quote:

Originally posted by oli_uk:
Evolution has no real proof behind it

Well if you don't count approx 150 years of constant confirmation with all the data which has been accumulated from our studies of the natural world "Proof" then I suppose not.

Of course 2000 years of blind belief in a book, the bible, (whose authorship is dubious to say the least) and which has had to be re-interpreted to conform with science obviously shows that creation is correct.

quote:

Originally posted by oli_uk:
Can anyone here produce 1 bit of proof that evolution has ACTUALLY happend???

For obvious reasons I cannot cite you as an example. Hey, maybe you're the missing link?

Ever heard of MRSA or any of the other drug resistant virii. To be topical why do you think that there is concern over bird flu?

Being stupid isn't your fault but to constantly expose that stupidity in public is.

quote:

Originally posted by oli_uk:
How can you call us creationist nutcases???

Kathy if you dont have anything worth while saying then please dont post in here. This is a proper debate (supposedly) so please keep on topic!!!

A proper debate? So as a creationist why have you not proposed any argument for its validity? All you keep saying is that Evolution is wrong, even if you were correct (which you ain't) it wouldn't prove your case.

So, you wacko, let's here your evidence for creation. In fact show how stupid you are and post some of your creationist facts which disprove "Evolution" - be warned I will check them and mark you accordingly.

Evolution should called a law not a theory, how do creationists explain the "spontaneous" appearance of antibiotic resistance?

Easy its not spontaneous, every day in labs all over the world microbiologists prove evolution by exposing bacteria to gradient concentrations of antibiotics to measure the rate at which the bacteria EVOLVE resistance. This shows the adaption of existing genes to new purposes and creation of new genes. Thats not even including evolution by horizontal transfer by plasmids or transposons.

We can even take all the strains inbetween total suseptability and total resistance and observe the DNA changes.

Creationists (ID'ers) try to argue that mutation is deleterous, damaging genes but this is disproved by the above.

Anybody see that article in new scientist about how equations of gravity and the strong forces cant be untied. Except this great new theory that sucessfully unites them.....Intelligent falling. I dont see any difference between that and ID.

If we are descended from apes, why are there still apes around.
What has happened to their evolutionary process?

quote:

Originally posted by labras:
If we are descended from apes, why are there still apes around.
What has happened to their evolutionary process?

Taken from http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/thingscreationistshate.htm

Their Third Cousins

One of the more idiotic quips I've heard (more than once, I'm sad to say) from creationists is, "If humans evolved from apes, then how come there are still apes around?" I can't speak for the creationists' immediate ancestry, but mine runs something like this: one of my great-great-grandfathers was named Ross. Among his offspring, one married a Thompson and produced children who were Thompsons. One of those children had children of her own who were neither Rosses nor Thompsons, but Icenogles. An Icenogle daughter produced me, who am none of the above, but a Riggins.

Thus, Rosses gave rise to descendants who are no longer Rosses. Some have become Rigginses. But some Ross descendants are still Rosses! There are still Rosses around, even though some of their descendants "evolved" into Rigginses, and a lot of other "species."

This isn't biological evolution, of course, but the principle is exactly the same: an ancestor can produce descendants which are very like itself (of the same species), while at the same time having other descendants which have become something else. The existence of descendants which have varied widely doesn't mean the original type has ceased to exist, or that there wasn't, in fact, a common ancestor. That's as true of anthropoids and Homo as it is of your ancestors, you, and those third cousins who retain the ancestral name that your branch of the family no longer uses.

From a contributor:
Actually, the creationist quip of "if humans evolved from apes, how come apes are still around?" has a much more serious flaw than the fact that a species can still exist after another has descended from it. Humans did not evolve from apes. Humans share a common ancestor with apes. So a better analogy is that both I and my 3rd cousin are around, regardless of the fact that we share a common ancestor (our great-great-grandparents). I think this one goes hand in hand with the claims like "evolution claims that dogs evolved from bananas" (Kent Hovind said this one).

quote:

Originally posted by C14:

quote:

Originally posted by labras:
If we are descended from apes, why are there still apes around.
What has happened to their evolutionary process?

