Creationists

[UltimateReality]

not the completly debunked giraffe shit again....

must be scraping the bottom of the creationist bogus rationalizing barrel...

Yes and it still puts the brakes on your natural selection argument.

Actually, it doesn't. The same nonsensical "giraffe" cut and paste was thoroughly debunked previously. Fundie Christians cut and paste from the same creationist ministries so we see a pattern of these same laughable arguments going around and around.

Among thinking humans and among those with a background in science, it really is an embarrassment for fundies to cut and paste the same, tired arguments.

It's as though ignorance and simple mindedness is thought to be a virtue among the knowledge-crippled. The same poster who dumped the earlier 'giraffe" cut and paste in the thread is the most prolific liar and "quote-miner" among the very few YEC'ers / Flat-Earthers / religiously crippled to not be embarrassed to post such tripe... until you arrived.

This is hilarious!!! Now you pretend like you even have a clue what was being discussed??? This is what happens when evofundies get angry and start lashing out without even know what they are really lashing out about. Pathetic.

You and Daws both completely missed what the discussion was about. It went right over your uneducated heads. It wasn't even about giraffe's. It was about the evolutionary definition of fitness. But nice attempt on pretending you knew what we were arguing about.

 

[UltimateReality]

yeah that is right.. as you've presented no evidence no extrapolation of evidence no, fact no extrapolation of fact.
what you have presented is subjective, erroneous, specious, fantasy.

so once you get those little inconveniences out of the way and present some real evidence
then we can then deny it...

I can say the same thing about the bullshit you offered.

Burden of proof lies with the ones making the claim for evolution. So far every claim has been shot down. The biggest problem you face is there is no fossil record. There should be literally millions of transitional fossils.

Even dating methods have been proven to be flawed.

actually no you can't
the burden of proof issue was settled long ago.
evolution is not a claim it's fact.
there are no shoulds in science shit either happens or it does not either there's evidence or there's not .
in the case of transitional fossils there are just as many as needed to prove evolution correct.
more are being found all the time .

but you keep on rationalizing !

This thread has really gone into the gutter with the preposterous claims. Evolution is full of "might haves" and "could haves"!!!! In fact, Darwinists can't relate any one of their "just so" stories without filling their narratives full of "might haves" and "could haves". Wake up, Daws!! Your brainwashing is showing.

Pick any story about evolution and this is what you can count on. This just happens to be from Wiki on Abiogenesis, which we know is not part of Darwinism, but you get the picture:

Current models

There is no "standard model" of the origin of life. Most currently accepted models draw at least some elements from the framework laid out by the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. Under that umbrella, however, are a wide array of disparate discoveries and conjectures such as the following, listed in a rough order of postulated emergence:

The Oparin-Haldane hypothesis suggests that the atmosphere of the early Earth may have been chemically reducing in nature, composed primarily of methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), water (H2O), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbon dioxide (CO2) or carbon monoxide (CO), and phosphate (PO43-), with molecular oxygen (O2) and ozone (O3) either rare or absent.
In such a reducing atmosphere, electrical activity can catalyze the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953.
Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can form lipid bilayers, a basic component of the cell membrane.
A fundamental question is about the nature of the first self-replicating molecule. Since replication is accomplished in modern cells through the cooperative action of proteins and nucleic acids, the major schools of thought about how the process originated can be broadly classified as "proteins first" and "nucleic acids first".
The principal thrust of the "nucleic acids first" argument is as follows:
The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis)
Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity might have resulted in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. The first ribosome might have been created by such a process, resulting in more prevalent protein synthesis.
Synthesized proteins might then outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer, relegating nucleic acids to their modern use, predominantly as a carrier of genomic information.

 

[UltimateReality]

If we were created by an intelligent being, why did it make our shit so stinky?

So you wouldn't think it was food and eat it.

Becasue animals act and react on instinct. Humans use logic and reason.

An argument which fits the form referred to as "No true scotsman" is invalid, or inconsequential. Or, in other words, calling something by a name doesn't change what it is. And, similarly, splitting two things into categories, and naming them, is not an explanation of, say, some more fundamental order, or, perhaps, intent.

In any case....

...an answer to the question, and others like it, is not very meaningful beyond that the answerer has a brain and a small amount of creativity (and this is assuming that the one who answered was the first one to come up with it).

That one can fit their beliefs to reality, or make it so they do not contradict, does not make them true, and, as before, requires only a modicum of intelligence. As for their truth, by the most common definition of a god, it is not possible for it's existence, or any effect of it, so long as these things remain undetailed, to be proven.

Oh no!!! Another poster happened onto Loki's beginners guide to fallacy accusations. Please make it stop. Here, does anyone else want to pick a few and start throwing them around to try and sound intelligent? Here's the link...

http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/

 

[UltimateReality]

More of Daws "concrete" evidence, from NP's trusted source, Wiki:

Taxonomy and evolution

The giraffe is one of only two living species of the family Giraffidae, the other being the okapi. The family was once much more extensive, with over 10 fossil genera described. Giraffids first arose 8 million years ago (mya) in south-central Europe during the Miocene epoch. The superfamily Giraffoidea, together with the family Antilocapridae (whose only extant species is the pronghorn), evolved from the extinct family Palaeomerycidae.[9] The earliest known giraffid was the deer-like Climacoceras.

While the progressive elongation of the neck and limbs can be found throughout the giraffid lineage, it became more pronounced in genera such as Giraffokeryx, Palaeotragus (possible ancestor of the okapi), Samotherium and Bohlinia.[9] Bohlinia entered China and northern India in response to climate change. From here, the genus Giraffa evolved and, around 7 mya, entered Africa. Further climate changes caused the extinction of the Asian giraffes, while the African ones survived and radiated into several new species. G. camelopardalis arose around 1 mya in eastern Africa during the Pleistocene.[9] Some biologists suggest that the modern giraffe descended from G. jumae;[10] others find G. gracilis a more likely candidate.[9] It is believed that the main driver for the evolution of the giraffes was the change from extensive forests to more open habitats, which began 8 mya.[9] Some researchers have hypothesized that this new habitat with a different diet, including Acacia, may have exposed giraffe ancestors to toxins that caused higher mutation rates and a higher rate of evolution.[11] [Notice that they don't have to provide any information on what this new habitat or fast mutation inducing diet was. Nor do they have to actually do experiments to find out if there are foods that produce positive mutations.]

The giraffe was one of the many species first described by Carl Linnaeus in 1758. He gave it the binomial name Cervus camelopardalis. Morten Thrane Brünnich classified the genus Giraffa in 1772.[12] In the early 19th century, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck believed that the giraffe's long neck was an "acquired characteristic", developed as generations of ancestral giraffes strived to reach the leaves of tall trees.[13] This theory was eventually rejected, and scientists now believe that the giraffe's neck arose through Darwinian natural selection—that ancestral giraffes with long necks thereby had a competitive advantage that better enabled them to reproduce and pass on their genes.[13] EXACTLY!!!! We don't really know why it has a long neck or if natural selection did it but it must have, because the giraffe passed on its genes. So you see Lonestar, evolution says we have proved natural selection because they types of animals that survive and reproduce are the kinds of animals that survive and reproduce. Darwinists have been busted so many times making up "just so" stories with "might haves", "may haves", and "could haves", that they don't even try anymore to figure out what phenotype in one species makes it more "fit" and why. Natural selection must be true because isn't obvious, if it wasn't, the giraffe wouldn't have that long neck. Consider yourself debunked.

