CreateDebate


Debate Info

40
76
Creation Evolution
Debate Score:116
Arguments:55
Total Votes:156
Ended:04/26/10
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Creation (22)
 
 Evolution (33)

Debate Creator

ChuckHenryII(10) pic



This debate has ended. You can no longer add arguments or vote in this debate.

Creation vs. Evolution

we will deate and defend your side of the debate providing evidence as well as logic.

Creation

Side Score: 40
VS.

Evolution

Side Score: 76
Winning Side!
3 points

I find this debate to be misleading. The person who created this debate is attempting to equate two things that are not equal. A more accurate debate topic would be something like The Big Bang vs. Creationism. Allow me to explain:

Creationism states that a supreme agent created not only the earth, but the universe as well.

Evolution, in it's most common usage, is referring to change in inherited traits among a population on earth. Evolution does not apply to the universe itself.

Therefore, as the pope himself agreed, it is well within the realm of possibility that both creationism and evolution are true. Creationism, for me, is more plausible than any other explanation up to this point. As for evolution, I have no issues with what it says.

Side: Creation
2 points

There appears to be a firm boundary between the evolutionary mechanism that is evident in speciation. I agree with GCOMEAU on the pro evolutionary argument with respect to protein and cellular level advancement, there is little to disagree with as far as evolutionary mechanisms that describe organism advancement, HOWEVER, a big problem for pure evolutionists is the question of the same evolutionary mechanism explaining the fundamental building blocks of nature, quarks, atomic components, molecules that provide the building blocks for amino acids, proteins, cells etc. The evolutionary mechanism that explains higher level building block development based on some simple rules in nature factually cannot apply to the deterministic properties at the fundamental building block level. I submit that organism advancement is a combination of both creationism and evolution. Organisms cannot evolve without the fundamental building block structure of atomic "forms of nature". These do not exhibit any form of evolutionary properties, but are deterministic. These "natural forms" are a product of intelligent design. An intelligent design in nature that allows each organism to exist, and to continue to improve based on the mechanisms of evolutionary theory. Please see scientific peer reviewed links for papers supporting "forms of nature" below. This argument is a "chicken before the egg" type argument. Pure evolutionists cannot argue against "forms of nature" building block mechanics in nature and pure creationist have no argument against the existence of evolutionary advancement in high level molecular or cellular organisms. It is the intelligent design point of view that explains BOTH points of view. That the two mechanisms co-exist and are not contrary to one or the other when viewed in perspective.

We can describe the "forms" of nature in simplistic terms, the FACT that the probabilistic view of life formation in the universe tend to complicate the argument in support of a life forming universe, the FACT that statistical anomalies tend to be guaranteed to successfully yield the right balance of hydrogen, carbon oxygen helium in nature (we know this from meteorites ex planet Earth) that the same make up is inherent in these materials as on Earth suggests Natural Law uniformity (as such so are the Laws of Gravity inherent in our side of the galaxy as in the opposite side of the universe were it possible to measure).

Cosmological, Experimental and Theoretical Physicists have an easier time understanding the natural forms of nature than perhaps, Evolutionary Biologists, Organic Chemists etc in MOST cases. The argument for natural forms in nature and its implication in the development of cellular construction as the precursor to biological evolution mechanisms are easier to understand with respect to the laws of nature (strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetic and gravitational forces), inherent in atomic structure. Understanding this Newtonian (Principia philosophy) idea of classic Physics lends itself to intelligently designed, architect-ed or molecular forms in nature. Perhaps the modern biological evolutionary mechanism isn't the ONLY mechanism that can exist in the nature of biology. References www.youtube.com type "Dr Michael Denton" (Molecular Chemistry Professor) . See scientific papers http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12419661 (this is on the U.S. Federal go NIH website) The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the Pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law 2003. http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/how-did-dna-evolve-37241.html I have the peer reviewed paper from the University of Otago New Zealand by Dr Michael Denton. You are welcome to a copy (PDF file) if you send me a direct message, I will respond and supply the paper.

Side: Creation
gcomeau(536) Disputed
4 points

HOWEVER, a big problem for pure evolutionists is the question of the same evolutionary mechanism explaining the fundamental building blocks of nature, quarks, atomic components, molecules...

Because that's physics.

Evolution is biology.

This is like saying a big problem for gravitational theory is that it doesn't explain how you came down with the flu last winter. Not supposed to. Not it's job.

