Five questions that evolutionists can't answer

[Darth Wong]

You might as well have said, "Wishful, you are a long winded liar, who is unaware of being spoonfed lies and propaganda, and you know nothing about thermodynamics." BLA BLA

But you DO know nothing about thermodynamics, fool. You have demonstrated that quite clearly by making an argument based on the widespread but completely false assumption that entropy is disordered physical structure rather than disordered energy. This widespread assumption is based on the idiotic notion that one of Dr. Stephen Hawking's analogies to help describe the concept of entropy was actually a literal description.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Does anyone else find it telling that the only reason he came "Back" was because he thought he was posting in another forum?

That, had that not happend he obviously would not have bothered to respond to any of the arguments here? Somethingm in truth, he still hasn't done...

It makes me all the more curious why this happens in the first place... This for of "Hit and Run" spam posting... Reflecting on it... The more I look at this type of person, the more it becomes evidenty that they have no intrest in debating, but only in posting this tripe, in the vain hope of perhaps 'converting' someone here.


After all, these people are deeply indoctrinated... All they know is Thier brainwashed information, to them it is pure truth, it seems so simply. Of COURSE the world is created by god, of COURSE Evolution is wrong, for people like wishful, it is just so obvious, that it most seem impossible that anyone could NOT think this way.

In the same way that we put absoulte faith in Science, they put absoulte faith in 'Da Lord'

As Such I can well imagine that for wishful, this is not really a 'debate' but the internet equivlant of standing on a Street corner while shouting out to the masses his Holy Word...

[General Zod]

Does anyone else find it telling that the only reason he came "Back" was because he thought he was posting in another forum?

That, had that not happend he obviously would not have bothered to respond to any of the arguments here? Somethingm in truth, he still hasn't done...

It makes me all the more curious why this happens in the first place... This for of "Hit and Run" spam posting... Reflecting on it... The more I look at this type of person, the more it becomes evidenty that they have no intrest in debating, but only in posting this tripe, in the vain hope of perhaps 'converting' someone here.


After all, these people are deeply indoctrinated... All they know is Thier brainwashed information, to them it is pure truth, it seems so simply. Of COURSE the world is created by god, of COURSE Evolution is wrong, for people like wishful, it is just so obvious, that it most seem impossible that anyone could NOT think this way.

In the same way that we put absoulte faith in Science, they put absoulte faith in 'Da Lord'

As Such I can well imagine that for wishful, this is not really a 'debate' but the internet equivlant of standing on a Street corner while shouting out to the masses his Holy Word...

At this point the only real value in them is to flame them mercilessly. And sign them up for as many gay porn and fetish email lists as possible whenever their email address gets posted.

[Frank Hipper]

Just moving this to the HoS. Not to get shut down, but really because dumbass here doesn't want to debate...he wants to get assraped and proclaim how he stood up to Mike Wong and his gang of heathens.

BLOOD EAGLE! BLOOD EAGLE! It is time to make a Blood Eagle of wishful for Odhin!

I heart the Duchess!

[Wyrm]

What disappoints me most about wishful's spew is that, ultimately, it's all copypasta lifted directly from creationist websites. There is literally nothing new about any of the points wishful raises. These areguments were answered in some shape or form 150 years ago, when evolution first dethroned creationism as the dominant theory of life.

The main defect with any anti-evolutionary argument is that creationists expect evolution to be like a rival god to their own Christian god, with a revealed plan, a demonstration of the miracles of evolution, and most important of all, a purpose for everything it does. The problem is that evolution is not a god but a process, a process like the decay of radioactive nuclei (another creationist bugbear), with no revealed plan, purpose, or miracles.

Point 3 in the OP asks for a revealed plan from evolution. No such plan has been revealed. If crustatians turned up earlier in the fossil record than previously believed, so what? It just means that the line is older than we thought. Evolution doesn't reveal through an act of Darwin, "Crustatians appear at this time, so says I!" It just isn't that detailed. There isn't enough historical detail to answer that question, so it must be left to empiracism.

