Laboratory experiments to demonstrate evolution have failed.** Once again, Brock, you’re relying on strawman caricatures created by creationists. Lab experiments HAVE demonstrated evolution. There is more than one example, but I will cite only one here in the interest of conserving space. Coloniality in Chlorella vulgaris Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella. Here is an example of a SINGLE CELL ORGANISM changing into a MULTICELLULAR ORGANISM. This is NOT variation within a species. And this was NOT artificial selection. It wasn’t even an evolution experiment. This experiment became an example of natural selection through a pure accident. Here’s the abstract for the study: Predation was a powerful selective force promoting increased morphological complexity in a unicellular prey held in constant environmental conditions. The green alga, Chlorella vulgaris, is a well-studied eukaryote, which has retained its normal unicellular form in cultures in our laboratories for thousands of generations. For the experiments reported here, steady-state unicellular C. vulgaris continuous cultures were inoculated with the predator Ochromonas vallescia, a phagotrophic flagellated protist (“flagellate”). Within less than 100 generations of the prey, a multicellular Chlorella growth form became dominant in the culture (subsequently repeated in other cultures). The prey Chlorella first formed globose clusters of tens to hundreds of cells. After about 10-20 generations in the presence of the phagotroph, eight-celled colonies predominated. These colonies retained the eight-celled form indefinitely in continuous culture and when plated onto agar. These self-replicating, stable colonies were virtually immune to predation by the flagellate, but small enough that each Chlorella cell was exposed directly to the nutrient medium. This is natural selection in action. The introduction of the predator caused the bacteria to evolve from unicellular to multicellular, then giving them protection from predation.
All scientific data can be interpreted just as well or better in support of creation.**** Show us why, Brock. creation facts outway the theories of evolution.* Creation facts? I’ve already shown you were incorrect on some of your assertions (no transitional fossils, inaccuracy of radiometric dating techniques, major changes not observed in the lab)
You took the words outta my mouth. Most evolutionists I know absolutely refuse to discuss creation v evolution on an objective, science-based look at the evidence. Kinda backwards, coming form the “scientists”. They simply refuse to accept scientific evidence supporting creation. Show us this evidence, Poman. Creationism is NOT a science. It is purely a religious viewpoint. Science involves testable hypotheses. Creationism has no testable hypotheses. Science involves collection of data from the natural world and the formation of a model to explain those observations. Creationism involves no data collection. Scientific theories involve only the natural world. Creationism involves a supernatural explanation and thus is not a science. If anyone has interest, there are some wonderful books on the subject; Darwin’s Black Box by Michael Behe, a biochemist from Penn State, excellent book, Behe’s book and his “irreducible complexity” argument is nothing more than one big argument from incredulity. Basically, Behe is saying, “I can’t possibly imagine how this could have happened by natural causes, therefore Goddidit.” That is hardly what I would call scientific.
Philip Johnson, a law professor from Stanford, has several good books, coming from a creationists viewpoint though; Defeating Darwinism, and Darwin on Trial** And in “Darwin on Trial”, Philip Johnson demonstrates why he should stick with law and stay away from biology. Johnson’s criticisms of evolution are due to a complete misunderstanding of it and an obvious lack of knowledge on his part. For example, he tries to claim that there are no transitional fossils in the fossil record, yet there are numerous examples of transitional fossils, only a fraction of which I listed in my reply to Brock. Second, Johnson makes huge mistakes in his book. He claims that archaeopteryx is mostly bird when it’s not. He claims that most mutations are harmful which they’re not (most are neutral). He makes flat out wrong statements about evolutionary biology. For example, “Darwinists do not in principle deny the fundamental discontinuity of the living world, but they explain it as being due to the extinction of vast numbers of intermediates that once linked the discrete groups to their remote common ancestors” (p. 87). Johnson is completely wrong about this. The discontinuity of modern groups is not something embarrassing to “Darwinists” which they are trying to deny. Discontinuity exists, and it exists because of the process of speciation, which produces reproductively isolated groups of organisms through a number of well-understood processes of heredity. The hierarchy of taxa produced by evolution would be discrete regardless of whether we had examples of every intermediate species. It is just how we expect evolution to work, but Johnson does not understand this.
