If evolution is wrong, is Creation right?

If you want to talk humans, is Homo Erectus a different "kind" from us ?
Is Homo Habilis ? Are Homo Habilis and Erectus the same "kind" or not ?
Are any of the Australopithecines the same "kind" as any of the above ?How do you tell ?[This message has been edited by PaulK, 02-02-2004]

quote:

---

Can you show under experiment a human change into another kind?

---

Can you show how they would change into a wandangafoo?No, don't ask me what a wandagafoo is. Just tell me if a human can change into a wandangafoo.

---

"It isn't faith that makes good science, it's curiosity."
-Professor Barnhard, The Day the Earth Stood Still

I don't know - I only know Neanderthal man seems to be human. As for the other extinct creatures, they look like apes creatures to me. But PLEASE let's not do a "line of" - I have accepted a "line of" is certainly evidence of diversity from an incredible Creator - and POSSIBLY evolution. But I am talking about absolute certainty do remember.Dan - Leave me alone.

You are missing my point. We can't tell because there is no way to tell. The creationist "kind" has no place in biology. If a creationist is ultimately willing to accept an example of evolution then as soon as the evidnece becomes to great to deny"kind". If they are not then it may be between what THEY call "kinds" but they won't accept it either.So all the argument boils down to is the fact that creationists a) like to move the goalposts and b) have closed minds. That is not evidence against evolution - it IS evidence agaisnt creationism.

HoLD IT WAIT A MINUTE! This is NOT FAIR! I go to bed late (10:00) And get up at 7:00 in the morning and theres so much posted it would take me millions of years to ansser to! Creation vs. evolution, it lookks like mee against an army...I guess thats your strategy.I will try to do my best to answer some of this before I start some school, although this IS school in my opinion....crashfrog, your bacteria example, very nice, but guess what ITS STILL A BACTERIA! it didn't change from a one-celled to a two-celled creature. It didn't become a fish. Oh and whoever said fish have been found with lungs, if thats true, all it would mean is ITS A FISH WITH LUNGS! Not evolution. Now if you had the fish in a tank and it bred itself into a frog, then we would have evidence. Oh, but you need TIME... its never been proven.Now as for MUTATIONS and I have 50-100 of them, like I said, the gene code is always scrambled, but nothing new is ever added. Show me one example of new info being added. There is none, the leading scientifific leaders have admitted this. I can have a shorter nose, but never a nose on my leg. theres a LIMIT to the changes WITHIN the gene code. Plus, mutations are almost never beneficial. And if a mutation WAS beneficial, it wouldn't be passed on to his kid, right? Lets say a cow gets 5 legs. It doesn't help, he can't walk any better, but we get more meat hehe. So if he is bred, will any of his kids be born with 5 legs? Or 4 1/2? You BELIEVE that a monkey can turn into a human, you have no PROOF. Its not SCIENCE.
And Ned, where has the Bible been proven wrong? As my first post stated, since God is the creator of science, he is not bound by the laws of it."""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""In fact it would be possible for both to be correct. Some god
or other poofed the universe into being, dumped a few dozen
microbes on a planet or two, and then let his/her/its universal
rules run riot -- with evolution (as we understand it in a
biological sense) operating to diversify the extant critters.""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""Ok, but what a dumb God. What is he thinking? Is he smarter than us? If he can make time, space, matter, and life he's gotta be smarter than us, right? So heres this super smart God, up there, but all e does is play with his stars that he made? And God HAS to be good! We see good and evil in this world, where is it coming from? We have seen things happen that prove the supernatural. Like witches have really been able to talk to the dead right? that is not science. That is supernatural. I will explain that when I start the Can we prove God? thread."""""""""""""Except that no-one I know accepts the theory of evolution as
correct simply because that's what they have been told."""""""""""""""""Um, almost every kid in public school....""""""""""""""""""Allowing tha you might be using the term 'kind' very loosely"""""""""""""I already explained that, the gene code can change, but nothing can be added, at least not what we've seen."""""""""""""""""I thought you weren't allowed to teach any religions in US schools
(I assume you are from the US please say so if you are not).Evolution is not, in any case, religous in nature.""""""""""""""""""By the way, you CAN teach religion in public schools here in the USA.
Tha teacher cannot try to convert the students to be a buhdist or whatever. You can teach ABOUT any religion, some schools now have a Bible study program. Its that the school boards are afraid of being sued....
And evolution is believed, not science. If you don't wanna call that religion, fine. Call it whatever you want, its still not science.""""""""""""""""""""""""""''Evolution is observable, testable and demonstrable -- as someone pointed out with an experimental description"""""""""""""""""""""Already,talked about that, its still a BACTERIA. Thats scrambled genetic code, not added info. this bacteria will never grow wings and fly no matter how much time you give it."""""""""""""""""""""""You stated that for something to be scientifically acceptable
it must be 'observable, testable, or demonstratable' ...
please apply any one of those to a proof of God (I assume you mean
the christian god ... but any god will do)."""""""""""""""""""""Like I said, later when I'm through with this thread. We will have to discuss it...if its not scientific, I can at lest explain it through logic and reasoning.Thats all the time I have for now.
Mike.