Point 4 asks for a miracle out of evolution. Evolution claims no such miracles. Sure, scientists have never seen a bacillus turn into a staphlococcus, but evolution doesn't require such transformations. Indeed, such observations would be considered disproof of evolution, and their lack therefore confirming evidence.

Point 5 asks for a purpose out of a transformation of a line of creatures, such as dolphins, from land-dwellers to water-dwellers. But a ridiculous purpose is only a problem to things that actually have one, such as a Christian god. Evolution doesn't have a purpose, so asking it for the purpose of a dolphin is pointless.

This is not a steel-cage match between some secular god and the Christian god, dammit.

[Stile]

<snip>

This is not a steel-cage match between some secular god and the Christian god, dammit.

Brings this to mind.

[General Zod]

This is not a steel-cage match between some secular god and the Christian god, dammit.

I would almost be willing to pay good money to see a cage-match between Jesus Christ and the FSM.

[Darth Servo]

This is not a steel-cage match between some secular god and the Christian god, dammit.

I would almost be willing to pay good money to see a cage-match between Jesus Christ and the FSM.

Thats what South Park is for.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pdkd2ANP8B0

[Napoleon the Clown]

The main defect with any anti-evolutionary argument is that creationists expect evolution to be like a rival god to their own Christian god, with a revealed plan, a demonstration of the miracles of evolution, and most important of all, a purpose for everything it does. The problem is that evolution is not a god but a process, a process like the decay of radioactive nuclei (another creationist bugbear), with no revealed plan, purpose, or miracles.

Kind of says something about their mind set and just how they thing, doesn't it?

[Surlethe]

Kind of says something about their mind set and just how they thing, doesn't it?

It's all black and white, black and white, black and fucking white. Thare are no gray zones, there's nothing that's questionable but still might be okay; either it's perfectly all right or it's wrong, either it's 100% true or it's 100% false. Evolution and the Bible are polar opposites, so if one is wrong, the other has to be correct.

Keep that in mind whenever you deal with a fundamentalist: there are no grays in life, only blacks and whites.

[Flameblade]

It's all black and white, black and white, black and fucking white. Thare are no gray zones, there's nothing that's questionable but still might be okay; either it's perfectly all right or it's wrong, either it's 100% true or it's 100% false. Evolution and the Bible are polar opposites, so if one is wrong, the other has to be correct.

Keep that in mind whenever you deal with a fundamentalist: there are no grays in life, only blacks and whites.

Unless of course the gray is the one abducting their cousin Billy-Bob and mutilating their cattle. Then there are grays.

[Edi]

It's all black and white, black and white, black and fucking white. Thare are no gray zones, there's nothing that's questionable but still might be okay; either it's perfectly all right or it's wrong, either it's 100% true or it's 100% false. Evolution and the Bible are polar opposites, so if one is wrong, the other has to be correct.

Keep that in mind whenever you deal with a fundamentalist: there are no grays in life, only blacks and whites.

Unless of course the gray is the one abducting their cousin Billy-Bob and mutilating their cattle. Then there are grays.

You owe me for the medical bills to fix my busted ribs, new person. But I don't mind that, it's been a while since I laughed this hard.

[Batman]

No medical bills to pay here but that WAS hilarious, Flameblade. Kudos to you.

[rhoenix]

Not bad at all for your sixth post here, Flameblade. I'd say it's time to consider yourself an official denizen here and get an avatar.

[Darth Wong]

Kind of says something about their mind set and just how they thing, doesn't it?

It's all black and white, black and white, black and fucking white. Thare are no gray zones, there's nothing that's questionable but still might be okay; either it's perfectly all right or it's wrong, either it's 100% true or it's 100% false. Evolution and the Bible are polar opposites, so if one is wrong, the other has to be correct.

Keep that in mind whenever you deal with a fundamentalist: there are no grays in life, only blacks and whites.

They certainly do think in terms of black and white absolutes, but their projection of their own thinking onto evolution is not really related to that problem. It's related to a different problem: sheer ignorance. They have so carefully isolated themselves from foreign or alien cultural influences that they honestly cannot figure out how evolution can possibly work as a coherent idea without those religion-like features you mentioned.

