Atheism/Lets talk about GOD!

[Somali09]

Originally posted by nuune:

^^ He has already said to you "i don't expect you to understand all this."

 

I am sure you are as lucid as he is.

[5]

Apologies for my late reply, I hope the lenght of this ess-- reply will give some indication as to why I've been so eager to put off responding.

 

Raamsade wrote:

 

Wow! GG finally accepts the fossil record can actually tell us something.

 

Don't pretend to be dumb.

 

This is a such a warped (and erroneous) understanding of science that it is no wonder that you reject it. I'll ignore the factual errors for now and focus on your garbled conception of science.

 

Please don’t. Go on with the factual errors.

 

First, the evolution of humans from an ape-like ancestor is contingent historical event. Meaning it is a process that occurred at specific time given specific prevailing initial conditions that can not be reproduced in a lab.

 

You still haven't been able to prove it happened.

 

Past evolutionary events are necessarily contingent. Actually, same is true for all history. Past events can not be reproduced in a lab. Why, then, would expect to do so?

 

Clearly my example went to waste.

 

We know humans evolved from ape-like ancestors because we have the empirical evidence for it -- from fossils, population genetics, molecular biology, biochemistry, comparative anatomy, biogeography, biostratigraphy etc --

 

Do elaborate, please.

 

In labs we've observed evolution -- under controlled conditions (therefore, reproducible!) -- taking place with yeasts, bacteria and drosophila flies. In fact, scientists have repeated tested the core postulates of Evolution Theory in labs. In nature, we've observed evolution taking place with peppered English moth and other species.

 

You're confusing terms here. Those claimed examples of ‘evolution-in-action’ are actually examples of variation within a kind; antibiotic resistance, insecticide resistance, even the peppered moths you mentioned, all these are examples of rearrangement of existing genetic information, or loss of information, there’s no new genetic information.

 

Originally posted by G G:

There are 2 types of evolutionary scientists. Those who believe birds evolved from dinosaurs, and those who don't. Do you agree or disagree with this claim?

 

Rubbish. The consensus in the scientific community regarding birds is that they evolved from theropod dinosaurs.

 

It is interesting you say 'consensus in the scientific community', as if scientists who support creationism aren't part of the scientific world. And consensus means unanimity, so there is no consensus if there is even one scientist who disagrees. And believe me there are thousands, if not more, who disagree.

 

In any case, this brings us to Alan Feduccia and Larry Martin – both highly regarded fellow evolutionists, who defend the view that birds evolved from an unknown reptile long before dinosaurs. Clearly the fact that you did not acknowledge this, speaks volume for the internal conflicts within evolutionary theory.

 

This is so characteristic of you. You miscontrue what others say and you contradict yourself. First, please provide the actual quotation from Mayr, not your paraphrasing.

 

Second, it is population that evolve not individuals.

 

Because what Mayr says completely contradicts what you say, you think I misconstrue what others say? Here is the actual quotation, word by word, from Mayr:

 

"... most treatments of evolution are written in a reductionist manner in which all evolutionary phenomena are reduced to the level of the gene. An attempt is then made to explain the higher-level evolutionary process by "upward" reasoning. This approach invariably fails. Evolution deals with phenotypes of individuals, with populations, with species; it is not a "change in gene frequencies." The two most important units in evolution are the individual, the principle object of selection, and the population, the stage of diversifying evolution."

 

 

Now lets have a look at what you wrote:

 

Evolution impacts populations not individuals. Any one individual is irrelevant. At the most basic level, evolution can be defined as the change in gene or allele frequency of a population over many generations.

 

Both since we agree on what evolution says.

 

You think so? Or are you just pretending that you can’t see how incredibly contradictory your definitions are? Because everybody who will be reading this will have no problem seeing it.

 

I did but you rejected it. I'll try it again but this time I'll quote from National Academy of Sciences (from the link above): "Biological evolution refers to changes in the traits of organisms over multiple generations." The report goes on to say: Until the development of the science of genetics at the beginning of the 20th century, biologists did not understand the mechanisms responsible for the inheritance of traits from parents to offspring. The study of genetics showed that heritable traits originate from the DNA that is passed from one generation to the next.They are passed on to future generations.

 

Who asked you about genetics? I’m sorry, is this proving too hard? After 2 chances, you fail yet again. The first quote: “biological evolution refers to changes in the traits of organisms…” contradicts your first definition “any one individual is irrelevant”. The second quote talks about DNA.

 

That you quoted mutation theory shows you ARE perusing creationists websites because mutation theory is NOT the generally accepted by scientists today"

 

That you did not know what I was quoting shows how little you know. It is pointless talking about what is "generally accepted by scientists today" if you do not know what was generally accepted before. And for your information, nowhere have I said it was accepted today – although I am inclined to say there are still some who leave the door wide open:

 

"Evolution, being on the whole a population turnover, is ordinarily a gradual process, except for certain chromosomal processes that may lead to the production of a new species-individual in a single step." – Ernst Mayr ‘What Evolution is’ 2001 page 174

 

Second, I know more about evolution than you do. This much is self-evident to everyone.

 

What is self-evident to everyone, is that you repeat evolutionist lies like a parrot (and with great errors), without the ability to stop and think about what it is that you are actually parroting.

 

FYI, I DID NOT copy the fossils I presented from a site called "Finally tangible PROOF of MACRO-EVOLUTION."

 

Funny that the only place that list comes up in that exact same order, is in a thread called Finally tangible PROOF of MACRO-EVOLUTION. Just a coincidence? Your “another car in the driveway” analogy springs to mind.

 

Your lame quibble is akin to rejecting chemical properties of a substance someone provides because it came from site x or y. That's not acceptable objection

 

Bad example. I did not reject the list because it was from a website with such title. I told you why I rejected it, so you are either doing this on purpose, or you have an extremely selective memory:

September 15 (my first post addressed to you) to your question to Siren: “I'm curious, what kind of evidence will convince you that birds descended from dinosaurs?” I replied: I'm not the Siren but... The same kind of evidence that would convince your own fellow evolutionist, I suppose. You now, those who also reject the idea birds evolved from dinos?”

 

What I do object, however, is the fact that when losing, you resort to such search words (what else does it tell of but desperation) when you should be keeping an open mind so that you might have a chance to see through the evolutionary lie.

 

It's pretty clear to everyone that you're terrified, much like your co-creationist Norsky, of the evidence for evolution.

 

Do not flatter yourself. You couldn’t fright a child with your knowledge on evolutionary theory.

 

Yes; I don't write only for you but all the silent readers who stand to benefit from this debate.

 

I honestly hope people benefit from this, too – and especially from my 2nd post on page 1.

 

You have provided no good reasons for why you reject the fossil evidence for human evolution.

 

I will answer this in the same as this bit:

 

The neanderthal came first. I would say Homo floresiensis resembled modern humans more but neanderthals had bigger brains. In fact neanderthals had bigger brains (as measured by average brain sizes) than us.

 

This is an illustration of a neander:

and here is one of floresiensis:

 

And you claim floresiensis looks more human to you? Why are you being dishonest?

 

You also asked:

 

I'm at a loss as to the purpose of these questions? How do they further your argument?

