Killing Jesus

DieHardBrownsFan

Evolution is a myth.

sadbrownsfan

@diehardbrownsfan said:
Evolution is a myth.

Yet it has more proof than most, if not all, religions.

Westside Steve

Oddly enough Elephants do not made for life. I didn't think so but I had to look it up. Actually there are 11 species most of them birds. Along with termites and a breed of worms. None of which, I would assume, have a long gestation period.

But elephants don't eat their young either.

WSS

DieHardBrownsFan

@sadbrownsfan said:

Yet it has more proof than most, if not all, religions.

Just because you say so? Prove it.

MLD Woody

@diehardbrownsfan said:
Just because you say so? Prove it.

I know how this will end. If you can't prove every little aspect, and answer every question DieHard has, then creationism is just as valid as evolution...

...

MLD Woody

Osiris, it is nice to have you around this board. Intelligent debate is a nice change of pace

Osiris

Thanks Woody, trying to stick to debate without the diatribe.

And evolution is not a myth. I see it an action every day at my job at a genetics research institute. Ever hear of bacteria developing antibiotic resistance? Guess what, that's evolution. Every time you pop antibiotics you threaten the millions of bacteria on and in your body. Most die, but some don't, because they have genes that give they evolved genes that make them immune, and then they survive, multiply, passing that gene on to their offspring. In fact, they can pass them on to other bacteria species that live in the same environment. That's evolution.

WSS thx for the correction, I might have been thinking of some other mammal. Still I think my points hold.

DieHardBrownsFan

It is a myth. If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes? You really have no clue.

DieHardBrownsFan

Plus, didn't you say you were a writer before? Now you work in genetics?

Osiris

There are still apes for the same reason there are still crocodiles. The collection of traits they have remains a viable strategy for survival. At some point in time, some apes faced pressures that forced them to evolve bipedal motion, opposable thumbs, etc. this population of apes created a new branch in the evolutionary tree that led to us. Other populations of apes didn't face these pressures, and remained more similar to their ancestors.

And yes, I am a bioinformatics analyst by day and a freelance writer by night. You've never heard of anyone having two jobs before?

DieHardBrownsFan

I call horse shit on both accounts. I take it this must be your freelance writing?

DieHardBrownsFan

@osiris said:

There are still apes for the same reason there are still crocodiles. The collection of traits they have remains a viable strategy for survival. At some point in time, some apes faced pressures that forced them to evolve bipedal motion, opposable thumbs, etc. this population of apes created a new branch in the evolutionary tree that led to us. Other populations of apes didn't face these pressures, and remained more similar to their ancestors.

And yes, I am a bioinformatics analyst by day and a freelance writer by night. You've never heard of anyone having two jobs before?

Articles

email this

share this

tweet this

If Apes Evolved into Humans, Why Do We Still Have Apes? by John D. Morris, Ph.D.

Download If Apes Evolved into Humans, Why Do We Still Have Apes? PDF

This question often crops up among evolution disbelievers. And while it underscores the truth that most people truly don't believe man came from rats, fish, and single-celled organisms up through the primates, it ignores the fact that evolutionists have a ready answer to it.

First, evolutionists strongly deny the idea that men came from the apes. They insist that both man and the apes came from a hypothetical ape-like ancestor, the evidence for which has not yet been discovered.

Secondly, evolution does not propose that all members of a type evolved into another type, but that only a small group of individuals, genetically isolated from the others, evolved, leaving the others to remain the same.

A perceptive person will recognize that both of these points are nothing more than story telling. The hypothetical ape-like ancestor does not exist, and there is no evidence that it ever did. The "peripheral isolates" claim may sound reasonable, and there are recent examples of isolated groups acquiring new traits through adaptation, but none of any group acquired new suites of functioning genes through random mutation, such as production of either an ape or a man from an ape-like ancestor would require.

Instead of asking why we still have apes, we should be asking why don't we have the hypothetical ape-like ancestor, the real missing link? Or, why don't we have the required intermediate forms? How can such change happen? The claim that transitional individuals were few in number, and thus unlikely to be fossilized and discovered, rings hollow. The fact is, we don't have them! The evolution claims are only stories. In their story, man and apes diverged from the imaginary ancestor some seven million years ago. Surely some would be fossilized.

We should also ask, how could such a transition happen? The only way we know to acquire new genes is to alter existing genes through random mutation. The best alteration science has observed has produced only novel recombinations -- most deteriorate the genetic information and thus harm the offspring. Many mutations are fatal. Evolution requires trillions of innovative mutations to produce man from lower forms, and at least millions to produce man or apes from an ape-like ancestor. None have been observed.

