I believe in the possibility of evolution for a time in the world that then existed (before Adam).

But since Adam, over six thousand years, there has been no evolution.

There are facts: fossils of homo-erectus (ape-men), dinnisoars, cities etc. which go a long way to prove the existence of life on earth millions of years ago ( whereas man has been on earth according to the bible, since Adam, for about six thousand years).

The bible does not deny or contradict the evolution theory.

But present day man and earth did not come as a result of evolution.

He spoke His Word and the earth was recreated.

He created man in his image and formed him form the dust of the earth.

nferyn:

xkape,

I really wonder why you keep coming up with the second law of thermodynamics. That law does not apply to the earth's ecosystem, as it is not a closed system and even less to our genetic material, as it is a subsystem of subsystems of subsystems of , on our planet all of which are anything but closed.

I diasgree, the law is aplicable to the Earth's ecosystem, and to some extent can be applied to the genome, but it doesn't actually support the creationists argument.

One interesting thing about thermodynamics and creationists, is that many creationists don't realise some of their arguments rule out possibility of reproduction, germination etc, ever happening. That in itself should give an indication that the argument has gone awry.

Also, somebody once raised what I thought was a valid point a long while back. His point was something along the lines of, "if we observe something that contradicts the second law of thermodynamics - and indeed any law - it stands to reason that like the Newtonian gravity law, the law doesn't apply to that circumstance."

donnie:

I believe in the possibility of evolution for a time in the world that then existed (before Adam).

But since Adam, over six thousand years, there has been no evolution.

That's not true.

There are facts: fossils of homo-erectus (ape-men), dinnisoars, cities etc. which go a long way to prove the existence of life on earth millions of years ago ( whereas man has been on earth according to the bible, since Adam, for about six thousand years).

Except man has demontrably been around a lot longer than 6000 years, and nowhere in the Bible does a date appear.

The bible does not deny or contradict the evolution theory.

But present day man and earth did not come as a result of evolution.

no, present day man came as a result of evolution.

KAG:

I diasgree, the law is aplicable to the Earth's ecosystem, and to some extent can be applied to the genome, but it doesn't actually support the creationists argument.

It doesn't. The Earth's ecosystem is not a thermally isolated system. Neither on the input, nor on the output side.

KAG:

One interesting thing about thermodynamics and creationists, is that many creationists don't realise some of their arguments rule out possibility of reproduction, germination etc, ever happening. That in itself should give an indication that the argument has gone awry.

Fully agree. These processes do happen because the earth is not a thermally isolated system.

KAG:

Also, somebody once raised what I thought was a valid point a long while back. His point was something along the lines of, "if we observe something that contradicts the second law of thermodynamics - and indeed any law - it stands to reason that like the Newtonian gravity law, the law doesn't apply to that circumstance."

Yes, but we have not observed a phenomenon yet that contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. And even if that were the case, the first thing to do would be to check the experimental setup again and see if all variables are accounted for.

nferyn:

xkape,

I really wonder why you keep coming up with the second law of thermodynamics. That law does not apply to the earth's ecosystem, as it is not a closed system and even less to our genetic material, as it is a subsystem of subsystems of subsystems of , on our planet all of which are anything but closed.

Show me an example of a truely closed natural system, or a truely ideal Gas. Science is based on sensible approximations. this is the only way we can reach any meaning ful conclusions. even KAG agrees with my supposition on this issue

@KAG
why the "damn , you". totally unnecessary.
at least it is good u admit u cant use a snowflake to explain entropy

