Gaps in Evolution

[tjm190]

Yes. Actually they digest nylon oligomers.

They still are bacteria right?

I suppose you have some proof of this? Because everyone who knows anything about biology rejects this claim.

 

[Angel7]

Are you kidding? Do a basic google search. There are tons of new bacteria species. There are bacteria that survive by consuming synthetic materials, materials that **we created **and didn’t exist 100 years ago.

It’s not an extra extremity, I believed it was originally used to cool the body, but it could have been used for all kinds of things, who knows?

That’s not the second law, and the big bang is not contrary to it.

Honestly, read something other then creationist websites. Educate yourself before you try to tell the entire scientific world that they’re wrong.

Who is Man To “play G-d”? We can breed different types of Species, but I dont think this is our place is it?

Do you have any Non-man made examples?

1. If you keep Tinkering the DNA of a Fly (That wouldn’t be right, poor fly ) does it turn into new species? You can Flip flop the DNA in it, I don’t see it getting any bigger, or any different (Other then a type of -freak show ish thing). If you Flip the DNA around, does it turn into a Different Animal? Or does it Remain a “Mutant Fly” Probably in capabale of Reproduction? How would these Traits pass on to other offspring (If it could reproduce)
2. Non-living Chemicals can’t become live on their own.
   DNA is a Programmed Sequence of Chemicals. Everyone thats works with Codes should know there has to be a programmer, for there to be a program. What are we made up of (flesh and spirit) The Flesh is scientific compounds.
   But where did Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen2, and other Chemicals turn into Organic Matter? How would Chlorine turn into a living Gas? Seriously, I’d love if someone could answer this, pretty wierd if it were Chance.
3. Even Richard Dawkins in his anti-creation book The Blind Watchmaker admits “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” The amazing defense mechanism of the Bombardier Beetle is a classic example of design in nature, seemingly impossible to explain as the result of accumulating small beneficial changes over time, because if the mechanism doesn’t work perfectly, “boom” – no more beetle! This is also another view of the core issue of information, as the design of living things is the result of processing the information in the DNA (following the blueprint) to produce a working organism. (I got that from the website I linked earlier) Also, isn’t DNA an obvious, showing of Design?! Its a program?! a computer can’t program itself, it needs the Programmer to make the Program!!
4. A good counter, but here is another one.
   ASEXUAL Repro. Why would Organic life not Do what Cells do? Why can’t animals create more of themelves like Cells? The whole Burdensome “mating rituals, and Reproductive Organs” don’t need to be there. Wouldn’t be easier to ensure Survival if you could replicate yourself? Evolution is the Survival of the Fittest. Surely in the Game of Evolution this would be a trump card, no?
5. why don’t you visit Creationist Websites? Do you always stick to Evolutionist Websites?

The Law of ThermoDynamics is easy to understand. Energy Seeks a status Quo.
Heat wants to Cool down, iit moves to where it is colder. Even Electricity. It moves to where there is a lesser charge of build up.
So why didn’t everythign “even out” in the big Bang?
Instead its empty space vacuum. With an Oasis of Matter and Energy every Now and then. Qutie strange.

 

[buffalo]

I suppose you have some proof of this? Because everyone who knows anything about biology rejects this claim.

They are not bacteria?

I guess one place to start is what is nylon made of?

Do the materials used to make it exist in nature?

 

[tjm190]

They are not bacteria?

I guess one place to start is what is nylon made of?

Do the materials used to make it exist in nature?

I was referring to the latent DNA claim- since no bacteria had ever produced the enzyme to break nylon down before, it seems unlikely that they “always had” that ability stored up.

 

[buffalo]

I was referring to the latent DNA claim- since no bacteria had ever produced the enzyme to break nylon down before, it seems unlikely that they “always had” that ability stored up.

Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution.

…In the present study, it was shown that microorganisms can
acquire an entirely new ability to metabolize xenobiotic compounds
such as a by-product of nylon manufacture through the
process of adaptation. The artificial expansion of the metabolic
diversity of microorganisms toward various unnatural compounds
would be important in terms of biodegradation of
environmental pollutants.

