Evolution or Creation?

[cocktaste]

People need to look up the definition of "scientific theory".

 

[Andro Man]

Doc is right about this, Andro Man.
Have a gander at this link: The Flat Earth Society -- Home

Only in America.....ok, with the exception of a few american crazies

 

[Andro Man]

I feel like I'm doing this debate alone against a whole stable of evolutionaries
Are there no jihadies or suicide bombers or christian fundamentalists willing to help little ol' me out?

 

[Andro Man]

There are flying squirrels, bats, flying snakes, flying lizards, birds, pterosaurs, insects, spiders, seeds, pollen, spores: all these living things have evolved to take advantage of traveling through our atmosphere. You either get it or you don't. If you want to be obstinate, no amount of arguement will persuade you. Have you considered the different breeds of dogs, swine, horses, tomatoes, and tulips? All this change happens right before your very eyes. If you believe in God, God has revealed all of this to you, including the fossil record in God's own earth. I submit to you that if you cannot see evolution happening, you are ignoring God's revelation and commiting the sin of worshiping a lesser false God. That is one commandment broken. The other is bearing false witness by ignoring plain and simple evidence right in front of your nose.

I'm not in the business of claiming that other ppl's God(if present) is any better or worse than my own, if anything it would have to be the same God, I'll leave believing superiority up 2 you evolutionaries(sieg h.)

See what you're not getting is that because certain species existed in the past that are now extinct doesn't mean that we've evolved from them.

Sure there are varieties. But to get a new species you need new DNA to contain that new information. No process known to science will reproduce these new genes, neither by isolution, selection, mutation, breeding it's not possible.

Every experiment that's been done in the past 200 years with mutation has revealed any positive mutations, the only mutations have been negative/harmful(elephant man) or neutral.
Isn't it strange in all the time that we've been around we haven't seen any mutations. Of course there are varieties in man(pygmees, abo's) that have gone to or survived in certain environment, thus a concentration of certain characteristics(variety). But that's no new DNA that's only an empoverishment of DNA. If taken out that environment will either die out or
cease to be a seperate variety

 

[B_LeiaSwift]

It is a scientific fact

 

[Andro Man]

You want to see evolution in progress, controled evolution even? Look at pretty much any Domesticated spieces Vs the Wild version. (Husbandry: Evolutiuon for fun and profit)

Elephants are a good example here. Indian (semi-domesticated) Vs African (wild).

Both obviously have a very similar genetic origin but by over the generations the changes that occured incarmentally in each of these species became unique to each group as they were no longer able to breed with each other due to isolation.

The genetic change that caused the Indians smaller ears couldn't be passed to the African. The Africans larger size couldn't be passed on to the Indian.

Individually these (and many other) changes aren't significant within their own group, but they add up over time, until eventually the total sum of differences between the two groups becomes too vast to be compatable.

More or less the same reply as above. That with the elephants, I'm not sure if those elephants are seperate species(seperated by space, but also in attitude, one's also scared of the other), but if they were, could it not be possible that the ones that were domesticated were different species to begin with. That they were selected for domestication because they could be?

 

[joejack]

I'm not in the business of claiming that other ppl's God(if present) is any better or worse than my own, if anything it would have to be the same God, I'll leave believing superiority up 2 you evolutionaries(sieg h.)

See what you're not getting is that because certain species existed in the past that are now extinct doesn't mean that we've evolved from them.

Sure there are varieties. But to get a new species you need new DNA to contain that new information. No process known to science will reproduce these new genes, neither by isolution, selection, mutation, breeding it's not possible.

Every experiment that's been done in the past 200 years with mutation has revealed any positive mutations, the only mutations have been negative/harmful(elephant man) or neutral.
Isn't it strange in all the time that we've been around we haven't seen any mutations. Of course there are varieties in man(pygmees, abo's) that have gone to or survived in certain environment, thus a concentration of certain characteristics(variety). But that's no new DNA that's only an empoverishment of DNA. If taken out that environment will either die out or
cease to be a seperate variety

I take it from your response about there not having been any positive mutations, that Homo sapiens, having grown huge thick penises over time is indeed a negative mutation. Perhaps you are correct. If the huge dicks seen in this group grow any larger, mating with the opposite gender will become impossible. Perhaps in the future all that we will be able to do with our huge penises is tit fuck the gigantic breasts that have been evolving on our women all the way to extinction. What a way to go!

 

[Andro Man]

Evolution is no longer really a theory, it's been pretty much proven. Some of the specific details are still unclear, for example how was life created in the first place. But the amount of evidence for evolution itself is overwhelming.

Compare this to the amount of evidence for any alternative theory (creationism? what other theories are there?) and what do you get? No evidence at all.

I'd say it is a theory and a bad one at that. Actually it's more a (nazi )philosophy than a scientific theory. Materialists think there scientists and through peer pressure think anyone that isn't materialist isn't scientist

It's at best a theory, coz what it all boils down to a) that we can trace ourselves back to the first living cell, which in turns breaks the rule in biology that life comes from life not from something inanimate. Billions are spent on the Viking trips to mars to proove it can happen, the stakes are high the evidence very dubious.

The evidence shows that even something that is meant to be a simple lifeform is already perfect and very complex So not that simple cells group together into colonies and become more complex(there already perfect and complex)
The chromosones of humans haven't changed since inception and they're original(not derived from any other species).

