Conquer Club

silvanricky wrote:I don't know who you are really King Doctor but you sound a lot like Woodruff.

I have no idea who Woodruff is, but based upon your description of him I can only assume that he is a thoroughly awesome dude.

jay_a2j wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote: To you, I keep saying "look at the evidence before you criticize evolution".

Where is it? Point me to a species of animal that is in the process of evolution.

Single animals don't evolve.
To simplify: A parent has a child. That child differs slightly from the parent. Sometimes, this includes a mutation. If that child grows up and has a child that inherits that mutation, then you begin to have evolution. Compound that many, many, many, many, many times with many mutations and eventually you might, after many, many, many, many, many,many generations get a new species. Alone, the time required for this to happen is longer even than most old earthers/evolutionists believe it took. The answer came when evidence was found of various cataclysms throughout time that have periodically eradicated most of the life on the Earth at the time, leaving relatively few species that then went through relatively quick expansion and adaptions. ("quick", here still means thousands of years)

jay_a2j wrote:
The missing link.

There is not just one, there are many, many links. Some are missing, yes.
Here is the Wikipedia article on this: http://www.ask.com/wiki/Transitional_fossil
Note that at the end of this Wiki article they list some common creationist arguments and address them.
Here is a link to a series of articles about this from Cal State Berkeley.
http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf

Here is a very tentative and unexpert list of transition fossils. Note that they say upfront that they need an expert to consult, so there could be many errors. However, there are enough pictures here of what are definite transition fossils that you should be able to see a few you have not seen before.
http://www.ask.com/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

jay_a2j wrote:
If an animal evolved from fish to some land creature where are the fossils?

No land animal evolved from a modern fish. (to my knowledge, anyway) However, we have a commmon ancestor, pretty far back in the evolutionary tree. One of the more recent fossil finds is Tiktaalik.
Link: http://wzus1.ask.com/r?t=a&d=us&s=a&c=e ... FTiktaalik

At any rate, the basic evidence is that first we had ONLY fish/amphibian predecessor species and then "suddenly" (thousands of years later), land species popped up. These land species showed some features in common with the prior species, but also differed significantly.

Interestingly, Whales descend from a land-animal.

jay_a2j wrote: The fossils of the "in between" animals. Where are the "in between" animals walking the earth today?

well, the Ceolocanth swims. Being a fish biologist, I am most familiar with that one. As for others? Basically whether they are living or fossils is irrelevant. Some species gave rise to descendents that were very, very different from them and some did not. Some gave rise to multiple other species.

jay_a2j wrote: If evolution allows animal x to become animal y where is animal xy? Yeah I know "a long process", but there would still be something visibly concrete that we could look at.

See above. There are plenty of transition fossils.

jay_a2j wrote:
Maybe a rat with no hair, then a rat with feathers, then a rat with wings, something!

There are rats with no hair right now. Rats did not give rise to birds, so no dice there. We do have dinosaurs with proto=feathers. At least one "half bird/half dinosaur" was a fraud. However, there are other examples out there. I went to school back when dinosaurs were considered lizards, not bird predecessors as they mostly are now, though, so I don't know a lot about the more recent findings.

jay_a2j wrote:
But these things do not exist. You can spout all the gobbledygook you want about the process of evolution. But when real life examples of it happening are concerned, nada. And don't get carried away with the rat, it was an example. ANY animal in the process of becoming something else, where are they?

The "process" is something we only see after the fact. What we see now is just mild change.

The best evidence that it can happen, though, is found in domesticated animals. We know, 100% for sure that both a Great Dane and a poodle and an Irish setter all descend from the same basic type. Cows, sheep, etc., have all gone through HUGE changes, or what would be very huge changes were it natural evolution. It isn't. Granted. However, it does show what can happen give the pressure. Up until very, very recently, there was no gene manipulation or other fenagling, simply selecting which animal would breed with another. The human selection speeded and directed the process, but it was still, essentially, what happens ever, ever so slowly in nature.

john9blue wrote:Hey Lionz, you know you're winning when ignorant morons start criticizing your speech patterns instead of the actual issues.

In this case, after taking over 20 pages to honestly and politely address his comments, just to find a never-ending deluge of repeats and questions that I have already answered, all followed up with "did I say that... did I say anything?"..

I like debating this, but he has no honest questions or even real debates.

jay_a2j wrote:I love this:







STAY OFF YOUR PHONE WHILE DRIVING!!!!!

Well, we agree on this anyway!

King Doctor wrote:

silvanricky wrote:I don't know who you are really King Doctor but you sound a lot like Woodruff.

I have no idea who Woodruff is, but based upon your description of him I can only assume that he is a thoroughly awesome dude.

Holy Shit, it is him! I originally thought it might be Ink.

I don't think Woody is awesome enough to have a Dr. McNinja avatar.

