Questions for Evolutionists

[BigBallinStalin]

Make a thread, and we'll use some informal rules. E.g. whenever a creationist barges in and spouts off his uninformed opinion, we'll simply direct him to this read, then ignore him while patiently reading the evolutionists explain whatever topic you've brought up.

[universalchiro]

Player wrote: "Carbon dating has been verified, is verified with other verified methods. There is absolutely a large error rate, but no... the idea is not incorrect. It has been proven, within the bounds of its limitations. "

Carbon dating has been verified to be widely inaccurate... Radioactive Isotopes dating is the was to more accurately determine the age of an item... That's what is used.


One basic problem with evolution is the exclusivity of kinds on earth. Take Humans for instance: Unfortunately sex with animals has occurred through out the millenniums. But why don't we see half human, half sheep? or any other breed on animal that mankind has had sex with? Because there is a seal on the egg of the female human. This coating on the female egg, must be dissolved for fertilization to occur. There is only one creature on earth that has the enzyme to dissolve this protective coating and fertilize the egg. You guessed it... Man.

Why is man the only creature on earth that is equipped with the specific enzyme at the tip of the spermatazoa to dissolve the female egg?
Because when we right a book, we copyright the book to protect what we wrote.
When we paint something, we sign it to protect what we made.
When we invent something, we patent it to protect what we created.

When God made mankind, He created us in His image. Genesis 1:26. To protect this creation from cross contamination, God sealed it with this design. Why? Because God is the same yesterday, today and forever (Hebrews 13:8). And God made mankind in His image, He wanted to keep mankind in His image. That is why mankind is sealed, protect.

Even Jeff Goldbloom the scientist of chaos in Jurassic Park, when he found out the they created all female dinosaurs to control the species, Jeff got made and said, you can't box nature in, she will find a way.

Evolution can't be boxed in. Evolution wouldn't, couldn't allow one kind of creature on earth to have the only enzyme for fertilization the same kind. Evolution requires experiments, cross breeding, change, etc.

Humans are not the only kind on earth that has this exclusivity...
All grass has it,
All plants have it,
All trees have it,
All dogs
All cats,
etc

Source of information: Self. Since I am a doctor.

[crispybits]

Are you a medical doctor? Because saying "evolution requires cross-breeding" is so patently absurd I'd quite like to know which hospital/practice you work at so that I can avoid it like the plague should I ever fall ill in Texas.

Evolution is a system whereby mutations within species propogate and if those mutations are beneficial to survival and increased viable population size they will likely be slowly bred into the main population. It has precisely NOTHING to do with cross-breeding.....

[Neoteny]

Chiropractic, according to his profile, in case you feel that information is pertinent.

[Neoteny]

I'm familiar with the theory of evolution, I've actually read a couple of good books on it but I would like as a manner of experiment to start a thread in order for those who really know about it, to explain the cornerstones of the theory, I mean the fossils and timelines and all.

I was about to start it but I declined in the idea because I'm not going to start another thread like these. I've actually would like a discussion on specific fossils and why do they point out directly to the veracity on the evolution model.

Do you think such a thread has a future or it will end up like all the religion vs evolution threads?

I would try to participate, probably.

[Timminz]

Chiropractic, according to his profile, in case you feel that information is pertinent.

A chiropractor with a PHD?

[DoomYoshi]

I think he means that if we descended from a common ancestor we would expect that recently evolved species could interbreed.

Which we do see. Corn and that teosinte can interbreed; domestic dogs, coyotes, wolves and even dingos can interbreed. Milk snakes (Lampropeltis s.) can breed with rat snakes (Pantherophis s.) and they can breed with Gopher snakes (Pituophis s.). All the combinations I just described have viable offspring, but of course there are many examples of non-viable offspring like mules and such.

I would like to solidify my arguments with a great quote of Jeff Goldblum, preferably from the Fly, but meh.

Because saying "evolution requires cross-breeding" is so patently absurd I'd quite like to know which hospital/practice you work at so that I can avoid it like the plague should I ever fall ill in Texas.

This.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

*sigh* Another one comes out from the ether.

