What Have Darwinists Said That's True? (Abiogenesis, evolution, genesis, atheist)

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by jtartar

Autodidact,
Consider just a few principles that make evolution impossible. 1. Everything reproduces ONLY after it's own kind!!!

Really? What is a "kind?"

Scientists have tried millions of times, both invivo and invitro to cause anything to break this law. There have been many improbations because of their subterfuge!!! D N A will shortly prove this.

O.K., we'll stay tuned for new developments.

2. If evolution were true, after a period of millions of years, as evolutionists claim, there would be NO DISTINCT kinds, every kind would have the characteristics of both a lower KIND and a higher KIND. The evolutionists are still looking for the first HOPEFUL MONSTER, the link between even one KIND and another.

do you even know what the theory of evolution is? Because it seems to bear no resemblance to what you're describing.

3. The odds against HOMOPLASY, the parallel evolution of a male and a female until mature, so they could reproduce. HOW REDICULOUS!!! How could they exist if not able to reproduce until full grown???

Surely if you think really hard you can figure it out. Hint: evolution happens to species, not individuals. btw, you might want to look up "homoplasy", which has nothing to do with what you're talking about.

4. An amusing question is: If an animal evolves because of a need, why do we see both the lower and the higher form still in existence together?? Why no successional speciation???

It doesn't. Need doesn't enter into it, and there is no such thing as a lower or higher form. Have you studied any Biology at all?

The sheep and the giraffe are relatives. Do you believe that the sheep only was able to survive because it developed a short neck, while the giraffe was able to survive only because it developed a long neck???

Well, you know that sheep were bred, right? As for wild sheep, the answer is that each one fits a different ecological niche.

5. The brain is called a multum inparvo.

No it isn't.

Why would man develope a brain capable of learning for thousands, maybe millions of lifetimes?? Do we really NEED it???

Because at some point, smarter apes survived better than dumb ones.

6. What about the EYE. Why would something develope an eye, when it does not even know anything about sight.

Maybe we should start with learning what the ToE actually is and says, since you are so misinformed about it. Are you interested in learning what the actual ToE says?

7. How could an animal, all of a sudden develope a conscience, the enjoyment of beauty, or beautiful music, altruism, all foreign to lower animals??? Language???

All of a sudden? btw you're wrong about altruism; many animals exhibit it.

So, my confused friend, are you game for learning what the actual ToE actually says, and what the actual evidence is that caused such a revolution in Biology, such that is now accepted as the basis for all Biological knowledge? I'm willing to explain it to you, if you stick around, read, and respond. I warn you, though, it may well persuade you to change your mind. If not, you will be in a much better position to argue against it. What do you say?

[camanintx]

Originally Posted by jtartar

Hela,
Charles Darwin was completely right about one thing. Darwin said that if a complete record of evolution could not be found in the fossil record, his whole idea was wrong. Darwin even started to disbelieve hsi own theory before his death. Even though millions of fossils have been unearthed not one has the attributes of two different KINDS of animals. Never has a fossil been found where a scientists has said: I really can't tell what kind of an animal it is because it shows distinct characteristics of two different KINDS.
Science knows that there is a law that cannot be broken, either invivo or invitro; the law that says; Everything will ONLY reproduce after it's own kind, called PRESTABILISM. DNA will shortly be used to prove there has been no evolution from a lower to a higher form of life!!

Here is the hierarchy of taxonomic ranks used by scientists. Please tell me where "kind" fits into this.

[Autodidact]

Hmmm, merely the possibility of touching on the actual ToE has magically caused all the creationists to disappear. You almost get the impression that they can only refute a straw version.

[Autodidact]

Just in case anyone on the fence is lurking in this thread, I would like to point out this typical creationist tactic: Invent a fictitious theory based on fictitious evidence to attack, then disappear as the dew on the morning grass before the actual theory is even introduced. What does this tell you about the validity of their position, or their credibility?

[Somkid]

It would be impossible to even begin to answer this question without creating a web site dedicated to the information science has gathered and compiled.

[Inky]

We know that the closer two species are geographically, the more DNA they are likely to share, which indicates that they evolved from a common ancestor which lived in the same area. Also, the more isolated an environment is the more likely the species living there will be unique to that one location, since they can't interbreed with populations on the outside and eventually genetic drift split them off into their own species. For example, the crabs and worms that live on deep-sea vents. Once the crabs adapted to be dependent on the vents, they couldn't travel to interbreed with the ones in other places, and now it's not unusual for each vent to have its own crab species found nowhere else. Contrast this with more free-swimming tropical crab populations, which have fewer species since the groups have more access to each other and they continue to share a gene pool.

[Autodidact]

Inky, thanks for trying, but the person who started this thread is not interested in the actual evidence, only in knocking down straw men.

[Seyorni]

"Progressive" creationists ( now there's an oxymoron for you), aknowledge variation and change within species, but somehow can't see that a sufficient number of small changes might equal a big (special) change. Apparently genetic changes can accumulate up to the point that an organism totters on the point of speciation, but then they suddenly, magically cease.
How do changes know when to stop, to avoid producing a new species?

[crystalonyx]

Originally Posted by Seyorni

"Progressive" creationists ( now there's an oxymoron for you), aknowledge variation and change within species, but somehow can't see that a sufficient number of small changes might equal a big (special) change. Apparently genetic changes can accumulate up to the point that an organism totters on the point of speciation, but then they suddenly, magically cease.
How do changes know when to stop, to avoid producing a new species?

They also deny the many new species documented that appear on the scene currently, its sort of like wearing blinders.