Creation vs. Evolution (Earth, Eden, genesis, eternal, bible)

[inca]

I want to remind you some decades ago they said tonsils and other parts of the body were evolution leftovers. And after they removed thousands of organs they found out far from being leftovers they were very important in the defense of the organism against diseases. They discovered that cos thousands of people actually DIED OF CANCER cos that imbecility and scientific cocky attitude. Then they had to cover these areas of the body when there was irradiation in onchology treatment.
Even if those parts were what they were saying (and it was not), the argument was ridiculous cos evolution as the name indicates didn't have to provide leftovers but NEW ORGANS. So, the argument was upside down, that would evolution in reverse, involution, degeneration. In fact today at least 3% of our DNA is litter (acacaca... adenine-citosine rather than adenine-timine, citosine-guanine).
So, I LAUGH everytime someone picks a book of paleonthology filled with words in subjuntive way (perhaps, maybe, it's reasonable to believe, there's a chance, it may be) than any other science field and shows a fragment piece of a bone and in speculative interpretation says that little crack would mean the eventual transformation into an organ....that's palenthologist faith not demonstrated whatsoever by genetics. Even National Geographic everytime they show their "official" and superficial themes (don't ask me to inform details about why) they admited they hired several artists to represent hominids based upon the fragments of fossils. All the designs were completely different! That's Hollywood technique, not science, mere speculation. You can't know the amount of hair, the color of the skin nor the hair in most of the cases. Usually the posture they imagined after some time it's discovered has been a fiasco during years cos it was imposible such posture.
Indeed, I would recommend to see the works of Rebeca Cann, an expert in genetic field who says all those fantastic millions of years about homind pseudo evolution really can be reduced to an African "Eve" between 180.000 and 20.000 years ago. Even choosing the older date, depends on the number of partners of that "Eve" analyzing mithocondria DNA. The analysis included research about time when men could've taken care of cattle, etc.
You can print whatever you want about your faith in evolution. I'll stand with Nobel prizes and experts in biology, genetic, mutation. In other words, real science.
Moral aspects of our existence belongs to philosophy theme.

[inca]

I want to remind you some decades ago they said tonsils and other parts of the body were evolution leftovers. And after they removed thousands of organs they found out far from being leftovers they were very important in the defense of the organism against diseases. They discovered that cos thousands of people actually DIED OF CANCER cos that imbecility and scientific cocky attitude. Then they had to cover these areas of the body when there was irradiation in onchology treatment.
Even if those parts were what they were saying (and it was not), the argument was ridiculous cos evolution as the name indicates didn't have to provide leftovers but NEW ORGANS. So, the argument was upside down, that would evolution in reverse, involution, degeneration. In fact today at least 3% of our DNA is litter (acacaca... adenine-citosine rather than adenine-timine, citosine-guanine).
So, I LAUGH everytime someone picks a book of paleonthology filled with words in subjuntive way (perhaps, maybe, it's reasonable to believe, there's a chance, it may be) than any other science field and shows a fragment piece of a bone and in speculative interpretation says that little crack would mean the eventual transformation into an organ....that's palenthologist faith not demonstrated whatsoever by genetics. Even National Geographic everytime they show their "official" and superficial themes (don't ask me to inform details about why) they admited they hired several artists to represent hominids based upon the fragments of fossils. All the designs were completely different! That's Hollywood technique, not science, mere speculation. You can't know the amount of hair, the color of the skin nor the hair in most of the cases. Usually the posture they imagined after some time it's discovered has been a fiasco during years cos it was imposible such posture.
Indeed, I would recommend to see the works of Rebeca Cann, an expert in genetic field who says all those fantastic millions of years about homind pseudo evolution really can be reduced to an African "Eve" between 180.000 and 20.000 years ago. Even choosing the older date, depends on the number of partners of that "Eve" analyzing mithocondria DNA. The analysis included research about time when men could've taken care of cattle, etc.
You can print whatever you want about your faith in evolution. I'll stand with Nobel prizes and experts in biology, genetic, mutation. In other words, real science.
Moral aspects of our existence belongs to philosophy theme.

