xkape:

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.

What points? Inter-family jumps?

And within species variation can lead to speciation.

We can also see 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).

You say it's been proven? Well show your work, and let's hope it's peer reviewed too.

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.

Leaving the closed system argument aside, you know you didn't actually address my post rebutting your claim (well apart from the disingenious "snowflakes-evolution" thing)

like simi said, mutations cannot consitently add to genetic material over time, it just doesnt make sense.

I don't think that was what she said, but in all honesty, we see mutations adding to genetic material all the time, rearranging, and creating information all the time. I've given the Nylon oligomer degradation enzyme in bacteria as an example, polyploidy is another.

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.

That's because mutations alone do not make a new species. Mutations in a population, coupled with selection, and in some cases other factors like isolation, can cause speciation.

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

Any reason why they shouldn't still be virii? When you say demonstrated, do you mean the unicellular organism hasn't been produced, or that no working theory exists? Also, like I've said before, in the grand scheme of things we've a good number of fossils, but providing fossils for every species and every inter species change would be impossible.

but as always people will believe what they chose to believe

Sometimes, other times they go where evidence leads.

On that note, it seems this thread has turned into a defend evolution thread, so I'd like to ask the opponents of the theory of evolution, for their explanation for how man and other animals came to be. Not just "Goddidit"s, but a detailed - or semblance of one - explanation of how humans and other animals came to be.

xkape:

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

You mean the same tired arguments that have been refuted time after time, but that keep on popping up?

xkape:

The big inter- family jumps observed within species cannot be explained away with a graduall speciation.

Why not?

xkape:

Present observations do not support this, at best we can see within species variation.

Says who? On basis of what evidence? Maybe you can define species in such a way that it does exactly that. All definitions of species that are used within biology refute your statement. How do [b]you [/b]define species?

xkape:

Our current knowledge of genetics does not support this.

How does it not support this?

xkape:

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).

Explain why this is impossible. What mechanisms prevent evolutionary mechanisms from arriving at our current biodiversity? If you cannot, this is empty talk.

xkape:

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.

So, as KAG pointed out, following this reasoning, all complex organisms should degrade to less complex organisms and reproduction should be impossible, as they contradict your faulty understanding of thermodynamics.
One simple instance of gene duplication refutes your ridiculous assertion and proves that an increase in complexity (information) of a genetic structure is possible. How do you explain mitochondria?

xkape:

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

What mechanism prevents a cumulation of these beneficial mutations? If you cannot substantiate this, your argument is simply personal incredulity: I cannot understand how, so it is impossible.

xkape:

even fossilation show a clear stratification instead of gradiation in species

This is gibberish: define stratification and gradation in this context and make your context clear.

xkape:

but as always people will believe what they chose to believe

Obviously, all the evidence points in the direction of evolution and not once has the modern synthesis been falsified.

@KAG

we see mutations adding to genetic material all the time, rearranging, and creating information all the time. I've given the Nylon oligomer degradation enzyme in bacteria as an example, polyploidy is another.

Was trying to keep my posts on this as simple as possible but since u brought the big guns out,lets do it.
Firstly, the case of Nylon oligomer degradation enzyme in Pseudomonas is a classic example of subjectivity in science. One of the preliminary objectives of the experiment was to "evolve a new metabolic activity under laboratory conditions". The assumption was already made b4 the experiment
Secondly, Psuedomonas was shown to be able to metabolise plastic under the right conditions (when u strip away all the jargon), a quality it did not have before. the question is, does this prove evolution? Does this go agianst my thermodynamic/complexity assertion. here are direct quotes from the original paper ( i studied quite some biochem in school so i should be able to interprete a scientific paper dont u think?)

These results suggest that PAO5502 acquires some genetic alterations in the course of acquiring the new metabolic activity

These results indicate that P. aeruginosa PAO5501 and PAO5502 are true derivatives of PAO1.

The experiment gave rise to another modified starin of the bacteria. what simmy would call micro-evolution. It did not increase the numder of genomes in the organism, it only changed the arrangement of the existing genomes and hence phenotype.
This is comparable to the case of a certain species of parrot that was vegetarian but later adapted to eating meet. it was still a parrot., it would still be genetically similar to vegetarian strains and given the right conditons it would revert back to its orginal state. In British zoos in World War 2, lions were fed hay and they survived, is this evolution? Is the lion evolving into a goat. Dogs have been fed beans and such food by humans for hundreds of years, are they anything but dogs. Was the change in diet cosed by and sustained by mutation? or vice versa

Also look at this article attacking creationist explanatin to this phenomenon (though i do not totally support some of the assertions by creationists) the evolutionist was just out to make the creationists look silly, avoiding legitimate questions and covering up with jargon (like is done on this forum). I even have a strange suspicion that this is the article that KAG is basing her assumptions on, just regurgitating the opinions of a similarly biased evolutionists. I have taken the time to read the original findings of Yomo et al

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr04.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp

The very fact that these conditons were induced in a lab suggest an outside cognate force behind this "evolution"

Let me show examples of questions raised and flimsy answers

Question :[/b]The researchers have not been able to ascertain any putative ancestral gene to the nylon-degrading genes. They represent a new gene family. This seems to rule out gene duplications as a source of the raw material for the new genes.
P. aeruginosa is renowned for its ability to adapt to unusual food sources—such as toluene, naphthalene, camphor, salicylates and alkanes. These abilities reside on plasmids known as TOL, NAH, CAM, SAL and OCT respectively.2 Significantly, they do not reside on the chromosome (many examples of antibiotic resistance also reside on plasmids).
[b]
Answer

A.Not true, as before, the nylB group comes from a frameshift of an internally repetitious gene (so not surprisingly it is novel). NylA and NylC have not had homologous genes identified as of 2000, but then again a lot of bacterial sequencing has been done since, and as Don Batten states in a footnote, no Flavobacterium genome has yet been sequenced. Gene duplication is a major sources of new genes, but frame shifts, recombination and so on are all other sources of genes.

my comments: he as backed down from the blatant fact that there is no intermidiate putative gene. he reverts to the frameshift explanation which can be argued back and forth to be as a result of an inherent built in mechanism and not of random mutation and subsequent selection. this is a gap that evolutionists time and time again cannot fill. if truely evolution is linearly progressive as they say, this mutation would have been observed in gradual stages in the codons for these enzymes. and more importantly these intermidiate stages would have been able to survive long enough to produce the next stage. but the lack of the enzyme precludes survival of an intermidiate stage until the enzyme is fully manifested. so there is a quantum leap from one stage to the other which suggests a built in mechanism in the parent to adapt to conditions. this mechanism is the transposable element. but consider the evolutionist explanation for this

Now AiG is trying to claim that the nylonases are not due to random mutation and natural selection. Their arguments are spurious to say the least.

