Evolution Test!

[united]

read about vestigial structures. they are usually reduced functions from past.

please name me one.
and if that is so true why on earth do "scientists" keep banging on about the appendix/coccyx etc when it has clearly been shown that they do have a use.
Do i detect these "scientists" clutching at straws...

 

[root]

your link doesnt seem to work. but:
appendix- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermiform_appendix (skip the evolution bit 1st)
coccyx- The coccyx provides an attachment for nine muscles, such as the gluteus maximus, and those necessary for defecation. It also acts as something of a shock absorber when a person sits down, although forceful impact can cause damage and subsequent bodily pains. http://www.harunyahya.net/V2/Lang/en/Pg/WorkDetail/Number/2985 etc

if we dont know the uses we will find out. isnt that what science is all about? not giving up, not making things up...

You guys show nothing but arrogance by simply amplifying the quote mining technique that has you blinded. In you quote from the lier Harunyayha he quotes the following:

Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.

(Scadding 1981, p 176)

Would it shock you to know that Scadding actually believes the following:

Vestigial organs represent simply a special case of homologous organs. . . . While homologies between animal species suggest a common origin, the argument . . . asserts that vestigial organs provide special additional evidence for evolution.

This is how DESPERATE you creationsist are, your more than happy to qoute a paper of 20+ years ago, where even the author admits he was "wrong"

Source:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/scadding.html#Scadding1982

Why can't you see the clear deception that you stake as evidence against evolution. How can it be you believe a scientist was "right" when the said scientist admits he was "wrong"

 

[root]

please name me one.
and if that is so true why on earth do "scientists" keep banging on about the appendix/coccyx etc when it has clearly been shown that they do have a use.
Do i detect these "scientists" clutching at straws...

United, all your doing is giving a laymens arguement on a technicality. For example, every scientist agrees that the earth is a sphere. Technically it is not. So the earth is not round, those stupid theories that support the idea of a round earth are simply delusional.

 

[snakelegs]

i have bred snakes and still keep them.
some boas and pythons have vestigal limbs. i've seen them with my own eyes.
for those not fortunate enough to have a handy dandy python or boa to look at, here is a pic:

 

[Dr.Trax]

Dr.Trax

I no longer have any desire to participate in a thread that lies to people.

You do not want to learn what science has found, so I'm wasting my time talking to you.

I want to learn but what to learn?A propaganda that is so hard pushed to the word with your so called fossil proofs ???


Answer to me these questions:

1) Have scientists determined what the "first" lifeform was like? If so, what was it's characteristics?

2)When I think of a microbe lifeform which needs very little to survive and reproduce itself (maybe not even needing oxygen), and then look at myself, I can't help but feel that the microbe is much more "adapted" to it's environment, since from a biological respect, I am the "weaker" entity, based on my needs to live and reproduce (love, [this was in fact proven], food, drink, shelter, a female to mate with etc..) compared to said microbe's. Thought?

3)Since that one test (sorry I forget the name) done in the 60's that created amino acids from non-organic elements and sparks, has science been able to produce full protein chains and/or genetic material? (adenine, thynine, etc.. remember "at the golf course?" lol) If not, why does science assume it can be done. I realize the evolutionary theory does not deal with the formation of life, but it leaves a hole in the theory since "god" (which i dont believe in necessarily) could have created the first life, and then "survival of the fittest/micro-evolution" ran it's course? The truth is, "sadly, the origin of DNA is just as elusive as the origin of life itself"

4)Evolution speaks of each organisms fight to survive, and ultimately pass on it's genes. Yet I have not heard what causes this seemingly desire to reproduce one's genes? Surely the first organism would have lacked the brain to "want" to reproduce, so what caused it to? You could argue that the elements composing this organism split on their own due to the natural tendencies of elements, but how does evolution account for this seemingly unique trait? (A sign of intelligent design? you decide). Todays species are much more complex than the first organism, what causes their instinctual desire to reproduce?

