Evolution is Impossible....

Your claims that evolution has no evidence is irrelevant, since you've childishly ignored any evidence I have presented to you. Furthermore, the evidence I have presented does not even encompass a significant fraction for the evidence pointing towards the validity of evolution. Until you grow the balls to rebuke the evidence I have presented, I should take it that I have clearly and concisely presented a very small portion of the evidence pointing towards the validity of evolution, and that I have won that portion of the debate since you clearly have nothing else to say about it.

Actually, I figured since no one showed me any evidence I had nothing elts to say... but, in light of what you said...
any evidence that pointed tward evolution was either a fake or just something that was 'believed' to be an evolutionary creature... yet all of those things were dissmissed...
I guess you could say that I am still waiting for the evidence that finally helps evolution...

I have read extensively on the Miller-Urey experiment, and have no ever heard of any toxic compounds that would prevent the formation of life given ample amount of time. However, once again, biology completely shoots over your grimy, undersized cranium, and you once again have missed the point of the experiment. This experiment demonstrated that the building blocks of life could form on their own in the proper environment. That was its purpose. Any toxins that may have formed do not defeat that purpose. Furthermore, life needn't evolve exactly the way it is now. What is toxic for us needn't be for life that is somewhat chemically different from us, as it almost undoubtedly would be. However, I'm fairly certain no life-threatening toxins were found in the experiment. Furthermore, proteins were not formed in the experiment. Get your facts straight. (Not really evidence for evolution, but evidence towards spontaneous abiogenesis.)

I found this web site on the Miller-Urey experiment...

<http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/MillerUreyexp.html>

I noticed the sentence last sentence where it talks about what formed in the flask... it said that various tars formed...

As a direct quote from Wikipedia, "Tar is a disinfectant substance, and used as such."...

Now if you think of a common single celled organism that we kill off using disinfectants, you can see that tar is your toxic compound ...

Now why don't you pull your head out of your ass and actually reply to the facts, Captain Oblivious? While you're at it, why not answer the simple fucking questions that I've been asking over and over. I'll put them in big font for you so you don't accidently miss them, because I know reading must be a bit of a challenge for someone so mentally challenged. What would it take for me to reasonably convince you of the validity of evolution?

Lets stay at a higher level than childish name calling...
And I have answered your question about four or five times now... it almost seems as if you don't like my answer and you want me to change it...

Evidence has been presented. Until you can learn to answer what's been presented thus far, I'm not about to bite and give you anymore. If you wanted to objectively look at the matter at hand, you could easily google it, but you're a fucking troll. Nevertheless, this is the most fun I've had on Zelaron for quite a while, so I'll continue to feed you facts as long as you continue to feed me your ignorance.

Like I said above, "...I am still waiting for the evidence that finally helps evolution...", untill you can give me proper facts on this you have nothing...

Actually, I figured since no one showed me any evidence I had nothing elts to say... but, in light of what you said... any evidence that pointed tward evolution was either a fake or just something that was 'believed' to be an evolutionary creature... yet all of those things were dissmissed... I guess you could say that I am still waiting for the evidence that finally helps evolution...

You can't simply decree by fiat that the evidence presented is fake or "make believe," since you, a forum troll, knows nothing compared to world renowned biologists. Not to mention the fact that most of the stuff I've presented is verifiable. Either state why it's fake, or admit that you have absolutely no knowledge of anything, and admit defeat.

Observed speciation is fake? How the fuck is that even possible.

I found this web site on the Miller-Urey experiment... <http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/MillerUreyexp.html> I noticed the sentence last sentence where it talks about what formed in the flask... it said that various tars formed... As a direct quote from Wikipedia, "Tar is a disinfectant substance, and used as such."... Now if you think of a common single celled organism that we kill off using disinfectants, you can see that tar is your toxic compound ...

Again, you should learn scientific vernacular. In the context of biology, tar simply refers to a large heap of hydrocarbons and other moleucles jumbled up in pretty much a disorganized mess. If you actually wanted to say something negative about the Miller-Urey experiment, at least say something smart. If you had said that based on the Miller-Urey experiment, most of the earth should have been covered in Tar, I may have conceded that point to you. I don't believe there is any geological evidence for the world ever being covered in tar. However, the point of the Miller-Urey experiment was to demonstrate spontaneous generation of amino acids, which it did.

This was not the only experiment of this kind, of course. What about the Oro experiment, which created Adenine along with amino acids.

Anyway, lets get back on topic.

Lets stay at a higher level than childish name calling...

Lets stay at a higher level than 75. IQ-wise.

And I have answered your question about four or five times now... it almost seems as if you don't like my answer and you want me to change it...

Then you seem to be doing a hell of a job avoiding the answer to it. But I mean more specifically. What type of evidence do you want? Fossilized evidence? That's what you said earlier. Negate the evidence I have presented to you then, and I will feed you more. The evidence is pretty much thought to be incontestable by most of today's biologists, and by the content of your posts I doubt you're smart enough to come up with something new on your own.

Ya know, this troll is actually fun. Draco, if you could, could you reply to this thread as well: http://zelaron.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41042

If a mod wouldn't mind, could I request that be bumped?

Fossils were creating by millions of gnomes working with varying sizes of chissels and intricately fashioned tools.

Gah MJ, you worry me sometimes.

