.

All the evidence we have is exactly what we would expect to see if evolution is true. We expect to see a pattern of common descent, and we do. We expect to see transitional fossils, and we do. We expect to see beneficial mutations, and we do. We expect to see natural selection, and we do. We expect that DNA analysis will show the same pattern of relationships as the fossils, and it does. And so on, and on, and on...

We don't see transitional fossils.

We expect to see? What happened to oldfashioned science where you observe something in nature and then make a theory out of it? Like Darwin did. Instead of trying to confirm a thought- up theory.

And all the "esteemed scientists" agree that evolution is fact.

The not so's. The rest think it's a fact.

What probabilities?

Some scientists say that evolution is something like we won the big lottery. It's like we can't believe it. Let says the chances are relative high like 1/200 mill. Now the chance is equal for all those 200 mill to be the correct answer. Here's the fallacy: From this you conclude that since there's an equal chance that any of the 200 is right - evolution which is one of them is right. This is more like an logical error. It doesn't make sense.

"You say "it's been proven". They say "it's impossible to believe in evolution theory, but I still do"."
Can you give me a cite on that second quotation? I don't know of many biologists who would say that...

Yes I can. I get the book tomorrow. I can send you a PM. This was a Nobel Prize winner - not many biologist are...

I'm not calling you a teenager. As for those 'esteemed' scientists I will get back to you tomorrow. Anyways, I'm talking about ppl that believe in evolution. If you wanna go to the creationists you can visit http://www.icr.org. Their credentials are listed. Harvard Phd's Oxford Phd's and are amongst them of course. And there's a growing number in Russia.

This evolution is not something that has happened in the past. It is happening all the time; that is propably why Lars-E doesn't get the connection between the nylon-eating bacteria and human evolution 500 000 years ago.

I get the connection. Now can you tell me why the bananafly has reached the pinnacle of evolution? They won't evolve anymore.

If evolution does not happen, then the africans, indians, europeidians, mongols and aboriginals are all different species, which makes you think: how is it possible to cross-breed???

The can be the same species. So mutations take place when ppl cross-breed?

Honest to goodness, how can you attack a theory which you obviously have no understand of? Educate yourself, before you come at evolution with all this complete nonsense.

Now as for Lars... jeez man, give it up.

How can I attack something that is holy to you? Blasphemy right?

When ppl have no arguments like yourself Guynemer you resort to personal attacks. If you wanna lower yourself to dirt please feel free, but don't expect me to do the same.

I have a master's ty. I was recommended to Northwestern Uni. which has the best MBA-programme in the world according to a recent edition of a business magazine. I have also studied in the states and got straight A's easily. I'm European and I must say the American school system needs improvement. At least at the lower levels.

[Lars-E]

It's time to kill this off

It’s time to wrap things up.

Summary
*Beneficial mutations
This has been replied to by the following:
Natural selection experiments
Bacterias that defend themselves
Nylon and nylon-bacterias that didn’t exist before 1937
-Now, why don’t you pick an experiment on something that’s supposedly been around for millions of years – insects? You can find insect-fossiles. Even flies. There has been done mutation-experiments on the bananafly. Guess what? They all died like flies. So according to your logic this experiment denies the theory of beneficial mutations.
*Intermediates
There’s an unwillingness to talk about this because of the “I-know-more-than-you” attitude. I have never mentioned intermediates on Apolyton yet a certain individual know how much I know of this. Is he a psychic or a prophet or a mindreader or just have an attitude?

Conclusion
I have pointed out a vast difference of opinion on evolution theory between scientists and ppl in this thread. Let’s just call it divergence to be nice. With this in mind and all the opportunities given I see no further point in continuing. Feel free to start another thread or go back to bible scriptures.

I rest my case

[Tolls]

Zealot:
This covers both your points (why species started to live differently and why not all apes became human).

First off, there is a limited amount of food on the planet, so there is always competition. More offspring are produced than can be supported.

There are also numerous different "niches" that organisms can occupy to get at this food. As pressure builds on a group for resources, some members of the group may prove capable at getting at the resources in an otherwise untouched niche...these organisms are now on their way to becoming a separate species. By no longer operating in the same environment (niche) as their cousins they don't associate with them, and so the mutations (and pressures) they get drive evolution in a different direction for the two groups.

