Evolution or Creation

Let me get this straight. When I, a Christian Creationist, express my beliefs, I am "cramming it down people's throats."

But when you, a secular evolutionist, express your beliefs, it's just explaining evolution.

A bit unfair, hmm?

And WHAT do you have to say about Darwin denying his theories, and the Coalacynth, and about all the farces and lies behind the "missing link" skeletons. WHERE are all of the fossils that would show a species developing into another species? THEY DON'T EXIST! Before you get all high and mighty on your throne of "I'm right and you are an uneducated peon," please answer these questions.

AND DON'T CRAM YOUR BELIEFS DOWN MY THROAT, KAPISH?

 

ALL of my information on the theory of evolution was well documented, and I got it all from PRO-evolution sites. YOU should be angry at your fellow evolutionists for being so ignorant, for it seems that whatever you say is infallible......

Oh, and my teacher was my literature teacher, so no, she shouldn't be fired.

You type up this huge contradiction to my report, but you leave out my biggest points of evidence against evolution, like the reappearance of Coalacynth, and Darwin's denail of his own theories, and the millions of missing links in the fossil record.

 

"Creationism is based on FAITH, and it proves the FAITH that Creationists believe in to be TRUE by proving the Evolutionary theory (the only "opposite view" theory") FALSE, through scientific process, that as."

One: Evolution is far from the only "opposite view" theory.

Two: With that in mind, see what you can offer in the way of evidence for your own theory.

 

If you read my previous (long) post, you would see the proof.

Snowdog, if YOU want to say that Creationists are using 40 year old material, perhaps it is becuase Evolutionists have to continually change their "theories" because Creationists continue to prove the old ones false. Sooner or later, Evolutionists will cease to come up with new ideas, and they will be beaten by Creationism's theories. If you want to say that Creationism is merely "playing catch up" with evolution, I say that evolution is "running away" from the truths of Creation.

 

Darwin's denial of his own theories was for a variety of reasons. One of them was the fundamental principle of scientific scrutiny. A scientific theory is not presented as fact. Another reason for Darwin's hesitation is the fact that he had no clue about the mechanisms by which evolution occurs... only observational evidence which is now supported by many scientific disciplines, including genetics, which didn't exist in his day. I would also say that he feared, in the face of a glowering Christian community, persecution like that which Galileo faced. I probably would have shut my mouth out of fear for my own life, too.

I'm not cramming my "theory" down anyone's throats... I'm merely refuting your assertions which, according to your own post, weren't well-documented, and are like pinholes in a much larger fabric of science that consists of far more than the few isolated examples which you've presented... each of which I have refuted.

If you want your ideas to be accepted, you have to be prepared, like those who came after Darwin, to face the scrutiny.

Furthermore, in precisely what way does the reappearance of the Coelocanth present itself as the stinger missile to shoot down evolution theory for once and for all? If anything, it's proof once again that you haven't the slightest clue about the non-linear nature of evolution.

EDIT: As for the answers to your other questions about missing links and transitory fossils.... apparently while I've shown respect by reading your entire post, you apparently have not read mine thoroughly. I answered all your questions already in my first response to your blind assertions about evolution theory.

Furthermore, I agree with Darth_Geist, do you have some earth-shattering evidence that directly proves Creationism itself? If you do, please present it here... that would be far more scientific than trying to poke holes at evolution with only half an understanding of it.

 

I think we have a nominee for the Darwin Awards, folks.

If you're going to try to refute a theory, at least try to have the SLIGHTEST concept of what you are talking about.

1. If an animal is born with a mutation that helps it exist in its current ecosystem (which itself is in a state of flux), and is able to flourish (thus passing its genes to future generations) that DOESN'T mean that the "old version" of said animal magically disappears (it may stay the same, evolve along a different, or similar, path... or eventually die out if that path no longer proves to be efficient enough to survive in a changing world).

2. If Coelocanth still exists, it is because that iteration of the species was the best suited for the enviroment it lived (and lives) in... if mutations of the species occured, they died out without any impact on the population. Sharks bear the same form now as they did millions of years ago for that VERY REASON.

3. And by the way, mathematics does support the theory of evolution. It's called Chaos Theory and Self Adaptive Complex Systems (in other words.. like so many of us have stated over and over... evolution is NOT a linear process).

