• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Creationism vs Evolution

Meth.. still thinking evolution works by Lemarcks theory which it doesn't..

Google Lemarcks theory of evolution.. this is how you seem to evolution works.

It doesn't. You have no basic understanding of evolution yet you try and try to debunk it.. No wonder you fail at every hurdle (answer) and can't comprehend the evidence spoon fed to you.
 
lol Im not saying a fish morphed into a human.
Or we inherited anything from them.
We got a fish and a mammal with practically the same morphology.
We didnt evolve our teeth from Pacu.
So blind chance has to explain how it got to the same stucture. And how it dodged the fact nearly all mutations are non beneficial.
And a need doesnt help the organism.
I need superpowers (ie ability to fly), doesnt explain how I get them. No matter how dam bad I need them.

Its a hella incredible to believe a fish can evolve into a human in the first place.
I know you think this is no problem, but are u telling me you dont think it is a little "fishy" we find a current fish that is identical to a fish that is 400 million years old. (No not Pacu...remember Mr. Coelacanth)
Are you telling me dumb/deaf/blind chance changed one species of fish into a human but didnt do anything to the another species of fish for 400 million years?
I already know your answer-
I guess MR. C had sunscreen.

No wonder you have no problem with teeth.
Common design and common sense seems to come slow to you.
You fantasize that the homology of two species
negates convergence.
A bat or a rat or an ape
having similar homologous structures does nothing to explain how flight evolved.
(A wing and a hand kinda do different things, No?)
Led on begin to explain the convergent evolution of flight in insects, reptiles, and mammals.
Whenever a signature design feature pops up
you seem to excuse it by saying
"Oh, thats easy" , you use your imagination and add this add that as needed.
Well my friend it isnt quite that easy.
And you're lacking proof for that fairy tale.

Now allow me to digress and get back to the $64,000 question--
You've had ample amount of time to come up with a fantasy on how an extra set of complex teeth evolve so they can be later used to replace a set of baby complex teeth.
( I'm guessing you WILL NOT answer this last question, and will most likely attack my intelligence instead....
 
Last edited:
Metamorphosis: The Beauty & Design of Butterflies: http://youtu.be/AZk6nZGH9Xo

FLIGHT: The Genius of Birds - Embryonic developme…: http://youtu.be/-Ah-gT0hTto

I think after watching these two extremely short videos I have changed my mind and concede to randomness.
I dont know why I ever considered intelligent design.
A two year old could make a bird or a butterfly
Anyone care to walk this poor ole dumb hillbilly thru evolution as it pertains to the butterfly?
Did then catipillar decide it would like to fly one day and turned itself back into soup (common ancestor remember) so it could become a beatiful butterfly?
The very first butterfly was a brave little guy.
 
Last edited:
Metamorphosis is one thing that always blew my mind trying to work out how it evolved.. never bothered to look up.. will do now :p

Like I said before though, even if there is something in nature that scientists don't know the answer to how it evolved, it doesn't mean it didn't.. and it doesn't mean they wont.

Meth - Are you denying that throughout the fossil records, some species lived and died at different times than others?

Edit- After a quick think.. isn't metamorphosis just a really extreme version of pre to post puberty? (Just a thought)
 
If you really want the answer to the metamorphosis question you can pay for the most comprehensive study done on it..

Or just read this:

Biologists have not definitively determined how or why some insects began to hatch in a larval form, but Lynn Riddiford and James Truman, formerly of the University of Washington in Seattle, have constructed one of the most comprehensive theories. They point out that insects that mature through incomplete metamorphosis pass through a brief stage of life before becoming nymphs—the pro-nymphal stage, in which insects look and behave differently from their true nymphal forms. Some insects transition from pro-nymphs to nymphs while still in the egg; others remain pro-nymphs for anywhere from mere minutes to a few days after hatching.