 

[edwest2]

They had a latent ability to eat materials that didn’t yet exist?

Yes. Bacteria were found in dirt in Canada that were already resistant to natural and synthetic antibiotics.

bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=2286

Bacteria have the built-in ability to exchange bit of genetic material even between different species of bacteria.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Angel7]

Modifying the DNA via mutation can never produce new genetic information- false.

Non-living chemicals cannot become alive on their own- Not in the presence of creatures that eat said chemicals

Design is apparent in the living world- yes, just like design is apparent in the grand canyon: but that was formed by a natural process to.

“nothing works until everything works.”(Remember, natural selection has no foresight, and works to eliminate anything not providing an immediate benefit. What is the point of evolving a wing, if when at the first evolution, it is just a an extra extremety)- Wings are believed to have evolved from arms when feathers came into play. It has also been demonstrated that a partial wing could have allowed the individual to run significantly faster and up slopes of up to 110 degrees.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics refers to the universal tendency for things, on their own, to “mix” with their surrounding environment over time, becoming less ordered and eventually reaching a steady-state- It refers to the tendency of mechanical energy to “decay” to “entropy”- completely irrelevant.

Somehow the energy of a “Big Bang” structured itself into stars, galaxies, planets, and living things, contrary to the Second Law- false. It refers to energy, not matter. After the bang there was helium and hydrogen, which formed stars. The fusion reaction that occurs inside stars gave us the remaining elements.

By definition, something must be eternal (as we have “something” today and something cannot come from “nothing”, so there was never a time when there was “nothing”). Either the universe itself is eternal, or something/someone outside of and greater than the universe is eternal. We know that the universe is not eternal, it had a beginning (as evidenced by its expansion)- yep

Dozens of parameters are “just right” for life to exist on this planet- There are hundreds of billions of galaxies with hundreds of billions of stars each- statistically, it shouldn’t come as surprise that a rock orbiting one of those stars was “just right”

The fine-tuning of the physical constants that control the physics of the universe- wat?

The oldest fossils for any creature are already fully-formed and don’t change much over time. False- google evolution of the horse

There is no evidence of evolution from simpler forms. Birds are said to have evolved from reptiles but no fossil has ever been found having a “half-scale/half-wing”. A reptile breathes using an “in and out” lung (like humans have), but a bird has a “flow-through” lung suitable for moving through the air- lungs aren’t fossilized, so observing this change would be tough

Language separates man from the animals.- True

No animal is capable of achieving anything like human speech, and all attempts to teach chimpanzees to talk have failed. Evolutionists have no explanation for the origin of human language.- And yet we know they can pull of sign language. They just don’t have the right physical parts for the job.

Many creatures reproduce asexually. Why would animals abandon simpler asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction? Sexual reproduction is a very complex process that is only useful if fully in place. For sexual reproduction to have evolved complimentary male and female sex organs, sperm and eggs, and all the associated machinery in tandem defies the imagination.- As much as I hate referencing Disney movies, have you ever seen Fantasia? Right at the beginning, two little bacteria like things pop up, connect to each other with their tendrils, we see some lights pulsate across, and then they go their separate ways. This represents the exchange of genetic information, a valuable evolutionary tool because it allows beneficial genes to spread throughout the population. This is the benefit of sexual reproduction.

 

[Angel7]

Modifying the DNA via mutation can never produce new genetic information- false.

Non-living chemicals cannot become alive on their own- Not in the presence of creatures that eat said chemicals

Design is apparent in the living world- yes, just like design is apparent in the grand canyon: but that was formed by a natural process to.