When you actually become aware of the massive amounts of assumptive language that are used in Darwinian fairy tales, you can actually see through the fairy tale. Daws, Loki, NP, and Hollie are still brainwashed by their NAS sponsored public education and I doubt they would recognize assumptive language if it hit them in the face.

 

[pjnlsn]

If we were created by an intelligent being, why did it make our shit so stinky?

An argument which fits the form referred to as "No true scotsman" is invalid, or inconsequential. Or, in other words, calling something by a name doesn't change what it is. And, similarly, splitting two things into categories, and naming them, is not an explanation of, say, some more fundamental order, or, perhaps, intent.

In any case....

...an answer to the question, and others like it, is not very meaningful beyond that the answerer has a brain and a small amount of creativity (and this is assuming that the one who answered was the first one to come up with it).

That one can fit their beliefs to reality, or make it so they do not contradict, does not make them true, and, as before, requires only a modicum of intelligence. As for their truth, by the most common definition of a god, it is not possible for it's existence, or any effect of it, so long as these things remain undetailed, to be proven.

Oh no!!! Another poster happened onto Loki's beginners guide to fallacy accusations. Please make it stop. Here, does anyone else want to pick a few and start throwing them around to try and sound intelligent? Here's the link...

Fallacies [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

That you dislike it or something associated to some degree does not make what was written false.

 

[ima]

If we were made in His image, does god have a small cock?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

yeah that is right.. as you've presented no evidence no extrapolation of evidence no, fact no extrapolation of fact.
what you have presented is subjective, erroneous, specious, fantasy.

so once you get those little inconveniences out of the way and present some real evidence
then we can then deny it...

I can say the same thing about the bullshit you offered.

Burden of proof lies with the ones making the claim for evolution. So far every claim has been shot down. The biggest problem you face is there is no fossil record. There should be literally millions of transitional fossils.

Even dating methods have been proven to be flawed.

actually no you can't
the burden of proof issue was settled long ago.
evolution is not a claim it's fact.
there are no shoulds in science shit either happens or it does not either there's evidence or there's not .
in the case of transitional fossils there are just as many as needed to prove evolution correct.
more are being found all the time .

but you keep on rationalizing !

Actually, yes I can.

Evoltuion has NEVER been proven. That is a fact.

Evolution is not science.

There should be MILLIONS of transitional fossils if evolution occurred.

Besides what evolutionist call transitional fossil aren't even that.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

not the completly debunked giraffe shit again....

must be scraping the bottom of the creationist bogus rationalizing barrel...

Yes and it still puts the brakes on your natural selection argument.

false assumption... if it did why is it nowere to be found other than the places you expect to find fantasy?

Sorry..... but it's true.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

nothing to ignore...you have no proof of god..
just a belief ....and that proves nothing but belief

I'm not the one needing proof of God. I know for a fact He exists.

You're confusing your gods with the Easter Bunny.

No confusion here. Stop projecting.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

yeah that is right.. as you've presented no evidence no extrapolation of evidence no, fact no extrapolation of fact.
what you have presented is subjective, erroneous, specious, fantasy.

so once you get those little inconveniences out of the way and present some real evidence
then we can then deny it...

I can say the same thing about the bullshit you offered.

Burden of proof lies with the ones making the claim for evolution. So far every claim has been shot down. The biggest problem you face is there is no fossil record. There should be literally millions of transitional fossils.

Even dating methods have been proven to be flawed.

If, as the Flat-Earthers claim, there is no fosill record, how do the Flat-Earthers account for the fosill record that actually does exist?.

Is the existing fosill record a part of the vast, global conspiracy that Flat-Earthers are convinced exists and which goals are to further evilution?

Or, is it a reality that the Flat-Earthers will choose to believe in fantasies, vast conspiracies and will live in denial of the relevant truths?

World famous scientist, G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about anything...or at the very best, they are not science."

Science means "to know" and "systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc." It is based on observation and experimentation. Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They guess, suppose, etc. but they don't "know." Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. They have watched their colleagues rushing to protect Darwin rather than putting him to rigorous tests.

World famous scientist, G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about anything...or at the very best, they are not science."

Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma said, "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them...." And Lord Zuckerman admitted there are no "fossil traces" of transformation from an ape-like creature to man! Even Stephen J. Gould of Harvard admitted, "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change." I assume that all college professors know that Darwin admitted the same fact. (I also assume they know that Darwin was not trained as a scientist but for the ministry, so evolutionists are worshipping at the feet of an apostate preacher!)

Famous fossil expert, Niles Eldredge confessed, "...geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them." Dr. Eldredge further said, "...no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures."

Concerning transitional fossils, world famous paleontologist Colin Patterson admitted that "there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." Not one.

read more here

 

[Hollie]

I'm not the one needing proof of God. I know for a fact He exists.

You're confusing your gods with the Easter Bunny.

No confusion here. Stop projecting.

Your fascination with supermagical Easter Bunnies is cause for concern.

 

[Hollie]

I can say the same thing about the bullshit you offered.

Burden of proof lies with the ones making the claim for evolution. So far every claim has been shot down. The biggest problem you face is there is no fossil record. There should be literally millions of transitional fossils.

Even dating methods have been proven to be flawed.

actually no you can't
the burden of proof issue was settled long ago.
evolution is not a claim it's fact.
there are no shoulds in science shit either happens or it does not either there's evidence or there's not .
in the case of transitional fossils there are just as many as needed to prove evolution correct.
more are being found all the time .

but you keep on rationalizing !

Actually, yes I can.

Evoltuion has NEVER been proven. That is a fact.

Evolution is not science.

There should be MILLIONS of transitional fossils if evolution occurred.

Besides what evolutionist call transitional fossil aren't even that.

Evolution certainly has been proven. Denial and ignorance on your part is your own issue to resolve.

 

[ima]

In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.

 

[Hollie]

More of Daws "concrete" evidence, from NP's trusted source, Wiki:

Taxonomy and evolution

The giraffe is one of only two living species of the family Giraffidae, the other being the okapi. The family was once much more extensive, with over 10 fossil genera described. Giraffids first arose 8 million years ago (mya) in south-central Europe during the Miocene epoch. The superfamily Giraffoidea, together with the family Antilocapridae (whose only extant species is the pronghorn), evolved from the extinct family Palaeomerycidae.[9] The earliest known giraffid was the deer-like Climacoceras.