Perhaps this pro-nymphal stage, Riddiford and Truman suggest, evolved into the larval stage of complete metamorphosis. Perhaps 280 million years ago, through a chance mutation, some pro-nymphs failed to absorb all the yolk in their eggs, leaving a precious resource unused. In response to this unfavorable situation, some pro-nymphs gained a new talent: the ability to actively feed, to slurp up the extra yolk, while still inside the egg. If such pro-nymphs emerged from their eggs before they reached the nymphal stage, they would have been able to continue feeding themselves in the outside world. Over the generations, these infant insects may have remained in a protracted pro-nymphal stage for longer and longer periods of time, growing wormier all the while and specializing in diets that differed from those of their adult selves—consuming fruits and leaves, rather than nectar or other smaller insects. Eventually these prepubescent pro-nymphs became full-fledged larvae that resembled modern caterpillars. In this way, the larval stage of complete metamorphosis corresponds to the pro-nymphal stage of incomplete metamorphosis. The pupal stage arose later as a kind of condensed nymphal phase that catapulted the wriggly larvae into their sexually active winged adult forms.

Some anatomical, hormonal and genetic evidence supports this evolutionary scenario. Anatomically, pro-nymphs have a fair amount in common with the larvas of insects that undergo complete metamorphosis: they both have soft bodies, lack scaly armor and possess immature nervous systems. A gene named broad is essential for the pupal stage of complete metamorphosis. If you knock out this gene, a caterpillar never forms a pupa and fails to become a butterfly. The same gene is important for molting during the nymphal stage of incomplete metamorphosis, corroborating the equivalence of nymph and pupa. Likewise, both pro-nymphs and larvae have high levels of juvenile hormone, which is known to suppress the development of adult features. In insects that undergo incomplete metamorphosis, levels of juvenile hormone dip before the pro-nymph molts into the nymph; in complete metamorphosis, however, juvenile hormone continues to flood the larva's body until just before it pupates. The evolution of incomplete metamorphosis into complete metamorphosis likely involved a genetic tweak that bathed the embryo in juvenile hormone sooner than usual and kept levels of the hormone high for an unusually long time.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry if you are looking for hard proof and undeniable evidence.. it's just not there for this one.. we can, however, use the knowledge and information we do have to form logical hypothesis and do all we can to study and either validate or debunk those claims.

Not that you would have paid any attention any evidence provided, just as you've ignored every other piece.

Edit - Sorry here's link to study http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v401/n6752/abs/401447a0.html
 
methamaniac said:
What about first butterfly?
Wouldnt he /she need a mate?
Click to expand...

It doesn't go old species gives birth to new species..

All offspring will be the same species as it's parents.. years down the line, though, and the great great great etc grandchildren will not be the same species..

Answer me - Are you denying that throughout the lifetime of life on earth, species have lived and then become extinct at different times?
 
Yes species have died.
My take for what it is worth,
We live in a fallen world.
Things used to be very different.
Dont ask me how the mechanics worked then because a butterfly today stumps me.
When you have a pirrana that eats vegetation alive today, anything is possible.
But im sure you want to know about "evolution"
today as I see it.
Things reproduce according to their kind.
The information they were created with is all they got to work with. And it has limitations.
A seemingly beneficial mutation may occur but always at a price. And these would be miscopies that hit the jackpot not the norm.
No, I cant imagine in a billion years how they could. And sorry their not making wings.
I just dont have a big enough imigination for that.
A species can loose information as well.
We're all falling apart and degrading.
Loss of information should be a prediction of that.
 
rickolasnice said:
It doesn't go old species gives birth to new
Click to expand...
Yeah but this is different.
At some point you got to have the first cocoon.
And when the butterfly comes out, what does it mate with?
Kinda like chicken and egg but squared

^I appreciate you posting that
but i just dont see it happening.
It would be infinitely harder than a tweak here
or tweak there.
Srry, its engineered.

Oh, did you see that bird fetus eyes in that video.
Looked like an alien lol
Its like looking at creatures from the deep ocean
see where people let their imiginations run wild
 
Last edited:
OK.. so do you accept that after some animals went extinct there were others to take it place?
 
Not in the sense you do.
If the kind survives it does at a price.
If you want to count loss of eyes or limbs as a good thing or new species, well you're free to do so.
 
