Bigeme

I put an exta zero in that. sorry

Bigeme

it should be 0.00012727%

(should have just edited the first one instead of being a )

Jimi

The makeup of bird skulls to tuatara skulls is completely different. Tuataras don't have anything resembling a beak, granted they do have bone teeth...

Birds also have four-valved hearts, whereas tuataras have a three-valved heart. That should send up a red-flag right there. Something, however, that you may find interesting, is that it is possible that large dinosaurs (in my opinion), were actually closer to mammalian than reptilian.

There are so many ideas about creationism that any number of ideas can conflict with other ideas, and I realize this. I also realize that I am, chances are, not correct in what I believe. It's something that I feel has been presented to me in forms such as biology, which can be argued by evolutionists as well. I'm presenting some of my anti-evolution theories, and not my creationist theories, because the root of my theories come from the lack of evolution. I believe that all artists have signatures, and I believe that God's signature is DNA and RNA. I believe that the planet has a shield in the form of an ozone and atmosphere, causing outside sources to be of ill-effect to Earth. That's not due to evolution, and can't really be explained at this point.

Jimi

I was actually not too generous, being that birthing time of larger primates, especially that of humans, tends to be cyclic. I estimated 20 years, which I guess can be a bit generous in the sense of evolution, but even then, not too far off of what the actual numbers would be. I'll say 10 years a generation, in 55 million years, that's 5,500,000 generations. In 350 generations, 700 generations if we say 10 years, there's not been any physiology changing mutation. How many generations would it take for a specimen to mutate, then pass that beneficial mutation on to his offspring, then their offspring, forming a population of said mutation? It's obviously higher than 350-700 generations.

Let's say it's every 1000 generations. That's only 5,500 mutations allowed, and of those 5,500 mutations, coming from a lesser primate to human is just absurd, not to mention the two less chromosomes. Even mutation doesn't allow for less chromosomes.

Bigeme

I think what we are arguing here is basically how much time it takes and whether there has been enough time or not.

I know evolution is far fetched but all the physiological, embryological, genetic, fossil, etc evidence indicates connections between species. I'm also saying that minor mutations do occur in species and I think we agreed on that point. So the essential conflict here is has there been enough time for creation of new species? I say yes, that there has been plenty of time for all the various pressures to create new species and you disagree.

I don't think you apreciate the sheer scope of the numbers here. How many times life has actually reproduced itself. We'll ignore the beginning of life just for the sake of argument right now, and because I'm not completely opposed to varying ideas of the origin of the first life. Assuming that you do have life, you have to realize how many generations have existed since than and how many members of each generation there are. How many individual living things are on this planet right now? Everything that is alive all single celled, multicelled plants animals, fungi.

adrenaline

Its impressive how intelligent you guys are. It was actually a very good read thru here.


I cant begin to guess or even understand how "WE" got here on this planet. However i do believe the Big Bang/Evolution theory more than just being created.

carry on!

Jimi

The "evidence" doesn't point to a relationship between species, it shows a similarity between species that can't otherwise be explained.

I think you over-appreciate the sheer numbers here, as many humans do when given a number over 100,000. How many mutations would it have taken to get from lower-form primate to human? In 5,500 mutations, how many of those do you think would have been actual physiologically changing mutations? There are tons of genetic changes, including freckles, hair color, eye color, etc. That's 3 possible changes since the first of the species.

Then, not only would a single-celled organism have to evolve into a multi-celled organism, but it'd have had to create two sexes. Evolutions from a one-celled organism does not explain how we ended up with two sexes.

Bigeme

I know thats why I said they are weak points. But I don't think chalking it all up to some all powerful being just because we don't have answers is the way to go. You can't just say no that's not right, you have to provide an alternative with evidence and a logical argument.

I'm not debating the existence of God here, regardless of whether He exists or not I thinks its pretty obvious it didn't happen all at once. Some sort of unfolding of life throughout the ages did occur. Now for creationism to be correct that would mean the creator just got bored with one set of animals and would randomly kill of a few (or a whole bunch)? and then replace them with slightly better versions?

I'm more than willing to debate religion as long as everyone has thick skin about it.