Some more background, in Flavobacterium there are four nylonase genes, nylA, nylB and nylB' (which are duplicates) and nylC, carried on one plasmid. In Pseudomonas there are two nylonase genes (nyl A and nyl B, homologous to the nylA and nylB genes in Flavobacterium) carried on two different plasmids. The nylB gene does most of the heavy lifting, so to speak, and it is the nylB gene that was formed from a deletion mutation and subsequent frame shift in the RSII repetitive element. The key here is that the mutation was in an internally repetitive sequence of DNA. Frameshifts in non-repetitive sequences usually end up with a high probability of producing a premature stop codon, resulting in production of short non-functional proteins. However, repetitive sequences are very likely to not produce premature stop codons, and it is likely that long, functional proteins can be produced by frameshifts in these proteins. In the case of nylB, an insertion of a T at position 99 in the repetitive sequence resulted in a start codon and a stop codon some 392 amino acids away.

the probability of the mechanism he highligted is 0.0001 ( a number he suggested himself even though one can argue it is 0.0000000000001). Does this seem like something likely? Besides, the other portion of the probability ( 1 - 0001) would have produced a large number of stop codons effectively truncating the process and preventing transmission to subsequent generations. Proof of this is in a staement by the evolutionist hinself

It is very likely that the genes arose on different plasmids and were stitched together by the transposable elements at a later stage. Furthermore, the transposable elements (IS6100) are present in many different bacteria and are very strongly conserved, suggesting they do not tolerate mutations very well. So given that the transposable elements are conserved in sequence between different bacteria, and that you don't need many mutations to make a functional nylonase, this objection is void.

But , hold on,he is saying here that the very elements allowed to move about freely in the gene and hence a major mechanism for evolution are resistant to mutations. He also said this

Well, transposable elements can result in rapid adaptation, but the mechanism is pure random mutation and natural selection. Transposons are not specifically targeted anywhere, but jump about at random without regard to the cell's "need". They can generate new enzymes by producing recombination of existing enzymes, but they are just as likely to cause damage. One strain produced by researchers had lost nylA as the transposable elements cut it out. Transposable elements are well known as possible agents of evolution.

A bigger example of contradiction and tounge-in-cheek duplicity, i have not seen. With one breath he says tranposons resist mutation, with another he says they are gung-ho genomes, mutating producing new enzymes at random.
This kind of argument is what evolution is all about. They bamboozle unsuspecting laymen with conjecture disguised as fact. Nothind this particular evolutionist has said makes his position superior to the dissenting creationist but the creationist is considered a hack simply becos he will not tow the line of evolutionists

And @KAG
Earlier in this thread i was trying to explain to you how we could use evolution in lower organisms to study in days that which would have taken eons in higher ones. U said u didnt know what i was talking about. I hope u do now

you mean this evolution crap is still going on?

lioness:

you mean this evolution crap is still going on?

Let's just say it's evolving .

To be honest, I'm quite enjoying the cut and thrust. Keep up the good work guys.

I'll remain non-participatory, keeping my obviously biased, yet totally unschooled opinion to myself.

God bless

:d ;d

xkape:

@KAG

Was trying to keep my posts on this as simple as possible but since u brought the big guns out,lets do it.

The big guns? Hardly! The oligomer degradation enzyme, though important in its own right, pale in comparism to factors like transitionals, ERVs, and nested hierarchies; and is just another worthy example of increase in information.

Firstly, the case of Nylon oligomer degradation enzyme in Pseudomonas is a classic example of subjectivity in science. One of the preliminary objectives of the experiment was to "evolve a new metabolic activity under laboratory conditions". The assumption was already made before the experiment.

Don’t be silly, that was the objective. On the other hand, of course assumptions were made before the experiment. Surely you are not suggesting that was wrong? I fail to see what your objection was about. Curiouser and curiouser.

Secondly, Psuedomonas was shown to be able to metabolise plastic under the right conditions (when u strip away all the jargon), a quality it did not have before. the question is, does this prove evolution? Does this go agianst my thermodynamic/complexity assertion. here are direct quotes from the original paper ( i studied quite some biochem in school so i should be able to interprete a scientific paper don't u think?)

These results suggest that PAO5502 acquires some genetic alterations in the course of acquiring the new metabolic activity

These results indicate that P. aeruginosa PAO5501 and PAO5502 are true derivatives of PAO1.

The experiment gave rise to another modified starin of the bacteria. what simmy would call micro-evolution. It did not increase the numder of genomes in the organism, it only changed the arrangement of the existing genomes and hence phenotype.

Looks like someone missed the point. Of course it's micro-evolution, it's an example of a mutation increasing information.

This is comparable to the case of a certain species of parrot that was vegetarian but later adapted to eating meet. it was still a parrot., it would still be genetically similar to vegetarian strains and given the right conditons it would revert back to its orginal state. In British zoos in World War 2, lions were fed hay and they survived, is this evolution? Is the lion evolving into a goat. Dogs have been fed beans and such food by humans for hundreds of years, are they anything but dogs. Was the change in diet cosed by and sustained by mutation? or vice versa

It would be comparable, if the parrot suddenly developed an enzyme that wasn’t formerly in existence, to help it digest meat. Lions eating hay? I’ll have to see a reference for that, if you don’t mind. Also, one more thing about reverting, while that’s possible, the bacteria /parrot/whatever, would still most likely retain the new information. This was clear to some extent in the bacteria, “The newly obtained abilities of PAO5502 were retained even after five successive cultivations on Glu minimal medium” (http://aem.asm.org/cgi/reprint/61/5/2020.pdf)

Also look at this article attacking creationist explanatin to this phenomenon (though i do not totally support some of the assertions by creationists) the evolutionist was just out to make the creationists look silly, avoiding legitimate questions and covering up with jargon (like is done on this forum).

The only one who’s done just that, has been you xcape. Any word yet on your response to my post on the thermodynamics issue, or failing that, how about presenting that peer reviewed argument for the “proven mathematical and statistical methods [that] do not support a random rearrangement of genomes of simple primordial animals to give the structures we observe in later organisms”? In fact how about you rise to the challenge, and explain how man and animals came to be, why, and why we have things like: vestiges in several animals including humans, ERVs, nested hierarchies etc. Remember, “Godddit” isn’t an explanation.

I even have a strange suspicion that this is the article that KAG is basing her assumptions on, just regurgitating the opinions of a similarly biased evolutionists. I have taken the time to read the original findings of Yomo et al

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr04.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp

You pretentious prick, nice attempt at poisoning the well. First, I had actually never seen the TalkOrigins page you posted, in fact I very rarely use TO, and mostly use it to find refutations to the many quote mines of anti-evolution proponenets.