Taken from http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/thingscreationistshate.htm

Their Third Cousins

One of the more idiotic quips I've heard (more than once, I'm sad to say) from creationists is, "If humans evolved from apes, then how come there are still apes around?" I can't speak for the creationists' immediate ancestry, but mine runs something like this: one of my great-great-grandfathers was named Ross. Among his offspring, one married a Thompson and produced children who were Thompsons. One of those children had children of her own who were neither Rosses nor Thompsons, but Icenogles. An Icenogle daughter produced me, who am none of the above, but a Riggins.

Thus, Rosses gave rise to descendants who are no longer Rosses. Some have become Rigginses. But some Ross descendants are still Rosses! There are still Rosses around, even though some of their descendants "evolved" into Rigginses, and a lot of other "species."

This isn't biological evolution, of course, but the principle is exactly the same: an ancestor can produce descendants which are very like itself (of the same species), while at the same time having other descendants which have become something else. The existence of descendants which have varied widely doesn't mean the original type has ceased to exist, or that there wasn't, in fact, a common ancestor. That's as true of anthropoids and Homo as it is of your ancestors, you, and those third cousins who retain the ancestral name that your branch of the family no longer uses.

From a contributor:
Actually, the creationist quip of "if humans evolved from apes, how come apes are still around?" has a much more serious flaw than the fact that a species can still exist after another has descended from it. Humans did not evolve from apes. Humans share a common ancestor with apes. So a better analogy is that both I and my 3rd cousin are around, regardless of the fact that we share a common ancestor (our great-great-grandparents). I think this one goes hand in hand with the claims like "evolution claims that dogs evolved from bananas" (Kent Hovind said this one).

Still doesnt answer the question. If you favour evolution, then why does nature evolve some apes to men and leave others billions of years behind.

quote:

Originally posted by labras:
Still doesnt answer the question. If you favour evolution, then why does nature evolve some apes to men and leave others billions of years behind.

Ah, it is true that I didn't answer the above question. That is because the above question is nonsensical. It is a bit like asking "If the moon is made of rock and not cheese, how come my supermarket sells brie and cheddar?"

A chimp is not "billions of years behind" man. The two species separated just a few million years ago and chimps are just as evolved as man.

BTW I do not "favour" evolution, I simply understand it and thus realise why it is fact and creation is myth.

hehehe oh dear......

Are you more evolved than a shark? can you breath underwater? how long would you surivive if we dropped you in the sea?

Evolution is adaptation to an environment, Re: Apes, if we dropped you in a jungle could you survive? but your more complex?

You see complexity as the only outcome of evolution, the fastest evolving organisms!? (yes i know) are viruses but they contain the fewest genes.

Some viruses can replicate in less than 20 min, imagine if a virus has less genetic material and can relicate faster than its cousins that contain a gene not needed in that environment then which becomes dominant? the less complex!

Works both ways

Is due to this evolution to environment, and so competition, that an estimated 99% of the species that have ever existed are now extinct. How intelligent is the designer?

quote:

Originally posted by labras:
If we are descended from apes, why are there still apes around.
What has happened to their evolutionary process?

I love it when people ask questions like this! You seem to be sceptical of evolution, not a bad thing in itself as all scientists (and anyone can be considered a scientist if they do their research)need to maintain that sceptism, it's what drives science and our knowledge of the world forward, constantly questioning our current beliefs (with no ulterior motive -unlike creationism). However, to be able to make such judgements you need to be well informed of the arguments from both sides, and asking the above question plainly demonstrates you are not. Try reading 'The Blind Watchmaker' by Richard Dawkins, it takes you through the process of evolution clearly and the evidence and logic is hard to deny.
Oh, and the apes. As paulie and C14 have both so eloquently put it, we did not descend from THEM, the apes we know and love today, they are in fact a distant cousin, just a few million years back in the family line, and are themselves quite different in many ways to the common ancestor we both shared all that time ago. We've both just adapted in different ways to the environment around us, which has moulded our physical states by the process of natural selection. Does that make sense now? Asking questions is always good, but if you've decided on the answer beforehand, why bother?

but y dont buttaflies turn into crocodiles on a daily occurence?



*no1 in the pointless fanclub*
*generic tw*t 316 of the idiot club*
*something about megzie*
*leah to die*
big brother rules my life and im dermots b*tch in several ways*