@Irish Farmer: I admit that I'm no evolution expert, but what you've posted against the origin of life seems illogical to me.

Claim: Life could not have originated on earth because it would have been destroyed by oxygen.

But all the oxygen in the atmoshere was produced by life, like algae or vegetation. So where should the oxygen to destroy life should have come from when life didn't exist yet?


Claim: Life on earth is using only left handed amino acids, while spontaenous amino acid creation produces 50% left and 50% right handed amino acids.

But life is self-reproducing and thus also reproduces it's amino handedness. And since the similarity of all DNA indicates that all life on earth is a successor of one first primitive organism, it obviously also has taken over the amino acids of that first organisms. It was just by chance left handed - it could just as well be right handed.

umm.. tha's the silliest thing I've heard yet.

Water is not DNA, DNA is not water. This makes no sense.

Having the same or similar DNA DOES mean things are related. You share DNA with your mother and father. Any DNA analyst could test you and find that you are related.

Just like because we share 96% or so of DNA with chimps, we know they are closely related. Unless of course you are not only denying evolution, but genetiics too. If so, good luck on your Nobel Prize, you've earned it.

"umm.. tha's the silliest thing I've heard yet.

Water is not DNA, DNA is not water. This makes no sense."

It's not silly, because both species of watermelons have all that water, because their DNA says to do that!

Come out of your SPACESHIP and get down to planet earth!
Get real man! Sheesh

lol

I appologize for that last "annonymous" post. I'm here at work now and are in a hurry and don't have much time right now. I like to have fun on these forums and not be so serious. Too me it's more than just expressing an idea, but it is FUN! Kinda like that new video game I'm making right now with A6.

Sorry about that last annonomous post!

But, hey I like this new "annonomous" thing, because then I can post stuff and you guys cannot get mad at me, right?
Can you get MAD at me? No, right? Please don't!

Oh well gotta go now. I leave it up to my farmer friend from rural America the BIG "Irish Farmer" and also "neonotso" to straighten you guys out.

You guys are all great! SHALOM!

Irish Farmer, I stand by everything i said. I'm afraid that I cant prove evolution for you, because in science, we dont "prove" theories. We can gather evidence in support of them, and weigh that evidence. We can also find evidence against a theory, and if there is enough evidence then we can "falsify" or disprove a theory. Evolution has to date not been disproven or falsified.

This is how science works. I have to say that upon reading your responses, that you havent even had basic science classes, or didn't pay any attention to the scientific method. I am beginning to feel sorry for you actually, because in a modern society, we can still produce ignorance on this level.

That you actually call evolution "junk science" is indicative of this. There is nothing "junk" about it. It may be wrong, but it is good science. Plenty of good science was shown to be false.

For instance, take the theory of "luminiferous ether". In the 19th century, particularly after Maxwell, most scientists belived that all waves had to have a medium in which to propagate. Therefore light had to have a medium too.. and since light tavels through space, space had to filled with some sort of substance, which is called the ether.

This was a logical theory. It was basically falsified by experimentation, which tried to to detect "eddies" or currents from the ether, using complicated apparatus. No such effects were detected, therefore the idea of the ether was shown to be most likely false. Eistein then showed that light didnt need a medium in which to propagate.

So therefore, to attack Darwinian evolutionary theory scientifically you need to gather evidence against it, from experimentation and observation. Then you need to weigh that evidence against the evidence for evolution.

None of your arguments constitue evidence against evolutionary theory. In fact most of your arguments are flawed inherently. Arguments alone are not generally good evidence for or against a theory. You need data that need to be gathered scientifically.

While many, many things point to Darwinian evolution, nothing points against it. All you do is make arguments against minutiae you dont really understand.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the basic ways to measure the worth of a theory is it's power to explain, and to predict. Evolution is overwhelmingly succesful at both..here are some examples:

1)Darwin predicted that the earliest human ancestors would be found in Africa, and they were.

2)Darwin predicted that would be so-called "intermediate" forms between various species, and even orders. We found this, like as in Archeaopteryx (which is intermediate between the archosaur clade and aves).

3)Darwinian evolution posits (although Darwin probably didnt even realize this) a measn to pass aquired traits to next generations. So in effect Darwin predicted Gentics, and thus DNA. It wasnt until the rediscovery of Gregor Mendel's work that we had a notion of this actually owrked. When watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA, we then learned exactly what form genetic data takes.

4) Darwinian evolution explains and predicts the close genetic relationship between all known life, a fact that without evolutionary theory would be unexplainable. Imagine without evolutionary theory, how odd it would be to see that we shared genes with yeast or cockroaches. this may not "prove" evolutions, but a sane man would have to accept it as very strong evidence.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evolutionary theory also explains how certain adaptations become generic. For instance, how to explain flgihtless bird species, such the flightless cormorant(Nannopterum harrisi) of the Galapagos? It has close relatives on the continent that are not flightless. Why would this happen? because flightlessness seems to be advantageous when there are no predators, such as on a remote island.

Therefore, the reduction of wings must be brought about by mutation, and then selected by reproduction benefits, and it becomes generic. This is how evolution works. The loss of flight ina bird is not "devolution", it is not loss of genetics as you think ofit. They dont suddenly "lose" some genes (where'd me genes go man?). So for this bird, in this environment, the loss of wings was good thing, and the product of a benefical series of mutations.

Just like Sickle cell anemia was a good adaptation in areas where malaria was prevalent. I have sai this before, but since you are intent on being pig-headed, SICKLE CELL WAS BETTER THAN DYING OF MALARIA. There are other cases besides sickle cell, of one potentially harmful trait arising because over time, it was favorable--in a given condition. Sickle cell doesnt occur where there is no malaria. Therefore it was beneficial, because it became generic.

The fact is there is no devolution, because unfavorable traits are less liekly to be passed on. Natural selection only passes on, those traits which are favorable for survival and reproduction. The sickle cell thing just illustrates this.

You won't find "devolution" in any textbook, because it is not a scientific concept. Its a dead horse, stop beating it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To sum up, none of the things you mention in your "paper" constitute evidence AT ALL, let alone evidence against Darwinian evolution. You can only deny reality so much until you look rediculous. The reality is, that all life on Earth is related to all other life. Each species to each species, more or less. Humans are not the pinnacle, we are not unique or somehow above the cycles of life and death.

We are animals, like chimpanzees and platypuses. We are mammals, but we are also related to dinosaurs and birds too. We were once not more than a prey, now we are the preditors. But still, try telling that to the hungry aligator that walks across your path in the swamps.

Creationists seem to require certainty, a certainty that science can never provide. We can never know some things for sure, we can never explain exactly how everything happened. We can come close, and every bit of progress we make is important.

To deny evolution is to deny more than Darwin. It means you deny all biology, genetics, geology, paleontology, and in fact all science, because evolution is the result of the scientific method. And by the same token, you deny everything good about mankind.

We must never give in to defeatists like you Irish, who really, deep down, despise humanity. Yes, you really hate humans beings, Homo Sapiens, the thinking man. You yearn for the swamp, like the muck in your grey and dreary soul.

You offer no evidence but your own blazing certainty that everyone is wrong and you and ONLY YOU are right. You feel you have a special knowledge, a secret knowledge. This you hold onto in the shrieking emptiness of your life. But the emptiness is you.

The world will go on, and so will science. You can't wait until Darwin is relegated to the Dark Ages? You will wait forever, and it will be in a place you Christians call Purgatory.