«Home

Why Are They Afraid To Debate Evolution?

- They've told us we are fools for being creationists.

- They swear by the gods of science.

- Why then wont they debate us with REAL PROOF?

Evolutionist - Indeed I am, sorry I'm only getting your message right now.

I'll quickly tell you right now, if you're a creationist there's really no point in discussing evolution. It would be like bringing up Astrology in a conversation of Astronomy,  It's not Kosher,

My response - That's a funny way to sidestep the serious issue of evolution. So you only discuss evolution with those who believe evolution? What sort of debate then is that? Sorry, i am a creationist but i am also a scientist and after 4 solid yrs of reviewing plenty of evidence, science has strengthened rather than diminished my belief in creationism.

This attitude by "evolutionists" to shy away from exhaustive debates is really a disgrace and makes you wonder on what basis they base their irrational belief.

Creationism is a belief, evolution unfortunately IS A BELIEF that is not founded on ANY serious scientific reasoning. By simply looking at the millions of tiny processes by which the single cell regulates itself, it is immediately apparent that it is statistically impossible for those processes to have developed simply through a process of trial and error. We also know that the cell has inbuilt mechanisms to resist genomic change - gene silencing, DNA repair, intricately linked cell cycle progression mechanisms - it will interest you to note that there are no less than 5 proteins alone that are primed to stop cell division when there is a recognized change to DNA (p53, p14, p21) e.t.c.

Why do we have fossilized remains of well developed dragon flies, ferns, maple leaves . . . that stretch as far as 400 million yrs ago? Where are the intermediate life forms that shld have existed if evolution was indeed true?

these are just a tiny bit of the questions evolutionists like you who have no ability to reason for themselves love to shy away from. I am not one who is reluctant to actively investigate the bible from a scientific standpoint. I only wonder why those who swear by the gods of science are too scared to put their own scientific theories to the test.

Good day

David

Lets hope the misguided members of the church of science will care to respond to us.

Avatar
Newbie
107 answers

more hogwash from the our dear KAG. If anyone can find any grain of serious science there pls let me know.

0
Avatar
Newbie

No, in other words I'm not dogmatic about it. And yes, I'm not sure. There's nothing wrong with pointing towards what the evidence indicates but avoiding dogmatically stating it - that's how science works. Further, to reiterate a point I keep having to make, science doesn't do proof. Proof is for alcohol.

On extraterrestial rocks, the sources for thos vary, from parts of other planetary bodies dislodged by impacts, to smaller pieces of space bodies crashing into each other and eventually getting caught in the Earth's orbit.

What do you mean by "why was the earth chosen"? Every planet in our solar systme (and even beyond our solar system) are impacted by meteorites. The earth hasn't been the only one. Extraterrestrial bodies form in different ways, depending on the one in question. I've already given a couple of examples for stray rocky objects.

The Earth was formed probably through accretion. We already discussed oxygen in an earlier thread and there's little need to go over it again.

No, you base your beliefs on ignorance. Faith has nothing to do with much of what you do, I'm afraid.

Um, if you had bothered to carry on reading, you'd have seen the example I gave. No, it's not just transitionals that are rare, fossils in general are relatively rare.

What the hell are you on about? The last four threads? Other than this thread I don't remember mentioning transitionals in almost a year. In fact, why don't you show me where I mentioned dinosaur-birds transitionals or archeopteryx in the last four threads. I won't hold my breath.

In any case, this would be you trying to use duplicity to avoid the example for a transitional for which you've been asking, would it? Other than probably a couple of the transitionals between humans and previous ancestors, this is as simple an example as you'll get, because much has been published and found about the dinosaurs-birds transition.

So, there you go.

[Quote]

In other words - you dont know, you're not sure, you're merely grasping at straws . . . and you accuse us of basing our entire beliefs on faith alone?[/quote]

Deja vu. Someone played with the matrix? Not your best attempt at handwaving, though.

[Quote]

to be expected when you run into the brickwall of your own denial.[/quote]

Lol. So, I'm guessing your Morton's demon has helped you repress ERVs, too, eh? Mazel tov.

0
Avatar
Newbie

awww what a dishonest little creep. I'll just ignore you until you "feign ignorance" again.

0
Avatar
Newbie

How can you tell if I lied? You do not think that you can say that. To lie is to be dishonestly conveying wrong information. This is what I said:

This is just a plain travesty of reasoning. Where does he get this figure from? The Shrimp has NOT NOT NOT been around for 400 million years. You cannot base you argument on so fallacious a claim and think you can get away with it. This is simply dishonest and wrong.