 

When clearly you knew exactly the purpose of the question, which is why you dodged it in the first time. Lets recap what you’ve said earlier, so we know exactly why this is relevant. I asked you whether you could provide irrefutable evidence that Australopithecus was a human ancestor, to which you replied: “This species was clearly an intermediate between apes and humans. For instance, its brain was about the size of chimpanzee but it was bipedal and had anatomical features resembling more closely humans as opposed to apes. Furthermore, its teeth looked more human than apes.”

 

I asked for IRREFUTABLE evidence, keep in mind.

 

And that is what you came to me with. The fact that they RESEMBLED more humans than apes. Now with this logic, with this irrefutable method of yours, we could come to the conclusion that because the Neanderthals looked more human (although - not surprisingly - you decided to deny this obvious fact) they must be closer to modern humans. And yet they supposedly aren’t – floresiensis with smaller brain and physique, and which quite frankly looks like a step back in evolution, is supposedly closer to modern humans.

 

So the purpose of the question was to falsify the method by which you concluded that Australopithecus was a human ancestor.

 

“[Radiometric dating]Very reliable and consistent with other methods of dating. We have no good reasons to doubt the accuracy of of radiometric dating.”

 

You still did not answer the question: “For example, could one misestimate by hundreds of thousands of years, even over a million years? Is it possible?” A simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ will do.

 

“No body said that DNA repair mechanisms don't fix mutations but that is beside the point. “

 

How so? DNA repair mechanisms are precisely there to protect genetic instructions from copying errors. Do you not find it odd natural selection created these protections against the very thing that enables evolution (beneficial mutation)?

 

“As you finally admit "some errors slip through" and it is those that count.”

 

Yes, some errors slip through and it affects the information it encodes. They are mostly detrimental; mutations are responsible for thousands of inherited diseases and diseases such as cancer. There are some which are neutral, and some which are beneficial (as you noted), but the truly beneficial mutations (not talking about beneficial as in helps the bacteria resist antibiotics) are so rare that there are, quite frankly, none. On top of that, all examples of mutations are actually loss of information, even the beneficial ones. So if natural selection and mutation result in LOSS of information, then how can evolution of increasing complexity occur?

 

“You're changing the subject and conflating different theories/disciplines.”

 

Let me refresh your weak memory. You wrote:

“There are still single celled organisms. That alone demonstrates Evolution doesn't proceed ahead from less complex to more complex.”

 

To which I then replied: “And where did they come from? Or have they always been, and we've solved the mystery of life, and these single celled organisms are the origin of all life, our forefathers?”

 

You: “These questions are irrelevant to Evolution Theory since the theory assumes the existence of one or few living organisms.”

 

Now how does this follow? One would think evolutionists would be interested in today’s organisms and not dismiss them as irrelevant to evolution. And now you accuse me of changing the subject and conflating different theories, when all I did was ask a simple question (the origin of single celled organisms), derived directly from something you had said.

[Raamsade]

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

Apologies for my late reply, I hope the lenght of this ess-- reply will give some indication as to why I've been so eager to put off responding.

Let me state, right off the bat, that I'm happy to read that you took your time to give more studied reply. It is always an encouraging sign when people steeped in superstition and magical thinking actually bother to read for themselves -- consider the facts -- as opposed to regurgitating what they're told.

 

Regrettably, nothing in what you write below indicates you've overcome your pathological tendencies. You're still arrogantly ignorant of the basic tenants of Evolution Theory even though I gave you the chance to be disabused of your ignorance. If you're actually telling the truth and took time to read up on the topic, your case is more troubling.

 

Prior to now, I was merely grappling whether to impute your vehement opposition to the FACT of evolution to mere ignorance or religious dogma... but now I have to consider whether your problem is processing of the information you're given. You're exposed to amble opportunities to be corrected regarding your view on the FACT of evolution but you persist with your ignorant and often incoherent opposition.

 

Is there anything that I can tell you that will change your mind?

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

You still haven't been able to prove it happened.

Haven't I told you before that in the real world there is NO such thing as proof? You can't proof anything in science - not even "proven" gravity. There is only evidence and we consider something to be a fact based on the strength of that evidence. As Stephen J. Gould famously said "In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

 

Why do you keep making statements that you've been corrected on?

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

We know humans evolved from ape-like ancestors because we have the empirical evidence for it -- from fossils, population genetics, molecular biology, biochemistry, comparative anatomy, biogeography, biostratigraphy etc --

 

Do elaborate, please.

Here is a select list of empirical evidences from various fields demonstrating descent of humans from ape-like ancestor some 6-7 millions years ago (when Chimps and Humans separated):

 

Biochemistry: Humans and other great apes can't synthesize their own vitamin c.

 

Fossils: We have nearly complete fossil record showing the gradual evolution of modern humans from ape-like ancestor. The latest fossil record is Ardi about 4.4 millions years old. Note, Ardi is considerably older than Australopithecus aferensis at 3.3 millions years ago. The importance of Ardi can not be overstated. Ardi takes us ever closer to the common ancestor of us AND chimps. The fossil record continues to complete the jigsaw puzzle.

 

Genetics: Humans and Chimps share 98% of their DNA. Plus, all the great apes have 48 chromosomes. Humans have 46. So where did the extra pair go? We know that sometimes chromosomes fuse and become one. Thus, if humans descended from ape-like ancestor like other great apes, those extra chromosomes found in other primates MUST be found in our genome. Otherwise evolution theory is in big trouble? Did we find? I'll let

answer it.

 

Comparative anatomy: Humans and Chimps have uncanny anatomical similarities showcasing their close evolutionary relationship and descent from a common ancestor.

 

Biostratigraphy: The placement of fossils is exactly as required by evolution theory. For instance, you will not find Australopithecus coexisting with Homo Sapiens. Or more generally, humans coexisting with Dinosaurs as the theory of Special Creation would have you believe.

 

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

Those claimed examples of ‘evolution-in-action’ are actually examples of variation within a kind; antibiotic resistance, insecticide resistance, even the peppered moths you mentioned,

What exactly is "variation within a kind?" We know different population within species exhibit variations (genetic diversity) thus enabling evolution to take place in the first place. But I'm talking about speciation -- the birth of new species different from its parent species. It happens all the time and I can provide more examples from academic sources.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

all these are examples of rearrangement of existing genetic information, or loss of information, there’s no new genetic information.

This is classic creationist canard and demonstrably false. Genetic information is constantly being added via mutations. Mutation is the source of genetic diversity.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

It is interesting you say 'consensus in the scientific community', as if scientists who support creationism aren't part of the scientific world.

They're not part of scientific community. Scientists DO science. Creationists DON'T. Instead of science, they try to force their false believes into science classes via school boards, courts and state legislatures.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

And consensus means unanimity, so there is no consensus if there is even one scientist who disagrees.

Consensus doesn't necessarily mean unanimity. And scientists don't sit down and reach a consensus over what to reject or accept. That's not how science works. By consensus, I meant what the overwhelming majority of scientists accept today. There will always be dissenting voices. That's given. The facts remain though.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

In any case, this brings us to Alan Feduccia and Larry Martin – both highly regarded fellow evolutionists, who defend the view that birds evolved from an unknown reptile long before dinosaurs. Clearly the fact that you did not acknowledge this, speaks volume for the internal conflicts within evolutionary theory.

