Uh Oh: Rick Perry Gets Popped With The Dreaded Evolution Question. (Click For Answer)

[Youwerecreated]

I have no idea why you keep repeating yourself, because your statement is irrelevant to debunking evolution. Very little chance is not "no chance". Given enough time, "very little" can turn into "quite a bit"? If you have to keep repeating yourself, it's because you fail to comprehend the basic concept. Of course, useful changes are few and far between, but we're talking millions of years. I think you just can't wrap your mind around the concept of how long that is.

When i say very little chance, i mean it's so rare that it can't do what evolutionist say ,no matter how much time you give it.

Another assertion for which you have no evidence!!!

The current observed mutation rate is evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You need to do some research before posting stuff like this. The evolution of the eye is EASILY explained. It starts with light sensesitive cells. Then a cup forms to improve directionality of sensation. That's just the start. For more info go to:

Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're now teaching your religion.

The eye is definately a product of design not mistakes in our DNA.

But you say we have no evidence?!?! Please, at least stick to your own line of argument!

I don't need your theory down playing the capabilities of the eye,because the eye is evidence of design and your side frowns on obvious design.

 

[konradv]

When i say very little chance, i mean it's so rare that it can't do what evolutionist say ,no matter how much time you give it.

Another assertion for which you have no evidence!!!

The current observed mutation rate is evidence...

...of evolution. To believe in creationism there would have to be no mutations. You're also forgetting about fusion of cells combining their genetic material or the passing of genetic material from one cell to another.

 

[konradv]

You're now teaching your religion.

The eye is definately a product of design not mistakes in our DNA.

But you say we have no evidence?!?! Please, at least stick to your own line of argument!

I don't need your theory down playing the capabilities of the eye,because the eye is evidence of design and your side frowns on obvious design.

No, that's incorrect. It's not frowned upon, just lacking in evidence, unlike evolution.

 

[konradv]

No one knows how long the days of creation were. The Hebrew word day means span of time that time has never been defined.

Really? I thought we were supposed to take Genesis literally! If it's the case that 'days' don't mean 'days', then what's the problem with evolution being God's method of creation?

You are thinking like a human it was not a human providing the story.

And there are many things that are not literal in the bible.

That's what I've been saying and creationism is one of those things.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Another assertion for which you have no evidence!!!

The current observed mutation rate is evidence...

...of evolution. To believe in creationism there would have to be no mutations. You're also forgetting about fusion of cells combining their genetic material or the passing of genetic material from one cell to another.

Do you understand HGT or LGT is not a good argument that you're attempting to make do you know why ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

But you say we have no evidence?!?! Please, at least stick to your own line of argument!

I don't need your theory down playing the capabilities of the eye,because the eye is evidence of design and your side frowns on obvious design.

No, that's incorrect. It's not frowned upon, just lacking in evidence, unlike evolution.

Design looks you in the face all the time and it is ignored by your side.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I believe God created all life on earth. Exactly how the process developed, I don't know, and neither does anyone else. But I'm confident life didn't originate as evolutionist have theorized.

Non sequitur. First, I agree that God created all life on Earth. In fact, God created the entire Universe and all the life contained within it. Second, the process is known as "Evolution", and while we, the Human Race, understands part of it, we don't understand it all.

Are you saying God is incapable of creating a Universe in a flash 15 Billion years ago and letting it grow into it's present form much like a gardener who plants seeds knows the garden will grow and bear fruit?

Don't confuse evolution with the attempts by Atheists to remove God from the process. The spark of life is a critical component to the entire process. So far where that spark originates has eluded the Atheists, but you and I seem to agree on its source.

I'm not assuming I know how God created what he created. But I am sure it wasn't as evolutionist claim.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

No one said that humans have stopped evolving. As for observation, that would be impossible on a human timescale. We don't live long enough to see the changes. As a matter of fact, the time involved is so long that, we couldn't see the changes even if one had lived for the entire length of human history.

Typical answer.

In other words evolution is still occurring yet there's no physical evidence of it. So we just have to take you at your word.

As I've pointed out, objective evolutionist, paleontologist etc....have admitted that there are no transitional fossils that supports evolution.

The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities of a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model of a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute, 1966

John Bonner, a biologist at Princeton, writes that traditional textbook discussions of ancestral descent are "a festering mass of unsupported assertions." In recent years, paleontologists have retreated from simple connect-the-dot scenarios linking earlier and later species. Instead of ladders, they now talk of bushes. What we see in the fossils, according to this view, are only the twigs, the final end-products of evolution, while the key transitional forms which would give a clue about the origin of major animal groups remain completely hidden.

It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures.

Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.

