Quote:

---

At some point during the growth of an insect larva, a gene called Dll switches on and helps organize some of its cells into legs. If for some reason Dll is shut off, the insect will produce only stumps. In the early 1990s scientists were surprised to discover that almost identical copies of this gene can be found in mammals and other vertebrates--and that they too switch on as legs form. This was surprising for two reasons. For one thing, insects and vertebrates have radically different limbs: ours have bone inside and muscle outside, while bugs are the reverse--their flesh is protected by an armored exoskeleton. For another thing, insects and vertebrates are only distantly related: our last common ancestor lived perhaps a billion years ago and was assumed to be limbless, like a flatworm. Researchers therefore imagined the two lineages evolved their limbs--and the genes that build them--independently.

---

Quote:

---

One other special feature of creation is so obvious we often fail to notice it: its beauty. I once took my invertebrate zoology class to hear a lecture on marine life by a scientist who had just returned from a collecting trip to the Philippines. Toward the end of his lecture he described the brightly colored fish he had observed at a depth where all wavelengths of light were absorbed except for some blue. In their natural habitat, the fish could not even see their own bright colors, so what possible survival value could the genetic investment in this color have?

---

That's a good question. It would seem that evolution had the intent to create 'useless' beauty in this case. But that sounds more like a design feature to me.

4). How could sex possibly have evolved? We may have answered this one, but refresh my memory.

5). Evolution is the only real 'god of the gaps.' In fact, the entire theory is based on gaps. Animals appear with no ancestor, and then disappear.

Punctuated equilibrium is, pardon my language, intellectual diarrhea. Its no more scientifically valid than saying, "God put fossils in the earth to test our faith." Except this time its, "Evolution put gaps everywhere in the fossil record to test our faith."

You can't call a theory scientific that, if true, should lack evidence. A theory, if true should HAVE evidence. A scientific theory is no longer scientific if you cannot falsify it, its a process of faith at that point.

"Evolution is true if we find intermediate fossils. Oops, there are none after 150 years of looking, so that means evolution would predict there would be no intermediate fossils because it happens too fast."

You're missing the obvious answer to the lack of evidence: Evolution isn't true.

6). Biogenesis. Where's the evidence? Speculation is fun. I'd love to know what its like to be superman...but I don't think I'm going to abuse science to convince everyone that I could be superman.

7). Creative mutations. I've shown you that every known mutation is utterly useless to the theory of evolution. Why haven't we seen an information-increasing mutation yet? Speculation on the possibility of information increasing mutations is great, but should be called speculation. Not science.

Accusing me of believing that mutations can't write information because I don't have the imagination is trying to shift the burden of proof. Science should be devoid of imagination (although that can't happen because that discounts the big bang, as well as magical membranes). I'm simply believing what I see. Mutations cause thousands upon thousands of known diseases (the slightest changes can cause some of the most debilitating problems). The intermediates between two relatively fit animals would be severely hindered, and would have a hard time continuing their 'evolution.'

8). Cambrian explosion. Almost every major phylum of animals appears within the blink of an eye. Evolution never supposedly happens this fast, first of all. Second of all, why are there no intermediates, once again? Is it because evolution happens outside of the observations of science? What would be the point of calling it anything but a fairy tale at that point?

9). I'm going to make an argument from emotion, just like Matt. Evolutionists only believe in evolution because they cannot believe in God. God has performed bigger miracles than evolution before, so it really isn't that hard to believe that God used evolution to create if need be.

However, evolutionists NEED evolution to be true. Because if it isn't then that makes the idea of a supernatural creator right around 100% likely. Although I'm sure you guys could always fall back on panspermia to save you from your creator if need be.

10). Love. What possible good is the evolution of love? Love contains many traits that are the EXACT OPPOSITE of evolution. Self sacrifice certainly being a big one. I can't imagine losing for the benefit of others would be selected for quite easily. You can't argue from the fact that love exists. Try arguing for the evolution of love, assuming that love had never existed. Doesn't make sense.

11). Our moon is escaping and our sun is shrinking. Both give much younger ages for the universe.

12). Eye evolution. I know you guys think you answered this with the absured 400,000 year hypothesis. But I don't think we discussed this in depth. You talked about light sensitive patches, and that sounds really great on the surface. But ignores the creation of a useful chain of nerves to tell the brain what's going on, as well as useful changes in the brain to even interpret the stimulation. Without all three things in place, any one of them is useless. Somehow I doubt that this happened even once, let alone the 40-60 times required by the evolutionary tree.

13). Lizards to mammals. When did non-breasts turn into breasts, and how can you explain it in depth without evoking magic (or imagination) of some sort? What good were the breasts before the lizard could drink the milk? What good was the milk before the lizard had breasts?

A full list would take me the rest of my life to write, and I still wouldn't be done. But I think here is good enough. When we settle these, we can move on to more. Good luck.

Quote:

---

Fossil evidence is sparse but bees probably appeared on the planet about the same time as flowering plants in the Cretaceous period, 146 to 74 million years ago. The oldest known fossil bee, a stingless bee named Trigona prisca, was found in the Upper Cretaceous of New Jersey, U.S.A., and dates from 96 to 74 million years ago.

---

Quote:

---

The discovery of 100 fossilized nests in Arizona's Petrified Forest hints that one extremely social insect may have been building hives as early as 220 million b.c.-Apoidea: the bee.

---

http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/2/2143/1.html

Therefore I would say your information is simply incorrect or highly misleading. Probably you read this on an evolutionist website, which frequently get facts wrong, or delibrately warp them to mislead poeple.