5)I realize this is all a matter of perception, but from what I observe, after millions and millions of years of tweaking and perfecting, life is not any more adapted than the first organism. Why did the first organism "want" (if it could want that is) to become more complex? Complexity in my opinion does not always mean better, rather it makes it more unstable. If the first organism had the bare minimum to pass on its genes, why did it need to become so complex? You could argue that very similar genetics is a fundamental weakness in organisms (this is what causes the change from asexual reproduction to sexual by the way) but the fact is the first organisms were so utterly simple and required so little to survive (not even oxygen/nitrogen mind you [science believes at the time of the first organism there was no oxygen in the atmospere!] ), and certainly virii were a long ways from being created, so I fail to see how in this environment a commonality in DNA would be a weakness?

6)Evolution has yet to descibe how insticts (a non-comprehensive form of intillect) came to be. Maybe one bird had the idea to fly south and the others just followed, and then told each succeeding generation of the secret to survival!!.. or not. Ideas?

7)simply.. why do we sleep? I see no fundamental weakness in being awake during the night (since none of today's species hunt at night save for minor predators, arguabally inferring few if any ancient species hunted at night), thus I see no reason why a creature which slept during the night would have had a huge advantage over a night-walker. Rather, i see the opposite. They could have been out there getting their "mac" on!

8)The fundamental idea behind evolution proposes "extremely slow and gradual changes" and Darwin stated that his theory would "die" if any organ could not be formed that way. I cant think of any organ offhand (maybe the eye or brain), but I don't understand how "part" of a organ provides any survival benefit. For example, wings. Darwin never proposed that one day a reptile was born with a perfect set of wings, but rather they were gradually formed over millions of years.. Hmm, how does 1/10000 of a wing provide any benefit AT ALL? it's either all or nothing as far as i would guess.


PLEASE!!!

 

[Science101]

Have you understood what's behind Godel's theory?

CMIIW, it says in a simplified way that if you defined an arbitarary language or system of language and using that language you define something that holds as a true statement or as an axiom or a foundation of truth, and you try to use the same system to prove that the axiomatc statement defined earlier is correct, i.e. true... you will then reach a paradoxial statement that the truth in that case is undefinable.

You will need to actually define in the language itself that the axiom is part of the language as an absolute truth.
(now don't argue with me on how that can go about.. you will need to ask Godel on that; but it is mathematically proven)

So in other words, in order for you to determine if a certain thing is absolutely true, you can't just derive it from what you know of the language, cuz you'll never know how powerful the language is until the person who created the language himself tells you that the language boundaries are here..and here..

So those "extra crucial knowledge" is what we take as granted from the creator in order to know truly how he's creation works.



yes we should be able to derive that, it just takes time to get to that point.
until then we are called the submitter(muslim).. or the believer (mu'min)..
we will just believe based on the "good"-ness the Quran and sunnah has been to us in our life.. and the ever so much signs of His existance..

I personally think that clay depicts something that in our world that has the characteristic of "touchable". Probably very much like the characteristics of fermions i suppose..CMIIW.. just a speculation..



We as a limited agent, can only interpret this magnificent world through our limited senses.
E.g.
How accurate is the current best of breed supercomputer can get?
How accurate is the current optics can get?
How accurate is the current best of breed electroscopic sensors can get?
How big is the biggest explosion can we create?
It's just at such and such..

You're wrong on how to use Quran and the Hadeeth.
You should base you're judgment on them first before moving on to interpreting factual data to your limited mind (current established scientific knowledge base).
Cuz even the slightest precision error could lead to a disastrous conclusion. (remember einstien vs newton? you should learn from their mistakes; that also has signs if you put heed on)

Regards,
Abu 'Ammar

Neither abiogenesis (life from non-life) or evolutionary theory (change over time) is a mathematical or logical formula, therefore all claims that you can disprove the fossil and molecular biology facts with a mathematical/logical construct, is like saying a bird has no wings unless 2+2+Cheese=176.34

I'll try to simplify the problem:

Would you say that we would be unable to understand how the first cell membrane formed? Cell membranes have millions of molecules all in the exact right place. According to Creationists the odds of something so complex to "randomly" coming together is astronomically impossible. Is that true? Can we easily understand such a thing? Or is it impossible to understand their origin?

 

[Dr.Trax]

United, all your doing is giving a laymens arguement on a technicality. For example, every scientist agrees that the earth is a sphere. Technically it is not. So the earth is not round, those stupid theories that support the idea of a round earth are simply delusional.