You can't simply decree by fiat that the evidence presented is fake or "make believe," since you, a forum troll, knows nothing compared to world renowned biologists. Not to mention the fact that most of the stuff I've presented is verifiable. Either state why it's fake, or admit that you have absolutely no knowledge of anything, and admit defeat. Observed speciation is fake? How the fuck is that even possible.

I didn't say that, you really have got to stop saying things that I did not say... I was stating that bones that were believed to have been early man were usually fakes or ones that scientists thought were human...

Again, you should learn scientific vernacular. In the context of biology, tar simply refers to a large heap of hydrocarbons and other moleucles jumbled up in pretty much a disorganized mess. If you actually wanted to say something negative about the Miller-Urey experiment, at least say something smart. If you had said that based on the Miller-Urey experiment, most of the earth should have been covered in Tar, I may have conceded that point to you. I don't believe there is any geological evidence for the world ever being covered in tar. However, the point of the Miller-Urey experiment was to demonstrate spontaneous generation of amino acids, which it did. This was not the only experiment of this kind, of course. What about the Oro experiment, which created Adenine along with amino acids.

In the Miller-Urey experiment the tar created could not have helped the situation... i mean, if something is going to come from this experiment it certainly will be affected by the tar... also I looked up Antibiotic it said that it "Kills or inhibits the growth of bacteria and other microorganisms."...
So if you combine the two definitions of tar and antibiotic, you get absolutely no life....
And if you don't agree with that, then tar in the 'soup' would cause the amino acids to not move and not generate any organisms any way. ..

Lets stay at a higher level than 75. IQ-wise.

Can we please stay on subject here?

Then you seem to be doing a hell of a job avoiding the answer to it. But I mean more specifically. What type of evidence do you want? Fossilized evidence? That's what you said earlier. Negate the evidence I have presented to you then, and I will feed you more. The evidence is pretty much thought to be incontestable by most of today's biologists, and by the content of your posts I doubt you're smart enough to come up with something new on your own.

I WANT ANY EVIDENCE THAT IS NOT A FICTIONAL THOUGHT...
Any evidence like that is meant to help keep evolution alive... if either side could disprove it then it wouldn't be much help would it?

I didn't say that, you really have got to stop saying things that I did not say... I was stating that bones that were believed to have been early man were usually fakes or ones that scientists thought were human... In the Miller-Urey experiment the tar created could not have helped the situation... i mean, if something is going to come from this experiment it certainly will be affected by the tar... also I looked up Antibiotic it said that it "Kills or inhibits the growth of bacteria and other microorganisms."... So if you combine the two definitions of tar and antibiotic, you get absolutely no life.... And if you don't agree with that, then tar in the 'soup' would cause the amino acids to not move and not generate any organisms any way. .. Can we please stay on subject here? I WANT ANY EVIDENCE THAT IS NOT A FICTIONAL THOUGHT... Any evidence like that is meant to help keep evolution alive... if either side could disprove it then it wouldn't be much help would it?

Ok so he's giving you all this evidence and you're ignoring it because you believe it's "fake."

Prove it's fake then.

I didn't say that, you really have got to stop saying things that I did not say... I was stating that bones that were believed to have been early man were usually fakes or ones that scientists thought were human...

And if you don't agree with that, then tar in the 'soup' would cause the amino acids to not move and not generate any organisms any way. ..

Provide evidence of this.

All you have done so far is ignore facts presented to you, or even worse, claim them false without providing any counter-evidence.

If you don't cite sources or provide evidence in your next post, I'm going to consider banning you for being a troll and for your many duplicate accounts.

Ah crap... this guy is making me bash my head against my keyboard so much that now it's bloody and broken in two.

I demand you PayPal me £60 to replace it!

Ah crap... this guy is making me bash my head against my keyboard so much that now it's bloody and broken in two. I demand you PayPal me £60 to replace it!

What trolls do best. He's a pretty good one too.

Grav, most likely MJ would prefer you not ban him, since he seems to be enjoying arguing with a brick wall. If it were me I'd say ban his ass.

Is this guy Kyeruu? I had considered the idea but dismissed it because this guy came long before Kyeruu if I remember right and Kyeruu doesn't put "..." after every sentence in every post he makes.

1.) You came here to first try and disprove evolution with your third grade understanding of science and English, and then to prove that the bible is true? Well, thus far you're failing miserably. People here are not going to take your "durr durr it's faaaake (*drool*) durrrrr" at face value. The evidence I have provided here is fairly easily accessible to anyone. If you think it's fake, state why, or shut up.

2.) You refuse to reply to my whole post, especially the facts that I give you. The only thing you say is that they're fake. And then provide no evidence. Simply because you think them to be fake, or want them to be fake, doesn't actually make them fake.

I didn't say that, you really have got to stop saying things that I did not say... I was stating that bones that were believed to have been early man were usually fakes or ones that scientists thought were human...

I present examples of speciation to you. You say my evidence is fake. When I call you out on it, then you say it's not fake, and that you never said that. Then at the bottom of your post, you once again say that the evidence I have presented is fake. You contradict yourself entirely too much.

In the Miller-Urey experiment the tar created could not have helped the situation... i mean, if something is going to come from this experiment it certainly will be affected by the tar...

Tar could actually provide the hydrocarbon chains required for many, many organic molecules.

also I looked up Antibiotic it said that it "Kills or inhibits the growth of bacteria and other microorganisms."... So if you combine the two definitions of tar and antibiotic, you get absolutely no life....