Just some thoughts on reading through this...

Evolution and Creation are not in the same debate, unless the Creationist wants to claim God is constantly creating new forms. Creation is an EVENT, Evolution is a PROCESS. Evolution cannot even begin unless there is a goal-seeking entity.

Creationism isn't really a discussion point. Any possible counter can be dismissed with 'God did it' or 'That's how God wanted it' or 'God works in mysterious ways' and so on. Intelligent Design is interesting but merely moves the Origin question back a level - all the same questions then have to be asked about the 'Intelligence.' Aliens have the same issue - all the Q's then have to be re-asked about their origin.

Evolution is an OK idea but it's just an hypothesis. As it stands it isn't falsifiable so it doesn't count as theory. And the evidence is circumstantial so it isn't currently testable either. But it's got a lot of holes in it.

One that most people try to avoid is pure numbers. Evolution is presented as a Tree of Life, starting with one-celled organisms and branching out rapidly once multicellular life got started. So that would imply that most solutions to basic issues would have similar genes causing the solutions. i.e. the eye on a common ancestor of humans and insects would have a similar genetic makeup and it would be possible to see how the insect eye became the human eye.

Unfortunately for this, Craig Venter spent some months sailing around the world dipping a bucket into the ocean at regular intervals. Last I heard he had 29 MILLION genes in 50,000 gene families. To put that in perspective, the most complex creature on the planet (us :D) has 23,400 genes making up about 3% of our genome.

Those numbers do not support Evolution as it is presented. Nor do they support Creationism.

Dating is suspect. DNA dating relies on a regular 'tick' of mutation. There is zero evidence of such a regular tick. It depends on background radiation and/or chemical composition and we know for a fact those things change. A decent solar flare with CME will alter the background radiation. A decent volcano will alter the chemical environment. The presence of ELE's and the subsequent population explosions would tend to argue against the whole idea of a regular 'tick' at all.

The same argument kinda nukes carbon 14 dating as well - with no constant background C14 is pretty much useless as a measure, even after accounting for the 2 revisions of dates already done in the past 50 years or so.

Human evolution is just as problematic. Even the Out-of-Africa scenario is naive at best in the assumptions. e.g. imagine an earlier human race, spreading out (from almost anywhere really) across the planet, with a technology different to ours and a lifestyle not at all concerned with owning 'things' as the highest priority. They build huge monuments using techniques we don't have. They invent plants (look up the banana) and all kinds of things to benefit their people. They map coastlines and learn about the stars.

Then, about 70,000 years back, they get wiped out. Perhaps Toba - the timing seems about right and DNA (allowing for the inaccuracy mentioned above) tells us that somewhere back around that epoch the human race was reduced to less than 4,000 breeding pairs. The only survivors are in Africa. After a bit of a rough start they spread out around the world.

So it is quite feasible that we vastly pre-date the current version of modern man but also come from the Out-of-Africa migrations.

The Archaeology world is rife with corruption. Everyone need sfunding and the way to do it is headlines, so we have tiny bits of bone being claimed as the first human or the last ape ancestor and so on. A couple of sites in South America were making news because they showed Man was there earlier than thought in any modern theory. All was going well until the dates came back, at which point the consensus world swung into action, attacking the people involved. The problem was, the dates were TOO old - they showed 'modern' man (as in using tools only associated with much more recent Man) had been there 250,000 years ago.

Anything upsetting the status quo is covered up. Peer review is no longer an integrity check it is manipulated to make sure non-consensus views do not get published.

And as an interesting aside, there is an idea for this discussion that I have never seen discussed so I think it is my idea. Nobody seems to have considered Unintelligent Design as part of the process. :D
 
How do you account for the species we see alive today not being found very far back in the fossil records?
How do you account the slight differences between species, as in from the beginning to now? Say.. between the Trilophodon and Deinotherium and Mastadon and todays Elephant?
 
Journyman16 said:
Just some thoughts on reading through this...

