Poll: Evolution and the other side

mentalkitty789

New member
Dec 30, 2010
97
0
0
Sidremus said:
I like the way you are trying to aproach such a, well hardly debated topic, OP.
But I think you did make two rather heavy mistakes in your original post, being:

- "no debate on if evolution is true or if god exist" srsly?! you cant just right it, and hope for the best... in a forum... in the internet....

-your also comparing apples with oranges. i mean, scientific research... on creation...

there is a reason that creationist deny so much of the scientific method, its because evoltion is based on science, creationism isnt. there is nothing scientific about creationism. there are NO real scientific evidence for creation to have happened. the bible sure is no evidence, its just a book.
all creationists do is, either bring up arguments of flaws in the theory of evolution or quote the bible. there is nothing providing evidence of creation to have happened.

And for a scientific research into the theory of creation, there had to be at least some evidence. there are none.
I would have to disagree. There is evidence for it, but it is flimsy, distorted, and misunderstood. Either that or is something that is evidence for Evolution and warped and bent and molested to try and fit creationism.
When you actually try to break it down if falls apart faster than a house of cards, in comparison to Evolution. While it is not perfect it is incredibly solid in comparison.
 

boyvirgo666

New member
May 12, 2009
371
0
0
lotr rocks 0 said:
Statistically speaking, Atheists actually tend to score higher in tests/quizzes about the bible/torah/qu'ran contents than average members of the church in question.

Atheism is generally a side-effect of having increased knowledge on the topic than the religious folk. As so many say, the best way to become an atheist is to actually read the bible.
Thats what i tell everyone. People laugh when i say im an ordained minister. Im also violently athiest and i enjoy eastern religions and polytheist religions. at least those ones make sense when they do crazy shit. Norse gods fuck with humans because they are bored? makes sense to me. Earthquakes are caused by giant koi fish...wierd but hey makes more sense than jesus ever did. Zeus did the horizontal mambo with every other greek god, hey if i were the greek god of lightning and rock and roll so would i.
 
Dec 27, 2010
814
0
0
Amphoteric said:
No because there isn't any.

Scientific creationism is an oxymoron.
Yep, couldn't have said it better myself. Creationism is based on faith not proven fact, it defies scientific explanation. That's not to say it isn't true, or that I haven't studied it (they taught it in primary school).
 

PieceOfEden

New member
Sep 4, 2011
40
0
0
I tried but "science" of creationism is very scarce. Irreducable complexity is the main form of evidence for almost everything. The day that a creationist agrees that they dont know a fact or statistic and not jumping to "God did it", I'll gladly try again.

On a side note, South Park had an interesting theory about evolution : Would it (evolution) not be the answer to how if not why?
 

Thaliur

New member
Jan 3, 2008
617
0
0
AMMO Kid said:
As a Creationist I do believe in scientific evidence for creation, because scientific evidence for creation is found in observational science. Evolution is based on the study of things we can't study, like "billions of years ago" and the likes (well, not entirely). When people say "there is no evidence for creationism, it's just a load of horse shit" I feel sorry for them because they are obviously looking at the wrong kind of science to study creationism. For example, the proteins that form life are made up of amino acids. To sum up an argument for creationism, amino acids cannot survive in water (fact), therefore life as we know it could not have formed billions of years ago in water (and of course there is the theory of RNA that was invented to counter this argument). But do you see where I am coming from, Joe Evolutionist? Creationism isn't formed on the studies of "billions of years ago." It's formed on observational science. Another example is that evolution relies on mutations to make it work, but we have only ever found bad mutations in creatures that are harmful to life, not helpful mutations leading to survival of the species. A third example is the theory of Neanderthals. If they were really alive from 100,000 BC to 35,000 BC, where are all the skeletons? We haven't even found one legitimate set of bones yet. We came close with Lucy, only to discover that they were really ape bones from under 10,000 years ago... 50,000,000,000 - 55,000,000,000 generations of bones don't just disappear. I guess we'll just keep studying the dinosaur bones from BILLIONS of years ago that keep popping up everywhere...