- Is it true that Piltdown Man, exhibited for 40 years, was a hoax?

- Yes. A 500-year-old human cranium was joined onto an orangutan jaw and then stained with potassium dichromate to give it an aged appearance.

Piltdown Man, portrayed for 43 years as highly significant evidence confirming evolution, turned out to be a hoax. In 1953, investigations into the skull revealed that Piltdown Man was no fossil, but a forgery produced by combining human and orangutan bones.
Left: Excavations at Piltdown, birthplace of the Piltdown Man scandal




Is it true that Nebraska Man was a fraud based on a single peccary tooth?

- Yes. The reconstructions based on a single molar tooth took their place among evolutionist frauds when it was realized the tooth actually belonged to a peccary.

Nebraska man, and Henry Fairfield Osborn, who named it.




Is it true that Archæoraptor liaoningensis, proposed as a "dino-bird," was a fraud?

- Yes. The fossil, consisting of bone and stone held together using glue and plaster, was made by adding a dinosaur tail to a bird body. The fossil, described in the press as evidence for so-called evolution, was declared to be "dino-bird waffle" two years later.

National Geographic's great hit, the perfect "dino-bird." Archaeoraptor soon turned out to be a hoax. All other "dino-bird" candidates remain speculative.





- Is it true that the Coelacanth, for years depicted as an intermediate form fossil, is a species of fish still living today?

- Yes. Because of the bones in its fins the Coelacanth was depicted as a fish about to progress to the walking stage. However, the capture of many living specimens consigned all fictitious evolutionist scenarios to the waste bin.





Is it true that Archaeopteryx, also put forward as a missing link, was actually a fully flying bird?

- Yes. It has been realized that this extinct bird, a tool for evolutionist claims because of the teeth in its jaws, the claw-like nails on its wings and long tail, actually flew in just the same way as present-day flying birds.





Is it true that the fossil known as Lucy belonged to an extinct type of ape and has been removed from the fictitious tree of human evolution?

- Yes. Lucy, portrayed to the public as a missing link, is today agreed to have been an ape with no place in the human family tree. The magazine Science et Vie announced this in its cover story titled "Adieu Lucy" (Farewell, Lucy) in May 1999.

Scientific findings have proven the evolutionist assumptions regarding Lucy, the best-known example of the genus Australopithecus, to be unfounded. In its February 1999 issue, the well-known French scientific magazine Science et Vie accepted this in an article entitled "Adieu Lucy," and confirmed that Australopithecus cannot be considered an ancestor of man.

Then what do you say?
How still to believe in it?
Do you want some more???
It is not sure anymore .....

 

[Science101]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUeoem1gR3s

Worth a watch.

Thanks Barney! I didn't know about that one.

I hope all who think Creationist leaders like this are being honest watch the video. See how they purposely skipped over the radiometric dating exhibit that shows how it is done, then lied to the children about it?

How can anyone believe someone who would do something so dishonest? If they had any honesty at all they would have shown what scientists do, not keep them from seeing it.

 

[Science101]

Also notice how Dr.Trax is doing the same dishonest thing. Anyone see this "Piltdown Man" that Dr.Trax just posted about, again, listed anywhere?

Here is one of many places to find the truth.

From: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

Prominent Hominid Fossils
Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus robustus Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo floresiensis
Homo sapiens

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

So Dr.Trax, where is this "Piltdown Man" you are talking about?

 

[Dr.Trax]

Also notice how Dr.Trax is doing the same dishonest thing. Here is one of many places to find the truth.

How about your BIG CRAPS ABOVE!???
A

 

[Dr.Trax]

From: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/timeline.jpg
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

Prominent Hominid Fossils
Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus robustus Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo floresiensis
Homo sapiens
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

Again nothing special!

I can also imagine an create these branches!

No Proof At ALL
EVOLUTION IS A BIG PROPAGANDA!

 

[Azy]

I want to learn but what to learn?A propaganda that is so hard pushed to the word with your so called fossil proofs ???


Answer to me these questions:

1) Have scientists determined what the "first" lifeform was like? If so, what was it's characteristics?

