Adel Posted March 18, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 I am going to start with four points that I want you to understand before I go any further.1) It is somewhat irrational to suggest that because the earth is complex their must be a more complex creator, with out turning that logic around at this even more complex ccreator. Personaly I find it easier to believe that the less complex object (the earth) has no creator than the more complex object (god) not having one. 2) The term Darwinism is a bit of an abusrd term tossed around by YEC, Darwin was one of the early theororists who came up with a mechanism for Evolution, natural selection. 3) Natural selection is not random, so when individuals describe evolution as random, they are being so ignorant it is not even funny. 4) Evolution is not persay dealing with where the first life forms came from, but how these life forms have changed over time. ------------------------------- On to the other stuff.... 1) Mutations When someone tells you that mutations are like hitting a clock with a hammer, you should refer to this person as a dip shit who doesn't know what they are talking about. Mutations do infact happen, most mutations tend to be fairly neutral. Wether they are harmful or helpful is generally a factor of the environment, not the what the brain of some dimwitted moron thinks. ex. We can see mutations all the time in bacteria and the development of anti-biotic resistances, these are mutations. 2) Microevolution to Macroevolution This is agian another one of those false dillema's there is no reason why micro-evolutionary changes cannot eventually lead to speciation through divergence of the gene pool and sperated breeding. Huh? Okay so if we start with mutations (which happen, and are observed) All that is truly neccessary is time and reproductive drift/barriers to reproduction We have prooven that we have the time, and a hell of a long time we have. Bariers? Can a chihauaha naturally breed with a wolf? (can't happen in nature) Can a wolf breed with a Coyote (Cannot happen period) That would be drift Macro-evolution is not two fishes having sex and boom an elaphant popped out. It is just as simple as two fishes having sex and a fish popping out. After all how many species of fish do we have? I will give you a clue, more than one. So when you say that you don't believe in Macro-evolution because fish only give birth to fish, you are ignoring the fundemental point that there are more than one species of fish. Macro-evolution can be just that a fish giving birth to a fish. 3) Traces So what we want to look for is traces of such ancestry - We might raise a question like why do humans have latent tails, or have you ever fell on your tail bone? A modern manifestation of a different past. - We might look at the present and see snakes with a pelvis, or latent claws, and then look in the past and see fossil snakes with legs A modern manifestation of a different past 4) Vestigal organs - Vestigal does not mean useless, instead it is a secondary use to their original use...so if someone says, "it has a use it cannot be a vestigal"...take that hammer you were hitting your radio with and smash them in the head, don't worry it cannot possibley make them any dumber. - Appendix, it has a different use than just giving us a appendicites, instead it would stand as a modern manifestation of a different past, a past in which our diet was different from what it now could be. -wings on an ostrich No not useless but overly complex for the task they are being used for by ostriches. 5) Non-functional DNA i.e The existance of parts of left over genes that corresponds to the biosynthesis of Vitamin C The Exon 10 for Gulo This is a shared charachteristic of not just humans but other primates, species in which we see a relative recent divergence of our lineage. English? We have a mutation that exists in humans, and the Human Lineage Within that lineage we find that the Human sequence most closely correpsonds to chimpanzees, the primate in which are lineage most recently split from. It is not simply a case that this function has been lost, But that our closest relatives have also lost that function, and amongst our relative primates, those primates that share the most recent ancestor with us (Chimps) have the most similar sequence to us. This same phenomenon can be witnessed with the Guinea Pig, which has also lost the same function. Of course between Humans And guinea pigs there are species that are capable of vitamin C biosynthesis. Therefore we should not expect similarities between the Primate sequence and Guinea Pig sequence. The Guinea Pig sequence should be closely related to its family members. Although they are both non-functional, the actual sequence of the guinea pig and the primate are vastly different. Instead the guinea pig's non-functional sequence is most similar to that of its family members (Rats and mice) not primates. just as would be suggested by evolution. Thanks Slavik44 for your repy… I appreciate it appreciate it… although I did not appreciate some words like ‘dip shit….. some dimwitted moron…’ when describing some people because they do not agree with you … When someone tells you that mutations are like hitting a clock with a hammer, you should refer to this person as a dip shit who doesn't know what they are talking about.Mutations do infact happen, most mutations tend to be fairly neutral. Wether they are harmful or helpful is generally a factor of the environment, not the what the brain of some dimwitted moron thinks Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nuclei of the cells of a living organism and which contains all its genetic information. Mutation is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only damage it. Biologist B. G. Ranganathan states: “ First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, here would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.” [b. G. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania: The Banner Of Truth Trust. 1988.] More? The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments on the report prepared by the committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that might have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War: “ Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good affect—evolution to higher forms of life—result from mutations practically all of which are harmful? [Warren Weaver et al., "Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation", Science, vol. 123, June page1159] Okay so if we start with mutations (which happen, and are observed)All that is truly necessary is time and reproductive drift/barriers to reproduction Well, the fundamental science that can shed light on the matter is paleontology, the science of the study of fossils. So it is Imperative to compare the hypotheses of the theory of evolution with fossil discoveries. According to the theory of evolution, every species has emerged from a predecessor. This transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years. If this were the case, then innumerable intermediate species should have lived during the immense period of time when these transformations were supposedly occurring. So there must have been millions of transitional forms… Am I saying that? No. Listen to Darwin “If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains. ” Darwin knew the biggest stumbling-block for his theory… let Darwin continue “…Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me.” [The Origin of Species, 124-125] He asserted that when the fossil record had been studied in detail, the missing links would be found. So what does fossil record say? Robert Carroll, an expert on vertebrate paleontology and a committed evolutionist, comes to admit that the Darwinist hope has not been satisfied with fossil discoveries: “ Despite more than a hundred years of intense collecting efforts since the time of Darwin's death, the fossil record still does not yield the picture of infinitely numerous transitional links that he expected.” [Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 25.] More? Another evolutionary paleontologist, K. S. Thomson, tells us that new groups of organisms appear very abruptly in the fossil record: “When a major group of organisms arises and first appears in the record, it seems to come fully equipped with a suite of new characters not seen in related, putatively ancestral groups. These radical changes in morphology and function appear to arise very quickly…” [K. S. Thomson, Morphogenesis and Evolution, Oxford, Oxford University Press,1988, p. 98.] One more… Biologist Francis Hitching, in his book The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, states: “ If we find fossils, and if Darwin's theory was right, we can predict what the rock should contain; finely graduated fossils leading from one group of creatures to another group of creatures at a higher level of complexity. The 'minor improvements' in successive generations should be as readily preserved as the species themselves. But this is hardly ever the case. In fact, the opposite holds true, as Darwin himself complained; "innumerable transitional forms must have existed, but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Darwin felt though that the "extreme imperfection" of the fossil record was simply a matter of digging up more fossils. But as more and more fossils were dug up, it was found that almost all of them, without exception, were very close to current living animals.” [Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, Tichnor and Fields, New Haven, 1982, p. 40. ] The fossil record reveals that species emerged suddenly, and with totally different structures, and remained exactly the same over the longest geological periods. Stephen Jay Gould, a Harvard University paleontologist and well-known evolutionist, admitted this fact first in the late 70s: “ The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless; 2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'. [s.J. Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace", Natural History, vol. 86, May 1977.] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theloniusfleabag Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 Dear Slavik44, Excellent post, very informative. You obviously have some background that didn't come from 'an accredited Bible College'. a mechanism for Evolution, natural selection.Indeed it is merely a mechanism, it is the 'how', to the 'Why'...(which is, 'to be')Evolution is merely striving 'to be, more efficiently'. Natural selection is not randomBugs me to no end to hear the words 'random mutation' (like being born with three eyes) as the basis for refutation of evolution. In almost every species, 'radical random mutations' are killed off by their own kind, let alone the 'forces of nature'. Mostly it is simply 'Alpha' traits that get passed, billions of times. Other than that, niches (which has it's 'possibility quotient' renewed regularly by changing environments) offer the greatest impetus for change (or not, in some cases).Troll, Thanes theloniusfleabag for your reply ….I appreciate your efforts… I somehow doubt this is true...but a devout religious person wouldn't lie, would they...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slavik44 Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 Thanks Slavik44 for your repy…I appreciate it appreciate it… although I did not appreciate some words like ‘dip shit….. some dimwitted moron…’ when describing some people because they do not agree with you … When someone tells you that mutations are like hitting a clock with a hammer, you should refer to this person as a dip shit who doesn't know what they are talking about. Mutations do infact happen, most mutations tend to be fairly neutral. Wether they are harmful or helpful is generally a factor of the environment, not the what the brain of some dimwitted moron thinks Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nuclei of the cells of a living organism and which contains all its genetic information. Mutation is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only damage it. Biologist B. G. Ranganathan states: “ First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, here would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.” [b. G. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania: The Banner Of Truth Trust. 1988.] More? The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments on the report prepared by the committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that might have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War: “ Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good affect—evolution to higher forms of life—result from mutations practically all of which are harmful? [Warren Weaver et al., "Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation", Science, vol. 123, June page1159] Okay so if we start with mutations (which happen, and are observed)All that is truly necessary is time and reproductive drift/barriers to reproduction Well, the fundamental science that can shed light on the matter is paleontology, the science of the study of fossils. So it is Imperative to compare the hypotheses of the theory of evolution with fossil discoveries. According to the theory of evolution, every species has emerged from a predecessor. This transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years. If this were the case, then innumerable intermediate species should have lived during the immense period of time when these transformations were supposedly occurring. So there must have been millions of transitional forms… Am I saying that? No. Listen to Darwin “If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains. ” Darwin knew the biggest stumbling-block for his theory… let Darwin continue “…Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me.” [The Origin of Species, 124-125] He asserted that when the fossil record had been studied in detail, the missing links would be found. So what does fossil record say? Robert Carroll, an expert on vertebrate paleontology and a committed evolutionist, comes to admit that the Darwinist hope has not been satisfied with fossil discoveries: “ Despite more than a hundred years of intense collecting efforts since the time of Darwin's death, the fossil record still does not yield the picture of infinitely numerous transitional links that he expected.” [Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 25.] More? Another evolutionary paleontologist, K. S. Thomson, tells us that new groups of organisms appear very abruptly in the fossil record: “When a major group of organisms arises and first appears in the record, it seems to come fully equipped with a suite of new characters not seen in related, putatively ancestral groups. These radical changes in morphology and function appear to arise very quickly…” [K. S. Thomson, Morphogenesis and Evolution, Oxford, Oxford University Press,1988, p. 98.] One more… Biologist Francis Hitching, in his book The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, states: “ If we find fossils, and if Darwin's theory was right, we can predict what the rock should contain; finely graduated fossils leading from one group of creatures to another group of creatures at a higher level of complexity. The 'minor improvements' in successive generations should be as readily preserved as the species themselves. But this is hardly ever the case. In fact, the opposite holds true, as Darwin himself complained; "innumerable transitional forms must have existed, but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Darwin felt though that the "extreme imperfection" of the fossil record was simply a matter of digging up more fossils. But as more and more fossils were dug up, it was found that almost all of them, without exception, were very close to current living animals.” [Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, Tichnor and Fields, New Haven, 1982, p. 40. ] The fossil record reveals that species emerged suddenly, and with totally different structures, and remained exactly the same over the longest geological periods. Stephen Jay Gould, a Harvard University paleontologist and well-known evolutionist, admitted this fact first in the late 70s: “ The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless; 2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'. [s.J. Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace", Natural History, vol. 86, May 1977.] As of now I am reporting you to the administrators I have no problem participating in a debate on Evolution and I would enjoy doing so with a reasonably informed person. However, what I am doing is using the knowledge I have learned over the years and posting it up for discussion. What you are doing is plagarising other individuals work. I have to invest time into my posts, while all you do is a simple search on google, it is Acedemically lazy and I will not engage in a debate with someone who is so morally and academically corrupt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adel Posted March 18, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 I am going to start with four points that I want you to understand before I go any further. 1) It is somewhat irrational to suggest that because the earth is complex their must be a more complex creator, with out turning that logic around at this even more complex ccreator. Personaly I find it easier to believe that the less complex object (the earth) has no creator than the more complex object (god) not having one. 2) The term Darwinism is a bit of an abusrd term tossed around by YEC, Darwin was one of the early theororists who came up with a mechanism for Evolution, natural selection. 3) Natural selection is not random, so when individuals describe evolution as random, they are being so ignorant it is not even funny. 4) Evolution is not persay dealing with where the first life forms came from, but how these life forms have changed over time. ------------------------------- On to the other stuff.... 1) Mutations When someone tells you that mutations are like hitting a clock with a hammer, you should refer to this person as a dip shit who doesn't know what they are talking about. Mutations do infact happen, most mutations tend to be fairly neutral. Wether they are harmful or helpful is generally a factor of the environment, not the what the brain of some dimwitted moron thinks. ex. We can see mutations all the time in bacteria and the development of anti-biotic resistances, these are mutations. 