Please try reading a book besides the Bible if you are going to attempt a debate in this thread. Starting with the Origin of Species might be a plan.

 

RC_69: Don't forget, Nobel Laureate John Forbes Nash, Jr.'s Equilibrium Theory for Strategic Noncooperative Games is a mathematical theory with applications in evolutionary science.

His theorem contributes a mathematical basis to natural selection by demonstrating how individuals within a group competing for the same or similar resources will be able to achieve both their individual and collective goals if they focus solely on what is best for themselves, given the actions of the other individuals within that system.

Nash's work has turned enough heads tuned to conventional theory in economics, quantum physics and evolutionary science that it earned him a Nobel Prize. As of yet, I don't know any Creationists who could even begin to argue on the same plane of thought with that man.

 

Yes you did answer the question....in a way.

How is it that all of the fossils that would show how we evolved from different species don't exist? Is it just by chance that these fossils that would link two species together don't exist? Is it just by chance that these species show no dramatic change over time within themselves, or a change that would result in another species?

If you're going to give me the same answer that you gave about crocodiles and turtles not changing drastically over time, then how is evolution PROVED if no fossils show a CHANGE?

Like I said, I believe that Evolution is constantly running away from the truths of Creation. You see it in a way that Creationism is merely playing catch up to Evolution.

I'll admit it- Evolution does have very strong evidence for it. You should see that Creationism has very strong points for it as well. Years after we're gone, Snowdog, scientists will STILL be discussing all of this. Who knows, maybe they'll use our posts here as references.

If someone who hadn't been introduced to either theory suddenly saw this board, they probably would call this discussion a stalemate. That is what this whole discussion is - a stalemate. Both sides refuse to give up, and both sides can repeatedly come up with new evidence to support their theory.

Snowdog, you are much smarter than me in this field, but I don't make fun of you for your beliefs. I would respect you more if you stopped flaming me. I just hope you see that my theory also has its strong points.

...I'm frickin 16 years old! My head hurts, and I have to go to school in about 7 hours . Hopefully my fellow Creationists won't leave me hanging here.





P.S. Whether you or I am right can never be determined 100%. I know what comes after this mortal life, and perhaps, 70 or so years from now, we will both see who had the real, correct answer.....



'nite

-Fat_Fett

 

Yes, SnowDog, I'd appreciate it if you cut out the descrete flaming.


No one goes around flaming you, now do they? Well, none of us Christians anyway. No one tries to belittle your beliefs, much less your intelligence. I see you doing that to every Christian on these boards, every time you get the chance.

 

Fett: How is it that all of the fossils that would show how we evolved from different species don't exist? Is it just by chance that these fossils that would link two species together don't exist? Is it just by chance that these species show no dramatic change over time within themselves, or a change that would result in another species?

Go back and read my post again. There are numerous examples of transitory fossils, which, because of the fossilization process, are extremely difficult to find... but they have been found. I mentioned one of them in my original response to your post, Dromaeosaur.

If you're going to give me the same answer that you gave about crocodiles and turtles not changing drastically over time, then how is evolution PROVED if no fossils show a CHANGE?

Again, evolution isn't linear. Just because some species do not change because nothing forces them into adaptation by natural selection doesn't mean that no species change. Let's take the alligator, for example... if no external environmental factors, such as food, weather, etc., cause its numbers to be reduced... it will continue to thrive and multiply its existing gene set.

However, if external factors put pressure on a species, and some members of that species have mutations within their gene set that have somehow made them better at surviving through changes in their environment.. that species will thrive... but it doesn't always mean that the original species will instantaneously cease to exist everywhere in the world.

Let's put it this way... if an unexpected seasonal change were to wipe out nearly, but not all, the existing African Grey parrots in Africa... would that mean that all the African Greys elsewhere in the world, or those who have managed somehow to migrate, or a few who did survive in remote pockets of South America, instantaneously cease to exist? Of course not. Nor does it mean that all other parrots have ceased to exist.

No scientist has suggested the coelocanth re-evolved from newer fish... its existence has persisted all this time, and was so remote that it wasn't until recently found to be living. What this demonstrates is most likely that a few coelocanths managed to find a remote environment in which to survive, by whatever means, as nature often does persist in this way... and yet there are those coelocanths who carried genetic mutations and thrived in their original environments where other coelocanths had been wiped out. This explains precisely how coelocanths coexist with many other fish species today. Bear in mind, the distance between coelocanth and many other fish is thousands of generations of genetic variation... but just because coelocanth's numbers were reduced doesn't mean they were eliminated, and just because they weren't eliminated doesn't mean that none of them adapted through genetic mutation.