I know that this isn't a discussion thread so if anyone wants to chat just inbox me. Plus I'll pick and choose who to reply to based on how short the message is. 300 points for me to reply to isn't much fun, so keep it to your five most important points please.
Of course amino acids can't survive in water. That's why we use them to stabilise the pH value of solutions, and quite a high amount of them is floating around in our bloodstream. Also, we extract some from the food we eat since our bodies can't produce them themselves.
But of course, blood and digestive liquids contain no water. That's why we never ever have to drink anything.

Oh, and did you ever have a common flu? Lots of RNA floating around in your body, not counting the high amount of RNA you probably expelled at high speed through your nose, neatly encapsuled in protein shells. Of course, that's only the RNA that isn't produced anyway in your own body, as blueprint for building proteins so you can, you know, live and think and stuff. Although you don't seem to have that second part figured out yet...

As for the bones, that has already been answered. I think by DracoSuave, who is now considered - by me - an unsung hero carrying the light of truth through this thread. Also, his avatar shows a nice-looking guy (himself?) wearing a top-hat. You can't argue against someone wearing a top-hat ;-)



monfang said:
So, a book where it is explicitly stated that the belief in griphons and the like originated (much like dragons) from bones of prehistoric creatures mistaken for and partially misassembled as mythical creatures proves that these creatures really existed because you think the author didn't want to tell the readers that the creatures were alive at the time the stories about them were written because you believe that this is true?
Yes, a book where it is stated that the Greeks supposedly had great paleontologists who, during the Greco-Roman era, were supposedly able to figure out dinosaur behavior without the aid of computers that we only recently been able to think of though the use of Computer simulations. and NOWHERE else had anyone else had even the thought of such a thing possible.

Her statements requires that the Greeks and Romans had knowledge that we only recently figured out though machines. Something I call a stretch of the imagination.
The Greeks and Romans might have... you know, guessed? Also, no one I ever heard of "figured out" gryphon behaviour. Apparently, the knowledge of these early paleontologists wasn't that amazing. They dug up some old bones, misinterpreted them and made up stories about their origin. Not exactly scientific, but at least they didn't outright ignore, reject and condemn any evidence that might counter their assumptions. The Greeks created the basic principles of modern science after all. So, thinking about it, you are currently ignoring about two millenia of developments in philosophy, science, mathematics and technology. Leave your desk now, as I said before, you are not allowed to use 21st-century technology anymore!

monfang said:
Hmm. I don't believe I can win this. By win, I mean convince you to change your mind. It might be for the best though. Ah well.

Lets shift gears. I can't convince you that Evolution is full of holes, so I will convince you that Creationism isn't. We'll start with treating Creationism like a science. First off, you can't. It isn't a scientific theory. It's a theory based on the same train of thought that Sherlock Holmes and detectives use. By using the facts that we see before us, we look for the truth. Often times, the wildest and craziest theories are often the truth.

"...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.."

Ok, lets start with the impossible. Based on experiments that are still being advertised in school science books, Miller and Urey experiment, conditions in pre-life Earth made the amino acids that formed life. HOWEVER, the facts recorded show that it is impossible. First off, life requires 20 amino acids to survive. The Experiment only formed 15 at most. Also, there is always a third of those acids are left handed. Only Right Handed Amino Acids can form life, Left Handed are toxic to life. So based on experiments done, the conditions that are commonly thought of as the conditions before life are impossible to create life.

"... whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth..."

I'll wait for a response before going on. Maybe I'll make a topic just for this.
Oh yes, thanks for pointing that out. Correct, if you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains must be true. The thing is, though, that you applied this way of thinking incorrectly.
The creationist argument (all of them so far) are more along the lines of:
"I don't understand this, so it must be wrong".
So actually, in your case that quote should be:
"If you ignore the obvious, whatever remains, however improbable, must be defended by all means".

I don't want to tell you anything about amino acids right now. type it in any search engines, read whatever pops up. Use a proper search engine, though, not one tailored to creationist thinking, if anything like that exists.

kidd25 said:
first of all, really? "your ignorance and stupidity astounds me" hey guess what you no better than a man who lives and die so don't think your all high and mighty, you wanna prove me wrong fine. don't insult someone who you have no knowledge of ok.
also i never said we were made from metal, i said from earth, if your an evolution then why can't along the lines of evolution we use some of their materials to help advances our self?
4.54 billion ok that pretty good date, but it seems fit for evolution the most creationist would go back might be 8 to 12 thousand. Also that pretty sure number, even with the 20 different dating methods that we have today, as shown here http://darwiniana.org/datingmethods.htm

also be nice when replying, it helps keep the mind to think of way to help the person, not make them mad :/
Your profile states that you are American... don't people speak something similar to English over there (rational Americans, please don't be offended. I just make the distiction between English as spoken in England and American, since these languages are different in many aspects)? Your posts are really hard to read, far beyond dyslexia.