It's the same problem they have with social issues, like Bill O'Reilly's "culture war". They are so accustomed to thinking in terms of ruthlessly stamping out dissent that the idea of losing cultural hegemony terrifies them. Why? Because they are certain that secularists would behave the same way once in power, and try to drill deep into peoples' private lives to ruthlessly stamp out non-conformity. They cannot conceive of the real concept of secularism, and so they think of it as an Atheist Crusade because that way, it fits into their style of thinking and they can understand it now.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Once again Mike sums up the whole issue perfectly...

It really has reached the point where the Fundimentalists of America have walled themselves off from reality. You can pull out a Science book, you can shove it in thier face, but you can't get them to read it. Making jokes about "sticking your fingers in your ears and going LA LA LA LA" arn't jokes anymore.

When you have whole "colleges" devoted to teaching kids how the world was made in 6 days and how Evolutions i full of holes and "just a theory" Of course you get the complete black and white way of thinking.

[wishful]

Wishful---There are thousands of different genetic enhancements required by the Theory of Evolution, with a great many of them dependent on many others to provide an advantage

Show exactly how these genetic developments are "required" by the theory of evolution, as opposed to being an inevitable outcome of it.
Required vs inevitable. Basically what he has done here is instead of answering the question, or providing any argument, He is just turning the question around on me.

Creationists rely on an often long-winded but quite predictable tactic of assuming that evolution theory leads to certain conclusions when in fact it does not, and then refusing to ever show how it leads to those conclusions.
Three phrases here are of note. long-winded, predictable, and assuming. What are you trying to say? I'm still waiting for the answer the question.

Gene gangs (genomes) change together in populations resulting in structural changes. Over time. It is not a statistical impossibility since natural selection is not a random process. What part of 'differential change of allele frequency in a population' don't you understand? lol
Wow! I wasn't aware that anything in nature wasn't a random process. Chaos is involved in everything. I admit I don't know what allele and gene gangs are. I will also admit that I'm not a scientist. But, the concept of irreducible complexity and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics are not foreign to me. You have stated that the law only aplies to energy, but it does not state that the law has never been shown to be wrong when it comes to information transfer. Therefore, the law does indeed apply. NOT

2) With the quotes below in mind, how can the evolutionist explain the lack of "transitional forms" for the human species and the problems of explaining how humans supposedly are descended from apes?

Your various sources only show that there are some differences between other species and humans. How exactly is this a surprise, and how does it refute the transitional fossils which have been found? Of course there are differences; the question is why creationists think these differences could not have evolved. Can you name even one human organ which is not present in chimps in any form?
Can you show me a modern house that doesn't have kitchen or a bathroom? Similarities in different organisms can just as easily point to a creator who was and is very organized. Why should we assume that God would make humans so different than any other mammel?

The fact that neanderthals and the the australopithicines are not direct ancestors of modern humans in no way invalidates evolution anymore than the existance of your aunt invalidates the fact that your grandparents existed.

Life and evolution on earth is powered by a gigantic nuclear inferno some 152 million kms away. It gets all the energy it needs and more and so is in no violation of the 2nd law. Of course you would be aware of this if you were not being spoonfed lies and anti-evolution propaganda by creationist groups.

Here we have a case of an outright distortion. The sun does indeed provide the energy life needs to keep going. This can be used in support of God knowing that for life to exist, there had to be an energy source. The entropy encountered in genetics is one of information entropy.
http://theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html

Does 'Lucy' prove evolution? For that to be true the truth would be stretched extremely thin. Not even a complete skeleton was found, only a few pieces. Furthermore, her bones strongly suggest that she was nothing more than a knuckle-walking tree-dweller, not an upright man-like ape. (see Lucy)

They almost never find a complete skeleton, although "a few pieces" is a deliberate understatement. Moreover, there is no serious dispute that the pelvic region is indicative of an upright walking posture

There have been cases where just a few bones were misidentified and said to be evidence of evolution. However, this argument by you is NOT RIDICULOUS

Unfortunately for those convinced of evolution, the theory contradicts many laws of science. The second Law of Thermodynamics is clearly violated as evolution says that everything began as simple forms and gradually evolved into more complex ones. But as that law states, everything tends to disorder.