As for the rest of your post, let me be sure I understand what you intend to argue before diving into it. To sum up... the universe is formed in such a way as to allow the emergence of life, you think that was very unlikely, therefore the universe must have been deliberately designed to allow the formation of life. Is that about it?

Side: Evolution
nthdegreeman(39) Disputed
2 points

GCOMEAU - You have done a great job understanding the premise of my argument and I agree completely with your response with exception to some minor points of which I will address later. You've basically implicated yourself. The boundary between Biology and evolution and the "forms of nature" through Physics has a disconnect. For a pure evolutionist to state that there is NO God or Intelligent Design because all of nature, or the totality of the existence of organisms can be explained solely in evolutionary terms only is as misleading as creationist making the same statement in favor of creationism as the ONLY mechanism that advances organism advancement from ether. Dr's Steven Hawking, George Smoot, Michiu Kaku and many other Theoretical and Experimental Physicists imply a "life forming universe" anthropic universe principle that implies intelligent design. The mechanism of evolutionary advancement is a workable and valid mechanism beyond the Physics stage, of which you've acknowledged in your response. The forms of nature in Physics is a signature implying intelligent design, the building blocks that allow evolutionary mechanisms to be effective. Thank you for implicating yourself in acknowledging that such a distinction exists. Your gravitational/flu analogy has a flaw in favor of your argument and I would like to bring this to your attention; problem one: the subject isn't with gravity, it is based in the fact that the flu virus that causes the disease cannot exist with out the strong or weak nuclear forces of atomic structure, of which is a form of nature. Problem two: you understand what I've been arguing, in fact, I'm in favor and support much or your premise for your argument for evolutionary advancement, although you recognize the distinction between the Physics and the Biology (obvious distinction) you choose not to recognize that evolutionary advancement starts at a different stage and does not explain the possibility of intelligent design as the building block premise for which evolutionary advancement becomes possible. Problem three: I promote the premise that the universe is formed in such a way to promote life and is designed, I am not sure how you came to understand my points to the contrary. In short, I can only support scientists like Dr Richard Dawkins evolutionary arguments up until the point where he states there is NO GOD or a least the recognition of intelligent design, and that his view of the universe follows evolutionary theory from it's entirety, however possible that is, is a fairytale point of view in itself. I think you are a pure evolutionist and have addressed much of my commentary to address the underlying philosophy as such. Please acknowledge that I accept evolutionary advancement as a valid mechanism, but NOT at the expense of intelligent design as being the fundamental building blocks of nature that allows that mechanism to work. I see no distinction between the two other than the type of mechanism at work. I've supplied links supporting my argument in favor of intelligent design as the PREMISE for a life forming universe, please review before committing yourself to a response.

Side: Creation
ricedaragh(2494) Disputed
1 point

There was a time when the atom was the smallest particle in existence, then there was sub-atomic hadrons. Since the atom was split now there is quarks and a new science of particle physics. It is the same as the flat earth theory and any other nonsense. As the scientist that you clearly are do you not think it anthropopathic to invoke a creator any time you cant explain something? When can you clearly state what is right or wrong. Evolution as a theory has mountains of evidence to back it up, however creationism has none. The arguments that I have witnessed on the side of creationism are always shot down. A hypothesis such as the existence of an omnipotent deity that created everything goes against the fundamental basics of science as it can not be proved making it only a hypothesis.