“nothing works until everything works.”(Remember, natural selection has no foresight, and works to eliminate anything not providing an immediate benefit. What is the point of evolving a wing, if when at the first evolution, it is just a an extra extremety)- Wings are believed to have evolved from arms when feathers came into play. It has also been demonstrated that a partial wing could have allowed the individual to run significantly faster and up slopes of up to 110 degrees.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics refers to the universal tendency for things, on their own, to “mix” with their surrounding environment over time, becoming less ordered and eventually reaching a steady-state- It refers to the tendency of mechanical energy to “decay” to “entropy”- completely irrelevant.

Somehow the energy of a “Big Bang” structured itself into stars, galaxies, planets, and living things, contrary to the Second Law- false. It refers to energy, not matter. After the bang there was helium and hydrogen, which formed stars. The fusion reaction that occurs inside stars gave us the remaining elements.

By definition, something must be eternal (as we have “something” today and something cannot come from “nothing”, so there was never a time when there was “nothing”). Either the universe itself is eternal, or something/someone outside of and greater than the universe is eternal. We know that the universe is not eternal, it had a beginning (as evidenced by its expansion)- yep

Dozens of parameters are “just right” for life to exist on this planet- There are hundreds of billions of galaxies with hundreds of billions of stars each- statistically, it shouldn’t come as surprise that a rock orbiting one of those stars was “just right”

The fine-tuning of the physical constants that control the physics of the universe- wat?

The oldest fossils for any creature are already fully-formed and don’t change much over time. False- google evolution of the horse

There is no evidence of evolution from simpler forms. Birds are said to have evolved from reptiles but no fossil has ever been found having a “half-scale/half-wing”. A reptile breathes using an “in and out” lung (like humans have), but a bird has a “flow-through” lung suitable for moving through the air- lungs aren’t fossilized, so observing this change would be tough

Language separates man from the animals.- True

No animal is capable of achieving anything like human speech, and all attempts to teach chimpanzees to talk have failed. Evolutionists have no explanation for the origin of human language.- And yet we know they can pull of sign language. They just don’t have the right physical parts for the job.

Many creatures reproduce asexually. Why would animals abandon simpler asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction? Sexual reproduction is a very complex process that is only useful if fully in place. For sexual reproduction to have evolved complimentary male and female sex organs, sperm and eggs, and all the associated machinery in tandem defies the imagination.- As much as I hate referencing Disney movies, have you ever seen Fantasia? Right at the beginning, two little bacteria like things pop up, connect to each other with their tendrils, we see some lights pulsate across, and then they go their separate ways. This represents the exchange of genetic information, a valuable evolutionary tool because it allows beneficial genes to spread throughout the population. This is the benefit of sexual reproduction.

1. If you tinker with the Genes of a Fly, when it reproduces it will fix it self (if it can reproduce with all the changes made to it) it would fix itself, it won’t turn into anything other then a mutated Fly. Prove me wrong please, I would love to here.
2. Why can’t controlled Chemicals not in the Presence of anything else, completely controlled, turn into Life? Why are Amino Acids Programmed, into such a complex code.
   How could Chemicals turn into life anyway? Show me, your info.
3. The grand Canyon is a testament to the Beauty and the Ruggedness of G-d’s Green Earth, it was carved by Water, (G-d could have created the Canyon cause he willed so) but we all know it came from water. DNA however is a programmed code, everyone who knows something about computers knows there has to be a programmer to the program.
4. Still Evolution has no Forsight, and cannot predict what will and will not be a wing.
   Repro. Organs, are un necessery whats the point of developing them, if no one has them. Asexuality would Help in the Game of Survival. Why would Evolution Develop anything like a wing, an Eye, or a Brain, without IMMEDIATE results. Evolutionists claim that birds evolved from small-structured, reptilian dinosaurs. A comparison between birds and reptiles, however, demonstrates that these living classes are very different from each other and no evolution whatsoever could have taken place between them.
   Another important difference between reptiles and birds is their metabolic structure. While reptiles have the slowest metabolic rate in the world of living things, birds hold the highest records in this field. evidencesofcreation.com/tellme16.htm
5. Regardless, things have the tendency to return to their Natural State, So why isn’t the Matter of the Big Bang coming back together? Had the big bang expanded any slower, it would have collapsed on itself. Why isn’t everything spread out evenly like pan cake mix. Where as it is all clumped together in an oasis of matter, “galaxies”
6. Again, why did things not spread evenly and clump together? Why did certain Areas have Gravity that attracted matter, where as everything could have been perfectly occupied with Matter. Rather then the DarkVoid of the Vacuum beyond. The Matter would have been Very effected by the Energy of the Big bang, all the Heat and all. It seems strange how Galaxies could form when, there was a perfect explosion. Gravity would have Pulled it together to its origion wouldn’t it? Tought one to answer.
7. You agree, The Universe is not eternal. It had a beginning. And Finite things do not come into existence of themselves, this points to a creator, that could make something as Huge, but still Finite, as the Universe.