When I saw you comments, I did not know how long shrimps/crustaceans have been around, nor did I go to check. What caught my attention was the 400 or 525 million years and I knew by feigning ignorance and skepticism, I could get you to reveal your hand about the issue of the young or old earth and whether you have credibility of the scientific processes. Which turned out to be 100% success on my part - I got you to admit acceptance of OLD EARTH and acceptable of the scientific process. It was all a bluff on my part for a GREAT result, I would say.

I am prepared to accept the facts from the article you cite about the age of crustaceans, but before that I had absolutely no clue. But if you had asked me, it would taken me no more than about 10 minutes to retrieve it from one of my textbooks or other sources.

On the issue of using sources - Yes I do use some YOUTUBE sources and they are now many professional experts who are using YT to reach a greater audience. Supposing the authors of your cited articles had presented their work in a video on YT, would you not have used it? If not, why not?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Sorry, for the misunderstanding, i thought you were referring to me when i saw my name.

0
Avatar
Newbie

we dont discuss evolution because it is simply rubbish.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I already do and you know that . . . that is why i refer you to Science papers instead of youtube like you do. Where you arguing from facts and data earlier when you LIED IN BOLD that crustaceans didnt exist 400 million yrs ago?

much of the expert links has come from me . . . of course unless you consider youtube "learned sources".

0
Avatar
Newbie

Then don't include me in your conversation.

0
Avatar
Newbie

which is why i specifically was speaking to noetic not you.

Read that post of mine you quote - where did i say you posted from youtube or even viewed it? Get some common sense.

0
Avatar
Newbie

The question was not directed at you. And what attention would I hope to get on a FORUM? Tsk Tsk David.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Do you have to tell deliberate lies to support your myth. please read my post. I had never posted a youtude link in my life. In fact i have never visited the youtube website. I even avoid youtube links because my server is extremely slow, and i will take too long to open. \so please stop telling lies, it will land you in hell.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Has my catching you so easily rile you?   Do you now have to resort to insult instead of making arguments withs facts and data?  I know this was gonna happen?

This is not a debate about who knows more than whom,  but a debate about getting to the truth about the reality concerning the diversity of life on the planet.   Nobody can claim to know everything there is to know about a given subject.  Even experts who work on their select field daily can never claim to know everything about their subject.   Least of all me, you is not an expert, but an interested layperson.  If I do not know a fact and its relation to the grand scheme of things, chances are good that I may know where and how to inform myself about that fact - I go to the learned sources, the experts, the likes of the scientific journals, books, etc, etc, to inform myself.   I do not come here to parade knowledge or ignorance - I come so that we can together try to arrive at credible knowledge.  So it does not bother me in the least if you  call me ignorant.  In fact, if you point at my ignorance of a fact, I am generally quite happy because it give me the opportunity to go bone up of the knowledge concerning that fact.  

Why do you inform yourself about evolution?

0
Avatar
Newbie

I think you are suffering from youthful exorbitance as you probably only started learning science and you suddenly feel you can challenge almost all establish scientist dating back 3 centuries, especially in the field of paleontology, microbiology and genetics. When i said I have not read Biology since secondary school, I meant general biology, I did not tell you i do not read aspects that is of concern to me. i have studied everything that has to do with evolution, from astronomy to anthropology, from physics to geology, etc.

I made the statement because i was not sure that scientist had agreed that cancer is hereditary, i know the last time i read about it, there were sharp disagreements among scientist as to the degree hereditary plays in cancer and the degree environmental factors plays. That was why i asked you for links or sources. I have read your answer and i will research the veracity when i have time. I have been on nairaland for a while and i never talk of what i do not understand, i will tell you as far as i understand any topic. I never google or cut and past. You can try all my post on all the search engines, you will find my arguments in any website because i write from my head.

You asked a simple question of the origin of life, I answered the way the scientific community understands it, and instead of discussing the merits of my arguments, you simply ran away by saying i do not understand what i am talking about.

If beats me how an educated person can compare a few line of conjecture from the bible, to the myriads of materials detailing the formation and evolution of life by numerous men who devoted their whole life to deciphering the mysteries of life. And someone will tell us that the few assertion of the Bible is more reasonable and sensible than science. That is the first time i am hearing such. Theist usually tell us that the Bible is accepted on faith and not on logic.

