the many pits of evolution

IknowTruth
Theist
Posts: 55
Joined: 2008-03-04
User is offlineOffline
the many pits of evolution

i am sure many of the atheist here have seen this site http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/  the reason being for me posting info from this site is because it can help atheist see all the numerous flaws in evolution.

 

More Living Fossils

Another coelacanth population has been discovered, and this is causing more trouble for evolutionists. To understand why, you need to understand how evolutionists interpret the rocks.

Rocks exist in layers which have been given names derived from the location where they were first studied. These layers are identified by certain key fossils, called "index fossils," which appear in these layers but no others. Those are the facts.

Evolutionists speculate that rock layers are associated with periods of time. They have assigned ages to the rocks based on the assumed age of the fossils in them. The age of various fossils depends upon their assumption of how evolution proceeded, and the rate at which they suppose evolution proceeded.

For example, the Cambrian layer contains trilobite fossils, which the evolutionists believe lived during the Cambrian period from 544 to 510 million years ago. The Devonian layer contains certain fish fossils, which evolutionists believe lived during the Devonian period from 409 to 363 million years ago. The Jurassic layer contains certain dinosaur fossils which the evolutionists believe existed during the Jurassic period 202 to 141 million years ago.

Evolutionary paleontologists once believed that the coelacanth (or something very much like it) was the fish that evolved into the first amphibian, largely because it appeared at the right point in the geologic column. The biology textbook used at Cerro Coso Community College biology still contains a section that begins,

 

 

Then, it goes on to tell the fable about how the lung of a lobefin adapted itself for breathing, and how the fins turned into legs.

They don't point out that the discovery of a living specimen proved that the coelacanth lung is only used for buoyancy and has nothing to do with breathing. They don't point out that the coelacanth is a deep-water, salt-water fish, not a shallow-water, freshwater fish. They don't point out that it doesn't use its fins for walking on the bottom. They don't point out that the coelacanth is no longer seriously considered to be the missing link between fish and amphibians.

Although the biology text book doesn't explicitly say it, a typical college student would almost certainly get the impression from it that the discovery of the coelacanth has confirmed that the coelacanth is the fish that evolutionists believe evolved into the first amphibian. (Some would say that if a student gets that incorrect impression, it is his fault for not asking the teacher the correct questions, and for not knowing what the definition of "is" is. Eye-wink )

The discovery of a living coelacanth not only showed that they made incorrect inferences about how it used its lungs and fins, they also made incorrect inferences about when it lived.

The inaccuracy of the dates of the geologic column is the real problem for evolutionists. The discovery of a second coelacanth population near Indonesia 2, proves that at least one "extinct, prehistoric" species can exist in several locations for 80 million years without leaving a trace.

If species can certainly exist for tens of millions of years without leaving a trace, then they can probably exist for hundreds of millions of years without leaving a trace, too. If this is true, then you can't tell when species go extinct from the geologic column. Furthermore, it might have existed for hundreds of millions of years before leaving the first fossil, so you can't tell with any certainty when the species first evolved.

If the fossil record is so poor that you can't tell with any certainty when any species originated and when it went extinct, then how can you use it to construct an evolutionary progression?

 

if you can explain what this person has failed to see then share it with the world.

 


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
A cut and paste post

A cut and paste post deserves a cut and paste response:

  1. The modern coelacanth is Latimeria chalumnae, in the family Latimeriidae. Fossil coelacanths are in other families, mostly Coelacanthidae, and are significantly different in that they are smaller and lack certain internal structures. Latimeria has no fossil record, so it cannot be a "living fossil."
     
  2. Even if the modern coelacanth and fossil coelacanths were the same, it would not be a serious problem for evolution. The theory of evolution does not say that all organisms must evolve. In an unchanging environment, natural selection would tend to keep things largely unchanged morphologically.
     
  3. Coelacanths have primitive features relative to most other fish, so at one time they were one of the closest known specimens to the fish-tetrapod transition. We now know several other fossils that show the fish-tetrapod transition quite well.

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
First, posting links to

First, posting links to sites without adding your own input is spam, and is against board policy.  Don't do it again, or you risk receiving the dreaded troll badge.

Second, I posted a long list of reading material for you.  Virtually any of these books will expose the problems with this stupid argument.  Like you, the writer of this insipid article does not understand the theory of evolution, and he is either intentionally explaining things incorrectly to try to sell his point, or he has no concept whatsoever of the fact that evolution is not a straight line from point A to point B.