Hi nferyn and kag
. Evolutionists claim that intelligent design cannot be considered a theory but turn around and tell us that evoluiton cannot be proven to be right until its proven to be wrong(as applies to all theories) i.e 2+2=22 You cant tell me i'm wrong until u come up with a better number!! (Nferyn,feel free to tell me that my analogy does not apply in this case)Evoluiton can be viewed it in 2 ways, if u consider evolution to mean a change in the gene pool of a population over a period of time, then i agree with u that evoluiton is a fact! But evoluitonists go a step further and insist that 'all species' which exist today descended from a common ancestor, i.e they all evolved in different directions from some simple organism over a long period of time (I'm trying to keep my language as simple as possible).Then,they tend to lump macroevolution with microevoluiton while ignoring the fact that theres a whole load of difference between them.They claim maccro and micro are the same thing but insisting that a dog over years has grown bigger and smarter is a far cry from stating that this same dog has changed to a cat! I am yet to meet an evolutionist who has a reasonable explanation to exactly how small minor changes become dramatic and obvious. Variation even in extreme cases NEVER brings about nothing more than a variant of the SAME species. i.e a great dane and a lapdog might not look anything alike but they are still both dogs! Biochemically they are practically identical! It can be argued that variation can occur indefinitely until it produces a variation that is so at variant with the original species as to be considered a different specie but ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE!!! has been observed to support such bold claims. The tendency to by evoluiitonists to lump micro and macroevoluiton together is a clever ploy!There are simply no examples in nature which even remotely indicate a change of species through evoluiton. Of course it is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a layman to be aware of such facts and so evoluiton as a fact is fed to an ignorant public. Even fossils dated to pre-historic times (such as ants)have been observed to be exactly identical with mordern organisms.One of the most serious flaws withevoluiton is that natural selection CAN REMOVE Dna information but does not ADD.Another problem is the fact that when a trait is neccesary for the survival of a specie it HAS to be fully functional. i.e a dogs extremely sensitive nose could not have evolved 'gradually' because dogs in the wild are TOTALLY dependent on their keen sense of smell. A dog with a half formed nose (in terms of sensitivity) would have found it hard to ctach its prey and so would have gone extinct faster than the time required for it to evolve the fully sensitive nose. Simply put, the idea of a half formed organ of any kind in any animal is simply illogical. Gradual evoluiton only produces dysfunctionality between species!!!The only way out is to assume that their is a sort of leap in changes observed which favours creationists, except it is argued that ALL cells have encoded in them the ability to change into any organism (something similar to human stem cells), but again their is NO evidence to support this.The fact that species dont change (or evolve) is indirectly proven by the genetic code. In simple terms, even though there is an unlimited amount of variation which can result from rearranging the genetic code,there is a LIMITED amount of TRAIT variatons. NO NEW GENETIC MATERIAL CAN BE ADDED. Nature is simply shuffling the same old stuff around over and over and over again. The only phenomenon which favours evoluiton in nature is mutation. Without mutation, no new addition can penetrate the boundaries of the genetic code. A contradiction to evoluiton that is unknown to most laymen is that exxagerrated variation makes species prone to diseases, in ohter words the species is prone to genetically induced diseases.An obvious example is dogs which have been overbred. Everyone knows that the mongrel is hardier than the exotic pedigree.Evoluitonists ignore the fact that natural selection ACTUALLY thins out the gene pool in the very long run.For evoluiton (macro) to be possible NEW information has to be added to the gene pool . I'm still waiting for someone,ANYONE to suggest to me how this happens.MUTATION?
I laugh !!
Mutations which add new information has NEVER been observed in nature. It is quite the contrary! 9.9999999999(raised to atrillion trillion) out of ten times mutations are an incorrect copying of the information or a loss of information. The chances that life evolved through mutation is sooooo close to impossible that it is to all purposes and intent IMPOSSIBLE!!!
There is NO evidence of macroevolution. Fossil records show a zero change. Microevolution DOES occur but in strict terms that is not evolution.Interdependency of species also makes evoluiton qite a dumb idea. Nature is filled with species that are totally dependent on each other. That renders evoluiton as an impossibility in an indirect sort of way.
I maintain that the concept of evoluiton is a very bright idea and one can get carried away when one views it in isolation of other fcts but when the whole picture is viewed it becomes obvious that evolution is rather an improbable theory. Intelligent design on the other hand makes no pretext. It recognises the amazing complexity that exists in life and says "if there exists such a complex design, it is only logical to assume that their is a designer". It does not ATTEMPT to explain how the design came to be or state who the designer is.
LAST WORD: Even evolutionists confess that they cant explain the exact mechanism of evolution, so how are they different from creationists? Please shed off this cloak of intellectual superiority and admit that you are as much at a loss as to how life came to be as anyone else.

xkape:

Show me an example of a truely closed natural system, or a truely ideal Gas. Science is based on sensible approximations. this is the only way we can reach any meaning ful conclusions. even KAG agrees with my supposition on this issue

Irrelevant. The earth's ecosystem and all of it's subsystems get a constant influx of thermal energy from the sun, which make it anything but an approximation of a closed system. The second law of thermodynamics does not offer any explanation as it does not apply.

simmy:

Hi nferyn and kag
. Evolutionists claim that intelligent design cannot be considered a theory but turn around and tell us that evoluiton cannot be proven to be right until its proven to be wrong(as applies to all theories) i.e 2+2=22 You can't tell me i'm wrong until u come up with a better number!! (Nferyn,feel free to tell me that my analogy does not apply in this case)

No you have it wrong, yes the theory of evolution can’t be proven, because science doesn’t do proofs. No theory is proven, however, a theory has to have empirical evidence behind it, have research behind it, and more importantly be falsifiable. ID has none of those, therefore it isn't a theory. i don't know what you are doing with the the 2+2 thing, but whatever.

Evoluiton can be viewed it in 2 ways, if u consider evolution to mean a change in the gene pool of a population over a period of time, then i agree with u that evoluiton is a fact!

That's a step in the right direction.

But evoluitonists go a step further and insist that 'all species' which exist today descended from a common ancestor, i.e they all evolved in different directions from some simple organism over a long period of time (I'm trying to keep my language as simple as possible).Then,they tend to lump macroevolution with microevoluiton while ignoring the fact that theres a whole load of difference between them.

What are the differences? What magic barrier that stops micro- from becoming macro-?

They claim maccro and micro are the same thing but insisting that a dog over years has grown bigger and smarter is a far cry from stating that this same dog has changed to a cat!

Ugh, if you think that's what the ToE is about, it's no wonder you oppose it. Nobody with a basic knowledge on the ToE would say a dog became a cat - they share acommon ancestor after all. What people fail to understand, is that evolution doesn't mean an offspring would be something totally different from it's parent. To quote Aron Nelson, "Evolution never suggests that one thing ever turned into something else. Every new species or genus, (etc.) that ever evolved was just a modified version of whatever its ancestors were." (from http://home.comcast.net/~aronra/Taxonomy.html).

I am yet to meet an evolutionist who has a reasonable explanation to exactly how small minor changes become dramatic and obvious. Variation even in extreme cases NEVER brings about nothing more than a variant of the SAME species. i.e a great dane and a lapdog might not look anything alike but they are still both dogs! Biochemically they are practically identical! It can be argued that variation can occur indefinitely until it produces a variation that is so at variant with the original species as to be considered a different specie but ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE!!! has been observed to support such bold claims.