There you go again. Misconstruing what others say and practicing "name dropping." As if that will change the FACT of evolution. Alan Feduccia believes birds evolved from achasaurs and not dinosaurs; he certainly doesn't believe they evolved from "unknown reptile." Secondly, he's wrong. So, who cares.

 

Not only does the preponderance of evidence show birds descended from dinosaurs but birds ARE dinosaurs in the same we humans are apes.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

Because what Mayr says completely contradicts what you say, you think

I

misconstrue what others say? Here is the actual quotation, word by word, from Mayr:

Actually, he agrees exactly with what I said for the most part:

 

Mayr: "Evolution deals with phenotypes of individuals, with populations, with species; it is not a "change in gene frequencies."

 

Pay particular attention to the highlighted part. Evolution works through populations. I don't know what he means by the last bit. There is no evolution without change in gene frequency from generation to another. If he disagrees with that then he's wrong. Perhaps that explains your affinity with him.

 

I gave you the MOST authoritative source on this subject: National Academy of Sciences (NAS) which has some 2,000 current members ( list of members) and hundreds of foreign associations. Their definition is exactly what is taught in schools today, what is accepted by all of their members and what I originally said.

 

Science doesn't operate on authority but on evidence.

 

 

I did but you rejected it. I'll try it again but this time I'll quote from National Academy of Sciences (from the link above): "Biological evolution refers to changes in the traits of organisms over multiple generations." The report goes on to say: Until the development of the science of genetics at the beginning of the 20th century, biologists did not understand the mechanisms responsible for the inheritance of traits from parents to offspring. The study of genetics showed that heritable traits originate from the DNA that is passed from one generation to the next.They are passed on to future generations.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

Who asked you about genetics? I’m sorry, is this proving too hard?

This is the kind of palpably daft question that sometimes makes question WHY AM I DEBATING WITH THIS PERSON?!

 

We're talking about evolution, more specifically inheritance of traits, and you're asking me why I'm mentioning genetics? Do you even know the meaning of genetics?

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

The first quote: “biological evolution refers to changes in the traits of organisms…” contradicts your first definition “any one individual is irrelevant”.

Explain to me HOW they contradict each other.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

It is pointless talking about what is "generally accepted by scientists today" if you do not know what was generally accepted before.

It's called Straw-man fallacy. You attacked phony positions that modern Evolution Theory doesn't espouse because you can't debunk the REAL ideas of modern Evolution Theory. That's the only reason that can account for your morbid fascination with old ideas and men.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

What is self-evident to everyone, is that you repeat evolutionist lies like a parrot (and with great errors), without the ability to stop and think about what it is that you are actually parroting.

I hope I DO repeat evolutionists because they tell the truth. And the truth bears repeating.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

Funny that the only place that list comes up in that exact same order, is in a thread called Finally tangible PROOF of MACRO-EVOLUTION.

You're wrong again. Here is ANOTHER place where the list "comes up in that exact same order:" Talk Origins... this is a site maintained by a real scientists who is actually doing real science. Any other site on the internet that may have the same list comes from Talk Origins.

 

Now, I let you peruse Talk Origins yourself and see the level of professionalism and scholarship there. You see, I don't need to google bird transitional fossils because I already have my own reliable sources. This is why I always present sources of impeccable authority (like NAS).

 

Of course all this is distraction. You asked for a list of transitional fossils and I gave you one. True to form like most creationists you start quibling about my sources as if that will make the evidence go away. I also gave a list fossils for human evolution that I compiled. Did you reject that list either along similar lines? Nope. You completely ignored it just like you ignored the evidence of bird evolution from dinosaurs.

 

You don't want to address the evidence for bird evolution because you can't.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

This is an illustration of a neander:

and here is one of floresiensis:

 

And you claim

floresiensis looks more human to you? Why are you being dishonest?

Are you serious? You're submitting drawings and cartoons as evidence against evolution? What a confused and ignorant child you are.

 

No body gives a damn about someone's drawings; we're talking about fossils.

 

You asked my personal thought as to who I think resembled humans more; I gave my answer based on the fossil evidence. If you disagree, bring the contradictory fossil evidence.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

I asked you whether you could provide irrefutable evidence that Australopithecus was a human ancestor,

I should've asked you, what do you consider "irrefutable evidence?" Until and unless you define what you're seeking, you're just waffling as usual.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

And that is what you came to me with. The fact that they RESEMBLED more humans than apes. Now with this logic, with this irrefutable method of yours, we could come to the conclusion that because the Neanderthals looked more human (although - not surprisingly - you decided to deny this obvious fact) they must be closer to modern humans.

And yet they supposedly aren’t

– floresiensis with smaller brain and physique, and which quite frankly looks like a step back in evolution, is supposedly closer to modern humans.

 

So the purpose of the question was to falsify the method by which you concluded that Australopithecus was a human ancestor.

You're really outdone yourself this time. First, the fossils of both Neanderthals and Homo floresiensis closely resemble humans because we all are close relatives with a common ancestor. We all went our separate directions and evolved. The tree of human evolution has many branches. Second, Australopithecus (3.2 millions years ago) is not part of Homo genus, thus they resembled modern humans even less. But more than Ardi (4.4 millions years ago). So there is direct and positive correlation between age of fossils and their resemblance to modern humans. Third, Homo floresiensis, since it is found on an Island, could be dwarf human. Island dwarfism is well observed phenomenon.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

You still did not answer the question:

“For example, could one misestimate by hundreds of thousands of years, even over a million years? Is it possible?”

A simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ will do.

Yes and no. One person can make procedural error and can overestimate. But not hundreds and thousands of people. It's like using ATM. If one person forgets his pin number and can't get out cash, it doesn't mean ATMs don't work for everybody else.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

Do you not find it odd natural selection created these protections against the very thing that enables evolution (beneficial mutation)?

Who said natural selection created these "protections?"

 

DNA repair tools are properties of the molecule itself.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

They are mostly detrimental; mutations are responsible for thousands of inherited diseases and diseases such as cancer.

This is a blatant lie. But I'll give a chance to redeem yourself by providing evidence. You keep repeating this lie and I keep correcting you. It's getting tiring but since you're the claimant, the onus is on you to back it up. Remember we're talking about germ line or reproductive cells, not somatic cells.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

On top of that, all examples of mutations are actually loss of information, even the beneficial ones. So if natural selection and mutation result in LOSS of information, then how can evolution of increasing complexity occur?

Any loss in genetic diversity is replenished by mutations - the source of the diversity in the FIRST place.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

To which I then replied:

“And where did they come from? Or have they always been, and we've solved the mystery of life, and these single celled organisms are the origin of all life, our forefathers?”

 

You:

“These questions are irrelevant to Evolution Theory since the theory assumes the existence of one or few living organisms.”

 

Now how does this follow? One would think evolutionists would be interested in today’s organisms and not dismiss them as irrelevant to evolution. And now you accuse me of changing the subject and conflating different theories, when all I did was ask a simple question (the origin of single celled organisms), derived directly from something you had said.

Evolution theory already assumes the existence of living things and proceeds from that point forward to explain how every living thing today and the past descended from original one or few living things. This is the Fallacy of Straw-man again. You demand is akin to asking physics to explain mathematics. Physics takes mathematics as given and uses it. Same with Evolution Theory. The existence of living things is a GIVEN in Evolution Theory.

[rudy-Diiriye]

[5]

Raamsade wrote:

 

Is there anything that I can tell you that will change your mind?

