Joined: 1-March 05
Member No.: 8,849
You know, Bacon, more and more I want to punch that smug little avatar you've got there.
And as for albinism, you obviously don't know how Mendelian genetics works. The albino trait STAYS IN the genes of a person, only dormant. There could be absolutely ZERO albinos on earth, and still more would be produced, because the albino trait is NOT in only albinos, it lays dormant in almost every person on earth.
The same is with the cherished example of 'evolution' people always point to: The Pepper Moth. When the trees were dark from pollution, the birds would eat the white moths, leaving the black ones alone. HOWEVER, there was still the same amount of black and white moths born, no evolution took place. The reason more black moths were found in catches was because all the white ones got eaten. And of course then a pollution ban was put into effect and the trees changed color from a sooty gray back to the white of birch bark. Then all the black moths were eaten, making more white ones found in the catches. BUT NO EVOLUTION OCCURRED. Otherwise today, there would be no black moths, just white ones. Why are there still black moths? Because the genetic information to create black wings is stored *dormant* in the genes of white moths.
The same applies to albinos, only instead of simple Mendelian genetics, there are more than one set of genes that controls the trait. That is also why it is rarer.
And also: Why would albinos be mutating away? They don't get eaten by birds, nor do they simply refrain from having sex and making babies. What you're talking about is the mixture between blacks and whites - this is a nondominant trait, meaning the genes of both parents mix evenly, like mixing paint. Albinism is nothing like this, or everybody would be looking slightly grayer.
So - now that that's taken care of, let's move on to the next example of evolution in progress, and we can take it apart.
Joined: 13-March 05
Member No.: 9,625
We didn't evolve from monkeys, they share a common ancestor from us, which explains why 98% of their DNA are similar to ours.
That's micro-evolution - evolution within species. It's about the same as breeding evolutionary changes. The real kicker is actually getting a species change somehow. Even mutating fruit flies doesn't produce much more than strange fruit flies Well, if you extrapolate microevolution, don't you think that minor changes over millions of years can add up to something big? Take 1/1000 and add it to 1/1000 and you probably won't get far. But over millions of years, small things add up.
You come across a mansion in the middle of nowheres. You enter and inside you see it full furnished, but then no-one's home. The mansion does show signs of having a designer. Organisms however, do show signs of evolution, such as the suboptimal design of our eye. Mutations that are benefical aren't always optimal. For example, our own eyes where the blood vessels actually block our light sensive cells because the vessels are placed across the retina instead of across it. An intelligent designer wouldn't have made such a flagrant error.
To quote skepicrepot:
...defeat them doubly. First, creationists trot out that old saw about how "nothing as complex as an eye could evolve in stages, since a half-eye is no good at all." Darwin himself trounced that one roundly by merely observing that there are creatures alive today with eyes in all "stages of development," from a few light-sensitive cells, to a cup-shaped receptor with no proper lens, to eagle eyes far sharper than ours. Other creatures seem to get along fine with half-eyes and even 1/100 eyes.
Then for the final insult, human (the pinnacle of creation) eyes are clearly an engineering mistake! The retinas are inside out. The nerves and blood vessels come out through the light-sensitive area of the retina, producing a blind spot, then spread over the front of the light-receptor cells, so that light has to get past the fibers into the receptors. Why aren't the nerves and capillaries behind the receptors, where they would be out of the way and there would be no need for a blind spot? Squid eyes are arranged just that way. Since ours aren't, one is reminded of the maxim that evolution has to work with the materials at hand, adapting systems already in place, with results that often seem jury-rigged or needlessly complicated. Would an Ultimate Engineer make such an obvious blunder, especially having got it right in creatures created earlier?
To make a slam-dunk you need: a player, a b-ball, and a court. If you keep a b-ball on the court and expect it to bounce on it own--AKA, without any interference--your outta your head if you think that "time will work the process" without any intelligence. It's parallel to the Big Bang - you've got the ingredients and the location... but what above the player? Answer that, Sherlock... Order can arrive from disorder without a concious designer. Ever seen a snowflake? No intelligent designer required, the orderly snowflake arrives from natural processes.