I'd say it's either you haven't met many "evolusionists", or no response was reasonable for you, for whatever reasons.you cread Aron's if you desire. By the way, would you like evidence of observed speciation?

The tendency to by evoluiitonists to lump micro and macroevoluiton together is a clever ploy!T

No it isn't!

There are simply no examples in nature which even remotely indicate a change of species through evoluiton. Of course it is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a layman to be aware of such facts and so evoluiton as a fact is fed to an ignorant public.

what about the fossil record, you know fossils like the dinosaur to bird transitionals, or what about things like endogenous retroviral insertions (ERVs), they suggest that speciation happened. What about the African elephant (see http://www.sbs.utexas.edu/levin/bio311d/articles/science_ecology.pdf).

Even fossils dated to pre-historic times (such as ants)have been observed to be exactly identical with mordern organisms.

Do you have a source for that? Not doubting, just asking.

One of the most serious flaws withevoluiton is that natural selection CAN REMOVE Dna information but does not ADD.

Maybe you should start with a definition of information, then we can move on to addressing your claim.

Another problem is the fact that when a trait is neccesary for the survival of a specie it HAS to be fully functional.

Not necessarily. Also, sometimes the trait may be dormant in one environment, and become useful in a different niche. Also, sometimes the feature can be rudimentary and still function.

i.e a dogs extremely sensitive nose could not have evolved 'gradually' because dogs in the wild are TOTALLY dependent on their keen sense of smell. A dog with a half formed nose (in terms of sensitivity) would have found it hard to ctach its prey and so would have gone extinct faster than the time required for it to evolve the fully sensitive nose.

I would suggest that the keen sense of smell in dogs developed before they became dogs, and that has evolved to what it is now. I could always find out more for on the evolution of smell in dogs for you, actually I'll do that and post my findings.

Simply put, the idea of a half formed organ of any kind in any animal is simply illogical. Gradual evoluiton only produces dysfunctionality between species!!!

You mean like the half formed heart of fishes? Mammals have a four chambered heart consisting of two ventricles and two atriums; while "A fish's heart on the other hand, is made up of a closed system consisting of two main chambers, one atrium and one ventricle. Fish seem to be doing fine though, with their literaly half formed organ.

The only way out is to assume that their is a sort of leap in changes observed which favours creationists, except it is argued that ALL cells have encoded in them the ability to change into any organism (something similar to human stem cells), but again their is NO evidence to support this.

Huh?

The fact that species don't change (or evolve) is indirectly proven by the genetic code. In simple terms, even though there is an unlimited amount of variation which can result from rearranging the genetic code,there is a LIMITED amount of TRAIT variatons. NO NEW GENETIC MATERIAL CAN BE ADDED. Nature is simply shuffling the same old stuff around over and over and over again. The only phenomenon which favours evoluiton in nature is mutation. Without mutation, no new addition can penetrate the boundaries of the genetic code. A contradiction to evoluiton that is unknown to most laymen is that exxagerrated variation makes species prone to diseases, in ohter words the species is prone to genetically induced diseases.An obvious example is dogs which have been overbred. Everyone knows that the mongrel is hardier than the exotic pedigree. Evoluitonists ignore the fact that natural selection ACTUALLY thins out the gene pool in the very long run.

First, species do speciate, see examples like the 'African elephant. Second, the dog example is a result of artificial selection by man as opposed to natural selection. Basically, due to being bred and selected specifically by man, dogs have changed drastically. Finally, any evidence that natural selection thins out the gene pool?

For evoluiton (macro) to be possible NEW information has to be added to the gene pool . I'm still waiting for someone,ANYONE to suggest to me how this happens.MUTATION?
I laugh !!

Before you go on a laughing fit, could you define information.

Mutations which add new information has NEVER been observed in nature. It is quite the contrary! 9.9999999999(raised to atrillion trillion) out of ten times mutations are an incorrect copying of the information or a loss of information. The chances that life evolved through mutation is sooooo close to impossible that it is to all purposes and intent IMPOSSIBLE!!!

Define information, also, surely you are not suggesting incorrect copying of "information" = loss of information, are you? Now I really need to see your definition of information.

There is NO evidence of macroevolution. Fossil records show a zero change.

Really? Have you honestly looked at the information on the fossil record? I sincerely doubt that.

Microevolution DOES occur but in strict terms that is not evolution.Interdependency of species also makes evoluiton qite a dumb idea. Nature is filled with species that are totally dependent on each other. That renders evoluiton as an impossibility in an indirect sort of way.

Why? Don't just say it makes it a dumb idea etc, tell us why.

I maintain that the concept of evoluiton is a very bright idea and one can get carried away when one views it in isolation of other fcts but when the whole picture is viewed it becomes obvious that evolution is rather an improbable theory.

No it isn't.

Intelligent design on the other hand makes no pretext. It recognises the amazing complexity that exists in life and says "if there exists such a complex design, it is only logical to assume that their is a designer".

]

So it is an argument from, I don't know how that happened, therefore Go - I mean Intelligent Designer(Wink, wink).

It does not ATTEMPT to explain how the design came to be or state who the designer is.

Then of what use is it?

LAST WORD: Even evolutionists confess that they can't explain the exact mechanism of evolution, so how are they different from creationists? Please shed off this cloak of intellectual superiority and admit that you are as much at a loss as to how life came to be as anyone else.

Huh? You mean the mechanism of natural selection and mutations? Also we are talking origin of species here, not origin of life. In time the origin of life question will be answered satisfactorily.