 

Your objective is to change my mind? I am not interested in what you say. I am interested in the Truth, and the truth is that Allah Almighty created us, everything around us, everything that existed prior to our existence and everything that will exists after us. We did not evolve from an organism, or an ape, nor will we ever evolve into another species.

But since you believe in this unbelievable nonsense, I think you can shed some light as to why evolutionists don't teach school kids that their offsprings may not be be same species as them. Surely it cannot be lack of faith?

 

Here is a select list of empirical evidences from various fields demonstrating descent of humans from ape-like ancestor some 6-7 millions years ago (when Chimps and Humans separated):

 

You're driving the discussion into humans and chimps. It seems the only way you can provide proof for the first assumption is by drawing some "evidence" from another assumption. I don't know how many people are actually reading this, but you bet your bananas ape kid, that they can see right through it.

 

Biochemistry: Humans and other great apes can't synthesize their own vitamin c.

 

A lot of other animals can't synthesize C vitamin, so what?

 

What you are trying to say here is that the mutation that makes vitamin C gene inactive is almost the same to the mutation seen in chimps.

 

Ever heard of pseudogenes?

 

Genetics: Humans and Chimps share 98% of their DNA

 

Half-truths, half-truths. The 98% is derived from protein-coding regions that only compromise about 1.5% of the two genomes.

 

Plus, all the great apes have 48 chromosomes. Humans have 46. So where did the extra pair go? We know that sometimes chromosomes fuse and become one. Thus, if humans descended from ape-like ancestor like other great apes, those extra chromosomes found in other primates MUST be found in our genome. Otherwise evolution theory is in big trouble? Did we find? I'll let Dr. Ken Miller answer it.

 

Chromosome 2 looks like two ape chromosomes stuck together.

 

Now read that again before proceeding.

 

What do you think the consequence of having a Robertsonian translocation is?

 

 

Comparative anatomy: Humans and Chimps have uncanny ***anatomical similarities*** showcasing their close evolutionary relationship and descent from a common ancestor.

 

Have you looked at your knee lately? How is it similar to a Chimps? I'd like to hear your insight into the evolution of the knee, as "little changes adding up" clearly isn't how it came to be.

 

Biostratigraphy: The placement of fossils is exactly as required by evolution theory. For instance, you will not find Australopithecus coexisting with Homo Sapiens.

 

So? How does this prove A evolved into Homo S, as opposed to them being separate species that existed at different times?

 

Or more generally, humans coexisting with Dinosaurs as the theory of Special Creation would have you believe.

 

Oh FFS.

 

What exactly is "variation within a kind?" [b/]

 

 

 

We know different population within species exhibit variations (genetic diversity) thus enabling evolution to take place in the first place. But I'm talking about speciation -- the birth of new species different from its parent species. It happens all the time and I can provide more examples from academic sources.

 

Again back to my question, if it happens all the time, why are kids not told in advance about the possibility of having an offspring that is a wholly another species?

 

This is classic creationist canard and demonstrably false. Genetic information is constantly being added via mutations. Mutation is the source of genetic diversity.

 

Even Richard Dawkins says in his short article Information Challenge (http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/articles/the-information-challenge/):

 

"Mutation is not an increase in true information content, rather the reverse"

 

But he continues: "for mutation, in the Shannon analogy, contributes to increasing the prior uncertainty.  But now we come to natural selection, which reduces the ‘prior uncertainty’ and therefore, in Shannon’s sense, contributes information to the gene pool.  In every generation, natural selection removes the less successful genes from the gene pool, so the remaining gene pool is a narrower subset."

 

Claude Shannon was an American engineer who developed information theory.

 

Richard Dawkins, in an attempt to answer the question why there are no beneficial mutations (ones which add information) responded by twisting the whole meaning and giving an answer that roughly goes "mutations do add information but in a way that it makes it seem like it loses information".

 

 

They're not part of scientific community. Scientists DO science.

 

You are a proper close-minded evo-fundamentalist, acuudubillaah.

 

Creationists DON'T. Instead of science, they try to force their false believes into science classes via school boards, courts and state legislatures.

 

I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not.

 

Evolutionists lie through their teeth. But there will be a day when we all will know the truth. Until then, feel free to think of yourself as a soulless creature; a random result of billions of years of mere chance - in a body that is so complex and effective, and in a universe that is so logical and precise.

 

Consensus doesn't necessarily mean unanimity By consensus, I meant what the overwhelming majority of scientists accept today.

 

So consensus = majority.

 

Lets see what Thesaurus says: Agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole.

Synonyms: accord, concord, concurrence, consent, harmony, unanimity, unison, unity

 

You did not mean what the "overwhelming majority" of scientists accepted, because if you had, you would have said so. Plain & simple.

 

There will always be dissenting voices. That's given. The facts remain though.

 

Eating up your words? I believe your first reaction was "rubbish". Look it up, it's still there.

 

There you go again. Misconstruing what others say and practicing "name dropping."

 

I asked you a simple question [whether there were EVO scientists who rejected the view birds evolved from dinos], which you rejected very firmly ("rubbish") and claimed that the "consensus in scientific community" agreed on it. And to prove you wrong, I gave you 2 examples of scientists who support the evolutionary theory BUT REJECT the birds-evolved-from-dinos view, but NOW you say I misinterpret others, and accuse me of "name-dropping"? You're an effin' retard. Sorry, you really are.

 

As if that will change the FACT of evolution

 

It will definitely make you seem like a total 1diot, because that is beside the point.

 

If he disagrees with that then he's wrong.

 

So this long time professor of biology at Harvard is wrong, and you're right?

 

Lets read more about him in his obituary in the Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article511343.ece

 

"Mayr’s many honours include the Japan Prize, the Balzan Prize and the Crafoord Prize, one of the most prestigious international awards open to biologists"

 

Anyway, this was only to cement my original claim: "The evolutionary theory isn't even in accordance with itself." Now that is has done it purpose, we can move on.

 

We're talking about evolution, >>>more specifically inheritance of traits<<<, and you're asking me why I'm mentioning genetics? Do you even know the meaning of genetics?

 

The >>>bit : Show me where. I had asked you for a definition of the evolutionary theory. We were not talking about "more specifically inheritance traits" here. At least I wasn't, in fact this is what I said: "I'll give you another chance. Explain_to_me_what_e volutionary_theory_i s." So where in that was I "more specifically" talking about inheritance traits?

 

It's called Straw-man fallacy.

 

No, it's called you not knowing what the hell I was talking about.

 

How It Could Have Gone Had You Known What I was Talking About:

 

5: You gotta give it to some evolutionary geneticist though, since without their awesome imagination we wouldn't have my favourite comic X-Men!

 

Raamsade: Yes, X-men is the best known example in pop culture about saltation. However saltation was long discredited, and it is not a widely held belief today.

 

Instead, you wrote: I'm not gonna respond to this but let it hang there. It will come in handy later in showing us GG's entire understanding of genetics and mutations is cartoon-ish as it is gleaned from cartoons.

 

Which means you didn't know what I was talking about. As simple as that.

 

 

You attacked phony positions that modern Evolution Theory doesn't espouse because you can't debunk the REAL ideas of modern Evolution Theory.