Instead of making one of us write for an hour so that you can simply ignore it, why don't you do something you apparently don't do a lot of -- reading.

Do your own homework.  You've got a brain.  Read a damn textbook on evolution for yourself.

Or, are you afraid it might make you rethink your faith?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


IknowTruth
Theist
Posts: 55
Joined: 2008-03-04
User is offlineOffline
hmmmm

ok first off i dont see any books that you posted for me. by the way you seem pretty confident that this person is wrong, just point of "some" of the flaws in this argument. by the way i didnt know you can get in trouble for posting site links thnks for letting me know.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Didn't you even read my

Didn't you even read my response in the other thread?

I'm not letting you off the hook on this.  You need to explain basic evolutionary concepts to me, as I asked in the other thread, in your own words.  If you cut and paste, I'll make you a troll.  Your own words.

I am convinced that you don't know a damn thing about evolution.  Prove me wrong.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


IknowTruth
Theist
Posts: 55
Joined: 2008-03-04
User is offlineOffline
the flaws of evolution

"Even if the modern coelacanth and fossil coelacanths were the same, it would not be a serious problem for evolution. The theory of evolution does not say that all organisms must evolve. In an unchanging environment, natural selection would tend to keep things largely unchanged morphologically." 
 

if scientist made a mistake with this i am sure theve done the same with MANY of the so call evolution of life. "Evolutionary scientists used to think that amphibians evolved from a group of fishes that included the coelacanth, which was known only from fossils. But they dropped this idea when living coelacanths were found from 1938 showing no evidence of evolution from the oldest fossil coelacanths to the living examples.The evidence from the coelacanth is good evidence for creation, for it shows that DNA, the genetic code, has remained stable throughout time." so that means if living coelacaths werent found evolutionst still wouldve been rambling out the mouth lying saying they evolved. this is what still goes on today lies,lies and more lies evolution is a fraud push forward by satan the father of lies.


IknowTruth
Theist
Posts: 55
Joined: 2008-03-04
User is offlineOffline
ok...

"Didn't you even read my response in the other thread?"
 

i actually just joined this site today so im not so familiar to as how it works. so can you link me to the thread you are talking about? or give me the name of it.


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
IknowTruth wrote: if

IknowTruth wrote:

if scientist made a mistake with this i am sure theve done the same with MANY of the so call evolution of life.

Do you have any support for this statement?  It seems that you are unaware of the volumes of evidence for evolution, and the self-correcting nature of scientific investigation. 

The fossil record isn't even the best evidence for evolution.

IknowTruth wrote:
so that means if living coelacaths werent found evolutionst still wouldve been rambling out the mouth lying saying they evolved. this is what still goes on today lies,lies and more lies evolution is a fraud push forward by satan the father of lies.

I don't think that you understand.  The living coelacanths are different species from the fossilized ones.  Further, the fact that this species isn't the "link" that they thought it was isn't harmful to the theory as a whole.  It is not unusual for new evidence to show that old ideas weren't exactly correct.

Your desire for something to be false doesn't make it false.

 


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
IknowTruth wrote:"Didn't you

IknowTruth wrote:

"Didn't you even read my response in the other thread?"
 

i actually just joined this site today so im not so familiar to as how it works. so can you link me to the thread you are talking about? or give me the name of it.

 

ITS YOUR DAMN THREAD >.<

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/12933

 

....argh!

What Would Kharn Do?


IknowTruth
Theist
Posts: 55
Joined: 2008-03-04
User is offlineOffline
ok

"You need to explain basic evolutionary concepts to me, as I asked in the other thread, in your own words."

 

1. life started from some mud pool,extreme heat,gases etc etc!! scientist dont even know! its all theories.

2. some how a franken-cell came evolved into the first plant,animal,micro oraginsim who knows what the heck it first turned into.

3. some how plants evolved into animals,then animals turned into humans.

there you go the silly evolution.


IknowTruth
Theist
Posts: 55
Joined: 2008-03-04
User is offlineOffline
HAAHAA

"Do you have any support for this statement?  It seems that you are unaware of the volumes of evidence for evolution, and the self-correcting nature of scientific investigation. 