JM_201: Depends on what you consider flaming. So far, mods/admins on the Senate Floor haven't even approached me about it. So apparently they don't consider it flaming.

The problem is that, because you take your beliefs far too personally in this regard, it's hard for you to distinguish when it's your argument I'm throwing darts at, not you.

JM_201, so far, I don't recall telling a single person they'll go to hell or they're damned for eternity if they don't agree with me. Debates are as such... they leave little room for unprepared arguments. If you want me to reword my statements, fine... I'll state it this way: Fett's arguments are poorly constructed, they wouldn't hold their own in any court of scientific opinion, but he's (I'm assuming Fett's a he... but correct me if I'm wrong) a good person.

Don't confuse my defense as being anti-Christian. It's simply anti-ignorance. I'm well aware of the Christian bases for belief, and as a faith, I don't argue against anyone's right to believe in whatever they choose to believe.

Now, this is an Evolution vs. Creation thread, and I do e

 

Fat_Fett:
I am a VERY strict Creationist, and I have it backed by scientific facts....a whole ton of them.

By all means, present scientific facts that might "back up" creationism. Please note that in science a hypothesis must be falsifiable. That is, to be science you must be able to identify potential observations that would, in principle, provide evidence against the hypothesis.

The main thing is, Creation is true and so is Evolution....

One can argue this, but Creation is not science and Evolution is.

but not "evolution" as we know it.

What is evolution "as we know it"?

Things do not evolve into totally different forms, they develop what they already have (organs, etc) to their own environment. The best example I can give of this is: look at us ("us" being the people of the USA) and observe how much oxygen our lungs can contain, and how our bodies use up the oxygen. Now, look at the people of the Himalayan Mountains. Observe how they use the same God-given lungs that we have to use the limited oxygen in their air much more effectively than we ever could. Because these people have lived their for thousands of years, their lungs have addapted [sic].

We must be careful with terminology if we are going to communicate effectively. When you use the word adapted, do you mean that these people have genes that make their lungs more efficient at high altitudes, or do you mean that they have the same genes but their lungs have become more efficient at these altitudes due to their exposure to those conditions?

Now, if some group of people and all of that group's descendants just swam around in the water for all of their lives, they wouldn't develop gills and flippers to more effectively swim. The most they would develop is bigger muscles in the shoulders and legs, so they could swim better.

If some arboreal apes just walked around on the savanna, they would,'t develop a replacement for the spine for standing upright, they would evolve a curve in the spine that they had. Sound familiar? By the way, did you know that you had gill slits during your embryonic development?

I'll explain this all better in my next LLOOONNNNGGGGG post.

I look forward to it.

Peez

 

In regards to Darwin's denying his own theories, if you're referring to the Lady Hope story, in which he supposedly renounces evolution on his deathbed, I'd like to reference TalkOrigins.org:

The Darwin deathbed story is false. And in any case, it is irrelevant. A scientific theory stands or falls according to how well it is supported by the facts, not according to who believes it. See the Lady Hope Story FAQ.

Just my two cents.

 

Fat_Fett:
The Search for Truth: Creationism vs. Evolution

Note that science in general and evolution in particular are not about something so lofty as "Truth." Science is about finding natural explanations for phenomena in the universe by the empirical testing of hypotheses and the development of theories that join these hypotheses in a meaningful manner.

There has been a question that has been continuously asked over the last 150 years: "What is the answer to the origin all of things- Creation or evolution?" My answer to this question is that everything we see and cannot see was made by the Creator, known as God. In my essay I will reveal amazing true facts that prove the theory of evolution to be completely false. I will start by pointing out the main ideas of each theory.

We had better get a few things clear right off. First, Darwin's theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe, nor even the origin of life. It is about what happens to life once you have it. Second, biologists who actually study the origin of species have not seriously questioned the validity of the common descent of species on the planet, nor the theory of evolution. Only those with social and religious agendas have continued to dogmatically question these things, usually out of ignorance. Third, there are many people who accept that humans (and other organisms) have evolved from ancestors who were quite different, and also accept that one or more gods created the universe and even created life. Some believe that evolution is how god(s) worked. Many of these people are Christians.