Secondly, you really are an arse.

Finally, I’ve taken the time to read the Yomo et al’s paper (for those that are interested: http://aem.asm.org/cgi/reprint/61/5/2020.pdf), and I’ve read several variants of the paer, so…

The very fact that these conditons were induced in a lab suggest an outside cognate force behind this "evolution"

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t, eh?

Let me show examples of questions raised and flimsy answers

I’m not in the habit of answering arguments on behalf of others, especially if they are as long as your attempted rebuttal, and especially when I’m not in the mood. I will suggest though that you e-mail TO with your rebuttal, and I’ll suggest you read up on frame shifting mutations before you send your e-mail. If I do get in the mood later on, and I can be bothered….

And @KAG
Earlier in this thread i was trying to explain to you how we could use evolution in lower organisms to study in days that which would have taken eons in higher ones. U said u didnt know what i was talking about. I hope u do now

If by that, you meant studying processes like the different types of mutations, then you did a good job in shrouding it in a cloud of inanity. Which is exactly why my response from earlier still stands, “The evolution of virii are used in the study of evolution (e.g. infections and resistance of virii like the AIDS virus), but it's nonsensical to suggest that modern virii would follow the evolution path that lead to humans, there's absolutely no reason for that to happen.”.

lioness:

you mean this evolution crap is still going on?

Yeah, for billions of years, and counting .

@KAG

The big guns? Hardly! The oligomer degradation enzyme, though important in its own right, pale in comparism to factors like transitionals, ERVs, and nested hierarchies; and is just another worthy example of increase in information

Don't worry, we will get to those

Don’t be silly, that was the objective. On the other hand, of course assumptions were made before the experiment. Surely you are not suggesting that was wrong? I fail to see what your objection was about. Curiouser and curiouser.

In simpler English, the objection is, almost every assumption in biology since Darwin has been based on the FACT of evolution. If anyone fails to see that this is a fundamental systematic error, then i wonder. It is no different from the creationist basing all their inference from observations on Genesis. It is a case of Genesis vs Origin of the Species. Like I have said before, a lot of evolutionary explanations to phenomena are merely a lot of imagination and wishful thinking. Like the long hair theory, like the Galapagos finches ( i am waiting to hear an evolutionary explanation for homosexuality, that should be interesting)

Looks like someone missed the point. Of course it's micro-evolution, it's an example of a mutation increasing information.

No, u missed the point. Go and do your research and find out what the difference in base pairs is for the old and the evolved strain, compare with existing strains . Also Yomo et al did not mention an addition but a modification of existing genetic materials. Later writers added this
Also find out the statistical deviation of the position of the modified gene to the mean.Then compare with progressive deviation that would be required for a bacterium to evolve into a fish,  U just dont get it do u?

“The newly obtained abilities of PAO5502 were retained even after five successive cultivations on Glu minimal medium” (http://aem.asm.org/cgi/reprint/61/5/2020.pdf)

Good. I can assume that at a point in time modern man was made up of a small group of individuals in a particular a locale before they migrated to other parts, right? We can also assume that they hade sihadr phenotypical characteristics like skin color, hair color and texture, eye color etc, right? As they migrated, they must have evolved into the variants we see today. these variations are also passed on to the offspring.
So by your argument this evolution should add some complexity or material to the genes of some races. Some races should be more  evolved if we assume that that the original strains still exist (because the emergence of mutants does not necessarily destroy or stop propagation of the "pure" strains) Answer this please.


With respect to your question on thermodynamics and statistics, maybe i will write a paper. I know of people who are  currently looking into building a computer model for evolution but are  limited in  technical knowledge and resources but those can be overcome by collaboration with others, I think simmy said he was a biochemist, maybe he would be interested. (its good the genome project is going on so everybody will have access to genetic information) So keep your fingers crossed

Remember, “Godddit” isn’t an explanation

And " It just happened by Chance " is a better one?

First, I had actually never seen the TalkOrigins page you posted, in fact I very rarely use TO, and mostly use it to find refutations to the many quote mines of anti-evolution proponenets.

OK then, my apologies. I will stick to the issues

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t, eh?.

Yes, evolution cannot extricate itself from this and many other dilemmas

I’m not in the habit of answering arguments on behalf of others, especially if they are as long as your attempted rebuttal .

You are also in the habit of avoiding glaring holes in evolutionary arguments with your famous one-liners. I hope u get in the mood soon

Secondly, you really are an arse.

Thank you Sir/Madam (since u seem to be of indeterminate sex) for telling me what I am. I was of the opinion that I was an evolved bacterium

Don't worry, we will get to those

[/quote]
[sarcasm]I’m sure.[/sarcasm]

[quote]In simpler English, the objection is, almost every assumption in biology since Darwin has been based on the FACT of evolution.
If anyone fails to see that this is a fundamental systematic error, then i wonder. It is no different from the creationist basing all their inference from observations on Genesis. It is a case of Genesis vs Origin of the Species. Like I have said before, a lot of evolutionary explanations to phenomena are merely a lot of imagination and wishful thinking. Like the long hair theory, like the Galapagos finches ( i am waiting to hear an evolutionary explanation for homosexuality, that should be interesting)

That would be before Darwin actually, and that’s because evolution is a fact. Also, I still don’t see what the problem is, because I can’t think of any lab experiment where assumptions are not made before the experiment. The assumption is then either proved true or false by the experiment. Sheesh, this is elementary stuff.

No, u missed the point. Go and do your research and find out what the difference in base pairs is for the old and the evolved strain, compare with existing strains . Also Yomo et al did not mention an addition but a modification of existing genetic materials. Later writers added this

Will do, By the way, IIRC, there was an addition of nucleotides, which resulted in a new enzyme.

Also find out the statistical deviation of the position of the modified gene to the mean.Then compare with progressive deviation that would be required for a bacterium to evolve into a fish, U just don't get it do u?

No I don’t,. I gave up on real math a long while ago, maybe you can do it and show how it relates to unicellular organism going through numerous evolutionary changes to become fish.

Good. I can assume that at a point in time modern man was made up of a small group of individuals in a particular a locale before they migrated to other parts, right? We can also assume that they hade sihadr phenotypical characteristics like skin color, hair color and texture, eye color etc, right? As they migrated, they must have evolved into the variants we see today. these variations are also passed on to the offspring.
So by your argument this evolution should add some complexity or material to the genes of some races.

No, that’s by your argument, which from where I’m sitting is leading up to a strawman.

Some races should be more evolved if we assume that that the original strains still exist (because the emergence of mutants does not necessarily destroy or stop propagation of the "pure" strains) Answer this please.