 

[Angel7]

1. You agree, The Universe is not eternal. It had a beginning. And Finite things do not come into existence of themselves, this points to a creator, that could make something as Huge, but still Finite, as the Universe.
2. Ofcourse to Statistics it happens to be perfect. Yet if Something on Earth were wrong, even by a Fraction, it would make life very hard if not impossible.Dozens of parameters are “just right” for life to exist on this planet. For example, if the Earth were just a little closer to the Sun it would be too hot and the ocean’s water would boil away, much further and it would be covered continually in ice. Earth’s circular orbit (to maintain a roughly constant temperature year-round), its rotation speed (to provide days and nights not too long or short), its tilt (to provide seasons), and the presence of the moon (to provide tides to cleanse the oceans)

Water is a rare compound in that it is lighter in a solid state than in a liquid state. This allows ponds to freeze with the ice on the surface allowing the life beneath to survive. Otherwise bodies of water would freeze from the bottom up and become solid ice. Water is also the most universal “solvent” known, allowing for dissolving/mixing with the many different chemicals of life.
Praise the Lord, and his gift of Water. emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm

1. The Fine Tuning of Everything that the Universe is Bound to. Laws of Science. Gravity for instance. Who could create something, that everything is bound to, is in tangible, and effects every living thing. I see only G-d.
2. Not true, The Horse evolution, Classic to many Text books, is false, and many scientists no longer see it as true. Students need to be informed that the horse evolution “story” is just that, a story:

“The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the heart of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature… The evolution of the horse family, Equidae, is now no better known than that of numerous other groups of organisms…”
George Gaylord Simpson (Paleontologist), Life of the Past, 1953

Marsh’s ‘Horse Evolution’ is still presented as fact to students today! A fossil exhibition was staged at the American Museum of Natural History. “The exhibit is now hidden from public view as an outdated embarrassment. Almost a century later, paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson re-examined horse evolution and concluded that generations of students had been misled.”
Encyclopedia of Evolution - Richard Milner
ichthus.info/Evolution/evolution.html (scroll down, and it comes to the horses part)

1. Scroll above on my other answer, about the difference of Reptile, and Bird, then see the webiste, its a short article. Vast Differences between bird and reptile. Metabolism, bones, etc…
2. Sign language is not the same as Language. Where did or Language come from? Animals, even in sign language are incapable of certain grammer. The, as,it, etc…
   Monkeys would only respond in sign language, if they are motivated, I would like to see one in a conversation, for a random reason, and when not obliged to use sign language.
   Also, it still stands, our Language is mysterious.Language separates man from the animals. No animal is capable of achieving anything like human speech, and all attempts to teach chimpanzees to talk have failed. Evolutionists have no explanation for the origin of human language. This is only a “surface” confusion though, as all languages express the same underlying basic ideas and concepts, enabling other languages to be learned and understood.
3. Asexual Reproduction would be better for Survival, and thats what Evolution is all about. Why Hassel with Mating, mating Rituals, Extra Repro. Organs, when you can replicate yourself. This is what A Repro. is. In the game of survival this would be Very Useful, as you can carry the “species” and are not in need of anyone else for your sruvival.
   Again the benefit is tranferring Genes. but since evolution is so Short sighted, it will not see long term benifts, it will only wants Immediate Survival.