2) Microevolution to Macroevolution This is agian another one of those false dillema's there is no reason why micro-evolutionary changes cannot eventually lead to speciation through divergence of the gene pool and sperated breeding. Huh? Okay so if we start with mutations (which happen, and are observed) All that is truly neccessary is time and reproductive drift/barriers to reproduction We have prooven that we have the time, and a hell of a long time we have. Bariers? Can a chihauaha naturally breed with a wolf? (can't happen in nature) Can a wolf breed with a Coyote (Cannot happen period) That would be drift Macro-evolution is not two fishes having sex and boom an elaphant popped out. It is just as simple as two fishes having sex and a fish popping out. After all how many species of fish do we have? I will give you a clue, more than one. So when you say that you don't believe in Macro-evolution because fish only give birth to fish, you are ignoring the fundemental point that there are more than one species of fish. Macro-evolution can be just that a fish giving birth to a fish. 3) Traces So what we want to look for is traces of such ancestry - We might raise a question like why do humans have latent tails, or have you ever fell on your tail bone? A modern manifestation of a different past. - We might look at the present and see snakes with a pelvis, or latent claws, and then look in the past and see fossil snakes with legs A modern manifestation of a different past 4) Vestigal organs - Vestigal does not mean useless, instead it is a secondary use to their original use...so if someone says, "it has a use it cannot be a vestigal"...take that hammer you were hitting your radio with and smash them in the head, don't worry it cannot possibley make them any dumber. - Appendix, it has a different use than just giving us a appendicites, instead it would stand as a modern manifestation of a different past, a past in which our diet was different from what it now could be. -wings on an ostrich No not useless but overly complex for the task they are being used for by ostriches. 5) Non-functional DNA i.e The existance of parts of left over genes that corresponds to the biosynthesis of Vitamin C The Exon 10 for Gulo This is a shared charachteristic of not just humans but other primates, species in which we see a relative recent divergence of our lineage. English? We have a mutation that exists in humans, and the Human Lineage Within that lineage we find that the Human sequence most closely correpsonds to chimpanzees, the primate in which are lineage most recently split from. It is not simply a case that this function has been lost, But that our closest relatives have also lost that function, and amongst our relative primates, those primates that share the most recent ancestor with us (Chimps) have the most similar sequence to us. This same phenomenon can be witnessed with the Guinea Pig, which has also lost the same function. Of course between Humans And guinea pigs there are species that are capable of vitamin C biosynthesis. Therefore we should not expect similarities between the Primate sequence and Guinea Pig sequence. The Guinea Pig sequence should be closely related to its family members. Although they are both non-functional, the actual sequence of the guinea pig and the primate are vastly different. Instead the guinea pig's non-functional sequence is most similar to that of its family members (Rats and mice) not primates. just as would be suggested by evolution. Thanks Slavik44 for your repy… I appreciate it appreciate it… although I did not appreciate some words like ‘dip shit….. some dimwitted moron…’ when describing some people because they do not agree with you … When someone tells you that mutations are like hitting a clock with a hammer, you should refer to this person as a dip shit who doesn't know what they are talking about.Mutations do infact happen, most mutations tend to be fairly neutral. Wether they are harmful or helpful is generally a factor of the environment, not the what the brain of some dimwitted moron thinks Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nuclei of the cells of a living organism and which contains all its genetic information. Mutation is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only damage it. Biologist B. G. Ranganathan states: “ First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, here would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.” [b. G. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania: The Banner Of Truth Trust. 1988.] More? The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments on the report prepared by the committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that might have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War: “ Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good affect—evolution to higher forms of life—result from mutations practically all of which are harmful? [Warren Weaver et al., "Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation", Science, vol. 123, June page1159] Okay so if we start with mutations (which happen, and are observed)All that is truly necessary is time and reproductive drift/barriers to reproduction Well, the fundamental science that can shed light on the matter is paleontology, the science of the study of fossils. So it is Imperative to compare the hypotheses of the theory of evolution with fossil discoveries. According to the theory of evolution, every species has emerged from a predecessor. This transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years. If this were the case, then innumerable intermediate species should have lived during the immense period of time when these transformations were supposedly occurring. So there must have been millions of transitional forms… Am I saying that? No. Listen to Darwin “If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains. ” Darwin knew the biggest stumbling-block for his theory… let Darwin continue “…Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me.” [The Origin of Species, 124-125] He asserted that when the fossil record had been studied in detail, the missing links would be found. So what does fossil record say? Robert Carroll, an expert on vertebrate paleontology and a committed evolutionist, comes to admit that the Darwinist hope has not been satisfied with fossil discoveries: “ Despite more than a hundred years of intense collecting efforts since the time of Darwin's death, the fossil record still does not yield the picture of infinitely numerous transitional links that he expected.” [Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 25.] More? Another evolutionary paleontologist, K. S. Thomson, tells us that new groups of organisms appear very abruptly in the fossil record: “When a major group of organisms arises and first appears in the record, it seems to come fully equipped with a suite of new characters not seen in related, putatively ancestral groups. These radical changes in morphology and function appear to arise very quickly…” [K. S. Thomson, Morphogenesis and Evolution, Oxford, Oxford University Press,1988, p. 98.] One more… Biologist Francis Hitching, in his book The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, states: “ If we find fossils, and if Darwin's theory was right, we can predict what the rock should contain; finely graduated fossils leading from one group of creatures to another group of creatures at a higher level of complexity. The 'minor improvements' in successive generations should be as readily preserved as the species themselves. But this is hardly ever the case. In fact, the opposite holds true, as Darwin himself complained; "innumerable transitional forms must have existed, but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Darwin felt though that the "extreme imperfection" of the fossil record was simply a matter of digging up more fossils. But as more and more fossils were dug up, it was found that almost all of them, without exception, were very close to current living animals.” [Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, Tichnor and Fields, New Haven, 1982, p. 40. ] The fossil record reveals that species emerged suddenly, and with totally different structures, and remained exactly the same over the longest geological periods. Stephen Jay Gould, a Harvard University paleontologist and well-known evolutionist, admitted this fact first in the late 70s: “ The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless; 2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'. [s.J. Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace", Natural History, vol. 86, May 1977.] As of now I am reporting you to the administrators I have no problem participating in a debate on Evolution and I would enjoy doing so with a reasonably informed person. However, what I am doing is using the knowledge I have learned over the years and posting it up for discussion. What you are doing is plagarising other individuals work. I have to invest time into my posts, while all you do is a simple search on google, it is Acedemically lazy and I will not engage in a debate with someone who is so morally and academically corrupt. I am so sorry and surprised to hear that... Sorry because I thought you would be able to debate scientifically and support your opinions with convincing evidences and let us all find the truth… And surprised that you are angry and think I am [morally and academically corrupt] because I support my opinion with scientific quotes… Have you ever done any academic research? Master or doctorate? Do not you know that researchers support their opinions from whatever scientific references available and they are applauded for that? Do you expect everyone to have his own laboratory and go and investigate himself/herself? Are you telling me that your opinions you post are from your own experiments and research? I would completely understand you if I did not mention the references I quote from…. I am not searching Google and copy and past… I think however I want to do my research should not make you angry and say I am corrupt… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slavik44 Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 I am so sorry and surprised to hear that...Sorry because I thought you would be able to debate scientifically and support your opinions with convincing evidences and let us all find the truth… And surprised that you are angry and think I am [morally and academically corrupt] because I support my opinion with scientific quotes… Have you ever done any academic research? Master or doctorate? Do not you know that researchers support their opinions from whatever scientific references available and they are applauded for that? Do you expect everyone to have his own laboratory and go and investigate himself/herself? Are you telling me that your opinions you post are from your own experiments and research? I would completely understand you if I did not mention the references I quote from…. I am not searching Google and copy and past… I think however I want to do my research should not make you angry and say I am corrupt… Yes I have written acedmic papers...I just finished writing a number of them. As someone who has written academic papers I know that it is considered plagarism to take others people work and call it your own. My profs also consider it plagarism if almost all my paper is taken from another source, even if I quote it and give credit. Because it is not my paper, it is still someone else's. The vast majority of the work should be your own. In your case it is not.... http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/mechanisms06.html First half of your post on evolution is lifted from the link above http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_species_03.html http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_species_04.html Second half of your post has arrived almost entirely from there ----------------------------------------- Link wars are pointless and are not educational, anyone can post a link, with a bit of training my dog could post a link on mapleleaf web. But it contravenes the rules of Mapleleaf web. This isn't about backing your post up with references...although darwin refuted is not a scientific or academic source....this is about lifting your post...two different things. I am more than willing to debate you... I am not willing however, to debate endless quotes and articles you lift off the internet for me, simply because I have a bloody life... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slavik44 Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adel Posted March 18, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 I am so sorry and surprised to hear that... Sorry because I thought you would be able to debate scientifically and support your opinions with convincing evidences and let us all find the truth… And surprised that you are angry and think I am [morally and academically corrupt] because I support my opinion with scientific quotes… Have you ever done any academic research? Master or doctorate? Do not you know that researchers support their opinions from whatever scientific references available and they are applauded for that? Do you expect everyone to have his own laboratory and go and investigate himself/herself? Are you telling me that your opinions you post are from your own experiments and research? I would completely understand you if I did not mention the references I quote from…. I am not searching Google and copy and past… I think however I want to do my research should not make you angry and say I am corrupt… Yes I have written acedmic papers...I just finished writing a number of them. As someone who has written academic papers I know that it is considered plagarism to take others people work and call it your own. My profs also consider it plagarism if almost all my paper is taken from another source, even if I quote it and give credit. Because it is not my paper, it is still someone else's. The vast majority of the work should be your own. In your case it is not.... http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/mechanisms06.html First half of your post on evolution is lifted from the link above http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_species_03.html http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_species_04.html Second half of your post has arrived almost entirely from there ----------------------------------------- Link wars are pointless and are not educational, anyone can post a link, with a bit of training my dog could post a link on mapleleaf web. But it contravenes the rules of Mapleleaf web. This isn't about backing your post up with references...although darwin refuted is not a scientific or academic source....this is about lifting your post...two different things. I am more than willing to debate you... I am not willing however, to debate endless quotes and articles you lift off the internet for me, simply because I have a bloody life... Thanks for your reply... I have never gone to that website... I have lots of references and PDF books on the matter and on many many things else... I have not called the quotes my own. I mentioned the references and page numbers… If you are not able to prove your point scientifically and you want to talk and talk and talk, then leave debating to other people who are serious and respect their minds… people who respect others even when they do not agree with them… Instead of calling me morally and academically corrupt, and reporting me to the administrators (well, you don’t have to reply if you cannot), read the quotes and give me answers… Well, if you think your ancestor is Chimps, it not mine… You have not given any sold answer to any question… Does Darwin have any evidence on his theory? Does the fossil record give any - I say ANY – evidence of the alleged millions and millions of the transitional forms? Do you have any evidence we came from Chimps? Why the other Chimps have not become Humans? If I sacrificed my mind and agreed with you that we came from Chimps, do not you want us to sacrifice our minds - again- to believe that just because having some different flesh and bones from Chimps, we have the God-like mind, intelligence, love, caring, creativity, souls, personalities, history, ….. etc? The difference between Chimps and humans are too massive that it makes us really closer to believe that whoever believes that really came from Chimps….. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theloniusfleabag Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 You have been called out as a plaigiarist, the proof has been provided. To claim that you haven't seen the websites that you have been shown to have been quoting verbatim is simply lying. I shall report this thread as well... Try a new identity... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adel Posted March 18, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 You have been called out as a plaigiarist, the proof has been provided. To claim that you haven't seen the websites that you have been shown to have been quoting verbatim is simply lying. I shall report this thread as well... Try a new identity... I am not lying... I have not really known any thing about that website before…but it seems that the author of the books I am quoting from have their websites and publish their books materials there… The book I am quoting from named “Darwinism Refuted” Author Harun Yaha. You can Google it and see if you cam download a copy or buy it… I still do not understand to me a plagiarist while I mention the reference names and page numbers… So when anyone quotes from ‘The Origin of Species’, is he a plagiarist? So strange logic…. You guys should accept that other people have other opinions and accept the others…. Please answer my valid questions rather than reporting me to the administrators!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slavik44 Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 Thanks for your reply...I have never gone to that website... I have lots of references and PDF books on the matter and on many many things else... I have not called the quotes my own. I mentioned the references and page numbers… If you are not able to prove your point scientifically and you want to talk and talk and talk, then leave debating to other people who are serious and respect their minds… people who respect others even when they do not agree with them… Instead of calling me morally and academically corrupt, and reporting me to the administrators (well, you don’t have to reply if you cannot), read the quotes and give me answers… Well, if you think your ancestor is Chimps, it not mine… You have not given any sold answer to any question… Does Darwin have any evidence on his theory? Does the fossil record give any - I say ANY – evidence of the alleged millions and millions of the transitional forms? Do you have any evidence we came from Chimps? Why the other Chimps have not become Humans? If I sacrificed my mind and agreed with you that we came from Chimps, do not you want us to sacrifice our minds - again- to believe that just because having some different flesh and bones from Chimps, we have the God-like mind, intelligence, love, caring, creativity, souls, personalities, history, ….. etc? The difference between Chimps and humans are too massive that it makes us really closer to believe that whoever believes that really came from Chimps….. I like this post, because this is one that you wrote, so congradulations... However it is still very inflamatory, your previous post was ripped from other threads not just what you put citations after but what didn't have citations. I am more than willing to debate people, my 1000 plus post count should indicate that I do debate people, and do so with my own words. You accuse me of wantign to talk but I made a post in my own words. You replied to that with a post that was so blatantly plagarised that it wasn't even funny. Now to Answer your questions 1. Humans did not descend from chimps I am not, nor is anyone else, claiming that Humans evolved from chimps. Human and Chimps share a common ancestor, this lack of insight into evolution is very charachteristic of someone who has not bothered to look into the subject all that much. 2. Is there any evidence of natural selection? Yes 3. Transitional fossils Yes... There is a very complete record in reguards to horses We can also view fossils like the Australapithicus, Homo Habilus, Homo Erectus, Homo sapien and thier continuance Rhizosolenia also shows a record of transition over the years This can also be seen in species of trilobytes There is a fiarly good record of transitional fossils between dinosaurs and birds We can see this Whales, fish etc.... Honestly if you say you have enver encountered evidence of a transitional fossil, I would question wether or not you have actually looked. 