….and there it is. Simple answer to a question which is nothing but a glorified “which race is more evolved”; no race is more evolved than the next. In much the same way variation in each individual does not make any one human “more evolved”.

With respect to your question on thermodynamics and statistics, maybe i will write a paper. I know of people who are currently looking into building a computer model for evolution but are limited in technical knowledge and resources but those can be overcome by collaboration with others, I think simmy said he was a biochemist, maybe he would be interested. (its good the genome project is going on so everybody will have access to genetic information) So keep your fingers crossed

So you don’t actually have any “proven mathematical and statistical methods [that] do not support a random rearrangement of genomes of simple primordial animals to give the structures we observe in later organisms”? You just thought that would make for a nice soundbyte? Well, I’ll keep my fingers crossed, but I won’t be holding my breath.

And " It just happened by Chance " is a better one?

Nice try. Now, how about instead of attempting a dodge with a straw man, you actually answer the question. “In fact how about you rise to the challenge, and explain how man and animals came to be, why, and why we have things like: vestiges in several animals including humans, ERVs, nested hierarchies etc. Remember, “Godddit” isn’t an explanation.”.

Yes, evolution cannot extricate itself from this and many other dilemmas

No, it’s a case of damned if you do, because anti-evolution proponents have been howling for lab demonstrations of the processes of evolution, before they’d accept it could have happened. When that’s done, the goalposts are shifted, and the new claim becomes, “see a human did it, therefore God”. If the experiments aren’t done, there’s an outcry, when they are done, there’s more outcry.

You are also in the habit of avoiding glaring holes in evolutionary arguments with your famous one-liners. I hope u get in the mood soon

You mean like the many you’ve avoided? Nferyn and I have asked of you before, so I’ll post some again: It’d be nice to have your response to my post on the thermodynamics issue; presenting that peer reviewed argument for the “proven mathematical and statistical methods [that] do not support a random rearrangement of genomes of simple primordial animals to give the structures we observe in later organisms”; explain how man and animals came to be, why, and why we have things like: vestiges in several animals including humans, ERVs, nested hierarchies etc. Remember, “Godddit” isn’t an explanation; “Explain why this is impossible. What mechanisms prevent evolutionary mechanisms from arriving at our current biodiversity? If you cannot, this is empty talk.”; What mechanism prevents a cumulation of these beneficial mutations? If you cannot substantiate this, your argument is simply personal incredulity: I cannot understand how, so it is impossible.”; “Lions eating hay? I’ll have to see a reference for that, if you don’t mind.”.

A worthy response to at least three or four of the above may just get me in the mood. Also, could you give some examples of me avoiding “glaring holes in evolutionary arguments with famous one-liners”? Thanks in advance.

Thank you Sir/Madam (since u seem to be of indeterminate sex) for telling me what I am. I was of the opinion that I was an evolved bacterium

You are welcome. You may as well brush up on the theory of evolution too, while learning about frame shift mutations.

No, that’s by your argument, which from where I’m sitting is leading up to a strawman

Another famous one-liner. U have completely side stepped the issues raised in the question
I repeat myself again. Is the difference in human appearance a result of evolution and addition of genetic material or the manifestations of combinations of genes inherent in the human?

In much the same way variation in each individual does not make any one human “more evolved”.

In the same way variations in Pseudomonas strains do not make for Evolution or make one strain more evolved than the other !!!!!
Thank u for making my point for me

So you don’t actually have any “proven mathematical and statistical methods [that] do not support a random rearrangement of genomes of simple primordial animals to give the structures we observe in later organisms”? You just thought that would make for a nice soundbyte? Well, I’ll keep my fingers crossed, but I won’t be holding my breath.

Actualy i do. But it would be rather wasted on u. And i dont care for soundbites.
A pity u gave up on math but i am sure wil be able to follow this. Experiments like the above point away from evolution. Everything in the end can be broken down to simple numbers. And the probabilty of the nylonase formation can be pegged down to araound 0.0001. Most biochemical changes however are interdependent forming long chains and sequences with little margin for error.
The sequece of respiration has been exhaustively elucidated and also shown to be almost identical at the cellular level across species and hence eons of evolution
A scenario where this biochemical chain reaction developed through a random development of its component enzymes, pathways and substrates would involve multiplying all the component probabilities together. I have seen some estimates of this numbers to be in the order of 10**40 (10 raised to the power of 40). In statistics an event that has a probability of 10**20 is considered not to be possible(the possibility is so low as to be considered immposible).

Secondly a gradual evolution would suggest a wide variation in the basic mechanism for respiration involving a wide variety of substrates different pathways etc but i dont think this is the case. The gamut of anaerobic and aerobic respiration exists in varying degrees in almost all species.
Another issue is the stereo-specificity of many of the components of life. Random changes should have incorporated various configurations into amino acids ( for example) in the early formation of life. But almost all those necessary for life are skewered in the laevo- direction. these are gaps in logic evolutionists cannot just bridge (my biochem has gone a bit flaky but i am sure these are the basic facts)

But evolutionists know these things and will tell u that becos it happened it must be true. But if u were a policeman u would never arrest a blind man for assasinating kennedy becos of the improbability of a blind man shooting that accurately. But what if his prints were on the gun and he was found on the scene of the crime. Would u still arrest him or woulld u look for another explanation? like
1. He isnt really blind
2. The was someone there holding his hand

xkape:

quote]Another famous one-liner. U have completely side stepped the issues raised in the question

Er, there was no question at that point, there was a claim made on my behalf, “…So by your argument this evolution should add some complexity or material to the genes of some races.”. The question which comes later on was answered, and it looks like you responded to it below.

I repeat myself again. Is the difference in human appearance a result of evolution and addition of genetic material or the manifestations of combinations of genes inherent in the human?

You are not repeating yourself, don’t pretend you are. To answer your question, it’s most likely both. I’d add deletion into the mix too.

In the same way variations in Pseudomonas strains do not make for Evolution or make one strain more evolved than the other !!!!!
Thank u for making my point for me

Good work, looks like you just beat your straw man to death, nice, very nice. Before you celebrate the demise of your straw man though, maybe you would like to point out where anyone but you has alluded to one being "more evolved".

Actualy i do. But it would be rather wasted on u. And i don't care for soundbites.