WHAT? There were no antibiotics in the Miller-Urey experiment. And you do realize that we have tar today. We also have antibiotics today. And we have life today. Or is that evidence fake as well?

And if you don't agree with that, then tar in the 'soup' would cause the amino acids to not move and not generate any organisms any way. ..

Again, you don't understand the definition of tar. Tar is simply a hydrocarbon chain which has many random molecules that bind to carbon's free valence electrons. Basic chemistry. This would not significantly hinder the movement of amino acids.

Can we please stay on subject here?

It's fairly on subject. I would prefer that you not inject morphine or any other minor tranquelizers directly into your brain before typing out a post. That's all I meant, and I think that is very much on topic.

I WANT ANY EVIDENCE THAT IS NOT A FICTIONAL THOUGHT...

So, now you're saying that the speciation is a fictional thought? Because that was evidence that you said wasn't a fictional thought at the top of your previous post.

Or do you not like the fossils? They're all well-substantiated in scientific evidence.

Do you not like the phylogenetic tree? It matches up well on both anatomical and molecular levels, pretty much ascertaining the fact that it is a valid tree.

Do you not like the fact that bacteria have become increasingly resistant to antibiotics? Your beef is with the bacteria then, quit arguing with me and argue with them. Or is this a fictional fact? Not only evolutionists are making up fictional facts, now doctors too. Holy fucking shit. The world is one big conspiracy. You're not actually standing on a spherical object. The world is flat. That's just a theory purported by evolutionists to make people doubt God.

Do you not like the beneficial mutations that have occurred and been observed in recent times? Damn, you would make a mean God. Not allowing your people to recieve the benefits that they naturally get. You should argue that with God, though, those benefits are clearly observable.

You don't like the Miller-Urey experiment? Too bad. You could do it yourself and verify it with simple high-school equipment. And if you don't like Miller-Urey, how about the Oro experiment? Or is that one made up too? Of course! It makes perfect sense! Anything tangible, in the real world, that can actually happen and has been observed happening is make believe! Only God, who exists in a fantastical world outside our universe called heaven is real!

How about the transitional animals? Are they all fake too? Are flying squirrels just robots created by those big bad scientists to make people think transitional animals are real? Do hawks really not have better eye-sight than us? Could it be that we have the best eye-sight there is, so there is no way our eye-sight could possibly be transitional and evolving. BY GOLLY, YOU'RE RIGHT!

So which of those is fictional? The speciation? The squirrel? The beneficial mutations? If you really think any of those are fake, state which ones, and then cite why you think they're fake.

Any evidence like that is meant to help keep evolution alive... if either side could disprove it then it wouldn't be much help would it?

Evidence is fact you moron, it can't be disproved. It can be looked at a new way, yes, but it can't be disproved. The theories created by those facts, however, often can be.

Basically, give us counter-evidence and tell us why you think the evidence I have presented to you is fictional quick, prick.

Or just save face and admit defeat. You're not convincing anyone of anything right now. You're simply becoming the laughing stock of Zelaron.

If you don't cite sources or provide evidence in your next post, I'm going to consider banning you for being a troll and for your many duplicate accounts.

I don't have duplicate accounts this is the only one I have.... I would like you to prove to me that I have duplicate accounts....

1.) You came here to first try and disprove evolution with your third grade understanding of science and English, and then to prove that the bible is true? Well, thus far you're failing miserably. People here are not going to take your "durr durr it's faaaake (*drool*) durrrrr" at face value. The evidence I have provided here is fairly easily accessible to anyone. If you think it's fake, state why, or shut up.

Remember Lucy, the 'oldest' remains of a human(on an evolutionary basis)...
The thing I don't get is that they find what looks like a monkey skelaton, but it has only one tooth that is similar to a human... If that were true then I could say that dogs were closely related because they have canine teeth... I think scientists like to exaggerate on things to bring it into their favor...

2.) You refuse to reply to my whole post, especially the facts that I give you. The only thing you say is that they're fake. And then provide no evidence. Simply because you think them to be fake, or want them to be fake, doesn't actually make them fake.

Thats a lie... I have replyed to every post you have done...

I present examples of speciation to you. You say my evidence is fake. When I call you out on it, then you say it's not fake, and that you never said that. Then at the bottom of your post, you once again say that the evidence I have presented is fake. You contradict yourself entirely too much.

O.K, look.... I am going to clear this whole thing up...
I am saying that adaptation is true, animals can adapt to their surroundings... (example)when you take a hot shower for a couple of days does your skin not feel like you have been burned after a while? (My other example) Remember the frogs in the forest... if there are two types of frogs one yellow and one green, since the trees are going to allow the green frogs to hide easier the green frogs will dominate(natural selection)...
The thing I am against is evolutionary 'benifits' that seem to come out of the blue and help out an unsuspecting creature... if evolution is true why is it that some animals evolved, but others diddn't... take monkeys for example, if they all came from the same evolutionary line why is it that some are still monkeys and others are 'evolved humans'? You would expect from DNA that they all would have evolved, and we would have no monkeys left on Earth... Explain that to me...

Tar could actually provide the hydrocarbon chains required for many, many organic molecules.

