[_ Old Earth _] Theory of Evolution crash course/Q&A

[Barbarian]

Async serves a very useful purpose here. He brings up most of the common creationist stories, and by shining some light on them, and showing the errors, we can help people understand the issue. And that's a good thing. You should be pleased that he posts here.

 

[Classik]

i have some guys who have microscopic heads (small brain of course) and they are very brilliant. There are also ones with mountainic heads who don't know A from B

 

[Sparkey]

I've just now searched the last two pages in this thread for comments about brain size and did find several but none of them are speaking about human intelligence and/or the alleged correlation to brain size in humans. Is there something that I missed maybe? I only looked back a couple pages.

 

[Barbarian]

In general, size of brains within a species aren't very significant, so long as they don't wander too far outside of a certain range. Differences are often due to differences in muscle mass; more massive people need bigger brains.

 

[Asyncritus]

Async serves a very useful purpose here. He brings up most of the common creationist stories, and by shining some light on them, and showing the errors, we can help people understand the issue. And that's a good thing. You should be pleased that he posts here.

Your odious and overbearing pomposity is of a quite astonishing order of magnitude, barbarian.

You seem, as I've said before, to have not the slightest semblance of a critical faculty, and wholeheartedly and with gusto carry on swallowing evolution, instead of thinking about what you are espousing so willingly.

You say I produce creationist errors - I don't really. You only think that I do - and your armwaving and quite foolish 'explanations' of so many things, and your total inability to produce even a foolish explanation of many others, clearly illustrates the beggarly poverty of this 'science, falsely so-called'.

Your standard technique is to make a few inane remarks about the problems being posed, cite a vast chunk of some author's nonsense, and then parade around telling us all that we have 'learned' something.

You're right.

We have learned something: we've seen, again and again the sheer stupidity and inadequacy of evolution theory to account for even the simplest of biological phenomena, far less the really big ones: migration and reproduction, as examples.

Remember the man in the chicken suit, and the question I posed? No?

Just to remind you, and perhaps the others who go thoughtlessly and blindly on swallowing the evolutionary guff you keep regurgitating, here he is again, with the problem you need to answer intelligently somehow.

You cite examples where reptiles have allegedly been found with feathers.

Feathers, remember, are alleged to have 'evolved' from scales, of all things! You somehow seem to think that these reptiles are the ancestors, evolutionarily speaking, of birds.

There are two problems with that idea - amongst others, of course.

For those who may not know, here is the structure of a flight feather.

You will note the quite hideous complexity of its structure, complexity which could not possibly occur by any chance 'mutations', but which is very clearly designed to perform its nearly miraculous function.

Note the interlinking of the barbs and barbules. No reptile scale could have 'frayed out' to produce such a structure as David Attenborough so stupidly suggested.

That, of course, is not the end of the problem. There are about 10 DIFFERENT types of feather on a SINGLE BIRD. Did you know that? I bet you didn't - but assuming you did, how do you account for 10 DIFFERENT FEATHER TYPES 'evolving' from a single scale? Denton makes the whole idea look so foolish I'm at a loss to know how you could possibly espouse such utter nonsense.

In my view, however, the real problem is in the instinctive requirement that has to be accounted for.

Reptile (can't fly, has never flown) ----X------> Bird that can fly at up to 150 miles per hour, as in the case of the peregrine falcon in a stoop.

How did the Reptile figure out how to fly? Where did that NEW INFORMATION , the NEW FLIGHT INSTINCT, come from? Do you know?

How did the reptile not break its neck many times over when learning to fly, thus finishing the course of evolution of birds from reptiles?

Just to remind you: THE MAN IN THE CHICKEN SUIT is a reptile with feathers. How did it become the genuine bird, the falcon?

How say you? Some intelligent comments, please. And just BTW, 'evolution cannot account for this' is an acceptable - and correct! - answer.
​

 

[Asyncritus]

As somebody said: Now faith is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links unseen.

In case you and your followers are asking why this is such a big deal, my reply is that there are about 10,000 species of bird in the world.

