Creation vs Evolution

[crossroad]

Answer me this, IF we evolved from monkeys, why in the world are there still monkeys? And why isn't the world pulling out a Planet of the Apes effect?

Great point Zain. We should be able to see evolution in the trees and caves right now. From the monkeys, through the different stages of cavemen, to humans as we know them now. Where are these animal-people? Why did they die off - hundreds if not thousands of stages of them, gone, but strangly, the monkeys did not!?!?!?!?

[rory_20_uk]

Oh dear oh dear... A small amount of knowledge is a dangerous thing, but complete ignorance...

Ok... There are ecological niches in the world. We did NOT evolve from modern day monkeys. We both evolved from a common ancestor. The paths we took were different, as the niches we occupy are different.

Other types of "animal person" have been found. They are no longer around, either out fought or out bred by our ancestors (NOT us - they were slightly different).

I'm assuming you've never heard that human features are becoming more delicate as time goes on, human brains are increasing in size slowly and the expression of certain genes is showing a population shift (such as ones to digest milk, and for brain size).

Species are the snapshot of "now". We don't have a tail of our ancestors - they're dead. Perhaps ones from 5,000 years ago would on average be noticably different to us, 50,000 probably different to us. Genes drfted slowly to what we are now. There was not a fork in each species, the ancestral line of the humans metamorphosed and has almost artificial distinctions as to the nomenclature of the different types - in some cases possibly unhelpful.

Oh, you've not used the "how did the human eye develop without God" argument - that's another classic.

[Zain]

Ok... There are ecological niches in the world. We did NOT evolve from modern day monkeys. We both evolved from a common ancestor. The paths we took were different, as the niches we occupy are different.

There was not a fork in each species,

Unless I misinterpreted what you said, i'm going to say that those two statements are COMPLETELY contradictory.

Oh, you've not used the "how did the human eye develop without God" argument - that's another classic.

How about another argument, how did the reproductive system come out PERFECT without God?

[KingOfTheIsles]

I am a Creationist because the idea of the bible being wrong doesn't work in my mind. The bible said He created MAN on the sixth day in His image. And if my memory serves me right, evolution says that man evolved from monkeys, and back and back to single celled organisms.

You misunderstand the theory of evolution. Man DID NOT evolve from monkeys, simply the current money species of today had a common ancestor with humans.

Answer me this, IF we evolved from monkeys, why in the world are there still monkeys? And why isn't the world pulling out a Planet of the Apes effect? Aren't the monkeys supposed to become more human-like?

Again, you completely misunderstand the process of evolution. It is not pre-destined that monkeys will evolve into human-like creatures. Each species evolved due to its circumstances, not some magical, pre-ordained destiny. The common ancestor of humans and monkeys was probably a tree-dwelling primate. Some of these went onto the plains as the forest dwindled, forced to by habitat change and the need to adapt, and gradually developed into humans (and other species) whereas the ones living in the trees did not need to evolve in this way, and instead adapted to their own environment differently.

Evolution is determined by circumstance, it is not a linear path.

That had nothing to do with the question. Why aren't there other monkey-humans walking around these days? I think in your mind you answered it in your other post, but just wanted to make sure you knew what you were talking about.

There were human species living until very recently. As they were competing with homo sapiens, they were either less adapted and became extinct, or perhaps were absorbed into the more successful species in part (the neanderthal gene theory is controversial). Natural selection has (we think) wiped out all other species of human.

That makes sense, but wouldn't that be called a combination of natural selection and adaptation?

Also knows as.....evolution. See, we made it in the end.

Another point: why do human fetuses have tails, and look almost identical to every other mammalian fetus?

[Zain]

You misunderstand the theory of evolution. Man DID NOT evolve from monkeys, simply the current money species of today had a common ancestor with humans.



Again, you completely misunderstand the process of evolution. It is not pre-destined that monkeys will evolve into human-like creatures. Each species evolved due to its circumstances, not some magical, pre-ordained destiny. The common ancestor of humans and monkeys was probably a tree-dwelling primate. Some of these went onto the plains as the forest dwindled, forced to by habitat change and the need to adapt, and gradually developed into humans (and other species) whereas the ones living in the trees did not need to evolve in this way, and instead adapted to their own environment differently.