But of course that’s what it is . You know what, that does it, I'm not responding to you again, until you respond to these:

It’d be nice to have your response to my post on the thermodynamics issue; presenting that peer reviewed argument for the “proven mathematical and statistical methods [that] do not support a random rearrangement of genomes of simple primordial animals to give the structures we observe in later organisms”; explain how man and animals came to be, why, and why we have things like: vestiges in several animals including humans, ERVs, nested hierarchies etc. Remember, “Godddit” isn’t an explanation; “Explain why this is impossible. What mechanisms prevent evolutionary mechanisms from arriving at our current biodiversity? If you cannot, this is empty talk.”; What mechanism prevents a cumulation of these beneficial mutations? If you cannot substantiate this, your argument is simply personal incredulity: I cannot understand how, so it is impossible.”; “Lions eating hay? I’ll have to see a reference for that, if you don’t mind.”.

@ KAG

But of course that’s what it is . You know what, that does it, I'm not responding to you again, until you respond to these:

It’d be nice to have your response to my post on the thermodynamics issue; presenting that peer reviewed argument for the “proven mathematical and statistical methods [that] do not support a random rearrangement of genomes of simple primordial animals to give the structures we observe in later organisms”; explain how man and animals came to be, why, and why we have things like: vestiges in several animals including humans, ERVs, nested hierarchies etc. Remember, “Godddit” isn’t an explanation; “Explain why this is impossible. What mechanisms prevent evolutionary mechanisms from arriving at our current biodiversity? If you cannot, this is empty talk.”; What mechanism prevents a cumulation of these beneficial mutations? If you cannot substantiate this, your argument is simply personal incredulity: I cannot understand how, so it is impossible.”; “Lions eating hay? I’ll have to see a reference for that, if you don’t mind.”.

If u dont realise that this

A pity u gave up on math but i am sure wil be able to follow this. Experiments like the above point away from evolution. Everything in the end can be broken down to simple numbers. And the probabilty of the nylonase formation can be pegged down to araound 0.0001. Most biochemical changes however are interdependent forming long chains and sequences with little margin for error.
The sequece of respiration has been exhaustively elucidated and also shown to be almost identical at the cellular level across species and hence eons of evolution
A scenario where this biochemical chain reaction developed through a random development of its component enzymes, pathways and substrates would involve multiplying all the component probabilities together. I have seen some estimates of this numbers to be in the order of 10**40 (10 raised to the power of 40). In statistics an event that has a probability of 10**20 is considered not to be possible(the possibility is so low as to be considered immposible).

and all that follows is in answer to some of the issues u raised then maybe it is really wasted

And once again u have sidestepped all the additional issues raised like stereo-specificity, ubiquity of respiration, interdependence of biochemical processes etc

I will get u references on the lions and stuff. Be patient, i do have else to do apart from nairaland

Evolutionists will not give up
@kag
u seem unable to understand (or maybe u just refuse to) Xkp's point on evoluiton in humans.
What is responsible for the phenotypical differences observed in humans? Did all humans originate from the same source and then diverge at apoint in time? Is the white man the same specie with the black man, or the oriental man? Or are they all different species, Is that an example of speciation?
Be objective, if u where an alien from space would you think the hottentot (very short and blackskinned) and the typical Northern European (tall and whiteskinned) where the same species? Wouldnt that be an example of speciation to a diehard evolutionist alien? Like I said earlier, evolutionists will find speciation anywhere and everywhere they want to.It's sad, really to see such dishonesty and pretence amongst scientists. It makes you wonder what science (as practised by some) is really about. The fact about evolution reamins
1) Fossil evidence DOES not support evolution
2) There is no evidence for speciation, sorry let me rephrase,
There is NO REAL evidence! a lot of claims exist

Na ehn, you people really try o,

still discussing Evolution or Creation

does your discussion change the fact that God created this world?

xkape:

@ KAG
If u don't realise that thisand all that follows is in answer to some of the issues u raised then maybe it is really wasted

Really? You're not trying to be duplicitous once again, are you? Let's review, shall we:

First bit: It’d be nice to have your response to my post on the thermodynamics issue; Did your post address it? Nope.

Second: presenting that peer reviewed argument for the “proven mathematical and statistical methods [that] do not support a random rearrangement of genomes of simple primordial animals to give the structures we observe in later organisms”, Did your post address it? Rather vaguely, with the only figures touted out, starting with "I've heard", , and nothing explained in any way.

Third: explain how man and animals came to be, why, and why we have things like: vestiges in several animals including humans, ERVs, nested hierarchies etc. Remember, “Godddit” isn’t an explanation? Addressed? Nope.

Fourth: “Explain why this is impossible. What mechanisms prevent evolutionary mechanisms from arriving at our current biodiversity? If you cannot, this is empty talk.", addressed? Vaguely.

Fifth: What mechanism prevents a cumulation of these beneficial mutations? If you cannot substantiate this, your argument is simply personal incredulity: I cannot understand how, so it is impossible.”. Addressed? Nope.

Sixth: “Lions eating hay? I’ll have to see a reference for that, if you don’t mind.”. Addressed? Still keeping fingers crossed, but not holding breath.

And once again u have sidestepped all the additional issues raised like stereo-specificity, ubiquity of respiration, interdependence of biochemical processes etc

Not really, I just decide not to include my response, in the hopes that you'd actually address my points before the goal posts got shifted again. In any case, here's my response (I had most of it done alkready, but finished it today), and it will be my last to you, until my points are addressed.

[b]

A pity u gave up on math but i am sure wil be able to follow this.

One can only hope,

Experiments like the above point away from evolution.

No they don’t.

Everything in the end can be broken down to simple numbers. And the probabilty of the nylonase formation can be pegged down to araound 0.0001.

Not everything, for example the God concept, and also most things can be misrepresented by simple numbers, see Hoyle’s abiogenesis calculation for example, but I digress. I’m glad you accept the figure given by the bloke of bloke of TalkOrigins letter of the month fame, but I have a sneaking suspicion that you are going to conflate several issues together, using it as your ramming rod (okay I cheated a little, I peeked).

Most biochemical changes however are interdependent forming long chains and sequences with little margin for error.

But there are still errors, even in ones less error prone like the human genome.

The sequece of respiration has been exhaustively elucidated and also shown to be almost identical at the cellular level across species and hence eons of evolution.

IA scenario where this biochemical chain reaction developed through a random development of its component enzymes, pathways and substrates would involve multiplying all the component probabilities together. I have seen some estimates of this numbers to be in the order of 10**40 (10 raised to the power of 40). In statistics an event that has a probability of 10**20 is considered not to be possible(the possibility is so low as to be considered immposible).

Really? I’ve seen estimates that place the probability at exactly one, funny that…but seriously, do you mind showing how those estimates were calculated? As in, what factors were taken into consideration, what kinds of processes, etc.?

Secondly a gradual evolution would suggest a wide variation in the basic mechanism for respiration involving a wide variety of substrates different pathways etc but i don't think this is the case.

The gamut of anaerobic and aerobic respiration exists in varying degrees in almost all species.