This is not the only way a group can be split, one species of freshwater fish in North America is on its way to speciating, since some of the population have taken to breeding slightly higher up the stream than the rest. The result of this is a steady genetic drift between the two populaces.

You can look at Lake Victoria's cichlids for an extreme version of speciation.

This is all a pretty simplified look at a couple of the mechanisms behind speciation, but I hope it will make you think twice about asking "why are there still apes"...to be honest, I find it surprising you asked that given that you "... already made my intensive research on this subject"...

[Gibsie]

The bacteria example earlier on was poor. Instead you should use the emergence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, which is not a simple selection issue, but the acuisition of new DNA for the resistance. I would link you to relevent information, but you'd need a username and password to get into the journals.

Oh,and if anyone wants to write a 2000 word essay on why the first eukaryotes, the protozoa, still exist, I'll be happy to plagiarize it

[Jack the Bodiless]

If life appeared by chance, why are the 20 aminoacids needed to life are all "left-handed", when chance tells us that they should be 50% left-handed and 50% right-handed?

Because the "left-handed" ones will only react with other left-handers, and "right-handed" ones will only react with other right-handers. The initial self-replicating molecule had a 50% chance of being "left-handed" or "right-handed", but then all of its descendants would use the same "handedness" in their biochemistry.

This indicates either that life evolved once, or that one strain prevailed. It would be very unlikely that two types of life, using molecules of each "handedness", would develop together at the same rate: if either branch happened to gain even a slight advantage, its descendants would prevail.

Because if you say we come from apes, why are there still apes, and didn't all evolve into humans?!? That's why I want you to explain to me! What was the phenomenon that occured that only allowed some appes to massively evolve into humans, and others don't, and continue to be apes!

Some stayed in the trees, some ventured out onto the plains. Speciation occurs after two groups of the same species get separated, and moving out into a different environment will do that.

I think we've all seen in the animal world that "deformed" offspring are killed or led to banishment from its "society". How could you truly believe in such radical evolution (unless you know jack about human and ape anatomy)?

Humans and (other) apes have the same basic anatomy. The differences are trivial: larger brain and skull, less hair, different amounts of body fat, skeletal adaptations to walking upright. There are no organs that humans have which other apes lack, or vice versa. Similarly, all apes and monkeys share a "broken" gene for making vitamin C: because primates eat fruit and other foods containing vitamin C, we've all survived without it, except a few unfortunates who died of scurvy. Of course, the gene in humans is broken in exactly the same way as in the other primates.

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Tolls
Zealot:
This covers both your points (why species started to live differently and why not all apes became human).

First off, there is a limited amount of food on the planet, so there is always competition. More offspring are produced than can be supported.

There are also numerous different "niches" that organisms can occupy to get at this food. As pressure builds on a group for resources, some members of the group may prove capable at getting at the resources in an otherwise untouched niche...these organisms are now on their way to becoming a separate species. By no longer operating in the same environment (niche) as their cousins they don't associate with them, and so the mutations (and pressures) they get drive evolution in a different direction for the two groups.

This is not the only way a group can be split, one species of freshwater fish in North America is on its way to speciating, since some of the population have taken to breeding slightly higher up the stream than the rest. The result of this is a steady genetic drift between the two populaces.

You can look at Lake Victoria's cichlids for an extreme version of speciation.

This is all a pretty simplified look at a couple of the mechanisms behind speciation, but I hope it will make you think twice about asking "why are there still apes"...to be honest, I find it surprising you asked that given that you "... already made my intensive research on this subject"...

You want to compare human and ape's anatomy with some fish breeding slightly higher up the stream than the rest?


You knowledge is so limited that I can't even wonder how you might argument the need for "something" to evolve into a bird...

I want scientific evidence on why did some apes radicaly "evolved" into humans and others didn't.

[Tolls]

Lars:
"There has been done mutation-experiments on the bananafly. Guess what? They all died like flies."

The base stock of fruit flies which have been used in labs for mutation experiments will no longer mate with the "wild" kind of fruit fly. A new species. This was a slightly unexpected event.

"I have never mentioned intermediates on Apolyton yet a certain individual know how much I know of this. Is he a psychic or a prophet or a mindreader or just have an attitude? "

I shall quote you:
"Anyways there are millions of focciles and many have been found. Mammals, insects, etc. But where are the intermediates? None has been found."