But tar, being an antibiotic, would prevent the rise of any single celled organisms... also, remember when you said, "If you had said that based on the Miller-Urey experiment, most of the earth should have been covered in Tar," and "I don't believe there is any geological evidence for the world ever being covered in tar."... if the Miller-Urey experiment caused tar to form, why is it that this did not occur all over the world? whats the chance of it happening in one single spot especially if the entire area is flat... if there were no trees and the only thing tall was a mountain why did lightining strike that one specific spot?

WHAT? There were no antibiotics in the Miller-Urey experiment. And you do realize that we have tar today. We also have antibiotics today. And we have life today. Or is that evidence fake as well?

sometimes tar is used as an antibiotic... I believe epicack(if that is spelled right) is a form of tar...

Again, you don't understand the definition of tar. Tar is simply a hydrocarbon chain which has many random molecules that bind to carbon's free valence electrons. Basic chemistry. This would not significantly hinder the movement of amino acids.

So if the tar as you said before would give the amino acids the needed hydrocarbon atoms... wouldn't the hydrocarbons need energy to break away from eachother to form with the amino acids? This would require another lightining srike.... also in the Miller-Urey experiment did they not just use a spark that has at least a tenth of the power of lightining? would their experiment have been fried if they used a bigger shock?

So, now you're saying that the speciation is a fictional thought? Because that was evidence that you said wasn't a fictional thought at the top of your previous post.

I think I answered this question about 5 questions up...

Or do you not like the fossils? They're all well-substantiated in scientific evidence. Do you not like the phylogenetic tree? It matches up well on both anatomical and molecular levels, pretty much ascertaining the fact that it is a valid tree. Do you not like the fact that bacteria have become increasingly resistant to antibiotics? Your beef is with the bacteria then, quit arguing with me and argue with them. Or is this a fictional fact? Not only evolutionists are making up fictional facts, now doctors too. Holy fucking shit. The world is one big conspiracy. You're not actually standing on a spherical object. The world is flat. That's just a theory purported by evolutionists to make people doubt God. Do you not like the beneficial mutations that have occurred and been observed in recent times? Damn, you would make a mean God. Not allowing your people to recieve the benefits that they naturally get. You should argue that with God, though, those benefits are clearly observable.

I DID NOT SAY THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You have really got to read my posts a little more closely... Look fossils that have been found recorded and researched have nothing to do with evolution... they are just animals that have turned into stone, they are not transitional and do not point to evolution... animals that come from the same line with similar looks and traits as their parents has been proven...
Bacteria become more tolerant to antibiotics because of exposure(another example of adaptation) also I would talk to bacteria, but I am just waiting for evolution to give them the capacity for speech...

You don't like the Miller-Urey experiment? Too bad. You could do it yourself and verify it with simple high-school equipment. And if you don't like Miller-Urey, how about the Oro experiment? Or is that one made up too? Of course! It makes perfect sense! Anything tangible, in the real world, that can actually happen and has been observed happening is make believe! Only God, who exists in a fantastical world outside our universe called heaven is real!

Ya know... I don't believe I have ever heard of the Oro experiment...
Like I said before, I will get to the bible and God later... lets finish this debate first...

How about the transitional animals? Are they all fake too? Are flying squirrels just robots created by those big bad scientists to make people think transitional animals are real? Do hawks really not have better eye-sight than us? Could it be that we have the best eye-sight there is, so there is no way our eye-sight could possibly be transitional and evolving. BY GOLLY, YOU'RE RIGHT!

Have you seen any transitional animals? Because if you have, I would love to see it... Flying squirrels are just another form of squirrel, like flying fish are another form of fish...

So which of those is fictional? The speciation? The squirrel? The beneficial mutations? If you really think any of those are fake, state which ones, and then cite why you think they're fake.

Benificial mutations: I have seen frogs in contaminated water that develop bad or missing legs, I have seen people who have extra arms or even heads that did not work... I really doubt that evolution is any better, I mean based on that, I would seriously doubt that evolution is so perfect that there would be no problems with the creatures that come of it...

Evidence is fact you moron, it can't be disproved. It can be looked at a new way, yes, but it can't be disproved. The theories created by those facts, however, often can be.

Diddn't we go over this?

There is no scientific PROOF. It's a THEORY with LOTS OF EVIDENCE BACKING IT UP. Not a LAW with PROOF.

So which is it? Which one of you is right?

Most likely MJ is right, he's smarter than me.

Regardless, you're a fucking idiot.

I don't have duplicate accounts this is the only one I have.... I would like you to prove to me that I have duplicate accounts....

I'm not sure this constitutes true irony, but it is hilarious nevertheless.



I'll also take this time to show you how evidence works.

Interesting correlations between all these accounts:

All were registered with yahoo email accounts that look suspiciously like throw-aways:
madarisbrian1+yahoo.com
amma_430+yahoo.com
fancyman20202000+yahoo.com
glazerade0703+yahoo.com
ianmc042+yahoo.com
ammanuelgerena+yahoo.com

Of the accounts that have birthdays, the year is listed as either 1988 or 1989.

Each of these accounts was registered in February 2007.

I could also delve deeper into the ellipsis obsession, but that would be wasting my time.

I think the conclusion is obvious.

But that's not rock solid "evedence", Grav! You could have made it up!