[painted wolf]

No one ever said evolution was organized or eaven intelligent... its a random process where good and bad things happin.... most mutation occures in the genes...

lets list some happy acciedents in mutation....
in humans... the include mutations of genes that give the carriers extra defences against diseases such as..
mutation of the QQ or H7H7 genotype had a decreased risk heart attack/stroke as the genotypes are involved with the clotting of blood.
mutation of the Gbeta3-s has enhanced immune cell function in humans. a similer mutation among HIV positive women in North Africa has enabled them to not develop AIDS and to have children without passing HIV on to them.
a mutation of the lipid and lippoprotein production genes confers beneficial lipid and lipoprotein profiles amongst an adult male population with regard to risk of Coronary Artery Disease...
those are just some of the mutations in the human geneome and many more positive mutations occure in bacteria giving them such things as immunities to anti-bacterial agents, environmental agents et cet...

funny thing is that when bad mutations occure they are spectacularly bad.. when good mutations occure they arn't really noticed... and why should they be? They don't harm the person with the mutation so we don't look for it...

if there is no evolution and aliens did it well... then who genetically engineered the lions and the Wolves and birds and the frogs? and who genetically engineered the aliens that engineered us?

wa:-do

[painted wolf]

No one ever said evolution was organized or eaven intelligent... its a random process where good and bad things happin.... most mutation occures in the genes...

lets list some happy acciedents in mutation....
in humans... the include mutations of genes that give the carriers extra defences against diseases such as..
mutation of the QQ or H7H7 genotype had a decreased risk heart attack/stroke as the genotypes are involved with the clotting of blood.
mutation of the Gbeta3-s has enhanced immune cell function in humans. a similer mutation among HIV positive women in North Africa has enabled them to not develop AIDS and to have children without passing HIV on to them.
a mutation of the lipid and lippoprotein production genes confers beneficial lipid and lipoprotein profiles amongst an adult male population with regard to risk of Coronary Artery Disease...
those are just some of the mutations in the human geneome and many more positive mutations occure in bacteria giving them such things as immunities to anti-bacterial agents, environmental agents et cet...

funny thing is that when bad mutations occure they are spectacularly bad.. when good mutations occure they arn't really noticed... and why should they be? They don't harm the person with the mutation so we don't look for it...

if there is no evolution and aliens did it well... then who genetically engineered the lions and the Wolves and birds and the frogs? and who genetically engineered the aliens that engineered us?

wa:-do

[painted wolf]

as for fossils....

Who was Adam and Eve?
If they were the first humans then what about the neandertals? What about Homo erectus? What about all the other hominids? How do you explain them?

what about the origen of birds? Where did they come from?
Is Archeopteryx a bird or a dinosaur?
what about Confusicornis?
Sinosauropteryx?
Microrapor?
where do you draw the line? What is a bird?

wa:-do

[painted wolf]

as for fossils....

Who was Adam and Eve?
If they were the first humans then what about the neandertals? What about Homo erectus? What about all the other hominids? How do you explain them?

what about the origen of birds? Where did they come from?
Is Archeopteryx a bird or a dinosaur?
what about Confusicornis?
Sinosauropteryx?
Microrapor?
where do you draw the line? What is a bird?

wa:-do

[Death]

Archy is a dinobird, though people tend to refer to it as a bird. Though it has several features unique to reptiles, rather than birds.

Mutations are nto inherently bad to the organism, as you'll notice, influenza, the common cold and HIV change rapidly and we've had no luck wiping them out.

Other mutation success stories would be flavobacteria and MRSA, and soon VRSA, and certain forms of entereococci. All the above mutations have been observed in recent times, within living memory.

