donnffd:


Who assumed monkeys will become humans?, Are you sure you read the post, please go read it again, i never said monkeys will become humans, i believe my exact words were "Chimps are our closest cousins"...

ifeness:


How do you explain a god creating the world in 6 days? What can be more superstitious than that? The absence of knowledge shouldn't be filled by god. That is a medieval reasoning.

ifeness:


How do you explain a god creating the world in 6 days? What can be more superstitious than that? The absence of knowledge shouldn't be filled by god. That is a medieval reasoning.

HCpaul:


And you think that the best explanation you can provide is to use the existence of God as an excuse for your inability to provide an evidence.

If you fail to provide me one, then have just detect another weakness of an athiest.

hahn:


Ogbeni, answer my question joor and stop replying a question with a question. Weren't you taught how to hold a civilized discussion?

hahn:


It's 7 days actually. He created "highness" on the last day after smoking the weed he created hence "the rest"

HCpaul:


Am sorry... The name that i saw prompted me that you are from china, and that was why i wasn't sure of your religion.

Ok Mr Chiolin Hahn... Am not answering your question o.


Once again, are you a christian?

ifeness:


I cannot argue about the non-existence of your god with you. I cannot convince my niece Lords Of The Rings did not really happen.

hahn:

And you expect me to answer yours?
"Hahn" is a Chinese name? Wetin we no go hear for your mouth

HCpaul:


So you are really fron chinese... Wow! That is excellent.

I won go do my computer project.
Wait for me, am coming back in the evening.

HCpaul:


You loose the arguement because you fail to provide me an evidence for the evolution theory.

HCpaul:


Ok... Show me an evidence and i will belief the evolution theory.

Oluwaseytiano:
"Evolution" mixes two things together, one
real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution)
is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the
colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation.
Each type and length of beak a finch can have
is already in the gene pool and adaptive
mechanisms of finches. Creationists have
always agreed that there is variation within
species. What evolutionists do not want you
to know is that there are strict limits to
variation that are never crossed , something
every breeder of animals or plants is aware of.
Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by
selective breeding (to get the most milk from
cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies,
or any other characteristic), the line becomes
sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic
increases, others diminish. But evolutionists
want you to believe that changes continue,
merging gradually into new kinds of creatures.
This is where the imaginary part of the theory
of evolution comes in. It says that new
information is added to the gene pool by
mutation and natural selection to create frogs
from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals
from reptiles, to name a few.
Do these big changes (macroevolution) really
happen? Evolutionists tell us we cannot see
evolution taking place because it happens too
slowly. A human generation takes about 20
years from birth to parenthood. They say it
took tens of thousands of generations to form
man from a common ancestor with the ape,
from populations of only hundreds or
thousands. We do not have these problems
with bacteria. A new generation of bacteria
grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24
hours or more, depending on the type of
bacteria and the environment, but typically 20
minutes to a few hours. There are more
bacteria in the world than there are grains of
sand on all of the beaches of the world (and
many grains of sand are covered with
bacteria). They exist in just about any
environment: hot, cold, dry, wet, high pressure,
low pressure, small groups, large colonies,
isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen,
no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc.
There is much variation in bacteria. There are
many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say
that smaller organisms have a faster mutation
rate than larger ones 17). But they never turn
into anything new. They always remain
bacteria. Fruit flies are much more complex
than already complex single-cell bacteria.
Scientists like to study them because a
generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9
days. In the lab, fruit flies are studied under
every conceivable condition. There is much
variation in fruit flies. There are many
mutations. But they never turn into anything
new. They always remain fruit flies. Many
years of study of countless generations of
bacteria and fruit flies all over the world
shows that evolution is not happening today.

Oluwaseytiano:
Here is how the imaginary part is supposed to
happen: On rare occasions a mutation in DNA
improves a creature's ability to survive, so it is
more likely to reproduce (natural selection).
That is evolution's only tool for making new
creatures. It might even work if it took just
one gene to make and control one part. But
parts of living creatures are constructed of
intricate components with connections that all
need to be in place for the thing to work,
controlled by many genes that have to act in
the proper sequence. Natural selection would
not choose parts that did not have all their
components existing, in place, connected, and
regulated because the parts would not work.
Thus all the right mutations (and none of the
destructive ones) must happen at the same
time by pure chance. That is physically
impossible. To illustrate just how hopeless it
is, imagine this: on the ground are all the
materials needed to build a house (nails,
boards, shingles, windows, etc.). We tie a
hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let
him wander about the work site for as long as
you please, even millions of years. The
swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to
build a house as mutation-natural selection is
to make a single new working part in an
animal, let alone a new creature.
Only mutations in the reproductive (germ)
cells of an animal or plant would be passed
on. Mutations in the eye or skin of an animal
would not matter. Mutations in DNA happen
fairly often, but most are repaired or
destroyed by mechanisms in animals and
plants. All known mutations in animal and
plant germ cells are neutral, harmful, or fatal.
But evolutionists are eternally optimistic. They
believe that millions of beneficial mutations
built every type of creature that ever existed.
Believing in beneficial mutations is like
believing a short-circuit in the motherboard of
your computer could improve its performance.
To make any lasting change, a beneficial
mutation would have to spread ("sweep"
through a population and stay (become
"fixed". To evolutionists, this idea has been
essential for so long that it is called a "classic
sweep", "in which a new, strongly beneficial
mutation increases in frequency to fixation in
the population." Some evolutionist researchers
went looking for classic sweeps in humans,
and reported their findings in the journal
Science. "To evaluate the importance of
classic sweeps in shaping human diversity, we
analyzed resequencing data for 179 human
genomes from four populations". "In humans,
the effects of sweeps are expected to persist
for approximately 10,000 generations or about
250,000 years." Evolutionists had identified
"more than 2000 genes as potential targets of
positive selection in the human genome", and
they expected that "diversity patterns in about
10% of the human genome have been affected
by linkage to recent sweeps." So what did they
find? "In contrast to expectation," their test
detected nothing, but they could not quite
bring themselves to say it. They said there
was a "paucity of classic sweeps revealed by
our findings". Sweeps "were too infrequent
within the past 250,000 years to have had
discernible effects on genomic diversity."
"Classic sweeps were not a dominant mode of
human adaptation over the past 250,000
years."

johnydon22:

Word of advice sir, quite the copy and paste you have bathed this thread and for once employ your own reason in dealing with topics ...

jayriginal:
Oluwaseytiano

Whoever wrote the articles you pasted here doesn't know very much about evolution.

Many of the questions can be dismissed with little thought. For instance, why don't Eskimos have fur. Well that's because they don't need fur since they wear warm clothing. That in itself is due to the fact that man is an intelligent animal.

Now if they had to go au naturale, then they better have some way of coping with the environmental conditions or they drop dead. This is in fact why many more species that have lived on earth are now extinct. Those that can adapt continue while those that can't become extinct.

You also mentioned bacteria. The goal of evolution is not to turn into a different specie (although this can and does happen). We have drug resistant germs. They've evolved to combat their natural predators. That's enough for them.

My thoughts, man would hardly evolve anymore (minus genetic engineering/modification) because technology has made us overcome our environmental challenges. We are no longer in our natural habitat where the impetus to survive was second nature. In our own way, we have also affected the environment and habitats of other animals.

Bottom line, the article you posted appears good but is pretty easy to deconstruct. Also, always include your sources.

donnffd:


are you trying to counter a point or something?

Oluwaseytiano:
really? D fact is everybody knows nothing about evolution even d so Called evolutionist

Oluwaseytiano:
if u had employed ur reasoning first u would have realised dat those were extract from a book. Just learn and stop being a dumbass