You said we are made from earth (I think). That's astoundingly close to the truth, since all lifeforms consist of elements that occur naturally outside of lifeforms. Although that doesn't necessarily mean we were created by someone who mashed together some clay and breathed on it. Of course, everything that exists (as a physical object) must consist of something. You could just as well say we are made of the remains of stars (which is far closer to the truth and, at least in my opinion, a lot nicer than the clayman story)
 

DanielDeFig

New member
Oct 22, 2009
769
0
0
There is no "other side". There are way too many creationist theories, that have, or are currently being worshipped by humans (Religions), for anyone to be able to claim that there are only "two sides to this argument" (not that there is one).

Want to promote "all sides, and theories"? Then please include the creationist explanation for every single religion and cult that has ever existed in the history of mankind (and the "scientific evidence" for them, as they all include the same amount of evidence: The universe exists.).


Science is NOT a religion, or cult, or a "way of life". It is a method for investigation the reality we find ourselves in, using repetition, control of variables to isolate what you wish to investigate, and logic (which is what Mathematics is built upon).

Evolution is a scientifically proven fact, it has gone through rigorous scrutiny by the scientific community, and experiments have been designed and used for ppl to find the proof for themselves. Don't just look up "the evidence". See if you can find an experiment among published scientific work, that would allow you to use the scientific method to find the proof yourself.

There is no experiment, that uses the scientific method, that will be able to "prove" creationism (None of them).
 

catalyst8

New member
Oct 29, 2008
374
0
0
lotr rocks 0 said:
Statistically speaking, Atheists actually tend to score higher in tests/quizzes about the bible/torah/qu'ran contents than average members of the church in question.

Atheism is generally a side-effect of having increased knowledge on the topic than the religious folk. As so many say, the best way to become an atheist is to actually read the bible.
Spot on. Also "the higher one's intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious[...]".
Paul Bell, MENSA Magazine 2002 regarding 43 studies examining correlations between high IQ, good education, & little or no religious belief.
 

Thaliur

New member
Jan 3, 2008
617
0
0
Raideh said:
Scientific creationism is impossible because any proof you find that proves that god created the world disproves god, because the concept of a god inherently requires faith. If you are able to prove god, the being you are referring to is no longer a god, just another scientifically explainable animal.
I'm sorry for breaking the "discussion", but after reading that paragraph, I was absolutely unable to not think of this:
Everyone should know this part :)

I feel sorry for you. Growing up this way must have been horrible. Luckily, my parents were always pretty open-minded (Anyone read the Nomes trilogy? "The trouble with having an open mind is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it") when it comes to religious and scientific topics, so I was one of the kids who grew up finding dinosaurs awesome (and Dinobots even more, of course. The eighties were a fantastic time to be a child), and went to a scientifically-oriented high school (I don't know if the distinction between religiously-oriented, philosophically- oriented, business-oriented or scientifically-oriented schools exist elswhere) which also had religion taught as a subject, and had a teacher who knew the bible consisted of stories, and who practically forced us to find reasonable explanations for the miracles told in it.
It came down to reading the stories, brainstorming what might have actually happened, and weaving this into the story (natural phenomena or at the time of writing amazing medical skills perceived as miracles because the people at that time had no better explanation, mostly, extended by exaggeration over the ages).

So I grew up as someone with a fundamentally scientific way of thinking, but a high tolerance for religion, as long as it doesn't interfere with the rest of the world and endanger people (thinking of Africa and religious fanatics of all religions here...).

My girlfriend is what some might call an extremist atheist. She went to a religious high school (religion taught by nuns and so on). My berst friend opposes anything religious as well. He went to an even more religious school. I'm starting to see a pattern here. Apparently people who like to think for themselves tend to reverse indoctrination.