-TG

[Viceroy63]

The argument for cross breeding not being viable for the creation of new species, is an excellent example of how evolution can not occur. In every case of cross breeding the subject is born sterile or with in a generation or two. This is Gods (natures) way of insuring the quality of the kind. In the case of the Liger at least, they are born sterile, unable to reproduce. If the theory of evolution was in any way true then why can't the Liger's reproduce and become it's own new species or intermediary species on the planet?

Because evolution can't happen. Life does not evolved from lower life forms to produce better species or kinds of creatures. The Liger is an excellent example of that!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zOWYj59BXI

[Neoteny]

Ensatina salamanders.

[crispybits]

Oh for gods sake (pun intended) - I'll say it again and I'll try and speak slowly so you can understand

C r o s s - b r e e d i n g - h a s - n o t h i n g - t o - d o - w i t h - e v o l u t i o n !

E v o l u t i o n - d o e s - n o t - r e q u i r e - c r o s s - b r e e d i n g - t o - w o r k !

[Lootifer]

Infertility of hybrids simply means that neo-darwinian theory has slight limitations. It does not, however, mean the entire theory/science is a lie.

For example, the stabilization theory is an alternative to the neo-darwinian theory. This theory looks to explain the weaknesses in the N-D theory while still very much an "evolution" lie as you would call it.

Note Dr McCarthy could be completely full of poop, I havent dug too far, but so far his studies seem ok.

[comic boy]

The argument for cross breeding not being viable for the creation of new species, is an excellent example of how evolution can not occur. In every case of cross breeding the subject is born sterile or with in a generation or two. This is Gods (natures) way of insuring the quality of the kind. In the case of the Liger at least, they are born sterile, unable to reproduce. If the theory of evolution was in any way true then why can't the Liger's reproduce and become it's own new species or intermediary species on the planet?

Because evolution can't happen. Life does not evolved from lower life forms to produce better species or kinds of creatures. The Liger is an excellent example of that!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zOWYj59BXI

Yes but cross breeding is yet another Red Herring , why do you love these so much , did somebody tell you they were God's favourite fishy snack ? Is there no end to the lengths you will go to feed your delusions , would you not like to retain just a tiny scrap of personal integrity ?

[Neoteny]

I would like to solidify my arguments with a great quote of Jeff Goldblum, preferably from the Fly, but meh.

A fly... got into the... transmitter pod with me that first time, when I was alone. The computer... got confused - there weren't supposed to be two separate genetic patterns - and it decided to... uhh... splice us together. It mated us, me and the fly. We hadn't even been properly introduced.

[DoomYoshi]

I would like to solidify my arguments with a great quote of Jeff Goldblum, preferably from the Fly, but meh.

A fly... got into the... transmitter pod with me that first time, when I was alone. The computer... got confused - there weren't supposed to be two separate genetic patterns - and it decided to... uhh... splice us together. It mated us, me and the fly. We hadn't even been properly introduced.

Brilliant! Bravo!

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Infertility of hybrids simply means that neo-darwinian theory has slight limitations.

It doesn't even mean that. The only thing that limits the cross-breeding of different species are various mechanical or hormonal actions. For instance, mules are mostly sterile because horses have 64 chromosomes and donkeys have 62; the resulting mule has 63. In some other novel pairing of species, the fetus will most likely die because the hormones of the mother and the gestation are incompatible with the fetus, or the development of that hybrid leads to antagonizing physiological actions.

-TG

[universalchiro]

The whole foundation of Evolution needs and requires time. And lots of it.
To determine the age of the earth, this is done most accurately via radioactive Isotopes. An algorithmic calculation is used. For example:
# PB ions / # PO ions X Constant Rate of Decay = Life of the item being tested.

So where's the problem?

Has the rate of decay always been accurate?
Can Mankind accelerate the rate of decay?
Can Nature accelerate the rate of decay?
Let's find out.
Petrified trees are said to take 500,000 years to form. Yet Mount Saint Helen erupted in 1980. And has produced petrified trees. Ooops
Coal is said to take 20 million years to form. Yet, If I take a piece of wood, in a tube, add trace elements of clay and water, seal it in a vacuum, bake it at 150 degrees Celsius for 8 months; Presto... that piece of wood is now 100% coal. That newly formed coal, when tested by scientist to determine it's age, wow, you guessed it. They determine it's 20 million years old.