That's a pretty fair chunk of the animal population, whose existence evolution has no hope of accounting for.

Don't you think that's a pretty poor show for a scientific theory of origins? Why has it not been discarded?

I know. By faith in the great Darwin, in the hope of finding some explanation of the problems I have raised.

Crash course, indeed!

 

[Classik]

LOL.

 

[Barbarian]

Your odious and overbearing pomposity is of a quite astonishing order of magnitude, barbarian.

Someone got a new thesaurus for his birthday, um?

You seem, as I've said before, to have not the slightest semblance of a critical faculty, and wholeheartedly and with gusto carry on swallowing evolution, instead of thinking about what you are espousing so willingly.

My "critical faculty" is what seems to make you go off, most of the time.

You say I produce creationist errors - I don't really. You only think that I do - and your armwaving and quite foolish 'explanations' of so many things, and your total inability to produce even a foolish explanation of many others, clearly illustrates the beggarly poverty of this 'science, falsely so-called'.

Your denial is less persuasive than all the threads you've started and then abandoned as the errors were exposed.

Your standard technique is to make a few inane remarks about the problems being posed, cite a vast chunk of some author's nonsense, and then parade around telling us all that we have 'learned' something.

Evidence matters. And if you'd learn to do a bit of research before you float some of those things, you wouldn't be surprised so easily by evidence.

Remember the man in the chicken suit, and the question I posed? No?

Yeah, it was funny that you considered it an adequate defense against the evidence.

You cite examples where reptiles have allegedly been found with feathers.

Yep. Quite a few dinosaurs are now known to have had feathers. Would you like me to show you again?

Feathers, remember, are alleged to have 'evolved' from scales, of all things!

So the evidence shows. We can even, by unblocking a particular gene, produce feathers from scales. I showed you that, too. Scutes, a particular sort of scale found on archosaurs like dinosaurs, crocodilians, and birds, can be induced to form feathers. It turns out that the proteins in scutes are like those of feathers.

Of course, the early feathers found in dinosaurs are quite simple, mere fliaments, but over time we can show an increasing complexity in them. Would you like to see that, again?

You somehow seem to think that these reptiles are the ancestors, evolutionarily speaking, of birds.

So the evidence indicates. The large number of intermediates between the two are just one source of evidence. The fact that some dinosaurs had the avian form of lung, feathers, and other structures we consider to be avian all contribute to that conclusion.

There are two problems with that idea - amongst others, of course.
For those who may not know, here is the structure of a flight feather.
You will note the quite hideous complexity of its structure, complexity which could not possibly occur by any chance 'mutations'

Random mutations and natural selection, of course could do it handily as you already know (which is why you deleted the second part).

Note the interlinking of the barbs and barbules. No reptile scale could have 'frayed out' to produce such a structure as David Attenborough so stupidly suggested.

Figure 1. The two basic feather types are pennaceous and plumulaceous (or downy). Both types have a calamus. The pennaceous feather also has a rachis (or shaft) from which branches the barbs. Branching off of the barbs (upper right) are barbules. The hooklets of the barbules on the distal side of barbs interlock with the barbules on the proximal side of adjacent barbs. The ‘interlocked’ barbs on each side of the rachis form the feather vanes. The plumulaceous feather has numerous non-interlocked barbs extending from the calamus (From: Prum and Brush 2003).

In taxa more distantly related to birds, such as Sinosauropteryx (Figure 3 below), multiple tufts projecting a few millimeters from the skin have been discovered that resemble hypothesized early stages in avian feather development. These filamentous ‘feathers’ (or ‘protofeathers’; there is some disagreement concerning whether or not these integumentary structures were true feathers, e.g., Unwin 1998, Lingham-Soliar et al. 2007) were about 20 (5-40) mm long and appear to be rather homogenous over the body rather than originating in specific tracts. To some investigators, the filaments appear to be like down feathers and were probably used for insulation. They were hollow, and appeared to have a short shaft with barbs, but no barbules. In 2009, a fossil of another feathered dinosaur, Beipiaosaurus (a coelurosaurian theropod), with even simpler feathers was reported (Xu et al. 2009; Figures 4 and 5 below). These feathers consisted of single broad (about 2 mm wide) filament, were 10 to 15 centimeters long, and only present on the head, neck and tail. In taxa more closely related to birds, such as the oviraptorid Caudipteryx and dromaeosaurid Sinornithosaurus, elongate pinnate wing and tail feathers, structurally identical to the feathers of present-day birds and comprised of a central rachis, branching barbs, and barbules, have been found. In addition, fossils of a Dromaeosaurid (Microraptor) have revealed asymmetrically veined pennaceous feathers on both the forelimbs and hindlimbs (Clarke and Middleton 2006).
http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/feather_evolution.htm