You mean on the cellular level? I can’t see any reason why there should be wide variations on a cellular level, there are somewhat wide variations involved in respiration in different organisms though. Also a short from TO (thanks for reminding me they don’t just debunk creationism)

“The first cells must have been anaerobic because there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. In addition, they were probably thermophilic ("heat-loving" and fermentative. Rocks as old as 3.5 billion years old have yielded prokaryotic fossils. Specifically, some rocks from Australia called the Warrawoona series give evidence of bacterial communities organized into structures called stromatolites. Fossils like these have subsequently been found all over the world. These mats of bacteria still form today in a few locales (for example, Shark Bay Australia). Bacteria are the only life forms found in the rocks for a long, long time --eukaryotes (protists) appear about 1.5 billion years ago and fungi-like things appear about 900 million years ago (0.9 billion years ago).
Photosynthesis evolved around 3.4 billion years ago. Photosynthesis is a process that allows organisms to harness sunlight to manufacture sugar from simpler precursors. The first photosystem to evolve, PSI, uses light to convert carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) to glucose. This process releases sulfur as a waste product. About a billion years later, a second photosystem (PS) evolved, probably from a duplication of the first photosystem. Organisms with PSII use both photosystems in conjunction to convert carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O) into glucose. This process releases oxygen as a waste product. Anoxygenic (or H2S) photosynthesis, using PSI, is seen in living purple and green bacteria. Oxygenic (or H2O) photosynthesis, using PSI and PSII, takes place in cyanobacteria. Cyanobacteria are closely related to and hence probably evolved from purple bacterial ancestors. Green bacteria are an outgroup. Since oxygenic bacteria are a lineage within a cluster of anoxygenic lineages, scientists infer that PSI evolved first. This also corroborates with geological evidence.” (from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html).

Another issue is the stereo-specificity of many of the components of life. Random changes should have incorporated various configurations into amino acids ( for example) in the early formation of life. But almost all those necessary for life are skewered in the laevo- direction. these are gaps in logic evolutionists cannot just bridge (my biochem has gone a bit flaky but i am sure these are the basic facts)

Okay that I don’t get, so I’ll ask why you’d expect so many vast differences, in fact IIRC, what you are talking about would have been (and still probably is) a problem for abiogenesis, and not evolution.

But evolutionists know these things and will tell u that because it happened it must be true. But if u were a policeman u would never arrest a blind man for assasinating kennedy because of the improbability of a blind man shooting that accurately. But what if his prints were on the gun and he was found on the scene of the crime. Would u still arrest him or woulld u look for another explanation? like
1. He isnt really blind
2. The was someone there holding his hand

You what? No, you’d just assume the ghost of Christmas past did the shooting, and was trying to frame the blind guy.[/b]

I will get u references on the lions and stuff. Be patient, i do have else to do apart from nairaland

I'm sure.

simmy:

Evolutionists will not give up

That's probably because evolutionists (whoever they are) know evolution does happen, they know it's a fact.

@kag
u seem unable to understand (or maybe u just refuse to) Xkp's point on evoluiton in humans.
What is responsible for the phenotypical differences observed in humans? Did all humans originate from the same source and then diverge at apoint in time? Is the white man the same specie with the black man, or the oriental man? Or are they all different species, Is that an example of speciation?

Actually, you seem unable to have understood his point. His point was one human race or population should be more evolved than the other, which was of course a silly straw man.

To answer your questions, most likely mutations, yes all human beings most likely originated from the same population, yes white people are the same species as black and orientals, and no it's obviously not an example of speciation.

Be objective, if u where an alien from space would you think the hottentot (very short and blackskinned) and the typical Northern European (tall and whiteskinned) where the same species?

No, I wouldn't, but beng an alien who managed to travel for millions of light years, just for a laugh, I'd have enough sophisicated equipment to be able to test them genetically (yes I'd abduct some humans, sue me, I'm an alien), and realise they are so close genetically, they'd have to be the same species.

Wouldnt that be an example of speciation to a diehard evolutionist alien?

Maybe you should have waited for my reply.

Like I said earlier, evolutionists will find speciation anywhere and everywhere they want to.
It's sad, really to see such dishonesty and pretence amongst scientists. It makes you wonder what science (as practised by some) is really about.

…and anti-evolution proponents will never accept speciation, even if it slaps them in the face. It's sad to see such ignorance in those who should know better, but I guess that's the way it goes.

The fact about evolution reamins
1) Fossil evidence DOES not support evolution
2) There is no evidence for speciation, sorry let me rephrase,
There is NO REAL evidence! a lot of claims exist

Then what's your explanation for transitionals, especially fossilised ones ? In fact maybe you can answer the question everybody else seems reluctanct to answer, "explain how man and animals came to be, why, and why we have things like: vestiges in several animals including humans, ERVs, nested hierarchies etc. Remember, “Godddit” isn’t an explanation."

kimba:

Na ehn, you people really try o,

still discussing Evolution or Creation

does your discussion change the fact that God created this world?

Yes . IIRC, there was a question you were supposed to answer, are you going to answer it?

“The first cells must have been anaerobic because there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. In addition, they were probably thermophilic ("heat-loving" and fermentative. Rocks as old as 3.5 billion years old have yielded prokaryotic fossils. Specifically, some rocks from Australia called the Warrawoona series give evidence of bacterial communities organized into structures called stromatolites. Fossils like these have subsequently been found all over the world. These mats of bacteria still form today in a few locales (for example, Shark Bay Australia). Bacteria are the only life forms found in the rocks for a long, long time --eukaryotes (protists) appear about 1.5 billion years ago and fungi-like things appear about 900 million years ago (0.9 billion years ago).
Photosynthesis evolved around 3.4 billion years ago. Photosynthesis is a process that allows organisms to harness sunlight to manufacture sugar from simpler precursors. The first photosystem to evolve, PSI, uses light to convert carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) to glucose. This process releases sulfur as a waste product. About a billion years later, a second photosystem (PS) evolved, probably from a duplication of the first photosystem. Organisms with PSII use both photosystems in conjunction to convert carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O) into glucose. This process releases oxygen as a waste product. Anoxygenic (or H2S) photosynthesis, using PSI, is seen in living purple and green bacteria. Oxygenic (or H2O) photosynthesis, using PSI and PSII, takes place in cyanobacteria. Cyanobacteria are closely related to and hence probably evolved from purple bacterial ancestors. Green bacteria are an outgroup. Since oxygenic bacteria are a lineage within a cluster of anoxygenic lineages, scientists infer that PSI evolved first. This also corroborates with geological evidence.” (from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html).

