Evolution & Mutation in front of our eyes

Whoa, whoa, whoa... Fatal... you're reading that, aren't you?

His evidence says THIS:

but is now considered an ancient ape that lived near the fork in our common lineage

Fork in our common lineage... Hmmm. Evolution states that all species came from a common ancestor (hence the name The Origin of Species). So you're using evidence of evolution to discredit it?

Let me requote that again. "now considered an ancient ape that lived near the fork in our common lineage""Although the identity of H. haroldcookii never achieved general acceptance in the scientific community, and although the species was retracted within five years of its discovery, this episode has been seized upon by the creationist movement as an example of the scientific errors which they allege undermines the credibility of palaeontology and hominid evolution."

As shown here.

We never accepted that find as true. It was also completely retracted. However you fundies still try to use this as evidence against evolution, all while you turn to your man tracks, figurines, glyphs and other stuff which have been proven to be hoaxes (even by me in this thread!), and call them "evidence", throwing away whatever evidence is shown to discredit them as "the vast evolutionist conspiracy".



We can talk about "petraglyphs", "man tracks", "dino-mammoth cave carvings", "mexican figurines", "false dino DNA", etc etc etc. too!

Here's the trick.

The evidence shown to be false is false, and looked upon by the scientific community as such. Your monkey trial tooth is proof of this. However you creationists won't let it go. The donkey skull, proven to be false back in the EIGHTIES, and looked upon by the scientific community as false, is another thing you guys won't let go of. Hell, the tooth is from the 1920's.

So... what about the evidence you cannot dispute? The relative age of dinos, the proof that we were using tools two and a half million years ago, billion year old fossils, so on and so forth.

You speak of the fossil record as your best evidence against evolution. Let me show you how it is the best weapon FOR it.

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Care to dispute any of that?

Due to an almost-complete fossil record found in North American sedimentary deposits from the early Eocene to the present, the horse provides one of the best examples of evolutionary history (phylogeny).

Why do you guys latch on to things we've already thrown away?

The answer... relatively simple. It's called grasping for straws. Are these old issues the only things you can use? Because if old things are the only weapons in your armory... then how about these (dusting some good ones off).

Didn't you Christians believe the Earth was the dead center of the universe and that the Sun revolved around it? (also known as the Geocentric system)

Didn't you Christians believe that dinosaurs were fake and put here to "test our faith"?

Show me God. Prove his existence. Right now.

Oh yes, according to believers in Evolution there is suppose to be gradual change, yet that change should be dramatically abundant in the fossil record.
Because if the earth were as some believe hundreds of millions of years old or older, we should be able to look back in time and see that dramatic change as it had occured. And I have done my home work, and I can tell you, not only is there no sign of evolution leading up to the complex invertebrates, but the number of transitionals that need to of existed to bridge the gap between invertebrates and vertebrates are missing also. The fossil record does not leave a single shred of evidence for this enormous transformation.

This problem has been exacerbated by recent finds in China of highly advanced and extremely well preserved vertebrate life forms in the lower Cambrian strata. These fossils have collapsed the available time for the invertebrate to vertebrate transformation by at least 50 million years, to between 2 to 3 million years! This latest find has prompted two leading Chinese scientists to bluntly admit, that these fossils roundly contradict the Theory of Evolution.

It is Evolutions own supporters that are now coming out in greater numbers and debunking the Theory of Evolution.

(The lack of fossils intermediate between invertebrate and verebrate is well documented in the scientific literature)
Carl Zimmer in Science magazine recently wrote: "But the record provides few clues to help resolve this contradiction, because there are no animal fossils that old (AND NO EXAMPLES OF AN INTERMEDIATE SPECIES.)

You can't just point your finger at Bible believers anymore, it's your own believers of Evolution that are coming forward and chipping away at the fragile Theory of Evolution.

Despite the fact that 95% of scientists (experts in the field) overwhelmingly accept evolution, you will still dig your heels in deep and DENY DENY DENY, with all of your will, you have yet to provide any valid evidence against evolution!

who are you to contradict the experts? and unless you provide any valid evidence agaisnt evolution i consider this argument over!

