intelligent design, right and wrong

ok, i'm not gonna fight that argument, i dont have the numbers on it to prove it, and i dont care enough to try to find them(they would most likely be very hard to find) but, i've heard of a lot more "evos" changing there views than creationists. if you want to disagree with me there, then go for it. ok, so you probably cant prove anything 100% but basically i still havent seen any good hard evidence for evolution, theres to many holes in theory. later.

Here's some right here, from another thread a couple of days ago:

quote:

---

1)Population studies. Long-term observation of populations shows changes in trait frequencies with a correllation to trait usefulness in the environment. Offspring tend to resemble their parents in certain predictable ways (as shown by Mendel). Sometimes new traits seem to appear from nowhere - an organism has a trait that none of it's ancestors had. The change in trait ratios could be explained by a hypothetical "selection" process where organisms with beneficial traits are "rewarded" with more offspring, and organisms with detrimental traits are eliminated.

​

2) Similarity of organisms: Organisms demonstrate an apparent, loose hierarchy of forms - particularly vertebrate life. In particular, the most similar but yet still distinct species tend to be geographically close to each other. One explanation for this is that if a population is split into separated groups, new traits accumulate in those populations until the populations could be classified as different species.

​

3) The fossil record: Fossil organisms display sorting by apparent sophistication over depth of strata. One explanation for this is the gradual emergence of taxonomic forms over geologic time. This would be concurrent with an explanation of common descent for all modern life.

---

That's kind of the highlights. As it turns out, there's a vast weight of evidence for evolution. Is there one bit of data that confirms the theory - a "smoking gun", if you will? of course not, that's not how we arrive at theories. But the vast weight of data, taken together and generalized, leads us to conclude that generally, ToE is a great explanation for all kinds of data.What more do you want?

well, i dont doubt that some form of evolution takes place.(should have mentioned the earlier) for example, i'm not sure i can say that god created as many breeds of dogs as we have today. the problem is, i dont understand one organism to a completely different one. for example, apes-human. apes and human both have some similar characteristics. however i dont understand how we could have evolved from them. one question i have is, if we evolved from apes, where are all the "apemen"? if we truly evolved from apes 1 of 2 things would have happened.1)there would be no more apes cuz they all would have evolved to humans(there are still apes) or 2)there would everything in between apes and humans. but somewhere the evolution process obviously stopped becuase we still have apes, and we still have humans, but nothing in between. that would be like, if with people we had fully devoloped people and babies. and none aged say, 5-20. it just doesnt make sense.

For the upty-bejillionth time we did not evolve from the apes. We are their cousins.Try to think about it a bit. Why don't you see if you can come up with an explanation of your own? Don't make statments like this and ask questions which have already been answered over and over.Also we are a lot like our cousins in many, many ways. Your example of dog breeds isn't usually taken as an example of evolution since, as far as I know, no one has demonstrated speciation there. (however, I have a hunch it has occured).How much evolution do you take as having occured? Many creationist web sites accept much more evolutionary differences than there are between us and our primate cousins (without amusingly enough being able to accept that relationship).Do you suggest that only dog breeds have "evolved" or do you accept other things? If nothing else head over to the flood topics and handle the problem of the ark's capacity.