There may be compelling arguments for evolution, but this is certainly a compelling argument against it.

Quote:

---

First of all its diffcult to be certain about the origins of bees, as the fossil record is fragmentary.

---

Quote:

---

And the dual pump of the human heart is a pretty big mutation. Either you get it right or you die. How is it possible to go from a single pump heart to a dual pump heart by chance?

---

Quote:

---

This is funny, those are likely fossilized Cycads..they just look like beehives.

---

You know better than scientists then, including the source for the New York Times (a supposedly reputatable newspaper), and Gould himself (an evolutionary scientist). Next time I need some info on evolution, I'll bypass all those people who devote their lives to it and just come to you.

Quote:

---

"Estimates of the age of crown angiosperms are in the range (130-)140-180(-210) mybp (e.g. Doyle 2001; Sanderson & Doyle 2001; Wikström et al. 2001; Soltis et al. 2002a; Aoki et al. 2004; Sanderson et al. 2004; Bell et al. 2005; Leebens-Mack et al. 2005), although some estimates based on molecular data are substantially older and the whole issue of dating is a subject of intense discussion"

---

Quote:

---

All this aside there is no reason bees couldnt have developed before flowering plants, so your arguement proves exactly nothing. It just another example of garbage argument used by creationists who dont really understand science.

---

Quote:

---

And the dual pump of the human heart is a pretty big mutation. Either you get it right or you die. How is it possible to go from a single pump heart to a dual pump heart by chance?

---

Okey, so according to this all insects should be dead. A dual pump heart is NOT required to live (unless you got no single pump heart either. ) Infact to be more precise it's one pump and a dual chamber ...

Cheers

Quote:

---

A dual pump heart is NOT required to live

---

Quote:

---

No, it would not be a problem at all. The steps are even smaller than you think, eventhough the human heart as we now it now is an evolution marble off course, it has developed over million of years.

---

Quote:

---

Anatomic studies have made it more than plausible to conclude that the most likely way the evolution of the heart for vertebrates went is like this. Fish to amphibians to reptiles and to mammals. Any systematic drawing of all those hearts next to eachother should be enough to draw the exact same conclusion.

---

Ah yes, the diagrams can be matched up to show ascending complexity.

Except, your diagrams are unreasonably oversimplified. So, let's go a bit more in depth.

Fish are first in line. They have relatively simple, two chambered hearts. Fish circulation takes place in a simple loop. Heart -> Gills -> Body -> Repeat.

Pretty straight forward. Nothing too fancy. Next in line would be amphibians because fish supposedly evolved into amphibians.

Frogs for example receive blood from two different veins instead of one. So the changes aren't just in the structure of the heart. New hearts require massive rewiring of the overall circulatory system. I'm jealous of how much faith you have.

Furthermore, in frogs, one vein is getting the blood from the lungs and skin (which is oxygen rich) and the other vein is transporting oxygen that comes from the rest of the body (oxygen poor). The blood mixes in the ventricle, then pumped out through the Y-shaped artery at the top of the heart. This branches it back in the two directions: lungs and skin, and the rest of the body. So now instead of a simple loop, we have two loops. I suppose the lungs evolved on the amphibian, and then in response he evolved veins to make the lungs useful. Except the lungs are a burden, and would not be selected for, so the veins would never be made. If you put the veins first and then the lungs, then you have the same problem. So they evolved at the same time? So a partial vein system, which would include dead ends (trapping useful blood) etc, and partial, unworking lungs were selected for?

Let's look at some other interesting animals.

Amphibians led to reptiles (supposedly) so let's look at them next. Primarily alligators and crocodiles. Because they have some interesting design-features. When they breath air at the surface, they pump blood at two different pressures. However, when they go underwater their heart pumps at one intermediate pressure. Furthermore, blood stops going past their lungs, because their lungs are useless for the time being. The lungs are bypassed by an extra aorta emerging from the right ventricle.

Now, if you want to believe that some intermediate in this process would be viable, you can go ahead. But you have no scientific evidence to back you up. You just have simplistic heart diagrams. Those diagrams are the equivelant of your bunk, "Animals look alike, so they must have evolved," argument. There's no scientific evidence of heart evolution, and it isn't even feasible. Like other evolutionists, all you can do is compare existing hearts and hope that people will be duped into believing there are unobservable, non existent hearts that could have transitioned into them (despite that they would be useless in transition).

This is much like the eye example. Sure, adding certain things to the heart are great. But without the proper electrical signals to make the heart beat correctly, without the proper cirulatory wiring, the new additions to the heart are useless. Without the new additions to the heart, those two other things are useless. So this is another example of things that had to have evolved all at once. Except even the intermediate steps in that case are useless. So this happened with eyes 40-60 times, hearts a dozen times, flight a couple dozen times. Where's the evidence?

I'm not showing you this stuff to get you to admit that evolution is wrong. I know you never will, because then you run the risk of admitting we have a creator. Instead, I want you to admit that you don't actually have science on your side (just speculation and diagrams) and that you have to accept that it happens on faith. If I can get that much out of you, I'll be happy.

Here are some interesting links for undecided people following this debate.

This link explains why, even though evolution isn't science, its difficult to argue against when it comes to the poor souls who have been indoctrinated into it.

http://scienceagainstevolution.org/v5i2f.htm

This highlights another paradox.

http://scienceagainstevolution.org/v5i4n.htm

Oh yeah, this link also mentions people who believe that rape is probably not so bad because its just a result of evolution. Evolution is an ignorant, dangerous theory.