News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

Evolutionary myth teaches that highly-formed, complex, self-reproducing, symmetrical machines (human bodies) self-assembled from water and minerals (eroded rocks) over long periods of time.

Related Video: Lies In The Textbooks

In my entire 43 years of living, I have never heard a more ridiculous, preposterous, and downright stupid (I don't often use this coarse word) myth.

After studying people and their behavior for most of my life, it is perfectly clear to me that the only reasons people believe such blatantly illogical and impossible fairy tales is:

• (1) They are willing to subvert logic and reason to accommodate their own desire to eliminate the obvious implications of responsibility associated with the existence of the otherwise obvious Creator,
• (2) They desperately grasp onto the global flood of false science and hollow propaganda to ease their conscience so reason #1 (above) is less painful, and
• (3) They have succumb to the onslaught of chemicals (MSG, mercury, fluoride, etc.) and propaganda (museums, mass-media, junk-science, etc.) used to dumb down the middle and lower classes preventing them from understanding how fundamental physical rules prohibit evolutionary myths from having even an ounce of viability.

It is no wonder the promoters of the evolution tale have no respect for the masses, and that they desire to dispose of the Christians who study the book that so clearly explains these propagandistic processes and how they would be used in this historical time to deceive many.

A word to the wise and courageous.

---

"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."

—H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.


"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."

—Michael Denton, Molecular Biologist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306


"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it (evolution)."

—H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.



"Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study."

—Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1982), pp. 181-182 [Harvard professor and the leading evolutionary spokesman of the latter half of the twentieth century].


"I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin's theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory (of evolution) does not stand up at all."

—H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physic Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.


"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any (every) evolutionary theory I know."

—Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981).


"The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world."

—Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].


"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . [color:"brown"]the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity[/color]."

—W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].



"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "

—David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).



"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. [color:"brown"]We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom[/color]."

—Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].



"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."

—Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].



"The problem of the origin of species has not advanced in the last 150 years. One hundred and fifty years have already passed during which it has been said that the evolution of the species is a fact but, without giving real proofs of it and without even a principle of explaining it. During the last one hundred and fifty years of research that has been carried out along this line [in order to prove the theory], there has been no discovery of anything. It is simply a repetition in different ways of what Darwin said in 1859. This lack of results is unforgivable in a day when molecular biology has really opened the veil covering the mystery of reproduction and heredity . .

"Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible as I have just shown: It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before life. Many people will say this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing I am interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and observation of the facts."

—G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Transformisme devant la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 331.



"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"

—Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.



"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It (evolution) can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."

—Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist



"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."

—R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].



"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."

—Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.



"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory (of evolution) replaces God with an even more incredible deity—omnipotent chance."

—T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.



"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it (evolution) is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."

—H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.



"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."

—H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.



"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."

—D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times,
England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].



"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach; but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from this summary, that the theory of evolution is impossible."

—P. Lemoine, "Introduction: De L' Evolution?" Encyclopedie Francaise, Vol. 5 (1937), p. 6.



"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."

—John Ambrose Fleming, President, British Association for Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought



"Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses."

—Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 147.



"This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us, is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion."

—W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," to Every Man's Library issue of *Charles Darwin's, Origin of Species (1956 edition).



"The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake.' "

—Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor and the pioneer in glaciation.]



"It has been estimated that no fewer than 800 phrases in the subjunctive mood (such as `Let us assume,' or `We may well suppose,' etc.) are to be found between the covers of Darwin's Origin of Species alone."

—L. Merson Davies [British scientist], Modern Science (1953), p. 7.



"Unfortunately for Darwin's future reputation, his life was spent on the problem of evolution which is deductive by nature . . It is absurd to expect that many facts will not always be irreconcilable with any theory of evolution and, today, every one of his theories is contradicted by facts."

—P.T. Mora, The Dogma of Evolution, p. 194.



"The over-riding supremacy of the myth [of evolution] has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth.

—Charles Darwin, quoted in *N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1979), p. 2 [University of Chicago book].



"I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."