According to the theory of evolution, the universe was once a small, subatomic particle. Suddenly, rapid motions occurred in the particle hundreds of billions of years ago, causing it to expand very rapidly. This "Big Bang" theory allegedly explains the beginnings of the universe. After the explosions, particles gathered at random to form chance objects (Emporium Int). The chance objects formed include the stars, the planets, and all other universal phenomena. The Earth was one of these planets, and was at first uninhabitable and a hostile environment.

You are wrong right from the start. The theory of evolution is a biological theory, and has nothing to do with the origin of the universe, that falls into the study of physics (by the way, you have the "Big Bang" theory wrong anyhow, but you should discuss that with someone who knows more about physics).

According to the theory, the Earth was covered in a "Primordial Soup," out of which came the first cell.

No, this is abiogenesis, not evolution, and it has more to do with chemistry than biology (though it is at least on the edge of biology). Of course, you still have it wrong. Could you provide a reference for this idea that the earth was covered in a "Primordial Soup" (a popular idea, but not one that I have ever heard a scientist propose). The earth was certainly very different from what it is today, and there were chemical reactions going on in various places across the globe. Some of those reactions involved molecules that acted as enzymes (chemicals that cause certain reactions). Some of those enzymes caused reactions that produced more of the same enzyme. These self-replication enzymes, perhaps RNA (RNA forms naturally due to the chemical properties of matter) were subject to natural selection: the best replicators became more common as the poorer replicators were out-competed for resources. Because these replicators were not perfect, they often produced changed versions of themselves. These changed versions were often very similar and performed the same, but many were worse and disappeared shortly, and a few were better and tended to replicate faster and eventually take over. Some of these replicators found themselves in a phospholipid sack (which forms naturally due to the chemical properties of phospholipids). Thus you have a cell: genetic materi

 

Fat_Fett:
Oh, I got an A.... everything that I proved wrong in my paper was in my opponents paper, who couldn't find anything to say to defend evolution after I had given my report. He was left speechless.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Your post is not to badly written, in as far as use of the English language, but it does not merit a passing grade in terms of research, understanding, or logic. Sad, really.

Creationism is based on FAITH, and it proves the FAITH that Creationists believe in to be TRUE by proving the Evolutionary theory (the only "opposite view" theory") FALSE, through scientific process, that as.

You are so wrong.

If creationism is based on faith, then there is no proof (if it was proved, faith would not be required). Evolution is not the only alternate view, but evolution is the only scientific view. This doesn't make it true, of course, but keep in mind that creationism is not science (you said it yourself: it is based on faith). Even creationism is not just one hypothesis, as there are many non-Christian creationists. Even if creationism was one hypothesis, and that we did not have any other hypotheses (hey, aliens could have created us!), this still does not prove your particular creationism, it merely would mean that we had no viable alternative. Even ignoring the facts, your argument makes no sense.

Peez

 

Fat_Fett:
Let me get this straight. When I, a Christian Creationist, express my beliefs, I am "cramming it down people's throats."

But when you, a secular evolutionist, express your beliefs, it's just explaining evolution.

A bit unfair, hmm?

People who accept that we have evolved (is that what you mean by an "evolutionist"?), whether Christian or Hindu or atheist, are not necessarily "cramming it down people's throats" any more than creationists are. If you wish to believe that the Invisible Pink Unicorn created the universe on 3 March 1938, I would be saddened but it is your business. On the other hand, if you try to teach people the lie that creationism is science, I object strenuously. Such libel should not go unchallenged.[/b][/blockquote]And WHAT do you have to say about Darwin denying his theories, and the Coalacynth [sic], and about all the farces and lies behind the "missing link" skeletons. WHERE are all of the fossils that would show a species developing into another species? THEY DON'T EXIST! Before you get all high and mighty on your throne of "I'm right and you are an uneducated peon," please answer these questions.[/b][/blockquote]Calm down. First, are you claiming that Darwin changed his mind and "denied" his theory of evolution? First, you should explain why we should care what Darwin thought. Then you should provide evidence that he did, indeed, do this. Next, what about the coelacanth? It poses no problems for evolution that I know of. As for the "farces and lies" surrounding the "missing links," please see my other post on that subject. As for where all those fossils are, just go to a good museum. Just because you have not seen them, and don't want them to exist, does not mean that they do not exist.