 

I am only commenting on this because it is interesting to see how evolutionary theory changed into 'modern evolution theory' in this sentence. What makes you so sure this version of Windows evolutionary theory, is the last one?

 

You're wrong again. Here is ANOTHER place where the list "comes up in that exact same order:" Talk Origins... this is a site maintained by a real scientists who is actually doing real science. Any other site on the internet that may have the same list comes from Talk Origins.

 

Actually there are 6 of them now. In any case, when I first searched, only that one thread came up. It also begs the question; why not mention it any sooner?

 

I also gave a list fossils for human evolution that I compiled. Did you reject that list either along similar lines? Nope. You completely ignored it just like you ignored the evidence of bird evolution from dinosaurs.

 

Pay attention to this: "I ALSO gave a list... Did you reject that list either ALONG SIMILAR LINES?". So if you know the reason why I rejected the evidence for bird evolution, then why do you continue:

 

You don't want to address the evidence for bird evolution because you can't.

 

Are you doing this on purpose? Go back to my previous post and re-read what I wrote.

 

Now, lets recap: I asked for conclusive and irrefutable evidence that Australopithecus (afarensis) is a human ancestor.

 

You replied: "This species was clearly an intermediate between apes and humans. For instance, its brain was about the size of chimpanzee but it was bipedal and had anatomical features resembling more closely humans as opposed to apes. Furthermore, its teeth looked more human than apes. And the date of the fossils predate fossils for modern humans."

 

The fact that its brain was the size of a chimp and it had anatomical features that resembled more closely humans, makes it - according to you - a human ancestor. Now I know there are some evofanatics who can perhaps explain this better than you can, given your appalling lack of knowledge on the subject, and skills as a debater (you cannot even keep up with what is being said). In any case, if we applied this same "scientific" method with neanderthals & the floresiensis, we would come to the conclusion that the floresiensis came before the neanderthals. Therefore your method of is flawed; therefore you have not been able to explain why Australopithecus Afarensis is a human ancestor; and therefore you haven't given me a reason to believe it. There you have it.

 

Are you serious? You're submitting drawings and cartoons as evidence against evolution? What a confused and ignorant child you are.

 

Those drawings are evolutionist illustrations based on the skeletons found. It's interesting to see you belittling them, though.

 

No body gives a damn about someone's drawings; we're talking about fossils.

 

You asked my personal thought as to who I think resembled humans more; ****I gave my answer based on the fossil evidence****. If you disagree, bring the contradictory fossil evidence.

 

***That is an interesting lie.

 

OK. Below is a neanderthal skeleton.

 

 

And here is a floresiensis:

 

Here is a flores skull with a human skull:

 

And here is a neander skull with a human skull:

 

And you claim that based on the fossil evidence, you have come to the conclusion that the floresiensis resemble more human? I don't have time for this kind of blatant lying and trolling.

 

I should've asked you, what do you consider "irrefutable evidence?" Until and unless you define what you're seeking, you're just waffling as usual.

 

Ah, hindsight. So "irrefutable" and "conclusive" are now words with no fixed meaning. Lets quote Thesaurus:

 

Irrefutable: impossible to deny or disprove.

 

Conclusive: forming an end or termination; especially putting an end to doubt or question; "conclusive proof"; "the evidence is conclusive"

 

You do not use words and then ask the opponent for the meaning of the words. If you do not know or have doubts about the meaning of words, simply don't use them.

 

Third, Homo floresiensis, since it is found on an Island, could be dwarf human

 

And why do you feel it's important for you to say this? You already said that based on the fossil evidence you had come to the conclusion that the floresiensis resembled more the modern human. Unless you feel that modern humans look like dwarfs.

 

Yes and no. One person can make procedural error and can overestimate. But not hundreds and thousands of people. It's like using ATM. If one person forgets his pin number and can't get out cash, it doesn't mean ATMs don't work for everybody else.

 

So essentially, overestimation is to due with the person forgetting how to use their equipment? Explain "procedural error", please.

 

Who said natural selection created these "protections?"

 

Did the first cell have them?

 

This is a blatant lie. But I'll give a chance to redeem yourself by providing evidence. You keep repeating this lie and I keep correcting you. It's getting tiring but since you're the claimant, the onus is on you to back it up. Remember we're talking about germ line or reproductive cells, not somatic cells.

 

http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEPC/NIH/gene07.php

 

"Gene mutations can be either inherited from a parent or acquired. A heredity mutation is a mistake that is present in the DNA of virtually all body cells. Hereditary mutations are also called germ-line mutations because the gene change exists in the reproductive cells and can be passed from generation to generation"

 

http://www.medicinenet.com/genetic_disease/article.htm

 

"Most genetic diseases are the direct result of a mutation in one gene".

 

What do you study; Spanish Language and Literature?

 

Any loss in genetic diversity is replenished by mutations - the source of the diversity in the FIRST place.

 

Wow. I just realized I've spent a significant amount of time for the past couple of months with someone who is either too arrogant or too ignorant.

 

Evolution theory already assumes the existence of living things and proceeds from that point forward to explain how every living thing today and the past descended from original one or few living things. This is the Fallacy of Straw-man again. You demand is akin to asking physics to explain mathematics. Physics takes mathematics as given and uses it. Same with Evolution Theory. The existence of living things is a GIVEN in Evolution Theory

 

You always yell Straw man when you can't think of anything to say. It's pathetic. You made a stup1d comment, which you're now effectively trying to run away from.

 

There are still single celled organisms. That alone demonstrates Evolution doesn't proceed ahead from less complex to more complex.

 

The only thing I "demanded" was for you to explain what you said, but it seems you have a habit of saying things you haven't got a clue about.

[Sherban Shabeel]

God created evolution. It's as simple as that!

[Johnny B]

I am interested in the Truth, and the truth is that Allah Almighty created us, everything around us, everything that existed prior to our existence and everything that will exists after us. We did not evolve from an organism, or an ape, nor will we ever evolve into another species.

Only a severe and uninterrupted indoctrination could've caused such obstinacy of such indomitable Truth.

[N.O.R.F]

^as apposed to believing you're 1/4 Ape?

 

I would have to say 2+2=5's responses have been clear, concise and to the point. Good job :cool:

[5]

Originally posted by Norfsky:

 

I would have to say 2+2=5's responses have been clear, concise and to the point. Good job :cool:

Thank you At least someone appreciates them.

[Johnny B]

^He's not alone , we're many who appreciated the subconcious displayment of the severe deficiency in subject matter, but on different levels, one might add.

 

Now comes the " let's talk about God " part , so let us for once together get interested in the following theory of 'the TRUTH of Creationism'.

 

the truth is that Allah Almighty created us, everything around us, everything that existed prior to our existence and everything that will exists after us. We did not evolve from an organism, or an ape, nor will we ever evolve into another species.

You may bring forward ANYTHING that supports that theory of Creationism, and allow us examine it, without telling us that we were molested as children.

 

Fair? .......The floor is yours.

[5]

^ I'm a little confused. Do you want to talk about the notion of God?

 

Creationism carries Christian connotations, so lets strip this discussion of religious connotations, and simply discuss the notion of God, mhmm?

[N.O.R.F]

A few ground rules would be in order Johnny (we all know your track record).

[Johnny B]

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

^ I'm a little confused. Do you want to talk about the notion of God?