As a conclusion, I was going to ask you to actually present some scientific evidence for ID, but since it looks like you've basically made it seem (at least to me) ID is useless scientifically, I'll simply ask for a definition of "information", and an answer to the other questions asked.

nferyn:

It doesn't. The Earth's ecosystem is not a thermally isolated system. Neither on the input, nor on the output side.

Hmm, I think I see your point.

Fully agree. These processes do happen because the earth is not a thermally isolated system.
Yes, but we have not observed a phenomenon yet that contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. And even if that were the case, the first thing to do would be to check the experimental setup again and see if all variables are accounted for.

I know, I know, but I was hoping to get across the fact nothing in science is set in stone, and how new data, WITH EVIDENCE, can change things.

xkape:

@KAG
why the "damn , you". totally unnecessary.
at least it is good u admit u can't use a snowflake to explain entropy

The damn you was necessary, because you were being - and are still being - a disingenious arse. Once again, you stated "random translations of elements in a system modified by an even more mindless environmental pressure cannot lead to a decrease in entropy". I showed you you were wrong with the example of the snowflake. Geesh.

Simmy, I'll leave it to KAG to debate you further, as she has adequately answered your objections. Just a few links to satisfy your curiosity:
observed instances of speciation:
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

transitional fossils
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Actually, I invite you to read the talkorigins archive, it contains a wealth of information and can probably answer most of the questions you have about evolution.

As a sidenote, please do provide an operational definition of information as it relates to evolution, this way your concern that no new information can be added to DNA can be properly addressed

@kag
first your habit of quoting evrysingle line of my thrd makes it hrd to reply u, but i'll try
I'm adressing evry single reply u give when quoting me
Quote 1
The 2+2=22 stuff was referring to your (i.e evolutionists) line of reasoning. It doesnt make sense does it? Then why do u state nobody can claim ure wrong UNTIL he can propose a better tteory. Because a better theory does not xist does not make u right!
Qoute 2
Yhear,whatever!
Quote 3
None whatsoever, but u can only claim it actually happens, uve got no proof. Fossil records don't support macroevoluiton.
Quote 4
Ure the one missing the point. No one says a cat ACTUALLY changes into a dog.But evolutionists say dogs evolved from simple unicellular organisms till they became complex multicellular organisms until they became dogs. i.e they changed from one specie into ANOTHER! thts the important thing and its just as preposterous as saying a rodent changed over time into a bat.
Quote 5
Yhear sure,  if u can provide it, whic h i doubt
Quote 6
Yes it is!
Kag says "no it isnt"
Simmy says "yes it is"
blablablayadayadayda
Quote7
I love the word suggest, not prove, many other (many more than u think) have their own way of explaining these records. If you get your facts right u'll be forced to agree (because im sure you wont want to) that there is REALLY no fossil records which beyond reasonable doubt support macroevolution (but of course evolutionists don't want u to know this so they pretend otherwise)
Quote 8
Google it, my guy, my bad,  i thought it was common knowledge
Quote 9
I'm trying to make this thread as simple as possible so that it can be followed by just about ANYBODY, what part of the word information don't u understand? Anyhow, i' will define information later in this thread
Quote 10
I disagree with u. Just imagine a bird with a half formed wing! Or a lion with blunt teeth,  or a human with a half formed brain (just kidding there)
Quote 11
Ok
Quote 12
The important thing is thatit is FUNCTIONAL! you're the one assuming it is incomplete in any way.
Quote 13
Huh yourself,  I was speaking english wasn't I? gradual changes as claimed by macroevoluitonists bring about dysfunctionality which is detrimental to the specie evolving,  the only way out for evoluitonists is to assume that evolution occurs in leaps (not gradual).
Quote 14
What is it about the african elephant, except there is something i'm missimg thats an example of microevolution
About the dog thingy, the point here is that the gene pool is thinned out by selection, natural/artificial and sure ive got evidence
Quote 15& 16
Information as used in this thread means codes which contain instruction on how to synthesize the aminoacid sequence in proteins which finally helps in determining the phenotype (or physical appearance ) of the organism. Note that specific bases on their own are not NECESSARILY information because a base might or might not be useful to the dna sequence depending on its position.Incorrect copying of this information most of the time results in what is called nonsense codons which in a general sense results in a lossof information.Anyways, it is a well known fact that an overwhelming majority of mutations have no effect because the body has a way of coping with such (Dna reapair) Mutations only have a noticable effect on an organism when they are placed under unnatural conditions (e.g overexposure to radiation) and even then, its effcts are either deletirious or neutral. Ver,very,very, rarely does it add to functionality
Quote 17
Well,yes i have
Quote 18
If uve read my thread carefully u'll realise why its such a dumb idea
Quote 19
Yes it is
Quote 20- the end
So the creationist is going to lecture the evolutionist on evolution?Hmmm,my guy, go and ask your teachers o! Theres a lot they can't explain with evolution. This particualr thread was just to enlighten you on the many HOLES that can be picked in your theory. I'll post a thread on i.d later. Personally, i wont even claim that id makes more sense (scientific sense that is ) than evoluiton but my point is STOP pushing evoultion around as a fact because it ISNT

simmy:

Quote 5
Yhear sure, if u can provide it, whic h i doubt

Here you are:

nferyn:

observed instances of speciation:
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

I really wonder why you continue to say that there are no observed instances of speciation while I already gave you the references? Could it be that you rather discard that information as it contradicts your specific faith?