2)When I think of a microbe lifeform which needs very little to survive and reproduce itself (maybe not even needing oxygen), and then look at myself, I can't help but feel that the microbe is much more "adapted" to it's environment, since from a biological respect, I am the "weaker" entity, based on my needs to live and reproduce (love, [this was in fact proven], food, drink, shelter, a female to mate with etc..) compared to said microbe's. Thought?

3)Since that one test (sorry I forget the name) done in the 60's that created amino acids from non-organic elements and sparks, has science been able to produce full protein chains and/or genetic material? (adenine, thynine, etc.. remember "at the golf course?" lol) If not, why does science assume it can be done. I realize the evolutionary theory does not deal with the formation of life, but it leaves a hole in the theory since "god" (which i dont believe in necessarily) could have created the first life, and then "survival of the fittest/micro-evolution" ran it's course? The truth is, "sadly, the origin of DNA is just as elusive as the origin of life itself"

4)Evolution speaks of each organisms fight to survive, and ultimately pass on it's genes. Yet I have not heard what causes this seemingly desire to reproduce one's genes? Surely the first organism would have lacked the brain to "want" to reproduce, so what caused it to? You could argue that the elements composing this organism split on their own due to the natural tendencies of elements, but how does evolution account for this seemingly unique trait? (A sign of intelligent design? you decide). Todays species are much more complex than the first organism, what causes their instinctual desire to reproduce?

5)I realize this is all a matter of perception, but from what I observe, after millions and millions of years of tweaking and perfecting, life is not any more adapted than the first organism. Why did the first organism "want" (if it could want that is) to become more complex? Complexity in my opinion does not always mean better, rather it makes it more unstable. If the first organism had the bare minimum to pass on its genes, why did it need to become so complex? You could argue that very similar genetics is a fundamental weakness in organisms (this is what causes the change from asexual reproduction to sexual by the way) but the fact is the first organisms were so utterly simple and required so little to survive (not even oxygen/nitrogen mind you [science believes at the time of the first organism there was no oxygen in the atmospere!] ), and certainly virii were a long ways from being created, so I fail to see how in this environment a commonality in DNA would be a weakness?

6)Evolution has yet to descibe how insticts (a non-comprehensive form of intillect) came to be. Maybe one bird had the idea to fly south and the others just followed, and then told each succeeding generation of the secret to survival!!.. or not. Ideas?

7)simply.. why do we sleep? I see no fundamental weakness in being awake during the night (since none of today's species hunt at night save for minor predators, arguabally inferring few if any ancient species hunted at night), thus I see no reason why a creature which slept during the night would have had a huge advantage over a night-walker. Rather, i see the opposite. They could have been out there getting their "mac" on!

8)The fundamental idea behind evolution proposes "extremely slow and gradual changes" and Darwin stated that his theory would "die" if any organ could not be formed that way. I cant think of any organ offhand (maybe the eye or brain), but I don't understand how "part" of a organ provides any survival benefit. For example, wings. Darwin never proposed that one day a reptile was born with a perfect set of wings, but rather they were gradually formed over millions of years.. Hmm, how does 1/10000 of a wing provide any benefit AT ALL? it's either all or nothing as far as i would guess.


PLEASE!!!

1) For the thousandth time, evolution is not concerned with the origin of life. Define lifeform.

2) Imagine how well a microbe would flourish if it grew a bit bigger than it's neighbours.

3) Can you imagine how hard it would be to generate this in a lab if it required billions of trials and if something approaching a protein ever developed it would be gobbled up by some kind of microbe. If you bothered to look there are plenty of scenarios for the formation of simple organic molecules.

4) Think about it. The simplest organisms would only exist because of the molecule's tendency to copy itself, otherwise you'd never get near to the microbe stage, nevermind anything like people. Obviously those traits would be maintained otherwise life would just die out.

5) Organisms don't 'want' to be more complex or necessarily do become more complex. Your reasoning seems to infer that all current life should be super complex animals who are totally adapted to one environment, and that simple life such as bacteria would have ceased to exist. They just adapt to the situation they're in, and that may change over time. Tell me which one of Adam and Eve was black, and which looked chinese.