0
Avatar
Newbie

dude, your own duplicity makes me sick. You who swears by the gods of science DID NOT know that there were crustaceans during the cambrian period . . . infact you labelled me dishonest and fraudulent for even suggesting what had already been published since the summer of 2008.

You're merely trying to mitigate the disaster that your own ignorance has exposed you to. I dont disaprove of science in general if not i wont be in the field at all. What i find despicable is the fact that many of you clueless bufoons who cant EVEN READ THAT SCIENCE instead prefering to rummage through youtube links stay here bellowing hot air.

Science is not flawless . . . but slowly it is begining to prove wrong the very pillars that you hold unto.

0
Avatar
Newbie

The above response need to be noted by ALL and saved and immortalised for posterity,  as it displays Davidylan in his dishonest duplicity about the scientific process.

Firstly it shows him agreeing with a very old earth view of the world, and secondly it shows him displaying confidence in the scientific reseach, peer-review, publications process.

Note - I predict that it will NOT be long before he tries to detract or withdraw his overall approval of these processes and their result.   Just keep watching this space.

0
Avatar
Newbie

First its "youthful exhuberance", or did you also read a dictionary last 25yrs ago?

1. I started learning science in 1995. You do the maths.

2. I am not challenging "establish (sic) scientists" . . . i am challenging YOU ignorant folks who parrot talking points from youtube and talkorigins (those are NOT established scientists!) and suddenly think you know.

I used the same established scientists to debunk Huxley's false claim that crustaceans didnt exist 400 million urs ago.

3. Paleontology has shown us that there are NO intermediate life forms to support evolution as a theory.

4. Microbiology has shown us that bacteria has remained the same for millions of yrs . . . why hasnt it evolved?

5. Genetics shows us that it is mathematically impossible for genes to have appeared simply by mutations . . . for instance we know that certain portions of ERV (alleged) LTRs control the p53 regulatory network - that begs the question - which came first? The ERV or the p53 network?

and you didnt know that mutations are the basis for cancer? Fat chance.

You been living in a cave all along? This has been common knowledge for yrs . . . that is why women whose mothers had bosom or cervical cancer are especially urged to have hospital checkups once a yr.

that must have been 25 yrs ago.

Dont bother "researching the veracity" . . . those things i said are common knowledge that ordinary high school students are taught here.

which is why i wonder why you are here. If you dont understand cancer then what are you doing on topics like this?

we thank God. At least u're better than bawomolo, huxley and KAG. If they didnt have google or youtube i wonder what they would have done.

The scientific community cannot be basing their claims on speculations, hypothesis, non-verifiable premises and then turn around to accuse the creationists of depending on faith alone.

This is purely disgraceful falsehood.

The "myriad of materials" you claim DO NOT DETAIL THE FORMATION OF LIFE AT ALL!!! Neither do they detail the evolution of life. There is NO SINGLE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE to show us how we evolved and from what?

your claims on evolution are NOT based on logic but on irrational faith in science.

If it is based on logic, why has man or even protists failed to evolve into more complex creatures in the last 1000 yrs alone?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Dude . . . you cant keep recycling around your own stupidity and forcing us to answer your own queries. You are the one who swears by the gods of science not me, you're the one who claims fossils prove evolution is true not me . . . answer your own question.

Thou hypocrite, stop bothering to ask for scientific peer-reviewed articles when all you can provide is talkorigins and youtube.com

0
Avatar
Newbie

Thanks for that again. I think we are getting somewhere now.  So you agree that this is a very scientifically credible work and the dates of 525 MYA is very plausible?  It that were not the case it would have been challenge by the peer-review process.

Now, 525 MYA ago happen to fall right in the middle of the cambrian period, which spans 543MYA - 495MYA, and you agree with the scientist of your reference article that crustaceans roamed the earth then.

What other animals roamed the earth alongside the crustaceans?   Why have human, rabbits, elephants, dogs fossils NEVER been found in rocks dating this period, circa 525 MYA?   Why do they only appear in much later rock strata?

Can you show me scientific articles, peer-reviewed as the one you cited, that show these mammals to have existed in the cambrian?

0
Avatar
Newbie

I'm glad you're begining to realise that EVEN SCIENCE is casting major doubts on the lies that TTE is gradually turning out to be. And this was the same ignorant fool accusing me of being dishonest . . . take your time to read the VERY SCIENCE you worship and tout before posting here next time.

lol shrimps have "not not not" been around for 400 million yrs indeed! The clueless ones like wirinet would simply have lapped up his false claim, assuming because he posts tons of youtube links he must know what he is saying.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Dude, you cant simply disagree with science when it suits you . . . you have NEVER provided valid scientific papers to back up your own wishy washy claims, prefering to give us youtube.com instead.

