rasputin89

If a species changes into something that isn't even remotely like the original ancestor... then... it has become a new species.

Don't feed the trolls.

It would seem that Lekh and I have transformed this thread into one of the many evolution debates found all over the internet. My apologies to who started this thread.

Don't feed the trolls.

STALEMATE I say you haven't provided and can't provide proof and your "proof" is no proof because it's based on your religious faith in the unproven theory of evolution. You say nature does not and can't provide proof for intelligent design and if anyone believes there's intelligent design in nature, that's his faith. STALEMATE It was nice chatting to you, rasputin89. I'll Leave you with this (and yes, I will read what you leave me with, if you leave me with any final comments): lekh GG Lekh. It has been a very fun debate (which is weird because debate was the one thing I absolutely dreaded in High School). We have been lucky enough to see what happens when an unstoppable force contacts an unmovable object. Nothing! May the force be with you, Rasputin

I will go out on a limb here and say that you mean to ask me how these life-forms came to be. This I've already explained in a previous post and will explain again. These prehistoric bacteria were formed by the natural chemical reactions between the basic organic compounds that existed at the time. We already know that phospholipid segments of the cell membrane can natural occur and this has been recreated in lab experiments. These segments natural conjoin and can form cell membranes. All this discussion about the origin of life goes off topic. It is very shrouded with mystery, but pertains very little to the natural processes that have occurred since. Evolution is the way nature has changed over time and does not pertain to the origin of life directly. This doesn't prove intelligent design. All this explains is the complexity of the human eye and the amazing ability of DNA. What exactly is this tonnes of evidence of the world being flat? Again this does not prove intelligent design. This just proves that in the 80s you met a man who was an idiot. This is just silly dribble. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to natural selection. This again does not prove intelligent design. I have not ignored the evidence to the contrary. The only evidence against evolution you brought up was the coelecanth. The truth about the coelecanth is that scientists have found that the ones discovered recently are not identical to the prehistoric coelecanth. The two species of coelecanth that have been discovered also vary genetically from each other. These two species of coelecanth are descended from the isolated remnants of the prehistoric coelecanth (which came close to the brink of extinction). The coelecanth has evolved from its prehistoric ancestor. Above you have not given me any proof of intelligent design. You've just given me weak attempts at counterexamples for evolution. Also, you need to distinguish between evolution by natural selection (the theory) and natural selection (the fact). Natural selection is survival of the fittest. In nature the strongest animals survive and propagate their DNA. The strongest animals possess the most beneficial traits amongst their species. The weakest animals are genetically inferior. Thus, disadvantageous genes and traits die off with the weaker lifeforms and the beneficial characteristics become more common. Natural selection is used as evidence for evolution. Natural selection leads to change in a species' DNA. This happens slowly and gradually over time. As we know, DNA is what identifies a species. If DNA changes enough then that species ceases to be what it once was and becomes a new species. Intelligent design is a theory that is based around the assumption that if a watch is made by a watchmaker then the watchmaker is made by a watchmakermaker. If I were to follow this logic it leads me to wonder who created the creator, and who created the creator's creator? Basing a theory over this logic, however, is not evidence of intelligent design. I am yet to encounter any relevant or convincing evidence for intelligent design. Some components of nature would indicate unintelligent design. Humans still possess the useless appendix and the unnecessary wisdom teeth. Humans are also animals that use only 10% of their inherent brain power. Why would an intelligent designer create such unnecessary waste?

Ironically, studying the bible just leads to more debate and argument over what is in that book. I think that science is crucial for advancing our knowledge of the universe and for improving our quality of life. Texts from the past and religious books can teach good (or sometimes bad) moral reasoning for society. But, studying ancient literature will not advance medicine, energy, and other crucial factors in our society. That's no reason not to study the Bible, rasputin. Anyways, Fez. I understand why you say what you're saying, but this is kinda like the "Faith vs. science board and Rasputin is kinda like a welcome guest who picked the right board at Worthy Forums. I'm not mad at him or fighting with him - he sure don't seem like he's here with the sole motive of playing games and attacking Christianity. And he aint fightin' either. I'll know when it's my time to exit - soon as that stale-mate has been reached in this thread between me and Rasputin (yeah I know, there's no competition between religious faith in evolution and faith in the revealed Word of God , but I'll be outta this thread later, as soon as I'm done and my time is up) Let the great debate between creation and evolution continue I will be in the right corner attempting to enlighten a creationist on the wonders of nature. In the left will be lekh attempting to enlighten an evolutionist on the wonders of nature.

