Eye Gouge Psychology - Soldier's Story on TV

What support/proof do you have for evolution?

 

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc

Virtually every creationist claims busted: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

DO NOT READ THIS: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html

Can you quote me a reputable scientist/journal where this claim is made?

Because macroevolution is simply microevolution at longer time scales! It's a unnecessary distinction (when the creationist uses the terms). Decades ago when changes within species were demonstrated to such a degree it could not be denied, even by the creationists, they decided to split evolution in to micro and macro evolution thus giving them something to continue to deny (macroevolution) but they failed to realised that macroevolution is the result of microevolution over millions and billions of years.

 

Firstly I now understand the missunderstanding. I tried really hard, but could not see how your argument had anything to do with my statements...until suddenly, I saw it...I was reading your links and post looking for something that would lead me to micro/macro-organisms changing. I would never have found that because it was not in your post nor the links. You were talking about "micro/macroevolution", and I was talking about "micro/macro-organisms". They are not the same thing. But thanks to you I learned about the "umbrella" that is Macroevolution. ;D

Micro/macro-organisms do not change. Let's say we have a plum tree seed...no matter what environment the seed is planted in (as long as it can grow in that environment) the seed will always produce the same tree. Yes there are different "species" of plum trees but they all have different seeds and that certain species' seed can only produce that certain species' tree. If I have a seed from a tree that only grows yellow plums and I plant it a yellow plum tree would grow. Not a red plum tree. These micro/macro-organisms cannot change on a molecular level as to produce a change in the outcome of things.

 

I think i know which program you are on about. If i recall it was WWI/II and they found (like youve stated) that only 10 percent of men actually fired at the enemy.

Of those 10 percent, only 2 percent actually shot to kill. Half of these did it as it was their call of duty to country, the other half did it for the enjoyment of taking someones life.

In numbers then, out of 1000 men, 2 men shot to kill, 1 of them wanted to take life for pleasure.

So it always makes me laugh when people think they could take a life so easy, the 'its them or me' attitude will not work. Infact, your more likely to mess your pants up when the going does actually get tough

 

What am I basing this on?...This concept of "No change in micro/macro-organisms"…Dr. Kenneth Poppe says in his book Exposing Evolution's Weakest Link,
“There are no provable mechanisms for how molecules could increase in complexity without cells to produce and utilize them. For example, you cannot assume proteins before you have the DNA that codes for them.”

A few links for you...

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm DO NOT GO HERE

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/fossils.htm Transitional flaws in evolution

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/emcon.htm Evolution of man?

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/mainpts.htm Creationism is not against modern science.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/evoluwrong.html Lack of scientific law for radical changing (evolution)

[/"]http://www.changinglivesonline.org/evolution.html"][/ SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AGAINST EVOLUTION.

A basic overview...

Most of the "evidence" that proves evolution infact does the very opposite. (mutation, natural selection)...The rest just either further disproves it or better proves a creationalists' beliefs. (fossil records)
"Natural selection (better adapted organisms surviving to pass on genetic material) cannot produce evolution because it produces no NEW genetic material." More on micro/macro-organisms failure to change.
"Evolution (things becoming more ordered) and mutations (things becoming more disordered) are processes going in opposite directions!" Mutation can only rearrange or remove the already existing DNA codes. It cannot create anything new.
"The fossil record, our only documentation of whether evolution actually occurred in the past, lacks any transitional forms, and all types appear fully-formed when first present." There is no transition from one thing to another, there is just one thing, then another thing, then out of no where a totally different thing. Since they appear fully-formed when first present then this goes along with the belief that everything came from a Creator. Also it goes against biology to say that something came from nothing, seeing as how all of our biological proof shows that only something living can produce something living. A non-living substance cannot produce a substance with life.

Of course this is just an overview of the things in the links, and it does not cover everything or most things in the links so visiting them is highly advised.

 

WOW

Claim CB102: Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

Claim CC200: There are no transitional fossils. Evolution predicts a continuum between each fossil organism and its ancestors. Instead, we see systematic gaps in the fossil record.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

Transitional forms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IAtransitional.shtml

 

Firstly I apologize for such a long post, but I tried to fit alot into it...