Evolution is determined by circumstance, it is not a linear path.



There were human species living until very recently. As they were competing with homo sapiens, they were either less adapted and became extinct, or perhaps were absorbed into the more successful species in part (the neanderthal gene theory is controversial). Natural selection has (we think) wiped out all other species of human.

Okay, so humans didn't come from monkeys, whoop-dee-doo. I still don't see any monkey-cats walking around, or any other kind of transition. (I'm not making a connection between monkeys and cats, it's just a simple example)

[Kralizec]

Okay, so humans didn't come from monkeys, whoop-dee-doo. I still don't see any monkey-cats walking around, or any other kind of transition. (I'm not making a connection between monkeys and cats, it's just a simple example)

Now you're just being lazy. Louis pointed out early in this thread that all species are transitionary in the theory of evolution, as a species that live today could be the precursor of species living in the future.

[rory_20_uk]

Okay, so humans didn't come from monkeys, whoop-dee-doo. I still don't see any monkey-cats walking around, or any other kind of transition. (I'm not making a connection between monkeys and cats, it's just a simple example)

[Sigh]. Everything that you see around is an example of transition from the past into the future.
What do you want? To walk down the road and a dog to spring up and converse in English? That would pretty much prove creationism.

The tail bone protects one's arse? Hardly - we'd be better off without it. The gluteals absorb most impact. All it does is occasionally get fractured. It is a vestigial browth from the embryo. the human goes through phases of looking like an amphibian, then a reptile, then finally a mammal. Why if not as that is how animals evolved? God and his little jokes?

[Zain]

Now you're just being lazy. Louis pointed out early in this thread that all species are transitionary in the theory of evolution, as a species that live today could be the precursor of species living in the future.

Yes, I was being lazy, but I'm talking about transitions of the animals we see. A cat has been a cat for all of recorded history. It speaks of cats on Noah's ark. Now you're going to say that evolution is a long process, and so, what? If no change appears in a cat for thousands of years, how does that prove evolution? It's all been the same for thousands of years, since everything was created by God. Natural Selection is the only "evolution" we ever will see.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Okay, so humans didn't come from monkeys, whoop-dee-doo. I still don't see any monkey-cats walking around, or any other kind of transition. (I'm not making a connection between monkeys and cats, it's just a simple example)

I am so going to hate myself for getting back into this, but:

Since you want stunningly obvious transitional forms that you can see, try amphibians. You know, frogs, newts etc.

Not quite fish, not quite reptiles. What you might call fish-reptiles. See there's this fish with a simple lung called - guess what, a lung-fish. And it has some amphibian characteristics. Then there are fish which use their fins as limbs on the margins of land, but live almost wholly in the water. These fish have the basic pentadactyl (five-toed) arrangement in those fins which is found in all land animals.

Is that simple enough for you? Or does it have to be a monkey-cat or a mollusc-rhinocerous?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Look, I know this is a waste of time, but can I make a suggestion to the creationists out there to actually read On the Origin of Species?

I would also recommend to enquiring minds the book 'Darwin and the Barnacle' by Rebecca Stott (ISBN 0-571-21609-9). It's not at all dry, and provides the real story of Darwin's work in taxonomy. By classifying and researching the humble barnacle over twenty years, he established his reputation as a serious biologist and found staggering amounts of evidence for the theory of natural selection. The evidence you keep asking for and then dismissing.

It's also the story of how this man of deep faith (he was planning to be a cleric) found his observations challenging that faith, and his reluctance to change his mind until he could convince himself.

After all, guys, I have read your Bible

[Zain]

Zain...

It works firstly as it's had billions of years to improve the model. Amoebas replicate very simply. They divide down the middle. Easy peasy. Over time things did get more complex.

But the failsafes thrown into the system are evident in how imperfect it is. 20 MILLION sperm to fertilise one egg. Talk about wastage. And there's not a 100% chance of success that copulation will result in fertilisation. A certain time of the month is required for starters.