I don't recall avoiding this question. I don't even recall it being asked. Why something occurs is best left to philosophers and thinkers. Why anything exists is up for each person to decide for themselves. 2 - Likely a common ancestor. Eventually, if you were to continue backtracking (via a conceptual time machine of course), you would encounter their ancestor and the common ancestor for all birds. 3 - If in a few million years Emus and Ostriches have long since become extinct and natural scientists find fossils of both, and then claim the Ostrich evolved from the Emu it will likely go unrecognized by the scientific community and be classified as a minor find. 4 - Yes Thank you for admitting that. .......XD. Your ability to detect sarcasm confounds me. I've already been providing plenty of evidence for evolution. But, if you'd rather have a total noobie explain everything to you in a forum, rather then looking it up yourself, I will do my best to oblige.

Ironically, studying the bible just leads to more debate and argument over what is in that book. I think that science is crucial for advancing our knowledge of the universe and for improving our quality of life. Texts from the past and religious books can teach good (or sometimes bad) moral reasoning for society. But, studying ancient literature will not advance medicine, energy, and other crucial factors in our society.

The first organisms ever discovered were prehistoric bacteria. Bacteria are incredibly simple organisms without a nucleus and with free-floating RNA. The only evolutionary step that could prelude bacteria would be a natural chemical formation via the reaction of organic compounds. The Coelecanth, Shark and Crocodile are not exempt from the laws of natural selection. For that is what drives evolution (natural selection). The strongest of a species that possesses the most beneficial genetic adaptations will pass on their DNA to the next generation. But, I must agree that the way scientists analyze evidence is a fiendish way to "pick and choose" how species evolve. Where's the proof? The 2% difference between human and Rhesus monkey DNA is not proof of your theory. I want proof. I too want proof. It's good to know there are others that wish to join me in proving evolution by natural selection. The evidence is continually growing, with no sign of shrinking.

There are many species which have been documented as having continuous transitional sequences. The modern horse follows a logical linear path as it evolved from its earliest ancestor, Hyracotherium. The fossils of horses and their ancestors show a gradual transformation from small pawed creatures into larger hooved animals. Similar lineages have been found for dogs and wolves. There are many organisms that have retained their physiology without adapting drastically. Crocodiles and sharks are two of the most ancient species on the Earth and have barely changed from their ancestral prehistoric forms. There is no such "huge jump in DNA from ape to man." There is only a 2% difference between the DNA of homo sapien and that of the Rhesus Monkey. This does not assume that we evolved from these monkeys, but they we share a common ancestor somewhere in the past. ................................huh? The reason all the fossils of everything that's ever existed haven't been found is very simple. Fossils only form under certain conditions. That is why there are only certain hotspots around the globe that produce vast quantities of fossils. Most dead animals decompose out in the open and their bones disintegrate over time. To fossilize these bones need to be covered by layers of sediment and buried under the Earth before it's too late. As for your half-fish-half-ape, such a creature has never existed and will only exist thanks to the magic of genetic engineering.

When you consider the age of our planet and the vastness of the fossil record evolution ceases to be absurd, in fact it becomes the most logical explanation of our planet's complex biological system. The earliest organisms known to man date back to approximately 3.8 billion years ago. Human beings themselves only came into existence 2 million years ago, and we only established civilization 10 000 years ago. What happened during this 3.7 billion year gap, between the origin of life and the appearance if humans, was evolution. It has been discovered that life originally appeared in the deep prehistoric oceans and spread from the sea onto the land. For 160 million years dinosaurs dominated the landscape until an environmental cataclysm made them extinct. The Earth now became the domain of mammals. From the mammal kingdom humans eventually emerged. The various ancestral species; homo georgicus, homo anctecessor and homo heidelbergensis paint the timeline of human evolution. Also, the genetic similarities in DNA between humans and apes indicates they both possess a common ancestor. Furthermore the genetic similarities between all mammals points towards an ancestor for all mammals.