What, nothing against what I posted about natural selection?...(I'm sure you can find something)

"Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information."

Who said evolution cannot cause an increase in information. Isn't that the whole theory behind evolution? Mutations cannot add on anything. A mutation occurs when the information is copied and either not in the right order or missing something. Mutation does not add anything, therefore mutation contradicts evolutionary theory. The link you sent me to had no proof of mutation adding anything.
"Mutations are random changes in the genetic makeup of organisms. Evolutionists say that mutations supply the new genes needed for evolution to proceed.

For over 1500 generations, fruit flies have been subjected to radiation and chemicals.4 This caused mutations in the flies. If you take a human generation to be 25 years, this is equal to around 37 500 years (1500 x 25) in human terms.

Mutations are an example of the Second Law of Thermodynanics (things become more disordered over time) in action. It is amazing that evolutionists would put forward mutations as the mechanism by which evolution could somehow take place!

What happened to these mutated flies over this time? Firstly, they were still flies and had not evolved into anything else! Secondly the flies as a population were worse off with many dying, having curly wings or stubby wings.

Evolution (things becoming more ordered) and mutations (things becoming more disordered) are processes going in opposite directions!

Mutations are not a friend of evolution but an enemy that cut the theory down and destroy it!

Mutations make things worst!

Mutation does not supply a mechanism for organisms to evolve"

"We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years."

Why is this?...If we can find finely detailed fossils of complete animals how come then we can not find the fossils that fill in the blanks. I does not add up. If the other fossils lasted for millions of years, what is to stop the newer transitional fossils from lasting?
Also, if evolution is to happen over millions of years then why are the findings within the same layers?...should they not be great lengths of soil to seperate them?

"Problem No. 3
How could new genetic information arise?
There is no known scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind. Insects don't evolve into more complex non-insects for instance, because they don't have the genes to do it.

To show that all life evolved from a single cell, which itself came from some type of chemical soup, there would have had to be massive genetic information gains.

But evolutionists have failed to show how this gain of new information occurred. Where did the information come from for the first bristles, stomachs, spines, intestines, complex blood circulation systems, intricate mouthpieces to strain special foods out of the water, and so on, when these were not present in the ancestral species?

The theory of evolution teaches that simple life-forms evolved into more complex life-forms, such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. There is no natural law known that could allow this to happen. The best that evolutionists can come up with to try to explain how this might have happened is to propose that it happened by mutations and natural selection.

But mutations and natural selection do not show gain in information, just rearrangement or loss of what is already there — therefore there may be beneficial mutations without an increase in genetic information.

Mutations overwhelmingly destroy genetic information and produce creatures more handicapped than the parents. (See our article on TNR, the Totally Naked Rooster.) And natural selection simply weeds out unfit creatures. Natural selection may explain why light-colored moths in England decreased and dark moths proliferated (because during the industrial revolution the light moths on dark tree trunks were more easily seen and eaten by birds), but it cannot show that moths could ever turn into effective, totally different, non-moth creatures. Moths do not have the genetic information to evolve into something that is not a moth, no matter how much time you give them."

"6. Probability shows "no" to evolution

Evolutionists such as Sir Fred Hoyle concede this when they say "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (time and chance) is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."

3. Complex systems never evolve 'bit by bit'

No mechanism has been put forward that even begins to explain how something like the human eye could have been produced by time, chance, natural selection and mutation.

Let's consider what Darwin himself said: "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

 

This link about mutation has nothing to do with creationalism nor evolution, it is just a link that teaches about mutation of DNA. It tells the 2 main causes of mutation and what mutation does.

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/units/disorders/sloozeworm/mutationbg.cfm

This by no means shows anything new coming into existence.