1. That article was published in Science AAAS with an impact factor of 30.927, 1 clear point better than Nature. I'm sure you know it takes more than 1 yr and up to 3 levels of independent peer review to get your paper accepted for publication in Nature alone. If they had problems with the date it would not have been published.

2. Only one of 4 of the researchers was Chinese, the other 3 were British.

Dude keep quiet when ur ignorance is corrected.

DOI: 10.1126/science.1162794

0
Avatar
Newbie

Davidylan,

Many thanks for the links to the New Scientist article. I like it when people reference respected material in such debates and I have learned a lot from that material. Many thankz.

But I have got one important reservation and it is the following:

Why should I trust the work of these Chinese scientist? Is it conceivable that they have got their methodology all wrong and have fed the world with wrong and misleading data about the alleged age of these crustaceans. Can we be sure that the figure of 525 millions is in the correct ball-park?

I have great doubts that this work is credible and would much appreciate it if you would throw more light on their methods, because if their data is correct, it could potentially overturn some of the bedrock of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

0
Avatar
Newbie

noetic, on a sidenote i suggest you ignore Baddriyah. I think she's simply looking for attention.

I'd wager you also ignore wirinet, he hasnt read a biology textbook in 25 yrs yet he is here bleating about what he doesnt know about.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Ummmm, I have a problem here. Why are you using the Bible as evidence?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Forget about Genesis and try and answer simply questions rather deploying evasive tactics. How could you possibly criticise something that you do not understand? What are your scientific criticism for evolution? To be able to criticise it you need to at least demonstrate an understanding of what is the target of your criticism. Just checking - have you ever been to any establishment to learning - like a school, college, university? Did you pay attention to lessons while there? Or are you a product of one of the myriads of bible colleges in Nigeria?

0
Avatar
Newbie

While the evolutionists find it impossible educate us on the origin and pioneer elements that evoluted life,

I will proceed to highlight the second part of the creation story.

Moral lesson: Never postulate what u dont understand (evolutionist as in evolution). google and wikipedia can be very unreliable when

analytical and intellectually driven debates happens.

The second part of the creation story.

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested [a] from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

Adam and Eve

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.

When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth [b] and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [c] and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams [d] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- the LORD God formed the man The Hebrew for man (adam) sounds like and may be related to the Hebrew for ground (adamah) it is also the name Adam (see Gen. 2:20). from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin [e] and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. [f] 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.

But for Adam [g] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs [h] and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [i] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,

"This is now bone of my bones

and flesh of my flesh;

she shall be called 'woman, [j] '

for she was taken out of man."

24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

25 The man and his wife were both Unclad, and they felt no shame.

0
Avatar
Newbie

is this ur way of saying thank you for correcting ur rubbish and unintelligent posers about Genesis account of creationism?.

by asking simple cogent questions, we will collectively come to the overall conclusion of the untenability of the evolution lie.

And once again i ask u, how does me answering ur posers elucidate on either the theory of evolution or the creation belief.

I refuse to be distracted.

PS: I have educated ur concerns on the Genesis account of creation, why dont u do the same on the origin and evolution of life.

by doing that we might make progress here.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Rubbish.

You simply described the behaviours of RNA without sheding light of the origin or evolution of life.

U are discusing the self replicationg nature of RNA, while we are asking the pioneer formation of this RNA? how did it happen? which was the very first? what was its structure?

the commonest law of biogenesis says life begets life. Biology butresses this. Yet evolution claims that the first

substance of life were formed from non-living substances reffered to as "spontaneous generation". or am i wrong? RUBBISh, . . . . .

Darwin claims that all organisms on earth are descent from a common ancestor or a last universal ancestor.

Whats ur explanation for the mitochondria gene exception? what is the identity and nature of the last common universal ancestor?

I am asking very simple straight forward questions here.