AND DON'T CRAM YOUR BELIEFS DOWN MY THROAT, KAPISH?

No need to yell, I am not trying to ram anything down your throat.

Peez

 

Fat_Fett:
ALL of my information on the theory of evolution was well documented, and I got it all from PRO-evolution sites.

Such as... ?

YOU should be angry at your fellow evolutionists for being so ignorant, for it seems that whatever you say is infallible......

Oh, and my teacher was my literature teacher, so no, she shouldn't be fired.

That would explain a lot. She obviously knows about literature and not about evolution.

\You type up this huge contradiction to my report, but you leave out my biggest points of evidence against evolution, like the reappearance of Coalacynth, and Darwin's denail [sic] of his own theories, and the millions of missing links in the fossil record.

There is nothing in evolutionary theory that insists that the coelacanth must evolve (though it has, living coelacanths are different from fossil ones), and there is nothing that requires that all living species be represented by observed fossils. There is no problem there. As for Darwin, I have yet to see evidence that he changed his mind, but that is irrelevant. Evolution rests on evidence, not the opinion of a man 150 years ago. We know far more about evolution than he did, and we still accept it. If those are your "biggest points," you are in trouble.

Peez

 

Fat_Fett:
How is it that all of the fossils that would show how we evolved from different species don't exist?

Why do you state that they do not exist?

Is it just by chance that these fossils that would link two species together don't exist?

They do exist, in fact thousands do.

Is it just by chance that these species show no dramatic change over time within themselves, or a change that would result in another species?

What do you mean by "change within themselves"? There are many examples of changes accumulating over millions of years.

If you're going to give me the same answer that you gave about crocodiles and turtles not changing drastically over time, then how is evolution PROVED if no fossils show a CHANGE?

Evolution has produced changes in some populations and not (visibly) in others, that is not a problem. But once again, your ignorance of science is showing: evolution has not been proved. No scientist that I know would say that anything has been proved (with the possible exception of personal existence). In science, nothing is ever proved. Nothing. Ever. In science, we try to disprove things. If something cannot be disproved in principal, then it is not science. Scientists have been trying to disprove evolution for over 100 years, and despite thousands of attempts have failed completely. Thus, we consider the common descent of living things to be a "fact," because it is as close to certainty as we can get.

Like I said, I believe that Evolution is constantly running away from the truths of Creation. You see it in a way that Creationism is merely playing catch up to Evolution.

At one time, virtually all Christians believed that god created all living species as they are. It was tough to change people's minds, but as more and more evidence came to light, scientists found it impossible to deny that we had evolved.

I'll admit it- Evolution does have very strong evidence for it. You should see that Creationism has very strong points for it as well.

Such as... ?

Years after we're gone, Snowdog, scientists will STILL be discussing all of this.

Scientists are not discussing it, except as a political issue. There is no debate in science on whether or not we evolved from non-humans.

Who knows, maybe they'll use our posts here as references.

If someone who hadn't been introduced to either theory suddenly saw this board, they probably would call this discussion a stalemate.

I wouldn't count on it.

That is what this whole discussion is - a stalemate. Both sides refuse to give up, and both sides can repeatedly come up with new evidence to support their theory.

Evolution is science, creationism is not. The only debate here is political and social.

Snowdog, you are much smarter than me in this field, but I don't make fun of you for your beliefs. I would respect you more if you stopped flaming me. I just hope you see that my theory also has its strong points.

...I'm frickin 16 years old! My head hurts, and I have to go to school in about 7 hours . Hopefully my fellow Creationists won't leave me hanging here.

The complexity of this issue can be overwhelming, but I urge you to challenge yourself: do not be satisfied with creationist sources. If you are right, reading up on the science of evolution cannot harm you. Try "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins (he is a bit of a rabid atheist, but he explains evolution very well).

P.S. Whether you or I am right can never be determined 100%. I know what comes after this mortal life, and perhaps, 70 or so years from now, we will both see who had the real, correct answer.....

I agree that nothing can be proved absolutely, that is certainly part of the scientific approach. One last thought: why do you think that someone who as actuall

 

Evolution is science, creationism is not.