Anyone who quotes this is a liar, who knows absolutely nothing about thermodynamics. You fail
PERIOD I am not a liar, and I want an apology.

3) How can the evolutionist explain the problems with the fossil record?

What problems? Every single fossil ever discovered has been a transitional fossil. Creationist groups like to point out "gaps", but the reality is that to those groups, every time a new fossil is found that fits the pattern and fills a gap, suddenly there are two new gaps to find!

Missing portions of the fossil record are not a problem for the evolutionary theory. If you think they are, explain how. And give real sources from paleontology journals or universities, not a website

Of course, every organism is a transitional organism to you. I am, he is, my dog is. lol Lets look at dogs for a minute. Many new dog breeds have been breed, and I'm sure when they dig up their fossils a million years from now, they'll be saying those dogs were evidence of evolution. The truth is, organisms have the ability to adapt to a very high degree. Nothing new is introduced into the gene pool, it is merely different characteristics within that gene pool that become more prevalant. This one is NOT RIDICULOUS, at lest not entirely.

4) Considering how quickly new generations of bacteria are formed, why haven't scientists seen any evidence of evolution in the laboratory?

They have. Evolution doesn't say "E. Coli should turn into elephants", it says "E. Coli should change over time." In fact, you might be interested to learn that bacteria have evolved to eat nylon! Isn't that amazing?

And yet, it remains an E. Coli! Wow! There are now new genes there. Bacteria have the ability to assimilate genes from other organisms which give them new abilities. However, there has not been one instance of these assimilated genes producing anything other than E. Coli with a new ability. Basicaly, the conclusion is that the genes that make E. Coli a distinct organism remain separate from any genes that get assimilated

5) The last question is quoted in entirety.

"http://www.carm.org"
QUESTION: Why would the dolphin evolve on land, then return to the sea where it would have to re-evolve every feature that it had spent millions of years working on?

If the dolphin did not evolve on land and then return to the sea, why the heck is it capable of drowning? Why does it have a complete set of land-dweller finger-bones in its flippers?

What does a dolphin drowning have to do with anything? This can be looked at as God knew that the way he created Dolphins would be good enough. And it has. They have survived, haven't they?

Notice the psychological projection; ASSUMING there is an overall plan in evolution, a directing force. Dolphins didn't CHOSE to go back to the ocean
Obviously the question could have been asked in a more scientific manor. This is hardly a refutation of the question.

There is no "up" or "down" in the evolutionary scheme of things. There is only what works and what doesn't. Creationist assume that because at a point in the distant past animals comming out of the water made for an advantage that therefore going back to it must be a disadvantage
I think you are assuming something you shouldn't be. According to evolution, it must have been advantageous for the Dolphins to have evolved to be able to live in a different environment.

Why would going back to the water be a disadvantage? Comming out of the water was clearly helpful the first time because there was all this new territory to exploit
Of course, if evolution is indeed a real phenomena, this statement would be true. However it is merely a continuation of the distortion of carms argument

We will never know exactly why it happened but the fact is Dolphins breathe AIR, no gills.

Evolution only cares about one thing--how many viable offspring a species leaves in the next generation and for some reason or another, a group of mammals that returned to the sea eons ago were successful

See I could just as easily insert a RIDICULOUS and twisted trick statement here and say, notice how you guys attributes intelligence to evolution by using the word "cares".

Our option, of course, is simply to believe God's explanation of creation and to notice that we don't see any evidence of one sort of thing changing into another today.

Creationists HAVE NO EXPLANATION. NO WHERE does God explain why he made such horrible design choices like air breathing mammals who spend their entire lives in the water.
This assumes that Gods decisions were horrible. There is no evidence that God's decisions are or were horrible. You guys's statement that creationists have no explanation IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE. I agree that evolutionists have explanations, and you guys should agree that creationists have explanations

(You might also want to note that there are no "transitional" plant fossils claimed. Ginkos, palms, ferns -- they all stay the same in the fossil record.)