"Science now knows that many of the pillars of Darwinian theory are either false or misleading. Yet biology texts continue to present them as factual evidence of evolution. What does this imply about their scientific standards?" — Jonathan Wells (Recipient of two Ph.D.s, one in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley, and one in Religious Studies from Yale University. Has worked as a postdoctoral research biologist at the University of California at Berkeley and the supervisor of a medical laboratory in Fairfield, California. Has taught biology at California State University in Hayward.)

Typical reply! You don't like my answer, so you change my words. That's intellectual dishonesty. I never said there was no evidence. I just said than on a human time scale, you wouldn't be able to see it. That hardly translates to no evidence. It's just that you don't recognize evidence for what it is or reject it out-of-hand because it doesn't fit your bias.

I changed nothing. I may have paraphrased you but that is what you said. You said evolution continues to this day but it's impossible to see it, which is basically what i said.

You say there is evidence that evolution is still going on then produce said evidence.

 

[Divine Wind]

I'm not assuming I know how God created what he created. But I am sure it wasn't as evolutionist claim.

Non sequitur. If you don't know how God created the Universe, then how can you assume the Universe didn't begin and evolve just as our God-given mines have scientifically deduced that it has?

Origin of the Universe

Anyone who doubts that God could create the Universe from a spark 15 Billion years and ago and foresee how it would turn out in present day is doubting God's abilities.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I could be wrong, but it remains an example of a transitional fossil. Which was the original point of that example.



Except entirely disprove your claim that we have in fact found transitional fossils.

Continue to deny reality all you want, it won't go away no matter how much you close your eyes and wish it too.



So you don't have actually a rebuttal when faced with someone who actually is scientifically literate with the thing you're talking about. What a surprise. I suggest again you go to your local library and pick up a book on biology. I think everyone already knows you failed high school biology.

Just because you and a few scientist claim it's a transitional fossil does not make it so. I have shown scientist that denied it being a transitional fossil. Therefore no positive conclusion can be drawn. Furthermore pictures and claims made in wikipedia are as credible as anything Obama says.

OOOOH an insult towards me and the President! How clever, you must be a riot at parties.



He's right. See, we use the theory of evolution to make sense of the fossil record. Without the theory of evolution to make sense of it, we're left with quite the conundrum of why the fossil record is like it is, why the timeline of species is like it is. It really only makes sense in light of the theory of evolution.

We know the creationist theory isn't true, because of the varying lifetimes of organisms throughout the record. If the creationist theory were true, all modern species would have the same precise starting point, with nothing before them. In keeping with the "God did it" reasoning and their stubborn antithesis to macro-evolution.



You accept macro-evolution now? How wonderful!



Oh he's a supporter of this neat other theory within evolution called punctuated equilibrium. Essentially he views species change as an incredibly rare event, which happens rapidly, as opposed to gradualism. That's how it explains gaps in the fossil record. The reason he says it hasn't provided evidence of phyletic evolution is because he's attempting to disprove that bit in favor of punctuated equilibrium.

But I'm not sure where the lack of transitional forms comes in, as I quote Gould at the bottom.



Yeah he's the same as above, more or less. I think it's wonderful you've read upon and want to talk about differing theories of how evolution works.

I mean, it's not like you quote-mined for the specific point of trying to discredit the transitional forms you requested in the first place.



Which is what I said above.



Except they aren't. We've found loads of fossils, as exhibited by the list on wikipedia.

Among the most well-known proponents of evolution (and a fierce opponent of Creationism), even Steven Jay Gould admits:


“At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the “official” position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).” [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]

Here's a quote from Gould:

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists – whether through design or stupidity, I do not know – as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups."
—Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb

So I wonder if you've been quote mining the entire time to paint a rather biased and inaccurate view of what those scientists said. You're not exactly known for your smarts when it comes to science.

By the way, I find it increasingly funny that you quote from scientists who firmly believed in evolution, with quotes and fields that promote macro-evolution just to disprove the fossil record.

It just goes to show how ludicrous evolutionist really are.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

How you have "Logic" in your screen name and then have the balls to admit that this is what you believe. Really? In all your "logic" this is what you think?

It's not much different than believing the nonsense you believe.

Tell me, when did humans stop evolving and why? Why aren't there living transitional species that can be observed?

If you knew a damn thing about transitional species, you would realize that we are all transitional species. So long as we don't go extinct and the line ends here, we are all possible transitional species.

Humans have indulging in something called civilization for awhile. I know, it's crazy, some think it will never catch on, but it what it is. As is turns out, civilization tends to quash the effects of natural selection, especially these days when we can easily make up any possible negative mutations.

Let's say a child is born with poor eyesight. Well, we can easily provide glasses or laser eye surgery to make up for that. You see why the processes of evolution may have a tough time to act?

Wow talk about a stretch. Where's your evidence that supports your claim that we are all a transitional species?

The fossil record does not support it.