And if you want a few thousand references on addition of information in the genome, just a search the PubMed database using gene duplication evolution as search string

My initial response got lost with my computer getting restarted, and I got caught up with other things (including a minor "discussion" on another forum), so I'll respond when I wake up (provided I can sleep), I'm too tired to think science right now.

@nferyn
I've come across these (and many more) claims of speciation
Yer, but do this 'so-called' speciations = macroevolution
At first glance it might, but think again!
For true macroevolution to occur these species must GAIN new information in their geneic sequence that now makes interbreeding impossible e.g a rodent modifying its limbs to a wing is macroevolution; this same rodent shortening it's limbs is still microevolution.
ALL observed 'so-called' speciation involve a loss of information,
What do u know about my faith by the way?
Gene duplication
Evolutionists go about bandying such stuff as evidence for evolution while it is still contentious! Repetition does not increase information!and even though some traits can be acquired by mutation,gene amplification blablabla this example will show you how misleading such evidence can be
A bacterium through mutation develops immunity to a particular antibiotic, but it does so because it looses its ability to ingest the antibiotic meant to kill it. Now if that isnt a loss of information, tell me what it is.

@ simmy,

If you wouldn't call speciation (events leading to reproductively isolated gene pools) macroevolution, what operational definition then would you propose for macroevolution and how would you make it operational?

As to gaining information, please define information first, this way we will now what you're talking about.

simmy:

e.g a rodent modifying its limbs to a wing is macroevolution; this same rodent shortening it's limbs is still microevolution.

Why? Your examples lack context and cannot be operationalised. Could you give an operational definition of both micro-evolution and macro-evolution? The moment there is no gene flow between two gene pools anymore, you have speciation. From that moment onward, the two pools can be subject to different selective pressures and thus lead to significant divergence in the traits of the two different species.

simmy:

ALL observed 'so-called' speciation involve a loss of information,

Not true, e.g. :

"Adaptive evolution of a DUPLICATED pancreatic ribonuclease gene in a leaf-eating monkey", J Zhang, Y-P Zhang, HF Rosenberg, Nature (Genetics) 30:April 2002, pg 411-415 - ONLY colombine monkeys have RNAse1B and RNAse1; all other primates have ONLY RNAse1.

"Natural selection and the ORIGIN of jingwei, a chimeric processed functional gene in Drosophila", M Long, CH Ling, Science 260: 2 April 1993, pg 91-95; this gene exists ONLY in sister species D. yakuba and D. teisseri (formed from parts of other genes).

"Origin of sphinx, a young chimeric RNA gene in Drosophila melanogaster", W Wang, FG Brunet, E Nevo, M Long, PNAS 99(7) pg 4448-4453; gene exists ONLY in D melanogaster - all other species have the parts, but NOT the gene.

Obviously, that depends on your definition of information, but an increase in the coding genes within the genome would count as an increase in information, wouldn't it?

simmy:

What do u know about my faith by the way?

If one reads your posts, it's quite obvious what your religious inclinations are.

KAG and nferyn.

This will go on forever.

Are you guys learning anything new from this dicussion?

If so, then carry on! But I'll wager that you are, rather trying your best to GIVE information.

unfortunately it is clear to me that the majority here are not ready to recieve this info. Afterall its naija. Land of pastor chris and the Synagogue.

Nigerians never chop belleful. The only thing they believe the mind shopuld be used for is making money. pondering the meaning of life is something they do NOT want to do. They'd rather someone else did it. And the guy who makes them feel better about themselves is the one they will listen to.

If I started a 'church' tomorrow and preached that we are not just creations or sons of God, but Gods ourselves, as we are made in the Image of God, each with out own 'WORLD' to preside over waiting for us beyond the grave, I'd have a bazillion followers. Compare that to the 7 people who would still be standing around if I mentioned the word 'ape'.

Give it up people. You are wasting logical arguments on people who are defending baseless premises. Such arguments are doomed to failure

@ dakmanzero
Even if would only succeed in bringing one person to think about or reconsider his position, it would be worth the effort.

Hey gents, I've watched this debate with some quizzical interest. I've noted earlier that whether we like it or not, this will sooner than later degenerate into debates about positions than about issues. I don't think the topic seeks answers to the meaning of life, so darkmanzero don't waste your time inferring it is.

syrup.

i did not infer that.

read my post again.

And if you still don't understand it, don't worry. It was directed at KAG and nferyn, at least one of whom has demonstrated that he does understand it.

none

Evesah

A woman of many words! Why cant this person string together more than one word?

Infuriating!

@Reverend: Huh?

Reverend:

Evesah

A woman of many words! Why can't this person string together more than one word?

Infuriating!

yeaa,am a woman of one word

An extraterrestrial being(GOD,or whatever you want to call it) CREATED this world through the process of EVOLUTION.There,a compromise!

Let the discussion end jare.Man don dey get headache from this endless debate.

I wonder why so many people are against the continuation of this thread, if u don't like it don't bother reading it. I for one has learnt a lot (in an indirect sort of way) from nferyn and kag
@ darkey
Its quite suprising how remakably accurate you are in your 'whirlwind' theology,  I wonder if theology isnt't really your calling. But seriously, I believe science and religion are like water and oil (they don't mix,  they could support each other sometimes but thats besides the point) and I rather prefer to leave them seperate. Religion can never adress scientific issues and science cannot adequately answer religious questions. If you notice, I never mentioned my religious beliefs or inclinations in my posts (even though i did state that I belieive in the Christian God) and thats why I wonder what nferyn thinks he knows about my religious beliefs!
@nferyn
Its quite obvious youre not going to be satisfied until I publish a paper on this topic .Anyhow, if this is what it will take to convince you that evoluiton does not happen, thats what I will do, but since that will take a litttle bit of my time (which i don't have now) I'll post my thoughts on the questions you raised in a little while
@ jagunlabi
Its not a comproise because evoluiton as a phenomenom does not exist!

hi simmy,

I'd be delighted if you could publish your findings in a peer reviewed journal. You would definitely earn yourself a nobel prize and put you as a biologist in the league of Einstein as a physicist, as it would put the whole scientific community on it's head and shatter our current understanding of nature.