Lie.You may disagree with my definition of transitional form, and you may disagree with my arguments, but that does not make me a liarWe can see the transitionals everywhere, even alive today with the various patterns of their reproductive cycle.

Note: plants have a dual life cycle. A diploid period and a haploid period where one plant has the 2X chromosomes and the other has 1X chromosomes. It is somewhat analogous to animals and their reproductive cells sperm and eggs. The cells in the diploid half undergo meiosis reducing the chromosome number by 1/2 and giving rise to the haploid half of the lifecycle. The haploid half generates spores which disperse and eventually combine with the spores from another member of the species. This process constitutes the sexual phase of the plant reproduction, chromosomes from two different organisms combining into new combinations and gives rise to a new diploid plant.

More ancient plants (such as mosses) had the diploid half of the lifecycle taking care of the majority of the photosynthesis and hence the diploid plant was far larger than the haploid. This proved rather inefficient as it was the haploid half that was producing lots of spores to disperse. The gametes from the diploid half often didn't go anywhere and the plant based out of its parent. The plants we examined in the lab were no more than three inches tall.

The next major group was the ferns. They had a much larger haploid plant with rather small diploid plants. The spores form on the underside of the leaf and give rise to a plant about the size of a clover.

Next group was the pines. The haploid is now a big tree and the diploid is contained in the pinecone. Finally there are the flowering plants where the diploid is nothing more than a pollen grain (male equivalent) or housed in the pestal of the flower (female equivalent). The pattern is clear--larger haploid plants reletive to the diploid plants with the haploid taking on greater and greater responsibility for photosynthesis

And here we have totally different species being compared together. Where is the fern/pine? NOT RIDICULOUS because this was an honest argument provided by you guys. I wish you would do this more, except for the "lie" part.

[Ariphaos]

I'm not going to pay much attention to this idiot, but:

And yet, it remains an E. Coli! Wow! There are now new genes there. Bacteria have the ability to assimilate genes from other organisms which give them new abilities. However, there has not been one instance of these assimilated genes producing anything other than E. Coli with a new ability. Basicaly, the conclusion is that the genes that make E. Coli a distinct organism remain separate from any genes that get assimilated

How many times do nylon eating bacteria have to be pointed out to you before your brain is purged of the above stupidity?

[General Zod]

That is quite possibly the single most hideous quote job that I've ever seen. I can't even tell who the fuck wishful is replying to or distinguish their replies from the person they're quoting very easily. Learn how to use the fucking quote function properly for cthulhu's sake.

[General Zod]

While we're at it, perhaps Wishful can explain why men have nipples. If he feels that creationism has explanations, I'd love to hear one for this.

[Civil War Man]

While we're at it, perhaps Wishful can explain why men have nipples. If he feels that creationism has explanations, I'd love to hear one for this.

I would, too, considering that I brought up male nipples on page 2 and I have yet to hear a rebuttal.

And for the record...

This assumes that Gods decisions were horrible. There is no evidence that God's decisions are or were horrible. You guys's statement that creationists have no explanation IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE. I agree that evolutionists have explanations, and you guys should agree that creationists have explanations

How many people have you met who have back problems? Or have injured their knees? Unless it was part of God's plan that humans would be wracked with massive joint pain as they grew older. In that case, he would just be an asshole.

And yet, it remains an E. Coli! Wow! There are now new genes there. Bacteria have the ability to assimilate genes from other organisms which give them new abilities. However, there has not been one instance of these assimilated genes producing anything other than E. Coli with a new ability. Basicaly, the conclusion is that the genes that make E. Coli a distinct organism remain separate from any genes that get assimilated

And once again, you show a complete lack of misunderstanding of genetics and speciation. One change does not necessarily a new species make. A corgy is Canis lupus familiaris. A beagle is Canis lupus familiaris. A rottweiler is Canis lupus familiaris. They have different genes, but they are all still dogs.

I suggest you read up on species and speciation.