While the progressive elongation of the neck and limbs can be found throughout the giraffid lineage, it became more pronounced in genera such as Giraffokeryx, Palaeotragus (possible ancestor of the okapi), Samotherium and Bohlinia.[9] Bohlinia entered China and northern India in response to climate change. From here, the genus Giraffa evolved and, around 7 mya, entered Africa. Further climate changes caused the extinction of the Asian giraffes, while the African ones survived and radiated into several new species. G. camelopardalis arose around 1 mya in eastern Africa during the Pleistocene.[9] Some biologists suggest that the modern giraffe descended from G. jumae;[10] others find G. gracilis a more likely candidate.[9] It is believed that the main driver for the evolution of the giraffes was the change from extensive forests to more open habitats, which began 8 mya.[9] Some researchers have hypothesized that this new habitat with a different diet, including Acacia, may have exposed giraffe ancestors to toxins that caused higher mutation rates and a higher rate of evolution.[11] [Notice that they don't have to provide any information on what this new habitat or fast mutation inducing diet was. Nor do they have to actually do experiments to find out if there are foods that produce positive mutations.]

The giraffe was one of the many species first described by Carl Linnaeus in 1758. He gave it the binomial name Cervus camelopardalis. Morten Thrane Brünnich classified the genus Giraffa in 1772.[12] In the early 19th century, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck believed that the giraffe's long neck was an "acquired characteristic", developed as generations of ancestral giraffes strived to reach the leaves of tall trees.[13] This theory was eventually rejected, and scientists now believe that the giraffe's neck arose through Darwinian natural selection—that ancestral giraffes with long necks thereby had a competitive advantage that better enabled them to reproduce and pass on their genes.[13] EXACTLY!!!! We don't really know why it has a long neck or if natural selection did it but it must have, because the giraffe passed on its genes. So you see Lonestar, evolution says we have proved natural selection because they types of animals that survive and reproduce are the kinds of animals that survive and reproduce. Darwinists have been busted so many times making up "just so" stories with "might haves", "may haves", and "could haves", that they don't even try anymore to figure out what phenotype in one species makes it more "fit" and why. Natural selection must be true because isn't obvious, if it wasn't, the giraffe wouldn't have that long neck. Consider yourself debunked.

When you actually become aware of the massive amounts of assumptive language that are used in Darwinian fairy tales, you can actually see through the fairy tale. Daws, Loki, NP, and Hollie are still brainwashed by their NAS sponsored public education and I doubt they would recognize assumptive language if it hit them in the face.

Oh my, but it seems that the YEC'ers have an inviting new conspiracy we'll call the "Giraffe neck conspiracy". A reading of the YEC complaints regarding their objections to the evilutionist perspectives is simply enduring the expected creationist misinformation and contradictory claims. As we see with regularity, the YEC'ers will insist that any refinement of the scientific perspective is a reason to expect "the gods did it". YEC'ers can't be expected to understand that process of science is one of discovery and of testing. If new data is confirmed that supplants older data, the process will adjust and flex. That is not possible in the world of the YEC'er. In their narrow worldview, unthinking and unquestioning kowtowing to a haphazard collection of takes and fables suggesting supernatural entities defines their worldview.

What the YEC'ers cannot resolve is that the entire "Giraffe conspiracy" could be immediately resolved with clear and precise evidence that all of the science data is wrong with a demonstration of Giraffe lineage to Noah's Ark. Simple really, but the YEC'ers refuse to do that.

Similarly, the YEC'ers cannot account for the fosill evidence that shows Giraffe evolution. Quite clearly, there should be NO fosill evidence if the YEC claims were true. The YEC'ers resolve this absurdity of theirs by simply denying that ANY fosill evidence exists. Even the fosill evidence that actually does exist is denied by the YEC'ers.

It's a pathology that afflicts the YEC'ers: "Reality Denial Syndrome"

One of the darlings of the YEC crowd is Francis Hitching. He is "quote mined" ruthlessly by the YEC crowd. He is also as just as dishonest and sleazy as the YEC'ers are in their falsification of information.

Francis Hitching: Commonly Quoted by Creationists

Francis Hitching is the author of, among other books,The Neck of the Giraffe. He believes evolution is directed by some sort of cosmic force, but does not like Darwinism. He wrote in this book [The Neck of the Giraffe,Ticknor & Fields, New Haven, Connecticut, 1982, p. 12 (p. 4, paperback)] that:

For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble. Evolution and Darwinism are often taken to mean the same thing. But they don't. Evolution of life over a very long period of time is a fact, if we are to believe evidence gathered during the last two centuries from geology, paleontology, molecular biol- ogy and many other scientific disciplines. Despite the many believers in Divine creation who dispute this ..., the probability that evolution has occurred approaches certainty in scientific terms.... On the other hand Darwinism (or neo-Darwinism, its modern version) is a theory that seeks to explain evolution. It has not, contrary to general belief, and despite very great efforts, been proved.

Research on Hitching turned up the following: Hitching is basically a sensational TV script writer and has no scientific credentials. In The Neck of the Giraffe he claimed to be a member of the Royal Archaeological Institute, but an inquiry to that institute said he was not. He implied in the "Acknowledgements" of The Neck of the Giraffe that paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould had helped in the writing of the book, but upon inquiry Gould said he did not know him and had no information about him. Hitching also implied that his book had been endorsed by Richard Dawkins, but upon inquiry Dawkins stated: "I know nothing at all about Francis Hitching. If you are uncovering the fact that he is a charlatan, good for you. His book, The Neck of the Giraffe, is one of the silliest and most ignorant I have read for years."

Hitching believes in the paranormal and has written on Mayan pyramid energy and for some "In Search Of..." episodes on BBC television. The reference work Contemporary Authors, Vol. 103, page 208, lists him as a member of the Society for Psychical Research, the British Society of Dowsers and of the American Society of Dowsers. His writings include: Earth Magic, Dowsing: The Psi Connection, Mysterious World: An Atlas of the Unexplained, Fraud, Mischief, and the Supernatural and Instead of Darwin.

Hitching's book spends much of its time attacking Darwinian evolution, borrowing heavily and uncritically from young-earth creationist arguments. Many of Hitching's "references" are lifted from young-earth creationist literature rather than being quoted directly from their original sources. One magazine had this to say [Creation/Evolution Newsletter,7, No. 5, pp. 15-16, September/October 1987]:

Speaking of the Biblical Creation Society, there was an interesting letter in the January 1983 issue of their journal Biblical Creation (p. 74) concerning a review of Francis Hitching's 1982 book The Neck of the Giraffe. Hitching's book is strongly anti- Darwinist, and is enthusiastically hailed by most creationists (though he also pokes fun at fundamentalist creationists). The letter, by creationist Malcolm Bowden (author of The Rise of the Evolution Fraud), points out that Hitching simply "culled his information from the creationist literature." This is indeed the case: many creationist works are cited favorably (Anderson, Coffin, Clark, Daly, Davidheiser, Dewar, Gish, Morris, Segraves, Whitcomb, and Wysong, plus various anti-Darwinists). Hitching does cite Bowden's earlier book Ape-Men -- Fact or Fallacy?,but Bowden accuses Hitching of "lifting" several passages and illustrations from his book without acknowledgment: in other words, plagiarism. "Hitchin's [sic] book is largely an exposition of the creationists [sic] viewpoint from the beginning to almost the end," Bowden points out.... Hitching is also a paranormalist, an advocate of psychic evolution.... [Hitching's book] Earth Magic is a wild, extremely entertaining and thoroughly psychic interpretation of megalithic structures.... Hitching also includes in his scheme cosmic cataclysms, Atlantis, pyramidology, dowsing, ESP, miraculous healing, and astrology.

