Evolution: What is it? (long article)

Information Central ^ | Craig McClarren

[AndrewC]

That's not evolution, that's not even speciation

Catholic priests and nuns, hmmm......I think the definition needs a little more work.

[VadeRetro]

A human in Los Angeles cannot breed with a human in New York City, but that does not mean that they are different species.

Is this science?

[Doctor Stochastic]

It may (or not) be science, but it shows a lack of understanding of airplanes, trains, automobiles, bicycles, carriages, horses, feet, etc. (Did I put the carriage before the horse?)

[gore3000]

Chimp DNA and Human DNA are pretty damned close (sharing between 98 and 99 percent of the same genes). If Neanderthals are "about half way"

One thing about evolutionists - scientific proof does not matter. All that matters is that their theory has to have an ancestor to man because the whole purpose of the theory is to deny that God is the Creator of man. However, as the Pope said, truth cannot deny truth and that is why the descent of man from monkeys keeps getting disproven by real science:

DNA clues to Neanderthals

Scientists have analysed the DNA of a third Neanderthal in an attempt to shed light on the genetic history of early humans. The results suggest that, like modern humans, Neanderthals expanded from a relatively small number of individuals.

And there is no evidence to indicate that Neanderthals interbred with modern humans, something that has always been a bone of contention among experts.
From:   BBC News

[gore3000]

Says who? H. Erectus obviously predated both H. Sapien and H. Neanderthalensis,

Says who? Guess? You want to guess? Evoutionists say so. Not your strawmen, the non-atheists, but evolutionists. Homo erectus ceased to exist at the most 200,000 years ago. Most sources say it perished even before that. Here's a hint for you: dead species do not reproduce.

[Doctor Stochastic]

dead species do not reproduce.

Are your great-great-grandparents all still alive?

[gore3000]

The plain fact is that we are presented with a geological record stretching back some several m[b]illion years. This record indicates that at one time there was no life on the face of the Earth, then there were simple forms and then gradually more complex forms appeared.

Appeared and descent are two totally different things. It is not up to you or anyone to tell God how he should have done things. Further, the fossil record does not prove anything at all. Practically all the major families, orders, genera and phyla that we see in the fossil record are still around, the major exception being the dinosaurs. We still have living and breathing the simplest forms of life like single celled bacteria and the most complex, humans. If evolution, and its agent, selection - the destroyer of life, were to be true, those simpler, less developed species should have been long gone - they would have transformed themselves into a higher species. But they are not. They are still alive and well. In fact, the most successfull species of all, the one that is to be found just about everywhere on earth, in places where no man would even go is the simplest of them all - bacteria.

Everyone knows that there are holes in Darwinism. They are so well known that the only people who go to the trouble of enumerating them over and over are creationists that need to boost their confidence in an even more far fetched theory.

There's a problem with your statement above: a theory which has been contradicted by evidence is a theory no more. It is just a false hypothesis. The holes in evolution/Darwinsim are bigger than the Grand Canyon and the theory has been totally disproven (not that it was ever proven!).

[gore3000]

Five species (human, chimp, gorilla, et al) with the exact same mutation beats four aces.

I think the first time you posted that one you said that it was only man and chimp that had the same mutation and I told you that since the other apes did not have it, it was a disproof of evolution. Seems you have taken my statement under consideration and changed your story.

The above is just a nice way of saying:

BACK IT UP WITH FACTS

[gore3000]

Oh, to account for those birth defects I keep bringing up

There's a very simple answer to that which you will not like - birth defects do not prove evolution. Sometimes (very seldom, but it does happen) humans are born with two heads. Kindly tell us from what ancestry such a defect came from.

[gore3000]

Why have none of the so-called intermediate forms survived?

Because we killed them.

I guess that by "we" you mean humans? Are you saying that we killed the dinosaurs? That we killed the intermediate forms between birds and reptiles, between amphibians and reptiles, between fish and amphibians, between mammals and reptiles, and the foulest deed of all that we killed all the numerous species from which the platypus descended? Are you saying such a ridiculous thing?

[gore3000]

The main business of the genome is encoding the information to create hundreds of thousands of enzymes and proteins that form the superstructure of the organism.

And each different genus of life has quite a few totally different genes producing totally different enzymes from even the closest known genus. Yet no one has even been able to show how a single new gene could have been formed to create these new faculties, traits, abilities. And no, selection cannot be the answer because a non-functional new gene cannot give any selective advantage, it can only give a selective disadvantage.

[gore3000]

nearly circular orbits of the planets,

Where did you go to school? The orbits of the planets are wildly elliptical. Some of the planets that we think of as nearer to the sun are at times further out than those we consider farther from the sun. You clearly do not know beans about astronomy.

[gore3000]

evolution describes the process that brought about new species on this planet far better than anything else put forth,

Not true at all. I know you will not like this answer but the concept of a divine Creator explains everything completely with no holes, no contradictions and no need of digging in the muck for fossils. Now, I want you to remember before you respond that you have said a few times already that you are a devout Roman Catholic.

[gore3000]

True. We're basically a brainier, naked species of chimpanzee.

No we are not. There is far more than a difference in degree between man and chimp, there is a difference in kind. The human ability and indeed need to communicate, is not found in any other species. The human ability and indeed need of art for art's sake is not found in any other species. The heights of scientific achievement of humans are not even dreamt of by any other species.

[Doctor Stochastic]

The orbits of the planets are wildly elliptical. Some of the planets that we think of as nearer to the sun are at times further out than those we consider farther from the sun.

Please post the orbital elements of the planets to show from whence you got the above statment.

Where did you go to school? You clearly do not know beans about astronomy.

[gore3000]

"Common Descent" theory (which relies on evolution as a mechanism, but is not evolution itself)

You are talking absolute nonsense. Of course evolutionism and common descent go hand in hand. How can species be evolving into something else otherwise? It seems you are deeply into semantics. I am not. Your definition is so vague it is meaningless. It is purposefully vague because you know quite well the tremendous holes in evolution theory and you are looking for a definition which does not have such holes.

[gore3000]

Adaptation, at least as it occured with the finches, is evolution.

No, it is not. The article clearly showed that the finches did not evolve into anything. Now, I know that the article is quite long, but that is not an excuse for criticising it without reading it. Here's the conclusion to what happened to the finches:
And the beautiful thing about evolution is that this is what it does; swing back and forth, and achieves a net gain of zero in either direction.

In other words, adaptation led nowhere.

[razorbak]

Once again the evolutionist takes adaptation within a species to "prove" macro-evolution, the development of one completely different species that could not reproduce with the original variation. [i.e. There are three hundred dogs in the world- one third black, one third white and one third spotted. I take a machine gun and kill the white and black dogs leaving only the spotted. The evolutionist says a new species has evolved. Therefore an alligator can turn into a bird. What infantile logic.]