Evolution and Creation are not in the same debate, unless the Creationist wants to claim God is constantly creating new forms. Creation is an EVENT, Evolution is a PROCESS. Evolution cannot even begin unless there is a goal-seeking entity.

Creationism isn't really a discussion point. Any possible counter can be dismissed with 'God did it' or 'That's how God wanted it' or 'God works in mysterious ways' and so on. Intelligent Design is interesting but merely moves the Origin question back a level - all the same questions then have to be asked about the 'Intelligence.' Aliens have the same issue - all the Q's then have to be re-asked about their origin.

Evolution is an OK idea but it's just an hypothesis. As it stands it isn't falsifiable so it doesn't count as theory. And the evidence is circumstantial so it isn't currently testable either. But it's got a lot of holes in it.

One that most people try to avoid is pure numbers. Evolution is presented as a Tree of Life, starting with one-celled organisms and branching out rapidly once multicellular life got started. So that would imply that most solutions to basic issues would have similar genes causing the solutions. i.e. the eye on a common ancestor of humans and insects would have a similar genetic makeup and it would be possible to see how the insect eye became the human eye.

Unfortunately for this, Craig Venter spent some months sailing around the world dipping a bucket into the ocean at regular intervals. Last I heard he had 29 MILLION genes in 50,000 gene families. To put that in perspective, the most complex creature on the planet (us :D) has 23,400 genes making up about 3% of our genome.

Those numbers do not support Evolution as it is presented. Nor do they support Creationism.

Dating is suspect. DNA dating relies on a regular 'tick' of mutation. There is zero evidence of such a regular tick. It depends on background radiation and/or chemical composition and we know for a fact those things change. A decent solar flare with CME will alter the background radiation. A decent volcano will alter the chemical environment. The presence of ELE's and the subsequent population explosions would tend to argue against the whole idea of a regular 'tick' at all.

The same argument kinda nukes carbon 14 dating as well - with no constant background C14 is pretty much useless as a measure, even after accounting for the 2 revisions of dates already done in the past 50 years or so.

Human evolution is just as problematic. Even the Out-of-Africa scenario is naive at best in the assumptions. e.g. imagine an earlier human race, spreading out (from almost anywhere really) across the planet, with a technology different to ours and a lifestyle not at all concerned with owning 'things' as the highest priority. They build huge monuments using techniques we don't have. They invent plants (look up the banana) and all kinds of things to benefit their people. They map coastlines and learn about the stars.

Then, about 70,000 years back, they get wiped out. Perhaps Toba - the timing seems about right and DNA (allowing for the inaccuracy mentioned above) tells us that somewhere back around that epoch the human race was reduced to less than 4,000 breeding pairs. The only survivors are in Africa. After a bit of a rough start they spread out around the world.

So it is quite feasible that we vastly pre-date the current version of modern man but also come from the Out-of-Africa migrations.

The Archaeology world is rife with corruption. Everyone need sfunding and the way to do it is headlines, so we have tiny bits of bone being claimed as the first human or the last ape ancestor and so on. A couple of sites in South America were making news because they showed Man was there earlier than thought in any modern theory. All was going well until the dates came back, at which point the consensus world swung into action, attacking the people involved. The problem was, the dates were TOO old - they showed 'modern' man (as in using tools only associated with much more recent Man) had been there 250,000 years ago.

Anything upsetting the status quo is covered up. Peer review is no longer an integrity check it is manipulated to make sure non-consensus views do not get published.

And as an interesting aside, there is an idea for this discussion that I have never seen discussed so I think it is my idea. Nobody seems to have considered Unintelligent Design as part of the process. :D
Click to expand...

The theory of Evolution, I'm afraid, is a theory.

You seem to be confused my dear.. Human eyes did not evolve from insect eyes..

I'm not sure what you're even trying to imply with the numbers bit.. so there are lots of genes? Are you suggesting that because we are the "highest" life form on earth we are somehow the end results of all evolution? That every other animal should be made up from genes present in us?

You are right that the tick of decay can change.. but it's not by much..