 

[Youwerecreated]

In your lurid fantasies of begging for attention, you managed to get everything wrong, except for the part of you being a stereotypical fundie. You're completely stereotypical.

Well Omigosh and bless my soul!!! I think we finally might be making some progress here. There it is folks, in black and white!!! Hollie says that I got everything wrong which includes my assertion that her parents were gay-hating fundies. I always claimed that if she stopped cut and pasting long enough to deny my claims about her were true, I would stop. Being true to my word, I will not mention her parents ever again. Now if we could just get her to fess up about here lack of education and stop her from questioning everyone else's, I could quit with the ginormous fonts!!!

What a creepy stalker.

What a boring dipshit !

 

[Youwerecreated]

Proofs abound. Had you graduated a public school system and gone on to college you would have had some exposure to science.

The goofy comment about the fosill gap discrediting evolution is nothing more than the nonsense spewed by the Christian creationist ministries.

That's why the science world has dismissed the Christian creationist ministries as quacks and why the courts have rejected such quacks from participation in the public schools.

Please don't pretend you know my educational background. Because you don't.


The only proof that can be claimed is the proof evolutionist have shoved down your gullible throat.

Fact: Dating methods are flawed.

Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.

Fact: Scientist have never created a living organism out of nothing.

Fact: No one knows the ultimate origin of man.

Fact: If macro-evolution really occurred there would be billions of indisputable intermediate fossils.

Fact: Evolution has never been observed.

Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics

Fact: Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.


Class dismissed.

wow a whole list of false comparisons.
I'll debunk just three...

Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics
bullshit!

Now let's look at the application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to the theory of evolution. The traditional creationist argument is that the evolution of lower life-forms to higher life-forms is not possible because it involves an increase in complexity, which they say amounts to a decrease in entropy. This argument is fundamentally flawed in two different ways.

First, we have no evidence that the complex life-form is actually less entropic than the simple life-form. Entropy is a measure of statistical disorder, not simplicity vs. complexity of design. There is no reason that I am aware of to believe that a man is less "disordered," on a molecular level, than an equivalently-sized chimpanzee, for example. That might be the case, but if so, it has nothing to do with the complexity of our design. Consider the fact that, all else being equal (most notably mass and temperature), crystalline solids have lower entropy than either men or chimpanzees, and yet clearly their design is much more simple and repetitive, not more complex.

Second, even if higher life-forms do have lower entropy than lower life-forms, the Second Law does not say that they therefore can't evolve. The burning up of the sun, with its corresponding energy transfer to the earth, along with other processes such as the geothermal activities within the earth itself, increase the entropy of the universe at a far higher rate than evolution could possibly decrease it. There are many processes on earth that result in a local entropy decrease, but this is permissible by the Second Law, since they are receiving energy from the sun. The entropy of the universe as a whole is still increasing.

Beyond these two fundamental flaws in the argument, there is a reason that we can be absolutely sure that evolution does not violate the Second Law. To see this, we must understand that entropy is an example of what is known as an "extensive property." That means the entropy of an entire system is just the addition of the entropy of all of its parts. So, for example, the entropy of a collection of fifty identical 100-pound loads of organic material is fifty times the entropy a single 100-pound load of organic material. The entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound monkeys is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound monkey. And the entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound humans is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound human.

Now let's assume (for the sake of argument) that the entropy of a monkey is less than the entropy of a 100-pound load of organic material, and the entropy of a human is least of all. For this example, we'll arbitrarily assign an entropy of 1 unit to each human, 2 to each monkey, and 3 to each load of organic material. So, for the collections of 50 of each item we have an overall entropy of 1×50 + 2×50 + 3×50, which is 300.

Now what happens when a new human is born and grows up? The population of humans grows from 50 to 51, but where does the matter (which must be conserved) for the new human come from? It has to come from the surrounding environment. We can model this by saying that the collection of organic material decreases from 50 loads to 49. So if we again add up the overall entropy (of the items we're discussing, not of the whole universe) we find it decreases by 2 to 298.

But here is the key concept. This change in entropy is completely independent of whether the new human was born to human parents or to monkey parents. It does not depend on whether or not there was already an initial presence of humans. We can start with zero humans and fifty monkeys, and postulate a sudden and bizarre evolution by assuming a human born to a pair of monkeys, and the entropy decrease is still 2, exactly the same amount of decrease as when the human baby is born to human parents.

Obviously, the birth of a human baby to human parents happens all the time and thus cannot be a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Therefore, it would not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics if the human baby were born to monkey parents either. The same argument can be made for any evolutionary step, no matter how large or small.

So the bottom line is, the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not argue against the theory of evolution. Evolution doesn't violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics any more than it violates Newton's Law of Gravity. That doesn't necessarily mean evolution is true, but we shouldn't make a false claim that it violates the laws of physics, unless we want to be intellectually dishonest.

Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics


Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.
bullshit! misnomer.
the "gap" in the fossil record is not a real "gap" but a perceived one.
because 1. Fossilization is an extremely rare event .
2. paleontology and archeology are relatively new (150 years) sciences and the've only explored about 1/10 or the areas the contain fossils.

Fact: Evolution has never been observed
more bullshit!

Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed
Natural Selection, Macroevolution, and Ring Species
By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
The most basic direct evidence of evolution is our direct observation of evolution occurring. This is also the most basic lie which creationists tell about evolution because they constantly claim that evolution has never been observed when, in fact, it's been observed both in the lab and the field repeatedly. Creationists count on this lie getting traction because they lie about what evolution is and repeat the lies often enough that they are believed through sheer, dishonest repetition.

Observed Natural Selection
What's more, the observed instances of evolution occur in the context of natural selection, which is the basic explanation for evolutionary changes in the theory of evolution. The environment can be seen to exert a "force" on a population such that certain individuals are more likely to survive and pass on their genes to future generations. There are numerous examples of this in the literature, none of which creationists read.

The fact that natural selection works is important since we can be sure that there have been environmental changes in the past. Given this fact, we would expect organisms to evolve to fit their environments. (Note: It is widely accepted that natural selection is not the only process at work in evolution. Neutral evolution also plays a role. There is some disagreement as to how much each process contributes to evolution over all; however, natural selection is the only proposed adaptive process.)

Ring Species & Evolution
There is a specific type of species that bears some discussion: ring species. Imagine a straight line across some significant sized geographical region. There are two distinct but closely related species at either end, say point A and point B. These species do not typically interbreed, but there is a continuum of organisms along the line that stretches between them. These organisms are such that the closer you are to point A the more like the species at point A the organisms on the line are, and the closer you are to point B the more like the species at point B the organisms are.