Evolution traces life to phylogenetic tree that that postulates three domains of life namely bacteria, archea and eucaryota. What is the major consesus or common denominator to whom life might can be traced to between these three? as seen in d image below

Evolution claims that increasing complex chemical reactions that resulted from simpler chemical reactions are

the last traces of life. Me the creationist is asking u the evolutionist, what was the singular first chemical reaction that kick started life?

and what were the substances that made up this reaction?

what was the structure of the first living things?

i eargerly await ur response.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Hello Wirinet,

I made the comment which you have highlighted

in part to yield some ground to the fact that a lot remains unknow about the origins of life although scientist now have very plausible explanations for how life came about.  Almost every step through which life is thought to have undergone is being tested and replicated in labs, which good result.  I think some teams have even succeeded in producing proto-cells in the lab, which represents a tremendous progress from the Miller experiments of some decades ago.

As scientist, we still have to have some measure of provisionality about our work/theories.  It is conceivable that we could reproduce life in the form of cells with complex behaviour, but we may never know (I think ) if this was exactly the same way that life originated on the planet.  There may indeed be many routes that lead to this thing called life, and our planet may just have taken one of many routes. What we might end up doing in the lab may just be another route.  This concept is called convergence, which I guess you are already aware of.

Yes, I made the consertion to Davidylan because I want the debate to move onto EVOLUTION rather than ABIOGENESIS, which incidentally, the creationists are not adequately mentally equiped to make the distinction.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I decided to respond to this thread again because i felt that you cannot squeeze water from a stone no matter how long and hard you try, that is referring to davidylan and co. You can explain evolution to them a thousand times and they would still say you have not answered a single question there are raising.

But i am responding now because of the above statement by huxley whom i respect very much, and a few others. Scientist have very good and sound postulations about the origin of live on earth and the process being repeated on other planets. It had been dealt with extensively by my mentor - Carl Sagan. But for those who do not know here is my explanation.

Before I explain the naturalistic origin of life as generally accepted by scientists, we have to agree on the definition of life. So What Is Life?

I think the problem we have is that different people has a different definition of life. We have spiritual life, biological life, physical life, and so on. The one we are interested in is biological or organic life. I have no definition or understanding of spiritual life.

To me Life is a self contained system of molecules that is capable of duplicating itself from generation to generation. Put in another way it is organic molecules with the potential of forming self reproducing systems. The basic unit of life is The DNA. If you agree with me on the definition of life, we can then move on to its origin, if not then our thought pattern will never cross.

Nucleic acids are the building blocks of life, as they are responsible for life's primary function - replication and growth. Nucleic acids and protein are polymers. Polymerization involves the loss of water. In constructing a nuceic acid, the phosphorous group losses -OH, allowing the phosphate group to link with ribose sugar. The ribose sugar and a base link when the ribose loses an -OH and the base loses one -H. The loss of these two water molecules leads to the formation of a nucleotide. A nucleotide links to the next nucleotide when it loses one -H and the other one loses one -OH. To make nucleic acids out of the original dehydration(loss of water ) is necessary.dehydration is also necessary to polymerize amino acids into proteins. Polymerization of carbohydrates also requires dehydration.

The original components (phospate group, ribose deoxyribose sugars, bases, amino acids, glocose, etc) are readily formed by by action of electrical charges meaning lightening and ultraviolet radiation in the primitive atmosphere of the earth (see Miller's experiment). These compounds are readily dissolved in rainwater and brought down to the primitive ocean. There these compounds are protected from destruction from the same agents (electrical discharges and ultraviolet radiation) that created them. As the ocean accumulated these compounds, it slowly became a dilute "primordial soup" The dehydration process needed for polymerization most likely took place on the beaches and in tidal pools of the ancient ocean.

Experiments have shown that RNA is autocatalytic, which means that an RNA stand once formed by accidental dehydration can catalyze the formation of complimentary RNA chain. Short stands of RNA were probably the first self duplicating systems to come into being on the young earth.

In those viruses that use RNA as genetic material, the RNA strand is protected by a sheath of specific proteins. the association of RNA with proteins may have led to protein synthesis, and eventually to Primordial Life.

Mr Davidylan and co might argue that life could not have evolved on earth because the earth was too young. According to them 4.6 billion years is too short a time to make all the various type of proteins and nucleic acids needed to make even the simplest bacteria. But they forget the extreme power of natural environmental selection. Evolution was also operating at the molecular level: compounds that were not stable would not survive, leaving only the most stable compounds. It happens that nucleic acids are very stable compounds.

