I have something to stump you all.. CREATIONISM FOREVER!

If evolution is true why are there still monkeys? Who created the first cell that evenually appeared. A scientist can go as far back as he wants to but it has to end somewhere someone had to create soemthing that first started life on this earth. It didn't just appear that sounds about as ludacris as the creationism theory. Why exactly do you think it is accounted in all three major religons Holy Books the same exact way of the story of creation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kbear:
If evolution is true why are there still monkeys? Who created the first cell that evenually appeared. A scientist can go as far back as he wants to but it has to end somewhere someone had to create soemthing that first started life on this earth. It didn't just appear that sounds about as ludacris as the creationism theory. Why exactly do you think it is accounted in all three major religons Holy Books the same exact way of the story of creation.

---

Because we didn`t evolve from any modern species of monkey...Nobody it evolved...Only if abiogenesis is wrong, all indications are that it isn`t (Millers experiments etc)....Because Islam is a development on Christianity (the islamic prophet Isa is Jesus though they do not claim he is God) and Christianity is a development on Judaism of course they have the same creation myth...Ask some harder ones next time...

You are correct to point this cell division. I just noticed it in reading this week and it was a way that Wright used to speak truth that Fisher in England tried to contradict. It was more than a difference in apporach to the math and the philosophy of evolution thinking is just begining to reveal these kinds of problems that beacause they are framed with words rather than equations people feel they are easier to answer. Answer- they are not easier becasue one needs the numbers even before the question is asked again. Good notice.

That was supposed to stump us? And if the Creationist "Theory" is ludicrous, why do you support Creationism?By the way, populations evolve when they are isolated. Last I heard there were two British people posting regularly here. Wait a minute...I'm of British descent, but am not British, I'm an American. Why is there still an island across the Atlantic covered with Brits? Why are they still here? Does that question stump anyone?

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
Last I heard there were two British people posting regularly here.

---

Three m8 me, Mark and Mr P (allthough he is Scotish and would probably take offence if you called him a brit to his face)......

Of course, as a practical example of progress through evolution, we see the British stock evolving into a higer level of organism - Australians. But the old stock still remains entrenched in its endemic location, struggling to survive on the cricket field.Many lessons in evolution to be learnt.

"That was supposed to stump us? And if the Creationist "Theory" is ludicrous, why do you support Creationism?"
--I think I could almost second that.------------------

[QUOTE][b]Three m8 me, Mark and Mr P (allthough he is Scotish and would probably take offence if you called him a brit to his face)......[/QUOTE][/b]That's why I said two...

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
[QUOTE][b]Three m8 me, Mark and Mr P (allthough he is Scotish and would probably take offence if you called him a brit to his face)......[/QUOTE]

​

[/b]

​

That's why I said two...

​

---

I know I say UK in the blurb, but hey I'm a Brit too!!!!
Back up to three

quote:

---

Originally posted by wj:
Of course, as a practical example of progress through evolution, we see the British stock evolving into a higer level of organism - Australians. But the old stock still remains entrenched in its endemic location, struggling to survive on the cricket field.

​

Many lessons in evolution to be learnt.

---

Surely evidence that all mutations are harmful? Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
Surely evidence that all mutations are harmful?

​

Mark

​

---

On the contrary, most mutations are neutral (eg. Canadian, New Zealander), some are harmful (eg. American) and some are beneficial (eg. Australian). Of course terms such as harmful and beneficial are relative and determined by the current environment. A Canadian mutant in a generally American wild population may have a reduced "fitness". For the life of me, I can't think of an environment in which an American mutation would be an advantage.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wj:
But the old stock still remains entrenched in its endemic location, struggling to survive on the cricket field.

​

Many lessons in evolution to be learnt.

---

Of course the Homo britanicus has through Clive Woodwardian selection recently surged ahead in the (rugby) evolutionary arms race, No.1 in the world (first time ever for a northern hemisphere side) after our recent scourging of the Irish....Just in time for the world cup next year....

you seem to have got it bang to rights about the cricket though...

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 02-19-2002]

Rapid population growth...

quote:

---

Originally posted by kbear:
If evolution is true why are there still monkeys? Who created the first cell that evenually appeared. A scientist can go as far back as he wants to but it has to end somewhere someone had to create soemthing that first started life on this earth. It didn't just appear that sounds about as ludacris as the creationism theory. Why exactly do you think it is accounted in all three major religons Holy Books the same exact way of the story of creation.

---

Hmmm, what is the best way to explain this. How about from the start. First, lets start with simple defintitions. The theory of evolution, as stated by Charles Darwin in the " Origin of Species" , is simply that species were not specially created in there present forms, but had to evolve from ancestral species. Secondly, Charles Darwin proposed the mechanism for evolution, called natural selection, which states that a population of organisms change over time as a result of individuals with certain herritable traits leaving more offspring than other individuals, and influenced by eviromental pressures. Mind you that is the very basics of the theory.
Now to your question about "monkeys". First, I assume you were trying to refer to our closest evolutionary cousin, the Chimpanzee. Monkey's, while primates, are more distantly related ( ie our common ancestors are much further back) and part of the family Ceboidea. By contrast Chimps are part of the family Hominidae. We are related to Chimpanzees, as genetic cousins, not direct descendants. Through fossil records, and geological evidence, we are able to determine that our common ancestors split paths rougly 4.5 million years ago. We can logically extrapolate that, genetically, we would be most similar to chimps. In fact, a comparison of DNA sequences reveals a 98% match-up. That leaves 2 % difference, but that two percent obviously makes a huge difference in the composition of our two seperate species. However it does support the evolutionary model a second means of identifying evolutionary progress beyond fossil records.
By the way, evolution states absolutly nothing about the orgin of life ( organic materials ) from non-organic compounds. The evolutionary model has a vast array of quantative evidence behind it. As for the genesis of life itself, there are various hypothesis out there. The most common one I believe is chemical genesis, though I admit, this is outside of my realm of knowledge. Unlike evolution, the creation of life is still early in scientific process. Almost nothing remains intact of that time due to continued change on the earth's surface, which means there is little or no evidence from that pre-biotic time. There have been verified experiments where organic compounds were generated under sythesized atmospheric and chemical conditions similar to those theorized to exist at the time when life began. However, I fully admit that such experiments don't prove the creation of life, and there is a long away to go before a solid theory is created. I know of no scientist that claims life "just appear". One of the basic principles in science is that of cause and effect. Therefore, any theory put forth about the creation of life will have to describe the process by which life was created, and provide a body of evidence to substantiate any such theory. However there is no evidence that "someone" created life, especially instantiously, and appearantly from nothing.By the way, I have several questions. First off, what are your particular creationist beliefs? I know there is a large array of beliefs in the creationist movement, and beyond the fact that I can deduce that you refute the theory of evolution, I don't wish to assume what canon of beliefs you hold to be true. Secondly, what EVIDENCE is there for a creationist origin of the species?BTW evolution neither confirms nor denies the existance of god. It merely states the process of differentation of life over time. It may conflict with a literal interpretation of the bible, but that is a seperate issue.