Now, imagine bending this line such that the two endpoints are in the same location and a "ring" is formed. This is the basic description of a ring species. You have two nonbreeding and distinct species living in the same area and strung out over some area a succession of creatures such that, at the "farthest" point on the ring, the creatures are largely hybrids of the two distinct species at the starting points. This is significant because it shows that intra-species differences can be large enough to produce an interspecies difference. Differences between species are therefore the same kind (though not in degree) as the differences between individuals and population within a species.

Nature only appears to be divided up into discrete types at any one time and place. If you look at the biosphere as whole throughout time, the "barriers" between species appears much more fluid. Ring species are an example of this reality. Given our understanding of the genetic mechanisms of life, it is reasonable to think that this fluidity extends beyond the species level to higher order taxonomic differences between species.

Macroevolution vs. Microevolution
As with the basic genetic mechanisms, creationists will argue that there is a magic line across which evolution may not move. This is why creationists will define macroevolution differently than evolutionists. Since speciation has been observed, macroevolution has been observed according to the evolutionist; but to a creationist, macroevolution is a change in kind. Even creationists generally won't argue that natural selection doesn't take place. They just say that the changes that can take place are limited to changes within the organism's kind.

Again, based on our understanding of genetics it is reasonable to think that it is possible for large-scale changes to occur, and that there are no rational reasons or evidence to support the idea that they can't occur. Creationists act as if species have some hard-coded distinctiveness that separates them from one another.

The idea of species is not completely arbitrary: for example, in sexual animals lack of reproduction is a real "barrier." Unfortunately, the idea that living organisms are divided in some magical way which makes them distinct from one another just isn't supported by the evidence. Ring species demonstrate this on a small scale. Genetics suggests no reason it should not be true on a large scale.

To say that species can not change beyond some "kind" boundary is to create a totally arbitrary dividing line that has no biological or scientific basis — that's why creationists who try to make arguments about "kinds" can't provide a consistent, coherent, useful definition of what a "kind" is. The differences immediately "below" the boundary will be the same as the differences immediately "above" the boundary. There is no rational justification for drawing any such line.

The important thing to know is that evolution has actually been seen and documented and that the observed instances support the idea of natural selection. It is logical and reasonable to conclude that in the absence of something to prevent it, a succession of speciation events would eventually lead to a divergence where descendant organisms would be classified in different genera, families, orders, etc.



Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed

Macroevolution is not real science,it can't be tested,studied or observed.

 

[Hollie]

Well Omigosh and bless my soul!!! I think we finally might be making some progress here. There it is folks, in black and white!!! Hollie says that I got everything wrong which includes my assertion that her parents were gay-hating fundies. I always claimed that if she stopped cut and pasting long enough to deny my claims about her were true, I would stop. Being true to my word, I will not mention her parents ever again. Now if we could just get her to fess up about here lack of education and stop her from questioning everyone else's, I could quit with the ginormous fonts!!!

What a creepy stalker.

What a boring dipshit !

An angry fundie. How stereotypical.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Proofs abound. Had you graduated a public school system and gone on to college you would have had some exposure to science.

The goofy comment about the fosill gap discrediting evolution is nothing more than the nonsense spewed by the Christian creationist ministries.

That's why the science world has dismissed the Christian creationist ministries as quacks and why the courts have rejected such quacks from participation in the public schools.

Please don't pretend you know my educational background. Because you don't.


The only proof that can be claimed is the proof evolutionist have shoved down your gullible throat.

Fact: Dating methods are flawed.

Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.

Fact: Scientist have never created a living organism out of nothing.

Fact: No one knows the ultimate origin of man.

Fact: If macro-evolution really occurred there would be billions of indisputable intermediate fossils.

Fact: Evolution has never been observed.

Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics

Fact: Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.


Class dismissed.

wow a whole list of false comparisons.
I'll debunk just three...

Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics
bullshit!

Now let's look at the application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to the theory of evolution. The traditional creationist argument is that the evolution of lower life-forms to higher life-forms is not possible because it involves an increase in complexity, which they say amounts to a decrease in entropy. This argument is fundamentally flawed in two different ways.

First, we have no evidence that the complex life-form is actually less entropic than the simple life-form. Entropy is a measure of statistical disorder, not simplicity vs. complexity of design. There is no reason that I am aware of to believe that a man is less "disordered," on a molecular level, than an equivalently-sized chimpanzee, for example. That might be the case, but if so, it has nothing to do with the complexity of our design. Consider the fact that, all else being equal (most notably mass and temperature), crystalline solids have lower entropy than either men or chimpanzees, and yet clearly their design is much more simple and repetitive, not more complex.

Second, even if higher life-forms do have lower entropy than lower life-forms, the Second Law does not say that they therefore can't evolve. The burning up of the sun, with its corresponding energy transfer to the earth, along with other processes such as the geothermal activities within the earth itself, increase the entropy of the universe at a far higher rate than evolution could possibly decrease it. There are many processes on earth that result in a local entropy decrease, but this is permissible by the Second Law, since they are receiving energy from the sun. The entropy of the universe as a whole is still increasing.

Beyond these two fundamental flaws in the argument, there is a reason that we can be absolutely sure that evolution does not violate the Second Law. To see this, we must understand that entropy is an example of what is known as an "extensive property." That means the entropy of an entire system is just the addition of the entropy of all of its parts. So, for example, the entropy of a collection of fifty identical 100-pound loads of organic material is fifty times the entropy a single 100-pound load of organic material. The entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound monkeys is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound monkey. And the entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound humans is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound human.

Now let's assume (for the sake of argument) that the entropy of a monkey is less than the entropy of a 100-pound load of organic material, and the entropy of a human is least of all. For this example, we'll arbitrarily assign an entropy of 1 unit to each human, 2 to each monkey, and 3 to each load of organic material. So, for the collections of 50 of each item we have an overall entropy of 1×50 + 2×50 + 3×50, which is 300.

Now what happens when a new human is born and grows up? The population of humans grows from 50 to 51, but where does the matter (which must be conserved) for the new human come from? It has to come from the surrounding environment. We can model this by saying that the collection of organic material decreases from 50 loads to 49. So if we again add up the overall entropy (of the items we're discussing, not of the whole universe) we find it decreases by 2 to 298.

But here is the key concept. This change in entropy is completely independent of whether the new human was born to human parents or to monkey parents. It does not depend on whether or not there was already an initial presence of humans. We can start with zero humans and fifty monkeys, and postulate a sudden and bizarre evolution by assuming a human born to a pair of monkeys, and the entropy decrease is still 2, exactly the same amount of decrease as when the human baby is born to human parents.

Obviously, the birth of a human baby to human parents happens all the time and thus cannot be a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Therefore, it would not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics if the human baby were born to monkey parents either. The same argument can be made for any evolutionary step, no matter how large or small.

So the bottom line is, the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not argue against the theory of evolution. Evolution doesn't violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics any more than it violates Newton's Law of Gravity. That doesn't necessarily mean evolution is true, but we shouldn't make a false claim that it violates the laws of physics, unless we want to be intellectually dishonest.

Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics


Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.
bullshit! misnomer.
the "gap" in the fossil record is not a real "gap" but a perceived one.
because 1. Fossilization is an extremely rare event .
2. paleontology and archeology are relatively new (150 years) sciences and the've only explored about 1/10 or the areas the contain fossils.

Fact: Evolution has never been observed
more bullshit!

Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed
Natural Selection, Macroevolution, and Ring Species
By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
The most basic direct evidence of evolution is our direct observation of evolution occurring. This is also the most basic lie which creationists tell about evolution because they constantly claim that evolution has never been observed when, in fact, it's been observed both in the lab and the field repeatedly. Creationists count on this lie getting traction because they lie about what evolution is and repeat the lies often enough that they are believed through sheer, dishonest repetition.

Observed Natural Selection
What's more, the observed instances of evolution occur in the context of natural selection, which is the basic explanation for evolutionary changes in the theory of evolution. The environment can be seen to exert a "force" on a population such that certain individuals are more likely to survive and pass on their genes to future generations. There are numerous examples of this in the literature, none of which creationists read.

The fact that natural selection works is important since we can be sure that there have been environmental changes in the past. Given this fact, we would expect organisms to evolve to fit their environments. (Note: It is widely accepted that natural selection is not the only process at work in evolution. Neutral evolution also plays a role. There is some disagreement as to how much each process contributes to evolution over all; however, natural selection is the only proposed adaptive process.)

Ring Species & Evolution
There is a specific type of species that bears some discussion: ring species. Imagine a straight line across some significant sized geographical region. There are two distinct but closely related species at either end, say point A and point B. These species do not typically interbreed, but there is a continuum of organisms along the line that stretches between them. These organisms are such that the closer you are to point A the more like the species at point A the organisms on the line are, and the closer you are to point B the more like the species at point B the organisms are.

Now, imagine bending this line such that the two endpoints are in the same location and a "ring" is formed. This is the basic description of a ring species. You have two nonbreeding and distinct species living in the same area and strung out over some area a succession of creatures such that, at the "farthest" point on the ring, the creatures are largely hybrids of the two distinct species at the starting points. This is significant because it shows that intra-species differences can be large enough to produce an interspecies difference. Differences between species are therefore the same kind (though not in degree) as the differences between individuals and population within a species.

Nature only appears to be divided up into discrete types at any one time and place. If you look at the biosphere as whole throughout time, the "barriers" between species appears much more fluid. Ring species are an example of this reality. Given our understanding of the genetic mechanisms of life, it is reasonable to think that this fluidity extends beyond the species level to higher order taxonomic differences between species.

Macroevolution vs. Microevolution
As with the basic genetic mechanisms, creationists will argue that there is a magic line across which evolution may not move. This is why creationists will define macroevolution differently than evolutionists. Since speciation has been observed, macroevolution has been observed according to the evolutionist; but to a creationist, macroevolution is a change in kind. Even creationists generally won't argue that natural selection doesn't take place. They just say that the changes that can take place are limited to changes within the organism's kind.

Again, based on our understanding of genetics it is reasonable to think that it is possible for large-scale changes to occur, and that there are no rational reasons or evidence to support the idea that they can't occur. Creationists act as if species have some hard-coded distinctiveness that separates them from one another.

The idea of species is not completely arbitrary: for example, in sexual animals lack of reproduction is a real "barrier." Unfortunately, the idea that living organisms are divided in some magical way which makes them distinct from one another just isn't supported by the evidence. Ring species demonstrate this on a small scale. Genetics suggests no reason it should not be true on a large scale.

To say that species can not change beyond some "kind" boundary is to create a totally arbitrary dividing line that has no biological or scientific basis — that's why creationists who try to make arguments about "kinds" can't provide a consistent, coherent, useful definition of what a "kind" is. The differences immediately "below" the boundary will be the same as the differences immediately "above" the boundary. There is no rational justification for drawing any such line.

The important thing to know is that evolution has actually been seen and documented and that the observed instances support the idea of natural selection. It is logical and reasonable to conclude that in the absence of something to prevent it, a succession of speciation events would eventually lead to a divergence where descendant organisms would be classified in different genera, families, orders, etc.



Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed

Quit giving evidence for microadaptations for your rediculous theory.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Please don't pretend you know my educational background. Because you don't.


The only proof that can be claimed is the proof evolutionist have shoved down your gullible throat.

Fact: Dating methods are flawed.

Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.

Fact: Scientist have never created a living organism out of nothing.

Fact: No one knows the ultimate origin of man.

Fact: If macro-evolution really occurred there would be billions of indisputable intermediate fossils.

Fact: Evolution has never been observed.

Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics

Fact: Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.


Class dismissed.

wow a whole list of false comparisons.
I'll debunk just three...

Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics
bullshit!

Now let's look at the application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to the theory of evolution. The traditional creationist argument is that the evolution of lower life-forms to higher life-forms is not possible because it involves an increase in complexity, which they say amounts to a decrease in entropy. This argument is fundamentally flawed in two different ways.

First, we have no evidence that the complex life-form is actually less entropic than the simple life-form. Entropy is a measure of statistical disorder, not simplicity vs. complexity of design. There is no reason that I am aware of to believe that a man is less "disordered," on a molecular level, than an equivalently-sized chimpanzee, for example. That might be the case, but if so, it has nothing to do with the complexity of our design. Consider the fact that, all else being equal (most notably mass and temperature), crystalline solids have lower entropy than either men or chimpanzees, and yet clearly their design is much more simple and repetitive, not more complex.

Second, even if higher life-forms do have lower entropy than lower life-forms, the Second Law does not say that they therefore can't evolve. The burning up of the sun, with its corresponding energy transfer to the earth, along with other processes such as the geothermal activities within the earth itself, increase the entropy of the universe at a far higher rate than evolution could possibly decrease it. There are many processes on earth that result in a local entropy decrease, but this is permissible by the Second Law, since they are receiving energy from the sun. The entropy of the universe as a whole is still increasing.

Beyond these two fundamental flaws in the argument, there is a reason that we can be absolutely sure that evolution does not violate the Second Law. To see this, we must understand that entropy is an example of what is known as an "extensive property." That means the entropy of an entire system is just the addition of the entropy of all of its parts. So, for example, the entropy of a collection of fifty identical 100-pound loads of organic material is fifty times the entropy a single 100-pound load of organic material. The entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound monkeys is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound monkey. And the entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound humans is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound human.

Now let's assume (for the sake of argument) that the entropy of a monkey is less than the entropy of a 100-pound load of organic material, and the entropy of a human is least of all. For this example, we'll arbitrarily assign an entropy of 1 unit to each human, 2 to each monkey, and 3 to each load of organic material. So, for the collections of 50 of each item we have an overall entropy of 1×50 + 2×50 + 3×50, which is 300.

Now what happens when a new human is born and grows up? The population of humans grows from 50 to 51, but where does the matter (which must be conserved) for the new human come from? It has to come from the surrounding environment. We can model this by saying that the collection of organic material decreases from 50 loads to 49. So if we again add up the overall entropy (of the items we're discussing, not of the whole universe) we find it decreases by 2 to 298.