Jimi

There are phases where a bunch of animals died and were replaced by others. That's where we get geological eras. I believe in God for a number of reasons. As I've said, DNA is like programming. I believe in God because, as I pointed out, something is keeping laws of physics true. I believe in God because I do believe that after death is something else, due to the fact that energy doesn't just end. There are many reason I believe in God, and it's not just because the lack of evidence that evolution actually occured.

I believe in species adaptation. As a scientist, I have to. I believe that species vary in localized populations depending on their environment. I don't, however, believe that you get millions of species out of 1 type of single-celled organism. Even aside from monkeys to man, we have millions of species on this planet. There had to have been these random mutations that would physiologically change the species in all of these kinds of animals.

VIVIX

I'm gonna try to jump in here right now. I must say, everyone has compelling arguments here, and have made valid points on both sides.

I believe in evolution more than I believe in creation. Just because scientific advances everyday. As I remember, a couple hundred of years ago you could have said that God existed just because the apple falls to the ground, and that's the way God wills it, why else would it happen? As we all know now...gravity causes the apple to fall to the ground.

The point is, just because science can't prove something now, people use religion as a backup excuse to explain phenomena. Hell, a few thousand years ago, the rain, sea, and wind each had a seperate god. Maybe in a while we can prove what happens to whatever energy that we possess to be concious of life after we die. Maybe we have nothing more than a higher based instinct to build, think and advance, rather than just survive in our environment.


But it allows for extra chromosomes. Look at people with down's syndrome. What if apes evolved from us instead of the other way around?

What about plants? Do you consider plants to have souls? Just because they don't have a brain to produce cognitive thought, but they certainly are organisms that gather food, use the food, and reproduce. They consist of billions of cells. Not to mention that there are still plant types that we haven't even yet discovered.

So saying that we all evolved from a single cell, doesn't sound that absurb. An organism took advantage of a food source and exploited it by "mutating" or adapting.

fizz

I believe in creation, mostly because of my religious beliefs (Jesus loves you), though evolution has never made sense to me.

I do have one question for the evolutionists in the audience: Why aren't there any mid-evolution animals around today? All the creatures I ever see are rather complete, so to speak. Shouldn't there be some in "transition"?

jeff_dammann

just really quick... WE are an Alien experiment. hehe

Bigeme

Thank you all for contributing. I was getting kind of tired of going back and forth with Jimi (not that he didnt have any good points or it wasn't a good argument, just that I like more people involved).



This has sort of been addressed before. The real answer is that it is an incomplete and unanswered question in evolutionary theory. However, the answer that the theory provides is simply that there is no advantage to being an intermediary species. If you are a mix between two current stages of evolution(assuming evoltuion is a continuous process) than you have absolutely no competitive advantage if not a disadvantage. For a species to be successful, all members have to fit within a range of specific characteristics and genetics (an issue defined by genetic drift yet continual called upon by creationists as a flaw in evolutionary theory). To find and succesfully reproduce you have to be succesful in your envrionment which calls not only upone your ability to survive, but also your ability to reproduce with members of your species.

I think I'm gettin a little too far from your question. Basically, individuals don't evolve, populations evolve. Therefore, there are no 'trasitional' species becuse they are the extremist of the population that get weeded out.

Thanks you VIVIX for saying some things I didn't want ot be so blunt as to say like that. However you imply too much conscious effort in the process. I do hope you continue in this discussion. You too fizz.

However not to be an ass I'm still waiting for evidence for creationism not just against evolution.

jeff... regardless life was created or evolved on another planet if we are an expirement of an extra terretrial species.

I am drunk. If i feel like it ill go back and try and correct some of this for grammar/making absolutely no sense.

zeppy

I think the answer is even more simple than that. The process of evolution for a species would have to take such a tremendous amount of time, that there is no way that we would be able to tell if a species was a 'transitional' species. For example: what if humans were actually a 'transitional' species that would eventually continuously evolve into a much more advanced species than what we currently are? There would be no way we would know of it.

As far as the creationist point of view... I have one question that has always bugged me. As an atheist, I have never read the Bible (nor any other religious text) and have always wondered what religious books say of the dinosaurs? Surely a group of animals that existed for millions? of years would have to at least have a mention, yet I have never heard any mention. Anyone have any theories for this one?