Another good friend of mine is a very faithful muslim (an actual, educated believer, not one of the kind who threatens everyone who doesn't agree with him) and we talked a lot about science and religion.
We agreed long ago that a god who creates a working universe from scratch, including every lifeform ever might be impressive, but also highly unlikely and very inefficient.
"Our" version of creation is this:
Some time ago (although time might not existed then) god created the universe, and made a set of rules for it. Then he sat down and watched his work unfold. Energy turned into matter, matter accumulated into stars and planets... anyone who ever went to a proper school should know that part.
Today, god basically just sits and watches, occasionally interfering. Not interfering directly, by planting certain ideas into the minds of people. I think this is a creation story I can agree with, as it leaves room for faith, and doesn't outright contradict hard evidence.
The Quran (I might have spelled that incorrectly, sorry if I have) apparently leaves a lot of room for scientific explanations. According to him, even the big bang can be tied to passages of it. I take his word on that, since knowing one (well, actually two) religious text is really enough for me.
 

Sight Unseen

The North Remembers
Nov 18, 2009
1,064
0
0
catalyst8 said:
lotr rocks 0 said:
Statistically speaking, Atheists actually tend to score higher in tests/quizzes about the bible/torah/qu'ran contents than average members of the church in question.

Atheism is generally a side-effect of having increased knowledge on the topic than the religious folk. As so many say, the best way to become an atheist is to actually read the bible.
Spot on. Also "the higher one's intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious[...]".
Paul Bell, MENSA Magazine 2002 regarding 43 studies examining correlations between high IQ, good education, & little or no religious belief.
Just replying to this to post this link here: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0928/In-US-atheists-know-religion-better-than-believers.-Is-that-bad

it contains the actual questions in this quiz that I was talking about. I took it just now and scored 26/32 or 81%, but I should have done slightly better. This is still far above the average score. Just thought maybe some people would be interested to try it themselves.

Also the article is from a Christian source, so if even they're questioning their sheep's faith, you know it must be true!
 

Denamic

New member
Aug 19, 2009
3,804
0
0
Yes.
I did it in this establishment we Swedes like to call 'school'.
It's a rather neat place where you go to learn things.
 

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,863
15
43
AMMO Kid said:
As a Creationist I do believe in scientific evidence for creation, because scientific evidence for creation is found in observational science. Evolution is based on the study of things we can't study, like "billions of years ago" and the likes (well, not entirely). When people say "there is no evidence for creationism, it's just a load of horse shit" I feel sorry for them because they are obviously looking at the wrong kind of science to study creationism. For example, the proteins that form life are made up of amino acids. To sum up an argument for creationism, amino acids cannot survive in water (fact), therefore life as we know it could not have formed billions of years ago in water (and of course there is the theory of RNA that was invented to counter this argument). But do you see where I am coming from, Joe Evolutionist? Creationism isn't formed on the studies of "billions of years ago." It's formed on observational science. Another example is that A third example is the theory of Neanderthals. If they were really alive from 100,000 BC to 35,000 BC, where are all the skeletons? We haven't even found one legitimate set of bones yet. We came close with Lucy,[/B] only to discover that they were really ape bones from under 10,000 years ago... 50,000,000,000 - 55,000,000,000 generations of bones don't just disappear. I guess we'll just keep studying the dinosaur bones from BILLIONS of years ago that keep popping up everywhere...

I know that this isn't a discussion thread so if anyone wants to chat just inbox me. Plus I'll pick and choose who to reply to based on how short the message is. 300 points for me to reply to isn't much fun, so keep it to your five most important points please.
disclamer: my knowlege of science is very limited/sctechy....so please if anyone out there could correct me If Im wrong

1. I'm not sure evolution relies on mutations..arnt mutatiosn suposed to be random? (blond hair is a mutation isnt it?) evolution relies on natural selection, of useful traits (for that place and animal) being passed on, animals adapting to thrive in their environemtn, makes perfect sense to me

2. wait, since when has lucys bones been only from 10 000 years ago?, I thourght it was general consensus she was from around 3 million years or so oh and you know lucy is waaaay before anything resembling a neanderthral? in fact didnt neanderthals and humans more or less co-exist?