 

Creationism carries Christian connotations, so lets strip this discussion of religious connotations, and simply discuss the notion of God, mhmm?

Why this sudden confusion?!

Isen't it too early to hide behind 'connotations ', be they Christian or Islamic?

Ise't islam the LAST holy book of the FOUR in the Abrahamic dynasty? are we sensing a hint of negligence to discuss the very Theory you hold to be (unlike the evolutionary theory) TRUE,namely the Creation Theory ?

 

Let me re-quote you again ,

the truth is that Allah Almighty created us, everything around us,

everything that existed prior to our existence and everything that will exists after us. We did not evolve from an organism, or an ape, nor will we ever evolve into another species.

Given that the 'Allah' you claim to worship that has 'created' us and everything around us ( as is ) is the same Deity that according to the Abrahamic dynasty sent Human messengers with the books, Torah, Injel, Zabur and Furqan, we'll have difficulties ceding legitimacy to a 'connotation' disguise.

 

We ask you to define what is an 'Allah'( an 'Ilaah' if you must ) and how did that 'Allah' "create" us and EVERYTHING around us ?

 

Please present and help us understand the theory you hold to be true.

Thanks you.

 

 

Norf,

Granted that every ground rule will be respected, just as every ground rule was respected regarding other Theories , lest you DEMAND special treatment for your Theory.

[genius pauper.]

Norfsky good notation.for seeing that its worth to shape sidii loo niqaashi lahaa, and that doest mean, A REQUEST FOR SPECIAL TREATMENT WHATSOEVER. as jb puts.

 

horta waa ayaan daro hadaad baadi kadoonto meel eysan kaajirin.

the problem isnt failure to define or present what we hold, as jb puts it.

but the problem is why he(johhny b or jb)has to put the problem elsewhere. imagine if i tell you, i cant see. and you end up saying i told you i dont hear.THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

[Raamsade]

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

Your objective is to change my mind?

People debate/discuss so as to convince others to agree with them or at least have others change their position to something else. So, yes; I am trying to change your mind by persuading you to stop being what Professor Richard Dawkins calls "History Denier."

 

Denying that humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) gradually evolved from ape-like ancestors or that all living organisms evolved from other living organisms is tantamount to denying the existence of Abassid and Ummayad Caliphates. Debating with History Deniers like you is like debating people who deny the historicity of Abassid and Ummayad caliphates irrespective of all the historical artifacts that is adduced.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

I am not interested in what

you

say. I am interested in the Truth, and the truth is that Allah Almighty created us, everything around us, everything that existed prior to our existence and everything that will exists after us.

Stop lying to yourself. You're not interested in the truth, if you did you wouldn’t be Islamic apologist. Your entire agenda in this whole thread is defending your fragile superstitious believes. Sadly, you’re bound by Islamic dogma to believe in logical absurdities, shun reason and be hostile to the truth. Which pretty much establishes why you’re so oftentimes wrong.

 

And Allah isn't competent enough to create a single, unambiguous book that could convince that vast majority of humanity of his instructions and existence. It didn’t take a millisecond before Allah was banishing his own “creation” from heaven to earth after they rebelled. Islamic dogma tells that the Torah and some mythical book called Injeel was originally sent by Allah only to be "corrupted." Allah also sent countless “prophets” to deliver his message, all of them failing. If the world ends today most of humanity (>80%), as per Islamic eschatology, will end up in hell.

 

We would expect better from any competent human creator let alone from omnipotent and omniscient “God.” Given all this, what on earth makes you assert Allah has the competence to create humans or life in general? That's the hubris of the faithful talking.

 

If I were you I'd keep Allah out of this discussion.

 

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

I think you can shed some light as to why evolutionists don't teach school kids that their offsprings may not be be same species as them.

Why would they? That isn’t even true. Evolution is a process not an event. They will never be a scenario where the offspring of one species suddenly (like in one or two generation) becomes another distinct species. That’s not how speciation occurs. Speciation occurs through reproductive isolation, meaning some populations of humans can no longer interbreed and reproduce fertile offspring. Moreover, speciation is a process that takes 10s of thousands of years if not more. So their offspring for the foreseeable future will certainly still be humans.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

You're driving the discussion into humans and chimps.

I'm not driving the discussion anywhere other than where it rightly belongs. We're discussing Evolution Theory and I'll take the discussion wherever the theory leads me to. As the saying goes "when in Rome, do as the Romans do." Well, when discussing Evolution Theory, you discuss what theory postulates not what you like. You're laboring under the illusion that you can decide what is acceptable evidence for Evolution Theory. You can't!

 

Reject the evidence/arguments for evolution that I adduce by all means. Just keep in mind for your rejection to be taken seriously it must be based on the incongruity between what Evolution Theory posits and the data of the natural world.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

A lot of other animals can't synthesize C vitamin, so what?

Actually, the overwhelming majority of animals can synthesize their own Vitamin C. A handful of other animals can't. But the point I was making completely sailed over your head.

 

ALL primates lost the ability to synthesize. The fact all of them can't synthesize their own vitamin C like us, indicates we share an immediate common ancestor with them. Keep in mind that EVOLUTION THEORY postulates that closely related animals should display close similarities. And that includes similarities in biochemistry. Thus, this finding is not only absolutely consistent with Evolution Theory but also predicted. The Quranic Theory of Special Creation can’t explain this fact.

 

Another evidence for evolution from biochemistry is the DNA molecule. All living things use the same molecule to transfer genetic information from generation to another. This is consistent with Evolution Theory but NOT with the Theory of Special Creation. Why would Allah use the same molecule in all organisms if he created every single organism individually?

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

Half-truths, half-truths. The 98% is derived from protein-coding regions that only compromise about 1.5% of the two genomes.

Note that as 2+2=5 is unremittingly confronted with the unassailable evidence for human evolution, she retreats further and further into denials and lame quibbles. The above is case in point. What exactly is she trying to say?

 

Most of our DNA is what is called Junk DNA. A misleading term because it implies that most of our DNA is "junk" or of no use. But in reality parts of that Junk DNA was at one time functional genes that became non-functional due to mutations. The same process can activate those genes back to functional form in the future.

 

2+2=5’s quibble above is complete red herring. No one is talking about functional and non-functional parts of human and ape genome. Instead, it is a comparison of the similarities/differences of human and chimp genome. Gene functionality is completely immaterial. The same functional/non-functional genes would still be present in the genome and is detectable.

 

As I said above, Evolution Theory predicts close anatomical, genetic, biochemistry, biogeography etc similarities in closely related species. The 98% genome similarity chimps and humans share is confirmation of that prediction by Evolution Theory.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

Chromosome 2 looks like two ape chromosomes stuck together.

You need to look again. It is a fusion of two chromosomes as evidenced by the extra telomeres and centromeres.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

What do you think the consequence of having a Robertsonian translocation is?

Yes, I do. What is your point? That chromosomal rearrangements occur? If so, you're wasting your time.

 

You see, there was an opportunity to test Evolution Theory. We know all the other great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes while humans have 23. Therefore, if evolution theory is correct, we should be able to find that extra pair of chromosome somewhere in the human genome. If not then evolution theory is in trouble. Lo and behold we found the extra pair in Chromosome 2. That is the beauty of Evolution theory, it makes testable predictions. What testable predictions does the Quranic theory of Special Creation make? Is there any evidence for any of the Quranic creation myths?