 

[Woyzeck]

Typical answer.

In other words evolution is still occurring yet there's no physical evidence of it. So we just have to take you at your word.

As I've pointed out, objective evolutionist, paleontologist etc....have admitted that there are no transitional fossils that supports evolution.

The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities of a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model of a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute, 1966

John Bonner, a biologist at Princeton, writes that traditional textbook discussions of ancestral descent are "a festering mass of unsupported assertions." In recent years, paleontologists have retreated from simple connect-the-dot scenarios linking earlier and later species. Instead of ladders, they now talk of bushes. What we see in the fossils, according to this view, are only the twigs, the final end-products of evolution, while the key transitional forms which would give a clue about the origin of major animal groups remain completely hidden.

It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures.

Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.

"Science now knows that many of the pillars of Darwinian theory are either false or misleading. Yet biology texts continue to present them as factual evidence of evolution. What does this imply about their scientific standards?" — Jonathan Wells (Recipient of two Ph.D.s, one in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley, and one in Religious Studies from Yale University. Has worked as a postdoctoral research biologist at the University of California at Berkeley and the supervisor of a medical laboratory in Fairfield, California. Has taught biology at California State University in Hayward.)

Typical reply! You don't like my answer, so you change my words. That's intellectual dishonesty. I never said there was no evidence. I just said than on a human time scale, you wouldn't be able to see it. That hardly translates to no evidence. It's just that you don't recognize evidence for what it is or reject it out-of-hand because it doesn't fit your bias.

I changed nothing. I may have paraphrased you but that is what you said. You said evolution continues to this day but it's impossible to see it, which is basically what i said.

You say there is evidence that evolution is still going on then produce said evidence.

There have been experiments done. You can look at the works of John Endler with guppies, or for a really cool experiment that shows evolution is possible check out a man named Richard Lenski and his long-term experiments with E. coli. There's also the examples of the lizards on an island off the coast of Croatia. They were transplanted during the early 70s and scientists only recently went back to see what happened. The results are interesting.

Subsequently, these experiments show that evolution is a testable theory.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I'm not assuming I know how God created what he created. But I am sure it wasn't as evolutionist claim.

Non sequitur. If you don't know how God created the Universe, then how can you assume the Universe didn't begin and evolve just as our God-given mines have scientifically deduced that it has?

Origin of the Universe

Anyone who doubts that God could create the Universe from a spark 15 Billion years and ago and foresee how it would turn out in present day is doubting God's abilities.

Because our scientific minds are more wrong than they are right. They produce more questions than they answer. They conduct experiments over and over until they get the results they like and dismiss those they don't. The fact that there is no fossil record showing transitional species is more than enough proof to convince me that evolution has never occured in the way they present it.

Is it your claim that man evolved from ape like creatures? If so, then where are these transitional species? Shouldn't there be some still walking this earth? If not why?

 

[Woyzeck]

It's not much different than believing the nonsense you believe.

Tell me, when did humans stop evolving and why? Why aren't there living transitional species that can be observed?

If you knew a damn thing about transitional species, you would realize that we are all transitional species. So long as we don't go extinct and the line ends here, we are all possible transitional species.

Humans have indulging in something called civilization for awhile. I know, it's crazy, some think it will never catch on, but it what it is. As is turns out, civilization tends to quash the effects of natural selection, especially these days when we can easily make up any possible negative mutations.

Let's say a child is born with poor eyesight. Well, we can easily provide glasses or laser eye surgery to make up for that. You see why the processes of evolution may have a tough time to act?

Wow talk about a stretch. Where's your evidence that supports your claim that we are all a transitional species?

The fossil record does not support it.

A transitional species is one that represents a transition between two species. Technically, as long as we keep evolving and don't go extinct, you can consider ourselves transitional species.

 

[Woyzeck]

Just because you and a few scientist claim it's a transitional fossil does not make it so. I have shown scientist that denied it being a transitional fossil. Therefore no positive conclusion can be drawn. Furthermore pictures and claims made in wikipedia are as credible as anything Obama says.

OOOOH an insult towards me and the President! How clever, you must be a riot at parties.



He's right. See, we use the theory of evolution to make sense of the fossil record. Without the theory of evolution to make sense of it, we're left with quite the conundrum of why the fossil record is like it is, why the timeline of species is like it is. It really only makes sense in light of the theory of evolution.

We know the creationist theory isn't true, because of the varying lifetimes of organisms throughout the record. If the creationist theory were true, all modern species would have the same precise starting point, with nothing before them. In keeping with the "God did it" reasoning and their stubborn antithesis to macro-evolution.



You accept macro-evolution now? How wonderful!



