The Evolution Conflict

[samabudhi]

But I don't think that anything is to be gained, and much is to be lost, by just throwing up our hands and saying, well, it seems unlikely, and we don't know, so let's just say God did it.

Exactly. People should show a little patience for crying out loud.
Is it not good enough that in 100 years we have gone from blundering our way through medicine, physics, chemistry, astronomony, biology, to being well on top of our game in all those areas. We have progressed in leaps and bounds, but people don't have the patience when it comes to the biggest question of the physical world, 'How did life begin.'

We'll get there, eventually, just like with everything else, and when we do, people will just say, 'So what? How does that help me? I'm still going through the same daily grind of unpredictable suffering and happiness while watching the world destroy itself and prove to me that the beginning of life was just the beginning of death.'

Yeah. ...er...Think happy thoughts!

 

[gluadys]

Regards to all.
A couple of articals that I came across regarding evolution.

With all due respect Mohsin, you have derived your information from sources which appear to have mis-understood the theory of evolution. I have studied the theory of evolution (as an interested lay person, not a professional) for 40 years and I have found many errors in the articles you have posted.

For example:

The theory of evolution faces no greater crisis than on the point of explaining the emergence of life.

No it doesn't. The theory of evolution makes no attempt to explain the origin of life. It assumes the existence of life.

There is a different field of research called abiogenesis which studies the origin of life.

The reason is that organic molecules are so complex that their formation cannot possibly be explained as being coincidental and it is manifestly impossible for an organic cell to have been formed by chance.

This is true, but it is not a problem for abiogenesis as it does not propose that an organic cell formed by chance.

Evolutionists confronted the question of the origin of life in the second quarter of the 20th century. One of the leading authorities of the theory of molecular evolution, the Russian evolutionist Alexander I. Oparin, said this in his book The Origin of Life, which was published in 1936:

Unfortunately, the origin of the cell remains a question which is actually the darkest point of the complete evolution theory.

Since Oparin, evolutionists have performed countless experiments, conducted research, and made observations to prove that a cell could have been formed by chance.

Oh dear me! Now a statement like this makes me fear the authors of this article are not simply mis-informed. I greatly fear they are being intentionally duplicitous.

It is true, of course, that scientists conduct many experiments, but it is certainly not true that any experimenter has tried to prove that a cell could have been formed by chance. Scientists already know that cells do not form by chance. Why would they try to prove the impossible?

The experiments were for different purposes.

However, every such attempt only made clearer the complex design of the cell and thus refuted the evolutionists' hypotheses even more. Professor Klaus Dose, the president of the Institute of Biochemistry at the University of Johannes Gutenberg, states:

More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution.
At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in statemate or in a confession of ignorance.

Do you see how cleverly these people insinuate a lie into their article? Suppose we leave off the first sentence of the quotation above. Begin with "Professor Klause Dose...states..." What does he state?

a) 30 years of experimentation ...have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem
b) rather than to its solution
c) at present all discussion ....either end in stalement or in a confession of ignorance.

This is all perfectly consistent with my description above of the research into abiogenesis. The problem is immensely complex. We have many theories but no solution yet.

But in front of this perfectly true statement they have placed the misleading statement that this research has "refuted the evolutionists' hypotheses".

Well, no it hasn't, for two reasons:
First, evolution makes no hypotheses at all about the origin of life. You cannot refute a hypothesis that does not exist.
Second, according to the authors of this paper, the hypothesis the research is supposed to prove is that life originated by chance. But that is not a hypothesis supported by any scientific researcher. So again, no hypothesis has been refuted because no hypothesis of this sort exists in the first place.

Even worse, they have called this whole section "Confessions from Evolutionists". Makes one think of those days in Stalinist Russia when dissidents were paraded before movie cameras to verify the "confessions" which they had signed under torture. Was Professor Dose really making a confession? Or was he simply describing an immensely intriguing and complex field of research.