I'm not sure this constitutes true irony, but it is hilarious nevertheless. I'll also take this time to show you how evidence works. Interesting correlations between all these accounts: All were registered with yahoo email accounts that look suspiciously like throw-aways: madarisbrian1+yahoo.com amma_430+yahoo.com fancyman20202000+yahoo.com glazerade0703+yahoo.com ianmc042+yahoo.com ammanuelgerena+yahoo.com Of the accounts that have birthdays, the year is listed as either 1988 or 1989. Each of these accounts was registered in February 2007. I could also delve deeper into the ellipsis obsession, but that would be wasting my time. I think the conclusion is obvious.

Would this be caused by a school network? Because me and a few friends found this website at school, mainly because of the games, but I was the only one to stick around and get into the froums... I believe that the 'throw away' e-mail accounts are acctually my friends e-mail addresses... I am sorry if it appeared to look like this...
also the e-mail accounts, we all needed similar accounts because we need to send our homework... yahoo seemed to be the most popular in class...

Remember Lucy, the 'oldest' remains of a human(on an evolutionary basis)... The thing I don't get is that they find what looks like a monkey skelaton, but it has only one tooth that is similar to a human...

Nobody claims Lucy was human. She is widely believed to be an ancestor of the genus homo, which includes humans. She (the species) is possibly where, or near where the split between other great apes and the genus homo occurred.

I have never heard about only "one tooth" being similar to a human tooth on Lucy. The structure of her teeth in general, though, was closer to that of humans than that of other modern primates. Your claim that her skeleton looked like a monkey's skeleton, therefore she can't be an ancestor to humans is misplaced. Lucy is thought to be an ancestor of humans because of striking similarities in parts of her anatomy. For instance, her knees indicated she was a biped and her pelvis was similar to that of human females.

If that were true then I could say that dogs were closely related because they have canine teeth...

Dogs are closely related to what? Other dogs? Of course. If you're implying humans, than they are closely related. More closely related than fish.

I think scientists like to exaggerate on things to bring it into their favor...

Scientists are people. Of course some will exaggerate. Something esoteric in the scientific community can easily be exaggerated, as we saw with the Korean scientist who claimed to have cloned a human. That said, Lucy is not at all esoteric. It would be very difficult to exaggerate anything based on her, as anyone who did so would be sharply rebuked by the rest of the scientific community.

Thats a lie... I have replyed to every post you have done...

Right, but not necessarily to all the relevant content of my posts. You tend to ignore many things.

O.K, look.... I am going to clear this whole thing up... I am saying that adaptation is true, animals can adapt to their surroundings... (example)when you take a hot shower for a couple of days does your skin not feel like you have been burned after a while?

I suppose this can be taken as an example of an adaptation. Not really sure, though.

(My other example) Remember the frogs in the forest... if there are two types of frogs one yellow and one green, since the trees are going to allow the green frogs to hide easier the green frogs will dominate(natural selection)...

This is not simple adaptation. An organism adapts. A species evolves due to heritable genes. The frogs evolved due to natural selection and now the entire species will have changed to green frogs.

The thing I am against is evolutionary 'benifits' that seem to come out of the blue and help out an unsuspecting creature... if evolution is true why is it that some animals evolved, but others diddn't... take monkeys for example, if they all came from the same evolutionary line why is it that some are still monkeys and others are 'evolved humans'? You would expect from DNA that they all would have evolved, and we would have no monkeys left on Earth... Explain that to me...

DNA does not dictate the process of evolution. Genetic variation is not encoded in DNA, therefore evolution stays localized to a population.

Once again, I'd like to point out that modern monkeys are not the same monkeys you would have found 3 million years ago. Monkeys have also evolved to come to be in their present state. This doesn't mean that an entire species has to speciate, though. It can, and usually is still limited to a population.

Perhaps an example would help elucidate the concept. Lets create a hypothetical species of birds called species X. I'm not dealing with the topic of abiogenesis right now, so the origin of species X itself is irrelevant to this example. We are only focusing on how X might speciate. Let us assume that the males of species X fight to win a harem. Only by winning a harem can a male have the chance to reproduce. Let us also assume that species X is split into four populations, A, B, C and D. What happens if one male in population A has a mutant gene that causes the individual to develop twice the muscle as an ordinary bird of species X? This male clearly has an advantage when it comes to reproduction. Its offspring that possess that particular allele will also have an advantage when it comes to reproduction. Gradually, this allele will spread throughout population A, and the evolutionary trend will be towards more muscle. Now, this is of course a very simple example, and we are not considering other factors that could affect the outcome, but in this case these birds will start spending more and more time on the ground since they need to expend more energy to carry around their increasinly massive bodies. Eventually, if the trend continues, these birds will lose the ability of flight altogether. Their wings will then become vestigial, and a hindrance to have to lug around. The birds who have a gene for smaller wings will then be rewarded for not having to put up with as large of a hindrance (perhaps finding it easier to find food, perhaps being more agile in a fight), until the wings on these birds disappear altogether. In the process of these mutations, the DNA of population A has changed too much to produce viable offspring with any of the other populations of species X. Population A has speciated, and is now species Y.

But tar, being an antibiotic, would prevent the rise of any single celled organisms...

Tar is not an antibiotic. Antibiotics also do not kill every single-celled organism.

also, remember when you said, "If you had said that based on the Miller-Urey experiment, most of the earth should have been covered in Tar," and "I don't believe there is any geological evidence for the world ever being covered in tar."... if the Miller-Urey experiment caused tar to form, why is it that this did not occur all over the world?