Evolution tales are pseudo-scientific stories about an imaginary history. Evolution is best understood as an anti-God origins myth, attempting to explain man's existence without a Creator. We can do better.

MLD Woody

Lol, the "Institute for Creation Research" ... hahaha

You've posted that article before. This is my favorite part:

"A perceptive person will recognize that both of these points are nothing more than story telling"

The irony in that statement... my god. This is a creationist complaining that something is just "story telling"

I won't barge in on Osiris' dealings with you. He can have a fun "debating" you.

These debates are always good though, imo, of adding or taking away credit from other posts on this board.

Osiris

Woody I'm not really interested in debating him, it's too easy to debunk and refute anything he says, and their is little return on the investment. I've debated people long enough to know a closed mind when I see it. I'd much rather discuss with ppl like WSS who can actually debate my statements without relying on trying to "call horseshit" and impune someone's personal character on zero basis. If diehard wants to embarrass himself in front of everyone on this board I won't stop him.

Oh, and there are so many holes in that article he posted, I don't even know where to begin. Maybe if I'm bored tomorrow I'll deconstruct it.

DieHardBrownsFan

DieHardBrownsFan

@mld-woody said:

Lol, the "Institute for Creation Research" ... hahaha

You've posted that article before. This is my favorite part:

"A perceptive person will recognize that both of these points are nothing more than story telling"

The irony in that statement... my god. This is a creationist complaining that something is just "story telling"

I won't barge in on Osiris' dealings with you. He can have a fun "debating" you.

These debates are always good though, imo, of adding or taking away credit from other posts on this board.

Here is the lap dog woody, lmao.

sadbrownsfan

@diehardbrownsfan said:
Just because you say so? Prove it.

Full Definition of MYTH

1

a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon

b : parable, allegory

2

a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society <seduced by the American myth of individualism — Orde Coombs>

b : an unfounded or false notion

3

: a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence

4

: the whole body of myths

See myth defined for English-language learners »

See myth defined for kids »

Kind of fits more to religions than to a science dedicated to finding how life started on this planet using fossils and remains of people/creatures 10,000+ yrs old and other tools.

DieHardBrownsFan

Please kid, you got to do better then cut and paste.

sadbrownsfan

says the guy who has copied and pasted twice on this page alone? pls old wise master show me the ways of having an original opinion and not one dictated too you?

Osiris

Okay, let's take a look at this article written by a PhD in Geology (not Biology, genetics, etc). Incidentally, I'd love to ask him if all his time spent looking at old rocks, earth crust,the radiometric dating of 4 billion-year-old rocks that happens in his field, agrees with the Biblical Creationist notion that the world is 6,000 or 10,000 or whatever small number of years old. But I digress.

“And while it underscores the truth that most people truly don't believe man came from rats, fish, and single-celled organisms up through the primates”

The author claims something to be true (that most people don’t believe man is a result of an evolutionary process) yet provides no evidence to support that claim. That’s probably because polling the public on this will yield different results every time. Some polls support the claim, and some polls dispute it.

Regardless, what most people believe is irrelevant to the truth. A long time ago, most people believed the world was flat, yet that was proven untrue.

“[Evolutionists] insist that both man and the apes came from a hypothetical ape-like ancestor, the evidence for which has not yet been discovered.”

and

“Instead of asking why we still have apes, we should be asking why don't we have the hypothetical ape-like ancestor, the real missing link? … The fact is, we don't have them!”

False, false, and false. There are several candidates for the transitional fossil. The most recent finding is this Australopithecus sediba.

http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2092438,00.html

Furthermore, we have transitional fossils and complete lineages for other organisms. So this whole argument about 'missing links' is moot, unless you somehow believe there are two system for life, one in which man was created, and another in which other organisms evolved.

“We should also ask, how could such a transition happen? The only way we know to acquire new genes is to alter existing genes through random mutation.”

Misleading. While the consequences of a mutation don’t influence the probability of them occurring (though they can influence the probability of the organism surviving) and based on this, some say mutations are random, it is untrue that they are random if you consider the fact that not all types of mutations occur with equal probability.

Second, random mutation is not the only way for an organism to acquire new genes. It may be the only known way for humans, but bacteria can acquire new genes via lateral gene transfer, in which genes from two different species of bacteria hop from one to another through something called a plasmid. This, as I mentioned before, is one of the ways in which bacteria can acquire antibiotic resistance.

Now, for everyone that wants to claim that either creationism or evolution are false, the fact is you cannot prove or disprove either, that is why they are both called theories. You can only weigh the evidence for both and decide which to believe.