Did you note, by the way, that they have not told you when he said this or where you can find the original citation. These are tactics used by people who have something to hide.

I am afraid that this is an instance of "quote-mining". Quote-mining has become rampant among anti-evolutionists. It is a heinous practice which is intended to deceive the unwary. As John Wilkins, a researcher into mined quotes says:

It is worth observing too that not only were these quotes taken carefully out of context, but that they must have been deliberately done so. After [unearthing the context] I could not find there is [any] way these could have been taken accidentally or in ignorance out of the context.

Several of them turn out to be railing against creationists. More than a few turn out to be making the exact opposite point [than the bare words seem to indicate] and at least one was reporting secondarily on the ideas of others in order to rebut them. Once is a mistake, twice is carelessness, three times could be stupidity, but the sheer volume of these is a deliberately planned campaign of disinformation.

(Emphasis in the original)

See these sites for more information:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
http://www.evowiki.org/wiki.phtml?title=Quote-mining

The following statement by the geochemist Jeffrey Bada from San Diego Scripps Institute makes clear the helplessness of evolutionists concerning this impasse:

Today as we leave the twentieth century, we still face the biggest unsolved problem that we had when we entered the twentieth century: How did life originate on Earth?

Another mined quote in a dubious setting. Again research on the origin of life is erroneously attributed to evolutionists instead of abiogeneticists. And the quote is neither dated nor sourced.

The Probability of a Protein Being Formed by Chance is Zero

Again, this is absolutely true. What is not true is the implication that science says it is. Science says nothing of the sort.

There are 3 basic conditions for the formation of a useful protein:

[snip]

In order for a protein to be formed by chance, all three basic conditions must exist simultaneously.

The irony here is that even if the three basic conditions are met, the protein will not form by chance. It is formed by the precise and predictable laws of chemistry. Predictable processes are the opposite of chance.

The probability of the formation of a protein by chance is equal to the multiplication of the probabilities of the realisation of each of these conditions.

In the first place, since we already know that chemistry, not chance, governs the origin of proteins, it is irrelevant to calculate the probability of a protein forming by chance.

Besides the authors are relying on the fact that most people don't understand probabilities, especially when large numbers are involved. In addition many of the figures are bogus. It is not true for example that in a sequence of 500 amino acids, the chance of any amino acid being used is 1/20 at every step. Amino acids (and proteins) are like 3-dimensional building blocks of various shapes. Once you have one amino acid in place, you cannot place just any amino acid next to it. Only those which have a compatible shape can fit next to it. Furthermore, to make a protein, the whole chain of amino acids has to be able to fold into the correct shape. There are far too many constraints on the process to call it chance.

The scientists today say that any thing more then 1/10^(50) or a chance in 1 with 50 zeros is concidered as false or discarded.

This is a misrepresentation of a mathematical, not a scientific principle.

Therefore, it is impossible for proteins, each of which is a wonder of design and engineering, in which every part takes its place in a fixed order, to originate as a result of haphazard chemical reactions.

That's right. They don't originate as a result of "haphazard" chemical reactions, but as a result of well-studied and predictable chemical reactions.

Even so, evolution again has no answers,

Yet none of the article even speaks about evolution. It is all about the origin of life and the formation of proteins. These are not topics in the science of evolution.

By the way, did you know that scientists not only know a lot more about the formation of protein than your source article suggests. They have progressed to the point that by starting with amino acids, they can develop protein-based proto-cells with simple kitchen equipment:


Make your own proto-cells
http://www.christianforums.com/t150668&page=9
Call Sigma Chemical Co. at 800-325-3010 and order 1 bottle of catalog number M 7020 MEM amino acids solution. it will cost you $11.95 plus shipping for a 100 ml. bottle. Empty the bottle into a fying pan, turn the heat on low and heat until all the water is evaporated. Then heat for 5 more minutes. Add water. You will have protocells in the solution. They are alive. If this is too "artificial" for you, then put the solution out on a hot rock for the afternoon and let it evaporate. Then add water (rain).