Once again, the Miller-Urey experiment was not a replica of early earth. It did, however, prove that amino acids could form spontaneously. If the building blocks for life could form spontaneously, it is a strong indication that life could also form sponataneously.

whats the chance of it happening in one single spot especially if the entire area is flat... if there were no trees and the only thing tall was a mountain why did lightining strike that one specific spot?

The electrodes used in the Miller-Urey experiment simply act as a reducing agent. They do not need to strike any specific spot.

sometimes tar is used as an antibiotic... I believe epicack(if that is spelled right) is a form of tar...

I have a very hard time believing that. Citation, please. Epicack is not the name of a medicine according to google.

So if the tar as you said before would give the amino acids the needed hydrocarbon atoms... wouldn't the hydrocarbons need energy to break away from eachother to form with the amino acids? This would require another lightining srike.... also in the Miller-Urey experiment did they not just use a spark that has at least a tenth of the power of lightining? would their experiment have been fried if they used a bigger shock?

Yes, I believe that the dissociation of a hydrocarbon chain would be an endogenic reaction, however that is not a problem in the actual environment. Aside from lightning, there is a big, glowing, massive ball radiating energy down on the earth at all times. One of the major critiques of the Miller-Urey experiment is that due to recent evidence people think that they may have actually used too much electricity in their experiment.

I think I answered this question about 5 questions up...

You actually never stated whether or not you agree that speciation has occurred. You implied that you didn't, but I'm not really sure. Earlier in this thread you stated that you believed in common descent.

I DID NOT SAY THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

any evidence that pointed tward evolution was either a fake or just something that was 'believed' to be an evolutionary creature

You have really got to read my posts a little more closely... Look fossils that have been found recorded and researched have nothing to do with evolution... they are just animals that have turned into stone, they are not transitional and do not point to evolution...

Actually, via radiometric dating, and verification with molecular evidence to relationships between parent and descendent, a lot can be learned about the evolution of a species.

also I would talk to bacteria, but I am just waiting for evolution to give them the capacity for speech...

Well, clearly you're a man of God. Tell him to do it for you. Perhaps if you pray hard enough, he will.

Have you seen any transitional animals? Because if you have, I would love to see it... Flying squirrels are just another form of squirrel, like flying fish are another form of fish...

Exactly. That would be what the definition of transitional is. It will still resemble it's parent. What were you expecting, 6-foot wings sticking out of a squirrel?

Benificial mutations: I have seen frogs in contaminated water that develop bad or missing legs, I have seen people who have extra arms or even heads that did not work... I really doubt that evolution is any better, I mean based on that, I would seriously doubt that evolution is so perfect that there would be no problems with the creatures that come of it...

Frogs developing bad legs in contaminated water is not an example of evolution. Not all mutations are beneficial, of course. Negative mutations are severely reprimanded by natural selection, which is why only the beneficial mutations (in most cases) are passed on.

Diddn't we go over this?

Yes, but apparently you were too dense to get it the first time around so I felt compelled to reiterate my sentiments.

TO ALL EVOLUTIONISTS go to these web sites and have your eyes opened... these show scientific evidence for creation...

*Sigh*

I hate it when people start linking to sites when arguing something without actually paraphrasing what the site has to say. Why? Because this leaves a myriad of possibilities. One, the author of the post may have no idea what the page he is linking to is talking about. Two, the author will then try to argue those points without understanding them. Three, because the content of those links is already there, the author really has to do no work to post it to back his content. I on the other hand, have to reply to what your pages say. If this is how it's going to be, you can't reasonably expect me to respond on a daily basis anymore, simply because I have a lot more stuff I need to say. However, that page is bogus for the most part.

1. The Fossil Record...Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate the supposed progression of "primitive" life forms to "more complex" systems we observe today. Yet, "since only a small percentage of the earth's surface obeys even a portion of the geologic column the claim of their having taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time over the earth is therefore a fantastic and imaginative contrivance.1" "[T]he lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."2 This supposed column is actually saturated with "polystrate fossils" (fossils extending from one geologic layer to another) that tie all the layers to one time-frame. "[T]o the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." 3

Yet again, many people who argue against evolution cite a �missing link,� fossilized evidence which should be a requirement of proof according to some creationists, in the lineage of the human race. I have heard this argument many times. I find it somewhat ironic that though many people will use this as a key point to their argument, this missing link remains esoteric in the sense that no one seems to know exactly what, when, or where this missing link is. This is a moot argument, however. If a missing link exists, it does not refute the theory of evolution. Evolution does not entail a direct fossilized record from ancestor to descendant. Fossilized evidence is contingent on the geological forces of the earth, and is coincidental when found. It supports the theory of evolution. Fossilized evidence is not a requirement for ascertaining the theory�s validity.

Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field... Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field.4 Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years.

Not true. The earth's magnetic field is known to fluctuate in intensity, and has actually reversed polarity multiple times. The intensity of the field showed no variation for centuries. The change in the field intensity is a relatively recent phenomenon, and perhaps indicative of an upcoming reversal in polarity. The magnetic field does not show exponential decay in the form that the above quote insinuates. Yes, exponential equation can fit the decay in magnetic intensity, but an exponential equation can be modified to fit any set of points. Barnes also relied on an antiquated model of the earth's interior, causing faulty conclusions.

The Global Flood... The Biblical record clearly describes a global Flood during Noah's day. Additionally, there are hundreds of Flood traditions handed down through cultures all over the world.