Forgive me for my long response, (it used to be longer) I replied to this already, but failed to post it, and it was deleted
So i had to type it all again, (It was easier to type it a 2nd time) I hope this helps.

G-d bless. I had to cut alot off for it to be posted, apparently there is a limit to how many charactes.

Took along time, and alot of fixing to get this all, I lost some info though, when it was first deleted, sorry for inconviences.

 

[grannymh]

1. If you tinker with the Genes of a Fly, when it reproduces it will fix it self (if it can reproduce with all the changes made to it) it would fix itself, it won’t turn into anything other then a mutated Fly. Prove me wrong please, I would love to here.
2. Why can’t controlled Chemicals not in the Presence of anything else, completely controlled, turn into Life? Why are Amino Acids Programmed, into such a complex code.
   How could Chemicals turn into life anyway? Show me, your info.
3. The grand Canyon is a testament to the Beauty and the Ruggedness of G-d’s Green Earth, it was carved by Water, (G-d could have created the Canyon cause he willed so) but we all know it came from water. DNA however is a programmed code, everyone who knows something about computers knows there has to be a programmer to the program.
4. Still Evolution has no Forsight, and cannot predict what will and will not be a wing.
   Repro. Organs, are un necessery whats the point of developing them, if no one has them. Asexuality would Help in the Game of Survival. Why would Evolution Develop anything like a wing, an Eye, or a Brain, without IMMEDIATE results. Evolutionists claim that birds evolved from small-structured, reptilian dinosaurs. A comparison between birds and reptiles, however, demonstrates that these living classes are very different from each other and no evolution whatsoever could have taken place between them.
   Another important difference between reptiles and birds is their metabolic structure. While reptiles have the slowest metabolic rate in the world of living things, birds hold the highest records in this field. evidencesofcreation.com/tellme16.htm
5. Regardless, things have the tendency to return to their Natural State, So why isn’t the Matter of the Big Bang coming back together? Had the big bang expanded any slower, it would have collapsed on itself. Why isn’t everything spread out evenly like pan cake mix. Where as it is all clumped together in an oasis of matter, “galaxies”
6. Again, why did things not spread evenly and clump together? Why did certain Areas have Gravity that attracted matter, where as everything could have been perfectly occupied with Matter. Rather then the DarkVoid of the Vacuum beyond. The Matter would have been Very effected by the Energy of the Big bang, all the Heat and all. It seems strange how Galaxies could form when, there was a perfect explosion. Gravity would have Pulled it together to its origion wouldn’t it? Tought one to answer.
7. You agree, The Universe is not eternal. It had a beginning. And Finite things do not come into existence of themselves, this points to a creator, that could make something as Huge, but still Finite, as the Universe.

Why don’t creationists and ID people concentrate on the one species who has the finger prints of God?

 

[tjm190]

1. If you tinker with the Genes of a Fly, when it reproduces it will fix it self (if it can reproduce with all the changes made to it) it would fix itself, it won’t turn into anything other then a mutated Fly. Prove me wrong please, I would love to here.

But if that fly mutated slowly over time along with other flies along with other flies, while other members of it’s original species remained unchanged you would end up with two species of fly.

1. Why can’t controlled Chemicals not in the Presence of anything else, completely controlled, turn into Life? Why are Amino Acids Programmed, into such a complex code.
   How could Chemicals turn into life anyway? Show me, your info.

Living things are made of chemicals that can naturally bond together- it just takes an inordinate amount of time

1. The grand Canyon is a testament to the Beauty and the Ruggedness of G-d’s Green Earth, it was carved by Water, (G-d could have created the Canyon cause he willed so) but we all know it came from water. DNA however is a programmed code, everyone who knows something about computers knows there has to be a programmer to the program.