(The person who posted this "recipe" is a Professor of Biology who has published many research papers on various biological topics.)

Here are some pictures of lab-produced proto-cells
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/photos.htm

 

[samabudhi]

Marvellous! It took less time than I thought!

Thank you for posting these most interesting and important links.

Phenomenal!

 

[gluadys]

Well sama and luna,

You are both quicker than me.

But I think we have all come at the defects of the article in different ways and made different points.

Sama, I tried the link in your post and got a dead end. Would you check it out and see if a good one can be made? It sounded very interesting.

Some other interesting articles on the origin of life:


http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=357

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/01/1072908849857.html?from=storyrhs

http://www.almostsmart.com/forums/showthread.php?p=88422#post88422

 

[samabudhi]

Correction

http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/watson.htm

Sorry 'bout that. A colon found it's way onto the last one.

 

[Mohsin]

The evolutionary tree that I heard of has got so many flaws and now you are saying that the scienties are not trying to prove the creation of life, but its sustainance via evolution. There was a time when experiments were being held for this purpose. One thing is based on another. The entire theory of evolution, as I see it, requires proving of many things. You say that some crystals e.t.c protected the first life form, but it just adds more zeros to the probability formula that I posted. Also, for people who believe in a God also as a Creator will take the theory with a different approach. But for those who do not believe in a Creator, even the origin of life is very important to clerify. If they say that a complete molecule was the first living organism, then where did that come form?

There are several, several points that cannot be described by this theory.

Listen to these:
Why Transition From Water to Land is Impossible

Evolutionists claim that one day, a species dwelling in water somehow stepped onto land and was transformed into a land-dwelling species. There are a number of obvious facts that render such a transition impossible:

1. Weight-bearing: Sea-dwelling creatures have no problem in bearing their own weight in the sea. However, most land-dwelling creatures consume 40% of their energy just in carrying their bodies around. Creatures making the transition from water to land would at the same time have had to develop new muscular and skeletal systems to meet this energy need, and this could not have come about by chance mutations.

2. Heat Retention: On land, the temperature can change quickly, and fluctuates over a wide range. Land-dwelling creatures possess a physical mechanism that can withstand such great temperature changes. However, in the sea, the temperature changes slowly and within a narrower range. A living organism with a body system regulated according to the constant temperature of the sea would need to acquire a protective system to ensure minimum harm from the temperature changes on land. It is preposterous to claim that fish acquired such a system by random mutations as soon as they stepped onto land.

3. Water: Essential to metabolism, water needs to be used economically due to its relative scarcity on land. For instance, the skin has to be able to permit a certain amount of water loss, while also preventing excessive evaporation. That is why land-dwelling creatures experience thirst, something the sea-dwelling creatures do not do. For this reason, the skin of sea-dwelling animals is not suitable for a nonaquatic habitat.

4. Kidneys: Sea-dwelling organisms discharge waste materials, especially ammonia, by means of their aquatic environment. On land, water has to be used economically. This is why these living beings have a kidney system. Thanks to the kidneys, ammonia is stored by being converted into urea and the minimum amount of water is used during its excretion. In addition, new systems are needed to provide the kidney's functioning. In short, in order for the passage from water to land to have occurred, living things without a kidney would have had to develop a kidney system all at once.

5. Respiratory system: Fish "breathe" by taking in oxygen dissolved in water that they pass through their gills. They cannot live more than a few minutes out of water. In order to survive on land, they would have to acquire a perfect lung system all of a sudden.

It is most certainly impossible that all these dramatic physiological changes could have happened in the same organism at the same time, and all by chance. Also, the fish the evolutionest claimed, I mean the fossil record of one they found was of a fish called a coelacanth, which was estimated to be 410 million years of age, was put forward as a transitional form with a primitive lung, a developed brain, a digestive and a circulatory system ready to function on land, and even a primitive walking mechanism. These anatomical interpretations were accepted as undisputed truth among scientific circles until the end of the 1930's. Living examples of this fish have been caught many times since 1938, providing a good example of the extent of the speculations that evolutionists engage in. Also, this fish is a deep water fish, stays below 200meters. What have you got to say about that?