I was replying to this comment...there are "intermediates".

ICR's credentials are nice, but how many of them have published creationist articles in peer reviewed literature?

[Tolls]

Zealot:
My little write up was to show how one group can split into two since you asked:
"if you say we come from apes, why are there still apes"

That was all it intended to do....if it can happen in fish (see Lake Victoria) there's no reason it can't happen in apes.

We are not radically different from other apes...the difference between us and chimps is a squashed chromosome!

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Humans and (other) apes have the same basic anatomy. The differences are trivial: larger brain and skull, less hair, different amounts of body fat, skeletal adaptations to walking upright. There are no organs that humans have which other apes lack, or vice versa. Similarly, all apes and monkeys share a "broken" gene for making vitamin C: because primates eat fruit and other foods containing vitamin C, we've all survived without it, except a few unfortunates who died of scurvy. Of course, the gene in humans is broken in exactly the same way as in the other primates.

You call that trivial?!?
Jack, be serious! The evidence of the large brain and only humans being able to walk standing are more than enough proof that humans aren't an evolution, but a conception!

And the different amounts of body fat and less hair shows that we, humans, aren't the same specie, because we have a different body-heating retaining system than apes!

[Robert]

Correction: numerous people claimed that they had found the ark. The ark used by Noah.

you forgot about the satelite pictures.
Can you tell me why their claims, including claims from flood-denying scientists

but I'll come with some of the evidence, and you can tell me why it's not true (like we're debating )

- 1916 Russian Tsjar Nicolaas II sent 150 man to the ararat to finally solve the mistery. They found the arc, returned with evidence, including pictures. When they came back into Russia the revolt had started. All evidence has been lost since then, but much russian soldiers (who fled to foreign nations) confirm independant to each other this story.

- The france man Fernand Navarra visisted the mountain in 1952, 1953 and 1955. He found a big squared piece of black wood. Very strange material in an area without any trees.

- 1972, NASA satelite ERTS (Earth Resource Technilogy Satlite) made detailed pictures of the area. Few of these pictures show a big squared thing in the ice near the top of the mountain. Exactly at the position old expeditions claimed to have found the arc in the past.

I'm sure you won't even think about accepting evidence from the past century (of course without any good reasons) I won't come up with those evidences. I'm sure you'll tell me in one line that this is BS as well. (you should put this in your sig: "If it doesn't fit in my opinion, it didn't happen")

Your argument has been thorough refuted before.

every argument has, my friend.

The fatal flaw in your argument is that an organ such as the eye must be formed in entirely. This is clearly false. Huge numbers of species have eyes; these eyes are vastly different. Some of the eyes are "half formed," i.e., they aren't as functional as human eyes

believe me, an 11-gen eye is as simplistic as possible.
But I'll be nice again, and we'll do the same calculation with a 4-gen eye. The change that a 4-gen eye is 1 out of 100000 to the 4th degree. 100000000000000000000 mutations to get it. And then we only have a very basic simplistic 4-gens eye. If you want to have this eye mutated to a 5-gen eye, the match will be 100000000000000000000 times 100000. Hence, I'm so curious how you'll calculate the number of mutations any organism needs to become a human, via whatever organism you want.

Hm. A completely flawed understanding of probability. No need even for refutation.

who says that you pherhaps aren't just stuned and you have no clue about any way to refute this ? If that's not the case, prove it and teach me how stupid I am. Even the smartest professor is a fool as long as he keeps his mouth shut on any question he could answer.

That's not an evolutionary model. That's bollocks.

another great example of one of UR's magnificient rebutalls ! And I'm completely stuned again !

It's like..... instead of taking one million dice and rolling them at the same time hoping to get a six all together(which will take you forever). (The chance would be six to the one millionth power.)

It's more like taking one dice and trying to roll six one million times. Which should take about six million tries. Which isn't a lot.

cool example
I like evolutionists that come up with good rebutalls. People like UR become boring after some time, you know. I knew civ3 would bring an improvement to these fora

but now I have to rebute it, I guess. hmmmmmmmmm.

your 'take the time' example which saves much time in the end expects that the dices ignore everytime they didn't roll 6. In that case 6000000 rolls will conclude indeed in 1000000 6's, 1000000 5's....... etc. etc. etc. (might be one more or less )

But what if we say for example that every time you trow a 5 you have to start all over............ ? Like an organism which mutates very wrong has no change to survive (natural selection)

In fact you say that time will make everything possible.
But if you fill up a box with red an white balls, and shake the box (blind)for eternity, it'll never happen that all the white balls are on top while the red balls are in the bottom of the box. Statistics even show that the red-white appearance will never come above / below 60/50 %

(homework, take a box, fill it with red and white balls....... start shaking)

The only way you could achive a total red/white seperation is by carefully watching and shaking. but in that case you would be playing god...........