Note how the transitions still occur on pennate feathers during growth. If this can happen in a single individual's development, it seems insane to deny that it could happen over many generations.

That, of course, is not the end of the problem. There are about 10 DIFFERENT types of feather on a SINGLE BIRD. Did you know that?

Had to identify birds only by feather type and feet in lab practicals. That does tend to reinforce retention.

I bet you didn't - but assuming you did, how do you account for 10 DIFFERENT FEATHER TYPES 'evolving' from a single scale?

As you see above, the tend to be earlier types retain for specific functions. This, as you learned, is a common trend in evolution, so you shouldn't be surprised that the evidence shows this.

Denton makes the whole idea look so foolish I'm at a loss to know how you could possibly espouse such utter nonsense.

Denton now thinks feathers evolved.

"it is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school". According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies."
Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny (page xvii-xviii)

Surprise.

Reptile (can't fly, has never flown) ----X------> Bird that can fly at up to 150 miles per hour, as in the case of the peregrine falcon in a stoop.

If there were no intermediate forms, we'd have quite a problem, wouldn't we? But as you learned, the structures and behaviors necessary for flight already existed in dinosaurs before birds existed. So not a problem.

It was pre-existing. Ostriches, which probably had no flying ancestors, uses the same mechanics as running dinosaurs, (like them it has feathered upper limbs that it uses to control movement.

You've already bailed out of one thread on this. Would you be offended if I asked you to go back to that one, and read some more of the evidence?

 

[Sparkey]

Your odious and overbearing pomposity is of a quite astonishing order of magnitude, barbarian.

What? Is this Saturday Night Live? "Jane, you ignorant slut," is the more famous line. Stay away from this.
Cease. Do not take it up again.

Thank-you in advance.
Moderator

 

[Barbarian]

I have to say, it was so over-the top, I suspect he was making a joke. At least that's how I took it. No offense taken.

 

[Sparkey]

Understood and agreed. I too smiled at the use of the technique. Still, there are new members who must be considered. The choice made was to notice, officially frown, but internally smile. I trust that all who contribute are also able to read between the lines as you are.

 

[Barbarian]

And I believe yet another thread is complete:

 

[Classik]

Looks like one of those skyforce mobile games;);)

 

[Barbarian]

If you go back and look at at these threads, you'll see most of them involve a bail-out at the end.

 

[turnorburn]

Haven't been to the science center for a wee while so if i make a few mistakes please bare with me..

FOSSIL EVIDENCE

"The vast majority of artists` conceptions are based
more on imagination than on evidence. Artists must create
something between an ape and a man; the older the specimen
is said to be, the more apelike they make it."

-- Science Digest

1. Stories claiming that primitive, ape-like men have been found are
overstated. Piltdown man was an acknowledged hoax. The fragmentary
evidence that constituted Nebraska man was a pig's tooth. The
discoverer of Java man later acknowledged that it was a large gibbon and
that he had withheld evidence to that effect. The `evidence` concerning
Peking man has disappeared. Louis and Mary Leakey, the discoverers of
Zinjanthropus (previously referred to by some as Australopithecus),
later admitted that they were probably apes. Ramapithecus man consists
merely of a handful of teeth and jaw fragments; his teeth are very
similar to those of the gelada baboon living today. For about 100 years
the world was led to believe that Neanderthal man was stooped and ape-
like. Recent studies show that this individual was crippled with
arthritis and probably had rickets. Neanderthal man, Heidelberg man, and
Cro-Magnon man are similar to humans living today. Artists' depictions,
especially of the fleshy portions of the body, are quite imaginative and
are not supported by evidence. Furthermore, the dating techniques are
highly questionable.