I'm not impressed with numbers of believers in evolution, I'm impressed with facts. You tried to impress me with horse evolution. Yet one of your own is now telling us much of that is based on speculation. (No science, speculation.) (Yet you come here telling me this is real science.)
And when you start to go down Evolutions winding and twisting road, many of the believers will be shocked when they discover just how much of Evolution is based on speculation. The reason I'm digging in my heels is because I can see how much of this Theory is based on falsehoods. Common names that have been accepted for years in the Theory of Evolution are nothing but Fantasy. You have National Geographic being criticized by your own believers in Evolution for printing nothing but propaganda dressed up as truth. They have been pushing walking whales, and phony man made bird fossils as if these things were real. I see the phony evidence that has been pushed in the past, and it is still being pushed today. Where is you objectivity?

- A Whale Fantasy from National Geographic -

1) you still haven't provided any evidence!

2) Who are you to question the experts?

3) we have skelatons of whale-like animals with legs not just one or two but literally hundreds!

4) the site you gave is not a credible source it has no credientials in science and is "Firmly guided by the christian worldview"

5) Studies show with incresing education there is also increasing acceptance of evolution

6) you have yet to prove any evolution falsehood, you only shout your oppinion

1) you still haven't provided any evidence!

2) Who are you to question the experts?

3) we have skelatons of whale-like animals with legs not just one or two but literally hundreds!

4) the site you gave is not a credible source it has no credientials in science and is "Firmly guided by the christian worldview"

5) Studies show with incresing education there is also increasing acceptance of evolution

6) you have yet to prove any evolution falsehood, you only shout your oppinion

If you don't mind me butting in I would like to share my opinion. Science has become institutionalized, it is paired up with capitalism and has an agenda. Since it is set on expanding, accumulating as much scientific "knowledge" as possible, which is in the interests of a capitalist society, who by the way recently started considering scientific knowledge as a valuable partner since it naturally increases industrial capacity, and reduces labor costs. I don't trust for that reason the opinion of the scientific "community", there is to much pressure for them to push forward, and break new barriers. Entire countries invest in scientific research, it would cost too many people too much time and money to adjust the immense amount of theories based on the currently accepted neo-Darwinism proposed by many independent scientists in the 1930-40's. That is what validates the evolutionist argument, it was submitted to the scientific method, which is impeccable in my opinion, and also by scientists from different parts of the world, don't forget that globalization is recent so there is no chance of them all having the same agenda. In my opinion you need to hold out on judging what is actually happening until you have a personal experience which enlightens you in this matter. It is not an unreasonable approach considering that neither side can claim complete eternal certainty. Though extra points to the scientific community which at least admits the possibility of it being wrong. After writing all of this I realised that you are not getting across to each other because both are using general terms, while it takes a personal experience, or example to truly convince anyone of anything. Try to relate to each other, cold hard evidence works for some people, but others need an acceptable context which they can compare to their own lives.

Umm, what studies? And if there were any real studies where is your evidence for them?

Now I did find where in Nature, Stewart and Randall V. Collura explained how human DNA (COULD HAVE CONFOUNDED) Woodward's analysis. Is that the evidence you are speaking of. Because an opinion really does not count as a study or evidence.

And in Science Daily, dated April 12, 2007 It states that scientist have confirmed the existence of protein in soft tissue recovered from the fossil bones of a 68 million year old Tyrannosaurus.

This discovery is yet one more link in the chain that disproves the ancient ages presented by the evolutionary theory. THE LINKS IN THIS CHAIN ARE SOLID SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, THE CHAIN IS GROWING LONGER WITH EACH PASSING DAY. The problem is that scientists have pledged their allegiance to the evolutionary theory are unwilling to accept that soft tissue or permineralized (unfossilized) dinosaur bones could exist.

Scientist are asking, "How can this protein be so fresh when it is contained is such old bones?" We should consider the possibility that they will never find the answer because THEY MIGHT BE ASKING THE WRONG QUESTION?"
Maybe they should ask, "How can these bones be so old, when they contain such fresh protein?"

I'm not here to supply evidence for Evolution, (that's your job,) I'm here to tell you there is no evidence for Evolution. And I'm not questioning your experts, I'm quoteing them. Your arguement is not with me, it's with your experts. You say we have hundreds of skeltons showing whale Evolution.
Well according to one of your own, who is an evolutionary whale expert E.J. Slijper. He states.