Oh he's a supporter of this neat other theory within evolution called punctuated equilibrium. Essentially he views species change as an incredibly rare event, which happens rapidly, as opposed to gradualism. That's how it explains gaps in the fossil record. The reason he says it hasn't provided evidence of phyletic evolution is because he's attempting to disprove that bit in favor of punctuated equilibrium.

But I'm not sure where the lack of transitional forms comes in, as I quote Gould at the bottom.



Yeah he's the same as above, more or less. I think it's wonderful you've read upon and want to talk about differing theories of how evolution works.

I mean, it's not like you quote-mined for the specific point of trying to discredit the transitional forms you requested in the first place.



Which is what I said above.



Except they aren't. We've found loads of fossils, as exhibited by the list on wikipedia.




Here's a quote from Gould:

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists – whether through design or stupidity, I do not know – as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups."
—Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb

So I wonder if you've been quote mining the entire time to paint a rather biased and inaccurate view of what those scientists said. You're not exactly known for your smarts when it comes to science.

By the way, I find it increasingly funny that you quote from scientists who firmly believed in evolution, with quotes and fields that promote macro-evolution just to disprove the fossil record.

It just goes to show how ludicrous evolutionist really are.

So again no rebuttal. I do wonder if you ever actually tire of showing everyone you're the most ignorant person in the room.

 

[007]

Another assertion for which you have no evidence!!!

The current observed mutation rate is evidence...

...of evolution. To believe in creationism there would have to be no mutations. You're also forgetting about fusion of cells combining their genetic material or the passing of genetic material from one cell to another.

Where did the cell come from?

 

[Woyzeck]

I'm not assuming I know how God created what he created. But I am sure it wasn't as evolutionist claim.

Non sequitur. If you don't know how God created the Universe, then how can you assume the Universe didn't begin and evolve just as our God-given mines have scientifically deduced that it has?

Origin of the Universe

Anyone who doubts that God could create the Universe from a spark 15 Billion years and ago and foresee how it would turn out in present day is doubting God's abilities.

Because our scientific minds are more wrong than they are right. They produce more questions than they answer. They conduct experiments over and over until they get the results they like and dismiss those they don't. The fact that there is no fossil record showing transitional species is more than enough proof to convince me that evolution has never occured in the way they present it.

Boo hoo. Someone's bitter over failing science class.

Is it your claim that man evolved from ape like creatures? If so, then where are these transitional species? Shouldn't there be some still walking this earth? If not why?

And now I see why you did fail. The transitional species of our ancestors are numerous. We have quite good record of them. I suggest you look up the rest of the inhabitants of the genus homo.

Also, no. That's not how it works. We're related to apes by sharing a common ancestor, lots of animals do. The common ancestor diverged and evolved separately, some into apes, and the rest into us. That's generally how speciation occurs. There's no reason for a transitional species to actually exist.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Typical reply! You don't like my answer, so you change my words. That's intellectual dishonesty. I never said there was no evidence. I just said than on a human time scale, you wouldn't be able to see it. That hardly translates to no evidence. It's just that you don't recognize evidence for what it is or reject it out-of-hand because it doesn't fit your bias.

I changed nothing. I may have paraphrased you but that is what you said. You said evolution continues to this day but it's impossible to see it, which is basically what i said.

You say there is evidence that evolution is still going on then produce said evidence.

There have been experiments done. You can look at the works of John Endler with guppies, or for a really cool experiment that shows evolution is possible check out a man named Richard Lenski and his long-term experiments with E. coli. There's also the examples of the lizards on an island off the coast of Croatia. They were transplanted during the early 70s and scientists only recently went back to see what happened. The results are interesting.

Subsequently, these experiments show that evolution is a testable theory.

Experiments that are made with a presumed outcome and if that outcome doesn't happen the experiment is discarded. That's what evolutionist do and many have stated as much.

Adaptation is not evolution. Did those lizards become birds? Or did they simply adapt to their environment?

As far as the guppies are concerned here are some possible hypotheses

1.Predators are causing guppy populations to become more drab by preying on the most brightly colored individuals and eliminating them from the gene pool.
2.Guppy populations are evolving to more closely match -- or stand out from -- their environment.
3.Female guppies are choosing to mate with the most brightly colored males, giving those males a higher probability of passing their genes on to the next generation.

If this is an example of evolution then why wasn't the chameleon or a number of lizards, frogs, fish as well as mammals and birds heralded in the same mannner?

 

[007]

The current observed mutation rate is evidence...

...of evolution. To believe in creationism there would have to be no mutations. You're also forgetting about fusion of cells combining their genetic material or the passing of genetic material from one cell to another.

Where did the cell come from?

That's alright Darwinists... I know no one knows where life came from. You people can argue evolution vs mutation, but you have no answer worth it's weight in flatulence as to the origins of life. That's where God comes in, and creation, and that's the part that you truly hate.