Quote:

Evolution is a word we use to describe observable phenomenon.



Depends on which kind of evolution you're talking about. Macro or micro. They both represent two different ideas. Also, some of the people on the creationist side of the argument are getting things mixed up here, but I'll clear that up in a minute.

Quote:

like say a coconut crab having a slightly better ability to breath air than it's parents.



That's a great example, but one that we don't observe in nature. All of the other examples that you brought up are simply genetics becoming faulty. Which as far as mutations go doesn't do much good to the species. The one example you came up with that was positive has never been observed in nature. You can't just pull stuff out of your butt and use it as proof. Have scientists seen these crabs gain the ability to breath better? And more importantly, does that really matter? Because you would still have a long way to go in showing that crabs can gain lungs when they never had them (regardless of the amount of time). Imagine these crabs living in water their whole lives. If they're slowly transitioning into lungs, then where are they breathing in the meantime? Because at the same time, the complex behaviors for how to live on land would have to accidentally mutate alongside these lungs (which is still a simplified version of how something like this would take place). Assuming this is even possible in the first place, we're talking about horrible odds for the crab, and you would have us believe that this happens all the time...everywhere in nature.

I think you forget its not just the lungs that need to evolve, its the ability to use them correctly, as well as the behavior to transition the animal onto land. I might like those odds if it only had to happen once or twice in the history of life, but thousands and thousands of times?

And that's all without having to tackle the problem of a lack of ADDED genes. I know why you're getting confused, because genes and DNA are constantly in transition in nature. But that doesn't change the fact that you can't have beneficial mutations. Albeit, there are detrimental mutations that actually end up being beneficial. The problem with those are that they still require a gene to become faulty or a gene to become corrupt. Both of which still won't allow for the addition of new features to existing animals. Faulty genes don't produce wings, they simply remove the wings.

Quote:

unable to mate with the older species they arose from. This is why a seemingly "new" form can appear.



I agree. These new forms can appear which render the animal incapable of reproducing with its 'ancestor.' However, you still haven't shown this not to be devolution. If a species is just a group that can reproduce, so what? The loss of genetic data prevents seemingly similar animals from reproducing with each other all the time in nature, thus creating a new 'species', but again we're only dealing with loss. Evolution requires 'uphill' evolution in order to explain how a bacteria can become a fish. A new species being created lacks an explanation for how that becomes possible.

Quote:

However, certain forms are indeed far more succesful than others, and once that form is reached, then evolution can slow down immensely..and the animal appear to have reached its apex state. Consider the crocodilians. Crocodile, aligators, are more or less unchanged for millions of years. This i because no more major adaptation was needed, and mutatiosn didnt favor any particular direction. So the animals have stayed more or less how they are since the time of the dinosaurs(who have long since changed, into birdies).



Or maybe they were just created with the ability to live successfully in their environment. We can sit here and talk about both of our opinions all day long, but lets stick to concrete proof for a while.

Quote:

Dinos didn't just one day grow wings and fly off.



Quit patronizing me. I may not believe evolution, but I know how it works.

Quote:

In fact flying may have been a secondary adaptation after the winged arms were fairly developed. The feathers may have orginaly served some other purpose; it has been speculated that they developed in response to the animals becoming warm-blooded (endo-thermic), and need for insulation (like fur in mammals).



You keep speculating, or repeating other peoples' speculations, but it serves no purpose here.

This entire statement becomes null when I ask, "How did this happen?" I know your answer, evolution, but we need to get straight to the root of the problem and explore whether or not evolution is possible. Once we get that ironed out, then we can deal with the fine print.

Quote:

The wing itself is no more than an elongated arm with minimized fingers(phalanges).



That shows exactly how little you know. Its MUCH more complex than that. If the wing were just a remix of a hand, birds would be unable to fly because they would be too heavy. Also, you're still not speaking of proof, you're just speculating.

Quote:

Look a sake skeleton. Snake fossils have been found with more devloped limbs



How does that prove that these limbs are vestigial? We're dealing with a trace of history. I'm not going to get into how scientists in the past have made MONUMENTAL mistakes when evaluating fossils. That's important to know that in hundreds of documented cases, scientists have been wrong about fossils time and again, either mistaking other animals within the stomach of an animal as part of the animal, or mistaking a pig for an early human being.

However, these legs prove nothing. My hypothesis is that the snake used them to swim. We simply can't infer enough from the skeleton to know everything about the animal.

However, I'm going to save the rest of my argument against vestigial limbs for a moment here.

Quote:

Why would snakes have limbs, or vestigial limbs? Becasue they once had 4 legs like lizards, and eventually lost them because their evolving body-type and life-behavior didnt need them. But the traces of thier past can be seen i their anatomy tday.



Before I tell you why these limbs aren't actually vestigial I want to point out the problem with vestigial limbs.

In principle, its not possible to prove that an organ is useless, because there is always the possiblity that a use will be discovered in the future. This has happened hundeds of times. Remember the tailbone? Turns out it is actually integral to keeping the shape of our skeletal structure. In females, the tailbone actually assists in birth. The appendix? Turns out it helps the immune system. Yet for the longest time scientists claimed this proved we evolved from something else that used these things.