4. Do I have any evidence we came from chimps No, no one does BECAUSE WE DID NOT COME FROM CHIMPS 5. Why have other chimps not become human Because Humans and chimps diverged from a different ancestor 6. If you agreed we came from chimps I hope you don't that would be ignorant, because we did not come from chimps, you wouldn't be agreeing with me 7. HUH? The rest of your post is slightly incomprehensible, and I cannot reply because I do not know what you are saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slavik44 Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 You have been called out as a plaigiarist, the proof has been provided. To claim that you haven't seen the websites that you have been shown to have been quoting verbatim is simply lying. I shall report this thread as well... Try a new identity... I am not lying... I have not really known any thing about that website before…but it seems that the author of the books I am quoting from have their websites and publish their books materials there… The book I am quoting from named “Darwinism Refuted” Author Harun Yaha. You can Google it and see if you cam download a copy or buy it… I still do not understand to me a plagiarist while I mention the reference names and page numbers… So when anyone quotes from ‘The Origin of Species’, is he a plagiarist? So strange logic…. You guys should accept that other people have other opinions and accept the others…. Please answer my valid questions rather than reporting me to the administrators!!!!! Okay even though you are very good at playing the fool, stop. You are directly quoting...as an example...here is the first half of your post in response to me.... Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nuclei of the cells of a living organism and which contains all its genetic information.Mutation is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only damage it. Biologist B. G. Ranganathan states: “ First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, here would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.” [b. G. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania: The Banner Of Truth Trust. 1988.] More? The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments on the report prepared by the committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that might have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War: “ Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good affect—evolution to higher forms of life—result from mutations practically all of which are harmful? [Warren Weaver et al., "Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation", Science, vol. 123, June page1159] Now lets eliminate quotes ---------------As written by you-------------- Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nuclei of the cells of a living organism and which contains all its genetic information. ----------------------- -----------as written by DR.com------------ Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nuclei of the cells of a living organism and which contains all its genetic information. ------------------------- ------------As written by you-------- Mutation is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. -------------------------------------------- ---------------As written by DR.com Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. ----------------------------- ---------------As written by you------- The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only damage it. Biologist B. G. Ranganathan states: “ First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, here would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.” [b. G. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania: The Banner Of Truth Trust. 1988.] ------------------------ ----------------As written by Dr.com------------ The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only damage it. Biologist B. G. Ranganathan states: First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes;any random change in a highy ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.19 --------------------------------- -----------As written by you----------------- The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments on the report prepared by the committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that might have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War: “ Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good affect—evolution to higher forms of life—result from mutations practically all of which are harmful? [Warren Weaver et al., "Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation", Science, vol. 123, June page1159] ----------------------- --------------As written by Dr.com---------- The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments on the report prepared by the Committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that might have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War: Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good effect-evolution to higher forms of life-result from mutations practically all of which are harmful?20 ------------------------------- So quick review First half of your post as it was originally Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nuclei of the cells of a living organism and which contains all its genetic information.Mutation is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only damage it. Biologist B. G. Ranganathan states: “ First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, here would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.” [b. G. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania: The Banner Of Truth Trust. 1988.] More? The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments on the report prepared by the committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that might have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War: “ Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good affect—evolution to higher forms of life—result from mutations practically all of which are harmful? [Warren Weaver et al., "Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation", Science, vol. 123, June page1159] Now your post after romving Plagarism More? No, I cannot handle anymore have fun at Banned camp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adel Posted March 18, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 You have been called out as a plaigiarist, the proof has been provided. To claim that you haven't seen the websites that you have been shown to have been quoting verbatim is simply lying. I shall report this thread as well... Try a new identity... I am not lying... I have not really known any thing about that website before…but it seems that the author of the books I am quoting from have their websites and publish their books materials there… The book I am quoting from named “Darwinism Refuted” Author Harun Yaha. You can Google it and see if you cam download a copy or buy it… I still do not understand to me a plagiarist while I mention the reference names and page numbers… So when anyone quotes from ‘The Origin of Species’, is he a plagiarist? So strange logic…. You guys should accept that other people have other opinions and accept the others…. Please answer my valid questions rather than reporting me to the administrators!!!!! Okay even though you are very good at playing the fool, stop. You are directly quoting...as an example...here is the first half of your post in response to me.... Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nuclei of the cells of a living organism and which contains all its genetic information.Mutation is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only damage it. Biologist B. G. Ranganathan states: “ First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, here would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.” [b. G. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania: The Banner Of Truth Trust. 