Let me give you an example how natural selection works. Imagine you want the entire King James Bible types by a wild monkey. What are the chances that such a monkey, typing at random will come up with the bible neatly typed without any error. The king James bible is said to contain about 6 million letter. The chances of success is almost nil. But if i introduce a control (the environment) what deletes any wrong letter the monkey would type, the probability would certainly be 1. And typing at one letter per second and assuming an average of 13 errors per letter, the monkey would produce the English Bible in 13 X 6,000,000 seconds, which equals 2 yrs and 6 months. That is how evolution by natural selection works.

i hope you people understand the origin of life and Evolution better now as i am exhausted.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Yes, the human race is largely ignorant as to the naturalistic origin of life, but that is not to say that we shall for ever remain ignorant. Secondly, the fact that we have no explanation for something or an event does not preclude making further useful prediction/theories about that something

You still have NOT define what an intermediate lifeform is? Before a goat, there was something similar to a goat, but with NOT exactly the same morphology as a present day goat.

Now, Davidylan, to be sure that we are talking about the same thing, can you address these first please? It is only fair that you attempt my questions, as I have done yours.

1) What is The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection as espoused by the biological scientific community? I want you to define what these biological scientists mean by TTE as originally advanced by Charles Darwin, providing significant reference material from recognised and leading scientific books, publications and experts.

2) What is the Theory/Law of Gravitational Attraction as defined by the scientific community? If you did not know much about the theory of gravity, where would you turn to for information about it?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Davidylan,

Many thanks for the links to the New Scientist article.  I like it when people reference respected material in such debates and I have learned a lot from that material.   Many thankz.

But I have got one important reservation and it is the following:

Why should I trust the work of these Chinese scientist?  Is it conceivable that they have got their methodology all wrong and have fed the world with wrong and misleading data about the alleged age of these crustaceans.  Can we be sure that the figure of 525 millions is in the correct ball-park?

I have great doubts that this work is credible and would much appreciate it if you would throw more light on their methods, because if their data is correct, it could potentially overturn some of the bedrock of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

0
Avatar
Newbie

That's nice. It's an obvious lie, but it's nice, nonetheless.

It's hard not to cringe when a supposed biologist\biochemist keeps making such terrible, unforgiveable mistakes.

I have taken the liberty of quoting the part in question. Before I respond to it, I'm going to point out a mistake that keeps cropping up: the use of the word proof. Science doesn't do proof.

Now, it actually isn't speculation as parts of the original genetic make-up of the retrovirus can still be noticed in the ERV. Further, an example of a slightly more modern HERV you'd have seen if you had read the links I provided is the indictment in some cancers. Winace's example was "High-risk papillomaviruses. .  .  as one of the leading causes of cervical tumors" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12813471?dopt=Abstract

Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

"Well, that's a fine refutation. Do you want to discuss dinosaur-bird transitionals? Let's. We can start with archeopteryx. If it isn't a transitional, what then is it?"

Yeah, it doesn't work that way. I presented a line of evidence. Rather than rebutt it, you simply stated it was a tired fraud. Silly me, for thinking you had a viable response to the argument, then.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Did you see Darwin's tree of life that i put up earlier? It says you evolved from a protist . . . pls show us how.

Ah good, you just read that up. Macro-evolution is the explanation for how we and ALL other organisms on earth appeared . . . is there another part of evolution we shld be bothered about?

Mutations and adaptation we can observe . . . why can we not observe macro-evolution?

No dont dodge dude . . . HOW? You make an affirmative statement WITHOUT ANY PROOF AT ALL. Is that how you learned to debate? Show us proof that this environment was different . . . how did it appear? What was there? How do you know?

And leopards, tigers, cheetahs are deviations from the lion?

chickens, turkey, ostriches are deviations from the bird?

Dude this is becoming ridiculous.

In other words - you've just been bleating, you dont have any proof no?

0
Avatar
Newbie

darwinism didn't start 300 years ago.

anyway how do you explain this

A species of walking stick, an insect that pretends it's part of a plant, may be evolving into two species by adapting to different environments.

The insect, Timena cristinae, seems to be adapting so that it can hide on either of two species of plants. By doing so, it's probably morphing into two separate species, says Cristina Sandoval of the University of California, Santa Barbara.

Such a process of parallel evolution fits into basic theories of natural selection but few scientists have documented real cases, Sandoval and her colleagues at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, Canada, say in the May 23 Nature. The stickleback fish in North America are the other clear example, they say.

The walking stick, named for Sandoval, comes in two genetically determined color patterns—with or without stripes. In California's Santa Ynez Mountains, the striped insects tend to be more common on a plant called chamise while the unstriped ones predominate on blue lilac.

it's a miracle working God

0
Avatar
Newbie

Ah here we go with Mrs. KAG, when she gets lost its back to the refuge of dear old ERVs. Nevertheless she NEVER answers the direct questions regarding the validity of ERVs AT ALL.