2. Many of the world's fossils show, by the details of their
soft fleshy portions, that they were buried before they could decay.
This, together with the occurrence of polystrate fossils (fossils that
traverse two or more strata of sedimentary rock) in Carboniferous,
Mesozoic, and Cenozoic formations, is unmistakable evidence that this
sedimentary material was deposited rapidly -- not over hundreds of
millions of years.

3. Many fossils of modern looking humans have been found deep in rock
formations that are supposedly many millions of years older than
evolutionary theory would predict. These remains are ignored or even
suppressed by evolutionists.

4. The vertical sequencing of fossils is frequently not in the assumed
evolutionary order.

5. Nowhere on the earth can one find the so-called "geologic column."
Even at the Grand Canyon, only a small fraction of this imaginary column
is found.

6. If `evolution` had occurred, the fossil record should show continuous
and gradual changes from the bottom to the top layers and between all
forms of life. Just the opposite is found. Many complex species appear
suddenly in the lowest layers, and innumerable gaps and discontinuities
appear throughout.

7. The vast majority of the sediments, which encase practically all
fossils, were laid down though water.

8. The worldwide fossil record is evidence of the rapid death and burial
of animal and plant life by a flood; it is not evidence of slow change.

9. A `simple' protein consists of about 100 amino acids. How likely
would it be that such a protein could `chain together` by chance? Assume
that we have a `soup` full of amino acids. We want these amino acids to
`link up` at random to form a protein consisting of 100 amino acids.
How many different combinations are there? Suppose there are 20
different amino acids available. If we wanted a chain of two acids there
would be 20 possibilities for the first and 20 for the second - a total
of 20 X 20 = 400 possibilities. For a chain of three acids, there would
be 20 X 20 X 20 = 8000 possibilities.
For a protein consisting of 100 amino acids (a `simple` protein),
there would be 20^100 possibilities. 20^100 is roughly equal to
10^130. Scientists have stated that there may be as many as 10^22 stars
in the observable universe. Let`s be generous and assume there are
1000 times that many. Let`s generously assume that each star has
10 `Earths`; that is, 10 planets that have the conditions necessary
for the support of life.
We will change the water into amino acids (10^46 molecules).
Thus, 10^26 * 10^46 = 10^72 amino acids on all the `earths`.
A year has less than 10^8 seconds for a total of 10^78 chains per
year. Let`s assume that the universe is 100 billion years old. We
would have 10^78 * 10^11 chains formed in all the oceans of amino
acids on all of our `earths` around all our stars, for all the years
that the universe has existed. But we have seen that there are
about 10^130 possibilities. Therefore, the probability of forming
by chance the given protein consisting of 100 amino acids in 10^89
tries is less that 10^89/10^130, which equals 1/10^41, OR,
0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000041. This is, needless
to say, an infinitely small number.

Thus, even if there were 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
`Earths`, instead of just the one Earth, the chances of life emerging on
EVEN ONE of them are bleak, to say the least.
And by the way, we looked at a `simple` protein. The average-
sized protein has 500 amino acids!

10. Detailed studies of various animals have revealed certain physical
equipment and capabilities that cannot be duplicated by the world's best
designers using the most sophisticated technologies. A few examples
include: the miniature and reliable sonar systems of the dolphins,
porpoises, and whales; the frequency modulated radar and discrimination
system of the bat; the efficiency and aerodynamic capabilities of the
hummingbird; the control systems, internal ballistics, and combustion
chambers of the bombardier beetle; and the precise and redundant
navigational systems of many birds and fish. Scientists have `proven`
that it is aerodynamically impossible for a bee to fly. Yet it flies.
The many components of these complex systems could not have evolved in
stages without placing a selective disadvantage on the animal.