6) It has yet to explain them therefore they can't be explained?
7 & 8) Just go and actually read something that isn't creationist nonsense. Try the painful process of being open-minded to something that goes against your closed beliefs.

 

[Azy]

Again nothing special!

I can also imagine an create these branches!

Did someone also imagine digging an 80ft skeleton of a reptile out of the rock in Tanzania?

 

[Dr.Trax]

Neither abiogenesis (life from non-life) or evolutionary theory (change over time) is a mathematical or logical formula, therefore all claims that you can disprove the fossil and molecular biology facts with a mathematical/logical construct, is like saying a bird has no wings unless 2+2+Cheese=176.34

Here are the true unchanged Fossils:

ATLAS OF CREATION

http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation/atlas_creation_02.php

​

ATLAS OF CREATION

Volume II

http://harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation_II/atlas_creation_II_01.php





ATLAS OF CREATION
Volume III
​

http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation_III/atlas_creation_III_01.php
​

 

[Azy]

 

[Dr.Trax]

Differences between humans and chimps

Here are some other interesting differences between the human and chimp genomes which are often not reported:

• The chimp genome is 12% larger than the human genome.
• Only 2.4 billion bases have been aligned between the two genomes, leaving a maximum similarity of 68–77%.
• In many areas of the genome, it appears major rearrangements of DNA sequences have occurred, accounting for another 10–20% dissimilarity.
• Chimps have 46 chromosomes and humans have 44 chromosomes (excluding sex chromosomes for both species).
• To save money and time, the chimp genome was assembled using the human genome as a template (because of the presupposition that humans evolved from the same line as chimps); it is currently unknown if the pieces of the chimp genome “puzzle” were put together properly.

To address these concerns and others, comparisons of the human and chimp genomes will be a part of “GENE” project sponsored by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR).The bioinformatics team (of which I am a part) will be analyzing different aspects of the human genome with special emphasis given to the comparison of human and chimp genomes.

 

[johan]

Neither abiogenesis (life from non-life) or evolutionary theory (change over time) is a mathematical or logical formula, therefore all claims that you can disprove the fossil and molecular biology facts with a mathematical/logical construct, is like saying a bird has no wings unless 2+2+Cheese=176.34

I think you need to abstract a little bit further my friend.
May be here's a site to give you a little bit of where i'm going with this mathematical thingy wingy..

www.superstringtheory.com

And here's my paraphrasing of this mathemetical thingy wingy.. :
In the scientific field of phyiscs, were currently at a point where our resources are at the limits in terms of "energy creation". This "energy creation" is needed in order to prove or disprove theories associated to the creation of the entire universe. So we needed a way around this disability.

The most promising alternative is through mathematics.
Through mathematics we could "simulate" the physical behavior of the world.
Through mathematics we could explain how at it's basic and most fundamental elements of the world interact with each other forming all this complex components around us and their interactions.

I'll try to simplify the problem:

Would you say that we would be unable to understand how the first cell membrane formed? Cell membranes have millions of molecules all in the exact right place. According to Creationists the odds of something so complex to "randomly" coming together is astronomically impossible. Is that true? Can we easily understand such a thing? Or is it impossible to understand their origin?

How did I come about to say that? please enlighten me.
On the contrary, we could derive(come to a better understanding) the way cells interact with each other when we have the right model to simulate the happenings.
By understanding the way each and every agent in the system interact with each other be it at a molecular level or at an atomic level or at a subatomic level and beyond.
Surely the more precision in the model the better it will provide us with feedbacks. And a better way for us to control and manipulate.

regards,
Johan

 

[Science101]

Great job Azy!

Here are the true unchanged Fossils:

And once again Dr.Trax demonstrates that they are only spamming the forum to sell their Harun junk here.

 

[Dr.Trax]

1) For the thousandth time, evolution is not concerned with the origin of life. Define lifeform.

1) Have scientists determined what the "first" lifeform was like? If so, what was it's characteristics?

Not Evolutionists..............

 

[Dr.Trax]

Great job Azy!



And once again Dr.Trax demonstrates that they are only spamming the forum to sell their Harun junk here.

Then what do you denonstrate?
What about your spamms....a?
Aren't you selling your Evolution Junk!

Give Up friendo ......you are cracked!