Flood myths are common because floods are common. This does not in any way insinuate a global flood. Though there are many myths about floods, they differe significantly in detail. If they were stories about the same flood, we would expect similar characteristics. The biblical flood myth has parallels only to myths from the same region, because most likely they do have a common source.

5 M.E. Clark and Henry Voss have demonstrated the scientific validity of such a Flood providing the sedimentary layering we see on every continent.

What about the sedimentary layering leads them to believe there was a global flood?

6 Secular scholars report very rapid sedimentation and periods of great carbonate deposition in earth's sedimentary layers..

Yea, but not on a global scale.

7 It is now possible to prove the historical reality of the Biblical Flood.8

Absolutely. We now have the ability to find evidence for such a flood if it occurred. No hard evidence has been found.

Population Statistics...World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089. 9 The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies.

This assumes that the growth-rate has been constant, which is a false assumption. The growth rate between 1000 and 1800 was .1227%. Also, using this model you would see unreasonable populations for historical events. There would not be enough people to fight historical wars, for instance.

Radio Halos...Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of polonuim-214 in crystalline granite. The half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds! To record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state instantaneously.10 This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form.

Polonium is a product from the alpha decay of radon. Radon, being a gas, can pass through small cracks in the granite.

I'll reply to the rest tomorrow.

Nobody claims Lucy was human. She is widely believed to be an ancestor of the genus homo, which includes humans. She (the species) is possibly where, or near where the split between other great apes and the genus homo occurred. I have never heard about only "one tooth" being similar to a human tooth on Lucy. The structure of her teeth in general, though, was closer to that of humans than that of other modern primates. Your claim that her skeleton looked like a monkey's skeleton, therefore she can't be an ancestor to humans is misplaced. Lucy is thought to be an ancestor of humans because of striking similarities in parts of her anatomy. For instance, her knees indicated she was a biped and her pelvis was similar to that of human females. Dogs are closely related to what? Other dogs? Of course. If you're implying humans, than they are closely related. More closely related than fish.

I heard it somewhere...

Scientists are people. Of course some will exaggerate. Something esoteric in the scientific community can easily be exaggerated, as we saw with the Korean scientist who claimed to have cloned a human. That said, Lucy is not at all esoteric. It would be very difficult to exaggerate anything based on her, as anyone who did so would be sharply rebuked by the rest of the scientific community.

What does cloning a human have to do with Lucy... Lucy is clearly a monkey yet people tie it to us...

Right, but not necessarily to all the relevant content of my posts. You tend to ignore many things.

Like what?

I suppose this can be taken as an example of an adaptation. Not really sure, though.

If you cant see that, then you have no idea what you are talking about...

This is not simple adaptation. An organism adapts. A species evolves due to heritable genes. The frogs evolved due to natural selection and now the entire species will have changed to green frogs.

I guess you did not see the brackets at the end of my sentence... I put what the example was at the end...

DNA does not dictate the process of evolution. Genetic variation is not encoded in DNA, therefore evolution stays localized to a population. Once again, I'd like to point out that modern monkeys are not the same monkeys you would have found 3 million years ago. Monkeys have also evolved to come to be in their present state. This doesn't mean that an entire species has to speciate, though. It can, and usually is still limited to a population. Perhaps an example would help elucidate the concept. Lets create a hypothetical species of birds called species X. I'm not dealing with the topic of abiogenesis right now, so the origin of species X itself is irrelevant to this example. We are only focusing on how X might speciate. Let us assume that the males of species X fight to win a harem. Only by winning a harem can a male have the chance to reproduce. Let us also assume that species X is split into four populations, A, B, C and D. What happens if one male in population A has a mutant gene that causes the individual to develop twice the muscle as an ordinary bird of species X? This male clearly has an advantage when it comes to reproduction. Its offspring that possess that particular allele will also have an advantage when it comes to reproduction. Gradually, this allele will spread throughout population A, and the evolutionary trend will be towards more muscle. Now, this is of course a very simple example, and we are not considering other factors that could affect the outcome, but in this case these birds will start spending more and more time on the ground since they need to expend more energy to carry around their increasinly massive bodies. Eventually, if the trend continues, these birds will lose the ability of flight altogether. Their wings will then become vestigial, and a hindrance to have to lug around. The birds who have a gene for smaller wings will then be rewarded for not having to put up with as large of a hindrance (perhaps finding it easier to find food, perhaps being more agile in a fight), until the wings on these birds disappear altogether. In the process of these mutations, the DNA of population A has changed too much to produce viable offspring with any of the other populations of species X. Population A has speciated, and is now species Y.

DNA evidence would show some form of connection between everything, I mean we did evolve from the same spot....

Tar is not an antibiotic. Antibiotics also do not kill every single-celled organism.

All right, I will get away from the tar.... for now....

Once again, the Miller-Urey experiment was not a replica of early earth. It did, however, prove that amino acids could form spontaneously. If the building blocks for life could form spontaneously, it is a strong indication that life could also form sponataneously. The electrodes used in the Miller-Urey experiment simply act as a reducing agent. They do not need to strike any specific spot.

Well, the major difference between early earth and the experiment is that the spark was continuous in the experiment... I really doubt that lightining would ever do that....

I have a very hard time believing that. Citation, please. Epicack is not the name of a medicine according to google.

It is the name of a medicine that makes you throwup...