Reptiles cannot turn into Birds:
The anatomy of birds is very different from that of reptiles, their supposed ancestors. Bird lungs function in a totally different way from those of land-dwelling animals. Land-dwelling animals breathe in and out from the same air vessel. In birds, while the air enters into the lung from the front, it goes out from the back. This distinct "design" is specially made for birds, which need great amounts of oxygen during flight. It is impossible for such a structure to evolve from the reptile lung. Also, a reptile body is very dence, whereas that of birds are hollow.


What is the Origin of Flies?

Claiming that dinosaurs transformed into birds, evolutionists support their assertion by saying that some dinosaurs who flapped their front legs to hunt flies "took wing and flew" . Having no scientific basis whatsoever and being nothing but a pigment of the imagination, this theory also entails a very simple logical contradiction: the example given by evolutionists to explain the origin of flying, that is, the fly, already has a perfect ability to fly. Whereas a human cannot open and close his eyes 10 times a second, an average fly flutters its wings 500 times a second. Moreover, it moves both its wings simultaneously. The slightest dissonance in the vibration of wings would cause the fly lose its balance but this never happens. Evolutionists should first come up with an explanation as to how the fly acquired this perfect ability to fly. Instead, they fabricate imaginary scenarios about how much more clumsy creatures like reptiles came to fly.Even the perfect creation of the housefly invalidates the claim of evolution.

English biologist Robin Wootton wrote in an article titled "The Mechanical Design of Fly Wings":
The better we understand the functioning of insect wings, the more subtle and beautiful their designs appear. Structures are traditionally designed to deform as little as possible; mechanisms are designed to move component parts in predictable ways. Insect wings combine both in one, using components with a wide range of elastic properties, elegantly assembled to allow appropriate deformations in response to appropriate forces and to make the best possible use of the air. They have few if any technological parallels-yet.
Robin J. Wootton, "The Mechanical Design of Insect Wings", Scientific American, v. 263, November 1990, p.120

On the other hand, there is not a single fossil that can be evidence for the imaginary evolution of flies. This is what the distinguished French zoologist Pierre Grassé meant when he said "We are in the dark concerning the origin of insects."
Pierre-P Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York, Academic Press, 1977, p.30


These are just small but important issues that are left out by the evolutionests. I know that many fossil records have been found, but they are mostly fabbricated. A few years ago, a discovery of a dinosaur fossil was found showing the marks of growing wings. It turned out to be drawn out or made up of five different fossils. Also the reputation the evolutionests have, I mean, Piltdown man which was found to be an Orang-utan Jaw and a Human Skull made up by Charles Dawson in 1912 in England. The Nebraska man, in 1922 by Henry Fairfield Obsorn in America. Many authorities gave Osborn their support. Based on a single tooth(which was the only discovery), reconstructions of the Nebraska man's head and body were drawn. Moreover, Nebraska man was even pictured along with his wife and children, as a whole family in a natural setting. In 1927, other parts of the skeleton were also found. According to these newly discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither to a man nor to an ape. It was realised that it belonged to an extinct species of wild American pig called Prosthennops. William Gregory entitled the article published in Science (Vol 66, December 1927, p. 579) in which he announced the truth, "Hesperopithecus(the actual name given to the Nebrasca Man): Apparently Not an ape Nor a man". Then all the drawings of Hesperopithecus haroldcooki and his "family" were hurriedly removed from evolutionary literature.