Oh, and you left / ignored the long list of errors that I could think of off the top of my head. ERRORS = LACK OF PERFECTION!

The argument "it's complicated so God had to have done it" only works in Church. It has evolved to the state it is, and it works well enough, even with the large numbers of errors inherent the system.

And what made it evolve? Did it just realize it's mistakes and change? How does something incapable of induvidual thinking make that decision to change? And how did it change? That's the thing that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

[crossroad]

I am so going to hate myself for getting back into this, but:

Since you want stunningly obvious transitional forms that you can see, try amphibians. You know, frogs, newts etc.

Not quite fish, not quite reptiles. What you might call fish-reptiles. See there's this fish with a simple lung called - guess what, a lung-fish. And it has some amphibian characteristics. Then there are fish which use their fins as limbs on the margins of land, but live almost wholly in the water. These fish have the basic pentadactyl (five-toed) arrangement in those fins which is found in all land animals.

Is that simple enough for you? Or does it have to be a monkey-cat or a mollusc-rhinocerous?

Explain the Platypus.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...3/platypus.asp

[KingOfTheIsles]

Okay, so humans didn't come from monkeys, whoop-dee-doo. I still don't see any monkey-cats walking around, or any other kind of transition. (I'm not making a connection between monkeys and cats, it's just a simple example)

I love this method of arguing.

"My argument has been shown to have been flawed. Insert identical and irrelevant argument."

Every fossil is a transitional fossil, we just haven't always found what they are transitioning between yet. Mankind is the transitional state between our ancestors and what we will evolve into. The simple fact is that a tiny proportion of dead animals will a) fossilise and b) be found in an identifiable state.

That said, there have been several well-documented finds that have species of human which show a progressively less sloping forehead and a gradually larger cranial capacity. This tends to point to the features of modern humans developing.

[Quietus]

How about another argument, how did the reproductive system come out PERFECT without God?

Zain, nothing is perfect. It's only an illusion.

The DNA accumulates and losses information randomly (mutation) and these information are passed on during reproduction (sexual and asexual). Whichever organisms happen to have the better genetic information are generally favored to live and reproduce within their environment (natural selection). Hence those that have the inferior and wonky codes tend to die and disappear (natural selection as well). Hence creating the illusion that reproduction is perfect.

Oh and here's how an eye can evolve:

The human eye is not irreducibly complex

[Zain]

Zain, nothing is perfect. It's only an illusion.

The DNA accumulates and losses information randomly (mutation) and these information are passed on during reproduction (sexual and asexual). Whichever organisms happen to have the better genetic information are generally favored to live and reproduce within their environment (natural selection). Hence those that have the inferior and wonky codes tend to die and disappear (natural selection as well). Hence creating the illusion that reproduction is perfect.

Oh and here's how an eye can evolve:

The human eye is not irreducibly complex

Using the word "perfect" got me into a lot of trouble. Either way, It's still very well "planned".

[rory_20_uk]

it works, but it is a mess.

The human genome is riddled with viruses, most of which have ceased to function a long time ago. There are large stretches that just repeat the same letters. Again, why planned? There's been a long time to develop complexity. The ones that didn't work died.

That cells divide is amazing. The sheer number of processes involved is enormous. But that alone is NOT reason to mean it requires supervision.

Natural selection IS evolution!

I'm sorry that your obvious thirst for knowledge has been shackled by your religion. It is a terrible shame when thologians place blinkers on people. As an agnostic I am able to accept that perhaps god did seed the planet with life. Perhaps it was aliens. Perhaps meteors. Perhaps it was on kaolin rock near saline seas. Perhaps one day we'll know for sure (such as digging up the Earth's serial number).

concerning the resurrection of christ, he was not talking about affect on people's lives, else he'd have said that. He was again trying to place a myth on the same footing as historical fact.

[Zain]

it works, but it is a mess.

The human genome is riddled with viruses, most of which have ceased to function a long time ago. There are large stretches that just repeat the same letters. Again, why planned? There's been a long time to develop complexity. The ones that didn't work died.