I could debate with you all day long I respect your view but I have to “strongly” disagree. Ill let the people make there own assumption heres a couple of sites where you will find the facts:
http://emporium.turnpike.net /C/cs/index.htm
Честный рейтинг лучших онлайн казино в России 2021, топ 10 на реальные деньги /01-ma1.htm
Brock I don’t think you gave me any facts, just opinions. It’s interesting you should mention the fish, because the fossil record has recently shown what may very well be the missing link from water to land. I happen to watch Nova a few weeks back and the program was actually titled The Missing Link. I don’t recall the name of said link but the evidence was very convincing. Perhaps you are familiar with “Lucy” our 3 million year old ancestor. Well again recently in Africa a fossil jaw and leg bone of a 6 million year old hominid was discovered. He/she is called “Millenium Man” and through extensive testing is now believed to be the line from which we evolved. It is now thought that the Lucy line died out. Today I read that astronomers have seen light form 300,000 years after the Big Bang. Getting very close to the beginning. What’s my point? We have solid physical evidence of evolution but none of creation. Professor X’s question of who created god is very valid and poses quite a quandry for believers, a veritable Catch 22. I will certainly have a look at the books Poman has mentioned. I’m not quit sure why a Law Professor is questioning Darwin. Not his area of expertise. The titles do sound very biased alright. Putting a dead man on trial, hardly fair.
Wheres your evidence crushing everything I say? Give me sites and ill give them back. This is typical of evolutionists to ask where did our creator come from. Well the only answer is he has always been. We find creation in animals. ------- Take the bombardier beetle for instance. They call it the fire-breathing dragon. It shoots and sprays these chemicals that are heated up to 212 degrees, a temperature hotter than boiling water. This little beetle was studied, and it was discovered that the beetle has two chemicals stored in its body, hydrogen peroxide dissolved in water, and hydroquinine. If you mixed the two chemicals, the peroxide would oxidize the hydroquinine. But the beetle adds an inhibitor to stop the hydrogen from oxidizing the hydroquinine. The chemicals and the the enzymes mix and produce another chemical, quinine, which smells bad. He holds these chemicals in storage chambers which he has in his body. When an enemy such as our bullfrog comes along looking for a lunch, the beetle squirts the chemical’s into combustion chambers, adding two enzymes which act as “anti-inhibitor’s.” The chemicals and the the enzymes mix and produce another chemical, quinine, which smells bad. This all happens at a extremely fast rate, fast enough to heat the chemicals to 212º F, and generating a lot of pressure. Finally, when there’s enough pressure, the bombardier beetle opens the valves which he has at the end of his combustion tube, and KA-BOOM. Good-bye predator. OK, Now lets say that the bombardier beetle for some reason decides to wait until it has everything to work the system, but wait, it would never get that far. Why? Because according to the theory of evolution creations evolve from genetic mistakes, and if the mistake happens to be good, then natural selection eliminates the animal that it descended from and it stays. But, if the mutation is bad, or doesn’t matter, then the mutated beetle just dies out, along with any future descendants. Now, since the bombardier beetle can’t use it’s “cannon” until everything is evolved, then it won’t have any advantage over its predecessors for quite a while, so the bombardier beetle would die out before it could evolve his"cannon" enough to use. ---------
Many of you have probably heard the expression “blind as a bat.” This isn’t true. They are not blind, but since they hunt at night, their vision isn’t much use. Yet, you’ll never see a bat run into a wall, a post, or any other object. How can they do that when they’re “blind?” I’ll tell you. A bat has an amazing ability. It can see with its ears. It’s called echo-location. A bat emits high-frequency sounds out of its mouth or nostrils. The sound then knocks off any object and is reflected back to the bat, which then “picks up” the sound with its ears. The sound is then translated by the brain into images, and the bat knows if what’s in front of him is food or something else. Can scientists explain how this amazing mechanism evolves? No. Like the Bombardier beetle, the bat has no advantage over its predecessor unless the whole system worked, so the mutated mistake would die out before it had the chance to evolve the whole system. No way to evolve here.
Both of you stop arguing cause it will take all day. I personally agree with Brock and think hes right on the mark with is facts about creation. Oh well though this could go on for the rest of your lives if you keep typing!!!
I’m all with Symphony X because he gives us facts, not suppositions based on superstitions.