But here is the key concept. This change in entropy is completely independent of whether the new human was born to human parents or to monkey parents. It does not depend on whether or not there was already an initial presence of humans. We can start with zero humans and fifty monkeys, and postulate a sudden and bizarre evolution by assuming a human born to a pair of monkeys, and the entropy decrease is still 2, exactly the same amount of decrease as when the human baby is born to human parents.

Obviously, the birth of a human baby to human parents happens all the time and thus cannot be a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Therefore, it would not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics if the human baby were born to monkey parents either. The same argument can be made for any evolutionary step, no matter how large or small.

So the bottom line is, the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not argue against the theory of evolution. Evolution doesn't violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics any more than it violates Newton's Law of Gravity. That doesn't necessarily mean evolution is true, but we shouldn't make a false claim that it violates the laws of physics, unless we want to be intellectually dishonest.

Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics


Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.
bullshit! misnomer.
the "gap" in the fossil record is not a real "gap" but a perceived one.
because 1. Fossilization is an extremely rare event .
2. paleontology and archeology are relatively new (150 years) sciences and the've only explored about 1/10 or the areas the contain fossils.

Fact: Evolution has never been observed
more bullshit!

Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed
Natural Selection, Macroevolution, and Ring Species
By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
The most basic direct evidence of evolution is our direct observation of evolution occurring. This is also the most basic lie which creationists tell about evolution because they constantly claim that evolution has never been observed when, in fact, it's been observed both in the lab and the field repeatedly. Creationists count on this lie getting traction because they lie about what evolution is and repeat the lies often enough that they are believed through sheer, dishonest repetition.

Observed Natural Selection
What's more, the observed instances of evolution occur in the context of natural selection, which is the basic explanation for evolutionary changes in the theory of evolution. The environment can be seen to exert a "force" on a population such that certain individuals are more likely to survive and pass on their genes to future generations. There are numerous examples of this in the literature, none of which creationists read.

The fact that natural selection works is important since we can be sure that there have been environmental changes in the past. Given this fact, we would expect organisms to evolve to fit their environments. (Note: It is widely accepted that natural selection is not the only process at work in evolution. Neutral evolution also plays a role. There is some disagreement as to how much each process contributes to evolution over all; however, natural selection is the only proposed adaptive process.)

Ring Species & Evolution
There is a specific type of species that bears some discussion: ring species. Imagine a straight line across some significant sized geographical region. There are two distinct but closely related species at either end, say point A and point B. These species do not typically interbreed, but there is a continuum of organisms along the line that stretches between them. These organisms are such that the closer you are to point A the more like the species at point A the organisms on the line are, and the closer you are to point B the more like the species at point B the organisms are.

Now, imagine bending this line such that the two endpoints are in the same location and a "ring" is formed. This is the basic description of a ring species. You have two nonbreeding and distinct species living in the same area and strung out over some area a succession of creatures such that, at the "farthest" point on the ring, the creatures are largely hybrids of the two distinct species at the starting points. This is significant because it shows that intra-species differences can be large enough to produce an interspecies difference. Differences between species are therefore the same kind (though not in degree) as the differences between individuals and population within a species.

Nature only appears to be divided up into discrete types at any one time and place. If you look at the biosphere as whole throughout time, the "barriers" between species appears much more fluid. Ring species are an example of this reality. Given our understanding of the genetic mechanisms of life, it is reasonable to think that this fluidity extends beyond the species level to higher order taxonomic differences between species.

Macroevolution vs. Microevolution
As with the basic genetic mechanisms, creationists will argue that there is a magic line across which evolution may not move. This is why creationists will define macroevolution differently than evolutionists. Since speciation has been observed, macroevolution has been observed according to the evolutionist; but to a creationist, macroevolution is a change in kind. Even creationists generally won't argue that natural selection doesn't take place. They just say that the changes that can take place are limited to changes within the organism's kind.

Again, based on our understanding of genetics it is reasonable to think that it is possible for large-scale changes to occur, and that there are no rational reasons or evidence to support the idea that they can't occur. Creationists act as if species have some hard-coded distinctiveness that separates them from one another.

The idea of species is not completely arbitrary: for example, in sexual animals lack of reproduction is a real "barrier." Unfortunately, the idea that living organisms are divided in some magical way which makes them distinct from one another just isn't supported by the evidence. Ring species demonstrate this on a small scale. Genetics suggests no reason it should not be true on a large scale.

To say that species can not change beyond some "kind" boundary is to create a totally arbitrary dividing line that has no biological or scientific basis — that's why creationists who try to make arguments about "kinds" can't provide a consistent, coherent, useful definition of what a "kind" is. The differences immediately "below" the boundary will be the same as the differences immediately "above" the boundary. There is no rational justification for drawing any such line.

The important thing to know is that evolution has actually been seen and documented and that the observed instances support the idea of natural selection. It is logical and reasonable to conclude that in the absence of something to prevent it, a succession of speciation events would eventually lead to a divergence where descendant organisms would be classified in different genera, families, orders, etc.



Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed

More cut and paste.


If you ever sit down and take the time to ponder over some of the teachings of the evolutionists, you'll then realize the foolishness of the whole theory of evolution. For example: The evolutionists teach that a giraffe has a long neck because it "evolved" over millions of years as a result of the animal trying to reach the food high up in the trees with it's mouth. Evolutionists teach that the animal's neck grew as a means of survival. The absurdity of such bizarre conclusions is obvious to the thinking individual. If the animal had a short neck to begin with, then what did it eat for millions of years? Obviously it would have had to eat food from off the ground.

Furthermore, if the "natural selection" hypothesis held by the evolutionists is true, then why don't horses and zebras have long necks like the giraffe today? Why would only the giraffe have had a need to reach the trees for food? This question alone nullifies the entire idea of the survival of the fittest. What the evolutionists would lead us to believe just doesn't make sense, not common sense or scientific sense. Again, there is nothing scientific about evolution.

They oppose the Almighty without reason.

 

[Hollie]

Please don't pretend you know my educational background. Because you don't.


The only proof that can be claimed is the proof evolutionist have shoved down your gullible throat.

Fact: Dating methods are flawed.

Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.

Fact: Scientist have never created a living organism out of nothing.

Fact: No one knows the ultimate origin of man.

Fact: If macro-evolution really occurred there would be billions of indisputable intermediate fossils.

Fact: Evolution has never been observed.

Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics

Fact: Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.


Class dismissed.

wow a whole list of false comparisons.
I'll debunk just three...

Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics
bullshit!

Now let's look at the application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to the theory of evolution. The traditional creationist argument is that the evolution of lower life-forms to higher life-forms is not possible because it involves an increase in complexity, which they say amounts to a decrease in entropy. This argument is fundamentally flawed in two different ways.

First, we have no evidence that the complex life-form is actually less entropic than the simple life-form. Entropy is a measure of statistical disorder, not simplicity vs. complexity of design. There is no reason that I am aware of to believe that a man is less "disordered," on a molecular level, than an equivalently-sized chimpanzee, for example. That might be the case, but if so, it has nothing to do with the complexity of our design. Consider the fact that, all else being equal (most notably mass and temperature), crystalline solids have lower entropy than either men or chimpanzees, and yet clearly their design is much more simple and repetitive, not more complex.

