Evidence for creationism, Part 2.

[negZero]

plz dont qoute mine form wiki. this shows how little you care about the nature of the objections rather than the truth.
here is a link from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day21am.html#day21am62

You do realize that your link says the exact same thing?

 

[magicfan101]

I think that this page of links is a good enough start for any creationist. I'd be interested in hearing our resident creationists' views on these points.

the second paragraph is one lie after another. pepper moths have long been disproven as evidence for evolution. even the picture of peper moths are fake,. they are glued on.

"Evolution is as firmly established a scientific fact as the roundness of the Earth" wow!!! who wrote this Richard Dawkins

 

[Brian Shanahan]

plz dont qoute mine form wiki. this shows how little you care about the nature of the objections rather than the truth.
here is a link from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day21am.html#day21am62

Please just shut up, you clearly do not know what you are talking about, and all you are doing in this thread is just putting your fingers in your ears and drowning out the mountains of evidence proving that you are wrong. If you cannot argue in a rational and proper manner, we should all just ignore you and let you bleat your fantasies to your hearts content, as that is the only thing you want to do.

 

[Ajidica]

The Internet works in two steps:
1. Makes you marvel at the collective intelligence of humanity.
2. Makes you despair at the individual intelligence of humanity.

I think we have progressed to the latter.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

the second paragraph is one lie after another. pepper moths have long been disproven as evidence for evolution. even the picture of peper moths are fake,. they are glued on.

"Evolution is as firmly established a scientific fact as the roundness of the Earth" wow!!! who wrote this Richard Dawkins

At least Richard Dawkins is an accredited scientist who is respected in his field and is considered one of the best biologists around. Your position is to bring along frauds and fantasies and parade them around the place like the Emeperor's New Clothes.

So in conclusion please do not drag a good man down into the abyss of perfidy of which you inhabit.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

the second paragraph is one lie after another. pepper moths have long been disproven as evidence for evolution. even the picture of peper moths are fake,. they are glued on.

Nothing I'm finding substantiates what you're saying. Care to back it up?

 

[Arakhor]

the second paragraph is one lie after another. pepper moths have long been disproven as evidence for evolution. even the picture of peper moths are fake,. they are glued on.

You what?? Pepper moths actually exist!! Even Domination3000 of all people accepts this!!

 

[El_Machinae]

1st point when we test humans against humans in the genomes we are 99.99% similar.
mitochondrial mapping shows common origins in humans. i disagree with the location but the results are the same.
they are currently running a genome test on Neanderthals. they sent out an early draft of their results this MAY. they do stress that contamination in the samples are possible. but early results are promising for neanderthals being fully humans.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/710.full

2nd telemers, genetic deletions are possible mechanisms. all are being researched by scientists to figure out aging.

Okay, now that you have mitochondrial and other genetic mapping pointing out a common descent for humans ...

... do we have similar genetic clocking that points out how all (say) chimpanzees came from a single chimpanzee couple and that this couple is significantly younger than humans (because that couple was in the ark, while 4 different mitochrondial genomes were brought into the ark for humans)? Same with elephants and beavers, too, of course.

I'm following the Neanderthal data with interest. One warning I'll put out is that researchers are sometimes sloppy with the word 'human'. Sometimes they mean homosapiens. Sometimes they mean any of the humans, even earlier ones.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

You what?? Pepper moths actually exist!! Even Domination3000 of all people accepts this!!

Wait, is he saying this creature isn't real?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth

At all?

Did I miss something?

 

[Arakhor]

Well, El Machinae, when I say humans, I mean homo sapiens. If I'm talking about homo habilis, homo afarensis and so on, I'd use "hominids".

ATPG, Magicguy apparently disputes this evidence, which even Domination3000 accepts.

 

[negZero]

the second paragraph is one lie after another. pepper moths have long been disproven as evidence for evolution. even the picture of peper moths are fake,. they are glued on.

"Evolution is as firmly established a scientific fact as the roundness of the Earth" wow!!! who wrote this Richard Dawkins

If evolution is so wrong why don't you go write a paper disproving it, peer reviewed and published?

 

[Ajidica]

Ahem.