11. If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of
`evolution`, an absolutely unbelievable series of chance events would
have had to occur. First, the complex and completely different
reproductive systems of the male must have completely and independently
evolved at about the same time and place as those of the female. A
slight incompleteness in just one of the two would make both systems
useless, and natural selection would oppose their survival. Second, the
physical and emotional systems of the male and female would also need to
be compatible. Third, the complex products of the male reproductive
system (pollen or sperm) would have to have an affinity for and a
mechanical and chemical compatibility with the eggs from the female
reproductive system. Fourth, the intricate and numerous processes
occurring at the molecular level inside the fertilized egg would have to
work with fantastic precision the very first time it happened --
processes which scientists can only describe in an aggregate sense. And
finally, the environment of the fertilized egg, from conception until it
also reproduces with another sexually capable "brother or sister," would
have to be controlled to an unbelievable degree.
And if these processes did not occur at precisely the right time,
then one must restart this incredible chain of events near zero. The
odds then become so astronomical that they insult the intelligence of
anyone with common sense. The `facts` of evolution are already difficult
enough to believe, without stretching them any further.
Either this series of incredible events occurred by random
processes, or else an Intelligent Designer created sexual reproduction.

tob

http://jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution Hoax/darwin_said_there_was_no_proof.htm

 

[Barbarian]

And we have a Gish Gallop in progress. Let's see what happens...

1. Stories claiming that primitive, ape-like men have been found are
overstated.

How many transitional hominins do you think have been found? Just a round number.

Piltdown man was an acknowledged hoax.

We don't know who perpetrated the fraud, but we do know an evolutionist outed it. Why? Because it didn't fit the theory. In evolutionary theory, a large brain should have been one of the last things to appear. So Piltdown Man didn't fit. It was a bigger embarrassment before it was outed.

The fragmentary evidence that constituted Nebraska man was a pig's tooth.

A dinosaur expert found a javelina tooth (not a pig's tooth) oddly worn in a way that looked a bit like a primate tooth. The first mammologist to see it, correctly identified it.

The discoverer of Java man later acknowledged that it was a large gibbon and that he had withheld evidence to that effect.

Nope. You've been had on that one:

Dubois had a highly eccentric theory of human evolution, which demanded a precise mathematical relationship between increasing brain size and body weight. In fact, by insisting that his ‘Java ape-man’ had the proportions of a gibbon (thus changing the reconstructed body-weight) he was ensuring that the ratio would fit neatly into his (erroneous) mathematical series. The purpose was to more firmly cement its status as a perfect ‘link’. Dubois himself is quoted as having written in 1932:

’Pithecanthropus was not a man, but a gigantic genus allied to the gibbons . . . I still believe, now more firmly than ever, that the Pithecanthropus of Trinil is the real “missing linkâ€.
Answers in Genesis
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v13/n3/java-man

The `evidence` concerning Peking man has disappeared.

The Japanese, when they invaded the East Indies, took the bones; they then disappeared. However, there are many, many other specimens of H. erectus.

Louis and Mary Leakey, the discoverers of Zinjanthropus (previously referred to by some as Australopithecus),[/quote]

You've got it backwards. Initially, it was named Zinjanthropus, but it was later found to be an Australopithecine.

later admitted that they were probably apes.

You've been misled on that, too. Leaky at first supposed that it was a direct ancestor of man, but the discovery of gracile Australopithecines made it clear that it was an evolutionary dead end, and the genus Homo evolved from less robust hominins.

Ramapithecus man consists merely of a handful of teeth and jaw fragments; his teeth are very similar to those of the gelada baboon living today.

The first find was very fragmentary, and from certain characteristics, thought to be possibly a human ancestor. However, a more complete find, including an intact jaw, made it clear that it was related to Sivapithecus and oranutans.

For about 100 years the world was led to believe that Neanderthal man was stooped and ape-like. Recent studies show that this individual was crippled with arthritis and probably had rickets.

Arthritus, yes. Rickets, no. The bend in the bone is in the wrong direction.

Neanderthal man, Heidelberg man, and Cro-Magnon man are similar to humans living today.