The fossil record isn't even the best evidence for evolution."

 

youre kidding me right? you really think there is evidence for evolution? please share at least some of the silly ideas,and watch me refute them.

"The living coelacanths are different species from the fossilized ones."

 

proof?

 


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
IknowTruth wrote:"You need

IknowTruth wrote:

"You need to explain basic evolutionary concepts to me, as I asked in the other thread, in your own words."

 

1. life started from some mud pool,extreme heat,gases etc etc!! scientist dont even know! its all theories.

2. some how a franken-cell came evolved into the first plant,animal,micro oraginsim who knows what the heck it first turned into.

3. some how plants evolved into animals,then animals turned into humans.

there you go the silly evolution.

I think this post explains a lot.

You don't know anything about evolution.

You should try reading about it, or taking a class or something, before commenting on its validity.


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Does any one have that

Does any one have that delightful little video of that poorly drawn stickfigure typing away at the keyboard, until he is over come with rage... and eventually bashs himself into a bloody pulp?

 

I need it right now... badly :'(

What Would Kharn Do?


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
IknowTruth wrote:youre

IknowTruth wrote:

youre kidding me right? you really think there is evidence for evolution? please share at least some of the silly ideas,and watch me refute them.

There is a lot of evidence for evolution.  Lots has already been posted (including links to dozens of articles and several books).

IknowTruth wrote:
"The living coelacanths are different species from the fossilized ones."

 proof?

 

The living species of coelacanth are Latimeria chalumnae and Latimeria menadoensis.  Show me some fossils of those two speicies.  Oh wait, there are none.

 

 


IknowTruth
Theist
Posts: 55
Joined: 2008-03-04
User is offlineOffline
  IknowTruth wrote:  "You

 

 

IknowTruth wrote:

 

"You need to explain basic evolutionary concepts to me, as I asked in the other thread, in your own words."

 

1. life started from some mud pool,extreme heat,gases etc etc!! scientist dont even know! its all theories.

2. some how a franken-cell came evolved into the first plant,animal,micro oraginsim who knows what the heck it first turned into.

3. some how plants evolved into animals,then animals turned into humans.

there you go the silly evolution.

 

 

"I think this post explains a lot.

You don't know anything about evolution.

You should try reading about it, or taking a class or something, before commenting on its validity."

 

maybe you can do better than me,if so help me out and explain it better. it doesnt have to be long.

 

 


IknowTruth
Theist
Posts: 55
Joined: 2008-03-04
User is offlineOffline
IknowTruth wrote: "The

IknowTruth wrote:

"The living coelacanths are different species from the fossilized ones."

 

 proof?

 

 

"The living species of coelacanth are Latimeria chalumnae and Latimeria menadoensis.  Show me some fossils of those two speicies.  Oh wait, there are none."

 

oh wait maybe they just havent found it yet like 90% of the fossils evolutionist claim exist.

IknowTruth wrote:

 

youre kidding me right? you really think there is evidence for evolution? please share at least some of the silly ideas,and watch me refute them.

 

 

"There is a lot of evidence for evolution.  Lots has already been posted (including links to dozens of articles and several books)."

 

ummm what links -_-?

 


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
IknowTruth wrote:"There is a

IknowTruth wrote:

"There is a lot of evidence for evolution.  Lots has already been posted (including links to dozens of articles and several books)."

 

ummm what links -_-?

 

If that doesnt deserve a troll badge... i dont know what does >.>

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/12933

 

2nd time in under 10minutes dude... ffs...

Edit; i stand corrected, 25+minutes

What Would Kharn Do?


Cali_Athiest2
Cali_Athiest2's picture
Posts: 440
Joined: 2008-02-07
User is offlineOffline
So are we to assume that the

So are we to assume that the alternate explanation for all living and extinct species of life on Earth were created 6,000 years ago and the dinosaurs went extinct during a global flood which has no evidence either? This post is not a nail in the coffin for evolution and it never will be. There will always be gaps in what we understand and what we do not and scientists do not hide from this assertion. The problem stems from the fact most people are ignorant of even general scientific principles. If you have a better theory for the entire history of life then please lay it out for us. If you mean a literal interpretation of genesis, we've all read it and it makes as little sense to us as evolution does to you it must seems.