I asked in my earlier posts, how can evolution prove the creation or development of the complex systems of the cells. How can evolution prove the creation of any organ? Even a simple organ is so complexed that it cannot be created by chance, but if only God, the Creator wishes it to be. How do the evolutionary process take place? There is no such thing as natural selection(proven by the discoveries of genetics), no mutation(no positive effects of it can be found as all it does is destory the necessary genetic data of the DNA turnig the subject into a freak of nature), what have you got? There are so many missing links and without them, this thoery cannot be anything more them a clear myth.

Also I noticed, actually concidering the message, you guys try to find errors in the posts. This is wrong. The few things that I would like to say in the end. Firstly, instead of apperitiating God's artistry with which He had created so many creatures, you say that they are due to evolution. Secondly, believing in something without proof is like accepting it something as a religion. You do not ask many questions in a religion but accept it as it is.

 

[samabudhi]

Let's focus on one subject shall we.

 

[samabudhi]

One thing is based on another. The entire theory of evolution, as I see it, requires proving of many things

Actually it's the other way round, since there are so many examples in nature of evolution that it just adds to the statistical probability rather than requiring us to prove each one.

If it can be seen in one species, there is no reason to suspect that it isn't in others. You just know there are other planets in the Galaxy by statistics. It would be remarkable if there weren't.

If they say that a complete molecule was the first living organism, then where did that come form?

This never ceases to amaze me! Religious people will pose this same question again and again but never apply it to the origin of God. 'God always was,' they say. So maybe the universe always was. Maybe the universe is an infinite cycle of arising and ceasing phenomena, which includes life and everything we know. Show me something in reality which has not arisen. Show something which will not cease. It's an infinite cycle. Problem solved.

 

[Mohsin]

This never ceases to amaze me! Religious people will pose this same question again and again but never apply it to the origin of God. 'God always was,' they say. So maybe the universe always was. Maybe the universe is an infinite cycle of arising and ceasing phenomena, which includes life and everything we know. Show me something in reality which has not arisen. Show something which will not cease. It's an infinite cycle. Problem solved.

We can prove that life cannot originate by chance. Can you prove that God does not exist? The complexity of the very basic elements shows that there is a Creator for it. We can resort to our religious scriptures and prove the existance of God. Can you prove that the universe is an infinite cycle of arising and ceasing phenomena? What evidance do you have to support your claim?

I just missed out something in my previous post, people tend to post a list of scientiest supporting the theory of evolution. There are several many against it as well. Just I wanted to say that all these scientists worked for about more then a hundred years but the fact is that they cannot prove this theory as something more then it is, just a theory.

 

[Mohsin]

Actually it's the other way round, since there are so many examples in nature of evolution that it just adds to the statistical probability rather than requiring us to prove each one.

What story do you have about the origin of birds and about the one in which fishes coming out of water to become reptiles. These are basic questions left unanswered.

 

[iBrian]

What story do you have about the origin of birds and about the one in which fishes coming out of water to become reptiles. These are basic questions left unanswered.

Certainly there is a lot wanting ni the evolutionary theory - the whole field seems very embryonic. I suspect that as protein pathways and in particular are more properly studied, we'll see a proper attempt to see these questions addressed ni a more constructive way, rather than the basic "random chance".

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Mohsin!

What story do you have about the origin of birds and about the one in which fishes coming out of water to become reptiles. These are basic questions left unanswered.

I think I have shown I am no expert on this subject, and there are questions this subject raises in my mind. In short, I am not sure that the way it is described is quite the way it works. I do like the way Hartman and Gellman described it, science is attempting to explain how God did it, God being the source (or why) things were done.

I am curious about the bird biology myself, having stumbled on it last week.

As for fish/amphib biology, there are a couple of interesting creatures that come to mind. The Betta, or Siamese Fighting Fish, is an aquarium fish that can be kept in a very small bowl because it has lungs and breathes air.
A much more striking example stands out in my mind (dating back to grade school when I learned of it). I believe it is called African Lung Fish. It not only breathes oxygen directly, it crawls using its front fins, and it can survive at least two years encased in a ball of mud (not only not in water, but with no water to drink!).
Whether this is a "transition" form I cannot say. I do think it is a remarkable creature, and another witness to the wonder of God's creation.