Cro-magnon is essentially an antomically modern human. Neandertals are a different species. They are very close to modern humans; early ones look more like us than later ones. And it appears that there were some rare interbreeding episodes; some Europeans have genes that match those of Neandertals. But the Neandertal DNA is too different to consider them the same species.

2. Many of the world's fossils show, by the details of their
soft fleshy portions, that they were buried before they could decay.

This still happens in anoxic environments like swamps and bogs. No one who knows much about it, is surprised by that.

This, together with the occurrence of polystrate fossils (fossils that
traverse two or more strata of sedimentary rock) in Carboniferous,
Mesozoic, and Cenozoic formations, is unmistakable evidence that this
sedimentary material was deposited rapidly -- not over hundreds of
millions of years.

And you thought that all strata had to take millions of years to form? There are polystrate fossils in the making a few miles from where I live, where a flooded reservoir is slowly (but not millions of years slowly) burying the upright trunks of trees.

3. Many fossils of modern looking humans have been found deep in rock
formations that are supposedly many millions of years older than
evolutionary theory would predict.

Sounds interesting. Give us a checkable source.

4. The vertical sequencing of fossils is frequently not in the assumed
evolutionary order.

There's some rocks like that about 90 miles from my house. The column is folded over (you can find the folds near the surface) no one is surprised by superpositioning of folded strata, either.

5. Nowhere on the earth can one find the so-called "geologic column."

You can find the entire column in the Bonaparte Basin of Australia and the Williston Basin in North Dakota.

It's remarkable that the entire column has been preserved in places without any parts eroded away, but there they are.

If `evolution` had occurred, the fossil record should show continuous
and gradual changes from the bottom to the top layers and between all
forms of life.

Let's test that one, then. If I can show you a long series of fossils, the changes from one to the next, no more than can be found in a single species of mammal today, would you say that the evidence is there, after all?

7. The vast majority of the sediments, which encase practically all
fossils, were laid down though water.

Except when they are buried in fossil deserts. There's one, right in the middle of the "flood deposits" in the Grand Canyon. A complete desert with sand dunes (we know they are desert dunes, because the wear on the sand grains is quite different than in cross-bedded sand formed in water) So how do you think an entire desert with desert animals and sand dunes managed to form and then be buried in the middle of the "flood year?"

8. The worldwide fossil record is evidence of the rapid death and burial
of animal and plant life by a flood; it is not evidence of slow change.

Even Gould, who proposed punctuated equilibrium, admits there are examples of very slow, gradual evolution. Would you like to learn about some of them?

9. A `simple' protein consists of about 100 amino acids. How likely would it be that such a protein could `chain together` by chance?

Chemistry isn't by chance. Insulin is half that, and it's not the simplest protein. But evolution isn't about the origin of life. Darwin just supposed that God created the first living things. If you want to do that, it's perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory, which assumes living things, and describes how they change.

Assume that we have a `soup` full of amino acids. We want these amino acids to `link up` at random to form a protein consisting of 100 amino acids. How many different combinations are there? Suppose there are 20 different amino acids available. If we wanted a chain of two acids there would be 20 possibilities for the first and 20 for the second - a total of 20 X 20 = 400 possibilities. For a chain of three acids, there would be 20 X 20 X 20 = 8000 possibilities. For a protein consisting of 100 amino acids (a `simple` protein), there would be 20^100 possibilities. 20^100 is roughly equal to 10^130.

Let's look at that. If you take a deck of cards and shuffle it well, and then deal out the cards one at a time, noting the order, you'll come up with a combination that is 1/64! likely. That's 1/64 factorial, or about 7.8^-90, effectively impossible. And yet, every time you do it, you'll get an equally unlikely result. And if you consider your 30,000 genes with different alleles, given the genomes of your great, great-grandparents, you'll come up with a likelihood very much less than that. So your argument "proves" that you and poker hands are impossible. Does that suggest to you what's wrong with it?