Define science, and tell me why you don't consider creationism a science. In my opinion it is a science but your bias makes you disregard creationism.

First tell me why one can be considered science and the other can't.

 

Whee, lemme steal Snowdog's definition for a sec:

(1) It is guided by natural law;
(2) It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
(3) It is testable against the empirical world;
(4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
(5) Its is falsifiable.

 

R2D2PENA: You know very well that we've posted the primary requirements of scientific process repeatedly on this thread... if you still need to look at it again, go back to the last page. I put it in my first response to Fat_Fett's post.

I don't know how it could be spelled out more clearly... but if anyone cares to indulge PENA here with a better explanation, please do.

EDIT: There you go... 1stAD made it easy for you... right above this post. Thanks AD.

 

Fine then since creationISM is a theory, then why can it not be a science just as evolution is. I have seen documents by people who have alot of evidence to support the creation theory, then why can't it be considered a science.

 

Gee, I type but one one reads (mostly anyways). Let's try this in bold:

(1) It is guided by natural law;
(2) It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
(3) It is testable against the empirical world;
(4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
(5) Its is falsifiable.

1)A deity magically creating the world isn't exactly a natural law sort of theory.
2)See #1
3)Can't test the events in Genesis, can we?
4)The Word of God is Truth. Whoops, failed this test, didn't we?
5)See #4

 

I have seen documents by people who have alot of evidence to support the creation theory, then why can't it be considered a science.

Is one of these people Dr. Duane Gish, by any chance?

A lot of documents by people who claim to have a lot of evidence to support creation theory doesn't necessarily mean it meets the criteria of a scientific theory.

I can theorize that the universe was brought into existence by a demon who looks ominously like Carrot Top and sneezed the galaxies out his nose... that doesn't make it a scientific theory.

"A lot of documents" alone doesn't constitute valid research... Many Creationists, including our wonderful Creation spokesfriend Dr. Gish, love to throw together random references to evolution theory and call these sound bites "documentation".

Ultimately, for all their conjecture, they remove the statements out of the context of the repeated observations which have been scrutinized and they have not once actually presented any forensic evidence in support of creation itself... such as perhaps maybe a fossilized angel, Noah's dental records, or comparative analysis between God's, Adam's and our DNA.

EDIT: To take scientific snippets out of context and paste them together without understanding the context of the data, and irrationally forming correlations upon these collages of unrelated findings is one of the biggest NO-NOs in science. Take into account the control, variables, sample populations, intervals, samples taken, and other factors which have been carefully isolated and controlled to eliminate the myriad unobservable influences that could render the results invalid as to the hypothesis being tested. By this I mean that without producing the hypothesized cause-effect relation within such a controlled environment, one cannot reach a statistically-significant level of certainty as to the precise cause of the observed effect. In this sense, Creation Science is anything but scientific.

Also, by your statement, seeing a lot of documents by people who claim to have evidence... that would suggest these people refer to the so-called evidence in documents they wrote up, but then you've never actually seen the documentation/evidence to which their hypotheticals refer. It's sort of like me saying that I have a friend who's a friend of a friend who heard from Darth Vader that the force does exist... without actually any cogent understanding or knowledge of the specific basis upon which Darth Vader, albeit a fictional character himself, constructed his theory about the force's existence.

I've seen a lot of documents by people claiming that they have evidence that UFOs from outer space have been here... though few of them have actually shown this evidence, only talked about it... and even fewer have shown evidence which ultimately, in all cases, has been disproven by simple, logical, scientific deductive analysis of empirical, observable data.

The boogeyman exists... I have proof locked away somewhere in a bunker 600 feet below the earth's surface... just south of Never Never Land, nearby Lollipop Lane where the pink elephants and magical gumdrop fairies roam freely... PROVE ME WRONG!

...I bet you've never even been to Never Never Land.

 

OK, we have Darwin, and we have Mendel. Two men working at roughly the same time. One describes evolution; one begins the study of genetics. Darwin gets his theroy by looking at birds and describing how their genetics changed to better suit the environment. He simply reasons this out because he cannot observe such a process. Mendel looks at how traits are passed down causing variations in things like plants.

Now in Mendel's work, red and white flowers were crossbred to create pink ones. Are the pink flowers on an evolutionary rung above the red and white ones? No. The genetic traits were passed according to observable patterns.