(also, just as a side note, nylon-eating E Coli was a result of laboratory experiments which transferred the enzyme-producing gene from the Flavobacterium strain that originally developed the ability into a strain of E Coli. Another experiment was able to induce Pseudomonas aeruginosa, another bacteria strain, with a different nylon-eating gene by exposing them to an environment with no potential food source beyond nylon byproducts. This is called an environmental contraint)

See I could just as easily insert a RIDICULOUS and twisted trick statement here and say, notice how you guys attributes intelligence to evolution by using the word "cares".

It's called personification, jackass.

By the way, making your posts impossible to read doesn't help your arguments.

[Darth Servo]

First of all, learn how to use the quote function. It works just like the color function only instead of "color=" inside the brackets [], you have "quote"

Wishful---There are thousands of different genetic enhancements required by the Theory of Evolution, with a great many of them dependent on many others to provide an advantage

Show exactly how these genetic developments are "required" by the theory of evolution, as opposed to being an inevitable outcome of it.

Required vs inevitable. Basically what he has done here is instead of answering the question, or providing any argument, He is just turning the question around on me.

Wrong. He is showing that your question is based on a strawman of evolution rather than the real thing.

Creationists rely on an often long-winded but quite predictable tactic of assuming that evolution theory leads to certain conclusions when in fact it does not, and then refusing to ever show how it leads to those conclusions.

Three phrases here are of note. long-winded, predictable, and assuming. What are you trying to say? I'm still waiting for the answer the question.

That creationists go through a lot of hastle to try and appear reasonable but its nothing more than a smokescreen. Your question is based on false assumptions.

Gene gangs (genomes) change together in populations resulting in structural changes. Over time. It is not a statistical impossibility since natural selection is not a random process. What part of 'differential change of allele frequency in a population' don't you understand? lol

Wow! I wasn't aware that anything in nature wasn't a random process. Chaos is involved in everything.

More of the creationist black and white thinking. Just because there is an element of chaos in something does NOT mean the entire system is completely chaotic.

I admit I don't know what allele and gene gangs are.

He TOLD you what they are. Its another word for "genome" and if you don't know what that is, you have no business arguing about evolution.

I will also admit that I'm not a scientist. But, the concept of irreducible complexity and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics are not foreign to me.

Yet it clearly IS foreign to you that "irreducibly complex" is an invalid argument and was shot down long ago and no, you are NOT familiar with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You don't have the first clue what it ACTUALLY says, as opposed to creationist distortions of it.

You have stated that the law only aplies to energy, but it does not state that the law has never been shown to be wrong when it comes to information transfer.

The 2nd law doesn't say ANYTHING about information transfer.

2) With the quotes below in mind, how can the evolutionist explain the lack of "transitional forms" for the human species and the problems of explaining how humans supposedly are descended from apes?

Your various sources only show that there are some differences between other species and humans. How exactly is this a surprise, and how does it refute the transitional fossils which have been found? Of course there are differences; the question is why creationists think these differences could not have evolved. Can you name even one human organ which is not present in chimps in any form?

Can you show me a modern house that doesn't have kitchen or a bathroom? Similarities in different organisms can just as easily point to a creator who was and is very organized. Why should we assume that God would make humans so different than any other mammel?

If that were the case, we shouldn't see the same MISTAKES copied from one species to another. Imagine your "house designer" who consistantly installs bad plumbing in every home he builds. It gets worse when you factor in the creationist assumption that said "designer" is infalliable and omniscient.

Here we have a case of an outright distortion. The sun does indeed provide the energy life needs to keep going. This can be used in support of God knowing that for life to exist, there had to be an energy source.

And yet according to his own text book, he created plants (day 3) before he created the power source (day 4). Is that your designer's way of sayinig "whoops, sorry guys, I forgot something"?

The entropy encountered in genetics is one of information entropy.

Now he's just making up new terms out of thin air.

They almost never find a complete skeleton, although "a few pieces" is a deliberate understatement. Moreover, there is no serious dispute that the pelvic region is indicative of an upright walking posture

There have been cases where just a few bones were misidentified and said to be evidence of evolution. However, this argument by you is NOT RIDICULOUS

Hey, mistakes happen. Thats part of being human. However, the occasional mistake does NOT invalidate the rest of the mountian of evidence.