Says who? Again, the origins of DNA were far less complex- but as natural selection favored more complex organisms, DNA grew.

1. Still Evolution has no Forsight, and cannot predict what will and will not be a wing.
   Repro. Organs, are un necessery whats the point of developing them, if no one has them. Asexuality would Help in the Game of Survival. Why would Evolution Develop anything like a wing, an Eye, or a Brain, without IMMEDIATE results. Evolutionists claim that birds evolved from small-structured, reptilian dinosaurs. A comparison between birds and reptiles, however, demonstrates that these living classes are very different from each other and no evolution whatsoever could have taken place between them.
   Another important difference between reptiles and birds is their metabolic structure. While reptiles have the slowest metabolic rate in the world of living things, birds hold the highest records in this field. evidencesofcreation.com/tellme16.htm

Did you even read my post? Early wings had benefits in terms of motions. More feathers and a more wing like structure enhanced those benefits.

1. Regardless, things have the tendency to return to their Natural State, So why isn’t the Matter of the Big Bang coming back together? Had the big bang expanded any slower, it would have collapsed on itself. Why isn’t everything spread out evenly like pan cake mix. Where as it is all clumped together in an oasis of matter, “galaxies”

You know that space-time itself is expanding correct? Gravity pulled matter together that was sufficiently close, but the distance between the resulting clusters is still increasing.

1. Again, why did things not spread evenly and clump together? Why did certain Areas have Gravity that attracted matter, where as everything could have been perfectly occupied with Matter. Rather then the DarkVoid of the Vacuum beyond. The Matter would have been Very effected by the Energy of the Big bang, all the Heat and all. It seems strange how Galaxies could form when, there was a perfect explosion. Gravity would have Pulled it together to its origion wouldn’t it? Tought one to answer.

Explosion is a misnomer. The current theory is that space-time itself is undergoing rapid expansion.

1. You agree, The Universe is not eternal. It had a beginning. And Finite things do not come into existence of themselves, this points to a creator, that could make something as Huge, but still Finite, as the Universe.

Actually, the uncertainty principle allows things to come into existence from nothing. Regardless, the universe may me eternal, albeit cyclical.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

They still are bacteria right?

What on earth does this have to do with anything? What do you expect them to be?

 

[grannymh]

Actually, the uncertainty principle allows things to come into existence from nothing. .

Please explain the uncertainty principle. Whose principle is it? Thank you.

 

[tjm190]

Please explain the uncertainty principle. Whose principle is it? Thank you.

Well the uncertainty principle’s most basic statement is that both momentum and location can not both be determined to an arbitrary level, although it’s implications go much further than that. It’s accredited to Wener Heisnberg.

 

[tjm190]

1. Ofcourse to Statistics it happens to be perfect. Yet if Something on Earth were wrong, even by a Fraction, it would make life very hard if not impossible.Dozens of parameters are “just right” for life to exist on this planet. For example, if the Earth were just a little closer to the Sun it would be too hot and the ocean’s water would boil away, much further and it would be covered continually in ice. Earth’s circular orbit (to maintain a roughly constant temperature year-round), its rotation speed (to provide days and nights not too long or short), its tilt (to provide seasons), and the presence of the moon (to provide tides to cleanse the oceans)

Water is a rare compound in that it is lighter in a solid state than in a liquid state. This allows ponds to freeze with the ice on the surface allowing the life beneath to survive. Otherwise bodies of water would freeze from the bottom up and become solid ice. Water is also the most universal “solvent” known, allowing for dissolving/mixing with the many different chemicals of life.
Praise the Lord, and his gift of Water. emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm

Again, the number of planets is all but inconceivable, so this shouldn’t be a surprise. And remember, water isn’t that rare, since it’s know t have been present on our nearest neighbor.

1. The Fine Tuning of Everything that the Universe is Bound to. Laws of Science. Gravity for instance. Who could create something, that everything is bound to, is in tangible, and effects every living thing. I see only G-d.

Well I’m not debating that God created everything.