and what do you mean we arnt finding bones? we HAVE found bones...

to me it seems that people who argue against evolution..their understanding of it isnt 100%
 

Hyper-space

New member
Nov 25, 2008
1,361
0
0
kidd25 said:
first of all, really? "your ignorance and stupidity astounds me" hey guess what you no better than a man who lives and die so don't think your all high and mighty, you wanna prove me wrong fine. don't insult someone who you have no knowledge of ok.
also i never said we were made from metal, i said from earth, if your an evolution then why can't along the lines of evolution we use some of their materials to help advances our self?
4.54 billion ok that pretty good date, but it seems fit for evolution the most creationist would go back might be 8 to 12 thousand. Also that pretty sure number, even with the 20 different dating methods that we have today, as shown here http://darwiniana.org/datingmethods.htm

also be nice when replying, it helps keep the mind to think of way to help the person, not make them mad :/
Goddamnit, this is Kidzworld forums levels of syntax.

First of all, those 20 different methods are ways of dating different things, as you wouldn't use the same method to date trees as you would a rock.

Secondly, how the fuck do you make the leap from man using a metallic chemical element that's pretty ubiquitous in nature, with man being made from dirt? Hell, even if zinc was only exclusive to dirt and human biological functions, it still wouldn't mean shit and would only amount to anecdotal evidence (which believe it or not, doesn't substitute scientific observation and experimentation).

And yes, I am pretty sure about that number, as it was extracted from radiometric age dating of meteorites, giving the age of the earth an upper limit of 4.567 billion years, with the youngest possible age being 4.404 billions.

Different models and predictions can range from a some million years to hundreds of million years, the exact date and time of earth is not know, but scientist have calculated that it might be 4.54 billion years +/- 1%.

But shit, I am only talking about physics, you however have a book that was written thousands of years ago, back when sea-monsters were a legitimate sea-faring hazard! OF COURSE IT MUST BE GROUNDED IN LOGIC AND SOUND SCIENTIFIC REASONING.
 

Elate

New member
Nov 21, 2010
584
0
0
I went to a christian primary school (ages 5-11) I have read the bible, some of my favourite stories are from it, but I most definitely do not believe in any sort of religion.

I've read books by creationists and evolutionists, the former sounds like an overlong marketing speech, the latter seems like a snide, sarcastic book long stab at god.

So I've made up my own mind on it, and creationism just has no real ground to stand on, at all. Sure there are some questions left unanswered, but it's just a cop-out to say "Well we can't explain that yet, must be god"
 

Thaliur

New member
Jan 3, 2008
617
0
0
Vault101 said:
disclamer: my knowlege of science is very limited/sctechy....so please if anyone out there could correct me If Im wrong

1. I'm not sure evolution relies on mutations..arnt mutatiosn suposed to be random? (blond hair is a mutation isnt it?) evolution relies on natural selection, of useful traits (for that place and animal) being passed on, animals adapting to thrive in their environemtn, makes perfect sense to me
You are very close to the truth. Mutations are important for evolution because without them differences could not occur. Every lifeform "mutates" over time. Radiation, radical ions (basically atoms with a high "desire" to bond, thus ripping apart other molecules to create molecules of their own) and other influences, even "write errors" during mitosis, cause bits of the DNA to change. most of these changes, however, are quickly repaired by mechanisms insde the cells (the DNA has two interlocking strands, so if a part of one is damaged, it can be reconstructed from the other strands. Pretty much like a mirroring RAID configuration in hard disks). Some mutations can not be repaired though, and can potentially cause diseases like cancer in some cells. if a mutation happens in the cells used to procreate (sperm and egg cells for example), it can cause more extensive effects, since all other cells of the growing organism are derived from these original cells, and unfixable errors are copied along the useful "data". This way, mutations affect future generations, and while some of them essentially render the new lifeform useless or at least less suitable for its place in the world (like being born without the ability to produce certain enzymes. We can substitute these now, since biochemists are able to extract them from other organisms or even create specific bacteria that produce them, but it would have been bad a few centuries ago), other mutations actually improve the lifeform and most of them just don't matter since they happen in one of the inactive parts of the DNA (humans have a lot of leftover code from their ancestors which serves no recognisable purpose today except for "padding" the actual code by lowering the chance that mutations will happen in the important parts. Even some virus DNA was permanently integrated in human DNA, but is usually inactive).
Whichever trait is able to "live on" will become part of the species. For example, in an area with a low concentration of oxygen (on mountains, for example) some goats are born with a set of genes that leads to a higher concentration of hemoglobin (the stuff most mammals use to transport oxygen) or even erythrocytes (red blood cells, contain hemoglobin, and almost nothing else) in their bodies. These goats are now able to take more of the available oxygen into their bodies, thus they have a higher endurance than most others of their generation. Then the male goats start fighting over the females. The ones with higher endurance can fight longer, more opponents and are probably still in good shape after the others gave up. Now they get to have children, who will inherit this improved composition of their blood.
Lots of these tiny changes can even lead to different species.
This is the process of natural selection, which was imitated by humans trying to breed cows that produce more milk or meat than others, horses that are stronger or faster than others, and all the different kinds of dogs, some of which would never be able to survive under natural conditions.