Unfortunately for those convinced of evolution, the theory contradicts many laws of science. The second Law of Thermodynamics is clearly violated as evolution says that everything began as simple forms and gradually evolved into more complex ones. But as that law states, everything tends to disorder.

Anyone who quotes this is a liar, who knows absolutely nothing about thermodynamics. You fail

PERIOD I am not a liar, and I want an apology.[/color]
You are either a liar or incredibliy ignorant. Take your pick. The fact remains you know NOTHING about the REAL 2nd law of thermodynamics as the quote above clearly demonstrates.

Learn this and learn it well. The 2nd law is about entropy, chaos. Simpleness versus complexity and entropy are two completely different things.

Of course, every organism is a transitional organism to you. I am, he is, my dog is. lol Lets look at dogs for a minute. Many new dog breeds have been breed, and I'm sure when they dig up their fossils a million years from now, they'll be saying those dogs were evidence of evolution. The truth is, organisms have the ability to adapt to a very high degree. Nothing new is introduced into the gene pool, it is merely different characteristics within that gene pool that become more prevalant. This one is NOT RIDICULOUS, at lest not entirely.

If Dogs are EXTINCT in a million years and there is a similar but clearly different organism, then yes, that find is evidence of evolution. Granted, I hope they'll be able to directly trace the evolution of dogs to what ever they are in a million years but thats another matter entirely.

Tell us, why do we NOT find modern skeletons mixed together with the ancient and now extince ones?

And yet, it remains an E. Coli! Wow!

Only because there has not been sufficient time to accumulate enough changes to warrant a new species identification.

There are now new genes there.

Arising purely by chance without any intelligent guiding force, in direct contradiction to your other arguments. This is where you're supposed to admit you're wrong.

Bacteria have the ability to assimilate genes from other organisms which give them new abilities. However, there has not been one instance of these assimilated genes producing anything other than E. Coli with a new ability.

How would you know when you clearly haven't done any real research on the matter, and NO, reading creationist webpages doesn't constitute "research"

Basicaly, the conclusion is that the genes that make E. Coli a distinct organism remain separate from any genes that get assimilated

Bullshit. They're all in the genome together. Some are on plasmids but there is ZERO actual separation. They all work together.

What does a dolphin drowning have to do with anything?

It shows that it used to be a LAND dwelling creature. Or does it not occur to your addled mind that the vast bulk of creatures living in the ocean DON'T need to breathe air. They have these things called "gills"

This can be looked at as God knew that the way he created Dolphins would be good enough. And it has. They have survived, haven't they?

And how many creatures have gone EXTINCT? Clearly God did NOT create them "good enough"

God had apparently created vast numbers of animals that can respirate under water yet all of a sudden he decided that was too much work to do with dolphins? Why?

Notice the psychological projection; ASSUMING there is an overall plan in evolution, a directing force. Dolphins didn't CHOSE to go back to the ocean

Obviously the question could have been asked in a more scientific manor. This is hardly a refutation of the question.

Pointing out that you're making completely unwarranted assumptions is a perfectly legitimate point that you can't answer.

There is no "up" or "down" in the evolutionary scheme of things. There is only what works and what doesn't. Creationist assume that because at a point in the distant past animals comming out of the water made for an advantage that therefore going back to it must be a disadvantage

I think you are assuming something you shouldn't be. According to evolution, it must have been advantageous for the Dolphins to have evolved to be able to live in a different environment.

No, its pointing out that YOUR assumption that change 'X' is ALWAYS advantageous isi bullshit.

And its not an assumption. Its a conclusion based on observation.

Why would going back to the water be a disadvantage? Comming out of the water was clearly helpful the first time because there was all this new territory to exploit

Of course, if evolution is indeed a real phenomena, this statement would be true. However it is merely a continuation of the distortion of carms argument

Did you see me referencing their argument? No. I was simply pointing out the fact that your underlying assumption was completely unjustified.

It is a FACT that the first animal out of the water and onto dry land would have the run of the territory. That is clearly an advantage to anyone with a functioning brain.

We will never know exactly why it happened but the fact is Dolphins breathe AIR, no gills.