1. Not true, The Horse evolution, Classic to many Text books, is false, and many scientists no longer see it as true. Students need to be informed that the horse evolution “story” is just that, a story:

“The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the heart of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature… The evolution of the horse family, Equidae, is now no better known than that of numerous other groups of organisms…”
George Gaylord Simpson (Paleontologist), Life of the Past, 1953

Marsh’s ‘Horse Evolution’ is still presented as fact to students today! A fossil exhibition was staged at the American Museum of Natural History. “The exhibit is now hidden from public view as an outdated embarrassment. Almost a century later, paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson re-examined horse evolution and concluded that generations of students had been misled.”
Encyclopedia of Evolution - Richard Milner
ichthus.info/Evolution/evolution.html (scroll down, and it comes to the horses part)

Misinterpretation. Simpson simply stated that the evolution of the horse was not “linear” in that along the way several “dead end” species were created.

1. Scroll above on my other answer, about the difference of Reptile, and Bird, then see the webiste, its a short article. Vast Differences between bird and reptile. Metabolism, bones, etc…

Of course there are vast differences… these aren’t quick changes

1. Sign language is not the same as Language. Where did or Language come from? Animals, even in sign language are incapable of certain grammer. The, as,it, etc…
   Monkeys would only respond in sign language, if they are motivated, I would like to see one in a conversation, for a random reason, and when not obliged to use sign language.
   Also, it still stands, our Language is mysterious.Language separates man from the animals. No animal is capable of achieving anything like human speech, and all attempts to teach chimpanzees to talk have failed. Evolutionists have no explanation for the origin of human language. This is only a “surface” confusion though, as all languages express the same underlying basic ideas and concepts, enabling other languages to be learned and understood.

… Animals can’t build sky scrapers either- they lack the cranial capacity. And if a chimp can understand sign language, the only thing holding it back from speaking is it’s lack of the vocal tools we have.

1. Asexual Reproduction would be better for Survival, and thats what Evolution is all about. Why Hassel with Mating, mating Rituals, Extra Repro. Organs, when you can replicate yourself. This is what A Repro. is. In the game of survival this would be Very Useful, as you can carry the “species” and are not in need of anyone else for your sruvival.
   Again the benefit is tranferring Genes. but since evolution is so Short sighted, it will not see long term benifts, it will only wants Immediate Survival.

Evolution does not only want immediate survival. For example, a disease with a 100% mortality rate resulting in quick death will not get far- since it lacks the ability to propagate itself in the long run. A species that uses sexual reproduction will allow “good” genes to spread more quickly, therefore benefiting the species.

 

[edwest2]

Life cannot come from non-life. There is no reason to believe chemicals can produce life.

Evolution is not goal oriented.

Greater complexity requires more coding and the internal machinery to operate a new feature. There would be a survival advatage to having an eyeball in the back of the head but no one does.

If chemicals can produce life, why haven’t scientists made any?

Peace,
Ed

 

[tjm190]

Life cannot come from non-life. There is no reason to believe chemicals can produce life.

Evolution is not goal oriented.

Greater complexity requires more coding and the internal machinery to operate a new feature. There would be a survival advatage to having an eyeball in the back of the head but no one does.

If chemicals can produce life, why haven’t scientists made any?

Peace,
Ed

Evolution is not goal oriented, however gradual changes can lead to something complex.
It would also be beneficial to be able to breathe fire and fly, but not all beneficial mutations happen.
Because the exact factors that fostered the begging of life are unknown/ it took a great deal of time.

 

[reggieM]

Why don’t creationists and ID people concentrate on the one species who has the finger prints of God?

Personally, I believe that all species have those fingerprints. They possess life, which comes from God. They are teleologically ordered to purpose and possess the specified complexity of design and beauty.

 

[grannymh]

Personally, I believe that all species have those fingerprints. They possess life, which comes from God. They are teleologically ordered to purpose and possess the specified complexity of design and beauty.

I love your description of fingerprints.