Well - I mean, I think "kinds" is more correct than "no kinds".It is TOTALLY true that we produce after our kind. If you claim to not know what this means then you're are just being dishonest with yourselves. We all know what a dog is, are you saying you don't?As evolutionists say this is very simple " cats and dogs " . We know that an apple will never become an orange. We know that a peerson will never become an ape. That may be simplistic, but it holds truth.
Maybe it's not helpful in biology, like you said, but the barrier is REAL untill we see a kind change.

Ok, sorry, as I was writing, another 5 or 6 posts appeared, about these ape men...when you find a bone in the dirt...all you know is IT DIED!! You do NOT know if it had any kids, how it walked, etc. You cannot rely on fossils, theres no date stamped on them. What is alive today? Thats what we can look at. Plus why did some apes turn to humans and others stay perfect apes? Explain that one. There is an entire book on neanderthals... run a search.. It was an ordinary man thet had arthritus and was hunched. If you find a fossil and the man, ape is bent over, how do you know if he's coming up, or going down?Ok and as for Hovind, he may have a couple things where he's worng , everybody does, but a good %95 of what he says is true and relevant..

Easy. First define information, so we can select an appropriate example. Please provide evidence to support your assertion. The house organs of the ICR and AIG are not suitable evidence; the peer-reviewed scientific literature is.

My point is that "kinds" *as the term is used by creationists* have no existence.The word translated as "kinds" in the Bible may well simply mean that the offspring resemble their parents. But that in no way contradicts evolution. But that isn't what creationists mean. Evolutionary theory says that a dog won't give birth to a cat so that isn't what creationists mean either.Creationists claim that there are basic discontinuities between different life forms such that they cannot be related. Thus if a creationist says that cats and dogs are different "kinds" he means that they do NOT share a common ancestor. Unfortunately for creationists the evidence is that they do. And typically a creationist will either suddenly decide that cats and dogs are the same kind after all or refuse to accept the relationship.

Sorry, whatever ol' Kent says is almost certain to be wrong and likely to be a deliberate lie. He's a con man. See Analyzing Kent Hovind.

I see that you aren't answering the questions I raised.But the bones can tell us a lot more - for instance all these fossils show traits intermediate between what we would call apes and modern humans.And no, Neandertals are not the same as modern humans, there differences are not the result of age or arthritis.
Creationist Arguments: NeandertalsHovind is something of a joke. The last thing I saw about him was his spat with Answers in Genesis. And all AiG did was to suggest that creationists should stop using a few bad arguments. Hovind didn't like that at all.

quote:

---

You cannot rely on fossils, theres no date stamped on them.

---

There are many threads on this forum about dating methods for fossils. If you have a problem with them, go argue them on those threads. In the meantime, yes, fossils practically do have their date stamped on them.

quote:

---

What is alive today? Thats what we can look at.

---

So basically, in studying the ways in which life forms change over time, you want to only examine one specific point in time.Sounds a little like studying advanced calculus, but only using the number 3.

quote:

---

Plus why did some apes turn to humans and others stay perfect apes? Explain that one.

---

Who on Earth gave you the idea that apes turned into humans?

quote:

---

Ok and as for Hovind, he may have a couple things where he's worng , everybody does, but a good %95 of what he says is true and relevant..

---

I'm sorry, but you should really read the Hovnid analysis that's been provided for you a couple times on this thread. The man displays a deep-seated misunderstanding of basic high school biology. Then he tries to speak on PHD-level science.