Also I noticed, actually concidering the message, you guys try to find errors in the posts. This is wrong. The few things that I would like to say in the end. Firstly, instead of apperitiating(appreciating?) God's artistry with which He had created so many creatures, you say that they are due to evolution. Secondly, believing in something without proof is like accepting it something as a religion. You do not ask many questions in a religion but accept it as it is.

I am confused Mohsin. Believing without proof is "not asking questions." Finding errors in posts is "asking questions." How can somebody not ask questions by asking questions?

I believe in God. I also believe that He is real. Because He is real, He can handle being questioned. If He were not real, those who have a vested interest in continuing the myth would discourage questions. Which is why I have difficulty with some religions, including my own. It is not that God is not real, but that a particular view of Him may not be real.

Religion is not God. Neither is science God. Both are ways that try to explain God, and both have different motivations for doing so. Science doesn't disprove God, and those who use science to try to disprove God are seriously misguided. Religion doesn't really prove God either, it merely provides a set of stories from a point of view that provides a wisdom path. It is not wrong to question religion, more wrong is done by not questioning religion, especially those religions that demand no questions.

 

[samabudhi]

We can prove that life cannot originate by chance.

I don't believe in chance. Evolution is not about chance. It's perfectly ordered.

Can you prove that God does not exist?

No. I don't believe anything can be proved. Everything we know is based on probability.

The complexity of the very basic elements shows that there is a Creator for it.

Please. What kind of statement is that.

We can resort to our religious scriptures and prove the existance of God.

And if there were no scriptures? Scriptures saying they're the word of God is like the snake that bites it's own tale. You need something else to support it. Science has proven itself over and over, and unfortunately, it's not on God's side.

Can you prove that the universe is an infinite cycle of arising and ceasing phenomena? What evidance do you have to support your claim?

It is the most likely explanation since it is all pervasive. As I said, what does not arise and what does not cease. Name anything. I challenge you.

What story do you have about the origin of birds and about the one in which fishes coming out of water to become reptiles. These are basic questions left unanswered.

Firstly fishes didn't become reptiles, they became amphibians. Evolution is right before you when you look at the life cycle of a frog. It starts out completely dependent in water, and evolves to live partly on land.
Mugskippers in southern asia are another example (though less advanced than frogs) as are salamanders in Florida swamps (more advanced.)
Worms' evolution to insects is also clearly seen in the life cycle of a moth.
The DNA has not been entirely rewired. New DNA has simply been added.
Jees. You can even see it in the embryo of a human. Single-cell, protochordate, worm, fish, vertabrate, something resembling a pig, monkey (you know we're covered with hair and lose it some days before we're born) and eventually we pop out as a human.

The problem with evolution is that it comes hand in hand with extinction. If there are more species competing for the same resources, somethings gotta give. Don't forget about climatic change. It's the intermediary species that die easiliest. I'm not going to go into detail about this, you can look it up if you're interested.
My point is that 65 million years ago most of the worlds reptiles became extinct, and with them went the animals which formed the link between birds and reptiles. There are many obvious features which we can link reptiles to birds with. There's a bird-reptile called Acheopteryx (spelling?) that died with the dinosaurs. More homework.

The answers are all there. Please do some research before engaging in a debate of this nature. This topic should be about heated discussions, sweaty brows, furious typing and damaged egos, not a history lesson.

(just kidding But seriously. It would help if you did some research first. If you want to disprove something, you should know it like the back of your hand first.)

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, samabudhi!

Everything we know is based on probability.

I hope you will not mind if I return to this from time to time?

Science has proven itself over and over, and unfortunately, it's not on God's side.

What is not on God's side, science? Do you know this "based on probability?" Try again, please.

Firstly fishes didn't become reptiles, they became amphibians.