Questioning scientific findings are great, even necessary, because this is what science is all about. Luckily, most respected biologists don't graduate from Cerro Coso Community College otherwise we, well not us atheists anyways, would still be burning women at the stake for witchcraft as well.

"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
IknowTruth wrote:"Even if

IknowTruth wrote:
"Even if the modern coelacanth and fossil coelacanths were the same, it would not be a serious problem for evolution. The theory of evolution does not say that all organisms must evolve. In an unchanging environment, natural selection would tend to keep things largely unchanged morphologically."

This is absolutely true. Environment dictates adaptation. What's the problem?

IknowTruth wrote:
if scientist made a mistake with this i am sure theve done the same with MANY of the so call evolution of life.

You're sure, eh? Well that puts me at ease. Here I thought I had to read things to learn. From now on, I'll just be sure that everyone else is fallable, so I don't have to discuss their opinion. Oh, and I'll blame a supernatural liar. Seems sane.

The reason why believers on this site get labelled "irrational" is posts like these. Your point would apply equally to alligators, sharks, and other creatures whose environments remained stable. Those species experiencing challenges in their environments are hypothesized to take great leaps in evolution, but that doesn't exactly falsify all of evolutionary theory in one go.

If you claim to know truth, don't bother yourself with mere seekers such as we. When we want to know, we'll come and find you.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
IknowTruth wrote: youre

IknowTruth wrote:

youre kidding me right? you really think there is evidence for evolution? please share at least some of the silly ideas,and watch me refute them.

Lets start with something basic: antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
There we go.  I'm glad

There we go.  I'm glad someone forced him into displaying complete ignorance while I was gone.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


IknowTruth
Theist
Posts: 55
Joined: 2008-03-04
User is offlineOffline
ummm no....

"Lets start with something basic: antibiotic-resistant bacteria."

 

if you think this is proof of evolution then something is wrong. immunity is evolution, wait hold on...its still a bacteria right? so how is that evolution if it is still an bacteria? beats me -_-


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline

HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
IknowTruth wrote:"Lets start

IknowTruth wrote:

"Lets start with something basic: antibiotic-resistant bacteria."

if you think this is proof of evolution then something is wrong. immunity is evolution, wait hold on...its still a bacteria right? so how is that evolution if it is still an bacteria? beats me -_-

My jaw is agape. Literally.

The above poster [edit: here I was talking about qbg] is suggesting that bacteria evolve into different strains that resist the antibiotics we take to kill them.

Please open a biology textbook. I'm begging you.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:IknowTruth

HisWillness wrote:

IknowTruth wrote:

"Lets start with something basic: antibiotic-resistant bacteria."

if you think this is proof of evolution then something is wrong. immunity is evolution, wait hold on...its still a bacteria right? so how is that evolution if it is still an bacteria? beats me -_-

My jaw is agape. Literally.

The above poster is suggesting that bacteria evolve into different strains that resist the antibiotics we take to kill them.

Please open a biology textbook. I'm begging you.

 

i actually took his mean to the effect of "Its not evolution, because the bacteria didnt evolve into a cow" >.>

either way... O_O

What Would Kharn Do?


Rocas511
Scientist
Rocas511's picture
Posts: 54
Joined: 2008-01-19
User is offlineOffline
I don't know why you think

I don't know why you think any of these poses any "problems" for the concept of evolution.  Living fossils certainly do not.  Charles Darwin was more than aware of them, he coined the term himself. 

 

Now if you want to understand the flaws in the bible, I can definitely help you there!!

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."

-James Madison-


Rocas511
Scientist
Rocas511's picture
Posts: 54
Joined: 2008-01-19
User is offlineOffline
It is an example of a

It is an example of a species of bacteria that adapted to a selective pressure in it's environment....AND THAT'S EVOLUTION!!!!

 

Was that basic enough for you?

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."

-James Madison-


Rocas511
Scientist
Rocas511's picture
Posts: 54
Joined: 2008-01-19
User is offlineOffline
You don't believe in fossils

You don't believe in fossils now?  Skip church one Sunday and go to a museum!


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul wrote:i

The Doomed Soul wrote:

i actually took his mean to the effect of "Its not evolution, because the bacteria didnt evolve into a cow" >.>

either way... O_O

Yeah, that's what IKnowTruth seems to have meant. Yikes.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


dogg724
dogg724's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2007-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Holy Hell

IknowTruth wrote:

"You need to explain basic evolutionary concepts to me, as I asked in the other thread, in your own words."