This is typical of evolutionists to ask where did our creator come from. Well the only answer is he has always been.* First, if your creator has “always been”, then why couldn’t have the universe “always been”? Second, you fail to see how you contradict yourself. Earlier, you argued that it’s impossible for complex things to come into existence…they must be designed. Well, if this is true, your creator must be infinitely more complex than the universe or anything here on earth…which means your creator must also be designed. Yet you have no problem with it always existing. You have a serious problem with a complex universe always existing, yet you have no problem whatsoever with a creator (one that must be even more complex than the universe) always existing. This is a contradiction in your rationale.
Brock, the Bombardier beetle argument, often set forth by creationists, is nothing but another strawman. “Irreducibly complex” systems, including the Bombardier beetle, can arise by cumulative selection over extremely long periods of time. The following scenario is a possible stepwise evolution of this system: 1. Quinones are produced by epidermal cells for tanning the cuticle. This exists commonly in arthropods. 2. Some of the quinones don’t get used up, but sit on the epidermis, making the arthropod distasteful (Quinones are used as defensive secretions in a variety of modern arthropods). 3. Small invaginations develop in the epidermis between sclerites (plates of cuticle). By wiggling, the insect can squeeze more quinones onto its surface when they’re needed. 4. The invaginations deepen. Muscles are moved around slightly, allowing them to help expel the quinones from some of them. Many ants have glands similar to this near the end of their abdomen. 5. A couple invaginations (now reservoirs) become so deep that the others are inconsequential by comparison. Those gradually revert to the original epidermis. 6. In various insects, different defensive chemicals besides quinones appear. (See Eisner, 1970, for a review.) This helps those insects defend against predators which have evolved resistance to quinones. One of the new defensive chemicals is hydroquinone. 7. Cells that secrete the hydroquinones develop in multiple layers over part of the reservoir, allowing more hydroquinones to be produced. Channels between cells allow hydroquinones from all layers to reach the reservior. 8. The channels become a duct, specialized for transporting the chemicals. The secretory cells withdraw from the reservoir surface, ultimately becoming a separate organ.
This stage – secretory glands connected by ducts to reservoirs – exists in many beetles. The particular configuration of glands and reservoirs that bombardier beetles have is common to the other beetles in their suborder. 9. Muscles adapt which close off the reservior, thus preventing the chemicals from leaking out when they’re not needed 10. Hydrogen peroxide, which is a common by-product of cellular metabolism, becomes mixed with the hydroquinones. The two react slowly, so a mixture of quinones and hydroquinones get used for defense. 11. Cells secreting a small amount of catalases and peroxidases appear along the output passage of the reservoir, outside the valve which closes it off from the outside. These ensure that more quinones appear in the defensive secretions. Catalases exist in almost all cells, and peroxidases are also common in plants, animals, and bacteria, so those chemicals needn’t be developed from scratch but merely concentrated in one location. 12. More catalases and peroxidases are produced, so the discharge is warmer and is expelled faster by the oxygen generated by the reaction. 13. The walls of that part of the output passage become firmer, allowing them to better withstand the heat and pressure generated by the reaction. 14. Still more catalases and peroxidases are produced, and the walls toughen and shape into a reaction chamber. Gradually they become the mechanism of today’s bombardier beetles. 15. The tip of the beetle’s abdomen becomes somewhat elongated and more flexible, allowing the beetle to aim its discharge in various directions. Note that all of the steps above are small or can easily be broken down into smaller steps. The bombardier beetles’ mechanism can come about solely by accumulated microevolution. Furthermore, all of the steps are probably advantageous, so they would be selected. No improbable events are needed. As noted, several of the intermediate stages are known to be viable by the fact that they exist in living populations. The scenario above is hypothetical; the actual evolution of bombardier beetles probably did not happen exactly like that. The steps are presented sequentially for clarity, but they needn’t have occurred in exactly the order given. For example, the muscles closing off the reservior (step 9) could have occurred simultaneously with any of steps 6-10. Determining the actual sequence of development would require a great deal more research into the genetics, comparative anatomy, and paleontology of beetles. The scenario does show, however, that the evolution of a complex structure is far from impossible. Many people will still have trouble imagining how complexity could arise gradually. However, complexity in other forms arises in nature all the time; clouds, cave formations, and frost crystals are just a few examples. Most important, nature is not constrained by any person’s lack of imagination.