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

Have you looked at your knee lately? How is it similar to a Chimps? I'd like to hear your insight into the evolution of the knee, as "little changes adding up" clearly isn't how it came to be.

Your questions are getting more and more bizarre. Why would you expect human and chimp knee to be similar? Do humans and chimps have the same gait? If not, and they obviously don’t, then why would you honestly expect their knees to be similar? I'm just trying to understand your reasoning.

 

From casual observation, human and chimp bear remarkably close anatomical features. But they’re not identical since they’re two different and somewhat distantly related species. A more apt comparison would be the knee of bipedal hominids and humans.

 

Ever since the ancestor of humans switched the tropical forests of Africa for the fast encroaching savannas, the body of our human ancestors adapted to upright walking. We inherited that modification.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

So? How does this prove A evolved into Homo S, as opposed to them being separate species that existed at different times?

It "proves" human evolution because the process of evolution is gradual one, taking place over millions of years. Thus, temporal relationships of the fossil record are important and should show up in our fossil data. If humans evolved from ape-like ancestors, then the fossil record should show it. And that is exactly what we find. The less human like a fossil looks, the older it is in the geological record. By fossils I mean the probable direct human ancestors like Australopithecus aferensis, Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis or archaic homo sapiens.

 

 

If on the other hand we found archaic homo sapiens side by side with Sahelanthropus tchadensis, then there is a problem with the theory of human evolution. However, if, on the other hand, the Quranic version of history was true, we should find all sorts of interesting fossils like dinosaurs and humans living together. Or if the other Quranic myth of Global Deluge ever occurred, we would find no temporal relationship in the fossil record... just bunch fossils of disparate animals all together in one place.

 

There is a famous challenge made by a renowned scientist that goes “show me a fossil rabbit in Precambrian.” That challenge still stands and to this date no History Denier has been able to find Precambrian fossils of a rabbit. All it takes to discredit evolution is to falsify its biostratigraphy or any other of its predictions.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

 

 

These are dog breeds not different species. Species have exact scientific definition(s). Two populations would be said to be the same species if and only if they can interbreed and reproduce a fertile offspring. Breeds, by this definition, are of the same species. For illustration, donkeys and horses are two different species because their offspring is the sterile mule.

 

In reality, the breeds in your picture are a poodle and a German Shepard. And you know what? They can interbreed and reproduce a fertile offspring. It's called Shepoodle.

 

With that out of the way, are you now prepared to consider the evidence of speciation? I can present countless observed speciation cases not “variation within kind.”

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

Even Richard Dawkins says in his short article Information Challenge (

http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/articles/the-information-challenge/

):

 

"Mutation is not an increase in true information content, rather the reverse"

 

But he continues:

"for mutation, in the Shannon analogy, contributes to increasing the prior uncertainty. But now we come to natural selection, which reduces the ‘prior uncertainty’ and therefore, in Shannon’s sense, contributes information to the gene pool. In every generation, natural selection removes the less successful genes from the gene pool, so the remaining gene pool is a narrower subset."

 

Claude Shannon was an American engineer who developed information theory.

 

Richard Dawkins, in an attempt to answer the question why there are no beneficial mutations (ones which add information) responded by twisting the whole meaning and giving an answer that roughly goes "mutations do add information but in a way that it makes it seem like it loses information".

It is good that this time you provided all of what he said instead of misconstruing his words like you always do with other scientists. If you read what he said in its proper context, he clearly says mutations do add to genetic diversity. What he said in the last part of your quote is perfectly consistent with Evolution because every time there is a new species, genetic information is reduced. The role of mutations, then, is to replenish that loss and add diversity.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

You did not mean what the "overwhelming majority" of scientists accepted, because if you had, you would have said so. Plain & simple.

This is a losing argument, so I suggest you drop it. There is not a single peer-reviewed scientific journal that I'm aware of that is dedicated to debunking/critiquing Evolution Theory. National Academy of Sciences with all its reputable members and associations, including some in Muslim countries like Pakistan and Jordan, agrees with Evolution as a FACT. Evolution Theory is included in the scientific curriculum of most school boards in the developed world, at least the ones run by sane people (secular). All this is conclusive evidence that evolution is bonafide scientific theory and a fact that is virtually accepted by the entire scientific community. Evolution Theory has the same status as Theory of Gravity or Relativity or Cell theory etc. There are no debates/disagreements over the fact of evolution among practicing scientists. Where there is a debate is over details which is the norm in science.

 

The day you provide peer-reviewed scientific journals publishing articles disagreeing with the fact of evolution and the theory is the day I'll start listen to your delusional ravings. Until then you're just another believing History Denier.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

I asked you a simple question [whether there were EVO scientists who rejected the view birds evolved from dinos], which you rejected very firmly ("rubbish") and claimed that the "consensus in scientific community" agreed on it. And to prove you wrong, I gave you 2 examples of scientists who support the evolutionary theory BUT REJECT the birds-evolved-from-dinos view, but NOW you say I misinterpret others, and accuse me of "name-dropping"? You're an effin' retard. Sorry, you really are.

You didn’t prove anything wrong. The overwhelming majority of practicing scientists today accept the evolution of birds from dinosaurs. This can be inferred from the scientific literature and science textbooks. All you did is confirm this fact by providing the exceptions that proves the rule. Two scientists out of thousands is hardly compelling evidence. There are scientists with PhDs from such prestigious universities as Harvard (i.e. Kurt Wise) who believe the earth is flat. Does that mean the earth is actually flat because scientists with PhDs say so? Similarly, did birds evolve from archasaurs or whatever because some scientists with PhDs said so? Science is not about authority.

 

But even IF birds descended from Archosaurs (as Allan Feduccia asserts) as opposed to Dinosaurs (the current consensus among scientists), are you saying you’ll accept Evolution Theory? Because last time I checked all these scientists whose names you keep dropping in this debate are evolutionists. They all support the evolution of all living things from other living things including the evolution of humans from ape-like ancestors. Do you agree with them?

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

So this long time professor of biology at Harvard is wrong, and you're right?

As I said already said, we both agree with each other. We both believe in Evolution Theory and you don’t.

 

In the same book you got you quote from, he also writes this: “Evolution in sexually reproducing organisms consists of genetic changes from generation to generation in populations, from the smallest local deme to the aggregate of interbreeding populations in a biologial species.”

 

And this is what I wrote: “At the most basic level, evolution can be defined as the change in gene or allele frequency of a population over many generations.”

 

These definitions are identical and convey the same thing.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

Anyway, this was only to cement my original claim: "The evolutionary theory isn't even in accordance with itself." Now that is has done it purpose, we can move on.

As my Ernst Mayr quote above demonstrates, Mayr didn’t agree with himself. He gave two contradictory definitions of evolution in the same book. So the problem lies with him, not with science.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

The >>>bit : Show me where. I had asked you for a definition of the evolutionary theory. We were not talking about "more specifically inheritance traits" here. At least I wasn't, in fact this is what I said: "I'll give you another chance. Explain_to_me_what_e volutionary_theory_i s." So where in that was I "more specifically" talking about inheritance traits?