Hell, no -- it's down right COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC. You can't rely on common sense in science - because nature is just absurd (esp. at the quantum level). Common sense tells us that the Earth is flat, that the truely does rise and fall, that the Earth isn't moving at over 1000mph an hour, that continents don't move, that a bowling ball will fall at a faster rate than a marble. However, science has been used to prove all these common sense ideas wrong.
It's bullshit to believe a mansion sprung out of the ground on its own... it's stupidity to think that a senseless basketball can do the slam dunnk ON ITS OWN! So you invent the idea of God to fill gaps in knowlege. That's typical. Where knowledge ends, religion begins. For me, if I don't know something, I don't make up superfluous bullshit. I go where the evidence leads me.
I just don't want evolution to be thought of as a theory. It's an untested hypothesis that makes sense. It has been tested, which is why it's a theory (a theory isn't just mere speculation). In a recent example, elephants born without tusk are being natually selected since poachers hunt them down for tusk.
The problem with creationism by the way, is that it CAN'T be tested. It predicts things "as they already are." They theory that we're in the Matrix or the world is just a by-product of your imagination is every bit as consistent with the data explained by creationism. Maybe the entire world just popped into existence 5 minutes ago with even our memories of "ealier" events intact, or we truely are in that other side of [spoiler omiited]. Neither capable of confirmation or falsification, so why bother? Evolution does make testable predictions, and there are potential falsifications of the theory, just like any scientific theory.
This is in part caused by that original sin Eve commited back in the Garden of Eden, that being eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (it's not an apple, that's only used for illustrational purposes. I'm sure you knew that already, though) This is a flaw in boolean logic known as the ad hoc fallacy. The principal of Occam's Razor (alluded above) would delete this assumption because it's an unnecessary, unevidenced assumption.
I can even defend the view that the Earth is actually flat using ad hocs. If you tell me that we have pictures of a round Earth from NASA I'd say that Satan must be decieving us by bending light so it makes the Earth appear round in space. If you tell me that we've circumnavigated the Earth, I'd say we've really entered a wormhole that takes us to the opposite edge like a pac man game.
However, if you use the principal of Occam's Razor (also known as the pricipal of parsimony), you cut the unevidenced fat and you're left with an Earth that's round.
Thanks - although I don't think many people will give up evolution so easily, the theory's come close to dying before and other people just picked it up again. Not even remotely true.
I'm getting the impression that the people arguing against evolution don't know much about the theory, at all. It's always like that.
The Big Bang first states that all the gas in the universe coagulated into a tiny dot. (It never mentions WHERE the universe came from, it assumes it was just... there.) Damn! Better not trust atomic then. They don't explain how the atoms came into existence and yet it's used to explain chemistry! Can't trust cell theory either, since it doesn't explain how cells came into existence, and yet it's explaining phenomena such as cancer!
This violates physics already because gas does not coagulate in a vacuum. It expands. Imagine opening the airlock of a spacecraft in deep space. Would the air stay in? No. Neither would air be able to turn into a tiny little dot no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence. You think scientist aren't aware of this? Show us pictures of your Nobel prize ceremoney when you disprove the Big Bang.
And don't try to tell me that the planet was hit by an asteroid or something like that, because if the Big Band was just an explosion, the entire universe would be a ring of ever-thinning material, not planets in every direction. But an increasing universe allows order to form, and I think the attraction of the matter could form into solid objects given millions or even billions of years.
Science changes as time goes on. In another 100 to 500 years, new laws or more comprehensive laws will be understood that will make these laws you use now meaningless. So using science only hurts your cause as you will have to concede that there is a possibility of the arguments you use as becoming obsolete. That's the great part about science. We don't obstinatly and perversely adhere to our own pet theories when contradictory data arrives. We don't change the facts to fit the theory, we change the theory to fit the facts. Hell, we could be wrong that the Earth is round, but it we find data that tells us it isn't round, then we accept it. And that is much more reliable than religious apologicets.