Also he's from the UK.

silvanricky wrote:I don't know who you are really King Doctor but you sound a lot like Woodruff.

He is far too polite to be Woodruff.

jay_a2j wrote:He is far too polite to be Woodruff.

Just wait

I'm telling you it's a matter of time before his true colors come out. Of course he'll shy away from his use of "reading comprehension" to avoid being caught but he'll substitute other language in its place.

Besides, you've got a bunch of conspiracies you believe in, Jay. Why can't I have at least one?

jay_a2j wrote:

King Doctor wrote: taller and less hairy than they were in the dark ages.

Obviously you've never met my Uncle. Or Robin Williams. Not buying it. Anyone can point to subtle thing and say "See! That's evolution!" the problem is, if humans evolved from a specific animal then why do we not see it today? What did man evolve from? Player insists it was not the ape, although that is widely accepted.

Jay, you are wrong. Only those who glanced at a few pictures instead of really learning about evolution believe we "came from Apes". We and apes have a common ancestor.

jay_a2j wrote:But she never states what animal we evolved from.

Seems you did not read my comments on those pictures you posted.

One would be Australopithecus (aka the species to which "lucy" belongs), another only recently discovered is Ardipithecus ramidus (Ardis).

From a news article: (link: http://www.salem-news.com/articles/octo ... 0-2-09.php )

The fossil, nicknamed "Ardi," is the earliest skeleton known from the human branch of the primate family tree. The branch includes Homosapiens as well as species closer to humans than to chimpanzees and bonobos. The discoveries provide new insights about how hominids -- the family of "great apes" comprising humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans -- may have emerged from an ancestral ape.

Until the discovery of Ardi, the earliest well-known stage of human evolution was Australopithecus, the small-brained, fully bipedal "ape man" that lived between four million and one million years ago. The most famous Australopithecus fossil is the 3.2-million-year-old "Lucy," which was named after the Beatles song "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds." Lucy was found in 1974 about45 miles north of where Ardi would later be discovered. Ardi's skeleton and associated Ardipithecus ramidus remains are older and more primitive than Australopithecus.

After Lucy's discovery, there was some expectation that when earlier hominid remains were found, they would converge to a chimpanzee-like anatomy, based on the genetic similarity of humans and chimps. The Ardipithecus ramidus fossils do not, however, corroborate this expectation.

Ardi's skeleton contains enough of the skull, teeth, pelvis, legs, feet, arms, and hands to estimate her body weight and height; that she walked on two legs on the ground, but climbed trees and spent time in them as well; and that she probably was omnivorous. What may come as a surprise is that Ardi and her companions did not have limb proportions like chimps or gorillas, but rather like those of extinct apes or even monkeys, and that her hands are also not chimpanzee- or gorilla-like, but more closely related to earlier extinct apes.

[color=#4080FF]Scientists said the findings suggest that hominids and African apes have each followed different evolutionary paths, and that we can no longer consider chimps as "proxies" for our last common ancestor.

"Darwin was very wise on this matter," Tim White from the University of California Berkeley, who helped lead the research team, observed.

"Darwin said we have to be really careful. The only way we're really going to know what this last common ancestor looked like is to go and find it. Well, at 4.4 million years ago we found something pretty close to it. And, just like Darwin appreciated, evolution of the ape lineages and the human lineage has been going on independently since the time those lines split, since that last common ancestor we shared," White said.[/color]

jay_a2j wrote:Where is this mysterious animal that man evolved from and why did they stop evolving?

Not everything changes. Change only happens when there is need or when chance somehow gives it a "boost". The horseshoe crab, the Nautilus, even sea lampreys have stayed pretty much the same. An oyster specialist will see minor differences in ancient oysters, perhaps (not certain about that), but you would definitely recognize them as an oyster. In some cases, these species give rise to other species, while some stay the same. I believe I tried to explain how this works using eye color earlier, but you did not seem to catch the point. Anyway, your cousins might look very different from you or they might look very much the same. Their kids, in turn might look like you or very different.

But, who says we have stopped evolving. From the Christian perspective, we were created as the "pinnacle", but some suggest we might not be quite done yet. That result will only be known many millenia from now.

jay_a2j wrote:If evolution is to be believed we should see humans all around the globe in different stages of evolution.

Why?

At one time, there were various other types of hominids. Neadarthal and Cro Magnum co-existed, though not necessarily in the same locations. Neaderthals died out and we remained. Other "hominid" type species appeared and disappeared. New ones, such as the "hobbit" (on Java??), etc have been found in recent times, expanding what we know.

That said, hominid remains are not found as often as some other species, because humans live on land, their remains would often get eaten or otherwise disappear before becoming fossils.

Did video kill neadarthal man?

2dimes wrote:Did video kill neadarthal man?

Only the radio store guy that looked like a neandarthal.