2. wait, since when has lucys bones been only from 10 000 years ago?, I thourght it was general consensus she was from around 3 million years or so oh and you know lucy is waaaay before anything resembling a neanderthral? in fact didnt neanderthals and humans more or less co-exist?
Yes, according to the current scientific opinion, they did, and apparently even cross-bred (seems they were still similar enough), but these are recent findings, you know? Not the true knowledge that was absolutely not made up thousands of years ago.

and what do you mean we arnt finding bones? we HAVE found bones...

to me it seems that people who argue against evolution..their understanding of it isnt 100%
This exactly is the problem. And they are actively trying to spread that ignorance, at least in the US, which is unacceptable.
 

Monkey lord

New member
Jun 25, 2011
45
0
0
kidd25 said:
Monkey lord said:
kidd25 said:
Monkey lord said:
what scientific evidence ?
can you please ask for what? for evolution, or for creationism?
creationism
well people seem to want science to prove somehow that their is a God, well if you take a look at all he created. Everything created can be made sense of through science, people say no its this and this, but i wonder why is it hard to say God worked logically? In another words, the proof is us, and everything in the universe says the creationist.
just because we don't have a perfict explination for evrything then it dosen't mean that the invisible wizard did it.
And have you read the bible?
if there is a god then he doesn't know the meaning of the word logic.
 

monfang

New member
Jan 30, 2011
62
0
0
Kataskopo said:
I love how people believe stuff that can be easily refutable with a google search.
Just heard it from a guy in a video, and yep, it must be true and I wont even try to validate those assertions.

People, you have an obligation to seek the truth in your life, or at least try to not be wrong. Don't you doubt yourself?
Don't you think "huh, you know what, I "may" be wrong, I'm gonna check some stuff to see what this ruckus is all about."

I love too how people mistake abiogenesis (the study of how life came to being) with evolution.
Evolution has nothing to do with how life came to being.
Actually, it has everything to do about it. Abiogenisis is the theory that life started suddenly and without any outside trigger. If that theory is shown to be false then Macroevolution gets a lot of questions thrown at it. Because by proven Abiogenisis false, it shows that an outside source had to seed the Earth with preexisting life. Such as God.

Abandon4093 said:
2 words 'Ardipithecus ramidus'. A very early member of the hominini tribe, in other words an ape. And guess what, it's an extinct ancestor... Something we evolved from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominini

wiki extract said:
Hominini is the tribe of Homininae that comprises Homo, and the two species of the genus Pan (the Common Chimpanzee and the Bonobo), their ancestors, and the extinct lineages of their common ancestor.
Yay, someone brought that up. Lets talk about Hominini. First off, lets understand what this discovery did to the Scientific community. Up till then, it was thought that Humans and Apes shared a common grandfather in the evolutionary tree. It's why we share about 98% of our DNA with them. However, Arti changed that by pushing the common ancestor back many millions of years and throwing a question at the vitality of the 98%.

This is were Evolutionists capture both sides of the DNA argument as validations of their theory. First, if the DNA is similar to chimp DNA, then they are right because we share a common ancestor, if the DNA is different, then they are right because we evolved differently. If I was a playtester for a game that did this, I'd kick the Dev team in the shins.