Only a Designer could have made other animals to pursue and prey upon creatures he’d designed not to be eaten (as in the case of the Great Horned Owl which preys upon the Canadian porcupine). All in all, this doesn’t look like “design,” it looks like “The Designer” is really “a committee” with different members designing different ways to foil the other’s designs. Or maybe the Designer is into “spectator sports” of a gross nature on a grand scale. - Ed Babinski
Once again, Brock, do some searching before claiming that science has not answered these questions. Regarding echolocation, science has developed models for the evolution of bat echolocation based on morphological and molecular data. For an actual scientific research paper on the evolution of bat echolocation, go see the paper entitled “Integrated fossil and molecular data reconstruct bat echolocation” by Springer et. al. published in 2001 in the Proceeds of the National Academy of Sciences. This journal article can be found at http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/11/6241
Wheres your evidence crushing everything I say? Brock, I already showed you a LONG list of transitional fossils from reptile to mammal, negating your comment that there are no transitional fossils. I negated your comment about the errors of radioactive dating because the error rate (+/-2%) is too small to be of significance. I negated your comment that macroevolution has not been demonstrated in the lab by showing you an example of the transformation of a single cell organism to multicellular organism by the introduction of a predator. I negated your comments that the Bombardier beetle and bat echolocation could not be developed through cumulative selection by giving a specific hypothetical example for the beetle and referencing a scientific paper for the bats. Any other creationist myths you would like to have demolished?
WOW, you know your shit man. I also referred to you as Professor X by mistake. My apologies.
You blew it man. First you say creation happened, evolution didn’t. Then it’s, God created evolution but not the evoluton that’s generally accepted. You can’t have it both ways. I thought God created us in his image? Does that mean God was hairy ape like creature or a single cell creature or something else? Yet you still give none of these creation facts, only refer us to some website. Symphony X blows you out of the water with numerous facts and you counter with an interesting tidbit about a beatle and bats that is somehow proof of creation. We may have heard of blind as a bat? You’re joking right? Grade schoolers know bats aren’t blind, c’mon man, that is really lame. Even if science was not able to explain an evolutionary development that does not mean God created it. A teacher asks two students to solve a problem. One student gives an answer and it is wrong. Does that automatically mean the other student have the correct answer? How about the Shroud of Turin? When the Vatican finally released a sample for dating, it was shown to be only about 1000yrs old. Of course that was quickly denounced as inaccurate. So much talk so little fact. I have no doubt that someday will know the whole evolutionary path. Yet there will never be any solid evidence or fact of a Gods existence other than that which is manufactured.
Some ask who created God. I ask how matter came to exist in a void to eventually expand across what we call the universe. It seems like the big bang theory only packages everything up in a nice dense ball of matter that at some point exploded and is possibly contracting or will contract. I want to know how the matter came to exist. I want to know how the energy composing the matter came to exist. Which is easier to believe? The eternal matter that has always and will always exist in a void? Or, The Creator that has always existed? For me, I believe their is a creator. Has science thrown up its hands by saying that this matter just happened to show up out of nothing? I mean nothing literally. A complete vacuum, a void. Or does it now claim that the matter of the Universe has always existed? If so, it seems like a cop out. It seems eerie that that there just happened to be this ball of matter floating in a vacuum which at some point just up and exploded. How did it get there? Why did it change? Did it take shape out of nothing? And why is the grass always greener on the other side?
Latest data indicates that the expansion of the universe is actually increasing. Science does not have all the answers, yet. The difference being that questions continue to asked and answers sought. Contrary to what you may think the goal of science and the study of evolution, is just that. It is not to prove that God does not exist. It just happens that the evidence and facts uncovered so far do not point in the direction of a God. You speak of that as a cop out and a neat tidy ball. Well what would you call your belief the, “God created everything, end of story” scenario? Unlike believers science never claimed to have all the answers. If humans had always been content to accept things as they are/were and not look to move to greener pastures we would likely still be living in caves.
I think you missed my point. Science already says that matter can not come out of nothingness. So how did matter come to be in a vaccuum?
Actually, Wowser, something comes from nothing all of the time. From Keith Harwood: You have a piece of empty space. Suddenly, out of nowhere, with nothing causing it, an electron and a positron will appear. They will wander around for a little while and then come together and annihilate each other. Or perhaps they will annihilate some other electron or positron that has just popped out of nowhere. Or perhaps the positron will annihilate some electron that was being used for something important, like holding two atoms together or transmitting an electrical signal and the effect becomes noticable. If this wasn’t happening, the computer you are using wouldn’t work. It’s not only something that can be observed in the laboratory, it’s something that multi-billion dollar industries rely on.