But, that argument aside, snakes have been known to use those mini-limbs during reproduction. They act as claspers. So if they're not just sitting there, unused, then how can they possibly be vestigial?

There's still another problem with vestigial organs. They don't prove what evolutionists like you need to have undeniable proof of: positive mutations.

Let's say that these vestigial organs actually existed (which I've just shown they do not and will continue to show you if you want to keep bringing up examples), if they exist they just prove devolution. Or the loss of data once again. If a snake loses its legs, is it gaining something new? No. You're inferring that just because they have these useless legs (which actually have a use) that means they came from something else. The proof simply isn't there.

Its well within the realm of creationism to have seemingly useless organs. Its just the natural process of the loss of genetic data. However, the only observable changes must still occur within the genetic range of that creature. If on the other hand we could see that snakes were growing legs, that would be a whole other story because that's what evolution would require.

Quote:

The vestigial gills in coconut crabs today do indicate that the creature once lived in water



You didn't even read my response at all, did you? The gills are not useless. The crabs breath in the water while still developing, and then transition over to the land. Its only once on the land that they lose the ability to breath underwater. Thus, the gills have a purpose.

I admit, ADULT crabs will drown if they stay underwater. But their young are required to spend AN ENTIRE MONTH in the ocean. They use the gills to breath, much like tadpoles use gills to breath before they become a frog. You're just getting confused because unlike frogs, the crabs don't lose the gills when they grow old. Doesn't make anything vestigial.

Quote:

Stragnge, because a human fetus can surved immersed in amniotic fluids.



If you're implying that we can breath underwater at some point, then you have a lot of catching up to do with the scientific world. We don't need to breath while in the womb because our mother's blood is being pumped through the umbilical chord. What does blood contain? Oxygen.

Quote:

It's one thing to bash sciences when lack understanding of them



I never once bashed science. I love science. I'm bashing your faith in something that can't be proven (something unscientific). The fact that you're not willing to deal with real concrete proof is your own problem. Evolution isn't science, because science deals with what can be 'proved.' With the exception of theoretical sciences, but those are called theoretical for a reason. You're treating evolution as if it has abundant proof. Something that completely lacks proof, and exists only as a 'likely' idea in the minds of scientists isn't my idea of a sound theory. But I'll let my proof speak for me. Let's just let this keep playing out.

Quote:

I can go on and on about evolution, biology and so on. But the fact is you dont want to to hear this, because you emotionally dont the implications of like evolution. You obviously dont understand the science behind it.



Have you read my mind? Do you somehow know what I'm afraid of? Maybe you're afraid that you might actually have to be accountable for your own actions. These types of arguments are useless. If you're right, then stick to the proof.

Furthermore, don't question my scientific understanding. I'm not the one who said wings are basically hands (a statement that would have scientists spinning in their graves). I've stuck to the science of evolution this entire time. You have no real answer to my points except supposed proof, which I have no problem refuting time and again, or you just provide your own opinions. Just because you 'think' evolution happened doesn't mean it did. Half of your post consisted of what you thought had happened. Just provide the examples, they'll speak for themselves.

The problem is that you can't provide the examples, and when you do there's always a scientific answer that refutes them. So keep them coming. The truth can keep showing you why you're wrong for as long as you insist on being wrong.

Quote:

but its down right rediculous they know so little about thier own religion but try to use it as proof positive in arguments



Resorting to bashing christianity is counterproductive here.

In fact, you've had absolutely nothing useful to add to this discussion, Grimber. You have no proof to back up your belief, you just keep attacking christianity as if that somehow confirms that you're right. Start your own thread to bash religion if that's all you feel like doing.


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

Several people have posted by this time, so I'll have to respond now.

Quote:

No, but the fission is an important part for the sun to be a sun.



Yup. And we actually have proof of fission. We don't of evolution. Let's not get sidetracked here. Let's just keep focused on whether or not evolution is possible.

Quote:

if you doubt that lizzards can get wings, then you have to doubt the rules of genetics and not evoulution!



I don't doubt that you can force a reprogram of a lizard to gain wings. I do doubt that it can happen naturally however, because we simply have no proof of it happening naturally. We have lizards with wings, no doubt, but you're the one who isn't willing to accept the possibility that it was created that way. If that were an intermediate animal, then the wings would have to be useless. Which I highly doubt they are. A fish with wings would still have the wings for a reason. The wings don't just sit there for the fun of it.

Quote:

If a bunch of ape like creatures are able to manage this,



That's exactly the problem. The only way stuff like this can happen is if we FORCE it to happen. You'll never see a human ear grow on a mouse without intervention. Us tampering with genetics is proof only of what an aggressive force can have on genetics, not what a passive force (like nature) can have.

Quote:

what makes you think that the huge power of something like mother nature



You've managed to replace God with your own god: nature. If nature is so passive, then how does it have any power? This is what I mean when I say materialism is a religion. If nature isn't god-like, then it has no power, and it is passive as has been said. That's besides the point, however.

Anyway, I'll just wait for the next string of responses.

"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."