The same is with the cherished example of 'evolution' people always point to: The Pepper Moth. When the trees were dark from pollution, the birds would eat the white moths, leaving the black ones alone. HOWEVER, there was still the same amount of black and white moths born, no evolution took place. The example wasn't ever purported to be evidence for evolution (changes in allele frequiences), but for natural selection. Organisms that are more fit will survive better and reproduce. If you want evidence for evolution, look into insect resistence to farm pesticides.
One question for the creationist: Why aren't there any peer reviewed journals written by creationist? And if evolution is flagrantly wrong, and already been disproven, why is it still a scientific theory? I have yet to see a creaionist earn a Nobel prize for diproving evolution. Must be the evil atheistic science community.
These fossils were planted by Satan to decieve us!!!!!111one The shortening jaw lengths from adapting to our changing diets throughout time are the cause for our wisdom teeth, by the way.
Can any creationist explain why we have a vestigal third molar called the wisdom tooth? It's useless, sometimes grows at the wrong angle, and can ruin the alignment of our teeth if not removed. Why would an intelligent designer give us 32 teeth when we only have room for 28? Counting problems? Wisdom teeth are quite a nuisance like our useless appendix. The appendix was useful for our ancestors to digest grassy plants but we no longer need them, and they can explode on us any minte causing bile to integrate with our blood stream and death from infection! Must be from that Fall of Adam and Eve.
Joined: 4-December 04
From: Somewhere new that makes me better than you
Member No.: 3,228
QUOTE(Chiyo @ Mar 14 2005, 07:28 AM)
This is certainly becoming a very deep arguement, people are set in their beliefs. Thats good to see.
That's what kills me about these debates. I hate seeing how set people are and unable to concieve of the other's position.
I think Wittgenstein wrote something about evolution and how he was dissapointed in it as a scientific theory. I'll have to look it up sometime. I just want those who believe in creationism to be honest about it being a theological perspective, which is nothing to be ashamed of.
Joined: 27-January 05
From: a land called Honah Lee
Member No.: 6,466
Gender: Not Telling
I didn't mean quite like that sorry. What I meant was that people can back up their arguements. I didn't think people would be so educated in this field.
I have read what everybody has written but I still believe what I always did. Unfortunatly the idea that the all powerful created us will never wash with me, no matter what evidence is presented to me. To me its like believeing in the supernatural.
Joined: 1-March 05
Member No.: 8,849
Okay, I know I double posted, but the damn thing won't let me edit the first post - so if any Mod happens to see this, please delete the above post.
Now, getting back to what I was talking about:
When you mentioned that changes between species happen over a long period of time, that doesn't add up. You see, mutations are almost always harmful (I think only two beneficial mutations have been recorded in known history - Sickle-Cell Anemia and something else.)
*Julian Huxley, the leading evolutionary spokesman of mid-twentieth century, said it would take 103000 changes to produce just one horse by evolution. That is 1 with 3000 zeros after it! (*Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 46).
I also point to carcinogens. Carcinogens are extremely harmful products usually created by humans that can cause cancer in other organisms. The interesting thing is this: They do so by interfering with the way DNA replicates, creating massive mutations. If mutations were beneficial, don't you think evolutionists would be lobbying for more of these elements in nature. Why, then, are we avoiding them like the plague? Because they cause cancer, a disease.
There is also another way to mutate yourself: Radiation. Why, then, don't people go running to the nearest nuclear plant and roll in the radioactive byproducts? Because all you will get is cancer, leiukemia, (I hope I spelled that right) and other 'evolutionary advances'. Strange, because if mutations are beneficial in any way, why aren't there better and better animals springing out of Three Mile Island, the nuclear tests around the Bikini islands, and such?
BECUASE MUTATIONS ARE ONLY HARMFUL. You can compare mutation to opening up your operating system's source code, and then deleting three letters. Just three letters, no more. Then replace them with "Z X B". Will your computer still run? Not correctly. And there is absolutely NO chance of your computer running faster than before.