Second, even if higher life-forms do have lower entropy than lower life-forms, the Second Law does not say that they therefore can't evolve. The burning up of the sun, with its corresponding energy transfer to the earth, along with other processes such as the geothermal activities within the earth itself, increase the entropy of the universe at a far higher rate than evolution could possibly decrease it. There are many processes on earth that result in a local entropy decrease, but this is permissible by the Second Law, since they are receiving energy from the sun. The entropy of the universe as a whole is still increasing.

Beyond these two fundamental flaws in the argument, there is a reason that we can be absolutely sure that evolution does not violate the Second Law. To see this, we must understand that entropy is an example of what is known as an "extensive property." That means the entropy of an entire system is just the addition of the entropy of all of its parts. So, for example, the entropy of a collection of fifty identical 100-pound loads of organic material is fifty times the entropy a single 100-pound load of organic material. The entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound monkeys is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound monkey. And the entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound humans is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound human.

Now let's assume (for the sake of argument) that the entropy of a monkey is less than the entropy of a 100-pound load of organic material, and the entropy of a human is least of all. For this example, we'll arbitrarily assign an entropy of 1 unit to each human, 2 to each monkey, and 3 to each load of organic material. So, for the collections of 50 of each item we have an overall entropy of 1×50 + 2×50 + 3×50, which is 300.

Now what happens when a new human is born and grows up? The population of humans grows from 50 to 51, but where does the matter (which must be conserved) for the new human come from? It has to come from the surrounding environment. We can model this by saying that the collection of organic material decreases from 50 loads to 49. So if we again add up the overall entropy (of the items we're discussing, not of the whole universe) we find it decreases by 2 to 298.

But here is the key concept. This change in entropy is completely independent of whether the new human was born to human parents or to monkey parents. It does not depend on whether or not there was already an initial presence of humans. We can start with zero humans and fifty monkeys, and postulate a sudden and bizarre evolution by assuming a human born to a pair of monkeys, and the entropy decrease is still 2, exactly the same amount of decrease as when the human baby is born to human parents.

Obviously, the birth of a human baby to human parents happens all the time and thus cannot be a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Therefore, it would not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics if the human baby were born to monkey parents either. The same argument can be made for any evolutionary step, no matter how large or small.

So the bottom line is, the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not argue against the theory of evolution. Evolution doesn't violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics any more than it violates Newton's Law of Gravity. That doesn't necessarily mean evolution is true, but we shouldn't make a false claim that it violates the laws of physics, unless we want to be intellectually dishonest.

Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics


Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.
bullshit! misnomer.
the "gap" in the fossil record is not a real "gap" but a perceived one.
because 1. Fossilization is an extremely rare event .
2. paleontology and archeology are relatively new (150 years) sciences and the've only explored about 1/10 or the areas the contain fossils.

Fact: Evolution has never been observed
more bullshit!

Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed
Natural Selection, Macroevolution, and Ring Species
By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
The most basic direct evidence of evolution is our direct observation of evolution occurring. This is also the most basic lie which creationists tell about evolution because they constantly claim that evolution has never been observed when, in fact, it's been observed both in the lab and the field repeatedly. Creationists count on this lie getting traction because they lie about what evolution is and repeat the lies often enough that they are believed through sheer, dishonest repetition.

Observed Natural Selection
What's more, the observed instances of evolution occur in the context of natural selection, which is the basic explanation for evolutionary changes in the theory of evolution. The environment can be seen to exert a "force" on a population such that certain individuals are more likely to survive and pass on their genes to future generations. There are numerous examples of this in the literature, none of which creationists read.

The fact that natural selection works is important since we can be sure that there have been environmental changes in the past. Given this fact, we would expect organisms to evolve to fit their environments. (Note: It is widely accepted that natural selection is not the only process at work in evolution. Neutral evolution also plays a role. There is some disagreement as to how much each process contributes to evolution over all; however, natural selection is the only proposed adaptive process.)

Ring Species & Evolution
There is a specific type of species that bears some discussion: ring species. Imagine a straight line across some significant sized geographical region. There are two distinct but closely related species at either end, say point A and point B. These species do not typically interbreed, but there is a continuum of organisms along the line that stretches between them. These organisms are such that the closer you are to point A the more like the species at point A the organisms on the line are, and the closer you are to point B the more like the species at point B the organisms are.

Now, imagine bending this line such that the two endpoints are in the same location and a "ring" is formed. This is the basic description of a ring species. You have two nonbreeding and distinct species living in the same area and strung out over some area a succession of creatures such that, at the "farthest" point on the ring, the creatures are largely hybrids of the two distinct species at the starting points. This is significant because it shows that intra-species differences can be large enough to produce an interspecies difference. Differences between species are therefore the same kind (though not in degree) as the differences between individuals and population within a species.

Nature only appears to be divided up into discrete types at any one time and place. If you look at the biosphere as whole throughout time, the "barriers" between species appears much more fluid. Ring species are an example of this reality. Given our understanding of the genetic mechanisms of life, it is reasonable to think that this fluidity extends beyond the species level to higher order taxonomic differences between species.

Macroevolution vs. Microevolution
As with the basic genetic mechanisms, creationists will argue that there is a magic line across which evolution may not move. This is why creationists will define macroevolution differently than evolutionists. Since speciation has been observed, macroevolution has been observed according to the evolutionist; but to a creationist, macroevolution is a change in kind. Even creationists generally won't argue that natural selection doesn't take place. They just say that the changes that can take place are limited to changes within the organism's kind.

Again, based on our understanding of genetics it is reasonable to think that it is possible for large-scale changes to occur, and that there are no rational reasons or evidence to support the idea that they can't occur. Creationists act as if species have some hard-coded distinctiveness that separates them from one another.

The idea of species is not completely arbitrary: for example, in sexual animals lack of reproduction is a real "barrier." Unfortunately, the idea that living organisms are divided in some magical way which makes them distinct from one another just isn't supported by the evidence. Ring species demonstrate this on a small scale. Genetics suggests no reason it should not be true on a large scale.

To say that species can not change beyond some "kind" boundary is to create a totally arbitrary dividing line that has no biological or scientific basis — that's why creationists who try to make arguments about "kinds" can't provide a consistent, coherent, useful definition of what a "kind" is. The differences immediately "below" the boundary will be the same as the differences immediately "above" the boundary. There is no rational justification for drawing any such line.

The important thing to know is that evolution has actually been seen and documented and that the observed instances support the idea of natural selection. It is logical and reasonable to conclude that in the absence of something to prevent it, a succession of speciation events would eventually lead to a divergence where descendant organisms would be classified in different genera, families, orders, etc.



Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed

Macroevolution is not real science,it can't be tested,studied or observed.

Macroevolution actually is real science.

Lies and falsehoods from YEC'ers are easily exposed.