Well, I watched the video. One thing I will point out is that all the theories on evolution are speculation. No one can be sure of any of these claims. They can say that was the "first woman" but they can not prove it, can not prove it's offspring 10,000,000 years later was Adam and Eve, can not substantiate a single thing. It's all hearsay. And takes about as much faith to believe as God creating Adam and Eve from the dust of the earth as totally non-evolved human beings.

I remain firmly convinced that God did not use evolution to create man. However, I will concede that it is "possible" that He did, because He is God and if He wanted to do it, He could. I simply believe that the chances of it happening in nature leaves far too many questions and seems about as likely as us landing on the sun.

bradleybadly wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:He is far too polite to be Woodruff.

Just wait

I'm telling you it's a matter of time before his true colors come out. Of course he'll shy away from his use of "reading comprehension" to avoid being caught but he'll substitute other language in its place.

Besides, you've got a bunch of conspiracies you believe in, Jay. Why can't I have at least one?

Aaaah ok, just one.

jay_a2j wrote:Well, I watched the video. One thing I will point out is that all the theories on evolution are speculation. No one can be sure of any of these claims. They can say that was the "first woman" but they can not prove it, can not prove it's offspring 10,000,000 years later was Adam and Eve, can not substantiate a single thing. It's all hearsay. And takes about as much faith to believe as God creating Adam and Eve from the dust of the earth as totally non-evolved human beings.

Yes but can you show me one single shred of proof that god exists? and the point is not to prove that the "first woman" as you call it was anyone at all. Merely the fact that she exists proves creationism wrong. There is proof that she existed. Therefore it can be stated that humans were around long before the bible.
And for the record, a theory is a rule that can't be proven, but hasn't been disproven either.

jay_a2j wrote:I remain firmly convinced that God did not use evolution to create man. However, I will concede that it is "possible" that He did, because He is God and if He wanted to do it, He could. I simply believe that the chances of it happening in nature leaves far too many questions and seems about as likely as us landing on the sun.

If not evolution then what? he made evidence up and hid it around the world like a really bad joke of an easter egg hunt?

As well, you say that the chances are astronomical that anything left alone happens on its own. what about this scenario. Do you know how dynamite was discovered? Alfred Nobel is credited with the discovery widely, and it was done by accident. Most accounts say he dropped some nitroglycerine on a porous substance (some claims say dirt). Before that it was the most volatile explosive known to man. But i suppose nothing happens by accident so God must have made that happen, yes? then if nothing happens by accident why does God do so much bad to people? and if it does happen by accident then it can be inferred that further accidents could happen, or have happened. Perhaps even evolution?

jay_a2j wrote:Well, I watched the video. One thing I will point out is that all the theories on evolution are speculation. No one can be sure of any of these claims. They can say that was the "first woman" but they can not prove it, can not prove it's offspring 10,000,000 years later was Adam and Eve, can not substantiate a single thing. It's all hearsay. And takes about as much faith to believe as God creating Adam and Eve from the dust of the earth as totally non-evolved human beings.

This is barely half true. In fact, much of the theory of Evolution is fact.
That natural selection occurs is fact
That mutations result in changes in species over time, is fact.
Some chains of evolution are so well documented as to be pretty close to fact, if not actually fact.
Humans are among those with the fewest fossils. That a particular creature, be it Ardis or "lucy" is a human ancestor is theory. However, that is not the same as saying "speculation" or "might as well use faith". To be considered a scientific theory means there has to be a lot of evidence, its just that scientists are extremely, extremely picky about what they call "fact".

As for whether Adam and Eve came directly from the dust in an "instant" or through the longer process of dust-other species, then, with the infusion of spirit, to Adam and Eve, is another question entirely.

Also, if Adam were infused with that "something extra", say "knowledge", and awareness of God, then one reason could be that, as an adult, he would have seen that he was different from these others. But, that is pure speculation on my part, not something I would claim is known or even hypothesized by others.

jay_a2j wrote:I remain firmly convinced that God did not use evolution to create man. However, I will concede that it is "possible" that He did, because He is God and if He wanted to do it, He could. I simply believe that the chances of it happening in nature leaves far too many questions and seems about as likely as us landing on the sun.

Of course, God could do anything.
However, there are 3 questions here.
First, there is whether the evidence put forward for evolution is real and valid. So far, you seem to keep claiming "this just doesn't exist" or "well, you just disagree from what most people say" even when we can show you (not just me, but others, too) that this is not true.

Second, there is the quesiton of whether the theories that those who dispute evolution on a "Christian"/religious basis have any validity to thier theories. Again, they basically don't. That is, what they put forward are largely utter misunderstandings of evolution ( such as the claim that "random" excludes God) or of science in general (a lot about the second law of thermodynamics, etc.), real problems that have already been addressed by science(often using proven fraudulant examples and claiming they are the examples used by paleontologists), or utter fabrications. (footprints next to dinosaur remains or footprints).