Some butterflies have beneficially mutated due to the increased pollution: they have changed the colour of their wings to match with the lichen-covered trees

butterflies can't change the colors of their wings.
By accident one of the white (or black) butterflies got a damaged wing-color-gen so it didn't produce white (black) butterflies anymore, but (new) black (white) butterflies. In fact this mutation didn't harm the butterflies, since the new color of their wings gave them a better change to survive in the new situation. (in the past all the black butterflies died out by natural selection, but now the rules are changed, the white are killed)

But it's absolute an ancient theory that organisms change to fit better in their current living world. Like all the white people (whoms black-skin gen mutated) traveled to the north to escape from the extreme sunlights in Africa.

If a Nobel Prize winner says that it is impossible to believe in the theory of evolution, it doesn't mean it hasn't been proven. Maybe he just was making a personal statement.

that's right, but if he would've said that evolution is a fact you would've proudly quoted him here, and if we would've made the 'personal opinion' comment you just made, you would tell us we are idiots.

Think about the mammal embryos. in the beginning they look all alike. How come? Maybe they are all evolved from one mammal species from 300 million years ago?

pherhaps one designer ?

As for Noah's Ark: people are always finding Noah's Ark on Ararat, and it's always just another rock formation

it is ?
I'm sure that hapened many times indeed. But wood is wood.

Do we really have to go through the intermediates again? If you had the faintest idea of what you were talking about you wouldn't post this...

another Urban Ranger-alike answer.
Why don't you just go through it again ?
It's always that we, creationists (in fact I'm not one of them, but if I have to take a side, I chose theirs :P), have to post the theories, and you guys either rebute it or answer something like "Oh, no, not that again"
Now be a man and post your opinion about intermediates so we can shoot at it. Pherhaps we miss and it'll stand the test of time, but as long as you won't post it, it'll be a fairy tale to me.

Jack: There is no doubt that humans evolved from (other) apes.

last time I checked the evolution theory teached us that both apes and and humans share the same precessors. But pherhaps the evolution theory has evolved again last week.

Spaniels ARE dogs, and humans ARE apes.

humans are mamals, but we're not apes.
even if we share the same precessors as apes do, we still are no apes. Like I'm not my nephew.

I think that's for now

CyberShy

[Jack the Bodiless]

Lars-E:

We don't see transitional fossils.

Yes, we do. There are thousands of transitional fossils throughout the fossil record. Denying their existence won't make them go away. The creationist view is "the Bible is the Word of God, therefore Genesis is true, therefore there cannot be any tansitional fossils, therefore there ARE no transitional fossils". Dogmatic thinking at its finest.

We expect to see? What happened to oldfashioned science where you observe something in nature and then make a theory out of it? Like Darwin did. Instead of trying to confirm a thought- up theory.

This IS science. You make observations, form a theory, and then TEST the theory against further observations. Evolution has passed every such test. DNA analysis is a good example, because it wasn't available until recently: it might have contradicted evolution, but instead it confirmed it.

I'm not calling you a teenager. As for those 'esteemed' scientists I will get back to you tomorrow. Anyways, I'm talking about ppl that believe in evolution. If you wanna go to the creationists you can visit http://www.icr.org. Their credentials are listed. Harvard Phd's Oxford Phd's and are amongst them of course. And there's a growing number in Russia.

"Creation scientists" are notorious for inventing degrees. Having been caught out so many times, some have decided to study for real degrees, and a few have made it. But nobody has ever become a creationist by being convinced by genuine scientific evidence for it (because there isn't any). Without exception, every "creation scientist" is a religious fundamentalist who denies scientific knowledge which contradicts his religious beliefs: it's just that some have learned a bit of genuine science (usually unrelated to biology).

I get the connection. Now can you tell me why the bananafly has reached the pinnacle of evolution? They won't evolve anymore.