But when you start thinking about it closely, there has to be just enough similarity, and just enough difference, for the argument to be valid. For a while, 98% seemed like the magic number. More recently, some evolutionists have thought that number is too high. If humans and chimps aren?t as closely related as previously thought, then the 98% figure is certainly too high, and must be revised lower. This means the DNA analysis has to be ?corrected? somehow.

They do this using circular logic. By making an assumption and confirming their own assumption. Evolutionists believe that differences in so-called ?junk DNA? are the result of irrelevant mutations which happen at a fixed rate. How do they know this fixed rate? Well, they have compared chimp DNA to human DNA and determined the average number of differences in particular stretches of junk DNA. ?Knowing? the number of generations since the presumed split between apes and humans, they have calculated the mutation rate. Using that mutation rate, they ?confirm? the date of the split. (The confirmation is bogus, of course, because they have simply used invalid circular logic.)

If they don?t change the presumed mutation rate, then the DNA analysis of when apes and humans split will not match the new time suggested by the discovery of Ardi. So, they will use circular logic to realize that the mutation rate is actually slower than previously thought, and using the new clock rate, the DNA analysis will again match the paleontologists? analysis.

chadachada123 said:
monfang said:
poundingmetal74 said:
If there is anyone on this forum who legitimately believes in creationism, you really ought to research the bergess shale geological formation and the fact that boa constrictors are still born with legs/arms from time-to-time. Evolution is fact and every piece of new evidence scientists uncover further supports it.

I've always found that the term intelligent design simply makes god look bad. I would think an entity with a hands-on approach who tweaks every aspect of our existence would have created humans without cancer. And a planet without pollution. And ensuring plentiful food for every one of his creations.

If you seriously believe in creationism and aren't the least bit skeptical, you really ought to start asking more questions.
Wasn't it covered in Genisis how the Serpent had it's legs taken away? Just saying.

DracoSuave said:
monfang said:
Only Right Handed Amino Acids can form life, Left Handed are toxic to life. So based on experiments done, the conditions that are commonly thought of as the conditions before life are impossible to create life.
Regarding this concept, called chirality.

L-type amino acids (what you call right-handed, but actually means "left-handed") are prevalent in complex life forms.

However, most bacteria are D-type, (what you call left-handed, but actually means "right-handed")

Life exists on this planet with amino acids of both chiralities.

Ergo your claim is patently false. Not only is your claim on chirality completely false, D-type amino acids are not, in fact, toxic.

To prove this, you need only perform an experiment wherein you eat a substance containing both types of amino acids.

I'm going to go eat a bowl of yogurt now.

Continue.
I could be wrong. Lets look at some similar experiments. One by Louis Pasteur. He had a sterilized broth of amino acids, proteins, and DNA that he kept the air out of by using water in a bent tube. As seen here: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/images/v5i11g1.jpg

Note that there is no growth within the broth (dead things stayed dead) until the neck is broken and air is introduced. (life is introduced into a dead space and life grew) Pasteur proved that life only comes from pre-existing life.

Which brings us back to Dr. Miller.. Even if Stanley Miller?s experiment showed that all the amino acids, proteins, sugars, etc., found in living things today could be produced in high concentrations in water by natural processes, it would not matter because Pasteur?s experiment proved that those organic molecules would not come to life.

Organic molecules did appear after a few days. But only 8 of the 20 required amino acids were produced.

Which brings me to a mistake I made. You are right that left and right handed amino acids can exist together and not cause too much problem. However, Left and right handed proteins are different. Oddly enough, Evolutionists are apparently not wanting to speak of it from the lack of talk on 'their' sites. You can read more on these sites I found: http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_04.html
http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-V2/2evlch10b.htm
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v5i11f.htm
Are you comparing Pasteur's small flask without any input of energy and a day or two's time to THE ENTIRE SURFACE OF THE EARTH AND A BILLION YEARS, with the energy from both the goddamn sun and thermal vents at the bottom of the ocean?

You also seem to think that a very, very simple organism would require 20 different types of amino acids to reproduce, which is simply not the case.
According to my research, life requires 20+ amino acids to form the proteins required for solid bodies to form and stay stable. Most Scientists agree. Until you can show proof that they have changed, then I must go with what I know.