10. Detailed studies of various animals have revealed certain physical
equipment and capabilities that cannot be duplicated by the world's best
designers using the most sophisticated technologies. A few examples
include: the miniature and reliable sonar systems of the dolphins,
porpoises, and whales;

Show me that the latest navy sonar is inferior to that of dolphins.

the frequency modulated radar and discrimination system of the bat;

Bats don't have radar. You have the same capabilities of bats, just not as acute. Go into a large empty room, like a gymnasium. Close your eyes and walk around, slapping the soles of your feet on the floor. You'll find you can detect how far you are from the walls. Vikings used to use horns to detect the walls of fjords in the fog.

the efficiency and aerodynamic capabilities of the hummingbird

Show us that it's more aerodynamic than a Harrier jump jet or an Apache helicopter.

the control systems, internal ballistics, and combustion
chambers of the bombardier beetle;

There are all sorts of intermediate bombardier beetles. And the chemicals used are already present in other beetles that don't shoot them. So it's not surprising that it evolved.

and the precise and redundant navigational systems of many birds and fish.

Show me that it's more precise than military GPS.

Scientists have `proven that it is aerodynamically impossible for a bee to fly.

Wrong. It was an engineer, and it was a bumble bee.

Yet it flies.

Yep. Depends on a small pad of resylin (an extremely elastic material) under the wing struts. They return nearly 100% of the energy back to the wing, allowing the bee to fly, even though a creationist engineer "proved" they couldn't.

The many components of these complex systems could not have evolved in stages without placing a selective disadvantage on the animal.

Wrong again. For example, there are many transitional stages in bombardier beetles. Want to learn about it?

11. If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of
`evolution`, an absolutely unbelievable series of chance events would
have had to occur. First, the complex and completely different
reproductive systems of the male must have completely and independently
evolved at about the same time and place as those of the female.

Wrong again. Sex began as an option, not as a required thing. We first see it in bacteria, (it's called "conjugation") two bacteria connect by pili, and transfer bit of DNA. Not necessary, but often useful. Later on, some organisms did it more frequently than not, and in most eukaryotes, it's become an obligatory way of reproduction. There are all sorts of transitional forms of sexual reproduction also.

If you doubt any of this, pick one you think is the most solid objection, and we'll look at it in detail. Let me know.

 

[Barbarian]

Not much point in making an unorthodox assertion, and hoping it might convince Christians. For that, you'll need something of substance. What have you got?

 

[Narwhalist]

Edward, greetings to you.
You said - Speaking of birds, what in the world possessed a reptile to climb a tree and jump out and learn to fly or grow feathers? - with all due respect, is this how you really perceive that evolution works? Animals don't turn into other animals, animals don't produce offspring with any other animals that is not their kind (species) for the most part, and animals don't mate with each other and suddenly two reptiles give birth to birds. Animals evolve ever so slowly, which is why it is so difficult to identify transitional species. It takes countless of micro-evolution events to make changes that would change one organism to the point that it is very different than the one at the beginning. Macro-evolution does not exist. Macro-evolution is countless of micro-evolution events one after another over a long period of time. And any mutation that would cause such a drastic change in a organism, that it would be very different from original is likely to be fatal.
I believe in Intelligent Design directed by God in such a way that it looks like an animal is evolving. I do not believe the human race to have evolved, but I believe that there were humans living a long time ago that evolved and died off when God created us. No way to prove this however. I believe in Adam and Eve because Jesus affirmed them. God bless

 

[Barbarian]

Oh, there's all sorts of evidence in the Animal kingdom and insect world that absolutely destroy evolution.

Insects are animals.

Dolphins & whales sonar

You have the same ability, just not as refined. Vikings navigated fjords by sonar in fog. And there are all sort of stages in that ability. What makes you think it couldn't evolve?

Giraffes and the valve & sponge in their brain

You have the same valves in the blood vessels going to your head. As in the giraffe, they serve to keep you from passing out if you suddenly stand. The giraffe version is more robust than yours, but it works the same way.

Bats and how they fly off and are able to find their young again

Lots of animals have an acute sense of smell and location. What makes you think that can't evolve?

