What the Hobbit has done to evolution.

[WolfBitn]

Pulling definitions from sites dealing with evolution isnt quote mining, its putting before you proof of what im saying... i dont want to appear to be pulling things from air

The point being that every text i read state that evolution NEVER DEvolves from a complex organism to a simpler organism

No comprehensive understanding of evolution would prohibit stasis or possible loss of traits depending on environment. These may be the exception, but they do happen. You are over simplifying a vast theory in order to make a point instead of actually trying to understand what that theory actually means. NO ONE familiar with the theory of evolution is going to fail to note this which makes your argument very similar to other creationist arguments in that it depends mostly on the ignorance of its audience.

The texas salamander isnt becoming simpler organism either... not in any sence of the word, its only traded one sence for the other 4 heightened sences.

Wow, what an amazing atrocity of logic. . .so chromosome fusion which results in zero new information is "de-evolution" but the loss of an entire sensory organ is not?

We are discussing a lifeform moving from the more complex to a simpler form... as in a 2 celled organism devolving into a single celled organism... you should stop grasping for straws lol... A trading of one sence for the heightening of the rest isnt DEevolution

sorry... you KNOW im asking for something that occurs naturally and the very first line in that abstract disqualify this

Abstract Single-pair matings of the grasshopper Atractomorpha similis (2n=19 ; 20 ) were set up in the laboratory.

So you have nothing my friend... nothing showing this occuring naturally

It doesnt occur without ASSISTANCE... hence my point

The "assistance" they gave was to put a bunch of grasshoppers together. It's called an "experiment", what would you have them do? Go out and run after grasshoppers in the wild to try and watch them reproduce? The whole point of an experiment is to cut down on the variables which is exactly what this one did. Chromosome fusion happens in all kinds of animals, it's been observed, it's been proven, it's been documented, it's been shown to you, get over it. I know you built your whole ad hoc "only-humans-can-devolve" pseudo-theory on this silly notion but it's your own fault for not even bothering to do a google search on the subject before going off half cocked.

]

sure... which is why you cant produce a single instance of it happening naturally outside of labratory conditions

...after all these pages this is apparent

Why must chromosomes match numericly and in base pairs for procreation to occur naturally?

No, actually, they don't. The Przewalski horse, for example, has 66 chromosomes and can produce fertile offspring with the 64 chromosome domestic horse.

Also in this case the mitochrondial dna is nearly a perfect match between the 2 types horses which leads some to believe its just another breed, and not another species... If the mitochondrial dna wasnt so close a match the chances are there would be no exception in this case

The fact that you don't understand that this is the entire point is telling. Do yourself a favor, please do not repeat this argument anywhere else until you've done at least a little bit of research.

Now youre being dishonest and avoiding the point...

you KNOW if you know anything about this that in the VAST majority of cases chromosomes MUST match numericly in order to produce viable fertile embrios... and IF you had even read that article and know anything about the subject youd know that the mitochondrial dna for the 2 breeds of horse was nearly an exact match

[Guest HIS girl]

Hitchey - in the documentary, the fossil sat for 25 years in a draw of a building. It had a resin coating which is a German procedure for protecting fossils and it was found in a pit in Germany.

If it is such an amazing find - why would it be hidden away (knowingly) for 25 years? What's the point?

[Guest]

Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life;

and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

John 5:28-29

>>>>>()<<<<<

.... You are over simplifying a vast theory in order to make a point instead of actually trying to understand what that theory actually means ....

OK

Understanding Evolution

A Most Peculiar Phantom Phenomena Apparently Appearing Mostly In The Minds Of Folk Who Reject Jesus Christ The Risen LORD

Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,

whom he hath appointed heir of all things,

by whom also he made the worlds;

Hebrews 1:2

Evolution Can Never Be Directly Observed - Just Speculation Upon Speculation

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible,

whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers:

all things were created by him, and for him:

And he is before all things, and by him

all things consist.

