Evolution is NOT science: A challenge

I have started a topic on this, we feel it would be best if you get the ball rolling!http://EvC Forum: The predictions of Walt Brown -->EvC Forum: The predictions of Walt BrownThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-03-2004 10:46 AM

quote:

---

Evolution is a religion because it requires a belief that all animals came from a common ancestor.

---

Nope.The evidence, particularly DNA evidence, strongly suggests this to be the case.No blind belief required.

quote:

---

The problem here is that in todays observations. Animals reproduce only with there own kinds.

---

What is the definition of "kind"?How do I tell one "kind" from another?Are Chimps and humans the same "kind"? Are housecats and Bengal tigers the same "kind"? Why or why not?

quote:

---

Canines with canines, equines with equines etc.

---

Some equine to equine matings produce infertile hybrids, such as horses and donkeys producing infertile mules. Does that mean that they are different "kinds?"Why or why not?

quote:

---

So what changed millions of yrs ago that had birds changing into reptiles,

---

Birds never changed into reptiles.

quote:

---

fish to amphibians, fish to people.

---

Many, many small changes as a result of variation influenced by natural selection.Very simple.

quote:

---

Since when in todays observation can a premeval pond grow itself eyes, brains, lungs?.

---

The ToE does NOT DEAL WITH THE ORIGIN OF LIFE.Evolution deals with how life has changed ONCE IT GOT HERE.

Nothing (nothingness) is, by definition, the absence of all things, including existance. As such these questions are without meaning.

---

Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in
this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely
conceives it, wants it, and loves it.
- Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State, from The Columbian Dictionary of Quotations

You're back! Still nitpicking?

---

The Laminator
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

There has never been any fossils "in the process" of turning into another species. Never. Over millions, and millions of fossils, and not "one" can be produce. We need "transforming" fossils, not Similarities.I have never seen any "Dats" or "Cogs" have you?
A common designer produces a common species. In similar fashion, a truckload of cement can produce fence posts, sidewalks, skyscrapers, etc.
Also, an artist is known for his "similar" work.

Can we all agree not to bite on this. This one is sooooo far out of it that nothing said will make a dent anyway. You just know where this will all go.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 08-03-2004 07:09 PM

It's been tough.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

NOTHINGNESS, Given a fossil is an inanimate object, you are correct, but then your requirement of a fossing "transforming" is somewhat unrealistic, wouldn't you say? It's not like any given fossil is a flick book, is it?If we are to observe evolution in the fossil record, then we should, & do, observe character changes that merit the description of a new species (as well as higher taxa) as we track up the geologic column/stratigraphic unit.The examples of such are legion. Just to be cocky I'll give a couple of examples of genera transitions:Mammalian, Cantius-Copelemur, Paleocene-Eocene (O'leary 1999)
Mammalian, Nyanzachoerus-Notochoerus, Pliocene-Pleistocene (Harris & White 1979)
Foraminifera, Gaudyrina-Spiroplectinata, Aptian-Albian (Grabert 1959)Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Ned, Oop! Too late. Soz,MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 08-03-2004 07:26 PM

I agree that it means "the absence of all things, including esistence."
However, if nothingness does not exists. I want to know what caused the eternal nothingness to spring forth the big bang?Something must have caused it. Nothingness which does not exist, could not have caused anything to exist.

NOTHINGNESS,Evolution does not deal with the origin of life.Could you please acknowledge what the above sentance said by re-typing it word for word (without using copy paste).Then after you type it, type "I Understand" in order to let us know that you do.Once you do, we will continue. Thanx.(thanks B2P)

I just want tangible evidence. I only hear stories, and theories explaining away reasons to not present tangible evidence.Some people believe in God,whom they cannot see. And others believe in eternal nothingess, in which they cannot see. Having the highest volumes of is good, but does not prove it to be factual.Communism mandates their schools not only Marxism, but Karl Marx was a follower of Darwinism. Do you believe we came from animals? If you do, then you wouldn't object having your kids, my kids sleeping around with animals?Bazaar question? Yes, but I'm just following the rules of the animal kingdom.What moral standard is correct? The animal law? Why? Why not? Is killing wrong just because the Laws of the country say so? Killing is a natural instinct of animals, why would we object to it if we were just sophisticated animals?But what do I know, I'm just a monkeys ankle......oops monkeys can't spell

NOTHINGNESS, I gave you tangible evidence, I cited no less than three papers showing genera-genera transitions.Mark

quote:

---

I just want tangible evidence.

---

Go to TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy and search for transitional fossils. Their are fossils that meet exactly what you are looking for, and they are tangible in every way.

quote:

---

If you do, then you wouldn't object having your kids, my kids sleeping around with animals?

---

My dog slept on my bed last night. Does that count? But seriously, all animals mate within their species so I am not sure what you are on about.

quote:

---

Bazaar question? Yes, but I'm just following the rules of the animal kingdom.

---

Again, mating within your species is the "rule of the animal kingdom". Also, humans are withing the Kingdom Animalia, so humans are animals.

quote:

---

What moral standard is correct? The animal law? Why? Why not? Is killing wrong just because the Laws of the country say so? Killing is a natural instinct of animals, why would we object to it if we were just sophisticated animals?

---

And humans do kill, where do you think those t-bones in the butcher's shop come from. We derive our morals from an agreed upon rule set, just as every other species. We don't go around killing other people because we think it is wrong. Why is that so hard to figure out?

quote:

---

But what do I know, I'm just a monkeys ankle......oops monkeys can't spell

---

More accurately, given the numerous transitional fossils, you are a new world ape's cousin.

This is totally untrue, unless you are talking about mating to have fertile offspring.Dogs, for one example, are notorious for attempting to engage in sex with other animals. There are others as well, and the most curious are dolphins. They will actively try to mate with other species, even when well out of captivity (so its not an issue of domestication breeding confusion). They are known to mate out of apparent boredom and human swimmers can be fair game.What's more "animal kingdom" is a rather large field, especially when we leave the macroscopic world, and what counts as sex "with other species" at other levels is probably staggering. Heheheh... even concepts such as bisexuality become limited in comparison.And, if that is not enough, humans are animals and have had sex with other species throughout all known human history. So even if you were right about other species (which you aren't) there is at least one species which clearly does.This is not to give any moral imperative to sex with animals, just to note that there is no "rule" in the animal kingdom regarding sex, other than they all seem to have a basic urge to do it.This message has been edited by holmes, 08-04-2004 02:57 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)