I’ve already given you a number of definitions of biological evolution (not the theory by the way). And you keep pretending that I haven’t defined evolution. Moreover, I say biological evolution because the word evolution is used to describe changes in cultures, languages, religions, ideas, laws etc. What differentiates biological evolution from other evolutions is biological evolution involves change in inheritable traits. If there is no change in inheritable traits or allele frequency, then evolution hasn’t occurred and we’re describing a different phenomenon.

 

So far I’ve provided at least two definitions of evolution. One is what I’m most familiar with; what I learned in school and what is found in almost all modern science text books. That definition is “change in allele/gene frequency from generation to another.” The other is from the National Academy of Sciences “Biological evolution refers to changes in the traits of organisms over multiple generations… Until the development of the science of genetics at the beginning of the 20th century, biologists did not understand the mechanisms responsible for the inheritance of traits from parents to offspring. The study of genetics showed that heritable traits originate from the DNA that is passed from one generation to the next. They are passed on to future generations.”

 

All these definitions are remarkably consistent.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

The fact that its brain was the size of a chimp and it had anatomical features that resembled more closely human, makes it - according to you - a human ancestor.

Yes. But what is your problem with this? Evolution Theory tells us that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors over millions of years. The implication of this is that we should find many fossils that exhibit different brain sizes ranging from the size of apes (our closes primate relative) to modern humans. The older the fossils are, the smaller the brains. And the younger the hominid fossils are, the bigger the brains. This is what Evolution Theory predicts and the evidence supports this prediction.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

In any case, if we applied this same "scientific" method with neanderthals & the floresiensis, we would come to the conclusion that the floresiensis came before the Neanderthals… Therefore your method of is flawed; therefore you have not been able to explain why Australopithecus Afarensis is a human ancestor; and therefore you haven't given me a reason to believe it

This is complete red herring. Homo neandethalensis and floresiensis are not direct human ancestors but side branch species. They “branched” off from our common ancestor at different points in our evolutionary history and went their own way.

 

What I and Evolution Theory are required to show is the gradual evolution of modern humans from ape-like ancestors. The starting point was a creature that looked like modern chimps and had brain size of about 400 cc. By the same token, the end point is modern humans with brain size of 1500 cc. We expect to find in the fossil record intermediate species that have brain sizes in the range of 400-1500 cc and exhibit anatomical features that is in-between humans and chimps. The more modern they are the more human-like they look and the bigger their brains.

 

To be able to assess the fossil record and verify the predictions of evolution theory, however, we must first consult with the right fossil species. Your problem is you keep relying on the side branch species like Neanderthals and floresiensis. I’ve already mentioned in this thread that evolution is not directional and purposeful. There is no reason why, for instance, we can’t have a contemporary species of modern humans like Homo floresiensis that exhibit ape-like features and have small brain. Another contemporary species of humans, Neanderthals, had bigger brains. This doesn’t detract anything from Evolution Theory as these species branched off from our common ancestor and evolved differently then from us. The key determinant of evolution is the environment. Organisms must adapt to their environments.

 

Having said all that, all I need to do to show the scientific method I provided works and that evolution is unassailable fact is to find enough fossils to “fill” the brain size gap (400-1500 cc). Do we have such fossils? I let you be the judge. Here is a near complete fossil species:

 

1. Australopithecus aferensis – brains size about 450 cc (3-2 million years ago or mya)

2. Homo habilis – brain size about 650 cc (2.5-1.5 mya)

3. Homo ergaster – brain size about 775 cc (1.9 mya-800k)

4. Homo erectus – brain size about 1000 cc (1.8mya-300k)

5. Homo heidelbergensis – brain size about 1200 cc (500k-200k)

 

Q.E.D. Modern humans with brains size of 1500 cc evolved from other hominid species.

 

So, once again, deal with the evidence for human evolution.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

Therefore your method of is flawed; therefore you have not been able to explain why Australopithecus Afarensis is a human ancestor; and therefore you haven't given me a reason to believe it.

First, it is not “my” method but one used by practicing scientists far more qualified than you and I. Second, I did explain it (see above) but like the typical creationist, you keep repeating the same old rehashed questions and denials. The case for human evolution from Australopithecus is based on several independent lines of evidence. It is based on biostratigraphy, biogeography, fossils, comparative anatomy etc… all collaborating each other.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

Ah, hindsight. So "irrefutable" and "conclusive" are now words with no fixed meaning. Lets quote Thesaurus:

 

Irrefutable: impossible to deny or disprove.

 

Conclusive: forming an end or termination; especially putting an end to doubt or question; "conclusive proof"; "the evidence is conclusive"

 

You do not use words and then ask the opponent for the meaning of the words. If you do not know or have doubts about the meaning of words, simply don't use them.

I did not ask you for dictionary definitions of irrefutable and conclusive. Instead, I asked for YOUR criteria for irrefutable and conclusive evidence. Tell me the sort of evidence supporting evolution theory that you deem as irrefutable and conclusive. Because, like the typical evolutionists, you’ll probably reject any irrefutable and conclusive evidence I present with the excuse that it is not what you meant.

 

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

So essentially, overestimation is to due with the person forgetting how to use their equipment? Explain "procedural error", please.

Not forget you silly thing. Scientists don’t normally forget how to use their equipment. Experimental error (the correct term) occurs all the time. That is why you include error margins to any recordings. But this is beside the point. Radiometric dating is sound method of dating old things and is collaborated by other dating techniques.

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

Did the first cell have them?

Probably.

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEPC/NIH/gene07.php

 

"Gene mutations can be either inherited from a parent or acquired. A heredity mutation is a mistake that is present in the DNA of virtually all body cells. Hereditary mutations are also called germ-line mutations because the gene change exists in the reproductive cells and can be passed from generation to generation"

 

http://www.medicinenet.com/genetic_disease/article.htm

 

"Most genetic diseases are the direct result of a mutation in one gene".

 

What do you study; Spanish Language and Literature?

I think you’re lost or maybe mistaking me for someone else. I asked for you to provide evidence that attests to your unsubstantiated assertion that most mutations are deleterious.

 

To that end, you provided two completely unrelated quotes. The first merely describes, in general terms, about hereditary mutations (which I already acknowledged) and germ-line cells. But nothing regarding whether most mutations harmful or not (your assertion). The second quote is about genetic diseases which has nothing to do with evolution or even proves that most germ-line mutations are harmful.

 

Now, can we surmise why you CAN’T produce a single authoritative source that supports your claim?

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

Any loss in genetic diversity is replenished by mutations - the source of the diversity in the FIRST place.

 

Wow. I just realized I've spent a significant amount of time for the past couple of months with someone who is either too arrogant or too ignorant.

Your own source – Richard Dawkins quote—proves my case; you did all the leg for me, so I thank you.

 

Each unique individual has about 100,000 new mutations that he/she didn’t inherit from parents. Otherwise we’d all be clones. These mutations are the source of NEW genetic diversity that adds to and replenish the gene pool.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

You always yell Straw man when you can't think of anything to say. It's pathetic. You made a stup1d comment, which you're now effectively trying to run away from.

I yell Straw man because that is what you’re committing. Like the typical creationist, when you can’t address the evidence for evolution, start attacking imaginary positions that evolution theory doesn’t hold. Evolution theory is silent on the origin of the first living thing(s). There is an entire separate discipline called Abiogenesis that deals with the origin of living things.

 

You’re barking up the wrong tree. But you’re hoping we don’t notice you. We do!