 

1. life started from some mud pool,extreme heat,gases etc etc!! scientist dont even know! its all theories.

2. some how a franken-cell came evolved into the first plant,animal,micro oraginsim who knows what the heck it first turned into.

3. some how plants evolved into animals,then animals turned into humans.

there you go the silly evolution.

 

That was the dumbest thing I've read on this site.

 

 

[i]You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3502
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
You choose to not believe in

You choose to not believe in evolution for which a sizeable body of evidence actually exists.

At the same you fully accept that all life on Earth was created by a supernatural being for which no evidence exists whatsoever.....well, that makes complete sense !!

Please provide some literal evidence that Adam and Eve actually existed. ( ps, quoting from religious books doesn't  count as "evidence" )

 


FulltimeDefendent
Scientist
FulltimeDefendent's picture
Posts: 455
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
IknowTruth wrote:i am sure

IknowTruth wrote:

i am sure many of the atheist here have seen this site http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/  the reason being for me posting info from this site is because it can help atheist see all the numerous flaws in evolution.

 

More Living Fossils

Another coelacanth population has been discovered, and this is causing more trouble for evolutionists. To understand why, you need to understand how evolutionists interpret the rocks.

Rocks exist in layers which have been given names derived from the location where they were first studied. These layers are identified by certain key fossils, called "index fossils," which appear in these layers but no others. Those are the facts.

Evolutionists speculate that rock layers are associated with periods of time. They have assigned ages to the rocks based on the assumed age of the fossils in them. The age of various fossils depends upon their assumption of how evolution proceeded, and the rate at which they suppose evolution proceeded.

For example, the Cambrian layer contains trilobite fossils, which the evolutionists believe lived during the Cambrian period from 544 to 510 million years ago. The Devonian layer contains certain fish fossils, which evolutionists believe lived during the Devonian period from 409 to 363 million years ago. The Jurassic layer contains certain dinosaur fossils which the evolutionists believe existed during the Jurassic period 202 to 141 million years ago.

Evolutionary paleontologists once believed that the coelacanth (or something very much like it) was the fish that evolved into the first amphibian, largely because it appeared at the right point in the geologic column. The biology textbook used at Cerro Coso Community College biology still contains a section that begins,

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then, it goes on to tell the fable about how the lung of a lobefin adapted itself for breathing, and how the fins turned into legs.

They don't point out that the discovery of a living specimen proved that the coelacanth lung is only used for buoyancy and has nothing to do with breathing. They don't point out that the coelacanth is a deep-water, salt-water fish, not a shallow-water, freshwater fish. They don't point out that it doesn't use its fins for walking on the bottom. They don't point out that the coelacanth is no longer seriously considered to be the missing link between fish and amphibians.

Although the biology text book doesn't explicitly say it, a typical college student would almost certainly get the impression from it that the discovery of the coelacanth has confirmed that the coelacanth is the fish that evolutionists believe evolved into the first amphibian. (Some would say that if a student gets that incorrect impression, it is his fault for not asking the teacher the correct questions, and for not knowing what the definition of "is" is. Eye-wink )

The discovery of a living coelacanth not only showed that they made incorrect inferences about how it used its lungs and fins, they also made incorrect inferences about when it lived.

The inaccuracy of the dates of the geologic column is the real problem for evolutionists. The discovery of a second coelacanth population near Indonesia 2, proves that at least one "extinct, prehistoric" species can exist in several locations for 80 million years without leaving a trace.

If species can certainly exist for tens of millions of years without leaving a trace, then they can probably exist for hundreds of millions of years without leaving a trace, too. If this is true, then you can't tell when species go extinct from the geologic column. Furthermore, it might have existed for hundreds of millions of years before leaving the first fossil, so you can't tell with any certainty when the species first evolved.

If the fossil record is so poor that you can't tell with any certainty when any species originated and when it went extinct, then how can you use it to construct an evolutionary progression?

 

if you can explain what this person has failed to see then share it with the world.

1. Actually the fossil record is great! It's just not perfect, which anti-evolutionists never seem to get through their heads. Phylogenetic relations among fossil species are estimated by comparing shared sets of derived traits among different lineages.

2. For an animal to fossilize takes certain conditions. Obviously not every animal that has ever lived has become a fossil.