—Charles Darwin: In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology

Personally I have to agree with something I've read somewhere in the past... that the idea of evolution is the only thing that even comes close to assuaging the mind and hearts of athiests. It gives them at least a footing, albeit not a full stance, on which to temper their conscious with.

Assuming from our end that they are all liars out to deceive, I doubt it. They simply are not that smart has been my experience. They are deceived and so they deceive thinking it is truth.

I've actually come to the conclusion that their own theories really do not convince themselves fully, which is why the theories are always changing... but a true evolutionist rarely has the courage himself to actually seek the missing part which would provide the answer and so they keep asking creationists for proof of God, the designer.

I can answer ardently, truthfully, yes I have proof that God is the designer. But the only way you can share in it is by seeking him yourself.

Quit asking me why, I am not the creator and that's just the way it is.... The one big mystery of life they will never find the answer to simply because they were afraid to look for it.

I didn't want to hijack CTD's other thread where Linda brought this up as I was not sure whether it would wind up taking things way off course or not. Perhaps here would be an ok place, as it seems appropriate.

Linda states:


"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." - Charles Darwin

The eye, as with any part of the human body, has its beginnings in complex DNA (the programme). So no matter what stage of development of the human eye one wants to focus on (excuse the pun <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />), no matter how early on, it did not arise out of simplicity, because DNA itself is far from simple, it is highly complex.

The information is already available from DNA to bring forth such a miraculous outcome - the human body. Can someone explain to me, if there is any other way for the eye to develop, outside of already available information? How it came to be? and how does it develop new information along the way? If the complex information building blocks are not already present, where and how does the eye arise and grow?

Like a tree from a seed. Did the tree evolve, or did it develop from information already present?- signature hall marks for a "tree" already contained within that seed? Even the kind of tree that it shall be is dictated by the information from the particular seed. Unless of course it has been genetically engineered to do anything different than what it was already programmed to produce. The tiny seed is actually where it all starts, where all the information lies. The tree is the result from growth and nurture. Human beings are no different.

I fail to see how anybody can deny the signature and programme of design, no matter how early the development, it can only develop into the end result if the information is already present. How can anything gain "new" information? From whence does it get this new information? This in itself would be miraculous. Either way, I see the intricate spark of life/design and purpose. No matter what you do, you will always be working with something that already contains information. No matter what you do with DNA, you've already got a programme to work with. How then can there not be a programmer? And does this programmer require billions of years of evolution to produce the desired result? Which came first? The chicken or the egg? The tree or the seed? I know which came first, the bible tell us very clearly. All these things were in the beginning, according to the bible, made already complete, so that they could then reproduce after their own kind. Be fruitful and multiply said the Lord. Not "be fruitful and evolve". Nothing was incomplete and the first two people were made complete, as were every other creature.

It is DNA profiling that is used in crime-solving, by comparing DNA found at the scene of the crime with DNA taken from suspects. This also shows us how unique each and every human being is and how original each and every human being is, finger prints and all. All of these things stem from a highly complex and organised beginning. Rather than accidents/coincidences. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crossfingers.gif" alt="" />

Oh Bex please . . . enough with the quote mines already. And Russ, you too. No one apart from creationists pays any attention to them. After Darwin said that about the eye, he went on to explain the different stages of eye evolution.

I have to say that I find this particular critique of existing evolutionary theory intriguing. Now as you know, I'm not someone who's going to declare that every time an area of the ToE is disputed, every time scientists don't agree on a part of it, that the whole thing is invalidated and that therefore creationism is the winner by default. I think there is overwhelming evidence that organisms have been evolving on earth for millions of years. But do I think we are 100% certain about how that happened? No.

Evolution has been observed to occur quite rapidly -- surprisingly rapidly. I read an article recently about species of weeds that had adapted to an urban environment which favours quick germination in places like cracks in the pavement. In just several generations, these weeds' reproductive cycles had changed noticeably from those of their rural counterparts. Sceintists were puzzled by this.