Yes, I believe that the dissociation of a hydrocarbon chain would be an endogenic reaction, however that is not a problem in the actual environment. Aside from lightning, there is a big, glowing, massive ball radiating energy down on the earth at all times. One of the major critiques of the Miller-Urey experiment is that due to recent evidence people think that they may have actually used too much electricity in their experiment.

It would take alot longer than for the sun's light to do anything useful...

You actually never stated whether or not you agree that speciation has occurred. You implied that you didn't, but I'm not really sure. Earlier in this thread you stated that you believed in common descent.

I said it with the frog example!

Actually, via radiometric dating, and verification with molecular evidence to relationships between parent and descendent, a lot can be learned about the evolution of a species.

They tested radiometric dating, it does not accuratly date...

Well, clearly you're a man of God. Tell him to do it for you. Perhaps if you pray hard enough, he will.

I would but God finished creation on the seventh day...

Exactly. That would be what the definition of transitional is. It will still resemble it's parent. What were you expecting, 6-foot wings sticking out of a squirrel?

No, that is genetically similar, they are not relatives...

Frogs developing bad legs in contaminated water is not an example of evolution. Not all mutations are beneficial, of course. Negative mutations are severely reprimanded by natural selection, which is why only the beneficial mutations (in most cases) are passed on.

Any mutation is a form of evolution... if the animal survives long enough to mate, it will pass its traits on...

Yes, but apparently you were too dense to get it the first time around so I felt compelled to reiterate my sentiments.

You just don't like my answers....

*Sigh* I hate it when people start linking to sites when arguing something without actually paraphrasing what the site has to say. Why? Because this leaves a myriad of possibilities. One, the author of the post may have no idea what the page he is linking to is talking about. Two, the author will then try to argue those points without understanding them. Three, because the content of those links is already there, the author really has to do no work to post it to back his content. I on the other hand, have to reply to what your pages say. If this is how it's going to be, you can't reasonably expect me to respond on a daily basis anymore, simply because I have a lot more stuff I need to say. However, that page is bogus for the most part.

Diddn't exactly plan it, but it was a great web site...

Yet again, many people who argue against evolution cite a �missing link,� fossilized evidence which should be a requirement of proof according to some creationists, in the lineage of the human race. I have heard this argument many times. I find it somewhat ironic that though many people will use this as a key point to their argument, this missing link remains esoteric in the sense that no one seems to know exactly what, when, or where this missing link is. This is a moot argument, however. If a missing link exists, it does not refute the theory of evolution. Evolution does not entail a direct fossilized record from ancestor to descendant. Fossilized evidence is contingent on the geological forces of the earth, and is coincidental when found. It supports the theory of evolution. Fossilized evidence is not a requirement for ascertaining the theory�s validity.

well if there is no missing link there is no transition between anything....

Not true. The earth's magnetic field is known to fluctuate in intensity, and has actually reversed polarity multiple times. The intensity of the field showed no variation for centuries. The change in the field intensity is a relatively recent phenomenon, and perhaps indicative of an upcoming reversal in polarity. The magnetic field does not show exponential decay in the form that the above quote insinuates. Yes, exponential equation can fit the decay in magnetic intensity, but an exponential equation can be modified to fit any set of points. Barnes also relied on an antiquated model of the earth's interior, causing faulty conclusions.

He was talking about the improbibility of the decaying magnetic field, not the other way around...

Flood myths are common because floods are common. This does not in any way insinuate a global flood. Though there are many myths about floods, they differe significantly in detail. If they were stories about the same flood, we would expect similar characteristics. The biblical flood myth has parallels only to myths from the same region, because most likely they do have a common source. What about the sedimentary layering leads them to believe there was a global flood?

Well... he said that there is sedimentary deposits in places where it just does not flood...

Absolutely. We now have the ability to find evidence for such a flood if it occurred. No hard evidence has been found.

Well, sedimentary deposits are found on every continent, but I don't think it floods every where....

This assumes that the growth-rate has been constant, which is a false assumption. The growth rate between 1000 and 1800 was .1227%. Also, using this model you would see unreasonable populations for historical events. There would not be enough people to fight historical wars, for instance.

Well, what could have stopped the population growth? Flood? What?

Polonium is a product from the alpha decay of radon. Radon, being a gas, can pass through small cracks in the granite.

Granites are formed of an aggregate of crystals which are molded together without any space between them or which enclose one another. No way gas could seep into the rock and stick around...

TO ALL EVOLUTIONISTS go to these web sites and have your eyes opened...
these show scientific evidence for creation...

<http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html>
<http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/evidencefor/evidencefor.html>

this one offers rewards to anyone who can prove evolution...

<http://www.geocities.com/worldview_3/rewards.html>

(notice the reward still stands)

Well somewhat in Draco's defense, his IP address is registered with the Georgia Department of Education. That also means he's the exact opposite of an evolutionist. I lived in Georgia, it's nothing but redneck christians.

Well somewhat in Draco's defense, his IP address is registered with the Georgia Department of Education. That also means he's the exact opposite of an evolutionist. I lived in Georgia, it's nothing but redneck christians.

Watch it!

Dude...you read wikipedia...that's so terribly inaccurate in so many ways on so many different topics...

And mj, IQ does not have any links to ones thought complexity, it does; however, have a lot to do with ones thought speed and mental reflexes. For the actual complexity and power of his thoughts you must look at his CSF score.