3. Sometimes schools use really outdated materials and it's a shame, but the fact that the failing urban high school I live next to fallaciously teaches its students about four fossils: "ape," "ape-man," "Early man" and "modern man" does not invalidate the work of contemporary scientists who have since rejected such misinformation.

4. In the case of the Coelacanth, recall that if a lineage diverges into species A and B from common ancestor C, it is theoretically possible (and indeed, is often the case) that one of the divergent species may be identical the LCA, while the other is phenotypically distinct.

“It is true that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It is equally true that in the land of the blind, the two-eyed man is an enemy of the state, the people, and domestic tranquility… and necessarily so. Someone has to rearrange the furniture.”


FulltimeDefendent
Scientist
FulltimeDefendent's picture
Posts: 455
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
IknowTruth wrote:"Even if

IknowTruth wrote:

"Even if the modern coelacanth and fossil coelacanths were the same, it would not be a serious problem for evolution. The theory of evolution does not say that all organisms must evolve. In an unchanging environment, natural selection would tend to keep things largely unchanged morphologically." 
 

if scientist made a mistake with this i am sure theve done the same with MANY of the so call evolution of life. "Evolutionary scientists used to think that amphibians evolved from a group of fishes that included the coelacanth, which was known only from fossils. But they dropped this idea when living coelacanths were found from 1938 showing no evidence of evolution from the oldest fossil coelacanths to the living examples.The evidence from the coelacanth is good evidence for creation, for it shows that DNA, the genetic code, has remained stable throughout time." so that means if living coelacaths werent found evolutionst still wouldve been rambling out the mouth lying saying they evolved. this is what still goes on today lies,lies and more lies evolution is a fraud push forward by satan the father of lies.

If you knew anything about evolutionary theory you be familiar with a concept called "Stabilizing Selection." I have Paleontology class. Why don't you look it up?

“It is true that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It is equally true that in the land of the blind, the two-eyed man is an enemy of the state, the people, and domestic tranquility… and necessarily so. Someone has to rearrange the furniture.”


IknowTruth
Theist
Posts: 55
Joined: 2008-03-04
User is offlineOffline
IknowTruth wrote:  "You

IknowTruth wrote:

 

"You need to explain basic evolutionary concepts to me, as I asked in the other thread, in your own words."

 

1. life started from some mud pool,extreme heat,gases etc etc!! scientist dont even know! its all theories.

2. some how a franken-cell came evolved into the first plant,animal,micro oraginsim who knows what the heck it first turned into.

3. some how plants evolved into animals,then animals turned into humans.

there you go the silly evolution.

 

 

 

"That was the dumbest thing I've read on this site."

 

maybe you can do better at explaining?


IknowTruth
Theist
Posts: 55
Joined: 2008-03-04
User is offlineOffline
"i actually took his mean to

"i actually took his mean to the effect of "Its not evolution, because the bacteria didnt evolve into a cow" >.>

either way... O_O"

 

how is bacteria becoming immune to something evolution? so that means if we get the flu shot we evolved because were immune to the flu? evolution is the change of the phenotype in an organism mostly,just because the INSIDE of an organism has changed that doesnt mean the organism its self changed. so that means it is NOT evolution.


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
IknowTruth wrote:"i actually

IknowTruth wrote:

"i actually took his mean to the effect of "Its not evolution, because the bacteria didnt evolve into a cow" >.>

either way... O_O"

 

how is bacteria becoming immune to something evolution? so that means if we get the flu shot we evolved because were immune to the flu? evolution is the change of the phenotype in an organism mostly,just because the INSIDE of an organism has changed that doesnt mean the organism its self changed. so that means it is NOT evolution.

An individual person does not evolve.  Evolution works on a species-level.

That is, it's not the case that a whole bunch of bacteria were once vulnerable to certain antibiotics, and then those same individual bacteria became resistant to it.   Instead, if some of the bacteria aren't killed because they possess resistant characteristics, then those bacteria reproduce, and the species as a whole has changed.