The finger prints I am thinking about are what make the human species a kind. That being so, there is good reason that the possibility of two sole parents lies within the human species itself. In other words, the finger prints are the presence of the spiritual within each human being. Not only are humans “ordered to purpose and possess the specified complexity of design and beauty” they share in the spiritual life of the Creator.

Ah, one says. The spiritual cannot be put under a microscope. True. But that does not exclude the reality of its existence which can be known by the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought.

The choice of a material explanation for the human species does not mean that other possibilities must be excluded from analysis especially since there are reasonable grounds for the immaterial or spiritual aspects of human nature. A prime example is man’s natural, inherent ability to act freely, that is, to implement his choice engaging his physical being in so doing.

The human race must be returned to its proper place at the pinnacle of creation. It is not a matter of difference of degrees between humans and chimps. It is a matter of going beyond evolution’s assumptions which are based on half of the real nature of human beings. Creationists and ID people should reexamine the evolution of human beings and by doing so will find possibilities for two sole parents of the human race…

Blessings,
granny

The quest is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[Mersenne]

Who is Man To “play G-d”? We can breed different types of Species, but I dont think this is our place is it?

Do you have any Non-man made examples?

1. If you keep Tinkering the DNA of a Fly (That wouldn’t be right, poor fly ) does it turn into new species? You can Flip flop the DNA in it, I don’t see it getting any bigger, or any different (Other then a type of -freak show ish thing). If you Flip the DNA around, does it turn into a Different Animal? Or does it Remain a “Mutant Fly” Probably in capabale of Reproduction? How would these Traits pass on to other offspring (If it could reproduce)
2. Non-living Chemicals can’t become live on their own.
   DNA is a Programmed Sequence of Chemicals. Everyone thats works with Codes should know there has to be a programmer, for there to be a program. What are we made up of (flesh and spirit) The Flesh is scientific compounds.
   But where did Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen2, and other Chemicals turn into Organic Matter? How would Chlorine turn into a living Gas? Seriously, I’d love if someone could answer this, pretty wierd if it were Chance.
3. Even Richard Dawkins in his anti-creation book The Blind Watchmaker admits “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” The amazing defense mechanism of the Bombardier Beetle is a classic example of design in nature, seemingly impossible to explain as the result of accumulating small beneficial changes over time, because if the mechanism doesn’t work perfectly, “boom” – no more beetle! This is also another view of the core issue of information, as the design of living things is the result of processing the information in the DNA (following the blueprint) to produce a working organism. (I got that from the website I linked earlier) Also, isn’t DNA an obvious, showing of Design?! Its a program?! a computer can’t program itself, it needs the Programmer to make the Program!!
4. A good counter, but here is another one.
   ASEXUAL Repro. Why would Organic life not Do what Cells do? Why can’t animals create more of themelves like Cells? The whole Burdensome “mating rituals, and Reproductive Organs” don’t need to be there. Wouldn’t be easier to ensure Survival if you could replicate yourself? Evolution is the Survival of the Fittest. Surely in the Game of Evolution this would be a trump card, no?
5. why don’t you visit Creationist Websites? Do you always stick to Evolutionist Websites?

The Law of ThermoDynamics is easy to understand. Energy Seeks a status Quo.
Heat wants to Cool down, iit moves to where it is colder. Even Electricity. It moves to where there is a lesser charge of build up.
So why didn’t everythign “even out” in the big Bang?
Instead its empty space vacuum. With an Oasis of Matter and Energy every Now and then. Qutie strange.

Yes, I have read creationist websites. I would against suggest that you read some books on evolution, even some scientifically correct websites would be fine. As it stands, there are any number of unsubstantiated claims you can make, and I would never be able to exhaust them all if you continue to ignore my pleas for evidence and post more well known nonsense. If you are truly interested in learning, and not just making yourself feel good by pretending to be smarter then all of science, then pick up a book on evolution. Try reading the blind watchmaker. You quote it but you clearly haven’t read it.