I had hoped the subject had moved on somewhat, at least not in demanding absolute strict scientific nomenclature. Of course, this thread has already demonstrated how the scientists can't even keep their own language, lingo and jargon straight. So why should a novice, unfamiliar with the terminology, be expected to remain exact?
FISH, according to evolutionary theory, became REPTILES by passing through AMPHIBIAN forms. Mohsin was not incorrect, neither were you.

Worms' evolution to insects is also clearly seen in the life cycle of a moth.

This is the first I have heard of this, care to expound? The burden of proof is on the presenter, after all...
And if you must use links to other sites, at least provide the highlights, thanks.

The DNA has not been entirely rewired. New DNA has simply been added.

Huh? This is inaccurate.

You can even see it in the embryo of a human. Single-cell, protochordate, worm, fish, vertabrate, something resembling a pig, monkey (you know we're covered with hair and lose it some days before we're born) and eventually we pop out as a human.

OK, I just went through a human biology class, and I have no idea where you got the "covered with hair" thing. Care again to demonstrate?

It's the intermediary species that die easiliest. I'm not going to go into detail about this, you can look it up if you're interested.

??? I'm not going to bother looking it up, because frankly it sounds made up.

My point is that 65 million years ago most of the worlds reptiles became extinct, and with them went the animals which formed the link between birds and reptiles. There are many obvious features which we can link reptiles to birds with. There's a bird-reptile called Acheopteryx (spelling?) that died with the dinosaurs. More homework.

Of which I have done a little, even recently. The only things I can conclude with certainty is that time has passed, and something has happened. Everything else is "based on probability." Might I ask, how does the scientific community "know" that the mass extinction took place 65 million years ago? I hear it a lot, but nobody wants to answer how they came to that conclusion.

(It would help if you did some research first. If you want to disprove something, you should know it like the back of your hand first.)

Likewise, I'm sure.

 

[Mohsin]

(It would help if you did some research first. If you want to disprove something, you should know it like the back of your hand first.)

You know what, when I was in the school, I also made up stories as how evolution works, but, I was only a kid then liked to watch a lot of TV. After I went through some facts, I came to know how wrong I was. I may not be an expert in this field, but I can reffer you to someone who really is. Go through the following link and read there book about the evolution deceit.
http://harunyahya.com/evolution_introduction.php
Just so you know, they are the biggest critics of this theory. Whenever there is a debate about creationism verses evolution, there books are presented. If you believe in evolution so much, I dare you to go through it. The points you posed are assumptions, none as proven to be fact.

Also you spoke about embroyology and stages where a larva turns into a moth. These are perfect systems of reproduction and growth. This does not mean that they originated like this.

 

[samabudhi]

What is not on God's side, science? Do you know this "based on probability?" Try again, please.

Yes, probability. For the sake of convenience, whenever I say 'for sure' I mean beyond reasonable doubt.

Why is it not enough that disproving one aspect in a religious text will not guarantee it's falsity?
Why is one witness not as good as two?
And why do the majority of people have such faith in science? Because it's proved itself again and again and again. Everything in science is logically connected to everything else. If you disprove that 1=1, you through our entire understanding of things into turmoil.
The same is not the case for religions. You could disprove that the ark was ever made, but it wouldn't convince everyone that the Bible is entirely a lie because the facts in the Bible and most other religious books (particularly those on dogma) are unrelated. I mean, what difference does it make who descended from Adam and Eve, and yet we find pages of geneologies in the Old Testament.

me:Firstly fishes didn't become reptiles, they became amphibians.

juantoo3:
I had hoped the subject had moved on somewhat, at least not in demanding absolute strict scientific nomenclature. Of course, this thread has already demonstrated how the scientists can't even keep their own language, lingo and jargon straight. So why should a novice, unfamiliar with the terminology, be expected to remain exact?

FISH, according to evolutionary theory, became REPTILES by passing through AMPHIBIAN forms. Mohsin was not incorrect, neither were you.

