Topic: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion

[barrister]

"http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org
A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

This is not Faith vs Science, this is Science vs Science!

I wouldn't call that "science vs. science," strictly speaking.  

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism is a statement issued in 2001 by the Discovery Institute, a conservative non-profit public policy think tank based in Seattle, Washington, USA.

The Discovery Institute, founded in 1990, is well-known for its ID (Intelligent Design) agenda.  Because of this agenda, its "scientific" statements are naturally suspect.

The link I posted above from ScienceDaily http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100209183335.htm is a more scientific, agenda-neutral point of view which points to a more credible controversy within the scientific community.

On the other hand, the Discovery Institute's "Wedge Strategy," stated in its "Wedge Document" as its ultimate goal to "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions," naturally arouses suspicion of ID-bias that is linked to American Evangelist Protestant views:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy


The "Dover case" (2005, Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al.) was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts testing a public school district policy that required the teaching of intelligent design.

The Discovery Institute was very much involved in this case, and 2 of their most prominent fellows testified at the trial as expert witnesses: Lehigh University biochemist Michael J. Behe, and University of Idaho microbiologist Scott Minnich.

http://www.seattleweekly.com/2006-02-01/news/discovery-s-creation.php/3/

The court's ruling:  Intelligent Design is a religion ---

Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and Article I, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution) because intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decision

[Quitacet]

Dinosaurs were created on the 5th and 6th days.  On the 5th day, sea creatures and winged creatures.  On the 6th day, land creatures.  Kasama na ang dinosaurs doon.  A "day" is an "age," not a literal 24-hour day.

The Genesis account states that winged birds appeared before the land creatures.  That's the reverse of accepted evolution theory, which speculates that birds evolved from land-dwelling theropod dinosaurs.  Does this mean that the bible was wrong?

--- Not so fast:


Bird-From-Dinosaur Theory of Evolution Challenged: Was It the Other Way Around?
ScienceDaily (Feb. 9, 2010)

— A new study just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences provides yet more evidence that birds did not descend from ground-dwelling theropod dinosaurs, experts say, and continues to challenge decades of accepted theories about the evolution of flight.

... "Raptors look quite a bit like dinosaurs but they have much more in common with birds than they do with other theropod dinosaurs such as Tyrannosaurus," Ruben said. "We think the evidence is finally showing that these animals which are usually considered dinosaurs were actually descended from birds, not the other way around."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100209183335.htm

... oops...  

barrister, you are not implying that what happened between the 5th and the 6th days are evolution, are you?

[barrister]

barrister, you are not implying that what happened between the 5th and the 6th days are evolution, are you?

No, of course not.  

1st to 6th days are all creation.  Between the end of the 5th day and the start of the 6th day?  There is nothing between the end of the 5th day and the start of the 6th day.  The "days" are just "ages" with unspecified periods of time.

Like I always say, I don't mix religion and science. When a new kind of animal (the bible does not call it a "species") appears, that "kind" appeared because it was created.  It did not evolve from something else. But that's religion, not science. And I don't mix creation with a little evolution, or vice-versa.

I'm just comparing the order of creation in Genesis and the order of evolution in science.  Even limiting the discussion to the order of appearance, creation and evolution wouldn't match --- creation says birds came before land animals; science says birds came after land animals.

Yet you still couldn't say that Genesis was wrong in order of appearance based on science, because there are now doubts about the dino-to-bird theory.  And this doubt comes from scientists without an Intelligent Creation agenda.  

[docelmo]

I wouldn't call that "science vs. science," strictly speaking.  

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism is a statement issued in 2001 by the Discovery Institute, a conservative non-profit public policy think tank based in Seattle, Washington, USA.

The Discovery Institute, founded in 1990, is well-known for its ID (Intelligent Design) agenda.  Because of this agenda, its "scientific" statements are naturally suspect.

A quick look at the site and links gave three articles: Microevolution vs Macroevolution ; Cambrian Explosion; Survival of the fakest.

All three articles discussed these scientific controversies and its implication in the theory of evolution. Intelligent Design was nowhere in these papers at the same time it merely stated that these controversies should be made known and not give the impression that all scientist have reached a consensus on the subject.

Here is an excerpt:

"Fact Sheet: Cambrian Explosion"


Since the abruptness and extensiveness of the Cambrian explosion are so well
documented, there is no excuse for a biology textbook to deal with the animal fossil
record without even mentioning it. Furthermore, since some biologists maintain that the
Cambrian explosion presents a challenge -- or at least a "paradox" -- for one of the
fundamental tenets of Darwin's theory, any biology textbook that doesn't discuss that
challenge fails to provide students with the resources to think critically about the most
widely taught scientific explanation for evolution.

[sharkey360]

I have a few questions for Creationists:

Please use creationism to explain the development of drug-resistant strains of bacteria. Ask your doctor why you need to take all of your antibiotics when prescribed. That is evolution, observable, verifiable and demonstrated in your own body.

Please provide a creationist explanation of sickle-cell anemia’s relationship to malaria, the Peppered Moth, Australian rabbits and myxomatosis, or the presence of gills and tails in the early embryonic stages of virtually all vertebrates (including humans). Use your precious and much vaunted but never demonstrated creation “model” to explain the presence of vestigial hind legs in numerous snakes and whales. Explain why God would have created over 250,000 different species of beetle. Why did God create over 2,000 different varieties of fruit-fly (25% of which can only be found in Hawaii)? Why did God create muscles that allow us to move our ears? What is our appendix for?

There are some 8,600 species of birds so far described and 3,700 species of mammals. 20,000 species of fish are documented out of an estimated 40,000 believed to exist. Known insect species number over 850,000 and this is estimated as being fewer that 1/5 or even 1/10 of the total number in extant. The number of catalogued flowering plant species is over 286,000 and about 4,000 more are catalogued every year. The number of different species of fungi is in excess of 40,000. If you add it all up you get over 1.6 billion different forms of life on this planet. Since over 99% of all life forms that have ever existed are now extinct we end up with a total species number of as high as 16 billion. Please explain why your creator went to all this effort only to give one species any special favors. How did Noah manage to place at least 3.2 billion different life forms on the ark?

Which of Noah’s children were black? Which were Korean, East Indian, Hispanic? Which had blue eyes, green eyes, hazel eyes, brown eyes? Which were albino? Which of Noah’s children had brown hair, black hair, blonde hair? Which of Noah’s children had syphilis, AIDS, gonorrhea, tuberculosis, polio, smallpox? Which of Noah’s children had congenital heart defects?

http://www.ruthlessreviews.com/962/crap-creationism/

[JT]

I have a few questions for Creationists:
Please use creationism to explain the development of drug-resistant strains of bacteria. Ask your doctor why you need to take all of your antibiotics when prescribed. That is evolution, observable, verifiable and demonstrated in your own body.

Please provide a creationist explanation of sickle-cell anemia’s relationship to malaria, the Peppered Moth, Australian rabbits and myxomatosis, or the presence of gills and tails in the early embryonic stages of virtually all vertebrates (including humans). Use your precious and much vaunted but never demonstrated creation “model” to explain the presence of vestigial hind legs in numerous snakes and whales. Explain why God would have created over 250,000 different species of beetle. Why did God create over 2,000 different varieties of fruit-fly (25% of which can only be found in Hawaii)? Why did God create muscles that allow us to move our ears? What is our appendix for?

That is micro-evolution (and not macro where monkey becomes man) and maybe supported in the bible. As it says "produce according to own kind" doesnt mean it will be exactly the same in some physical attributes but mechanism is still the same. A flu virus remains a virus even as a new strain. Throughout generations, we havent seen a flu virus becomes a flu bacteria (or as a flu bird) no matter how fast they mutate or so-called evolve.

Every generation man discovers some knowledge which is hidden before and we still lack the capacity to know or even fully understand all the purpose of these creations. But the mere fact that each creatures have intricate and unique designs (having almost no probabilty for chances) means there is a designer.

There are some 8,600 species of birds so far described and 3,700 species of mammals. 20,000 species of fish are documented out of an estimated 40,000 believed to exist.  Known insect species number over 850,000 and this is estimated as being fewer that 1/5 or even 1/10 of the total number in extant. The number of catalogued flowering plant species is over 286,000 and about 4,000 more are catalogued every year. The number of different species of fungi is in excess of 40,000. If you add it all up you  get over 1.6 billion different forms of life on this planet. Since over 99% of all life forms that have ever existed are now extinct we end up with a total species number of as high as 16 billion. Please explain why your creator went to all this effort only to give one species any special favors. How did Noah manage to place at least 3.2
billion different life forms on the ark?

Again, these species may have evolved thru micro-evolution. Anyone knows how many species at the time of Noah? Micro-evolution may also got triggered as season has changed and as these species got separated when the land was divided after the flood. Pls try to check that in the bible.

Which of Noah’s children were black? Which were Korean, East Indian, Hispanic? Which had blue eyes, green eyes, hazel eyes, brown eyes? Which were albino? Which of Noah’s children had brown hair, black hair, blonde hair? Which of Noah’s children had syphilis, AIDS, gonorrhea, tuberculosis, polio, smallpox? Which of Noah’s children had congenital heart defects?[/i]

http://www.ruthlessreviews.com/962/crap-creationism/

Maybe Noah's sons names gives a clue, as SHEM also means "Dusky", JAPETH "Fair" and HAM "Dark". Diseases has surfaced as the effect of man's fall and as a continues effect of man's undoing. As in Genesis after the fall and in Romans 8:20-22 (NLT)" Against its will, all creation was subjected to God’s curse. But with eager hope, the creation looks forward to the day when it will join God’s children in glorious freedom from death and decay. For we know that all creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time."


The devil is really having success in making man think lowly of himself by reducing his nature to a mere animal or worthless being whereas the bible clearly says "We are made in the image and likeness of God" and are very precious in his sight.

The truth is, you need more faith in believing evolution & big bang theory rather than God's creation. Even at this time, evolutionist and anti-God scientists are not able to fill many gaps in their theories.

And I just think of it, kung ang tao eh galing sa unggoy bakit yung iba eh mukhang kabayo ... hehehe.

[Tempter]

That is micro-evolution (and not macro where monkey becomes man) and maybe supported in the bible. As it says "produce according to own kind" doesnt mean it will be exactly the same in some physical attributes but mechanism is still the same. A flu virus remains a virus even as a new strain. Throughout generations, we havent seen a flu virus becomes a flu bacteria (or as a flu bird) no matter how fast they mutate or so-called evolve.

Every generation man discovers some knowledge which is hidden before and we still lack the capacity to know or even fully understand all the purpose of these creations. But the mere fact that each creatures have intricate and unique designs (having almost no probabilty for chances) means there is a designer.

Again, these species may have evolved thru micro-evolution. Anyone knows how many species at the time of Noah? Micro-evolution may also got triggered as season has changed and as these species got separated when the land was divided after the flood. Pls try to check that in the bible.

Maybe Noah's sons names gives a clue, as SHEM also means "Dusky", JAPETH "Fair" and HAM "Dark". Diseases has surfaced as the effect of man's fall and as a continues effect of man's undoing. As in Genesis after the fall and in Romans 8:20-22 (NLT)" Against its will, all creation was subjected to God’s curse. But with eager hope, the creation looks forward to the day when it will join God’s children in glorious freedom from death and decay. For we know that all creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time."


The devil is really having success in making man think lowly of himself by reducing his nature to a mere animal or worthless being whereas the bible clearly says "We are made in the image and likeness of God" and are very precious in his sight.

The truth is, you need more faith in believing evolution & big bang theory rather than God's creation. Even at this time, evolutionist and anti-God scientists are not able to fill many gaps in their theories.

And I just think of it, kung ang tao eh galing sa unggoy bakit yung iba eh mukhang kabayo ... hehehe.

Have you filled the GAPS???

[docelmo]

I’d be glad to answer some of the questions raised especially those in the medical field of which I belong. However, I must say that I detect a “hint” of sarcasm and condescension in the phrase “ your precious and much vaunted creation model”. Nevertheless here are my comments….

1.   Drug-resistant bacteria – The development of these DRB is mainly due to an alteration in the protein receptor site in the bacteria that is susceptible to the effect of the active ingredient of the drug. These alterations are due to several factors mainly to improper management, poor drug efficacy, self-medication and many others. A second explanation is that there are already strains of resistant bacteria in the population of these bacteria. By taking antibiotics, those susceptible to the drug will die off and what will be left are the resistant strains. Thus in the next generation of bacteria will produce resistant strains……this is microevolution since it remains essentially the same bacteria!

 A drug-resistant TB bacilli will produce a more severe and aggressive form of the same disease….TB! In the decades of management of TB we have yet to see a case of TB that has evolve to Pneumonia.
That is to say that a bacteria that causes say TB has not been observed to evolve and cause Pneumonia, it will still cause TB the drug-resistant kind.

2.   Sickle-cell Anemia – Is a disease of the red blood cell, which forms a crescent-like shape haemoglobin hence the name SCA. This disease leads to various acute and chronic complications, such as “Sickle cell  crisis” which causes sudden blocking of blood vessels leading to Ischemia(heart attack), pain, necrosis. Ultimately leading to complications like Stroke, decrease immune response due to an under developed spleen, Chronic renal failure and many others. True, it has been shown that people with SCA has some protection against Severe Malaria. This is mainly due to a sort of “immunity” of the host to the parasite. The sickle haemoglobin apparently produces an enzyme that confers this protection. Ultimately having this mutation by and large has a negative effect on humans due to the numerous complications that would arise from it and only one admittedly beneficial effect.

These are just two examples of mutations in an organism in the molecular level, both of which does not demonstrate that further mutation of these would produce an entirely new organism. It might have some beneficial effect on the organism like a more resistant bacteria or protection from a disease, but that resistance is a function of the alteration of the enzyme or death of susceptible strains, while the benefit of protection from malaria is outweighed by the serious complications of the disease itself. These mutations are changes in the same species and organism, and would NOT result in the emergence of a totally different form of organism.


3.   Gills and Tails – First, the so-called “gill-slits” is a misnomer. 

During our anatomy/embryology class in med school these were not referred to as such. They were referred to as Pharyngeal grooves and pouches. These are embryonic parts and during the development process they don’t have any function yet and they certainly are NOT Gills! These grooves/pouches  would eventually develop into the following: lower jaw, tongue, middle  ear canal,  thymus and parathyroid gland. If they were gills then the baby should be taking in the oxygen in the surrounding amniotic fluid. But this is not the case,  the baby’s first taste oxygen is the first cry after delivery. The so-called “Tail” is not a tail, this will develop into the Coccyx bone.  This bone is the last bone in the developing spinal column, Its main function is attachment of numerous muscles which help us to stand upright.  The so-called tail will form the neural canal, then tube, that will house the spinal cord. From the embryonic stage to adulthood the “tail” was never meant to be a tail.

Having similar appearance and attributing “function” to it is a very shallow argument for evolution. Embryonic development is not even analogous to evolution, one is the development of an organism from conception to adulthood, while the other is a change of an organism to another organism. Attributing function to “similar looking” organs without taking into account their real function and ultimate development is not scientific at all but merely a very active creative imagination.

[docelmo]

 Whale Fossils, vestigial organs- By definition vestigial organs are parts that apparently does not have well defined function, however many of the so-called vestigial organs like tonsil, appendix in humans were discovered to have functions in immunity. The so-called vestigial organs in whales help in its sexual function which acts differently from male and female ……Not so vestigial after all.

While on the subject of Whales, two fossils have been paraded as proof of evolution of whale from a land animal, the “ambulocetus and rhoducetus”.

The “ambulocetus” was called “walking whale” by evolutionists and placing this on the chain of evolution to modern whale. However, Dr. Gingrich noted that the position of eyes are such that it would not be an ancestor of whale but an entirely different specie since its eye placement is more similar to alligators than whales.

The finding of “rodhocetus” as an intermediate between land animal and whales was hailed as breakthrough and proof of evolution. Since, it apparently had a tail fluke and flippers for swimming, but still retained some of it’s terrestrial characteristics. However, in a interview of Prof Phil Gingrich the discoverer and restorer of the fossil had this to say: “We don’t have the tail so we don’t know for sure whether it had a ball vertebra or not so I Speculated! Since then we found the forelimbs and arms and hands, we understand that it didn’t have the kind of arms that could be spread out like flippers like that of  a whale. If you don’t have flippers….I DON’T THINK YOU CAN HAVE A FLUKE TAIL” and so the notion that this is a “transitional animal” is out the window!

[barrister]

There are some 8,600 species of birds so far described and 3,700 species of mammals. 20,000 species of fish are documented out of an estimated 40,000 believed to exist. Known insect species number over 850,000 and this is estimated as being fewer that 1/5 or even 1/10 of the total number in extant. The number of catalogued flowering plant species is over 286,000 and about 4,000 more are catalogued every year.

Engot din ang nagsulat nito, ano.  Biro mo, binilang pa ang fish na 20,000 out of an estimated 40,000 daw.  

Hindi nagdala ng fish si Noah sa ark, ano.  Bakit naman magdadala pa ng fish sa ark, e mabubuhay naman sa baha iyon ...

Hindi rin nagdala ng insects si Noah sa ark.  Maaaring maraming nakapasok na insects sa ark.  Ang isang pares na anay lang, puwede namang tumira sa kahoy ng arko.  Ang kuto puwedeng tumira sa aso na kasama sa ark.  Yung hindi nakapasok sa ark, puwedeng mabuhay sa labas, sasakay lang sila sa lumulutang na mga dahon, kahoy, bangkay, at iba pang debris.

Pero kahit nagdala pa siya ng insects, kasya rin.  The ark had an estimated volume of about 75,000 cubic meters.  A million insects would have required only 1000 cubic meters of space.  75 times that space, kasya ang maraming animals.  Kung one pair of elephants?  Maliit lang naman yon kung mga small, young elephants ang dadalhin.  Kailangan bang fully grown elephants ang dalhin?  

It has been estimated that about 35,000 animals were on board the ark.  Let's increase the estimate to 50,000 animals --- that many animals would have filled ony 37% of the capacity of the ark.  Kasyang kasya naman, e ano pala ang problema?  Kung sabagay, pag matigas talaga ulo, kahit ano naman ang sabihin hindi pa rin maniniwala, so inaasahan na natin yon ...  

Hindi rin nagdala ng plants si Noah sa ark.  Posibleng maraming plant seeds attached to the animals inside the ark.  Kahit sa labas mabubuhay rin yon in the form of seeds, floating mats of leaves and wood, or on floating dead bodies.  Water salinity would have been drastically reduced by the rain water and ground water.  Puwedeng may plant seeds in the stomachs of floating dead vegetarian animals.

When the dove came back to Noah with an olive branch, that showed that plants were already regenerating outside the ark.

[docelmo]

Engot din ang nagsulat nito, ano

Hahaha basahin mo yung article sir Barrister!
 

May sinabi Bible tungkol dyan....Romans 1:22
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools"


If God can make the entire universe and all living things in it including humans, then fitting all kinds of animals in the Ark would be a piece of cake for HIM! It is only our limited mind that hinders our acceptance of a seemingly impossible task!

In John Woodmorappe’s book Noah’s Ark: A feasibility study” He made a detailed and updated technical study  of how ark the was able to accommodate all these things, and other factors such as food, water, habitation, sanitation etc.

Here are a few points;
•   The author totals about 8,000 genera including extinct genera, thus about 16, 000 individual animals which had to be aboard. Sea creatures were not included since they would be not necessarily threatened by the flood, insects were not included in the meaning of behemah or remes, Noah probably would not have taken them, plants were also not taken since many could have survived as seeds and floating mats of vegetation.
•   The ark measured 140x23x13.5 meters or a volume of 1.54 million cubic feet, or to put this in perspective it would be equivalent to 522 standard American railroad stock cars, each can hold 240 sheep. That’s a lot of sheep!
•   If animals were kept in cages w/ a average size of 50x50x30 centimeters that is 75,000 cm3 or 4800 cubic inches, the 16,000 animals would only occupy 1200 m3 (42, 000 cubit feet) or about 14.4 stock cars.  Even if a million insects were on board, it would not be a problem, because they require very little space. If each pair was kept in cages of 10cm per side, 1,000 cm3, all the insect species would occupy a total volume of only 1000 m3, or another 12 cars. This would leave room for five trains of 99 cars each for food, Noah’s family and “range” for the animals.
•   Food requirement: the ark would probably have carried compressed and dried foostuff and a lot of concentrated food and Grains, hay for the animals. In his calculation the food would only occupy 15% of the total volume and drnking water would only take up 9.4% of the volume. This volume would be reduced further if rainwater was collected and piped into troughs.

Just to mention a few…..

[docelmo]

Of ears and appendix....

Strictly speaking humans cannot move their ears, it’s just an appearance of movement. The outer ear called the “pinna” is composed of cartilage and skin so it is not capable of movement since it is devoid of bone and muscles.  The muscles surrounding the ears are the ones responsible for the supposed movement. The muscles’ surrounding the ears has various functions that assist in chewing, talking and swallowing. When these muscles are moving in a coordinated fashion the ears appears to move.

The Appendix was initially taught to be a vestigial organ, with no defined function. Research however, have found out that the appendix was  a reservoir for the GI tract’s normal flora after a bout of dysentery. It is also composed of lymphoid tissues that suggest it has a role in immunity just like the tonsils on the other end of the GI tract.

[barrister]

I have a few questions for Creationists:

... What is our appendix for?

For the immune system.  

 

The evolutionist fairy tale is that the appendix is vestigial; a useless remnant of a formerly functioning organ that disappeared via evolution.  

And this conclusion is based on what?  Pure speculation, that's what.  But that shouldn't be surprising, since evolutionists are not bothered by baseless speculation masquerading as "science" anyway.

The appendix was formerly thought to be without any useful function.  But today, the appendix is recognized as a highly specialized organ with a contains a high concentration of lymphoid follicles --- highly specialized structures that are a part of the immune system.

Appendix Function in the Human Body
http://www.disabled-world.com/artman/publish/appendix.shtml

[leomarley]

Of ears and appendix....

Strictly speaking humans cannot move their ears, it’s just an appearance of movement. The outer ear called the “pinna” is composed of cartilage and skin so it is not capable of movement since it is devoid of bone and muscles.  The muscles surrounding the ears are the ones responsible for the supposed movement. The muscles’ surrounding the ears has various functions that assist in chewing, talking and swallowing. When these muscles are moving in a coordinated fashion the ears appears to move.

The Appendix was initially taught to be a vestigial organ, with no defined function. Research however, have found out that the appendix was  a reservoir for the GI tract’s normal flora after a bout of dysentery. It is also composed of lymphoid tissues that suggest it has a role in immunity just like the tonsils on the other end of the GI tract.

what about the wisdom teeth?

[barrister]

what about the wisdom teeth?

The loss of wisdom teeth in succeeding generations is the result of diet.  Older generations used to eat tough meat and vegetables; hence the need for a larger jaw that had enough space to accommodate wisdom teeth.  The processed food diet of succeeding generations caused the jaw to degenerate and shrink, thereby leaving less room for wisdom teeth.

How wisdom teeth can possibly be evidence for evolution is really some fairy tale from la la land.

[docelmo]

what about the wisdom teeth?

MacGregor, A.J., 1985. The Impacted Lower Wisdom Tooth, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 3.

MacGregor concluded in an extensive study that the ‘increase of brain size at the expense of jaw size’ evolutionary view is invalid and that the:

    ‘Evidence derived from paleontology, anthropology, and experiment indicates very convincingly that a reduction in jaw size has occurred due to civilization. The main associated factor appears to be the virtual absence of inter proximal attrition, but initial tooth size may have some effect. Jaw size and dental attrition are related and they have both decreased with modern diet. Jaws were thought to be reduced in size in the course of evolution but close examination reveals that within the species Homo sapiens, this may not have occurred. What was thought to be a good example of evolution in progress has been shown to be better explained otherwise.’110

[barrister]

I have a few questions for Creationists:

Use your precious and much vaunted but never demonstrated creation “model” to explain the presence of vestigial hind legs in numerous snakes and whales.

Snakes and whales do not have vestigial hind legs.  Why don't they first prove that those small bones really are vestigial hind legs?

Those bones serve to strengthen the reproductive organs by providing an anchor.  Unlike hind legs, they are not attached to the vertebral column.  There is no fossil evidence proving that those bones are remnants of hind legs.

The scientists just looked at the bones, then simply concluded that they are vestigial hind legs.  Based on what evidence?  Wala lang, basta daw vestigial hind legs yon, wag ka nang matanong ...   

That's not scientific, that's blind promotion of the evolutionist agenda.

[leomarley]

The loss of wisdom teeth in succeeding generations is the result of diet.  Older generations used to eat tough meat and vegetables; hence the need for a larger jaw that had enough space to accommodate wisdom teeth.  The processed food diet of succeeding generations caused the jaw to degenerate and shrink, thereby leaving less room for wisdom teeth.

How wisdom teeth can possibly be evidence for evolution is really some fairy tale from la la land.

that entailed adaptation right? and adaptation is an aspect of evolution. how can it be some fairy tale from lala land when you yourself explained the old use of wisdom teeth?

ADAPTATION DEFINED
"adaptations are traits (or characters) that have been subjected to natural selection" This means that the trait has "evolved" (been modified during its evolutionary history) in ways that have contributed to the FITNESS of the organism manifesting it .

[docelmo]

that entailed adaptation right? and adaptation is an aspect of evolution. how can it be some fairy tale from lala land when you yourself explained the old use of wisdom teeth?

ADAPTATION DEFINED
"adaptations are traits (or characters) that have been subjected to natural selection" This means that the trait has "evolved" (been modified during its evolutionary history) in ways that have contributed to the FITNESS of the organism manifesting it .

Sir,

Adaption yes! By ancient humans to modern man and NOT from primitive Ape to Modern Man!

This more appropriate...
"FITNESS of the SAME organism manifesting it"

[barrister]

that entailed adaptation right? and adaptation is an aspect of evolution. how can it be some fairy tale from lala land when you yourself explained the old use of wisdom teeth?

Yes, that entailed adaptation.  No, that did not entail macroevolution.

Ang layo mo namang lumundag sir.  Pag nawala ang wisdom tooth ng tao, ang resulta, tao pa rin, hindi unggoy.

Sa iyo pala, nawala lang ang wisdom tooth ng tao, ebidensiya na agad yon na naging elepante ang bacteria.  Pag hindi pa rin fairy tale sa iyo yon, wala na akong magagawa sa iyo...  

[docelmo]

Peppered Moths and Australian Rabbits

Both are examples of variations or adaption of the same organism in response to various factors, like environmental, predation, migration, and introduction of a virus. All the research on this topic cautions the reader about attributing “100% of the work to Natural Selection”. All these changes in the organism in question are happening in the SAME organism in the same population! To say that this would translate to evolution of the moth or rabbit to another entirely new organism or  that this mechanism is the proof that evolution will happen in the macro level  is a ……LEAP OF FAITH!!!

[dpogs]

Peppered Moths and Australian Rabbits

Both are examples of variations or adaption of the same organism in response to various factors, like environmental, predation, migration, and introduction of a virus. All the research on this topic cautions the reader about attributing “100% of the work to Natural Selection”. All these changes in the organism in question are happening in the SAME organism in the same population! To say that this would translate to evolution of the moth or rabbit to another entirely new organism or  that this mechanism is the proof that evolution will happen in the macro level  is a ……LEAP OF FAITH!!!

hmmm... ika nga ng mga dakilang scientist... JUST ADD TIME... evolution is in process over a span of 'lets say' hmmm... billion of years... 

TIME is the great factor there... he he he...

[barrister]

First look at Russell Crowe as Noah
August 15, 2012
By: Bobby Blakey

Paramount Pictures has released the first official image of Russell Crowe as Noah, from the much anticipated film from Darren Aronofsky’s NOAH.

http://www.examiner.com/article/first-look-at-russell-crowe-as-noah

 

[indie boi]

Evolution is as complicated as 1-2-3

A team of researchers at Michigan State University has documented the step-by-step process in which organisms evolve new functions.

The results, published in the current issue of Nature, are revealed through an in-depth, genomics-based analysis that decodes how E. coli bacteria figured out how to supplement a traditional diet of glucose with an extra course of citrate.

“It wasn’t a typical mutation at all, where just one base-pair, one letter, in the genome is changed. Instead, part of the genome was copied so that two chunks of DNA were stitched together in a new way. One chunk encoded a protein to get citrate into the cell, and the other chunk caused that protein to be expressed.”

http://news.msu.edu/story/evolution-is-as-complicated-as-1-2-3/

[Battousai]

But, but, but...we were engineered. Right, Ridley Scott? Move along. Nothing to contribute here.

[docelmo]

Evolution is as complicated as 1-2-3

A team of researchers at Michigan State University has documented the step-by-step process in which organisms evolve new functions.

The results, published in the current issue of Nature, are revealed through an in-depth, genomics-based analysis that decodes how E. coli bacteria figured out how to supplement a traditional diet of glucose with an extra course of citrate.

“It wasn’t a typical mutation at all, where just one base-pair, one letter, in the genome is changed. Instead, part of the genome was copied so that two chunks of DNA were stitched together in a new way. One chunk encoded a protein to get citrate into the cell, and the other chunk caused that protein to be expressed.”

http://news.msu.edu/story/evolution-is-as-complicated-as-1-2-3/

"The experiment demonstrates natural selection at work" a curious statement in the article...(not so) natural selection after all...

E. coli already possess the ability to transport and utilize citrate under certain conditions, it is conceivable that they could adapt and gain the ability to utilize citrate under broader conditions. Thus by subjecting the e.coli to certain condition like presence of oxygen, then they will adapt to the new environment and those strains that has developed the ability to utilize citrate will prosper and those that don't will die off.....still microevolution in the same organism. To conclude that this would translate to macroevolution is asking too much of the e.coli!

[barrister]

Evolution is as complicated as 1-2-3

A team of researchers at Michigan State University has documented the step-by-step process in which organisms evolve new functions.

The results, published in the current issue of Nature, are revealed through an in-depth, genomics-based analysis that decodes how E. coli bacteria figured out how to supplement a traditional diet of glucose with an extra course of citrate.

“It wasn’t a typical mutation at all, where just one base-pair, one letter, in the genome is changed. Instead, part of the genome was copied so that two chunks of DNA were stitched together in a new way. One chunk encoded a protein to get citrate into the cell, and the other chunk caused that protein to be expressed.”

http://news.msu.edu/story/evolution-is-as-complicated-as-1-2-3/

Ang babaw pala ng kaligayahan nila... 

1988 - Richard Lenski started the long-term evolution experiments which supposedly allows direct observation of major evolutionary shifts in the laboratory, using E. coli (Escherichia coli) bacteria.

After more than 56,000 generations, what bacterial "evolution" did they observe?  Naging tao ba yung bacteria?  Hindi.  Naging surot man lang?  Hindi rin.  Naging butete man lang sana?  Hindi rin.

Naging ano pala yung bacteria? --- bacteria pa rin.  Hindi man lang naging ibang type of bacteria?  Hindi --- E. coli pa rin.  

But wait --- the lab results showed that after 33,000 generations, the E. coli showed the ability to metabolize citrate!

Is this a new ability?  No.  E. coli can normally metabolize citrate under anaerobic conditions. 

But wait again --- the lab results showed that the E. coli can now metabolize citrate under aerobic conditions.

Is this a new ability?  No.  E. coli can metabolize citrate under aerobic conditions.  This is very rare, but it is certainly not new.

So after more than 56,000 generations of E. coli in the lab, what new ability did the lab E. coli acquire?  Nothing.

--- Ngek! 

[dpogs]

Ang babaw pala ng kaligayahan nila... 

1988 - Richard Lenski started the long-term evolution experiments which supposedly allows direct observation of major evolutionary shifts in the laboratory, using E. coli (Escherichia coli) bacteria.

After more than 56,000 generations, what bacterial "evolution" did they observe?  Naging tao ba yung bacteria?  Hindi.  Naging surot man lang?  Hindi rin.  Naging butete man lang sana?  Hindi rin.

Naging ano pala yung bacteria? --- bacteria pa rin.  Hindi man lang naging ibang type of bacteria?  Hindi --- E. coli pa rin.  

But wait --- the lab results showed that after 33,000 generations, the E. coli showed the ability to metabolize citrate!

Is this a new ability?  No.  E. coli can normally metabolize citrate under anaerobic conditions. 

But wait again --- the lab results showed that the E. coli can now metabolize citrate under aerobic conditions.

Is this a new ability?  No.  E. coli can metabolize citrate under aerobic conditions.  This is very rare, but it is certainly not new.

So after more than 56,000 generations of E. coli in the lab, what new ability did the lab E. coli acquire?  Nothing.

--- Ngek! 

hmm.... well... sabi nga ng mga great scientist... time will tell.... lets wait for another 2 billion generations of E. coli...

[sardaukar]

 

[Quitacet]

 

most will become goats, not sheep.