this is exactly the type of BS rhetoric TOE is about. Ok u found bacteria in rock eons ago. and from this u surmised how photosynthesis evolved. where are the intermidiate steps in this evolution? how did u test the biochemical mechanisms in a 900mil yr old fossil. this is just a smokescreen for the uninformed. what fossils give is is at best a rudimentary outline of sturcture, not biochemical traces that can give any definitive insight into exact mechanisms

Note that i am not in anyway arguing that PS1 type synthesis appeared on earth before PS2 but these are all means of production of glucose which still exist up until now. It is no more evolution than the Yomo et al experiment, it is no more evolution than lactose intolerance in some human strains.
The issue is, however the food of organisms is derived, the mechanism for converting that food to energy is basically the same and has remained so over eons. Meaning the first life forms must have had an inherent ability to produce there own energy. How did this develop,? where are the intermidiates or will u throw up the abiogenesis defence again? And on that point, Darwin himself propounded an explanation for life developing from non-living chemicals so ur abiogenesis-is-not-evolution cop-out is a great big strawman

Please KAG do your research and find out exactly what data was gleamed from these rocks and what info was surmised from them. most probably the asumptions were made fron conparison with the existing types of these creatures, which still leads back to one of my points (which u have avoided as usual ), the ubiquity of cellular respiration

on some of your other issues
Mitochondria.[/b]What is it with evolutioniusts and mitochondria? please explain how mitochondria proves evolution in your own words before i give u a rebuttal

[b]Nested Heirachies. I remember writing at length concerning this with regard to the Talking Origins article so i don't know why you're bringing this up again since u conveniently ran from that  fight by saying u don't defend other poeples arguments. But u don't mind propounding other peoples arguments about ancient prokaryotes do u?


Vestiges aye?
Cool, i am not really sure but i think the cocyx in man is an example of a vestige. ok why not go the whole hoge and find me an intermidiate form of a primate with half developed tail, not serving a useful function. because according to toe, natural selection must preseve the genes of these individuals for them to pass on this trait and for their off spring to eventually loose the tail completely
WHat we see in primates is mokeys with fully functional tails (even the ones with small ones like baboons still use them for balance) and apes with no tails at all. Again where is the intermidiate for with a non functional tail. U will not find it alive of fossilised
The eternal dillema of evolution is that natural selection is supposed not to pass on any trait that is not beneficial in some way, so a half depleted organ like a primate tail should not be passed on and the completely absent tail would not have arisen

I have other issues to throw at u but answer thse first

"It’d be nice to have your response to my post on the thermodynamics issue; presenting that peer reviewed argument for the “proven mathematical and statistical methods [that] do not support a random rearrangement of genomes of simple primordial animals to give the structures we observe in later organisms”; explain how man and animals came to be, why, and why we have things like: vestiges in several animals including humans, ERVs, nested hierarchies etc. Remember, “Godddit” isn’t an explanation; “Explain why this is impossible. What mechanisms prevent evolutionary mechanisms from arriving at our current biodiversity? If you cannot, this is empty talk.”; What mechanism prevents a cumulation of these beneficial mutations? If you cannot substantiate this, your argument is simply personal incredulity: I cannot understand how, so it is impossible.”; “Lions eating hay? I’ll have to see a reference for that, if you don’t mind.”."

You mean this evolution crap is still going on

Where are the evolving monkeys??

@ Lioness

You mean this evolution crap is still going on Cheesy Cheesy, Where are the evolving monkeys??

They are writing comments similar to the one above in this forum

LMAO

kai, lioness!

All u monkeys better watch out!

there's a predator in ya midst!

hear her ROOOOOAR!!!!

Says it all

xkape:

this is exactly the type of BS rhetoric TOE is about. Ok u found bacteria in rock eons ago. and from this u surmised how photosynthesis evolved. where are the intermidiate steps in this evolution?

Zeno’s paradox and poor reading skills, make for bad bedfellows *rolls eyes*.

how did u test the biochemical mechanisms in a 900mil yr old fossil. this is just a smokescreen for the uninformed. what fossils give is is at best a rudimentary outline of sturcture, not biochemical traces that can give any definitive insight into exact mechanisms

Looks like someone forgot their meds today. Living bacteria with traits that are closely similar to the fossilised bacteria were tested.

Note that i am not in anyway arguing that PS1 type synthesis appeared on earth before PS2 but these are all means of production of glucose which still exist up until now. It is no more evolution than the Yomo et al experiment, it is no more evolution than lactose intolerance in some human strains.

Except Yomo et al.’s was an example of one of the processes of evolution, but I’ve stated and pointed that out several times before.

The issue is, however the food of organisms is derived, the mechanism for converting that food to energy is basically the same and has remained so over eons. Meaning the first life forms must have had an inherent ability to produce there own energy. How did this develop,?

I haven’t got a clue .

where are the intermidiates or will u throw up the abiogenesis defence again?

It may very well fall under abiogenesis, especially as it is likely the first population with that ability, were not what we would call “alive”.

And on that point, Darwin himself propounded an explanation for life developing from non-living chemicals so your abiogenesis-is-not-evolution cop-out is a great big strawman

Hoyle postulates on abiogenesis too, I guess that means abiogenesis is part of astrophysics too, (the douche) Walt Brown an engineer talks about evolution, which means evolution is part of mechanical engineering…I could go on, but hopefully you get the point.

Maybe you should start by reading for yourself where and what Darwin postulated on an abiogenesis possibility, and how that makes abiogenesis part of evolution. I suspect it’s something along the lines of Pasteur talked about , therefore penicillin is part of

Please KAG do your research and find out exactly what data was gleamed from these rocks and what info was surmised from them. most probably the asumptions were made fron conparison with the existing types of these creatures, which still leads back to one of my points (which u have avoided as usual ), the ubiquity of cellular respiration

Here’s a completely novel idea, which most people usually tend to glean for themselves, “common ancestry”. Descendants of the common ancestors, who most likely had that trait, still have those traits. You do know ubiquitous traits, are actually evidence for common ancestry, yes?

on some of your other issues
Mitochondria.What is it with evolutioniusts and mitochondria? please explain how mitochondria proves evolution in your own words before i give u a rebuttal

I may have missed it, or simply forgotten, but I don’t think I’ve mentioned the mitochondria in relation to evolution. That would probably explain why it’s hard for you to rebut. A tad difficult rebutting something I haven’t mentioned (not that it has stopped you in the past), no?

Nested Heirachies. I remember writing at length concerning this with regard to the Talking Origins article so i don't know why you're bringing this up again since u conveniently ran from that fight by saying u don't defend other poeples arguments. But u don't mind propounding other peoples arguments about ancient prokaryotes do u?