So since Nature is able to accelerate the aging process, and mankind is able to accelerate the aging process. Then the rate of decay has not always been constant. And life on earth is indeed much younger than evolution is theorizing.

[Timminz]

*logarithmic



I was curious about that laboratory created coal, so I googled it. Can anyone guess what the top hit was?

It was Creation Worldview Ministries. I've never heard of this group before, but I might suggest that they're not exactly impartial.


The only other reference to actually being able to create coal in a lab, was a link to Conservapedia, where their source was, you might have guessed it, Creation Ministries International.

[DoomYoshi]

Neither petrified trees nor coal are radioactive isotopes, so I'm not sure what your point is...

[tzor]

Let us, for a moment, forget about carbon, or evolution or life. I will begin the argument with a question; Does God Lie? I must assume not only does He not lie; He cannot lie; because deception is from the evil one. Therefore I present to you the ground under your feet. We know the movement of the continents; we can measure them accurately these days by satellite.

The movement of plates has caused the formation and break-up of continents over time, including occasional formation of a supercontinent that contains most or all of the continents. The supercontinent Columbia or Nuna formed during a period of 2,000 to 1,800 million years ago and broke up about 1,500 to 1,300 million years ago.[63] The supercontinent Rodinia is thought to have formed about 1 billion years ago and to have embodied most or all of Earth's continents, and broken up into eight continents around 600 million years ago. The eight continents later re-assembled into another supercontinent called Pangaea; Pangaea broke up into Laurasia (which became North America and Eurasia) and Gondwana (which became the remaining continents).

[TA1LGUNN3R]

The whole foundation of Evolution needs and requires time. And lots of it.
To determine the age of the earth, this is done most accurately via radioactive Isotopes. An algorithmic calculation is used. For example:
# PB ions / # PO ions X Constant Rate of Decay = Life of the item being tested.

So where's the problem?

Has the rate of decay always been accurate?
Can Mankind accelerate the rate of decay?
Can Nature accelerate the rate of decay?
Let's find out.
Petrified trees are said to take 500,000 years to form. Yet Mount Saint Helen erupted in 1980. And has produced petrified trees. Ooops
Coal is said to take 20 million years to form. Yet, If I take a piece of wood, in a tube, add trace elements of clay and water, seal it in a vacuum, bake it at 150 degrees Celsius for 8 months; Presto... that piece of wood is now 100% coal. That newly formed coal, when tested by scientist to determine it's age, wow, you guessed it. They determine it's 20 million years old.

So since Nature is able to accelerate the aging process, and mankind is able to accelerate the aging process. Then the rate of decay has not always been constant. And life on earth is indeed much younger than evolution is theorizing.

Don't you guys ever get tired of this argument? Dating techniques have never claimed to be accurate within even tens of thousands of years. There's a margin of error of a few percent, which, on a time scale of millions, is quite large.

It's almost like you've never studied physics, or chemistry, or biology, or basically anything pertinent. Go figure.

-TG

[crispybits]

I think the issue comes down to one of understanding scientific credibility for the most part.

Creationist groups will present findings that look a lot like science, but have fundamental flaws. For example the coal thing just discussed, it may well be true that you can bake wood at 150C in clay and water and get coal out the other end, and that maybe this coal would confuse some forms of radioactive dating into giving false results. However, can we actually see, short of areas of high volcanic activity (which also tend not to have too much clay and water in the soil) nowhere on earth do natural temperaures actually reach 150C. So while part of the science is maybe accurate, the conclusion drawn doesn't match reality because every piece of natural coal would have to have been formed next to a volcano to make the earth young. Just one coal bed far away from areas of high natural temperatures causes the problem of having to go back to the "God made it in situ" argument, which is superfluous as we can show the chemistry for how coal developed over a long period.

I'm willing to take scientific findings published by reputable scientific organisations on face value, because those institutions have repeatedly proved that they're not just "making it up" but they provide detailed workings and draw only the conclusions that it is possible to draw from whatever data they have collected. When one of them over-extends in this regard there's many, many others who will pull them back during the peer review process, and what ends up being accepted mainstream science is the stuff that sticks despite hundreds of others trying to prove it wrong.