People cling to this Carbon dating can't date back far enough yadayah.. that's not the only method available.. and it's a bit more complicated than what you're making out.

Not sure what you're trying to say about estimated date of modern human, either..

Why would science want to cover up the age of man? That isn't how science works, my friend.
 
Some great points.
Flawed dating methods make determing the age of the universe very suspect.
Man being so young and zero (sorry evos)
Trans fossils with ape kills man from ape theory.
Glad you mentioned probabilities.
Probabilities of life forming on its own are astronomical.
Unintelligent design? Dont want to knock you but whoever made code for butterfly, aint unintelligent.
And you dont need an "explanation of the explanation" ( W. L.Craig) for it to be most plausible scenario.
If u found a space saucer on moon, you know it was intelligently dessigned.
Im not claiming intelligent design proves my religion. Just that we were intelligently designed. Evos (most) wont make the same claim, so burden of proof lies with them.
I've always said God chooses to remain unseen for now, but he gives huge winks and nods.

"Probe 7, over and out"
:)
 
You talkin' to ME? rickolasnice :D

Elephants are not direct descendants of Mastodon so maybe you are talking convergent evolution?

You need to keep in mind that species is ONLY a human term. Nature has no such thing. There is nothing in what I said to disallow evolution OF a species so having descendants that look different is no different to what happened to the Galapagos finches - which was NOT Evolution but adaptation.

Unintelligent Design allows for fairly significant changes and also gets rid of logical problems arising from Evolution as it is preached. e.g. the Owl butterfly where the folded wing shape clearly resembles a reptile head and the eye spot is placed to enahnce the effect. That reptile just happens to be the predator of the bird that likes to eat owl butterflies.

The problem is, the 'eye' has to develop all at once. It can't be a dark spot that slowly becomes an eye simply because the dark spot would breach the normal camo of the butterfly - any butterfly with a dark spot would tend to live a very much shorter life, thus removing the genes from the butterfly gene pool. Some of them even have the markings of the mouth around the edge of the wing.

Unintelligent Design is not just a spur-of-the-moment thing, it is an holistic explanation I 'evolved' (I like puns) over some years and it reaaches into very recent research in biology and include epigenetics.

A comment above about Lamarck is factually incorrect. Lamarck's ideas have recently been proven correct - environment CAN and DOES affect heredity. The grandmother research proves it and epigenetics gives the mechanism.

Most Evolutionists look at DNA as the be-all and end-all of heredity and see it as some kind of brain of the cell. Nothing could be further from biology. DNA is a blueprint and that's all. It gets read when needed and outside environment can choose which parts to read and even how the parts get interpreted.

There's also a basic issue to do with mutation itself. DNA is made of A-T-G-C base pairs. A can only pair with T and G can only pair with C. For a mutation to create a new gene, it has to affect BOTH parts of the pair simultaneously or it simply breaks the bond and the error gets repaired before reproduction. So one has to ask, just how do mutations cause viable changes in a species if A. it is highly probable the result will be a transcription error (at best) and B. if it's in a reproductive cell, the error will get repaired anyway?
 
:D It may not be how Science is MEANT to work but that's how it happens. Max Planck stated, "Physics advances one funeral at a time" and once the politicians get involved, not even then. (last part is mine, not Max's :D)

A Scientist will 'cover up' anything that does not agree with his thesis. As a group they will cover up anything that might affect funding and/or tenure.

The point about human eyes is an example. What I am saying is, if Evolution's Tree of Life has any validity, then solutions will only be found ONCE. Because once they have been found, implemented and proved advantageous, there is no need to invent it again - any further developments will come as variations on the theme. 29.000.000 genes suggests the model is really a paddock of bushes, not a tree.

The radiation problem also dogs uranium fluorescence and other dating methods. And I know the limits of C14 - I wasn't suggesting it has anything to do with fossils, just pointing out the same assumptions are made for it as for DNA.
 
^
Have you listened to DR. Dennis Noble
lecture on physiology and neo-darwisim?
You're Lamarck comment makes me think your up to date on subject.
Eyes are a convergence nightmare
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top