If you could find the time to define information, macroevolution [/i]and [i]microevolution, as well as speciation (if that would be required to clarify macroevolution), this would bring clarity to the debate and help it forward.

simmy:
@kag
first your habit of quoting evrysingle line of my thrd makes it hrd to reply u, but i'll try
I'm adressing evry single reply u give when quoting me

My apologies, force of habit; although to be fair it was a rather long post containing quite a lot.

Quote 1
The 2+2=22 stuff was referring to your (i.e evolutionists) line of reasoning. It doesnt make sense does it? Then why do u state nobody can claim ure wrong UNTIL he can propose a better tteory. Because a better theory does not xist does not make u right!

First of all, it would seem the two are not analogous, but even if we were to accept your example as a valid analogy, you’d still be wrong. The theory of evolution, like other scientific theories, is not just based on an assertation like 2+2=22, aha I’m right until you prove me wrong. It’s based on evidence. However, because science tries not to be dogmatic, it dictates that it’s theories should be both peer reviewed, and falsifiable. So rather than being a case of “aha, I’m right until you can prove me wrong”, it’s more of, “the evidence says this, our research show that, our observations show this, and our predictions are this, therefore the parsimonious conclusion would be….”, followed by a, “and this is how the theory can be falsified”.

Quote 3
None whatsoever, but u can only claim it actually happens, uve got no proof. Fossil records don't support macroevoluiton.

But the fossil record does support macro-evolution. In fact they were – still are – a strong evidence for evolution, and genetics have only confirmed that aspect.

Quote 4
Ure the one missing the point. No one says a cat ACTUALLY changes into a dog.But evolutionists say dogs evolved from simple unicellular organisms till they became complex multicellular organisms until they became dogs. i.e they changed from one specie into ANOTHER! thts the important thing and its just as preposterous as saying a rodent changed over time into a bat.

Except, YOU were the one that made it seem like a dog changing into a cat was what evolution was.

Quote 5
Yhear sure, if u can provide it, whic h i doubt

Speciation using hybidization: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/061288698v1#B1

Quote 6
Yes it is!
Kag says "no it isnt"
Simmy says "yes it is"
blablablayadayadayda

Quote7
I love the word suggest, not prove, many other (many more than u think) have their own way of explaining these records. If you get your facts right u'll be forced to agree (because im sure you wont want to) that there is REALLY no fossil records which beyond reasonable doubt support macroevolution (but of course evolutionists don't want u to know this so they pretend otherwise)

Quote 8
Google it, my guy, my bad, i thought it was common knowledge

No, it really isn’t; practically all biologists, taxonomists, and paleontologists agree on what the fossil record shows, that is, speciation happened and the fossils clearly show that.

Quote 9
I'm trying to make this thread as simple as possible so that it can be followed by just about ANYBODY, what part of the word information don't u understand? Anyhow, i' will define information later in this thread

Oh, I know what information as used by most biologists is, it’s just I’ve seen far too many anti-evolution proponent toss the word “information” around, with the aim of using it as a shifting argument against evolution.

Quote 10
I disagree with u. Just imagine a bird with a half formed wing! Or a lion with blunt teeth, or a human with a half formed brain (just kidding there)

A bird with a half formed wing? You mean like this fella:

Quote 11
Ok
Quote 12
The important thing is thatit is FUNCTIONAL! you're the one assuming it is incomplete in any way.

I was merely pointing out that animals could, and do have half formed organs. Another example that could be given of an organism with a rather rudimentary recently evolved trait, is the bacteria with the ability to degrade nylon oligomer.

Quote 13
Huh yourself, I was speaking english wasn't I? gradual changes as claimed by macroevoluitonists bring about dysfunctionality which is detrimental to the specie evolving, the only way out for evoluitonists is to assume that evolution occurs in leaps (not gradual).

Demonstrably wrong.

Quote 14
What is it about the african elephant, except there is something i'm missimg thats an example of microevolution
About the dog thingy, the point here is that the gene pool is thinned out by selection, natural/artificial and sure ive got evidence

The African elephant is an example of speciation (macro-evolution), there are two African elephant species. The dog example, like I pointed out is AFAIK a result of artificial selection, if you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.

Quote 15& 16
Information as used in this thread means codes which contain instruction on how to synthesize the aminoacid sequence in proteins which finally helps in determining the phenotype (or physical appearance ) of the organism. Note that specific bases on their own are not NECESSARILY information because a base might or might not be useful to the dna sequence depending on its position.Incorrect copying of this information most of the time results in what is called nonsense codons which in a general sense results in a lossof information.Anyways, it is a well known fact that an overwhelming majority of mutations have no effect because the body has a way of coping with such (Dna reapair) Mutations only have a noticable effect on an organism when they are placed under unnatural conditions (e.g overexposure to radiation) and even then, its effcts are either deletirious or neutral. Ver,very,very, rarely does it add to functionality

Quote
Mutations which add new information has NEVER been observed in nature. It is quite the contrary! 9.9999999999(raised to atrillion trillion) out of ten times mutations are an incorrect copying of the information or a loss of information. The chances that life evolved through mutation is sooooo close to impossible that it is to all purposes and intent IMPOSSIBLE

Quote
One of the most serious flaws withevoluiton is that natural selection CAN REMOVE Dna information but does not ADD

Thank you for your definition of information .Well, examples of mutations that have added new information (using your criteria), include:

Polyploidy in some animals, and many plants; gene duplication (as already pointed out by Nferyn), the relatively new Bicoid gene in Drosophilas (fruit flies), etc. there are other examples, but those should do for now.