Now and then, someone who is willing to think outside of the box comes up with a new idea. I've been reading about one by Rupert Sheldrake; he is a biologist by training and could have had a sterling career at Cambridge, where he worked -- until he came out with his idea of morphic fields. The scientific mainstream hated it so much that the editor of one prestigious journal said his book should be burned. They didn't like it because it introduced concepts that they called "magic."

Sheldrake has simultaneously been conducting experiments in subjects such as the sense of being stared at, and dogs that know when their owners are coming home. He's been working for years to present scientific evidence for the existence of the extended mind. Morphic fields is his idea for how the extended mind might work. It's an idea rooted in biology -- he believes that phenomena like telepathy are normal for animals, and have evolved through natural selection because they are advantageous.

Part of this idea is a morphogenetic field, which is like a blueprint for how organisms evolve and develop. The field would be as real as a magnetic field surrounding a magnet, and it would determine that a mouse would develop to be a mouse, and a human to be a human. It would contain the ancetral memory of other animals that have gone before (a kind of explanation for Jung's idea of the collective unconscious) and would also help guide adaptive evolution. Keep in mind that most scientists think this is simply silly and they are not interested. However, I find it intriguing and it captures my imagination.I'm not even saying that Sheldrake is right, but that I think he may be onto something. I don't like the rationalistic paradigm that has pervaded science for several centuries now; today it says that everything we experience is in the brain, and that all the brain is, is a collection of neurons and cells. Talk to some scientists about consciousness and they believe we will be able to pinpoint it somewhere in the brain or in the electrical or cellular activity therein. Not all of them think this way but the majority do.

If anyone wants to know more about morphic or morphogenetic fields, I can give some links.

I was hesitant to mention these things in talking to creationists because I know what you'll say: "You mean evolutionists really haven't 100% explained everything? You mean you question some things they say? Then creationism must be right if they are wrong!" As I explained before, this is not what I'm saying at all. But I do agree that scientists haven't got it 100% right, they don't know everything. That's what makes science exciting: the possibility of new ideas and discoveries.

These scientists need to remove their evogoggles and look at the world. My memory's weak, and I know of the top of my head there are many, many animals that vary their reproductive rates according to population density. This has been known at least since the 1930's, probably much longer.

Some animals even become sterile when population density gets too high. Rats have a high threshold, but when packed too tightly they go insane. They become violent and quit mating.

I confidently googled: "'population density' reproduction" and got results.

This one is about plants.
This one is less interesting.Always the idiotic Darwinian appeal to food! Invariably, animal populations take steps to control their density before approaching the mythical "food barrier". Even the lemmings - they don't wait until they're starving to death, or out of food. But observation doesn't mean much when you're dealing with religious faith.

Darwin's speculative (I'll take that word back if anyone shows he actually observed it) food paradigm only applies to disastrous circumstances (not universally, as he applied it). Famine, dumping too much population on a small island, situations like that. I guess yesterday's evogoggles are being replace with opaque contacts.

At any rate, this doesn't quite fit most definitions for "news". It was known way back even before the "horse evolution" was debunked, if you want to put it in perspective.

I'm afraid to ask, but I imagine they're claiming a mutation is rapidly spreading throughout the population, causing it to "evolve" a different this or that. I'm a creationist, and I predict it can "devolve" right back where it came from too (without a mutation).

Pardon me, but the example of the urban weeds has nothing to do with population density or food. It was about how they adapted to their environment. I read a lot of news stories and I can't remember where I read this one so unfortunately I can't link to it.

Why is it difficult for you to believe that organisms would respond appropriately to a lack of food? Do you just have a knee-jerk reaction to everything scientists say, or what? Do you not see how a high population density and lack of food would make conditions difficult for animals; do you not think they might have evolved means to adapt accordingly? How is this any different from fish who can burrow into mud and survive when water temporarily dries up?


Until you actually back this up with evidence, I will call it for being part of the silly fantasy in your head. My guess is you have no evidence at all apart from some vague stuff you read on a creationist website.


Most scientists will tell you that mutations happen randomly, and the ones that confer positive benefits are retained through natural selection. The morphic fields idea is a little different, though it is not accepted by the mainstream. Let me know if you need some definitions of terms.


I never would have guessed.