1988.] More? The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments on the report prepared by the committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that might have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War: “ Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good affect—evolution to higher forms of life—result from mutations practically all of which are harmful? [Warren Weaver et al., "Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation", Science, vol. 123, June page1159] Now lets eliminate quotes ---------------As written by you-------------- Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nuclei of the cells of a living organism and which contains all its genetic information. ----------------------- -----------as written by DR.com------------ Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nuclei of the cells of a living organism and which contains all its genetic information. ------------------------- ------------As written by you-------- Mutation is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. -------------------------------------------- ---------------As written by DR.com Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. ----------------------------- ---------------As written by you------- The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only damage it. Biologist B. G. Ranganathan states: “ First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, here would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.” [b. G. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania: The Banner Of Truth Trust. 1988.] ------------------------ ----------------As written by Dr.com------------ The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only damage it. Biologist B. G. Ranganathan states: First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes;any random change in a highy ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.19 --------------------------------- -----------As written by you----------------- The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments on the report prepared by the committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that might have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War: “ Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good affect—evolution to higher forms of life—result from mutations practically all of which are harmful? [Warren Weaver et al., "Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation", Science, vol. 123, June page1159] ----------------------- --------------As written by Dr.com---------- The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments on the report prepared by the Committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that might have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War: Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good effect-evolution to higher forms of life-result from mutations practically all of which are harmful?20 ------------------------------- So quick review First half of your post as it was originally Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nuclei of the cells of a living organism and which contains all its genetic information.Mutation is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only damage it. Biologist B. G. Ranganathan states: “ First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, here would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.” [b. G. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania: The Banner Of Truth Trust. 1988.] More? The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments on the report prepared by the committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that might have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War: “ Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good affect—evolution to higher forms of life—result from mutations practically all of which are harmful? [Warren Weaver et al., "Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation", Science, vol. 123, June page1159] Now your post after romving Plagarism More? No, I cannot handle anymore have fun at Banned camp What is wrong man with quoting from a scientific reference and mention the reference name and page number? Have I said it was mine? I mentioned the references names and page numbers… But you are right in one thing... I really compared the text of the book I have and the website you mentioned and I found actually the author has - not just that website – but other websites and he published the text of his books on them… Please go to this link http://www.harunyahya.com/refuted1.php and you will find the book there… you can even download it for free as a PDF… As I said I was lying and I don’t lie at all…. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adel Posted March 18, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 You have been called out as a plaigiarist, the proof has been provided. To claim that you haven't seen the websites that you have been shown to have been quoting verbatim is simply lying. I shall report this thread as well... Try a new identity... I am not lying... I have not really known any thing about that website before…but it seems that the author of the books I am quoting from have their websites and publish their books materials there… The book I am quoting from named “Darwinism Refuted” Author Harun Yaha. You can Google it and see if you cam download a copy or buy it… I still do not understand to me a plagiarist while I mention the reference names and page numbers… So when anyone quotes from ‘The Origin of Species’, is he a plagiarist? So strange logic…. You guys should accept that other people have other opinions and accept the others…. Please answer my valid questions rather than reporting me to the administrators!!!!! Okay even though you are very good at playing the fool, stop. You are directly quoting...as an example...here is the first half of your post in response to me.... Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nuclei of the cells of a living organism and which contains all its genetic information.Mutation is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only damage it. Biologist B. G. Ranganathan states: “ First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, here would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.” [b. G. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania: The Banner Of Truth Trust. 1988.] More? The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments on the report prepared by the committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that might have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War: “ Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good affect—evolution to higher forms of life—result from mutations practically all of which are harmful? [Warren Weaver et al., "Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation", Science, vol. 123, June page1159] Now lets eliminate quotes ---------------As written by you-------------- Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nuclei of the cells of a living organism and which contains all its genetic information. ----------------------- -----------as written by DR.com------------ Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nuclei of the cells of a living organism and which contains all its genetic information. ------------------------- ------------As written by you-------- Mutation is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. -------------------------------------------- ---------------As written by DR.com Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. ----------------------------- ---------------As written by you------- The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only damage it. Biologist B. G. Ranganathan states: “ First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, here would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.” [b. G. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania: The Banner Of Truth Trust. 1988.] ------------------------ ----------------As written by Dr.com------------ The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only damage it. Biologist B. G. Ranganathan states: First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes;any random change in a highy ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.19 --------------------------------- -----------As written by you----------------- The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments on the report prepared by the committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that might have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War: “ Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good affect—evolution to higher forms of life—result from mutations practically all of which are harmful? [Warren Weaver et al., "Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation", Science, vol. 123, June page1159] ----------------------- --------------As written by Dr.com---------- The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments on the report prepared by the Committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that might have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War: Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good effect-evolution to higher forms of life-result from mutations practically all of which are harmful?20 ------------------------------- So quick review First half of your post as it was originally Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nuclei of the cells of a living organism and which contains all its genetic information.Mutation is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only damage it. Biologist B. G. Ranganathan states: “ First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, here would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.” [b. G. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania: The Banner Of Truth Trust. 