Quote 17
Well,yes i have
Quote 18
If uve read my thread carefully u'll realise why its such a dumb idea

I’ve read your posts carefully, and all it’s shown, is that you have no idea what scientific theories are about, and very little knowledge on what the theory of evolution is about.

Quote 19
Yes it is
[Quote 20- the end
So the creationist is going to lecture the evolutionist on evolution?Hmmm,my guy, go and ask your teachers o![ Theres a lot they can't explain with evolution.

Like what? I’m sure there’s a lot that can’t be explained by the ToE, but I’d like to know yours.

This particualr thread was just to enlighten you on the many HOLES that can be picked in your theory.
I'll post a thread on i.d later. Personally, i wont even claim that id makes more sense (scientific sense that is ) than evoluiton but my point is STOP pushing evoultion around as a fact because it ISNT

Evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution explains and explores that phenomena. I’d be most interested in your ID thread, and in you pointing out the holes.

Simmy: @nferyn
I've come across these (and many more) claims of speciation
Yer, but do this 'so-called' speciations = macroevolution
At first glance it might, but think again!

Speciation is macro-evolution.

For true macroevolution to occur these species must GAIN new information in their geneic sequence that now makes interbreeding impossible e.g a rodent modifying its limbs to a wing is macroevolution; this same rodent shortening it's limbs is still microevolution.

What?

ALL observed 'so-called' speciation involve a loss of information,

For example?

What do u know about my faith by the way?
Gene duplication?Huh??
Evolutionists go about bandying such stuff as evidence for evolution while it is still contentious! Repetition does not increase information!and even though some traits can be acquired by mutation,gene amplification blablabla this example will show you how misleading such evidence can be
A bacterium through mutation develops immunity to a particular antibiotic, but it does so because it looses its ability to ingest the antibiotic meant to kill it. Now if that isnt a loss of information, tell me what it is. Grin

It depends on how it becomes immune to the antibiotics, and in many cases it isn't due to the loss of information (as defined by you). A good example would be vancomycin resistant bacteria.

darkmanero:

KAG and nferyn.

This will go on forever.

Forever is relative.

Are you guys learning anything new from this dicussion?

If so, then carry on! But I'll wager that you are, rather trying your best to GIVE information.

unfortunately it is clear to me that the majority here are not ready to recieve this info. Afterall its naija. Land of pastor chris and the Synagogue.

Nigerians never chop belleful. The only thing they believe the mind shopuld be used for is making money. pondering the meaning of life is something they do NOT want to do. They'd rather someone else did it. And the guy who makes them feel better about themselves is the one they will listen to.

If I started a 'church' tomorrow and preached that we are not just creations or sons of God, but Gods ourselves, as we are made in the Image of God, each with out own 'WORLD' to preside over waiting for us beyond the grave, I'd have a bazillion followers. Compare that to the 7 people who would still be standing around if I mentioned the word 'ape'.

To be honest, I do learn things in discussions like this one, and I'm always of the opinion that nothing is really wasted, especially as someone else may very well learn from the discussion (well except if it's adiscussion about the "brilliance of H*vind, or even a debate involving him. Then, braincells are just simply fried).

Give it up people. You are wasting logical arguments on people who are defending baseless premises. Such arguments are doomed to failure

Don'tbe so pessimistic.

@kag and nferyn
I have arleady defined information, I dont think its necesarry to define macro and microevolution as it is common knowledge to any knowledgable person. I will however ,define later specciation in this thread

I would really love it if you could give me 'SPECIFIC' examples of speciation instead of just refering me to sites.
Why? Because it is easy to claim anything on any website, if you could give me SPECIFIC examples I am more than willing to show you why each example CANNOT be qualified as speciation. The only animal directly referred to by kag is the african elephant and I shall show you why he's wrong.
But speaking generally speciation is a term invented by evoluitonists in order to justify Darwin's claims;however, every example of speciation published can be shown to be simple (or dramatic ) variation within genetically compatible organisms. At best these can be said to be examples of a sub-specie or just VARIATON in action! Speciation has been defeated time and time again by the simple fact that these so-called isolated genus can interbreed and produce fertile offsprings. To a casual observer these examples of speciation might appear valid but it takes a close look from an intelligent unbiased observer to notice how evolutionists twist facts and definitions to suit themselves.
For instance it is possible to claim speciation through the interbreeding that goes on with dogs, wolves,dingoes,coyotes etc, but the simple truth is that they are all just varietes withinin the same group (canis).
But first of all what is speciation?
Speciation, according to the Stedman’s Medical Dictionary (2004) is:
The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones.
Let's get back to Kag's beloved african elephants, speciation experts for whatever reason refer to the dwarf and tall forms as seperate species!!!!!! Thats simply ridiculous!! Typical of evolutionists!! Evidence shows (abundant information on the african elephant exists on the net) that these two sub-species or varietes) can and do interbreed producing fertile offsprings.Every attempt to prove speciation and thus, evolution that I have come across is based on careless definitions, on badly classified organisms, and on false or naive presentations of the complex relationships between organisms.
It is of course impossible to singlehandedly debunk every claim of speciation as evoluitonists will find new species anywhere and everywhere. Some claims are easily debunked like the african elephant while some require a little more knowledge. If a SPECIFIC example is offered to me, I will be too glad to show exactly how wrong these carefully crafted claims are

simmy:

@kag and nferyn
I have arleady defined information, I don't think its necesarry to define macro and microevolution as it is common knowledge to any knowledgable person. I will however ,define later specciation in this thread

I can actually see why Nferyn has asked you for your definition of micro- and macro- evolution, because to be frank you seem to have, at best, a flawed understanding of those terms.