Thirdlly, even if what the disputers say about evolution is correct (it rarely is and when it is, doesn't actually disprove evolution despite their claims), then there has to be some kind of evidence showing their theories even could be correct. So far, nothing of the sort has been provided, at all. I dealt with a lot of it in the "young earth creationism... again" thread in response to lionz.

My avy proves evolution.....the feet alone prove it.

notyou2 wrote:My avy proves evolution.....the feet alone prove it.

Also the name "Darwin" includes the word "Win". Coincidence?

Also "Ibelieve in God" rhymes with "My beliefs are odd". Coincidence?

God needs a little light amusement......so he created Jay

Also Jaywalking is a crime, therefore Jaythinking is an abomination.

jonesthecurl wrote:Also Jaywalking is a crime, therefore Jaythinking is an abomination.

Awesome.

Jaybird flew the coop.

2dimes,

You might have been making jokes, but what do you ask of me and want me to answer?

Doc,

Welcome.

Evolution can be defined a number of ways and you will find quite a bit of folks speaking past eachother on cc forums maybe.

What if there's a Creator who created a number of seperate kinds of creatures and the Creator gave them the ability to bring forth variety by producing offspring with others of their own kind? More than one genetic tree with lions and tigers sharing common ancestry with eachother and snails and hummingbirds not sharing common ancestry with eachother?

Natural selection might be like a quality control thing. Mutations might help lead to extra hair and larger limbs and missing limbs, but what would it have to do with turning scales into feathers even if we allow for billions of years? Recombination during meiosis selects from existing alleles and gives different combinations of them in offspring without creating new information perhaps. You're simply not going to scramble around letters in the word library and come up with the word cat from them alone maybe. You might find some interesting stuff here concerning frame-shift mutations and even nylon-eating Flavobacterium specifically. http://creationwiki.org/CB102

What does the fossil record actually show regardless of what is claimed to have gone extinct and regardless of what is claimed to have evolved from what?

NG leads readers to believe that Darwin thought the fossil record supported his theory. But actually he admitted more than once in his famous book6 that the fossil record is an embarrassment to his theory of descent from a common ancestor. He knew that if his theory was true, there should be countless numbers of transitional forms (e.g., 100% reptile, 75% reptile-25% bird, 50% reptile-50%bird, 25% reptile-75%bird, 100% bird and many transitional forms between each of those). Darwin attributed the lack of evidence to our ignorance of the fossil record. But today our museums are loaded with fossils and the missing links are still missing.

As the late Harvard evolutionary geologist, Stephen Gould, put it:

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.7

In a 1979 letter responding to the late creationist, Luther Sunderland, Colin Patterson, then Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, concurred:

I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader? ... You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line — there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.8

Richard Dawkins’ evolutionist disciple at Oxford University, Mark Ridley, is emphatic:

However, the gradual change of fossil species has never been part of the evidence for evolution. In the chapters on the fossil record in the Origin of Species Darwin showed that the record was useless for testing between evolution and special creation because it has great gaps in it. The same argument still applies. ... In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.9 [emphasis in the original]

That's missing one or more hyperlink and including numbers that should be raised up and smaller and it's a misquote maybe. You might want to go here and compare. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1106ng.asp

Player,

You're not willing to discuss stuff with me and yet are with willing to discuss stuff with Jay? How about we discuss some fossils?

There's a post here with a section directed at you that mentions both Ardipithecus and Australopithecus perhaps. viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1562&p=2644156#p2644156

Do you claim Neanderthal and Cro Magnum are words used to refer to fossils of individuals who are not descendants of Adam? Trying to figure out where you stand maybe.

All dogs very much share common ancestry perhaps, but what do dog breeds say about whether or not humans evolved from a single celled organism?

Player and John,

Maybe ape can be defined more than one way and a debate about who claims humans descend from apes would likely be a vain one, but humans themselves are apes according to wikipedia and the word pithecus is actually derived from Greek meaning ape maybe.

Bane,

I might be able to prove little to nothing, but do you want some evidence that He exists?

Did you mean to claim that there being a first woman would prove creationism wrong? What did you mean?

Lionz wrote:2dimes,

You might have been making jokes, but what do you ask of me and want me to answer?

I figure there's no point in taking life too seriously. You'll never get out of it alive. I recall some discussion perhaps some pictures or diagrams about the possibility the grand canyon was formed faster than most believe, maybe.

I was trying to show you a video of a 20 foot deep canyon carved under a major highway in what some have reported to have been hours. I'm actually mocking those that would think such a thing impossible. I don't agree with everything from the sites with the dragon/dinosaur pictures but I think you and I are much more open to the possibilities that things are being taught like they are fact that are not actually known.

I could be pretty much wrong on the whole thing, I fail, perhaps, maybe?

Thanks. What do we really know?