1988.] More? The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments on the report prepared by the committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that might have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War: “ Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good affect—evolution to higher forms of life—result from mutations practically all of which are harmful? [Warren Weaver et al., "Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation", Science, vol. 123, June page1159] Now your post after romving Plagarism More? No, I cannot handle anymore have fun at Banned camp What is wrong man with quoting from a scientific reference and mention the reference name and page number? Have I said it was mine? I mentioned the references names and page numbers… But you are right in one thing... I really compared the text of the book I have and the website you mentioned and I found actually the author has - not just that website – but other websites and he published the text of his books on them… Please go to this link http://www.harunyahya.com/refuted1.php and you will find the book there… you can even download it for free as a PDF… As I said I was lying and I don’t lie at all…. Just a correction to my last sentence... I meant "As I said I was NOT lying and I don’t lie at all…." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slavik44 Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 What is wrong man with quoting from a scientific reference and mention the reference name and page number?Have I said it was mine? I mentioned the references names and page numbers… But you are right in one thing... I really compared the text of the book I have and the website you mentioned and I found actually the author has - not just that website – but other websites and he published the text of his books on them… Please go to this link http://www.harunyahya.com/refuted1.php and you will find the book there… you can even download it for free as a PDF… As I said I was lying and I don’t lie at all…. You are not quoting you are plagarising If you look at what I posted I have also shown you that you have text on your post that is not sourced but is still lifted from another place. the only word that is yours in that whole block of text is "more?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adel Posted March 18, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 What is wrong man with quoting from a scientific reference and mention the reference name and page number? Have I said it was mine? I mentioned the references names and page numbers… But you are right in one thing... I really compared the text of the book I have and the website you mentioned and I found actually the author has - not just that website – but other websites and he published the text of his books on them… Please go to this link http://www.harunyahya.com/refuted1.php and you will find the book there… you can even download it for free as a PDF… As I said I was lying and I don’t lie at all…. You are not quoting you are plagarising If you look at what I posted I have also shown you that you have text on your post that is not sourced but is still lifted from another place. the only word that is yours in that whole block of text is "more?" So this is your real problem…who said that and who did not… I am not doing a formal research or paper… I have not claimed the quotes were mine… You should have concentrated on the facts and questions… not who and what… When I say for example the distance between the sun and the earth is xxx in any discussion, I don’t have to mention the name of the first person who first calculated that…it is already known it is not me… So when I mention any scientific fact - even when I did not mention the reference name and page number - of course that you all know that I am not the one who did the experiments of recorded the fossil record… Same for you…All facts you are mentioning, they are absolutely not yours… You are completely free you doubt any fact or opinion and ask me from where I got it of-course… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slavik44 Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 So this is your real problem…who said that and who did not…I am not doing a formal research or paper… I have not claimed the quotes were mine… You should have concentrated on the facts and questions… not who and what… When I say for example the distance between the sun and the earth is xxx in any discussion, I don’t have to mention the name of the first person who first calculated that…it is already known it is not me… So when I mention any scientific fact - even when I did not mention the reference name and page number - of course that you all know that I am not the one who did the experiments of recorded the fossil record… Same for you…All facts you are mentioning, they are absolutely not yours… You are completely free you doubt any fact or opinion and ask me from where I got it of-course… My post was not lifted word for word from another website, it was written in my own words. As I have already demonstrated in the first section of your post 276 of the 277 words were not your own...that is plagarism. You were not stating a fact, you were lifting text. Honestly its insulting that you continue to play the fool.... You LIFTED text word for word that is not your own...that is far different then stating a fact in your own words. Yes this does matter, because I could go on to talk origins and fill this thread with post after post on why evolution is correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 Guys, the reports of plagiarism have been received. Please trust that they will be managed accordingly. Now, go feed the pigeons instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adel Posted March 18, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 Thanks for your reply... I have never gone to that website... I have lots of references and PDF books on the matter and on many many things else... I have not called the quotes my own. I mentioned the references and page numbers… If you are not able to prove your point scientifically and you want to talk and talk and talk, then leave debating to other people who are serious and respect their minds… people who respect others even when they do not agree with them… Instead of calling me morally and academically corrupt, and reporting me to the administrators (well, you don’t have to reply if you cannot), read the quotes and give me answers… Well, if you think your ancestor is Chimps, it not mine… You have not given any sold answer to any question… Does Darwin have any evidence on his theory? Does the fossil record give any - I say ANY – evidence of the alleged millions and millions of the transitional forms? Do you have any evidence we came from Chimps? Why the other Chimps have not become Humans? If I sacrificed my mind and agreed with you that we came from Chimps, do not you want us to sacrifice our minds - again- to believe that just because having some different flesh and bones from Chimps, we have the God-like mind, intelligence, love, caring, creativity, souls, personalities, history, ….. etc? The difference between Chimps and humans are too massive that it makes us really closer to believe that whoever believes that really came from Chimps….. I like this post, because this is one that you wrote, so congradulations... However it is still very inflamatory, your previous post was ripped from other threads not just what you put citations after but what didn't have citations. I am more than willing to debate people, my 1000 plus post count should indicate that I do debate people, and do so with my own words. You accuse me of wantign to talk but I made a post in my own words. You replied to that with a post that was so blatantly plagarised that it wasn't even funny. Now to Answer your questions 1. Humans did not descend from chimps I am not, nor is anyone else, claiming that Humans evolved from chimps. Human and Chimps share a common ancestor, this lack of insight into evolution is very charachteristic of someone who has not bothered to look into the subject all that much. 2. Is there any evidence of natural selection? Yes 3. Transitional fossils Yes... There is a very complete record in reguards to horses We can also view fossils like the Australapithicus, Homo Habilus, Homo Erectus, Homo sapien and thier continuance Rhizosolenia also shows a record of transition over the years This can also be seen in species of trilobytes There is a fiarly good record of transitional fossils between dinosaurs and birds We can see this Whales, fish etc.... Honestly if you say you have enver encountered evidence of a transitional fossil, I would question wether or not you have actually looked. 4. Do I have any evidence we came from chimps No, no one does BECAUSE WE DID NOT COME FROM CHIMPS 5. Why have other chimps not become human Because Humans and chimps diverged from a different ancestor 6. If you agreed we came from chimps I hope you don't that would be ignorant, because we did not come from chimps, you wouldn't be agreeing with me 7. HUH? The rest of your post is slightly incomprehensible, and I cannot reply because I do not know what you are saying. Giving people the impression that what evolutionists are saying are facts is not accurate… What you mentioned are variations of completely separate Ape and Human races… 1- A recent research done in 1994 on the inner ear showed that Australopithecus and Homo habilis were reclassified as apes, while Homo erectus was reclassified as a fully modern human… 2- If you had read the famous French scientific magazine, Science et Vie, you would have found that it accepted this truth under the headline "Goodbye, Lucy," in its February 1999 issue, and confirmed that Australopithecus cannot be considered an ancestor of man. Researchers - after 15 years of research – led by Lord Zuckerman reached the conclusion that Australopithecines were only an ordinary species of ape, and were definitely not bipedal. 