And they say ID theory should be taught in school, because too much materialism is being taught in the guise of evolutionary theory. Yet here we have someone who claims to be in 8th grade not knowing the basics of evolutionary theory.Biglifty you need to spend some time reading real biology texts, or even other portions of online resources... like this site.Evolutionary theory say nothing about humans descending from apes. Apes and humans are two totally different branches which split while "descending" from a common ancestor which as it turns out no longer exists.I guess this could be read as saying your condition #1 is the case, but it is not that simple.Evolution does not demand that an ancestor die out for a "descendent" species to emerge. New species form as a specific organism adjusts to new environments, either because it (or a number of that species) has moved into a new environment, or because their original environment has changed.Neither does it demand that all stages remain. This should be obvious as beings that are changing due to their environment wouldn't normally keep breeding each specific stage as separate breeding populations, just to keep them around.You have to shake the idea that these changes are sudden and dramatic... something to human, something to ape. It is a fluid change where children look slightly different from the parent and eventually the accumulation of these changes results in an ability to say (or categorize) a new specie.An better analogy (than your adults and babies analogy) may be to imagine evolution in terms of a single person's life.Imagine organisms as a baby. Due to internal pressures and external pressures, the child grows accordingly. At some stage we are able to "categorize" the child as a "toddler" and not a "baby". And then a "teen", then an "adult", etc etc.The baby does not snap from one category to the next. Neither does it bud into the new form leaving both a baby and a toddler, so we see each stage. It simply changes and eventually we recognize new and distinct forms that it has taken on.This is a very simple analogy, but it should work to help you over the hump of yoru dilemma. After all it would be odd to have someone tell you you were never a baby, because you don't look like a baby now, and there are no traces of this "baby" you say you once were.And as a final note, evolution has not "stopped" because we have apes and humans. Both are still evolving. Within one's lifetime, it is impossible to see the evolutionary process in action... except for the minute changes between parent and child.Please read more biology and evolutionary theory, and perhaps some logic texts as well. This will only help your arguments in the long run.------------------
holmes

Sometimes there isn't anything in between. At low levels, speciation happens in jumps. It's pretty simple to understand why there's no transitional form between some animals: What's the transitional form between you and your parents?There isn't one, of course. Yet you are different, in testable ways, than either of your parents. Evolution can jump (usually after long periods of stasis.) That's the theory reffered to as "punctuated equilibrium", I believe.Anyway, like the other guys said, we didn't evolve from apes. Apes and humans share a common ancestor. Just like you're not the decendant of your uncle, but you share a grandfather.But by all means, keep asking questions.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-26-2003]

Personally, I doubt it. There's probably enough gene flow up and down the continuum of dogs (however slow that might be) to prevent speciation. However, if mid-size dogs suddenly died out, large and small dogs would be reproductively isolated from each other. In that instance I think they would speciate very quickly indeed.They're certainly on the way to speciation, I'll give you that. At this point dogs are kind of like a ring species, I guess.

quote:

---

Anyway, like the other guys said, we didn't evolve from apes. Apes and humans share a common ancestor. Just like you're not the decendant of your uncle, but you share a grandfather.

---

This is a problem with most evolutionists. They say that we are just cousins to apes, but they are reluctant to admit that they may be wrong.I say, we didn't evolve from apes. We are apes! We just get a bigger brain and they just lose bipedality, but we are still ti alike to be sparated.

"Sometimes there isn't anything in between. At low levels, speciation happens in jumps."interesting, this varies from nearly every evolutionist i've heard, but ok, i'll ask a question. if we just jumped from apes to humans, then what happened at that time? did regular apes, just breed regular humans?

"Ring species"
Yea, that might describe the situation. And on the extremes that gull ring species are they described as separate species or not?

What elements of ID theory would a biblical
literalist need to reject?

What happened was, an animal that was just barely an ape gave birth to an animal that was just at the boundary for what we would call "human". When did this happen? Well, that depends on what you're willing to call an ape and what you're willing to a human.It's like trying to say when night starts. Of course, it's easy to tell the difference between noon and mindnight - but it's a lot harder to know when dusk has ended and night has begun. It all depends on where you draw the line, and there's a bunch of lines that, while mutually exclusive, are equally reasonable places to separate humans and apes.As she said, though, we're still apes. Primates, actually. But them's the breaks of hierarcheal classification schemes.

To tell the truth, I really don't know. Dogs aren't quite a ring species because the reproductive separation isn't geographical, it's an artifical selection imposed by breeders.It's a tricky question because the biological species concept is a hard one to fully test.

ok, so there was some evolutionary process then. what we might refer to as ape-men?(farther along than apes, but not as far along as we are)

Why refer to ape-men at all? Or better yet, what makes you say that we're not ape-men? Or, what says we're not highly specialized apes?The word "ape-men" demonstrates a common anti-evolution straw-man; the idea that there has to be a transitional form between any two animals.What if we're simply so close to apes that there's no animal that could be inbetween? Just as there's no time that could really be between dusk and night?Let me ask you - what might we refer to as a "cat-dog"?I guess what I'm trying to say, ultimately, is that the names we give animals have nothing to do with their nature. They're just arbitrary labels.