There was a common ancestor of hominids, i think that's the "eve" you're referring to, if you mean one actual animal that suddenly spawned all the different hominids at the same time, i think you've got a severely wrong end of the stick.

Evolution isn't a "random" process, mutation effectively is, but mutation is only half the story. The other half is selection, and that's no more random than water rolling downhill.

The information argument is bunk since noone's stringently defined what information is, if they mean matter, it has observed being added, if they mean functionality, it has also been observed being added. Spetner is also a creationist.

Google "nylon bug." That pretty much refutes the whole information argument against evolution.

[Death]

Archy is a dinobird, though people tend to refer to it as a bird. Though it has several features unique to reptiles, rather than birds.

Mutations are nto inherently bad to the organism, as you'll notice, influenza, the common cold and HIV change rapidly and we've had no luck wiping them out.

Other mutation success stories would be flavobacteria and MRSA, and soon VRSA, and certain forms of entereococci. All the above mutations have been observed in recent times, within living memory.

There was a common ancestor of hominids, i think that's the "eve" you're referring to, if you mean one actual animal that suddenly spawned all the different hominids at the same time, i think you've got a severely wrong end of the stick.

Evolution isn't a "random" process, mutation effectively is, but mutation is only half the story. The other half is selection, and that's no more random than water rolling downhill.

The information argument is bunk since noone's stringently defined what information is, if they mean matter, it has observed being added, if they mean functionality, it has also been observed being added. Spetner is also a creationist.

Google "nylon bug." That pretty much refutes the whole information argument against evolution.

[Ceridwen018]

Inca:

I have a couple of questions for you.

First of all, if evolution is ********, how did we get here? I mean really, there are no ancient fossils of modern man. If not from Cro-Magnon man and the like, where in the hell did we come from???

Secondly, to explain your fly vs. gamma ray analogy:
Did you ever think that if eyes on a fly's wings were particularly helpful to survival, they might not have gone away? We're not talking about immediate restructuring of DNA here. If the eyes proved to be a huge advancement for the flies, then eventually the ones who were not as predisposed to pass them on to their offspring, and that resulting offspring, would have dies, whereas the ones who were more susceptible to passing on the eyes, would have done so and the species would be changed. Eventually, only the flies who were the most predisposed to keepig and passing on the eyes would be left, and they would repopulate the species. In your situation, however, the eyes were not needed, and perhaps were even disruptive to survival. Because of the lack of need, it died out. Simple economics, really. Likewise, take the giraffe. At one time, the giraffe is thought to have been a realatively short creature. However, as food became scarce perhaps, only the tallest ones were able to reach the food, whereas the others died of starvation. The species kept growing and growing until it rechec the height that was appropriate for its chosen method of survival.

[Ceridwen018]

Inca:

I have a couple of questions for you.

First of all, if evolution is ********, how did we get here? I mean really, there are no ancient fossils of modern man. If not from Cro-Magnon man and the like, where in the hell did we come from???

Secondly, to explain your fly vs. gamma ray analogy:
Did you ever think that if eyes on a fly's wings were particularly helpful to survival, they might not have gone away? We're not talking about immediate restructuring of DNA here. If the eyes proved to be a huge advancement for the flies, then eventually the ones who were not as predisposed to pass them on to their offspring, and that resulting offspring, would have dies, whereas the ones who were more susceptible to passing on the eyes, would have done so and the species would be changed. Eventually, only the flies who were the most predisposed to keepig and passing on the eyes would be left, and they would repopulate the species. In your situation, however, the eyes were not needed, and perhaps were even disruptive to survival. Because of the lack of need, it died out. Simple economics, really. Likewise, take the giraffe. At one time, the giraffe is thought to have been a realatively short creature. However, as food became scarce perhaps, only the tallest ones were able to reach the food, whereas the others died of starvation. The species kept growing and growing until it rechec the height that was appropriate for its chosen method of survival.