 

[Andro Man]

I take it from your response about there not having been any positive mutations, that Homo sapiens, having grown huge thick penises over time is indeed a negative mutation. Perhaps you are correct. If the huge dicks seen in this group grow any larger, mating with the opposite gender will become impossible. Perhaps in the future all that we will be able to do with our huge penises is tit fuck the gigantic breasts that have been evolving on our women all the way to extinction. What a way to go!

Yeah the elephant man didn't have much luck with the opposite sex either

 

[fortiesfun]

Sure there are varieties. But to get a new species you need new DNA to contain that new information. No process known to science will reproduce these new genes, neither by isolution, selection, mutation, breeding it's not possible.

No you don't. You need new combinations of DNA, which happens with every birth. Mutations, however, also work.

Every experiment that's been done in the past 200 years with mutation has revealed any positive mutations, the only mutations have been negative/harmful(elephant man) or neutral.

Where'd you get that piece of information? It is utterly false, but I'm curious where you got the idea in the first place. From whose literature survey is this sweeping, and incorrect, statement derived?

 

[B_ScaredLittleBoy]

The elephant man (aka John Merrick) didn't have his disfigurement induced in any experiment. His condition was studied.

Andro are you sure you're not making this up? Give me evidence that God exists then I can dispute it with my own made up stories.

 

[50%more]

Theories are overarching explanations that explain all the facts and must also include a formalyzed hypothesis. A formalyzed hypothesis can either be used to falsify a theory or support the theory. You are correct that theories can never be shown to be 100% certain.

Andro take a few courses on science and the philosophy of science before you continue demonstrating your ignorance of the discipline.

 

[Drifterwood]

Theories are overarching explanations that explain all the facts and must also include a formalyzed hypothesis. A formalyzed hypothesis can either be used to falsify a theory or support the theory. You are correct that theories can never be shown to be 100% certain.

We knew that many pages ago But hey, thanks.

 

[Andro Man]

No you don't. You need new combinations of DNA, which happens with every birth. Mutations, however, also work.

Where'd you get that piece of information? It is utterly false, but I'm curious where you got the idea in the first place. From whose literature survey is this sweeping, and incorrect, statement derived?

I'm talking about new species, so you're saying that you the human DNA isn't uniquely human and the chimpansee DNA isn't uniquely chimp. Without quoting any scientists that seems logical to me.

That with the 200 years was a misquote.
Make it 200000 years that humans have been around.

If anything natural selection eliminates the 'novelties' that mutations create(they don't get fucked)

 

[Andro Man]

The elephant man (aka John Merrick) didn't have his disfigurement induced in any experiment. His condition was studied.

Andro are you sure you're not making this up? Give me evidence that God exists then I can dispute it with my own made up stories.

As I said earlier, I'm no creationist, but I'm no Atheist either. All I want to show is evolution is a theory and no fact.

And faith doesn't work with proof and apparantly, if you take away the crank and the ravings, neither do the evolutionaries

 

[rimmer9]

despite what religious zealots would have you believe - IF YOU BRLIEVE IN GOD YOU MUST BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION - not even god believes in creationalism

 

[Andro Man]

Theories are overarching explanations that explain all the facts and must also include a formalyzed hypothesis. A formalyzed hypothesis can either be used to falsify a theory or support the theory. You are correct that theories can never be shown to be 100% certain.

Andro take a few courses on science and the philosophy of science before you continue demonstrating your ignorance of the discipline.

You're 50% right.

But it's more than that, it sounds like you can't even be certain that tomorrow it's going to be another day, or that there is gravity.....I've heard better stories from Hans Cristian Andersen than from you're fuhrer Darwin.

Maybe you should examine your own ignorance before hiding behind your Groupthink

 

[Andro Man]

despite what religious zealots would have you believe - IF YOU BRLIEVE IN GOD YOU MUST BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION - not even god believes in creationalism

The logic escapes me....God=Darwin?

 

[fortiesfun]

I'm talking about new species, so you're saying that you the human DNA isn't uniquely human and the chimpansee DNA isn't uniquely chimp. Without quoting any scientists that seems logical to me.

It may seem logical, but it's wrong. Chimps have basically the same genetic make-up as we do. Chemically, we are made of the same stuff. That is one of the great reasons for believing in evolution.

That with the 200 years was a misquote. Make it 200000 years that humans have been around. If anything natural selection eliminates the 'novelties' that mutations create(they don't get fucked)

Again, I wish to be respectful, but I'm not sure why you think that or where you got it from. Natural selection works by reinforcing the positive mutations and eliminating the negative ones. (Even scientist with reservations about evolutionary theory agree that on a small scale natural selection can be seen to reinforce positive mutation.)

Let me give you just one quick example. Do you know that there are people who are basically immune to AIDS? They have a mutation called "CCR5," or more properly, they lack the CCR5 receptor to which HIV viruses attach. (Here is an article about it.)

Wouldn't you agree that that is a positive mutation? This is a genetic alteration that protects from HIV infection, and it exists in about 5% of the Northern European population.

My point is only that many of your assumptions about how natural selection works are incorrect. I know that natural selection is not the same thing as proof of evolution, but even the most skeptical debater I know recognizes that many examples of positive mutation exist.

 

[Drifterwood]

God = everything, ergo god = darwin

la la la la la ala ala la a alaalla la alal alla alalalla ala lalallllla a

El - al el uia