Dont bother cringing . . . much of the nonsense you have written is just what it is - desperate hogwash coated with insults and personality attacks. Its the usual we have come to expect from KAG.

The portion in bold is an EXACT EXAMPLE of the problem . . . affirmative positions based on SPECULATION AND ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF! Why dont we see these "failed viral attacks" anymore that integrate into the genome and are inherited?

Typical - they hide when you bring questions, prefering to run into their sanctuaries of plagiarised web material. Pls show us ONE SHRED OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of intermediate life forms . . . thank you. We are tired of hearing stories.

Its your job to prove evolution is true, its mine to hang unto creationism . . . both depend on faith and belief anyway.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I guess the evolutionary chain involves a bacteria turning into a goat.

how do i know? the last time i checked i wasn't a million years old.  you seem to be obsessed with macro-evolution.

definitely different from the environment we have today.  But hey the shrimp hasn't changed one bit and is EXACTLY the same

animals like foxes, coyotes aren't signs of deviation from the wolf? A thousand years is a relatively small time considering how old life is on earth. Why are there different breeds of wolf, shouldn't they all be the same if there was no evolution.

There is nothing to help you prove considering your stance in rigid. we aren't going anywhere with this.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Strange! You say that, yet you responded to those mysteriously hidden materials in the next few lines. Wow!

On the issue of ERVs, I can't say with any certainty that others that accept the theory of evolution are clueless about "what they do". I can say with certainty, though, that YOU don't have any clue about them.

Okay, I hoped you'd have read Winace's write-up which was provided in the previous thread, but that was hoping for too much. So, I guess I summarise quickly some of the things he and I have previously stated.

First, to answer your question, endogenous retroviruses don't act like exoviruses because, surprise, endogenous retroviruses are the inherited remnants in the cells from previous failed viral attacks - it goes without saying that the failed viral attack has to be in germline cells. The exogenous ones aren't that. They are present attackers.

Accordingly, then, only an would expect an endogenous retrovirus to "replicate the alleged initial virus".

Secondly, dude, just read up on the damn thing. I cringe every time you try to write a response on shared ERVs.

Well, that's a fine refutation. Do you want to discuss dinosau-bird transitionals? Let's. We can start with archeopteryx. If it isn't a transitional, what then is it?

[Quote]

Do you say anything else beyond this tired old fraud?[/quote]

Hey, if it's a tired old fraud, you shouldn't have any problems thoroughly refuting it. Have at it.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Your line of tots? I don't know your tots. I was, however, able to understand the thoughts you were trying to get across, whic is why I was able to respond adequately to them.

First, you assumed the theory of evolution had been around for 300 years. You were wrong on that. I gave the right time frame in my first response to you.

Second, you implied that a theory could be changed into something higher. You were wrong. etc.

Finally, to answer your question, theories - scientific theories - are what contain facts. Theories don't become facts, they have, instead, as part of their make-up facts and observations.

[Quote]

there is no point debating evolution in relevance to creation, if i have to educate u on the subject u are supposed to be postulating.

Go n do ur home work.[/quote]

It is so. I'm pretty sure you aren't capable of debating neither evolution nor creationism, so it's moot for you to suggest that you may be able to educate me on the subject. That is not an ad hominem, simply a statement on the capabilities you've displayed so far.

[Quote]

hisses and walks away[/quote]

Wonderful rebuttal.

[Quote]

So how do u intend to seperate this claim, which is the underlying basic of  evolution from the debate when evolution is compared to creationism.[/quote]

No, abiogenesis isn't in reference to prokaryotes as the first inhabitants of the earth, etc. I don't no where you got that nonsense from, but it's wrong. In fact, what evolution - as in the theory of evolution - deals with is how species may have originated from life. Now, life is currently defined in a very strict way, and it's that criteria that is used to distinguish the study of speciation in biological entities. Abiogenesis, on the other hand, doesn't necessarily need biological entities. However, if it can be determined how life started on earth, abiogenesis will come into contact with the theory of evolution, but it doesn't happen the other way round (i.e. the theory of evolution enroaching on abiogenesis)  

You're right, there's probably no point pushing on, mostly because you don't understand even the basics of the different theories that deal with separate aspects of human enquiries.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Primordial life most likely occurred through natural processes. what processes exactly i dont know

Genome evolution in man-kind dealing with skin color and metabolism. What about humans gaining immunity to certain diseases endemic to their environments.