Except you still haven’t given me a reason to respond to your “rebuttal” (also known as long block of inanities) to the TO letter of the month, and except you didn’t address nested hierarchies. Do you actually know what “nested hierarchy” means? Looks like one more thing you have to read up on. Hmm, makes me wonder.

Vestiges aye?
Cool, i am not really sure but i think the cocyx in man is an example of a vestige.

Yes

ok why not go the whole hoge and find me an intermidiate form of a primate with half developed tail, not serving a useful function. because according to toe, natural selection must preseve the genes of these individuals for them to pass on this trait and for their off spring to eventually loose the tail completely
WHat we see in primates is mokeys with fully functional tails (even the ones with small ones like baboons still use them for balance) and apes with no tails at all. Again where is the intermidiate for with a non functional tail. U will not find it alive of fossilised

Do you know what a vestige means, or are you just trying to show beyond any reasonable doubt, what a rambling buffoon you are?

Anyway, for the rest of your rubbish , here are some pretty pictures for you to admire, and hopefully realise where you went wrong.

stumptail macaque (a monkey)


Barbary Macaque (ignore the adorable little angels by the side)


Is that a baboon?


…and finally, an ape with a tail.

The eternal dillema of evolution is that natural selection is supposed not to pass on any trait that is not beneficial in some way, so a half depleted organ like a primate tail should not be passed on and the completely absent tail would not have arisen

Actually, natural selection is supposed to pass both beneficial and neutral traits. Read up on vestigials too, because although I’d like to tell you, I’ve already lost patience with you.

I have other issues to throw at u but answer thse first

He says, without any hint of ever noticing the irony; the irony is either strong with you, or you are an idiot. I’m leaning towards the latter.

Here is the reality

LMAO

I first saw those pictures in secondary school.

Like i said, i do not have any problem with the possibility of these creatures to have existed millions of years ago.

But they are not the decendants of Adam. They were not made in the image of God.

They existed in the pre-adamic world along with the other creatures.

But they were all destroyed by God when he destroyed the old world.

God did not create the earth to be without form and void as we see in genesis chapter 1. It later became without form and void.

Isaiah 45
  18For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

This is what happened to the earth:

Isaiah 24
   1Behold, the LORD maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof.

It was turned up side down. This explains the fossils of bones, metals etc. which some scientists/evolutionists use to support the wrong conclusions which they trying to sell.


My bible does not contradict the possible existence of those creatures at some time.

There is the description of a Dinnassour my the bible:


   Job 41

    1"Job, can you pull the leviathan out of the sea with a fish hook?
       Can you tie down its tongue with a rope?
    2Can you put a rope through its nose?
       Can you stick a hook through its jaw?
    3Will it keep begging you for mercy?
       Will it speak gently to you?
    4Will it make an agreement with you?
       Can you make it your slave for life?
    5Can you make a pet out of it like a bird?
       Can you put it on a leash for your young women?
    6Will traders offer you something for it?
       Will they divide it up among the merchants?
    7Can you fill its body with harpoons?
       Can you throw fishing spears into its head?
    8If you touch it, it will fight you.
       Then you will remember never to touch it again!
    9No one can possibly control the leviathan.
       Just looking at it will terrify you.
    10No one dares to wake it up.
       So who can possibly stand up to me?
    11Who has a claim against me that I must pay?
       Everything on earth belongs to me.
    12"Now I will speak about the leviathan's legs.
       I will talk about its strength and its graceful body.
    13Who can strip off its outer coat?
       Who would try to put a bridle on it?
    14Who dares to open its jaws?
       Its mouth is filled with terrifying teeth.
    15Its back has rows of shields
       that are close together.
    16Each one is so close to the next one
       that not even air can pass between them.
    17They are joined tightly to one another.
       They stick together and can't be forced apart.
    18The leviathan's snorting throws out flashes of light.
       Its eyes shine like the first light of day.
    19Fire seems to spray out of its mouth.
       Sparks of fire shoot out.
    20Smoke pours out of its nose.
       It is like smoke from a boiling pot over burning grass.
    21Its breath sets coals on fire.
       Flames fly out of its mouth.
    22Its neck is very strong.
       People run to get out of its way.
    23Its rolls of fat are close together.
       They are firm and can't be moved.
    24Its chest is as hard as rock.
       It is as hard as a lower millstone.
    25When the leviathan rises up,
       even mighty people are terrified.
       They run away when it moves around wildly.
    26A sword that strikes it has no effect.
       Neither does a spear or dart or javelin.
    27It treats iron as if it were straw.
       It crushes bronze as if it were rotten wood.
    28Arrows do not make it run away.
       Stones that are thrown from slings are like straw hitting it.
    29A club seems like a piece of straw to it.
       It laughs when it hears a javelin rattling.
    30Its undersides are like broken pieces of pottery.
       It leaves a trail in the mud like a threshing sled.
    31It makes the ocean churn like a boiling pot.
       It stirs up the sea like perfume someone is making.
    32It leaves a shiny trail behind it.
       You would think the ocean had white hair.
    33Nothing on earth is equal to the leviathan.
       That creature is not afraid of anything.
    34It looks down on proud people.
       It rules over all those who are proud."


So, No shaking!

donnie:

I first saw those pictures in secondary school.

Like i said, i do not have any problem with the possibility of these creatures to have existed millions of years ago.

But they are not the decendants of Adam. They were not made in the image of God.

They existed in the pre-adamic world along with the other creatures.

But they were all destroyed by God when he destroyed the old world.

Okay, you've completely lost me. What pictures? Which creatures? Not descendants of Adam? Also, when did the carnage happen?

God did not create the earth to be without form and void as we see in genesis chapter 1. It later became without form and void.

Isaiah 45
18For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

Interesting.

This is what happened to the earth:

Isaiah 24
1Behold, the LORD maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof.

It was turned up side down. This explains the fossils of bones, metals etc. which some scientists/evolutionists use to support the wrong conclusions which they trying to sell.

You need to read past verse one, to understand the context. Also, for the record, it doesn't explain the fossils, metals, etc.

My bible does not contradict the possible existence of those creatures at some time.

Which critters?

There is the description of a Dinnassour my the bible:


Job 41

1"Job, can you pull the leviathan out of the sea with a fish hook?
Can you tie down its tongue with a rope?
2Can you put a rope through its nose?
Can you stick a hook through its jaw?
3Will it keep begging you for mercy?
*snipped for brevity*


So, No shaking!

That Job passge you've cited, is most likely allegorical (the poetic imageries are a clue). however, if one even decides to take it mostly literal, animals like hippos and Komod dragons still fit the bill better than dinosaurs.

This is the generation lineage of Nferyn.

He is the black monkey who turned white at the end.

LMAO

Reverend:

Here is the reality

where's that dam picture



Anyway, u know the picture?