What the hell???
Mohsin was asking about the apparent lack of evidence, the missing link from fish to reptiles. The fact that he missed out on amphibians is quite unacceptable. Amphibians are the answer to his rather simple question.

I had hoped the subject had moved on somewhat, at least not in demanding absolute strict scientific nomenclature.

Strict? Amphibians are a basic and well represented group in our line of evolution. I won't continue on this since I don't think you're too sincere in this question and that you're probably drawing my fire just to make a show of Mohsin's ignorance.

This is the first I have heard of this, care to expound? The burden of proof is on the presenter, after all...
And if you must use links to other sites, at least provide the highlights, thanks.

I won't. As I've said, this thread should (in my opinion anyway) be about discussing what we already know, not teaching it. If you want to know, it's right at your fingertips.

The DNA has not been entirely rewired. New DNA has simply been added.
Huh? This is inaccurate.

Emphasis on 'not been entirely.'

OK, I just went through a human biology class, and I have no idea where you got the "covered with hair" thing. Care again to demonstrate?

It's called Lanugo hair. Here's the link: http://www.pg.com/science/haircare/hair_twh_7.htm

??? I'm not going to bother looking it up, because frankly it sounds made up.

As you wish. No skin of my teeth.

The only things I can conclude with certainty is that time has passed, and something has happened.

Might I ask, how does the scientific community "know" that the mass extinction took place 65 million years ago? I hear it a lot, but nobody wants to answer how they came to that conclusion.

Allow me to be the first then. We know because the fossil record tells us so. DO YOUR HOMEWORK.

You know what, when I was in the school, I also made up stories as how evolution works, but, I was only a kid then liked to watch a lot of TV.

That explains a lot, like your habit of not doing your homework.

 

[Vajradhara]

I may not be an expert in this field, but I can reffer you to someone who really is. Go through the following link and read there book about the evolution deceit.
http://harunyahya.com/evolution_introduction.php

Namaste Moshin,

thank you for the post.

you know... it would behoove you to actually read a scientists work on this issue... Harun Yahya isn't qualified to refute the subjects that he attempts.

i don't know why he's constantly trotted out to refute real scientists work... nothing he's written has ever been submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific magazine, he's not a scientist or, it would seem, even moderately versed on this subject. remember... arguing against Darwinism, though fun, isn't arguming against evolution.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, samabudhi!

Allow me to be the first then. We know because the fossil record tells us so. DO YOUR HOMEWORK.

I deserve what you sent my way, bad day, apologies.

However, rather than go on about everything, how about just this one?

The fossil record shows us that sometime in the past a lot of creatures died and became buried and fossilized.

How does science know it took place 65 million years ago? With the certainty you proclaim? Actually, I have done some homework, I'm checking to see if you've really done yours.

 

[juantoo3]

And thank you for the info on Lanugo hair, I was not aware.

Apparently it exists also in cats, from which I would be inclined to think it is probably found throughout mammalian gestation.

http://www.sanspelo.com/1%20Sphynx/Feline%20Hair/Norm%20Feline%20hair.htm
"In addition to these hair types, the feline also illustrates three developmental stages of hair expression: the neonatal stage, the transitional stage and the adult stage. The neonatal stage is characterized by the presence of lanugo hair on the back and limbs for 10 to 14 days after birth as well as the expression of the coat specific for the kitten's breed. After this hair is shed, the transtional stage begins and is characterized by a growth of secondary hair emerging at six to ten weeks and persisting to six months. At this point the adult stage begins and persists for the remainder of the cat's life although the ultimate expression of the coat may not mature until 12-18 months of age depending on secondary growth factors as noted above."

So this phenomenon is not localized to humans.

 

[lunamoth]

teaching links

I appreciate it when people post links to pertinent web pages. I also appreciate it when people cut and paste, or paraphrase, snippets key to understanding their position in the debate. Sometimes websites are just too much to wade through to get the point.