 

Ah...I don't want to get in the middle of a good discussion, but I think its important to remind folks that the nature of evolution is not controlled by the character of DNA coding but rather by the increased production of proteins of one sort over those of another. It is rather convenient, intellectually, for we Humans, to characterize the reproductive nature of our species as being highly structured, when, in fact, our reproductive coding is highly variant. Such primitive metaphors, for instance, as "the zipper" are used to introduce young minds to the manner in which DNA and RNA control protein synthesis, but are, in reality gross over-simplifications. Surveying a stadium full of people represents unimaginable variety at the biochemical level than the image of a crowd of individuals would ever lead us to believe. What I have found is that the true story of evolution is written by considering the story of those variants that DID NOT survive rather than those that did. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

You don't even know what species means, you are confusing genus and speci, you are a troll and the reason you are incapable of comrehending evolution is because you have not evolved, you are onmy ignore list from now.

 

Welcome back to the discussion! ...I thought you had forgotten us for a while there...

I knew the word "species" did not really fit, but I could not think of any other word so I put it in quotation marks...it would have been better if I would have put it like this...(species?)...Do you mind explaining to me where I was wrong in mixing up the speci and genus?

hahahaha...Well that's not a good very evolutionalist argument.hahahahah.... Have we now nothing else to argue/discuss, and resort now to name calling and insults?...hahahaha...no worries though...

Ignorance (ignoring things) will not help you advance in personal growth or knowledge. Nevertheless, I hope all goes well with you and your present/future endevours.

I guess I'm a troll then...hahahahahaha

No, no, no...Feel free to come in and join the party... We do not discriminate here. If you feel you have something to contribute, by all means go ahead. We can always continue to learn.
How then, (by what means) are these proteins produced?

[Dr. Kenneth Poppe says in his book Exposing Evolution's Weakest Link,
“There are no provable mechanisms for how molecules could increase in complexity without cells to produce and utilize them. For example, you cannot assume proteins before you have the DNA that codes for them.”]

The variants that did not survive, rather than those that did?...Could you please explain to me, or give me a link?...Oh and by the way what does "FWIW" stand for?

 

I'd do what I have to do to survive. If it means eye gouging, then so be it.

 

We Humans are quite fond of seeking patterns in the chaos around us. To do so can be both educational and entertaining. One of the downsides to this practice, however is to automatically disregard all that is "not-pattern". For the purposes of this discussion, for instance, it may be well to remember for each of us who are born healthy into the World there are multiples of failed pregnancies and miscarriages whose implications for the living members are disregarded. Put in historic context, we have, for instance, the remains of the "successful" dinosaurs because sheer numbers allow us to find their fossils. What we do not have are comparable fossils for the evolutionary "dead-ends" and failures. The result is that we are left with a very skewed idea of how evolution works. This is not altogether different from Psychologists who purport to understand pathology without ever actually establishing what constitutes "normalcy".

For What Its Worth.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

Mutations cannot add on anything. A mutation occurs when the information is copied and either not in the right order or missing something. Mutation does not add anything, therefore mutation contradicts evolutionary theory.

Erm...what about Down's Syndrome?
Which is....

Down syndrome or trisomy 21 (or Down's syndrome in British English and WHO ICD) is a chromosomal disorder caused by the presence of all or part of an extra 21st chromosome.

Is that not adding information?
Granted it's detrimental here but it still disproves your blanket statement that mutation does not add anything. Clearly it does in this case.

Perhaps instead of "mutation" you think of "genetic difference"? Mutation is such a loaded word.

Evolution by natural selection is the accumulation of genetic difference (of all types) by means of differential reproduction.
No more no less.

We know that there is such a thing as genetic diversity (I am not you and you not me).
We know that some of that genetic diversity will help some animals survive in the natural world longer than others (I may run faster than you for example).
We know that not all animals survive to reproduce.
We know that of the animals that survive some will reproduce more than others.

Taken that we know those unnasailable facts evolution by natural selection will happen whether you believe in it or not.
It is a natural outcome of the processes invloved.

 

Congratulations Bowed-N-Bloody.... for posting some of the most stupid material ever on MAP!

And why are you putting quotation marks around everything you write? Where are you copying this information from.

You are seriously lost here!

YOU said evolution cannot produce new genetic material!

You claimed: "Natural selection (better adapted organisms surviving to pass on genetic material) cannot produce evolution because it produces no NEW genetic material."

So I posted a refutation to the claim. The fact you think the link doesn't show this just points to your inability to understand the information.