Colossians 1:16-17

Evolution Can Never Be Directly Measured - Just Speculation Upon Speculation

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery,

which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God,

who created all things

by Jesus Christ:

Ephesians 3:9

Evolution Can Never Be Reproduced Either In The Laboratory Or In The Great Outdoors - Just Speculation Upon Speculation

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth,

dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands,

as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life,

and breath, and all things;

Acts 17:24-25

>>>>>()<<<<<

.... NO ONE familiar with the theory of evolution is going to fail to note this which makes your argument very similar to other creationist arguments in that it depends mostly on the ignorance of its audience ....

NO ONE Familiar With The Power And The Grace Of The LORD Jesus Christ The Savior

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him;

and without him was not any thing made that was made.

John 1:1-3

Is Going To Fail To Note The Theory Speculation Of Evolution

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep,

all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

For this they willingly are ignorant of,

that by the word of God the heavens were of old,

and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

2 Peter 3:3-6

Depends Upon Ignorance Of Scientific Method And Biblical Truth

The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life:

and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life;

but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John 3:35-36

To Attempt To Gain It's Dupe's Blind Approval

In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

John 14:2-3

>>>>>()<<<<<

Believe

That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

John 1:9-12

And Be Blessed Beloved

Love, Joe

[WolfBitn]

I just wanted to butt in and say I watched a fraction of a documentary tonight - commentary by David Attenborough called "The Link".

What do you fellows think of "Ida"?

http://www.thenaturewatch.com/2009/05/link...on-ida-and.html

I've purchased the book, but it may be a while before I get around to reading it. My understanding is that research on the fossil is not yet complete. More work is to be done.

The point to make from the evolutionary perspective is that this fossil could be a link to our lineage, but no one in the field will say that it is. Do not think of evolution as being like a ladder that leads to humans. No evolutionist thinks that way, anymore. The contemporary view is of a bush with many horizontal as well as vertical branches. Ida is on that bush, but no one knows exactly where. She could be on one of the side branches that never led to humanity, but something like her must have given rise to the monkeys.

This fossil creature looks a lot like a lemur, but she has some features that are characteristics of monkeys, not lemurs. So, given that evolution is true, Ida looks like a transitional-type animal midway between lemurs and monkeys. At least that is my understanding, but my knowledge of this fossil is quite limited. The assumption , as I currently understand it, is that Ida -- or something very similar to her -- gave rise to the monkeys.

It is pointless for anyone to jump up and down and shout that this is not a transitional fossil (Creatiionists of course don't believe that transitional fossils exit). What's important is that it apparently is a lemur-like animal with some surprisingly monkey-like features. If we were to draw-up a Venn diagram Ida would sit between lemurs and monkeys. For you that won't mean she is transitional, but it should help you to understand why evolutionists look at her that way. If you want to insist that evolutionists have no justification for putting Ida between lemurs and monkeys then you must actually provide evidence that reflects what is known about the fossil.

I probably told you more than you cared to hear.

Or maybe not enough?

http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view...;sigb=11op9c7db

Check out the link ^^^ I dont find this of any cause for excitement at all... a lemur itself is "incredably monkey-like"

as are likely dozens of other animals... possibly hundreds through time

[MorningGlory]

The point to make from the evolutionary perspective is that this fossil could be a link to our lineage, but no one in the field will say that it is.

Not so; I've posted links to that documentary, and the book, and the scientists involved clearly and publicly stated they believe 'Ida' to be part of our ancient ancestry. Shall I post it again?

[MorningGlory]

The point to make from the evolutionary perspective is that this fossil could be a link to our lineage, but no one in the field will say that it is.

Not so; I've posted links to that documentary, and the book, and the scientists involved clearly and publicly stated they believe 'Ida' to be part of our ancient ancestry. Shall I post it again?

My position is that none of the scientists involved have said that Ida is ancestral to humans, that is what I meant. They have said it is in our lineage, which is not the same thing. Do you understand them to mean that Ida is ancestral to humans? I was just wondering if we are misunderstanding one another?