Duckbill Platypus, Koala bears,Bombardier beetle, ants, Woodpeckers, Water Ouzels, Hummingbirds,

Feel free to open a thread for any of those, and we'll take a look at the claim. I don't see anything in any of them that poses a problem for evolutionary theory. Let us know if you can.

Speaking of birds, what in the world possessed a reptile to climb a tree and jump out and learn to fly or grow feathers?

You think that's what evolutionary theory says? No wonder you hate science. If I thought it was like that, I'd hate it, too. Would you like to learn how it actually happens?

Angler fish, Archer fish,Frogs, and others.

See above. Pick one and tell us what you think the problem is. And we'll talk.

How about in the plant world? How did the Venus Fly Trap evolve into being? It has to eat insects.

Actually, it doesn't. It can use photosynthesis, but it can also trap insects. Would you like to see the evidence for evolution of these? Start a thread, and we'll talk about it in some detail.

Scientists have supposedly proven that honeybees are incapable of flight, yet they fly.

It was an engineer, and the bee was a bumblebee. He wasn't aware that under each wing "lever" there's a pad of resylin, a very elastic substance that returns almost all the force placed upon it. And so the bumblebee flies, indifferent to what a creationist engineer thought about it.

There's tons of this stuff around. But you would have to be willing to actually receive the information rather than just blindly refute everything that you read or hear!

Pick the one you think is the best argument, and we'll take a look.

Non-living things gave rise to living things

So God says in Genesis.

(spontaneous generation)?

No. Spontaneous generation is the idea that complex metazoans can develop from rotting organic matter.

Evolutionists would ask us to take these assumptions and believe them in faith.

Evidence. Pick one, and I'll show you what the evidence is. If you want to do all of them, one at a time, I'll do that for you. But you pick which one you want first.

You're on.

 

[Vaccine]

9. A `simple' protein consists of about 100 amino acids. How likely
would it be that such a protein could `chain together` by chance? Assume
that we have a `soup` full of amino acids. We want these amino acids to
`link up` at random to form a protein consisting of 100 amino acids.
How many different combinations are there? Suppose there are 20
different amino acids available. If we wanted a chain of two acids there
would be 20 possibilities for the first and 20 for the second - a total
of 20 X 20 = 400 possibilities. For a chain of three acids, there would
be 20 X 20 X 20 = 8000 possibilities.
For a protein consisting of 100 amino acids (a `simple` protein),
there would be 20^100 possibilities. 20^100 is roughly equal to
10^130. Scientists have stated that there may be as many as 10^22 stars
in the observable universe. Let`s be generous and assume there are
1000 times that many. Let`s generously assume that each star has
10 `Earths`; that is, 10 planets that have the conditions necessary
for the support of life.
We will change the water into amino acids (10^46 molecules).
Thus, 10^26 * 10^46 = 10^72 amino acids on all the `earths`.
A year has less than 10^8 seconds for a total of 10^78 chains per
year. Let`s assume that the universe is 100 billion years old. We
would have 10^78 * 10^11 chains formed in all the oceans of amino
acids on all of our `earths` around all our stars, for all the years
that the universe has existed. But we have seen that there are
about 10^130 possibilities. Therefore, the probability of forming
by chance the given protein consisting of 100 amino acids in 10^89
tries is less that 10^89/10^130, which equals 1/10^41, OR,
0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000041. This is, needless
to say, an infinitely small number.

Thus, even if there were 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
`Earths`, instead of just the one Earth, the chances of life emerging on
EVEN ONE of them are bleak, to say the least.
And by the way, we looked at a `simple` protein. The average-
sized protein has 500 amino acids!

Hello tob! Thanks for sharing! I thought I'd build on your information if you don't mind. Amino acids can be 'left handed' or 'right handed' depending on the bonding site. Life only has the 'left handed type'. So in the 'soup' we would have to have only left handed ones link up to make life. Assuming enough left handed ones did link up, the next issue is shape. A string of amino acids has to be folded into a specific shape to work:

. View attachment 3351

Not to mention the origin of information. True, origin of life and evolution are two different things but I just wanted to share this.