Side: Evolution
nthdegreeman(39) Disputed
1 point

Ricedaragh - in a court of law, circumstantial evidence is permitted as a case against or in favor of a judgment. This form of trial has been used to indict criminals, it has also been used to release those imprisoned. The principles of circumstantial evidence applies to science, whereby a theorem proposed can be considered as a "law" over time IF certain requirements are met. I'm not going to split hairs with you over some of your comments as your response was clearly an emotional reaction based on your subjective bias against the possibility of Intelligent Design. Please show me exactly where the circumstantial evidence presented fails and how the principle of "natural forms" is the same as the "flat earth theory". It is clear you do not have the slightest understanding of my argument. I purposely juxtaposed "natural form" and "evolutionary" principles in context and presented the argument that evolutionary mechanisms are valid and natural forms are valid. To doubt either is pure nonsensical. The challenge to the evolutionary biologists is that natural forms based on physics, although still circumstantial evidence, is leaning towards and in favor of the intelligent design mechanism. I recommend watching www.ted.com search for Dr George Smoot Experimental Astrophysicist (Nobel Laureate). He represents a growing movement in the physics scientific community using reasoning to attribute a form of anthropic influence in the universe. This cannot be explained purely by biological evolutionary science theory. The mechanism is valid but has limits and cannot explain the fact that the mechanism is not evidenced in the formation of sub atomic particle formation up to the protein stage of molecules. Here it is in a nutshell...the boundary layer between evolutionary fact and natural form fact in nature, exists. GCOMEAU recognizes this aspect of the argument. If evolution was the ONLY explanation for a life forming universe, we would see and observe the laws of evolution in the development of sub atomic particles, formation of atoms etc, we do NOT see this law in action at this level. This point can be supported by an analogy that maybe designed in my argument's favor, but I welcome any challenge to find the flaw in the reasoning; * I can purchase a lawn mower for the purpose of mowing my lawns. The fact that I purchased a lawn mower, a device organized and designed to mow lawns implies to me that the lawn mower was formed and designed for that purpose. I know I did not make it, design it, I just want to use it. This implies a natural form of nature based on some form of anthropic source such as subatomic, atomic and particle formation in the universe. Now, I start the lawn mower engine, it runs because I supplied it fuel (another form of nature) BUT, the evolutionary step takes over, the mechanism implied by nature for the advancement of life is such that the lawn mower now performs its task by cutting the grass on my lawn. This is clearly not a natural form of nature function excepting the physics principles involved. If I were NOT to periodically cut my grass, it would become over grown, weeded, and perhaps harbor more garden eating insects, rodents etc. By cutting and trimming it, the benefits to me are simple; 1. I am more socially accepted by my neighbors because I take care of my lawn 2. I reduce the potential for garden eating insects or rodents and so forth. The fact that my lawn mower is able to perform this function independent of the engineers and manufacturing process that formed it while in use is the premise of the argument. All too often, pure evolutionists neglect the physics observations in nature as part of the total view of nature. I like to say the "egg" precedes the "egg" since the building blocks were designed and manufactured for the purpose of being an egg, but can develop into a chicken at a later stage based on a cellular advancement mechanism akin to evolutionary development. I would have preferred a third category in this argument called "intelligent design" as opposed to "creationism" or "evolution" as I sit very comfortably in that category.

Side: Creation
ChuckHenryII(10) Disputed
-1 points

A few people will undoubtedly refute this and say that the word that I am typing are complete trash but I'm going to present it anyways. You say that the belief in the existence of an omnipotent deity that created everything goes against the fundamental basics of science. You see, that is the problem with a few evolutionist. When God created the world, science was non existent because there was nothing except himself, so he didn't have to abide by science in order to create the world, and universe for that matter. Once He set everything in motion, that is when science in itself came into perspective, in a creationist point of view. So saying that creation goes against science is a poor argument in this case.

Side: Creation

Lets start this by strictly debating creation and then broaden into other matters such as the universe. So, give me an argument...

Side: Creation

Creationism. Or evolutionism.

How about alienism? Aliens did it all!!!

Side: Alienism
1 point

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------moved over there----->>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Side: Creation
gcomeau(536) Disputed
0 points

Also over there ------------------------------------------------------------>

Side: Evolution

I believe God created all things I don't believe that I evolve from a monkey.

Side: Creation
MKIced(2510) Disputed
1 point

But you didn't evolve from a monkey. :)

Monkeys and humans evolved from a common ancestor.

Side: Evolution
1 point

Thanks for the information but there nothing you can do to make believe all those false accusations =)

Side: Creation
gcomeau(536) Disputed
0 points

I don't believe that I evolve from a monkey

Good for you. Now go learn what evolution actually says.

Hint: It's not that you evolved "from a monkey".

Side: Evolution

This is a debate which will never come to a firm conclusion, because one is missing evidence(creation), and one is missing a beginning(evolution). I would have to side with the theory of creation because it has its story of how everything started. Compared to evolution, which has no beginning, meaning that if humans evolved from apes, then how were apes made? Maybe apes were created, or the animals that evolved to apes and so on and so forth. Maybe god created evolution!

Side: Creation
-1 points

The main thing I see in evolutionist is that they see the Bible just as a book of unrealistic and absurd stories or fables made by man. What they don't realize is that the same could be said about themselves. Evolution is an over exaggerated experiment used to explain the things they couldn't, in the eyes of a supporter of creation, and their proof is in complex, unbelievable theories and hypothesis. Are you starting to see it now? When in an argument you will completely close off any reason to believe what the other side is saying and you will take information and bend it to make it support your beliefs by any means you find necessary.

Side: Creation
zombee(1026) Disputed
3 points

Every single person I have ever spoken to who does not believe in evolution has proven that, in one way or another, they do not actually understand how it works, and you are no exception. What do you even mean by evolution being an 'exaggerated experiment'? That it was created in a laboratory? That it is only a tentative theory?

The evidence for evolution is only complex and unbelievable to you because you lack the will and knowledge to understand it. Gcomeau has a great post in this thread and another one with several examples of evidence for evolution that, if you can actually understand them, you will not be able to refute.

The Bible is not the same thing as a science textbook by any mean. Do you understand what a verifiable fact is? That is what you will find in science textbooks. Do you understand what a parable is? That is what you will find the Bible.

Evolution is not a belief, evolution is a fact. I am always open to counterarguments but I have never encountered one that, at its core, did not demonstrate a basic lack of understanding.

Side: Evolution
ChuckHenryII(10) Disputed
2 points

I know I'm not refuting your main point here but bear with me. Many people today mix the word parable up with the word story. The etymology of the word shows that the original Greek word was parabole, which means a comparison, and the English translation doesn't have a whole lot of variation from that. The definition in most dictionaries, and the one that I use, is a statement or comment that conveys a meaning indirectly by the use of a comparison, analogy or the like. So yes I do understand what a parable is and yes, that is what you will find in the Bible.

Side: Creation
-1 points

This debate ends tomorrow and I've enjoyed it and I hope you have as well. I'm just going to end my arguments with this. With more than 4,200 religions worldwide and an estimated 2-3 billion Christians alone, I'll continue in my beliefs and I don't plan on shifting anytime soon, as I am sure you feel also. And just to get things straight I do believe in evolution but only to a point. I believe that there is minor genetic altering, that can't be denied, but I do however believe that God created everything and everyone. (This is not meant to be refuted so please don't)

Side: Creation
aveskde(1935) Disputed
2 points

With more than 4,200 religions worldwide and an estimated 2-3 billion Christians alone, I'll continue in my beliefs and I don't plan on shifting anytime soon, as I am sure you feel also.

Billions of people can be wrong, however. You shouldn't use that as a support for your position.

And just to get things straight I do believe in evolution but only to a point. I believe that there is minor genetic altering, that can't be denied, but I do however believe that God created everything and everyone. (This is not meant to be refuted so please don't)

What you said is similar to "I believe that you can take only short steps, that can't be denied, but I believe god must carry you from your house door to the grocery store." Also, don't include assertions you don't wish to be refuted in your arguments. The point of debates is to refute.

Side: Evolution
casper3912(1581) Disputed
1 point

debate is refutation.

if don't wish to have something refuted then keep it private.

Side: Evolution
13 points

1. Endogenous retroviral insertions are the genetic fingerprints of past retroviral infections. The virus splices itself into a random point in the host DNA and then whenever that DNA replicates it replicates the virus as well.

Genetic analysis of primate genomes has shown a clear inheritance pattern of such insertions across all primate species. In EXACTLY THE SAME PLACE on the genome. The odds of this happening by chance are literally incalculable. Evolution is the only possible way it could have happened and it is considered ironclad evidence of common descent.

2. Most mammals are able to synthesise ascorbic acid, a.k.a. vitamin C. Primates are not. The gene responsible for ascorbic acid synthesis is called the GULO gene Evolution predicted that since primates shared common ancestry with other mammals and deletions of entire genes from a chromosome almost never happens there were very high odds that we would find a de-activated GULO pseudogene in primates in exactly the same place the functional gene exists in other mammals.

Looked for it, found it. It had been de-activated by a frame shift mutation right around the time primates branched off from the rest of the mammals and the mutation was passed down to all subsequent primate species. There is NO explanation for that other than evolution, and it is considered ironclad evidence of common descent.

3. The branching process of genetic reproduction and inheritance produces a distinctive signature called a nested hierarchy, where any changes to the genetic code at any point in time propogate only "downstream" from the point at which they are introduced by having them passed on to offspring during reproduction. ALL life on earth falls into this nested hierarchical pattern, as does all of the fossil record. no other proposed explanation accounts for this pattern.

4. Phylogenetics is the mathematical analysis of the genetic code of different organisms to determine ancestry. It's how paternity tests work. It's ridiculously accurate. Every test we've performed matches up with how the fossil record tells us life devellopped over time and establishes that evolutionary predictions about common ancestry are correct.

5. Fossil sequences map out clear transitions over time from one form to another all through history.

6. The geographic distribution of species overlays the nested hierachical organization of traits among them, and matches with the fossil record showing how the species in the different areas of the world developped into their current forms over time.

Do I really need to continue? Anyone who denies evolution has NO IDEA what they're talking about. NONE.

Side: Evolution
nthdegreeman(39) Disputed
1 point

GCOMEAU and to all other debaters; in my opinion, the debate question is posited incorrectly but we probably understand the premise for the argument. The question is proposed as "WHAT PRINCIPLES AND MECHANISMS FORMED THE UNIVERSE AND LIFE WITHIN IT". I would like to refine the debate question as there are aspects of counter arguments and circular reasoning evident on both sides of the argument based on the binary debate question posited. The format is simple, I have a range of questions and would welcome respondents of all types to offer an opinion based on facts;

1. Does evolutionary biology explain the formation of the universe, its organization and ability to be life forming.

2. At what point in the formation of a biological life form does principles of evolutionary science begin? Explain it's path from subatomic structures to a living organism. The initial argument presented by GCOMEAU adequately describes the process at the molecular stage but DOES NOT go any further to describe the building blocks of life preceding it. Evolutionary biology as a mechanism has a starting point, please explain through reason, the mechanism by which these particles were made and formed of the particles that precede evolutionary biology mechanisms.

3. Could evolutionary biology possibly be ONE of other mechanisms that explains the formation of biological life forms, FROM THE ORGANIZATION OF SUB ATOMIC PARTICLES TO MORE COMPLEX MOLECULAR STRUCTURES"?

4. Does evolutionary biology REQUIRE a level of sapience, consciousness or intelligence in a biological life form down to the protein stage to allow the evolutionary steps to take place?

5. Is there any option in evolutionary biology to allow the possibly of intelligent design, as in the role of the particles that allow the possibility of more complex organisms to occur in nature through sapience, consciousness or intelligence, to have allowed for the mechanism of evolutionary advancement to be present on the basis of the formation of "natural forms of nature"?

I will respond based on arguments presented.

Side: Creation
gcomeau(536) Disputed
4 points

1. Does evolutionary biology explain the formation of the universe, its organization and ability to be life forming.

As I have already explained, this is the equivalent of asking if the theory of gravity explains why you chose to eat scrambled eggs for breakfast this morning.

Of course it doesn't. It isn't supposed to.

2. At what point in the formation of a biological life form does principles of evolutionary science begin?

When there is self-replication with variation under environmental constraints that introduce selective pressures.

Explain it's path from subatomic structures to a living organism.

Asking this question indicates what you really need explained is the difference between biology and physics and chemistry. Now we can go into how sub-atomic particles for atoms, and how atoms form molecules, and how molecules chemically react with each other... but this is going to turn into a science class it's going to take a year to teach.

The short version is "because the laws of physic make it happen".

3. Could evolutionary biology possibly be ONE of other mechanisms that explains the formation of biological life forms, FROM THE ORGANIZATION OF SUB ATOMIC PARTICLES TO MORE COMPLEX MOLECULAR STRUCTURES"?

No. Because that has nothing to do with evolutionary biology. At all. It is a completely different process.

4. Does evolutionary biology REQUIRE a level of sapience, consciousness or intelligence in a biological life form down to the protein stage to allow the evolutionary steps to take place?

Absolutely not, that's just purely silly.

5. Is there any option in evolutionary biology to allow the possibly of intelligent design,

Intelligent design is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. What that means is that there is "an option" for it to be included in ANY real theory but only as a meaningless, contentless add on that serves no purpose of any kind. And thus that option is not exercised by anyone who knows how science is supposed to work. It would be the equivalent of saying there is an option in Newtonian mechanics for the possibility that the motion of the planets was the work of invisible space fairies that are pushinbg everything around as if they were obeying Newton's laws of motion.

You can do it, but it would be stupid and no real scientist would do it.

Side: Evolution
ChuckHenryII(10) Disputed
-1 points

First I would like to point out that your arguments are quite repetitive and most of the latter ones are just simply restating your first and I am not really getting what you want me to refude exactly. You also just seem to be thinking too hard in all of this. In many of your arguments you say that there is NO explanation for these things exept evolution. No one can seem to disprove certain things of Evolution while proving other point. The same goes for the idea that God crerated everything. So I'll give you an exlaination, God. The main problem many people have in debating, or arguing in general, is that they believe what they believe and close their eyes to the opposing side of the debate. So, instead of looking at what the other believes and finding flaws of the individual, they just say the same thing over and over to themselves in their "box" and don't think.

Side: Creation
gcomeau(536) Disputed
1 point

First of all, be a little more specific. Which of my arguments repeated something the other had already covered? What did they repeat?

Second... the evolution debate has many problems. People "thinking too hard" on it is not one of them. EVER.

Third, "God" is not an explanation any more than "Steve" is an explanation.

Fourth, I get the strong impression you don't even halfway understand the majority of what I wrote, but felt the need to dispute it anyway just because it was supporting evolution and you don't want to believe in it. If you would like me to revise that impression, demonstrate an understanding of the subject matter by addressing it in some level of detail instead of just hand-waving it away.

Side: Evolution
ricedaragh(2494) Disputed
1 point

MOST scientists base their theory on evidence. They are not closing their eyes to the other explanations. Believe me there has been a lot of research carried out to prove or disprove the existence of a creator (Templeton Foundation) and science would be wasting its valuable time over this archaic hypothesis. So when you see a scientist going on about evolution they are trying to advance knowledge in a world that is steadily refusing to believe it. If someone was to argue with you that the world was flat would you like to waste your time arguing back? I think not.

Side: Evolution
exorb(3) Disputed
-1 points

in terms of species

THE MISSING LINK.

Do you know what that is or what that means?

Where are all the bones and fossils? A couple bones here and there are not nearly enough to prove the theory of evolution. IF evolution were reality there would be the bones of “half species” everywhere.

How do people not understand this????

We have dug up tons of bones of dinosaurs, much earlier than the supposingly half man/half ape. We have only found a couple of skulls. They are very rare indeed. How come apes are not still evolving now? Why because it’s not true. Natural selection may be true (to a certain extent only, but natural selection is notreallyy evolving but survival of the fittest. to me that's not evolution in it's essence). But a fish turning into a human? Don’t think so. It seems very foolish to me. *Some idiot finds one fossil of a tadpole with legs and he now thinks we all came from the sea. Would we not see a TON of more evidence if this were true? We sure would, there would be overwhelming amount of evidence. But the fact is there is not the link between humans and apes. It’s missing. A fly will not morph into a bird, I don’t care how long you wait.

So my question to you sir is : where are all the damn bones?

There should be hundreds of thousands. not just one or two bones.

One or two of anything should not be considered the norm, more like a defect.

+ after the dinosaurs and most all life were wiped out by a meteor thus resulting in the ice age. Man or any other creature you see today did not have time to “evolve”. Correct? It takes millions of years right?

PS: half-man/half-monkey was not around at that time. no bones dating back that far. Do you understand?

Side: Creation
Mahollinder(898) Disputed
4 points

Do you know what that is or what that means?

It's a misnomer.

A couple bones here and there are not nearly enough to prove the theory of evolution.

Even without a fossil record, the theory of evolution would still be well supported. But, the scientific community currently has more fossils than are required, and are actually having difficulty phylogenetically classifying a lot of the discoveries.

But let's pretend there are no fossils at all. How could we test the hypothesis that rhagoletis pomonella (for isntance) is a divergent population of fruit fly? Well, we can look for ortholog or paralog genes, derived traits: like basal features, or distinguished morphological traits that descend from those basal features (like an ulnar in non-hominid human ancestors)

How do people not understand this????

I think your incredulity stems from not actually looking up any information. If you really do want to know, I would be happy to help you along the beautiful road that is evolutionary biology

How come apes are not still evolving now?

They are. Populations don't stop evolving unless they go extinct. However, the stability of an environment tends towards genetic conservation and evolution becomes more evident and speedy with rapid environmental change (punctuated equilibrium).

But a fish turning into a human?

Fish don't turn into humans. That will never happen. And, in fact, if this did occur, it would be tremendous evidence against evolutionary theory. It would be like discovering a mammal with plant cells walls or the oft cited rabbit in the cambrian. But, the fact that you have to resort to caricature to argue against the theory is somewhat telling.

We sure would, there would be overwhelming amount of evidence.

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence. If you would like, we can go through some of it.

But the fact is there is not the link between humans and apes.

Humans are apes. There's no need for a link between apes and humans. That's like trying to find a link between humans and mammals. We are mammals.

where are all the damn bones?

In museums and research facilities. There are thousands of them.

There should be hundreds of thousands. not just one or two bones.

There shouldn't. Most of all life will simply biodegrade. Fossils require unique environments to form and are exceedingly disproportionately rare to population levels.

But ultimately, when you observe something in both nature and the lab, the whole "my opinion says evolution doesn't happen" can immediately be thrown out the door on the face of it.

Side: Evolution
gcomeau(536) Disputed
4 points

in terms of species

THE MISSING LINK.

Do you know what that is or what that means?

Yes, it means you have gained your understanding of evolutionary theory through popular media sources instead of reading science texts.

There is no "missing link".

How come apes are not still evolving now?

That would be a good question if apes weren't still evolving now. Since they are still evolving now however it only further demonstrates that you are not familiar with the subject matter.

But a fish turning into a human? Don’t think so

I don't think so either. Some fish turned into primitive amphibians, no fish turned into a human.

Some idiot finds one fossil of a tadpole with legs and he now thinks we all came from the sea.

Actually, we determined that life on land emerged from the sea through highly accurate genetic analysis long before we ever found any such fossils. The fossils just constantly confirm we're right.

So my question to you sir is : where are all the damn bones?

There should be hundreds of thousands. not just one or two bones.

First of all, if you are under the impression the fossil record consists of just "one or two bones" you're out of your mind.

Second of all, fossilization is rare. Most animals that die will NOT end up as fossils.

Third, fossilization frequency depends on the environment in which the animal in question is living. Animals that live in the ocean live in conditions where fossilization after death is far more likely, so we get lots and lots and lots of marine fossils. Animals that live in a rainforest live in conitions where fossilization is far less likely, so we get very few fossils of things that live there.

Now my question to YOU: If you don't believe humans evolved from another form then we've ALWAYS been around... right? And you seem to think fossilization should produce lots and lots of fossils of everything, right? So... WHERE ARE ALL THE BONES? Where are all the human bones in the Precambrian? Where are all the human bones in the Paleozoic? Where are all the human bones in the Mesozoic? Where are all the human bones in 99% of the geologic column???? I mean, if we were always around in our current form, and you think fossilization is a frequent occurance, why is there ZERO evidence of humans prior to extremely recent geologic history?

Look, I'm sorry nobody ever competently taught you about science, but that's not my problem. If you want to mix it up in a debate on this topic read a damn textbook for cripes sake.

Side: Evolution

Not only is evolution evident within the structure, ancestry and diet of living organisms, Creation is, in fact, accepted to be a metaphor by the catholic church. Regardless, for the more perverse cretins among us, I will lay out some evidence to support the theory of evolution:

1. Creationism dates the Earth at approximately six thousand years old. Study of the half-life of radioactive elements reveals this to be impossible, as the half-life of uranium 238 is 4.47 billion years. Taking into the account the abundance of lead on our world, we must conclude that such vast volume of time must surely have passed in order for uranium to decay into it.

2. Creationism puts the beginning of all life at the same time as that of the human race. Fossil records directly refute this claim, and therefore we must also conclude that animal life began a long time before Human life. Not incidentally, creationism also makes no mention of dinosaurs and considering the existence of their fossilized remains, this is really a bothersome omission on the part of the Bible. ( I assume the Bible is indeed the source material of the opposition's beliefs, considering that they are English-speaking, and that they label it 'Creationism')

3. Evolution has a great deal of supporting evidence. This includes the aforementioned fossil records, specifically the absence of complex organisms before the so-called 'Cambrian Explosion'. This implies that life did indeed become more complex over time.

Also, it must be noted that Cattle, originating from copper-rich eastern Europe, require considerably more copper in their diet than sheep, which originate mainly from regions of Asia in which there is a notable paucity of copper. This means that the two species evolved to prosper in their respective regions, depending on the environment in which they lived- a perfect microcosm of evolution.

4. Creationism is just silly. It makes no scientific sense at all, as it refutes both archaeology and biology, two highly qualified areas which deal with facts and evidence, and resides within the realm of religion. Religion is a grand foolishness of unparalleled scale, producing no real evidence in its favour, and is so obviously a means of extorting the ignorant masses that it is a wonder so few have actually realized it.

Side: Evolution