Claim CB101: Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

This guy is not a biologist. This guy makes so many fallacies he has one named after him: Hoyle's fallacy!

Well this is both a straw man and complete dishonesty!! You've selectively quoted Darwin out of context.

Darwin introduced the problem, then answered it in the next paragraph:

"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. (Darwin 1872, 143-144)"

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113_1.html
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Darwin_on_evolution_of_the_eye
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part8.html

Furthermore, even if Darwin was genuinely puzzled about the evolution of the eye, that would still be a complete red herring. Don't cite 150 year old material when you can refer to modern research. Even if Darwin had no idea (and he had no idea about a lot of things regarding evolution), that doesn't mean modern biologists don't. The fact you have to rely on such material is just embarrassing, and the fact you dishonestly used the material is even worse!

 

POT. KETTLE. BLACK

 

Bowed-N-Bloody, I suggest you watch this video:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg"]Ken Miller on Intelligent Design - YouTube[/ame]

 

Thank you for joining the disccusion PASmith, your ideas are very much appreciated.

No...it is impossible to have an "extra 21st chromosome". (I'll explain this later)

Since the late 1950s it has been known that abnormalities in chromosome 21 cause Down syndrome. Thus chromosome 21 has been studied for a long time

Let's have a lesson on chromosomes shall we...
Chromosomes are thread-like strands of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) that carry the genes and transmit heredity information. A human being normally has 46 chromosomes (23 pairs) in all but the sex cells. Half of each chromosomal pair is inherited from the mother's egg; the other half, from the father's sperm. When the sperm and egg unite in fertilization, they create a single cell, or zygote, with 46 chromosomes. When cell division occurs (called mitosis), the 46 chromosomes are duplicated. This process is repeated billions of times over, with each of the cells containing the identical set of chromosomes.

Only the gametes, or sex cells, are different. In their cell division (called meiosis), the members of each pair of chromosomes are separated and distributed to different cells. Each gamete has only 23 chromosomes.

Okay...since a human being has 46 chromosomes (23 pairs)...you cannot have an "extra 21st chromosome"...because it is 46 chromosomes all together...Unless infact you're talking about the pairs, but then again it is 23 of them, so there cannot be an "extra 21st chromosome"... We all make mistakes and these mistakes can at times be amplified when we are forced to communicating over the internet and it is possible that the word "extra" was an accident and you meant that "abnormalities in chromosome 21 cause Down syndrome"....In any case nothing is added, it is just something wrong with that particular 21st chromosome that causes Down Syndrome, but there is nothing extra or new to support anything new being created from mutation.

What do you mean by differential reproduction? Does this statement not go against the reason of natural selection in evolution?...(not differential reproduction, but the quote). Though the accumulation of genetic difference may come from natural selection nothing new is created therefore natural selection cannot support evolution. Because in order for something to be classified as "evolved" something new must be present that was absent earlier.

Wow...we have a lot of ppl jumping in now...we might have to start a new thread if this continues...

 

Can you please post your sources when you copy text?

Regarding Down syndrome

And here is the source: http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/downsyndrome.cfm

 

hahaha...That's not what I write, its from the links I gave you earlier...I think they're on page 2...At least I respect you well enough to go to the links and READ you provide...

Hahahaha...your neglect for detail is laughable...That quote is talking about NATURAL SELECTION not producing NEW genetic material, it talks about how natural sellection does not support evolution...read it again slower and see what it ACTUALLY says...

Take a look again...it doesn't say he's a biologist, It says EVOLUTIONALIST...haha...although I've never heard of "hoyle's fallacy"...I guess you learn something new everyday...hmmm

This is the only logical argument you've made so far...Okay then, I understand that whole thing about not using 150 yr old material, when our modern research is better (more indepth). This is the first thing you've said that actually makes sense....Dishonesty?!...(I'm shocked and amazed at such false accusations)...hahah...but on a serious note...I did not by any means try to falsify any data/quotes...Where was my mistake in the quoting of the text?...Did I leave out anything/ add anything?

Word to the Wise: Instead of glancing at something so eager to prove it wrong, you should take your time and see if it has any accountability, less you end up looking like an idiot...or a Topher....