Tell me, what was the name of the Pharaoh Moses dealt with and what Egyptian Dynasty was he part of? I would specificaly like to see where the Egyptian records say "A bunch of Hebrew slaves got uppity, a Hebrew came out of the desert and called down the wrath of the Gods on us (I'm pretty sure they would record the 'all the first born kids die right), the part where the Hebrew slaves flee Egypt, and Pharaoh gets his army crushed by a huge wave."

I think the Egyptians would have either recorded something like that or their enemies would have.

Magicfan, has my post completly refuted your assertion that the Egyptian records agree with the bible?

 

[El_Machinae]

Despite there being negative evidence against Moses' existence, Moses has very little to do with Creationism. Moses could be real and the Exodus real, and it wouldn't affect the beginning of the Earth.

 

[Arakhor]

This is very true, El Machinae, which is why I'm baffled that the Egyptian dating controversy somehow proves creationism.

 

[magicfan101]

You what?? Pepper moths actually exist!! Even Domination3000 of all people accepts this!!

In 1956, a Clean Air Act was passed in Britain. Within about fifteen years, studies were showing that the percentage of light-coloured moths in many populations was increasing again (Berry 308). The original colour change, though attention-grabbing, had been simply a short-term fluctuation, proving nothing about large-scale evolution. As Harvard paleontologist and historian of science Stephen Jay Gould has noted:

". . . biologists have documented a veritable glut of cases for rapid and eminently measurable evolution on timescales of years and decades. . . . but, to be visible at all over so short a span, evolution must be far too rapid (and transient) to serve as the basis for major transformations in geological time. Hence, the 'paradox of the visibly irrelevant'—or, if you can see it at all, it's too fast to matter in the long run. . . . Most cases of rapid microevolution represent the transient and momentary blips and fillips that 'flesh out' the rich history of lineages of stasis. . . . Small local populations and parts of lineages make short and temporary forays of transient adaptation but almost always die out or get reintegrated into the general pool of the species"

he recounted that pepper moths were proof of evolution
even dawkins backs away
The details of any experiments done 40 years ago are bound to be vulnerable to detailed criticism,” says
Richard Dawkins, a professor at Oxford University. “But, in any case, nothing momentous hangs on these
experiments.”

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Well, El Machinae, when I say humans, I mean homo sapiens. If I'm talking about homo habilis, homo afarensis and so on, I'd use "hominids".

ATPG, Magicguy apparently disputes this evidence, which even Domination3000 accepts.

Oh. Well, what's his data? Where's the proof?


This is EVIDENCE for.... you know what I'm tired of saying it.


I think everyone should stop posting for 24 hours, except those who claim to have actual evidence of creationism.

I volunteer. Anyone else?

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

The original colour change, though attention-grabbing, had been simply a short-term fluctuation, proving nothing about large-scale evolution.

What do 1,000 small changes within a species add up to?

What happens when the small changes result in nonviability of offspring between two distinct members of a species?

That causes a new species. That's evolution.

If a change in color can happen over the course of a few generations, what about 10,000 generations, especially if those changes aren't species-wide, but localized?

Could it happen to be that the sex organs of these specimens fail to couple together properly? Could that ever happen with microevolution?

That's not even a real question. The answer is YES.

Over time there will be no interbreeding at all between the two groups, and their microevolutionary changes will add up to marco differences, and eventually they will be incapable of producing offspring even with artificial fertilization.

Microevolution IS macroevolution.

 

[Arakhor]

I'd happily do it if it actually produced evidence for creationism, ATPG.

I'm not sure what your second snatch of text is supposed to be doing, Magicfan. Your purpose is not clear.

 

[magicfan101]

What do 1,000 small changes within a species add up to?

What happens when the small changes result in nonviability of offspring between two distinct members of a species?

That causes a new species. That's evolution.

If a change in color can happen over the course of a few generations, what about 10,000 generations, especially if those changes aren't species-wide, but localized?

Could it happen to be that the sex organs of these specimens fail to couple together properly? Could that ever happen with microevolution?

That's not even a real question. The answer is YES.

Over time there will be no interbreeding at all between the two groups, and their microevolutionary changes will add up to marco differences, and eventually they will be incapable of producing offspring even with artificial fertilization.

Microevolution IS macroevolution.

were are obviously not one the same page on what micro evolution and macro-evolution is.
are the differences in purebred dogs micro or macro evolution.
is antibiotic resistance an example of micro or macro evolution.

 

[Arakhor]

No, they're all evolution. There is no difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution.

We're also at post 400 now.