3- When it comes to Homo sapien, a fossil found in Spain in 1995. The fossil revealed the face of an 11-year-old boy who looked entirely like modern man. Guess what? That boy died 800,000 years ago. That fact shook the excavation leader - Juan Luis Arsuaga Ferreras – who considered that as finding something like a tape recorder in Gran Dolina and “We don't expect cassettes and tape recorders in the Lower Pleistocene. Finding a modern face 800,000 years ago—it's the same thing. We were very surprised when we saw it.” There are so many evidences that humans have been always humans… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drea Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 The trouble is... 1. If you don't believe in the creation story -- you MUST believe the evolution theory. 2. If you don't believe in the evolution theory -- you MUST believe the creation story. Not true. There are more than two sides to this debate. The creatures on earth evolved here. "Life" was seeded (accidentally) by the planet Niburu when it hit earth (hence the big hole in the pacific ocean and the asteroid belt..) eons ago. Everything evolved.... chimps, homo erectus, bears, birds, etc... and humans would have taken another few million years to evolve but for the interference by the people of Niburu. This is the third (and most plausible) theory IMO. Darwinists --> explain to me why humans have no body hair. Explain why our teeth and claws are so useless (compared to other mammals). Explain how our inefficient bodies would evolve if evolution is the "survival of the fittest" -- we are certainly not the fittest! And don't say "big brains" because Neaderthal (sp) had a bigger brain... yet died out. Creationists ---> explain to me where Cain and Abel's wives came from. Where did the giants (Neflim) come from? Explain to me the races -- how could 2 people produce the black, asian and caucasian groups. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ft.niagara Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 http://www.2012.com.au/Nibiru.html http://www.detailshere.com/niburu.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electric Monk Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 ... "Life" was seeded (accidentally) by the planet Niburu when it hit earth (hence the big hole in the pacific ocean and the asteroid belt..) eons ago.Everything evolved.... chimps, homo erectus, bears, birds, etc... and humans would have taken another few million years to evolve but for the interference by the people of Niburu. Thanks for the links ft.niagara, and Drea, if you are serious about the Niburu thing, did you know that you can buy your own solar telescope for less than a grand? Why don't you buy one and take some pics of Planet X for us? Why don't the authors of those websites? There are MANY of those solar telescopes in use among amateur astronomers all over the world, along with filters you can buy for a regular scope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ft.niagara Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 Thanks for the links ft.niagara, and Drea, if you are serious about the Niburu thing, did you know that you can buy your own solar telescope for less than a grand? Why don't you buy one and take some pics of Planet X for us? Why don't the authors of those websites? There are MANY of those solar telescopes in use among amateur astronomers all over the world, along with filters you can buy for a regular scope. I would love to post my pics, but I can't on this forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slavik44 Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 Giving people the impression that what evolutionists are saying are facts is not accurate…What you mentioned are variations of completely separate Ape and Human races… 1- A recent research done in 1994 on the inner ear showed that Australopithecus and Homo habilis were reclassified as apes, while Homo erectus was reclassified as a fully modern human… 2- If you had read the famous French scientific magazine, Science et Vie, you would have found that it accepted this truth under the headline "Goodbye, Lucy," in its February 1999 issue, and confirmed that Australopithecus cannot be considered an ancestor of man. Researchers - after 15 years of research – led by Lord Zuckerman reached the conclusion that Australopithecines were only an ordinary species of ape, and were definitely not bipedal. 3- When it comes to Homo sapien, a fossil found in Spain in 1995. The fossil revealed the face of an 11-year-old boy who looked entirely like modern man. Guess what? That boy died 800,000 years ago. That fact shook the excavation leader - Juan Luis Arsuaga Ferreras – who considered that as finding something like a tape recorder in Gran Dolina and “We don't expect cassettes and tape recorders in the Lower Pleistocene. Finding a modern face 800,000 years ago—it's the same thing. We were very surprised when we saw it.” There are so many evidences that humans have been always humans… I do believe this post identifies a problem you are encountering, you read articles from Kent Hovind, or Answers in Genisis, darwin refuted....and say oh look they proove evolution is false. The problem is you are failing to research these articles and see if they stand up to the truth, to the facts. When you do you will find that these people are being extremley decietfull. The ignore the variety of fossils found and their categories and sub categories, they twist the quotes of individuals, they ignore more recent studies that proove the claims false, and they ignore the flaws in how csome of the studies were conducted. ex. Have you read spoors 1994 study? Have you read scientific summarys of Spoors 1994 summary? Probabley not because if you had you would have known that... He found the skull of the Australapithicenes to be similar to that of the great apes. This falls in line with evolutionary theory and is actually would be what is taught about evolution...that the Australapithicenes had a more ape like skull. Nothing new. The homo Erectus also had a more human like skull, that would also be in-line with evolutionary theory. THIS STUDY DID NOT CONCLUDE THAT THE AUSTRALAPITHICUS AND THE HOMO HABILUS WERE APES AND THE HOMO ERECTUS WAS A MODERN HUMAN. The inner ear was also used to proove that the australapithicus was infact as scientists expected capable of bipedalism. If you had done your research you wouldn't have needed to post that point on here. ex. Zuckerman concluded Australapithicus was an ape and not bipedal Zuckerman was wrong, it is that simple have you researched this? looked it up? Coutless studies have been done that have proven that Australapithicenes were 1. Capable of bipedalism 2. niether fully ape or fully human--as would be expected. In fact one of the studies you cited as "proof" informs us that the Australapithicus was capable of bipedalism and was not fully ape... ex. Homo-sapien in spain Just more sensationalism, It was in fact a homo in spain, not a gay fossil, but one that belongs to the genus homo. I believe it is currently called the Homo antecessor. There are infact differences between the homo antecessor and the homo sapien. I would like to finish this post by giving you a link to a PDF document. You have said you ahve many of them on your computer, I assume you have also read many of them. I wonder if perhaps you would be willing to invest some time in reading another one, one that might give you a basis on human evolution, it is fairly long (170 pages). But 10 pages a day and you will be through it in just over two weeks. http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/fossil-hominids.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 1- Did Darwin base his claims on any concrete evidence or finding, or just made some observations and produced some ideas while on board H.M.S Beagle ship based on some primitive understanding of science? Who cares, despite what you creationists think, Darwin is NOT evolution. 2- What is the origin of life? Let's say God did. How does that negate evolution of the species? 3- How did the first protein originate? See response to question 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drea Posted March 19, 2007 Report Share Posted March 19, 2007 ... "Life" was seeded (accidentally) by the planet Niburu when it hit earth (hence the big hole in the pacific ocean and the asteroid belt..) eons ago. Everything evolved.... chimps, homo erectus, bears, birds, etc... and humans would have taken another few million years to evolve but for the interference by the people of Niburu. Thanks for the links ft.niagara, and Drea, if you are serious about the Niburu thing, did you know that you can buy your own solar telescope for less than a grand? Why don't you buy one and take some pics of Planet X for us? Why don't the authors of those websites? There are MANY of those solar telescopes in use among amateur astronomers all over the world, along with filters you can buy for a regular scope. Niburu is not due for quite a while yet... Not in our lifetimes I'm sorry to say. Thanks for the links ft. niagra. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.