If evolution occurs quite rapidly, then why did it take billions of years to happen?

Does adaption to ones environment mean we all evolved? Or does it just mean "adaption to ones environment" like a cat or dog grows a thicker coat in winter? Did the change that took place in the plants (adapting to their environment) consist of anything outside of the plant's already available information? Was there a change to say the plant was becoming something it wasn't? Or simply the information inside the plant already there adapting and emphasizing aspects of its' reproduction to suit the environment.....

This is to me, flexibility and versitility contained within the information inside every living creature (plants included). Whatever is required to be used more, becomes emphasised.
The muscles adapt to stress/exercise and respond accordingly. What you're saying here sounds wonderful to me, because I see how adaptable and flexible every living creature is, but this in no way gives evidence for one kind of creature becoming something entirely different, just because you throw billions of years on it or decide that it's "possible". Possible doesn't mean it's "fact". And we haven't seen it happen yet, so I guess articles like this are about all one can put across as 'evidence for evolution". That one creature can conceivably become something else, because of this? The dog perhaps could become a cat given the right environment for long enough, that it had to adapt itself with feline charateristics to survive.....changing from one creature to another.....One can only go so far with the information already existing, before fact becomes mere science fiction.

I think you can reach a stage where you can be awestruck or even wrapped up in the marvels of the universe, the mind, life itself and yet remain completely (willingly ignorant) blind to any idea of a creator that made this all possible for you and I to marvel at in the first place. The bible talks of this also and it's interesting to observe. People that talk about the marvels of life, but deny the power from whence it came and put man and intellectualism in place of the Creator.

It started happening with the first life; it's been happening ever since. If you mean why did it take billions of years for humans to evolve from the simplest organisms, then there are a few ideas about that. The first multicellular organisms didn't appear until about 500 million years ago. It apparently took the majority of the time that life has been on earth, for it to gain even that level of complexity. From there, who knows? Mammals were around at the time of the dinosaurs but they were more or less unchanged for millions of years, presumably because the dinosaurs were such a danger. Once they became extinct, many new forms of life appeared and evolution occurred quite rapidly. This is often the case when a new environmental niche appears.


We'd be talking about beneficial mutations -- which have been documented to occur -- and natural selection for them. And yes, over time it is theoretically possible for a dog to become more cat-like or vice-versa, depending on what is more advantageous in the environment.


What is the fossil record then? Or are you again claiming that we cannot learn about the past from evidence we have in the present? (Which would make things like forensic investigations rather difficult.)


Well we're talking religion here, rather than science. But what I believe is that the transcendent is all around us. There's a lot about reality that we don't understand yet. Different dimensions, or planes of existence. Morphic fields maybe. Different kinds of entities. But this is all wrapped up with life, it's inseparable. Personally I don't look for a personified God in the sky who tells me what to do. I hope to connect with the chi that is in everything and everyone.

You can see why I liked Star Wars, LOL.

Pardon me for observing that plants living in sidewalk cracks will have a different density than plants living in unrestricted areas.


You ask the wrong person. Darwin is the one who maintained populations would always increase to the limit of the food supply, and be perpetually on the brink of starvation.

He didn't notice that God has wisely provided means for life to avoid this problem. Different species use different techniques. Some, for example, are territorial. The size of territories prevents overcrowding to the point of starvation.

But I waste my time explaining this to an evolutionist. You'll either claim evolutionism acknowledges these things, and Darwin never said what he said; or you'll look it up and flip-flop.

Here's a hint: Darwin needed populations to expand up to this limit, and although some may slip up and forget why, the need still exists.

Thanks, but it seems better to decline.

Maybe you can explain to LinearAQ the difference between an atom and a molecule? Or help out with "replicate". (abiogenesis thread)

The plant article in question can be found here. I was wrong about scientists being puzzled, but it's also possible evidence for a species-specific morphic field.

Populations increasing until strain is put upon resources would seem to be to be simple observable fact. Unless there is something holding numbers back artificially, such as habitat loss or disease, then the population will eventually expand as far as limits allow. This is happening with humans right now and we're going in a direction where we're putting too much pressure on our own natural resources. The availability of things like food and water are natural limiting factors. Can I ask why this seems so ludicrous to you?