I would really love it if you could give me 'SPECIFIC' examples of speciation instead of just refering me to sites.
Why? Because it is easy to claim anything on any website, if you could give me SPECIFIC examples I am more than willing to show you why each example CANNOT be qualified as speciation. The only animal directly referred to by kag is the african elephant and I shall show you why he's wrong.

I gave another, which wasn’t an animal, from a peer-reviewed source,

But speaking generally speciation is a term invented by evoluitonists in order to justify Darwin's claims;however, every example of speciation published can be shown to be simple (or dramatic ) variation within genetically compatible organisms. At best these can be said to be examples of a sub-specie or just VARIATON in action! Speciation has been defeated time and time again by the simple fact that these so-called isolated genus can interbreed and produce fertile offsprings. To a casual observer these examples of speciation might appear valid but it takes a close look from an intelligent unbiased observer to notice how evolutionists twist facts and definitions to suit themselves.
For instance it is possible to claim speciation through the interbreeding that goes on with dogs, wolves,dingoes,coyotes etc, but the simple truth is that they are all just varietes withinin the same group (canis).

Nobody disputes that domestic dogs, wolves et, are the same species, in fact we acknowledge that fact.

But first of all what is speciation?
Speciation, according to the Stedman’s Medical Dictionary (2004) is:
The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones.
Let's get back to Kag's beloved african elephants, speciation experts for whatever reason refer to the dwarf and tall forms as seperate species!!!!!! Thats simply ridiculous!! Typical of evolutionists!!
Evidence shows (abundant information on the african elephant exists on the net) that these two sub-species or varietes) can and do interbreed producing fertile offsprings.

Keep the definition of speciation in mind; What was discovered was, the two species had “[a] large genetic distance, multiple genetically fixed nucleotide site differences, morphological and habitat distinctions, and extremely limited hybridization of gene flow between [them]” (from http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/293/5534/1473). In fact they are as distinct as lions and tigers, which I’m sure you’ll agree, are different species. Adding Asian elephants into the mix thickens the plot; they I’m sure you know, are a different species.

Every attempt to prove speciation and thus, evolution that I have come across is based on careless definitions, on badly classified organisms, and on false or naive presentations of the complex relationships between organisms.

Actually, it is the complex relationships between organisms that make a definitive and absolute definition of speciation difficult.

It is of course impossible to singlehandedly debunk every claim of speciation as evoluitonists will find new species anywhere and everywhere. Some claims are easily debunked like the african elephant while some require a little more knowledge.

Not true, and not quite.

If a SPECIFIC example is offered to me, I will be too glad to show exactly how wrong these carefully crafted claims are

You can start with the peonies example I gave, if you so desire.


I should add at this juncture, that observed speciation, is just the tip of the iceberg, there are more independent evidences for the occurrence of evolution, and shared ancestry. Some I’ve mentioned before, like endogenous retroviral insertions (ERVs), transitionals, etc.

By the way, if anybody is interested, here’s a good resource called, “What is a Species, and What is Not?” by Ernst Mayr: http://members.aol.com/darwinpage/mayrspecies.htm

I have been qietly observing the exchanger bw KAG nferyn and simmy.
Thank God someone else has pointed out some of the points i have been screaming at my evolutionist friends

The big inter- family jumps observed within species cannot be explained away with a graduall speciation. Present observations do not support this, at best we can see within species variation. Our current knowledge of genetics does not support this. we have maped the human genome, we have broken inheritance down to its most basic elements. we can match genes exactly to a sequence of numbers. proven mathematical and statistical methods do not support a random rearrangement of genomes of simple primordial animals to give the structures we observe in later organisms (but this whole argument seems to have gone over everybody's head).

i even tried to to explain the thermodynamic improbability of of evolution but i heard rebuttals such as.
"the earth is not a closed system", duh then no experiment concerning a closed system on earth should be valid. the abstraction of a closed system was used just to demonstrate a basic principle. as nferyn rightly pointed out energy enters and leaves the earth all the time. but even he will not argue that there is a net absorption of energy, and this energy applied within a genetic framework will lead to a degradation of genetic structure, not a build up.
like simi said, mutations cannot consitently add to genetic material over time, it just doesnt make sense. mutations are degradatory (is that a word?) in nature. the larger portion of mutations we observe in organisms today are detrimental or at worst neutral. the seemingly beneficial ones, like those that give resistance to pathogens or chemicals are all within the scope of making a species more adaptable to its environment. it doesnt make the spcies another thing. even KAG has shown that virii have been mutating for eons, but are sttill virri. the mythical unicellular organism that became a multicellular one has nevr been demonstrated
even fossilation show a clear stratification instead of gradiation in species

but as always people will believe what they chose to believe