Creatures evolve to adapt to their environment. If the environment changes, the fly will change.

-Now, why don’t you pick an experiment on something that’s supposedly been around for millions of years – insects? You can find insect-fossiles. Even flies. There has been done mutation-experiments on the bananafly. Guess what? They all died like flies. So according to your logic this experiment denies the theory of beneficial mutations.

To refute the claim that "there are no beneficial mutations", it is only necessary to produce examples of beneficial mutations. This has been done, therefore the claim is FALSE. End of argument.

*Intermediates
There’s an unwillingness to talk about this because of the “I-know-more-than-you” attitude. I have never mentioned intermediates on Apolyton yet a certain individual know how much I know of this. Is he a psychic or a prophet or a mindreader or just have an attitude?

You have stated that "We don't see transitional fossils". Again, this claim is FALSE.

Conclusion
I have pointed out a vast difference of opinion on evolution theory between scientists and ppl in this thread. Let’s just call it divergence to be nice. With this in mind and all the opportunities given I see no further point in continuing. Feel free to start another thread or go back to bible scriptures.

I rest my case

Correction: You have pointed out a vast difference of opinion on evolution theory between religious fundamentalists and people in this thread.

You lose your case.

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Tolls
Zealot:
My little write up was to show how one group can split into two since you asked:
"if you say we come from apes, why are there still apes"

That was all it intended to do....if it can happen in fish (see Lake Victoria) there's no reason it can't happen in apes.

We are not radically different from other apes...the difference between us and chimps is a squashed chromosome!

Tolls, you're a nice guy, honest, but you need to be more anti-dogmatic.
When you say: "there's no reason it can't happen in apes.", I have to say that I can't possibly agree with you. Why?

Because there's no reason why I should believe! There's no scientific evidence that apes stoped being apes at one given time, neither that men weren't still "men" at a given time!
You say that there's only one chromosome of difference between us and chimps. But if you really look deeper, chimps don't have complex communitation abilities, art development or even art appreciation, cooking abilities, engineering abilities, etc, etc, or enev give signs that they're evolving to achieve that stage one day!
Chimps will always be chimps, and humans will always be humans. There's no scientific evidence why one should consider otherwise!

[General Ludd]

Aaaahhh! I'm being dragged in!

Originally posted by Lars-E
I have a master's ty. I was recommended to Northwestern Uni. which has the best MBA-programme in the world according to a recent edition of a business magazine. I have also studied in the states and got straight A's easily. I'm European and I must say the American school system needs improvement. At least at the lower levels.

That's really nice Mr.Blowhard, but you still don't have any clue of what you are talking about, ie Evolution.


I haven't been following this thread very closely, but...

Anybody who would ask the question "why aren't all apes human?" obvously has no concept of the theory of evolution - it's not some sort of game that has some sort of end level or goal to reach which every life form strives for, evoultion is how different species evolve and adapt to the enviroment they live in. Apes have evolved in the jungles and forests of the planet, and are thus adapted to climbing trees and living in a forested enviroment, humans evolved in the open planes and savannahs and are thus adapted to that enviroment. The fact that there are humans and apes - or any other example of bio-diversity - only supports evolution.



By the way, genetically speaking, a cat and a tree have alot more in common than you think.

[Tolls]

Zealot:
You obviously have a strange definition of scientific evidence if you think:

"There's no scientific evidence that apes stoped being apes at one given time, neither that men weren't still "men" at a given time! "

We have DNA evidence showing us to be closely related to chimps...
We have a fossil record going back some 6-8 million years which shows changes in apes, with one line showing more and more human-like qualities as time progresses...(which neatly ties in with intermediates, CyberShy).

Where in that lot are you missing the evidence?

Cybershy:
For other transitionals how about good old archaeopteryx?

Now if you deny that that one has never come up before then I fear your memory's going...

That's why the "no transitionals" statement is so annoying because it comes up every bloody time, and is knocked down every bloody time! Now the only reason I can think of for this is that our definition of transitional is different...so what would you expect a transitional to look like?

[Jack the Bodiless]

Because there's no reason why I should believe! There's no scientific evidence that apes stoped being apes at one given time, neither that men weren't still "men" at a given time!

This is exactly what the fossil record shows (except that there was gradual development, not a "given time" when it suddenly happened).