Evolution vs. Creation

:lol: at Answers in Genesis. I've been.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruhbr

There are deffinant laws and limits to a rational world, so it is illogical to say that nothing can be known for sure.

---

Good thing that's not at all what I said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruhbr

The geologic column is important because if it were laid down in that order you should be able to observe it.You can't, so it wasn't .

---

I know it's important. Try reading my entire sentence next time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruhbr

You oppinion on mutation is biased,never has any benificial mutation been produced.Please, don't mention the fly with four wings, it is bogus,the animal was impared and unable to fly.Not a benificial mutation.

---

Dude, I never did mention the fly with four wings. I've never even heard of the fly with four wings. Would it be too much to ask that you respond to what I actually say?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruhbr

Give up on the transitional forms, you have no proof.

---

Yes I do, you just refuse to read the evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruhbr

Even if the shrew went throught flying bat stages how would it eat,please remember they have to stay fully functional.

---

Here's a hint: flying squirrels can eat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruhbr

I asked you only to read two chapters.

---

I'll re-read the whole book if you read one page.

ay ay ay......

1) There is evidence of speciation - there is even links to articles within this thread showing such (post 292, page 20)

2) Why would anybody look for an objective analysis at a website called answersingenesis.com?

3) I have posted elsewhere in this thread examples of beneficial mutations, see about 5/6pages back re: sickle cell anaemia. Then of course there is the theory regarding the development of the girrafes elongated neck

4) Am I wasting my time, are people actually interested in learning about the theory of evolution or are you just looking for an argument

But the bat has wings with bones and skeletal muscle in them. A flying squirrel would have to mutate both at the same time to be a bat. They couldn't mutate them at seperate times, because, alone, each is detrimental to the squirrel so the squirrel could never get both at one time.

Beneficial mutations have shown to cause nothing like speciation in the observable wild, but it might have in the lab. What lab was that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dant

Beneficial mutations have shown to cause nothing like speciation in the observable wild, but it might have in the lab.

---

Drosophilia (fruit flies) have been observed to speciate in the wild and in the lab. Source: Crossley, S. A. 1974. Changes in mating behavior produced by selection for ethological isolation between ebony and vestigial mutants of Drosophilia melanogaster. Evolution. 28:631-647.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted

1) There is evidence of speciation - there is even links to articles within this thread showing such (post 292, page 20)

---

I won't even make them look for it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4461827.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4708459.stm

and one of my own:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3790531.stm

Quote:

---

2) Why would anybody look for an objective analysis at a website called answersingenesis.com?

---

Don't look for objective analysis at that site - but do look at the site. My family has several times gone to hear Ken Ham speak and much of the creationist viewpoint that I know comes from AiG. It's a little harsh in its views toward evolutionism but it puts forth compelling arguments.

Ken Ham does not put forth convincing arguments, I'm sorry. He doesn't even put forth falacious arguments. He just lies. From the site:

Quote:

---

Vital evidence for the evolutionary side has included fakes, mistakes, datings that shift to fit the theory better, and classifications that go against clear anatomical evidence.

---

Lie.

Quote:

---

For example, he points out that a well-preserved arm-bone fossil found in 1965 at Kanapoi, north Kenya, was found to be indistinguishable from a modern human’s arm-bone.

---

Lie. It's more similar to a modern human arm-bone than other species of that period, but it's far from indistinguishable.

Quote:

---

But because it was regarded as being from a time before humans had evolved, it was suggested that it must be from an ape. This went against all the scientific evidence.

---

Lie. Later digs uncovered complete and clearly non-human jaw bones and carania from the same species.

Quote:

---

But where do they fit? Although they were a race of humans, evolutionists have no idea where Neandertals came from or went. The Neandertals’ ‘evolutionary’ origin is as mysterious as their alleged rapid disappearance. From a creationist point of view though, the Neandertals were simply a group of humans who lived in the past.

---

Argument from ignorance. Also, Neandertals aren't humans, by any sort of reasonable standard, as there are overt anatomical differences between the two. No group of humans, modern or ancient, ever had an occipital bun, for example.

Quote:

---

When different ‘types’ of fossil humans which allegedly evolved one into the other (such as Homo erectus, Homo sapiens, etc.) are discovered at the same place and/or at the same level, it is regarded as an evolution ‘anomaly’.

---

Lie. They aren't found together. Ever. The newest Homo erectus fossil is, controvertially, 1.3 million years old, where the oldest Homo sapien fossil is 130 000.

Quote:

---

Such evidence is either lamely explained away or shelved and largely forgotten. But shouldn’t it alert evolutionists to the fact that their theory may be wrong?

---

It might if such evidence actually existed.

I really don't want to go on.

Actually, much of past evolution proof has depended on lies. Piltdown Man and the Peppered moth experiment were both regarded as evidence and were both proven frauds.
However, I would like to know what your response to irreducible complexity argument, as formulated by Michael Behe.

What I have to say is pretty much in conjunction with what Dante said.

More Neanderthal men were found. Because they were more similar to humankind than the original one was, the Neanderthal men have been classified as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. The original one was discarded as one who had scurvy or rickets or some such bone disease.

Quote:

---

Piltdown Man and the Peppered moth experiment were both regarded as evidence and were both proven frauds.

---

I dare you to find me one, one reference to the Piltdown Man in any peer-reviewed article about evolution written since 1960.

As for the Peppered Moth experiment, it's been repeated with the same results:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601_2_3.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601_2_2.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dante

However, I would like to know what your response to irreducible complexity argument, as formulated by Michael Behe.

---

I've dealt with it. It's an argument from ignorance. In addition, Behe hasn't been able to come up with an irreducibly complex structure, even by his own defitintion.

Ken Miller can take care of that one for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andave

Because they were more similar to humankind than the original one was, the Neanderthal men have been classified as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

---

Simply false. Neanderthals are classified as Homo neanderthalensis. Full taxonomy of Homo neaderthalensis here.


Edit: a Google revealed that the species was originally clasified Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, but DNA evidence shows otherwise. Sorry about that.

I'll have to get back to you on Behe's "failure."

What cannot be argued away are the mathematical odds. The math is against most of what evolution - whether abiogenesis or not - suggests as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

I'll have to get back to you on Behe's "failure."

What cannot be argued away are the mathematical odds. The math is against most of what evolution - whether abiogenesis or not - suggests as possible.

---

What are the mathematical odds of there being a god who designed the Universe and all life within it? I would say that the chances have to be better for evolution than for the existence of god. Firstly, we have evidence for evolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

What cannot be argued away are the mathematical odds. The math is against most of what evolution - whether abiogenesis or not - suggests as possible.

---

I've given you the odds that the chimpanzee and human genomes got the way they are by a process other than common ancestry (billions to one against, even discounting the genes that are actually functional). I can give you some other proofs that can be given to a high level of statistical probability as well, if you'd like.