"We do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals and the whales."

The lowest whale fossils in the fossil record show they were completely aquatic from the first time they appeared. WHERE IS YOUR PROOF, WHERE ARE THOSE TRANSITIONALS? Your belief in Whale Evolution is based on blind faith. NO SCIENCE. NO PROOF.

Recent discoveries of fossil whales provide the evidence that will convince an honest skeptic.

Stewart and Collura's data confirm findings published in the May 26 Science. Hans Zischler of the University of Munich in Germany had identified pieces of the cytochrome b gene in the human nuclear genome and suggested that these nuclear inserts had contaminated Woodward's analyses of the dinosaur bone.

They confirmed the findings. They confirmed that it was contaminated.

Oh. Another thing. Soft tissue and proteins =! DNA.

I don't know why you hang on to the tissue argument... it's already pointed towards evolution.



The dinosaur tissue is continuously providing evidence towards evolution.

Dinosaur Soft Tissue Sequenced; Similar to Chicken Proteins

Dinosaur tissue confirms links with the ostrich - Science - www.theage.com.au

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/02/science/02cnd-dino.html

Dinosaurs Breathed Like Birds | LiveScience

They're fully willing to accept what they see. It merely changes what they had previously thought. Things change in the world of science. Now, are you able to change your beliefs based on the SAME evidence you use in an argument? The soft tissue keeps confirming what we say.



The bones are dated. They are dated by several different groups. When those groups come up with the same number, we usually go with that. Nobody's debating the age of the bones... nobody.

Well... except you.

How do you convince a creationist that a fossil is a transitional fossil? Give up? It is a trick question. You cannot do it. There is no convincing someone who has his mind made up already. But sometimes, it is even worse. Sometimes, when you point out a fossil that falls into the middle of a gap and is a superb morphological and chronological intermediate, you are met with the response: "Well, now you have two gaps where you only had one before! You are losing ground!"

One of the favorite anti-evolutionist challenges to the existence of transitional fossils is the supposed lack of transitional forms in the evolution of the whales. Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) regularly trots out the "bossie-to-blowhole" transition to ridicule the idea that whales could have evolved from terrestrial, hooved ancestors.





Of course, for many years the fossil record for the whales was quite spotty, but now there are numerous transitional forms that illustrate the pathway of whale evolution.

Recent discoveries of fossil whales provide the evidence that will convince an honest skeptic. However, evolutionary biology predicts more than just the existence of fossil ancestors with certain characteristics - it also predicts that all other biological disciplines should also reveals patterns of similarity among whales, their ancestors, and other mammals correlated with evolutionary relatedness between groups. It should be no surprise that this is what we find, and since the findings in one biological discipline, say biochemistry, is derived without reference to the findings in another, say comparative anatomy, scientists consider these different fields to provide independent evidence of the evolution of whales. As expected, these independent lines of evidence all confirm the pattern of whale evolution that we would anticipate in the fossil record.

And the way they date those bones, they would get more accurate results if they played spin the bottle. Cabon 14 is giving them the right date, but they preconcived belief is that the bones are millions of years old so they go with the tests that tell them they are millions of years old and not thousands of years. And it is for this same reason that they never looked for soft tissue, because they accepted the idea that the bones were millions of years old. Now they are telling us soft tissue can remain flexible and resilient with vessels present and blood cells for seventy million years.

I'm gonna cut to the chase on this one. I'll answer the rest later.

When it comes to dating dinosaur bones, Carbon 14 dating DOES NOT WORK. It is inapplicable! After roughly 50,000 years, the C14 decay is so severe that it cannot be separated from background radiation using even the most advanced technology. To quote a site I read, trying to Carbon 14 date anything over that age is like "looking for one BB in a wall of BBs 75 feet wide, two feet thick and two miles long".

Modern technology cannot use that dating method for the application which you are suggesting. It will not give you a date of 70 million years, it will not give you a date of 3000 years. It will give you nothing. Also C14 dating is based on so many variable factors, many of which are "best guesses", that the older the sample, the larger the margin of error becomes. Since C14's decay on a graph resembles damn near a sheer cliff, that margin goes up REAL fast.