Your "simple observable fact" has proven very difficult to observe. Underpopulation is the rule in nature. Doubt this? Explain why so many types of life reduce their reproductive rates long before reaching crisis level. Did you see how many google hits I got? That's just one of the known mechanisms God has put in place.

As usual, it looks like we're going to have to debate something which makes perfect sense to most others on the planet.

I never said that a species has to hit crisis level. I said that there are factors which naturally limit a population's size. There doesn't necessarily have to be a crisis before this happens. In many species, for example, the males leave the group in which they grew up when they reach maturity, and find a territory of their own. Sometimes he may have to fight for one, if there are lots of other males doing the same. I could come up with 100 other examples.

Can you give one of your own please?

You saidSo which is it? Do populations expand to the limits imposed by resources, or are they self-regulated to prevent this from happening?

I know what Darwin said. I know what's been observed. You seem to be attempting to claim both are true. I hope we shan't have to consult wiki on the possibility of two mutually exclusive things being true at the same time. I suppose it's difficult for you to choose between faith and science, so take your time.

I find it curious that a title like this is deemed permissible whereas one entitled the very same but directed instead at Christianity would be considered trolling, disrespectful, etc.

I'm also still trying to find out why exactly it's considered offensive to invite other posters to this forum (regardless of their stance in the argument, be they religious, evoutionists or one in the same).

Hi Pwcca,

It's been said about Creation on here as well (called or referred to as a joke, a fairy tale, or stupid etc, much the same as what's been said about evolution on here), so I wouldn't be too hasty to feel this is "discrimmination" <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> It's the ongoing patronisations and putdowns to anybody or anything Christian that becomes much more "personal" and unnecessary.

We've heard the creation insults often on here, and likewise to evolution. Just the way it goes on debate forums. You'll get that anyway as you know.

It's not offensive to invite others on here...? It was noted however that Linda only did it when someone on here admitted these discussions were helping their faith, so it came across strongly as an attempt to try and sabbotage that or at least get more back-up. That's her perogative. However, so long as she's ok with others inviting more creationists over here too? I personally don't know any others, as I don't belong to other forums on this subject. I'm here because this forum is already on the same list as the amalgam forum.

Bex, drop the swords for a minute. I thought you knew me better than that. We may disagree about each other's ideologies here, but to claim that I have such a hatred for Christianity, and such a rabid desire to push my own position over, that I would actively be trying to destroy someone's faith in such a way? I can't honestly say I even remember the comment you are referring to. What's more, if I did come across it, it wouldn't have surprised me. Debates like this have a way of polarising people's opinions. In fact I'm in trouble if any creationists actually declare that they now agree with me, because that's when Russ would kick me out of here LOL.

A few others here might think I've been sent by Satan to tempt the saintly here. It's a cartoon which works for them I guess. Despite our differences here, though, I think your character goes much deeper than that. If I had to choose between this forum and the mercury one then I would stop talking in this one. It's not that important in the grand scheme of things and it divides people rather than bringing them together.

I apologise if I have misjudged you Linda. That is what I had understood and read on here. Yeah I know you better than that from the other forum! However, I have seen/ sensed more than a touch of contempt / sarcasm towards Christianity from you enough times on here, to have found it a possibility. Ordinary I don't sense that about you outside of these discussions! quite the opposite actually and perhaps these debates have a tendency to cloud ones judgement. I don't know. I do know that people's emotions run high on here and we don't always show the best of our characters.

I very much doubt Russ would kick you off here if your arguments were persuading any creationists. That is really up to the reader how they'll be swayed by either side.



lol, Hmmm, I don't think so somehow. I can't imagine anybody here would consider themselves a "saint" or you the Devil's tempter (though anything is possible <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> hehe)....

But in saying that Linda, there's more than a little of the victim syndrome from the evolution side too at times. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smilieprison.gif" alt="" />

I'm happy on the amalgam forum too <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />, that's my main one I remain on. I like to come on here on occassion but don't honestly enjoy ongoing debates. Some are great at it and seem to thrive. I don't. I also find my adrenals take a pounding at the best (or worst) of times.