Evolution only cares about one thing--how many viable offspring a species leaves in the next generation and for some reason or another, a group of mammals that returned to the sea eons ago were successful

See I could just as easily insert a RIDICULOUS and twisted trick statement here and say, notice how you guys attributes intelligence to evolution by using the word "cares".

Oh, no, the moron is criticizing my use of the literary technique known as "personification". What ever shall I do?

The POINT remains unanswered, greater number of viable offspring in the next generation --> evolutionary advantage. Whether that means out of the ocean or back into the ocean, into warmer climates or into colder ones, into deserts or into tropics all depends on the situation and NONE of them are "higher" or "lower" than the other. Thus endeth the lesson.

Creationists HAVE NO EXPLANATION. NO WHERE does God explain why he made such horrible design choices like air breathing mammals who spend their entire lives in the water.

This assumes that Gods decisions were horrible.

No, it OBSERVES that his alleged decisions were horrible. Dolphins frequently die due to not being able to survace at times.

There is no evidence that God's decisions are or were horrible.

Death = bad and no intelligent designer would EVER make those kind of design decisions. Any human engineer designing such a bad system would lose his liscence at the very LEAST.

You guys's statement that creationists have no explanation IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE. I agree that evolutionists have explanations, and you guys should agree that creationists have explanations

OK, let's hear your "explanation". Please note that "God did it" is NOT an explanation. Explain HOW God did it. You can't explain a mystery with another mystery.

Lie.

]You may disagree with my definition of transitional form, and you may disagree with my arguments, but that does not make me a liar

You DON'T HAVE a definition of a transitional form. You just mindlessly reject every example that fits the actual definition.

And here we have totally different species being compared together.

Ah, so when we compare changes within a species, thats not evolution and when we compare the obvious pattern of changes from different species, that isn't evolution either, eh? Just what DO you consider to be an example of evolution?

Where is the fern/pine?

What makes you think evolution predicts such a thing?

NOT RIDICULOUS because this was an honest argument provided by you guys. I wish you would do this more, except for the "lie" part.

The fact that no matter WHAT evidence is presented, you make excuses to ignore it, and often those excuses are in direct contradiction to each other.

summary
1) You DON'T know what thermodynamics is
2) You DON'T know what a transitional form is
3) You DON'T know what a good design is
4) You DON'T know what evolution is

[Darth Servo]

And once again, you show a complete lack of misunderstanding of genetics and speciation. One change does not necessarily a new species make. A corgy is Canis lupus familiaris. A beagle is Canis lupus familiaris. A rottweiler is Canis lupus familiaris. They have different genes, but they are all still dogs.

Wishful(thinking) doesn't understand that those differences are what comprise speciation. One species becomes two by acquiring many different traits from one population to another until the two different populations become so different that then can no longer interbreed.

We are already witnessing this process in dogs. Just try breeding an English Mastiff with a Chihuahua. Now what would happen if all OTHER dog breeds were wiped out?

But for the self-appointed "expert" Wishful, this isn't real evolution. No, in his mind, evolution requires there be some crazy mix between a dog and a lizard

[Ritterin Sophia]

This assumes that Gods decisions were horrible. There is no evidence that God's decisions are or were horrible. You guys's statement that creationists have no explanation IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE. I agree that evolutionists have explanations, and you guys should agree that creationists have explanations

Assuming that God created us means he created our brains, as well as how we think and process information, and thus our actions; Creationists like to say that evolution means we are just monkeys and that we have no one to answer to, except they forget that if God is all seeing and knowing and created the process in which we think and act, we no longer become responsible for our actions and need not answer to anyone, I can kill someone and say, 'I killed them because it's what God wanted and be right' and you'd be in the moral wrong for punishing me since it's God who did it, thus Gods sentences us to Hell before we are even born. If that's not a horrible decision, I'd like to know what is.

[Cairber]

While we're at it, perhaps Wishful can explain why men have nipples. If he feels that creationism has explanations, I'd love to hear one for this.

Ok, I couldn't help myself:

male breastfeeding

Perhaps God meant for you guys to be up all night with the babes and not us