That cells divide is amazing. The sheer number of processes involved is enormous. But that alone is NOT reason to mean it requires supervision.

Natural selection IS evolution!

I'm sorry that your obvious thirst for knowledge has been shackled by your religion. It is a terrible shame when thologians place blinkers on people. As an agnostic I am able to accept that perhaps god did seed the planet with life. Perhaps it was aliens. Perhaps meteors. Perhaps it was on kaolin rock near saline seas. Perhaps one day we'll know for sure (such as digging up the Earth's serial number).

concerning the resurrection of christ, he was not talking about affect on people's lives, else he'd have said that. He was again trying to place a myth on the same footing as historical fact.

I know Crossroad personally, and he told me that's what he was talking about.

If Natural Selection is Evolution, and it's the Natural Selection I believe, then I guess Evolution is believable. Of course, the dating of the Earth also gets in the way of the whole thing. Also, the amount of change within the animals messes up that too. Natural Selection doesn't say there's going to be a huge change, but Evolution does.

[rory_20_uk]

Zain, merely that there are marks on human bones that match sabre tooth tigre's teeth is not conclusive. Nothing is. Perhaps God put them there. Perhaps aliens did. Perhaps the mammoth chewed the human's leg off.

Commet theory: sort of. There's a lot of iridium in a layer of dust that is extremely unusual unless a comet has hit. And I believe that there is evidence of a meteor strike in Canada (I think). After that it's conjecture.

But there have been many extinctions as shown in the fossil record. True, the sudden end of the dinosaurs is the most popular, but one of the earlier ones wiped out 90% of life on the planet.

Concerning Noah, I admit that once God enters the equation why not grab the water and then dump it. I'd say that it seems a great hastle when he could just kill the troublemakers. Oh, and a very similar story appears in other religious texts that predate the Bible.

What animals look like is their phenotype
Animals genetic code is their genotype

Rabbits and hairs look alike, but are not genetically similar (so, same phenotype, different genotype)
A poodle and a rottweiler may look very different, but have very similar genes.

Crocodiles and some dinosaurs look alike. Dinosaurs varied a lot. Some even had wings, and it is thought are the ancestors of modern birds.

[crossroad]

concerning the resurrection of christ, he was not talking about affect on people's lives, else he'd have said that. He was again trying to place a myth on the same footing as historical fact.

Actually I was agreeing that God changes people, and those miricles are hard to dispute.

[Ser Clegane]

Oh, you've not used the "how did the human eye develop without God" argument - that's another classic.

Naah ... you only missed it - see post #85

[Kralizec]

You are making the mistake of thinking that monkeys are inferior to extinct species of early humans. Monkeys are well adapted species for living in the environments where they reside. There is no objective trait that will determine what species survives natural selection, such as "being smarter" like you have mistakenly assumed.

Earlier homonids would have been proficient in tool use and maybe even communication, but if a new variant would show up that is more proficient in exactly those areas that made the older ones succesful, and provided that he survives and procreates, his descendents will graduately displace the older variants.

Monkeys didn't suffer from the same level of competition and thus lot's of monkey species remain, each well adapted to their respective environments.

[Zain]

You are making the mistake of thinking that monkeys are inferior to extinct species of early humans. Monkeys are well adapted species for living in the environments where they reside. There is no objective trait that will determine what species survives natural selection, such as "being smarter" like you have mistakenly assumed.

Earlier homonids would have been proficient in tool use and maybe even communication, but if a new variant would show up that is more proficient in exactly those areas that made the older ones succesful, and provided that he survives and procreates, his descendents will graduately displace the older variants.

Monkeys didn't suffer from the same level of competition and thus lot's of monkey species remain, each well adapted to their respective environments.

That makes sense, but wouldn't that be called a combination of natural selection and adaptation?

[rory_20_uk]

He did... the human eye!!! More "evidence"! Oh my god! The amount of research to show how eyes could evolve... At least stick to picking holes in things, such proofs are only own goals.

Zain: there are some forks, just not always forks. Two different things. Simple.

A fork is one species becoming two, no fork is one species drifting over time to become what is termed a seperate one.