I think it gives my adrenals the stimulation they need LOL. Though it's just exasperating at times. Like I said, I'm arguing with people elsewhere, including scientists. I am criticising their dogmatically skeptical attitudes. Sometimes they can also be guilty of preconceived notions and denying evidence, as in the case of telepathy. Right now I'm being laughed at because I think there's evidence for Bigfoot. Guess I'm just a glutton for punishment <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> The point I keep trying to get across, though, is that evidence leads to truth, even if it might be uncomfortable.

It also makes me fight the brain fog. Just wait til I get treated for this adrenal stuff. Even I don't think I'll know me <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Um yeah, I mean you're just too quiet and mild on here Linda....the extra stimulation is just what you (we?) need <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/gunshot.gif" alt="" /> lol.

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/taz.gif" alt="" /> About big foot? Hmmm. I'm not sure about these things either. I don't know. I don't discount dinosaur sightings either. As there are vast areas of the earth that haven't been seen or travelled by man, then I'd imagine there is far more out there than we realise. Or previously thought completely extinct animals, may not be entirely extinct. Some we didn't know existed too.

I've heard some amazing sightings and stories. I don't discount them all either. I'm open to them. I heard a particularly disturbing story about a group of guys checking out a ship wreck and what happened to them whilst out there. Apparently completely true. Only about 2-3 of them survived. A dinosaur attack. They were pretty much suppressed in telling their story at that time and had to state it was a drowning instead. The description given by them of this "beast" they had never seen before. Was a long pole like neck and head somewhat like that of a turtle, with rather reptilian type eyes.

Other tales such as these are out there too, often by sailors etc who out there for such long periods of time, in vast often untravelled waters too no doubt. Apparently completely true. what ones makes of that is up to them.

I actually find it quite exciting! Sorry to get off the subject of this thread, but I enjoy this topic very much - mysterious sightings/the unexplained etc. I could perhaps discuss that on a forum here that's aimed in that direction a bit more....

Yes it would be nice to have a forum here dedicated to that purpose. I guess my fear is that some people would go there and make all kinds of wild and unsubstantiated claims without a shred of proof to back them up.

If a bunch of divers described what they claimed was a dinosaur attack, I'd be open to the possibility that they experienced something unusual. They might be lying, they might be telling the truth. What would add more substance to this would be if others in the area also had similar experiences -- people who have no connections with each other, whose credentials as reliable witnesses checked out. Better still would be physical evidence added to this, for example footprints on land, pictures or film, and best of all a dead body or some kind of physical evidence which would give a DNA sample.

There's quite a body of evidence for the existence of Bigfoot, though it's next to impossible to get skeptics to look at any of it because they won't listen until there's that dead body or DNA sample. Anecdotal evidence, no matter how much of it, means nothing to them. No matter what you tell them about the footprints, they dismiss them as hoaxes. The famous Patterson film was a hoax too, they say, though people have been trying to debunk it for over 40 years and have been unable to do so.

If you're interested, The Bigfoot Field researchers Organisation and Bigfoot Mystery are two of the best sites I've found. I enjoy browsing through the sighting reports on the BFRO.

I'm a tad curious. I did say "take your time"; but I'd like a status report: Is my question being ignored, or is there an intent to answer it?

Because the rate at which offspring are produced in every species is greater than the rate at which the environment can provide food, shelter, and other needs, individuals who carry advantageous traits will come to outnumber those without them, causing a shift in the common characteristics of the species over time. This is part of the definition of natural selection.

All species have adaptations that help them to survive in their environments. These would have appeared due to natural selection, because they conferred a survival advantage. They might even include, for some species, ways of limiting reproduction rates when resources are scarce. The factors above tend to limit population growth; but unless a species is populating a new ecological niche and there's plenty of room in which to grow and spread, then there will always be population pressure. If this wasn't the case then natural selection would not occur, and we would not see evidence of species having evolved over millions of years to become more adapted to their environments.