By contrast, I'm not willing to take creationist group's findings at face value. That's not to say I will call them wrong because of who they are, but I will want to examine the evidence, the base assumptions and the conclusion carefully, and critically I will look to do a kind of personal peer review, comparing what they are claiming to what heavily reviewed mainstream science says. Not only do they not get papers citing a young earth accepted by mainstream science because these papers obviously have errors and flaws that are pointed out quite clearly, often they don't even bother with that and just publish their own books and websites claiming their flawed science as the ultimate truth.

It seems to me that many creationists just don't understand either the process of review against known science or which people/organisations it's generally safe to take at face value, and which to look at the claims of carefully because they have never established any scientific credibility. If I pick up findings published by Oxford University or Yale or Harvard or somewhere like that then I can be reasonably sure that it has had many scientists far more qualified than me trying to poke holes in every part of the assumptions, data gathering, conclusions, etc. If I pick up a pseudo-scientific religious publication I cannot be at all sure they have gone through that process, and almost invariably when I examine the science (as with the coal example above) I find that it has massive holes in it that even a lay scientist could drive a bus through.

[Viceroy63]

*logarithmic



I was curious about that laboratory created coal, so I googled it. Can anyone guess what the top hit was?

It was Creation Worldview Ministries. I've never heard of this group before, but I might suggest that they're not exactly impartial.


The only other reference to actually being able to create coal in a lab, was a link to Conservapedia, where their source was, you might have guessed it, Creation Ministries International.

Towards the end of World War II, the Germans were on the verge of incredible discoveries and inventions. Planes that could fly at super sonic speeds. Missiles that can deliver bombs to nations across the Atlantic Ocean and to any part of the world for that matter. Bombs that could lay waste of whole cities with a single explosion and Submarines that would only need to surface for the loading up of solid food substances. These submarines would take the oxygen that they need directly from the water and the left over hydrogen gas would be more than enough to power the submarines' hydrogen engines.

Needless to say that this technology conveniently disappeared to a world ruled by Oil tycoons and banking barons. Only now when humanity is at the ends of it's ropes does this technology resurface to the fore front of science and technology in hopes of resolving our current energy crisis. A crisis which I might add was created by greedy corporations willing to do anything for the almighty dollar. Including the suppression and hiding of technologies that would benefit all of mankind!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ljhGUia9Yk

Through out history we see this same pattern repeated over and over again where the good of the many is sacrificed for the financial benefit of a few. Turner and his car was an excellent example of this. The creation of the modern car was some 30 or 40 years ahead of it's time and the big 3, Ford, GM and Chrysler, were not able to keep up with the possibility that this car would change everything. So they stole his ideas and his patents and I believed even had the guy killed. But the point is that the car was suppressed and never heard of again. The Big 3 went on to rake in the billions of dollars in profits based on the ideas of a nameless inventor.

But some would rather believe that it is the "CMI" (Creation Ministries International) who are the one's with out scruples. Go figure?

http://www.trutv.com/conspiracy/in-the- ... y.all.html

The same thing has happened with the discovery that Coal can be artificially created in a laboratory. It's just common sense because if this is true then an entire industry is put out of work and thousands (Thanks for the correction stranger) are left unemployed and in need of finding new careers. But the ones who really lose out are those few owners and captains of industries who dig the coal out of the earth and have an invested interest in continuing to do so.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PILlP_yDZ2o

Unlike the diamond industry which was also once believed to be unreproducible except by millions of Years of pressure and heat, the coal industry is not a luxury but a necessity for the heating of peoples homes so the people would have to pay if they want power. Now we know that Power is actually one of the most if not the cheapest commodity in existence. So why do the light bills still come so high?

The fact is that making "artificial" coal is a process that has been with us since the great depression. Even Before Nazi Germany Ingenuity. So how come we don't hear about this? Could it be that these damn religious nuts like "CMI" are to blame for concealing the matter in the first place?

The following can be read at...
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ed006p64
Journal of Chemical Education, 1929

[Bones2484]

Whenever I see a thread like this my main confusion is why creationists seem to use the argument of "stuff can't come from nothing" yet have absolutely no problem believing their creator came from nothing.

[jonesthecurl]

"Billions of people" in the coal industry? That makes at least 25% of the human race.
And I'm not sure how turning wood into coal would solve anybody's resource problems.
Oh and have you heard of charcoal?