A bacteria resisting antibiotics.

I'm still waiting though, can a shrimp living today survive in the environment present 400 million years ago?

isn't the dog an evolutionary diversion from the the wolf?

Of course i don't expect you to agree

Evolutionists don't postulate anything about the origin of life. All that amino acids stuff is in the field of abiogenesis. You'd know this if you spent less time reading the webster dictionary.

0
Avatar
Newbie

why have you shied away from the simple 2 questions i asked? Why have you no physical or logical evidence to PROVE evolution?

You can scream all you like till next yr, the bare facts stare you in the face. Provide JUST ONE physical proof of evolution and i will NEVER come to the religion thread again.

0
Avatar
Newbie

You just like to shout anyhow . . . pls see below:

Fossilised shrimp show earliest group behaviour

The conga was the world's first dance, it seems. A newly discovered caravan of crustaceans from half a billion years ago shows that group behaviour evolved not long after animals themselves.

Palaeontologists led by Hou Xian-Guang, of Yunnan University, China, discovered fossilised chains of up to 20 crustaceans linked head-to-toe, the earliest record of any collective animal behaviour and perhaps an adaptation to a migratory ocean lifestyle.

"It's showing that, 525 million years ago, we've got really quite sophisticated and potentially complex interaction between different animals," says Derek Siveter, of the University of Oxford, who analysed the fossil along with colleagues at the University of Leicester, UK.

and oh note how the SCIENTISTS (you know those gods you look up to) talk about "sophisticated and complex interactions" between mere crustaceans 525 million yrs ago . . . when they were supposed to have been evolving no? Do we need more evidence that these collection of deluded folks dont really know what they are talking about? Huxley, trying telling the paleontologists in china that they are lying . . .

0
Avatar
Newbie

an overwhelming scientific consensus?

If you are sure of disproving evolution, why haven't u published an article yet?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Look at the fossil record dude.

In other words - you dont know, you're not sure . . . u're simply basing your empty belief on what you have regurgitated from websites. And you accuse creationists of being about belief only . . . how dishonest.

If they did why has NONE of you produced just ONE of such PHYSICAL EVIDENCE in the last 4 pages?

And where has the "research" on evolution led you over a century now?

I came here to debate, i discovered most of you here would be floundering if not for google and wikipedia.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Good. Now we know that much of the posturing here has been largely in ignorance.

Before the eye fully "evolved" to what it is now, what did it look like before? Before a goat became what we know of it today, what was it like mid-evolution?

0
Avatar
Newbie

This is just a plain travesty of reasoning.  Where does he get this figure from?  The Shrimp has NOT NOT NOT been around for 400 million years.  You cannot base you argument on so fallacious a claim and think you can get away with it.  This is simply dishonest and wrong.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Why do you use extreme words like "EXACTLY".  go on with the insults all you want.  It gets lame after a while.  How is the shrimp of 400 million ago "EXACTLY" the same as the shrimp today.

I believe evolution is a more reliable theory than creationism from what i have read.  At least scientists have physical evidence to back their claim of evolution, what do creationists have.  You refuse to admit genome evolution exists so what there to debate?

How do you research "genesis" scientifically? Did God leave a blueprint somewhere?

You didn't come here to debate, you came here to ridicule just like you do with muslims

0
Avatar
Newbie

1)  I don't know.  And I don't think the scientific community have definitive answers yet, nor will it be possible to prove categorically where it came from

2)  I don't quite understand this. What is intermediate lifeform?  Can you explain?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Sorry to say but the above is daft reasoning. So because scientists are "researching evolution" means it must be true?

There are theologians also debating Genesis 1, do you also believe creationism is now true?

Fossils are the biggest problem TTE has today, because rather than show a gradual evolving of organisms, we have a sudden explosion of highly complex and diverse organisms. What was a baboon like before it evolved into what it is today? Why does a fern look exactly the same over 100 million yrs after?

Sorry, the shrimp of 400 million yrs ago is the same as that of today . . . even scientists are not bothering to contest that AT ALL so pls spare us the hare-brained nonsense you're spewing.

And what exactly is going on in those labs that prove evolution? perhaps you have your secret labs.

0
Avatar
Newbie

1. Where did the first life forms from which evolution derives its ideas come from?

2. Where are the intermediate life forms?

0
Avatar
Newbie

What are your two questions?

0
Avatar
Newbie
Your answer
Add image

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.