I'm not misunderstanding anything, Hitchey. Here are the links to the documentary and the book; it's there, in plain English. Watch the video clip of Mr. Attenborough.

http://www.history.com/content/the-link/ab...e-link/the-link

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...link-found.html

[Guest HIS girl]

Hitchey - in the documentary, the fossil sat for 25 years in a draw of a building. It had a resin coating which is a German procedure for protecting fossils and it was found in a pit in Germany.

If it is such an amazing find - why would it be hidden away (knowingly) for 25 years? What's the point?

This particular fossil was collected by an amateur, who after finding the fossil put it on a shell, simply adding it to his private collection. It did not come to the attention of the scientific community for 25 years. Saying that the fossil Ida was deliberately and knowingly hidden is not accurate.

Correct me if I'm wrong Hitchey - this person was just an avid collector of fossils or an evolutionist fossil collector? Was he amateur in the sense that he didn't realise the significance of what he had collected? Or it simply wasn't that extroadinary in the evolutionists' family tree?

I'm slightly confused.

To me it just looked like some extinct "animal". Not extroadinary at all -

In no way shape or form did I entertain the notion that this was some LINK to the human race. As hard as I try to visualise this, I simply cannot.

I found the doc (what little I saw of it) amusing.

[WolfBitn]

Hitchey - in the documentary, the fossil sat for 25 years in a draw of a building. It had a resin coating which is a German procedure for protecting fossils and it was found in a pit in Germany.

If it is such an amazing find - why would it be hidden away (knowingly) for 25 years? What's the point?

This particular fossil was collected by an amateur, who after finding the fossil put it on a shell, simply adding it to his private collection. It did not come to the attention of the scientific community for 25 years. Saying that the fossil Ida was deliberately and knowingly hidden is not accurate.

Correct me if I'm wrong Hitchey - this person was just an avid collector of fossils or an evolutionist fossil collector? Was he amateur in the sense that he didn't realise the significance of what he had collected? Or it simply wasn't that extroadinary in the evolutionists' family tree?

I'm slightly confused.

To me it just looked like some extinct "animal". Not extroadinary at all -

In no way shape or form did I entertain the notion that this was some LINK to the human race. As hard as I try to visualise this, I simply cannot.

I found the doc (what little I saw of it) amusing.

Yes and a million years from now the future Mr Hitchey will be teaching that a platypuss was a transition between a beaver and a duck

The problem with transitionals, is that it has to be a transition FROM a particular species, TO a particular species... They gotta jaw muscle, they got a tooth... but they cant even pretend that they have ANY idea what species it transitioned FROM, nor what species it transitioned INTO... So what they actually have is a bag of bones, and they play a pretend game... o look... its a fish but it has a flat head so its a transition maybe to something like a crockadile!@!!!! o o o

...SO do shovelhead catfish dude lolol

The stretches they make are absolutely hillarious, and yet they teach it like its documented truth... how utterly deceptive.

[Guest HIS girl]

'Matrix'

You know what's deceptive? Forcing people to believe words in a book and worship it

Who is forcing you Matrix?

Someone on this thread or Christians in general?

Don't you think by teaching evolution as fact at schools verges on forcing children to adopt evolutionist views when they are too young to make a major decision like that on their own?

What do you think?

[Guest HIS girl]

'Matrix'

Actually, the science I learned in school was pretty general and based on fact (otherwise we wouldn't have had it in our curriculum). I think it would be an eye-opener for any Christian to open a Biology textbook.

I'm talking evolution here.

I rejected it completely at 14 and still do even as an adult who is able to make an informed decision, I still reject it.

Nah, I mean early Christians.

Sadly, a lot of atrocities were made in the name of Christianity which to a true Follower of Christ is plain as daylight to see that the teachings of Christ were not truly adhered to.

I don't jump on every evolutionist and tell them to get a reality check - in fact I grew up watching just about every David Attenborough documentary there was - my Dad was a closet geologist/archeologist/biologist/anthropologist etc AND as far as I know, an atheist.

STILL, watching all these programs did not sway me to side with evolution -

I just cannot accept evolution as being an intelligent viewpoint for the origins of mankind.