Reproduction perfect ROFLMAO!!!

Infertility clinics.
it takes 20 million sperm for one egg.
the sheer number of early abortions that the mother didn't even know was a pregnancy
recurrent miscarriages
ectopic pregnancies
deaths of the mother before modern medicine
parasitic twins
conjoined twins
congenital abnormailties

Yeah, perfect... NEXT!

[rory_20_uk]

The appendix and the caecuma re extremely well developed in herbivores where it is a key part in digestion. Over time it is slowly decreasing in size as it has no / limited use and so evolutionary pressure is against it.

Rather like some snakes that have vestigial back legs.

[Zain]

The appendix and the caecuma re extremely well developed in herbivores where it is a key part in digestion. Over time it is slowly decreasing in size as it has no / limited use and so evolutionary pressure is against it.

Rather like some snakes that have vestigial back legs.

I didn't know that. That's interesting.

[Zain]

He did... the human eye!!! More "evidence"! Oh my god! The amount of research to show how eyes could evolve... At least stick to picking holes in things, such proofs are only own goals.

Zain: there are some forks, just not always forks. Two different things. Simple.

A fork is one species becoming two, no fork is one species drifting over time to become what is termed a seperate one.

Okay then, I didn't missunderstand you. Common language means a fork, like a fork in the road. That's what I imagined when I read that and it completely struck me misinterpretly.

Reproduction perfect ROFLMAO!!!

Infertility clinics.
it takes 20 million sperm for one egg.
the sheer number of early abortions that the mother didn't even know was a pregnancy
recurrent miscarriages
ectopic pregnancies
deaths of the mother before modern medicine
parasitic twins
conjoined twins
congenital abnormailties

Yeah, perfect... NEXT!

The process is perfect, you think chance could make all of those little parts and little processes work perfectly??? No! If it were chance it wouldn't be near as complicated. It would be simple, like calling in a stork or something.

[rory_20_uk]

Okay then, I didn't missunderstand you. Common language means a fork, like a fork in the road. That's what I imagined when I read that and it completely struck me misinterpretly.



The process is perfect, you think chance could make all of those little parts and little processes work perfectly??? No! If it were chance it wouldn't be near as complicated. It would be simple, like calling in a stork or something.

Zain...

It works firstly as it's had billions of years to improve the model. Amoebas replicate very simply. They divide down the middle. Easy peasy. Over time things did get more complex.

But the failsafes thrown into the system are evident in how imperfect it is. 20 MILLION sperm to fertilise one egg. Talk about wastage. And there's not a 100% chance of success that copulation will result in fertilisation. A certain time of the month is required for starters.

Oh, and you left / ignored the long list of errors that I could think of off the top of my head. ERRORS = LACK OF PERFECTION!

The argument "it's complicated so God had to have done it" only works in Church. It has evolved to the state it is, and it works well enough, even with the large numbers of errors inherent the system.

[doc_bean]

Hey creationists: explain rudimentary organs: you know like the tail bone, or some people actually being born with a tail. Why did God decided we needed a tail bone if we weren't meant to have a tail ? And why do some people have tails ?

Also, the appendix, what's it still good for ?

[Zain]

Hey creationists: explain rudimentary organs: you know like the tail bone, or some people actually being born with a tail. Why did God decided we needed a tail bone if we weren't meant to have a tail ? And why do some people have tails ?

The tail bone protects your rectum and other parts in that area from getting smashed whenever you fall on your butt. Deformities exist all the time, this one simply resembles a tail.

Also, the appendix, what's it still good for

I don't know, I'm not a doctor, and that's not my strong point. Do you know of what the appendix DID?

[Ser Clegane]

Why did God decided we needed a tail bone if we weren't meant to have a tail ?

Ahh ... that's the keyword ... no creation vs. evolution thread without chick tracts (sorry for regularly postings these ... but I am a regular aficionado, and as everything in these discussions is a repitition anyway...):

Big Daddy?

This should answer all your questions

Please note the spectacularly witty and convincing:

Even if they were "vestigial" organs, isn't losing something the opposite of evolution?