The reason the bones are dated in the millions of years is the geologic time scale. You know... the whole "dig deeper and things get older" thing. The line that marks the end of the dinosaurs (the point up to which they just about disappear) is 65 million years old. We've known that since the 60's. Every single time it is measured, every laboratory that runs tests, every location they try, always come up with that date. Nothing has been able to move that date.

Guess where dinosaur bones are found

Nicely put, I have watched this debate roll on for a while now and the evidence trumpted up by both sides is intriging to say the least. Though as an athiest and believer in the ole Evolution 'theory' I have to say you evolutionists tend to come up with the most investigated and researched evidence, unfortunately it is discarded at every point by our creationists. Not saying the creation evidence isn't compeling, it just falls short every time IMO.

Probably blinded by science

Regards.

Well like I said before your arguement is not with me, it is with your own believers of Evolution.

I'm gonna cut to the chase on this one. I'll answer the rest later.

When it comes to dating dinosaur bones, Carbon 14 dating DOES NOT WORK. It is inapplicable! After roughly 50,000 years, the C14 decay is so severe that it cannot be separated from background radiation using even the most advanced technology. To quote a site I read, trying to Carbon 14 date anything over that age is like "looking for one BB in a wall of BBs 75 feet wide, two feet thick and two miles long".

Modern technology cannot use that dating method for the application which you are suggesting. It will not give you a date of 70 million years, it will not give you a date of 3000 years. It will give you nothing. Also C14 dating is based on so many variable factors, many of which are "best guesses", that the older the sample, the larger the margin of error becomes. Since C14's decay on a graph resembles damn near a sheer cliff, that margin goes up REAL fast.

The reason the bones are dated in the millions of years is the geologic time scale. You know... the whole "dig deeper and things get older" thing. The line that marks the end of the dinosaurs (the point up to which they just about disappear) is 65 million years old. We've known that since the 60's. Every single time it is measured, every laboratory that runs tests, every location they try, always come up with that date. Nothing has been able to move that date.

Guess where dinosaur bones are found

What I do not understand is that the RECENT evidence of evolution is not only discounted, but completely overlooked by people on both sides.

A couple of solid examples? The Pit Bull and the Puggle. Three hundred years ago, neither breed of dog existed. Did God, who made all creatures on Earth, simply find a couple of pages stuck together in his big book o creatures and forget to put those on this planet? Or did genetics and evolution play a part in the creation of a new breed, regardless of how directed it was by human hands.

The creationists will quickly argue that "Well, I don't see anything that LOOKS like evolution... it's just a new breed of mutt!", to which the simple reply is that you're not going to get anything that radical in one or two generations!

What about humans? Well, take a look at today's culture. Only forty years ago "mixed relationships" were illegal (in America). In only forty years, there are new words like "blaxican", "blasian", etc. so on and so forth. Sure, children that came from two different 'races' were out there, but now it's MUCH more common, partly due to its acceptance in modern culture, even to the point that our Census forms had to change from "pick one race" to "pick all that apply". Now, what happens when those children of mixed descent have children by people of completely different ancestry? Whatcha gonna have then? A blasicaucixan?

Fast forward 100 generations (average of 10,000 to 13,000 years) and what will you have then? I'm sure there won't be many 'white', 'black', 'asian' or 'hispanic', people left, at least not as we know them. Humans will have absorbed the characteristics of all races and discarded the flaws and you wind up with something entirely new.

THAT is Evolution.

EDIT: Info removed due to it being incorrect.

Pit Bull and the Puggle evidence for Evolution?

Dogs have evolved from an ancient type of wolf. If we can see so much variation occure in a short time, it is easy to imagine that many evolutionary changes would occure over huge periods of time. However, this example only shows "variation within kind". That is, there may be many types of dogs and wolves, but this does not explain what the first wolf, for instance, evolved from.

Creationest do not accept that such small, observed changes are evidence of many larger, unobserved changes. We don't accept that these creatures can turn into, or have evolved from, completely different types of creatures. Huge changes require an increase in GENETIC INFORMATION, but all we observe is sorting and loss of information, although such changes should happen often if Evolution is true. On the other hand, we do observe large changes that involve NO new information.

Even if humans absorbed all the characteristics of all the races, at the end of the day, we will still all be human. And we will not become something other than what we are.