The only way humans have not been wiped from the earth by genetic load (The accumulation of mildly harmful or dormant mutations in the genome.) is that our body adapts! When you get cancer, you will be given chemotherapy. The reason chemotherapy works is NOT because it kills the cancer, it's because it mutates the ends of your telomeres, (The 'head' and 'tail' of DNA) making the mutation obvious to your immune system, which then proceeds to kill it.
So - in conclusion, Mutations are not beneficial, they are only harmful. I remember mentioning Sickle-Cell Anemia, the one 'beneficial' mutation? I correct myself. That is not a beneficial mutation, it's anemia. Anemia is when your blood cells cannot get enough oxygen to the body - the byproduct of this is that Malaria spores cannot germinate on the mutated blood cells. However, that malaria-immune person also tires more easily, can't work as hard, and gets out of breath faster than normal people. If that's beneficial, please tell me how.
And another thing: You mentioned snowflakes as how order can arise out of chaos. Not true. Snowflakes do have order to them, but they get this ordered structure by using the kinetic energy in a snowstorm. If it happened otherwise, it would be in violation of the Law of Entropy.
And finally: someone mentioned before how the appendix and other organs are useless. Not true. The appendix is like a holding cell for infectious organisms: The immune system takes them there and kills them. Please explain how this could have evolved. If the immune system just 'evolved' the instructions to bring all infectious agents to the appendix, it would be quite useless without an appendix, wouldn't it? And the reason blood vessels cross inside your eye is obvious: If they were behind your eye, then the shearing motion made when you look in different directions would constantly pull and tear at the vessels until they either toughened and you couldn't move your eyes, or they would break open and bleed into your eye itself. Sounds a lot better than what we have now, doesn't it?
And please explain how some of the simplest organisms could have evolved: Protists. A euglena uses a whiplike tail to propel itself through the water. Tell me, if you were in a pool and all you had was an Indiana Jones whip, could you move very fast? No, not really. However, these mindless little creatures do it every day. In fact, taxonomy shows that they don't just whip the little tail around, they actually spin it with a biological equivalent of an outboard motor! Now, please tell me this could have 'evolved' by chance: Without the flagella, the biological rotor would be useless, without the rotor, the flagella would be useless. Either way, the organism is eaten and it's an evolutionary dead end. Ah, but you say, what if they both happened at once? Then it would fit and I can keep my theory. Well, people extrapolated that as well, and came up with Interrupted-Something Evolution. Their theory, in a nutshell, is that the first bird just popped out of a dinosaur egg, conpletely formed and everything. Sound plausible? No? This is just an example of how desperate evolutionary scientists are to keep their theory.
And another thing I want to point out: You proclaim yourself to be a scientific-thinking person, but yet everything you do is done TO PROVE a theory. A true scientific experiment makes a theory, then tries everything it can to disprove the theory. Instead, evolutionists came up with a theory and started amassing all the evidence they could find for it. Doesn't sound very scientific to me.
Joined: 22-November 04
From: Check your pants
Member No.: 2,682
First of all for you who don't know, I'm Native American and we have a completely different idea on how the world was created. One thing is that there are many tribes who all have a different story on how the world was created. Going through all of them would take a life time, so I suggest you do that on your own time. Ther is one thing that limks all off the different Indian myths together and that is the fact that we do not believe that there is no one god or spirit.
I honeslty don't want to go in to more detail than that, because the stories from different tribes are so different and unique. You can look them on the internet if you want, or if you have questions you can ask me!
Joined: 17-May 05
Member No.: 13,950
not going to bother reading all 3 pages just going to state I stand by Creation
and not just cause i'm a christian
just think about it
as people that believe in evolution and other scientific stuff
look back how things are created, even to the molocule who created the atom, you think it just appeared, even the so called Big bang, how did it go off and that can be guessed by a big supernova type explostion right, how did it become a big ball of matter or whatever, did it just apear?