---

"It isn't faith that makes good science, it's curiosity."
-Professor Barnhard, The Day the Earth Stood Still

Ofcourse I don't mean to start an old battle of Uniformatarianism and Catastrophism but "the present is the key to the past" disregards the possibility of the past being a different place from the present. Take for instance in the days of Genesis, "it was good" and go look at it from the Catastrophism perspective and you'll have a new set of rules.

This excuse is acceptable in a chatroom, not in an internet discussion forum where you usually have plenty of time (sometimes even several days) to answer. Besides, this isn't even a very active forum. Ahh yes, the old clumping together of an entire kingdom into a single "kind," while still claiming that Homo ergaster, sapiens and erectus are easily distiguished. I won't even bother writing my own response to this and thus simply quote Howard Hershey:

quote:

---

Bacteria differ from one another at least as much as one eucaryote varies from the next (and yes, that includes the variation between yeast and human). Perhaps even more so, since you probably lump Archae and Eubacteria together as "bacteria".

​

Apparently you have the creationist's view of life which is similar to the proverbial New Yorker's view of American geography (everything west of the Hudson is a very tiny sliver of land labelled 'the wasteland' until you get to Los Angeles): the creationist definition of "kind" becomes larger the further one gets away from H. sapiens. When she looks at humans, only H.sapiens (and sometimes not even all of these fossils) are a clear and distinct 'kind', yet when she looks at bacteria, the rock-eating photosynthesizers, the parasitic Rickettsias and Chlamydias, the giant Epulopiscium fishelsoni, the spirochetes, and the myxobacteria that form many-celled fruiting bodies (and I haven't even touched on the extremophile archae) all become lumped together as the single kind called "bacteria". This represents magical use of words. 'Kinds' defined this way is a meaningless word used as an amulet or talisman to hide from what creationists consider an ugly reality. It means whatever the speaker wants it to mean and thus comforts and blinds the user without fooling anyone else.

---

Ignoring you misunderstamding of multicellularity for a moment, does that mean that if I show you a case where an unicellular organism evolved into a multicellular one you will accept "macro-evolution"? I, for one, rather doubt it, but I will post the abstract here anyway, if only as a reference for the other posters:

quote:

---

Predation was a powerful selective force promoting increased morphological complexity in a unicellular prey held in constant environmental conditions. The green alga, Chlorella vulgaris, is a well-studied eukaryote, which has retained its normal unicellular form in cultures in our laboratories for thousands of generations. For the experiments reported here, steady-state unicellular C. vulgaris continuous cultures were inoculated with the predator Ochromonas vallescia, a phagotrophic flagellated protist ("flagellate"). Within less than 100 generations of the prey, a multicellular Chlorella growth form became dominant in the culture (subsequently repeated in other cultures). The prey Chlorella first formed globose clusters of tens to hundreds of cells. After about 10-20 generations in the presence of the phagotroph, eight-celled colonies predominated. These colonies retained the eight-celled form indefinitely in continuous culture and when plated onto agar. These self-replicating, stable colonies were virtually immune to predation by the flagellate, but small enough that each Chlorella cell was exposed directly to the nutrient medium.

---

reference: Niet gevonden - Not foundAnd, since you are obvoiusly ignorant of biological evolution, I post an excerp from an explanantion of its basic concepts, which can be found at: The page cannot be found

quote:

---

Darwinism in a Nutshell:

​

Charles Darwin was hardly the first person to notice that populations of organisms change over time, nor was he the first to propose a theory explaining why this is true. A later instalment may deal with the history of evolutionary thought. He and Alfred Russell Wallace are remembered today because their observations and conclusions led them to formulate the theoretical elements that today form the core of modern evolutionary theory. Certainly, details of the theory have changed over time as new discoveries have been made, but the core of the theory remains unchanged even today. The core of evolutionary theory that Darwin proposed can be summarized thus:

• Observation Number 1:
  All organisms have the capacity to reproduce exponentially. This means that their populations would grow to enormous sizes in just a few generations, unless something prevented them from reproducing at their full capacity.
  ​
• Observation Number 2:
  Resources are necessarily limited in supply.
  ​
• Conclusion Number 1:
  Since resources are necessarily limited, there must be competition within populations for these resources — otherwise, the populations would grow forever, which clearly does not happen. In short, not every individual will be able to get the resources it needs to survive and reproduce.
  ​
• Observation Number 3:
  Organisms within a population are variable(different individuals have different traits), and some of these variations will happen to be advantageous to their bearers, while some will be disadvantageous to their bearers and others will have no effect at all. Advantageous and disadvantageous effects here are defined by how they affect an organism’s ability to survive and reproduce.
  ​
• Observation Number 4:
  Organisms are more likely to resemble their parents than others in the population. This is inheritance. Typically this is due to genetic material (usually DNA) that is passed from the parents to the children.
  ​
• Conclusion Number 2:
  Those individuals who happen to have traits that make them better suited to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce (and potentially pass on those traits) than those who have traits that are less well suited to the environment. This phenomenon is called natural selection.
  ​
• Conclusion Number 3:
  Since those individuals in a population who are best suited to their environment will pass on more traits (on average) than those who are less suited to their environment, the population’s heritable makeup will inevitably change over time. Advantageous traits will tend to become more common, while disadvantageous traits will tend to become less common. This phenomenon is called evolution.

---

---

"Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon

A lot more here to discuss. I'd like to scream ONE AT A TIME!
Oh well. First: "define info"Genetic information is information in the gene code. Does that make sense? New information would be EXACTLY the same as NEW INFORMATION.
Like I can have shorter ears and a longer nose than my father, thats the same info. But I will NEVER grow wings and fly away because that
is NEW INFORMATION. I'm kinda young and can't really quote a lot of scientific babble, but what I'm writing is real easy to understand.
It seems like the number one argument for the evolutionists is "define kind". I stated that scrambling of the gene code is micro, new information is macro; never been observed. Stephen Gould, Charles Darwin, they ALL admit this. If you want quotes I can find them. Someone said anything Hovind comes up with is wrong. Sounds like a BIG predjudice to me. As I said, besides a couple of small arguments that MAY be false, the big picture of what he teaches is CORRECT. Prove me wrong. I don't care what a bunch of anti-hovinders post on a website, lets go through the seminar and point out what is NOT scientific. I also heard, "you only want to examine one point in time" Wait a minute WERE YOU THERE when the animals evolved??? Did you observe it? You haven't tested it or demonstrated that a frog can change to a dinosaur. Why doesn't it happen today? You show a 3-year old a wolf a chiwawa (however thats spelled) a poodle and a dingo and a bacteria and ask which is not like the others? Most of my arguments were dodged and never answered. THERE IS A LIMIT TO CHANGE! The genetic info present in a dog can only do SO MANY THINGS. Nothing can get better. Everything goes down the tubes given time. Evolution is not possible in a closed universe. I will repeat THERE IS A LIMIT! We have seen those bacteria do who knows what but we've never seen them grow wings or new legs and eyes. This argument hasn't been answered either, are mutations passed down to the next generation???? ( I gave the cow example)""""""""""""""""This excuse is acceptable in a chatroom, not in an internet discussion forum where you usually have plenty of time (sometimes even several days) to answer. Besides, this isn't even a very active forum."""""""""""""""'You are right, I shouldn't be complaining about that, its just that I'm outnumbered...never mind I said anything there....sorry."""""""""""""""""""""Ahh yes, the old clumping together of an entire kingdom into a single "kind," while still claiming that Homo ergaster, sapiens and erectus are easily distiguished."""""""""""""""Ok, I will repeat THERE IS A LIMIT!""""""""""""""""""""""""""''Ignoring you misunderstamding of multicellularity for a moment, does that mean that if I show you a case where an unicellular organism evolved into a multicellular one you will accept "macro-evolution"? I, for one, rather doubt it, but I will post the abstract here anyway, if only as a reference for the other posters:"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""Ok, I have no clue what you're talking about, so I'll drop that one."""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Conclusion Number 2:
Those individuals who happen to have traits that make them better suited to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce (and potentially pass on those traits) than those who have traits that are less well suited to the environment. This phenomenon is called natural selection.Conclusion Number 3:
Since those individuals in a population who are best suited to their environment will pass on more traits (on average) than those who are less suited to their environment, the population’s heritable makeup will inevitably change over time. Advantageous traits will tend to become more common, while disadvantageous traits will tend to become less common. This phenomenon is called evolution.""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""''Guess what, I agree. If there are black squirrels and gray squirrels and the trees are black, the more "advantageous" ones (the black ones) will camofluage and the gray ones will be eliminted. Sure. Again, THERE IS A LIMIT! A squirrel will never have purple fur, even if the trees are purple! The gene code only allows for black, white and everything in between, so they can change WITHIN that but not outside of it i. e. purple fur. Don't tell me I'm not making sense I'm trying to make this as simple as possible.Mike