All of this comes to one point: Gene pools allow for plants and animals to diverge or converge BUT they do not gain information. The pink flowers did not gain a 'pink' gene, they had white and red - previously existing traits.

The birds that Darwin observed were on an island where there was an isolated gene pool. The finches he observed were recombinations of existing finch DNA, not some evolved form of Finch.

Lindsley & Grell found something interesting. In 1910, the first mutation was discovered in bred fruit flies. Since then, only 3,000 mutations have been found. All have either had no effect on the fruit fly or have been harmful to it. None of these mutations involved the sudden adding of genetic material. DNA strands did not suddenly gain the information to create the fly equivalent of Broca's Area in the brain. The implication is clear: mutation does not result in evolution.

So my challenge is this. If someone wants to begin to convince me that evolution rather than genetics is responsible, then show me where a mutation has resulted in the addition of genetic information that was not previously present in a species' genetics.

BTW, creationism is a science because it uses a model based on the idea of creation to make observable and testable predictions. Creationism is NOT about proving that God created the universe. If one wants to knock it, fine by me. But at least get the facts strait about what it is that is being "evaluated".

 

...again with the comparisons to scientific methods over 100 years old...

Maybe the reason you reach back into science 100 years ago is because you haven't the slightest clue how to combat the most current knowledge base on evolution and astrobiology.

So far I haven't seen you explain away my information on interstellar cell membrane and amino acid formation, or macrobiology/hox genes, or the presence of chlorophyll on Mars... but you've sure got me beat when it comes to dusting off those 100-year old science textbooks.

Come on... what do you take me for? An idiot? Are you really going to expect me to take seriously a guy who hasn't the slightest clue of the advances even Mendel and Darwin couldn't have imagined.

All of this comes to one point: Gene pools allow for plants and animals to diverge or converge BUT they do not gain information. The pink flowers did not gain a 'pink' gene, they had white and red - previously existing traits.

Really? Did Mendel have any means to actually look at the chromosomes and gene sequences? Whether he did or not isn't the point... the point is he couldn't. You're arguing against experiments done at a time when the basic mechanism of evolution was barely understood. Furthermore, did Mendel look at the genotypes of hermaphrodites? If he did, he might have noticed some of them contain an extra chromosome. Klinefelter syndrome is just one particular example of how extra chromosomes can occur through mutations.

Lindsley & Grell found something interesting. In 1910, the first mutation was discovered in bred fruit flies. Since then, only 3,000 mutations have been found. All have either had no effect on the fruit fly or have been harmful to it. None of these mutations involved the sudden adding of genetic material. DNA strands did not suddenly gain the information to create the fly equivalent of Broca's Area in the brain.

Funny you should mention this... the UCSD studies on Hox genes that were conducted this year... not a century ago... used fruit flies to prove their point that master Hox genes control numerous other developmental factors and lead to the macroevolutionary changes that Darwin, Mendel and your friends from the early 20th century could have never observed. Of course at that time I bet people would have laughed at the idea of Penicillin, too. Should I start debating the virtues of Creationism by talking about the idiocy of the flat-earth theory, the usage of bloodletting and lobotomy as "cures" for physical ailments found later to be bacteriological, viral and hereditary. How about the cases of "possession" that ultimately seem to fit precisely, by no exaggerated coincidence, with all the physiological symptoms of epilepsy. Certainly if I argued against Creationism with ancient evidence, you'd be all over me for claiming on that basis that creation is the dumbest idea since Jesus Christ.

The implication is clear: mutation does not result in evolution.

False. See above. Hox genes have been triggered on/off to create macroevolutionary changes in living organisms... your friends the fruit flies, ironically. In that study by UCSD, the triggering and swapping of Hox genes between pigs and, our friends, the fruit flies... showed how vastly different organisms contain the same basic sets that trigger developmental phases that are controlled by hundreds, perhaps thousands of genes... in this case, eye development. The purpose of the study was to prove that macroevolution happens because one Hox gene can affect major physiological changes within even a single generation... a phenomenon that the Creationists have long argued is impossible. Again, this was demonstrated with living organisms.

So my challenge is this. If someone wants to begin to convince me that evolution rather than genetics is responsible, then show me where a mutation has resulted in the addition of genetic information that was not previously present in a species' genetics.

Again, Klinefelter Syndrome... which produc