You can get more information about antibiotic resistant bacteria here


IknowTruth
Theist
Posts: 55
Joined: 2008-03-04
User is offlineOffline
"That is, it's not the case

"That is, it's not the case that a whole bunch of bacteria were once vulnerable to certain antibiotics, and then those same individual bacteria became resistant to it.   Instead, if some of the bacteria aren't killed because they possess resistant characteristics, then those bacteria reproduce, and the species as a whole has changed."

this isnt the case, just because when a bacteria become immune to something that doesnt mean the bacteria it produce will also be immune. just like with a human, if you get the flu shot that does not mean your child doesnt have to get it. he/she still must get or face an illness.


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
IknowTruth wrote:"That is,

IknowTruth wrote:

"That is, it's not the case that a whole bunch of bacteria were once vulnerable to certain antibiotics, and then those same individual bacteria became resistant to it.   Instead, if some of the bacteria aren't killed because they possess resistant characteristics, then those bacteria reproduce, and the species as a whole has changed."

this isnt the case, just because when a bacteria become immune to something that doesnt mean the bacteria it produce will also be immune. just like with a human, if you get the flu shot that does not mean your child doesnt have to get it. he/she still must get or face an illness.

And there lies your fundamental misunderstanding.

In the example of bacteria, it is the case.  Did you look at the links?  The bacteria do pass along the beneficial mutations.  It is different from getting a flu shot.  The bacteria do have changes in their genes, whereas an immunized human does not.


IknowTruth
Theist
Posts: 55
Joined: 2008-03-04
User is offlineOffline
ok wait seriously even

ok wait seriously even though bacteria isnt evolution, and if it was proof of evolution you think this would make people believe in it? this may actually turn them away from it even more.


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
IknowTruth wrote:ok wait

IknowTruth wrote:

ok wait seriously even though bacteria isnt evolution, and if it was proof of evolution you think this would make people believe in it? this may actually turn them away from it even more.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.  Please try again.


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
IknowTruth wrote:ok wait

IknowTruth wrote:

ok wait seriously even though bacteria isnt evolution, and if it was proof of evolution you think this would make people believe in it? this may actually turn them away from it even more.

Bacteria is proof of evolution... its called micro-evolution

there isnt even a dispute against it.

 

Iknowtruth, if you were smart, you would attack micro-evolutions bigger brother

macro-evolution

 

but im assuming you've never heard of either of these

What Would Kharn Do?


IknowTruth
Theist
Posts: 55
Joined: 2008-03-04
User is offlineOffline
macroevolution is not just a

macroevolution is not just a whole lot of microevolution accumulated over a long period of time. microevolution involves expressions of recessive genes by removing dominat genes from the gene pool. macroevolution would require the creation of new genes from scratch.they are not the same at all


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
IknowTruth

IknowTruth wrote:

macroevolution is not just a whole lot of microevolution accumulated over a long period of time. microevolution involves expressions of recessive genes by removing dominat genes from the gene pool. macroevolution would require the creation of new genes from scratch.they are not the same at all

 

getting better Truthy! still flawed, but getting better

 

hmm... now where can we go from here

What Would Kharn Do?


jread
SuperfanTheist
jread's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
 IknowTruth wrote:1. life

 

IknowTruth wrote:

1. life started from some mud pool,extreme heat,gases etc etc!! scientist dont even know! its all theories.

What you are referring to is not evolution. That field of study is called abiogenesis. You are also suggesting cosmological underpinnings, which again is not evolution. Evolution does not theorize about the start of life, it presupposes that. Evolutionary theory speaks about how life progresses and evolves, develops, grows, etc.

 

Quote:

2. some how a franken-cell came evolved into the first plant,animal,micro oraginsim who knows what the heck it first turned into.

This is a non-scientific statement showing your lack of a scientific understanding of evolution. Evolution is a collection of really really really really really really really really really really really r..e...a..l...l..y slow processes. The progress of single cell, to multi-cell, to plant, to animal took an extremely long amount of time. Learn the theory and you'll understand the answer to your question. How did a franken cell evolve to such-and-such advanced organism? Time.

 

Quote:
3. some how plants evolved into animals,then animals turned into humans.

It's called genetics, DNA. Learn a little something about genetics and you'll see how all living things are interrelated.

Quote:
there you go the silly evolution.

No, there you go.

The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller

Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
IknowTruth wrote:ok wait

IknowTruth wrote:

ok wait seriously even though bacteria isnt evolution, and if it was proof of evolution you think this would make people believe in it? this may actually turn them away from it even more.


The truth is true even if you don't like it.

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought