What is your opinion on evolution?

[Dr. Dan]

What is your opinion?

Let me define my version of evolution:

All living things originated from a common ancestor and over millions of years branched out to what we have today.  What has caused to differentiation of species over this period of time could have been from physical barriers and adjustments to survival based on the environment.

Evolution could have continued with humans, for example, if Africa had never been explored for millions of years and nobody every migrated there or vice versa.  The same could be true with North America, South America, Australia, Europe, or Asia.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I don't understand some of your answer choices.

"I disagree completely, Humans came from apes"

Wouldn't humans coming from apes be agreeing with evolution?

[angryChineseKahanist]

Obama is proof that negros came from retarded apes.

the book of genisis can arguably be about evolution.  from the big bang thery to the creation of the sun and the spining earth giving us night and day. then adam and eve probably homo erectus to modern human.

[Rubystars]

I don't understand some of your answer choices.

"I disagree completely, Humans came from apes"

Wouldn't humans coming from apes be agreeing with evolution?

Depends on what someone means by apes. Evolution does NOT say that humans came from chimpanzees, gorillas, or any other modern type of ape, which are also quite derived from the common ancestor. It does say we share a common ancestor with them which is not identical to anything living today.

[TheCoon]

I can believe evolution exists in some shape or form and that is how we came to me. It makes sense that God would create and use a process that we can understand.

[Christian Zionist]

I believe the earth existed ages before but God created Adam, Eve, Gardern of Eden and other creatures in 6 literal days.

Behind every design there is a designer.

[Chai]

I DONT KNOW I WASNT THERE

However as religious Jew I believe G-d first created fish then he created  birds then mammals after that he took earth and made man.

What is established by G-d is indeed mammals came before humans and humans came after mammals

Also, humans came from the earth .. the Torah does not say if animals came from the earth as well , if it did we both come from the same material.
When it come to days king David said a day is like a thousand years ( we dont know what a day for G-d is only for us) ... do we want to question time? how does G-d measure time ? 
There are places in the universe with temporal anomalies what is a day then for G-d not us remember ..
 The shema is brought down from the talmud when it end being midnight .. G-d is beyond that.. When you look up at the heavens you are looking at billions of years?  Or did G-d make it that way? Maybe ..

It is something you will never know for sure.

[Rubystars]

The first mammals appear in the Triassic (if you include mammal-like reptiles, even earlier), and the first birds with feathers appeared later, during the Jurassic.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I don't understand some of your answer choices.

"I disagree completely, Humans came from apes"

Wouldn't humans coming from apes be agreeing with evolution?

Depends on what someone means by apes. Evolution does NOT say that humans came from chimpanzees, gorillas, or any other modern type of ape, which are also quite derived from the common ancestor. It does say we share a common ancestor with them which is not identical to anything living today.

Well I know that, but what would Dr. Dan's answer choice mean?

Usually when people say "came from apes" they do not mean a real ape, they mean a common ancestor that was ape-like.

[Dr. Dan]

Sorry my wording made no sense. Its been a long day

[Rubystars]

Sorry KWRBT. There used to be  a lot of people who would ask me questions like "so if evolution is true why are chimpanzees not giving birth to humans".

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Sorry KWRBT. There used to be  a lot of people who would ask me questions like "so if evolution is true why are chimpanzees not giving birth to humans".

   

Then again, if obama's mom.... nevermind.

[IsraeliGovtAreKapos]

A psuedo-scientific discipline of explanation of G-D's world, or as a famous professor from the Cambridge university put it - the chance that what happened in the process of evolution according to Darwin is true is the same as the chance a Tornado storm will pass a yard of junk and create a Boeing 747 passangers airplane model above it.

[MassuhDGoodName]

Scientific proof does exist that the Theory of Evolution, as it is accepted by academia today, is without substance and without proof.

What is this proof, you ask?

The Australian platypus.

Google the platypus --  read of its physical characteristics and habits, and you will then realize that scientists conveniently refuse to acknowledge all of the glaring facts which contradict their most 'sacred' tenets.

There are additional proofs which defy The Theory of Evolution, and these are to be found in the geological record of the Earth, where "species jump" is evident -- fossilized remains of new and previously unknown animal species suddenly appear in the fossil records without any possible explanation regarding from which other animal species they are supposed to have 'evolved'.

Scientists continue to claim that "Africa is the 'mother continent' from which all of mankind's races evolved, yet these very same scientists will then completely contradict themselves; stating that all the continents of the Earth were at one time merged into one giant land mass they call Gondwanaland!

They claim that all races are equal, emerged in Africa from apes, and then evolved from the African Negro race to become the lighter skinned races of men found in Europe, Asia, and North America.

In fact, the first white men to have ever visited "deepest, darkest Africa" [the Congo] in the 1800's, including American President Theodore Roosovelt, all claimed that the continent was still exactly as it was in the Pleistocene Era, and that the wheel had never yet been discovered or used by the native savages practicing witchcraft and cannibalism.

It doesn't take a genius to look around at the most affluent and privileged Negroes who have been living here in America for the better part of a millenium with every imaginable opportunity for education and self-betterment, in order to immediately realize that they are the most primitive and backwards of all the Earth's races.

Even the lowly urban city sewer rat is more organized, more intelligent, and more civilized than the African Negro.

The very idea that humanity and civilization evolved from Africa is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard repeated by supposedly "educated" men.

I am convinced that the reason all these "academics" spend their grant money studying monkeys and digging bones in Africa, is because it is there and nowhere else on Earth where the inhabitants are so incredulously stupid that they will allow these fools into their countries and even agree with their absurd claims!


"That is an idea so ridiculous that only an academic could believe it ! " -- George Orwell   

[Rubystars]

Massuh, I agree that not all races are equal in ability, but I don't think that's a claim of evolution but more a claim of cultural anthropologists who follow the Boas school of thought. Also how exactly does the platypus go against evolution? It's sort of a living fossil really, monotremes are a very old form of mammal, and still retain some reptilian characteristics such as a single cloaca and the ability to lay eggs.

[MassuhDGoodName]

Don't read about monotremes -- read about the platypus.

I don't believe that monotremes is any other than a newly devised "classification" --  a weak attempt by Darwinists to force fit species which won't "fit the rule" into some niche which previously never existed because of the fact that these creatures simply defy classification according to the Laws of Evolution.

The platypus has a duck's bill, webbed feet, a tail like a beaver, has legs attached to the sides of its body like a reptile.  It lays eggs, but feeds its young with milk like a mammal, has receptors on its head which can detect electromagnetic bio-waves released by other animals, and has venomous spines on its rear feet for stinging prey and predators.  It has no teeth, but grinds its food using rocks it picks up from the bottoms of streams.

In other words, it appears to be totally unique, and evolved from no other species into its present form.

According to the Evolutionists, everything can be traced back to the original one cell lurking in primordial muck, in a slow, steady, series of adaptations and evolutionary improvements.

The actual existence of a scientific classification called "monotremes" is a mere hypothetical construct -- unproven, and without any known links which could place the platypus and anteater in the Theory of Evolution.

In addition, rarely a week goes by without scientists announcing the "discovery' of entirely new species of animals in Borneo, South American rainforests, etc...

If this be the case, then their standardized progression of the origin of species is totally without merit, because none of these new species can be accounted for in terms of from which other animals they did evolve.

What these "scientists" are in fact doing is first declaring their unchallengeable Theory of Evolution, refusing to allow anyone to question it or challenge it.  And then, as the actual facts present themselves which can not be "fit" into the puzzle, they simply "change the rules" and invent new hitherto unknown classifications in order to make everything "fit" their protocol.

Bear in mind -- these are the same "Scientists" who proclaim loudly that "THERE WAS NO EXODUS!", -- "NO PROOF" OF ANY KIND THAT HEBREWS WERE SLAVES IN EGYPT -- NO PROOF THAT A PASSOVER EVER OCCURRED!  They further claim that MOSES IS A COMPLETE MYTHIC CONSTRUCT AND NEVER EXISTED! -- their "PROOF" being that "NO ARCHAELOGICAL EVIDENCE EXISTS TO PROVE THAT ISRAELITES EVER CROSSED THE RED SEA, WANDERED IN THE DESERT 40 YEARS, AND THEN CONQUERED THE LAND OF CANAAN!"

I ask them:  In order for anyone to believe you, please show us the animals from which the platypus evolved.

They can't.

There's a BOOK written by Jews which proves that a people existed with their own history, language, culture, and G-d.

THAT is another FACT which the "Scientists" denounce as "NO PROOF!"

That's a hell of a lot more proof than their simply one day declaring a new classification of species called a monotreme!

[Rubystars]

The platypus has a duck's bill, webbed feet, a tail like a beaver, has legs attached to the sides of its body like a reptile.  It lays eggs, but feeds its young with milk like a mammal, has receptors on its head which can detect electromagnetic bio-waves released by other animals, and has venomous spines on its rear feet for stinging prey and predators.  It has no teeth, but grinds its food using rocks it picks up from the bottoms of streams.

In other words, it appears to be totally unique, and evolved from no other species into its present form.

It doesn't have a duck's bill, it has a leathery "bill" that only superficially resembles the bill of a bird. The comparison of its tail to a beaver's tail is also superficial only. Manatees also have flat tails for swimming, and so do whales. It just happens to be a good body plan for a swimmer. This lizard also has a flat tail:

It's similarity to reptiles is not coincidental. It retains many reptilian features such as its legs, its egg laying ability, its single cloaca, etc. because mammals evolved from reptilian ancestors that lived in the Permian and while most mammals have lost these features long ago, some still have them, such as platypuses and echidnas. It doesn't have nipples, but it does have a very rudimentary milk patch. It shows us some of what the transition from mammal-like reptiles to reptile-like mammals would have looked like.

As for the venom in male platypuses, venom is not uncommon in the natural world. Shrews also have a form of venom.

I'll answer the rest of your post in my next post.

[Rubystars]

In addition, rarely a week goes by without scientists announcing the "discovery' of entirely new species of animals in Borneo, South American rainforests, etc...

If this be the case, then their standardized progression of the origin of species is totally without merit, because none of these new species can be accounted for in terms of from which other animals they did evolve.

I think almost always they are easily related to other types of creatures, some closer than others. Islands do tend to speed up speciation though.

What these "scientists" are in fact doing is first declaring their unchallengeable Theory of Evolution, refusing to allow anyone to question it or challenge it.  And then, as the actual facts present themselves which can not be "fit" into the puzzle, they simply "change the rules" and invent new hitherto unknown classifications in order to make everything "fit" their protocol.

Sometimes family trees get revised when more information is found, but that doesn't mean the whole idea is wrong. What facts are there that don't fit?

Bear in mind -- these are the same "Scientists" who proclaim loudly that "THERE WAS NO EXODUS!", -- "NO PROOF" OF ANY KIND THAT HEBREWS WERE SLAVES IN EGYPT -- NO PROOF THAT A PASSOVER EVER OCCURRED!  They further claim that MOSES IS A COMPLETE MYTHIC CONSTRUCT AND NEVER EXISTED! -- their "PROOF" being that "NO ARCHAELOGICAL EVIDENCE EXISTS TO PROVE THAT ISRAELITES EVER CROSSED THE RED SEA, WANDERED IN THE DESERT 40 YEARS, AND THEN CONQUERED THE LAND OF CANAAN!"

Actually I think that evolutionary biology is a separate discipline from Egyptology/Archaeology. However I think that there is a lot more room for us to debate the archaeologists because they don't really have the evidence to disprove the Biblical stories.

I ask them:  In order for anyone to believe you, please show us the animals from which the platypus evolved.

They can't.

http://sciencenotes.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/monotreme_cladogram.jpg

"Fossils of other platypus ancestors have been found.  Three of them are Obduron Insignis, Obduron Dicksoni, and Obduron Species A, which were all discovered in Australian sediments.  These animals existed between 15 and 25 million years ago.  It is thought that all of them kept their teeth into adulthood, hence the name Obduron, which means enduring teeth.  These species are different to the present day platypus, because it does not have teeth, only a plate to grind its food.  The Obduron Insignis is the most recent of the three platypus relatives and it is though to have existed about 15 million years ago (Grant, 1989)."

http://www.platypus.org.uk/facts-history.htm

There's a BOOK written by Jews which proves that a people existed with their own history, language, culture, and G-d.

THAT is another FACT which the "Scientists" denounce as "NO PROOF!"

That's a hell of a lot more proof than their simply one day declaring a new classification of species called a monotreme!

The Bible is not a science book though. It's what you just described, a book which proves that a people existed with their own history, language, culture, and G-d.

[Ari Ben-Canaan]

There are so many times in history where evolutionists have lied and mislead people and created "evidence" to support their theories.

http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html

This website provides links to many documentations of such frauds.  I am familiar with some of the more well known frauds, but I have not had time to really pour through each nook and cranny of the site.  The main site appears to be interesting as well, but it deals with things more on the theoretical side.

My problem with evolutionary theory lies in that theoretical science is entertaining, while observational science is more important although perhaps less satisfying because observations often raise questions which do not have answers [theories, like fiction, need to make sense to a person, actual observations do not need to make sense, so there is a temptation to corrupt science with fiction to rectify disturbing questions raised]...  apart from "evolution proof" shams like some of the above documents, one of the biggest misuses of theoretical science takes place in astrophysics... "dark matter", "black holes" [neither of which has actually been observed], etc...  and even "gravity" is an unchallengeable theory, but what we perceive to be the phenomenon of gravity it could be, perhaps better, explained by "plasma theory" or an "electronic universe theory" than "gravitational theory".  The problem with exposing theoretical science is that people lose jobs which they base their entire life upon so these people will fight for their life if someone with better insight to science comes along [this coupled with "tenure" at universities is a real roadblock to true science].

I'm not quite sure what to think about evolution as a whole, sans frauds...  I have seen some research done which is interesting to me.

From speaking with a friend of mine I shall quote him.  [He mentions, "Lucy", and "Ardi", and I am suspicious of these specific "finds"]  Some of what is here is interesting to me, but not enough to make me a believer one way or another.

I'll present a meager quantity of evidence that I have on hand from past discussion of the subject. I can't promise that I will convince you, but I can promise that the evidence points *very* strongly towards evolutionary theory.

The Lenski LTEE E. coli experiment showed that natural selecting acting on random mutation produces new information and novel function. Here is the original paper:
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899

The experiments showing the development of coloniality in Chlorella vulgaris in response to predation shows how natural selection produces significant alterations, as well as giving a possible origin for multicellularity. The original paper:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/q239365007h43465/

The nylon bacteria is very similar to the LTEE E. coli, except that the mutations have been subjected to further analysis. Here a completely novel function was created by gene duplication followed by random variation, including a frameshift mutation. A source:
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

Endogenous retroviral DNA is left over from prior viral infection. In many species, the same infections are found at the same insertion sites in the genome. This is an extremely strong indicator that the species share a common ancestor that was infected by the virus. Moreover, the phylogenies constructed this way agree with other constructions, e.g. humans share the most insertion sites with chimps, somewhat less with other apes, somewhat less with other primates, and so on. Link:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h1151w643k336v15/

The fused chromosome 2 is the answer to a question long asked by evolutionary biologists--why is it that humans carry only 23 chromosome pairs, while their closest relatives (e.g. the chimps) all carry 24? The answer can be found in the human's Chromosome 2, which has all the appearances of two chromosomes fused together: two centromeres, chromosome cap DNA in the middle of the chromosome, and so on. Each part of Chromosome 2 corresponds to a chromosome in the ape genome, indicating that somewhere in our recent evolutionary past, a fusion event occurred. The original paper:
http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051.abstract

Similarly, the inability of humans and apes to synthesize vitamin C, a capability other mammals have, puzzled biologists for a while. But in our genome is the same gene that codes for a key protein in vitamin C synthesis in mammals--except bits of it have mutated and been broken. The fact that this broken gene is shared by humans and apes strongly indicates common ancestry. Link:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9655531

Speciation in crickets...
http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v95/n1/full/6800690a.html
Plants...
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/317/5840/910
Flies...
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1000550
And various other organisms...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v331/n6156/abs/331485a0.html

all indicate that whatever barriers creationists would like to put up to evolution, they don't involve the species barrier.

Tangential point: Foxes and dogs can interbreed, and dogs and coyotes can interbreed, but foxes and coyotes cannot interbreed. Are these all one creationist 'kind'? What about other canines?

Genetic algorithms and evolutionary programming indicate that those creationist barriers don't include complex systems either. Natural selection acting on random mutation in simulation has been observed to produce complex systems, sometimes systems even engineers don't really understand. The most common creationist complaint about this work is that because it is computer science, human intelligence is involved. But the intelligence is used to set up the environment--in other words, to simulate nature. The processes by which evolution occur are mirrored without intelligent input. So the use of this work as evidence remains valid. Link:
http://www.cs.sandia.gov/opt/survey/ea.html

Detailed fossil trees, such as the horse evolution tree and the human evolution tree, indicate significant morphological change arising gradually, and common ancestry with related organisms. Hyracotherium can hardly be called a 'horse', just as Ardi and Lucy can hardly be called 'human', but the fossils linking Hyracotherium to the modern horse, and Ardi to modern humans, are unbreakable--though the exact nature of the connection is always subject to change via new fossil evidence. Links:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

The structure of the fossil record is quite astonishing. It's exactly what we wouldn't see if life was polyphyletic, or if Noah's Flood had churned up the geologic record. Words cannot describe, so I'll link you to a tree of life and you can work your way from there:
http://tolweb.org/tree/

Finally, the independent agreement of phylogenies constructed from different evidence from different disciplines speaks to the validity of the phylogenies. Phylogenies based on the physical characteristics of different organisms agree with phylogenies based on the fossil record, with phylogenies based on biogeography, with phylogenies based on genetic homologies. There is NO reason under a creation hypothesis why these trees should match, but they do. And the reason is common descent.

Here is a good explanation of how phylogenetics works:
http://evoled.dbs.umt.edu/lessons/printable/Pathways.pdf

I leave finding out how the different phylogenies agree as an exercise.

Something that jumps out at me, from Torah, G-d created man on both the 6th and 7th day.  I have heard some explanations which make sense, but G-d creating a man before Adam of a lower stature, such as Cromagnon or Neanderthal man, who is not a "real" man is an entertaining idea to explain this.  I know there are some pre-Adamite theories which go off of this 6th day/7th day creation, some of them are entertaining, others less logical.

One of the Rabbis I speak says this, "If there seems to be a conflict between Torah, and science, the issue is with our limited finite human understanding".

[New Yorker]

Evolution is verified by scientific evidence, including human evolution. The evidence is almost literally concrete.

[MassuhDGoodName]

Re:  "Fossils of other platypus ancestors have been found. "

Those weren't fossils!

Those were roadkill run over on the Australian backroads, squashed flat as a pancake, and then baked hard by the desert sun.

They were only 2 months old.

DNA analysis proved that they were 4 chickens and 3 French Poodles which had been hit by a jeep.

The "teeth" that they supposedly kept until adulthood were some bridges and other denture work that fell out of the mouth of the aborigine who "found" the fossils.

In actual fact, the aboboogie was arrested because he was attempting to eat the roadkill fresh off the road.

So you see, many find themselves confused when discussing facts!

[Rubystars]

Massuh your posts are so clever and always make me smile. 

[cjd]

Re:  "Fossils of other platypus ancestors have been found. "

Those weren't fossils!

Those were roadkill run over on the Australian backroads, squashed flat as a pancake, and then baked hard by the desert sun.

They were only 2 months old.

DNA analysis proved that they were 4 chickens and 3 French Poodles which had been hit by a jeep.

The "teeth" that they supposedly kept until adulthood were some bridges and other denture work that fell out of the mouth of the aborigine who "found" the fossils.

In actual fact, the aboboogie was arrested because he was attempting to eat the roadkill fresh off the road.

So you see, many find themselves confused when discussing facts!

Your a killer Massuh.......

[MassuhDGoodName]

OK, Rubystars!

If the scientists have the answers, then tell me where schwartzes came from!

Colin Powell has it right, when he said "Whites in America have a real dilemma -- they believe that "all men are created equal", and at the same time are convinced that Blacks are an inferior race!".

How is it that a schwartze after 6000 years of evolution is today less intelligent than a monkey, deranged, and more violent than any other beast?

How do scientists "account" for the fact that the schwartze has no class, no breeding, no mating, no child rearing, and loves watermelon and KFC?

How does that fit into the "Great Scheme of Evolution?"

[New Yorker]

OK, Rubystars!

If the scientists have the answers, then tell me where schwartzes came from!

Colin Powell has it right, when he said "Whites in America have a real dilemma -- they believe that "all men are created equal", and at the same time are convinced that Blacks are an inferior race!".

How is it that a schwartze after 6000 years of evolution is today less intelligent than a monkey, deranged, and more violent than any other beast?

How do scientists "account" for the fact that the schwartze has no class, no breeding, no mating, no child rearing, and loves watermelon and KFC?

How does that fit into the "Great Scheme of Evolution?"

They're a less evolved form, without the evolutionary stresses of Europe they stayed static, unchanged for 200,000 years, same reason the can't tolerate the cold.