I'm not sure what the confusion is here. Surely an example of human settlements overpopulating an area, outstripping the resources, and then facing disaster, as appears to have been the case on Easter Island with the statue-builders, would be enough to illustrate the point.

No confusion on my part. As my link in post #252766 indicates, there are more observations than one can shake a stick at which demonstrate how incorrect the view you've chosen to share with Darwin actually is.

In nature, populations are self-regulating. They don't press the resource limits of the environment. Thus they lack the pressure Darwin said was required for natural selection to be effective.

Exceptions are found, but they're vanishingly scarce and almost always involve abrupt isolation on islands, crises where the mechanisms are too slow. I hope you're not going to call all these scientists "liars" for reporting this. Is there any scientific basis for dismissing these discoveries?

I'm thinking you'd like to focus on the exceptions, and claim more research is needed or something. But I'd like to ask a different question: for the apparent majority of lifeforms which do regulate their own numbers, how can natural selection "work" on them? Darwin thought it would be unable to work without intense competition.Last paragraph, Origin of Species, Sixth Edition. (emphasis added) "Find"ing for "struggle" within his books yields a great deal of results, all of which consistently maintain it's essential in order for natural selection to occur. Both this point, and on the observations which demonstrate Darwin's error, time and patience are the major limiting factors on how many links I could provide. No shortage exists.

The problem for evolutionists is that self-regulated populations don't get dense enough to result in the kill-off of the "unfit". Without overpopulation, there's no resultant struggle, and if the "unfit" survive right along side the "fittest". So much for evolving...

Bex wrote



I do not feel this is discrimination. As someone who hasn't taken a side in this argument, it would be impossible for me to feel discriminated against anyway. For the record, I am religious. And I'd be curious to see any quotes from where creation has been referred to as a faerie tale or a joke, as you put it. There may have been some brazenly insulting remarks by anonymous posters in the past but the regular evolutionist-defending posters here haven't made any similarly matching title as "The Big Joke". Perhaps the creationists of the forum should stop worrying about what the evolutionists are saying and instead worry about their own integrity. Titles like this are offensive and there's no two ways about it. It simply is. Saying other people have done the same thing doesn't excuse anything (especially when there isn't any proof towards said allegations).

CTD, there really is no issue here. And the dichotomy you are seeing does not exist. Do you not think that availability of food, water, and other natural resources has some impact? Do you think the environment has no effect on a species, even when they over-exploit it?

Let's look at natural selection again. Darwin and Wallace actually found their inspiration for this idea in economics. An English parson named Thomas Malthus published a book in 1797 called Essay on the Principle of Population in which he warned his fellow Englishmen that most policies designed to help the poor were doomed because of the relentless pressure of population growth. A nation could easily double its population in a few decades, leading to famine and misery for all.

When Darwin and Wallace read Malthus, it occurred to both of them that animals and plants should also be experiencing the same population pressure. It should take very little time for the world to be knee-deep in beetles or earthworms. But the world is not overrun with them, or any other species, because they cannot reproduce to their full potential. Many die before they become adults. They are vulnerable to droughts and cold winters and other environmental assaults. And their food supply, like that of a nation, is not infinite. Individuals must compete, albeit unconsciously, for what little food there is.

Natural selection, and evolution, were ideas which explained the evidence, and they have been put to the test for 150 years. Evidence that population pressure must exist? We are not knee-deep in beetles or earthworms.

Look around you at what's happening with humans. The population of the earth has increased by a few billion in my lifetime alone, and I'm not that old. If your criticisms are valid then they mean that the human population will be able to increase indefinitely, and the earth will be able to provide for its needs indefinitely. This clearly is not the case. It has been estimated that it would require several earths to meet the needs of the existing population if all people consumed as much as those in the developed western world do.



So the limitations of the available resources have no impact on them whatsoever? You're going to have to provide some evidence that this is the case for a species.



Gosh, I'm going to have to ask for that E-word again.

Natural selection actually explains what many scientists have observed for a long time. You're taking denial of evidence to great heights but you're not offering any proof. The passage you quoted from Darwin simply gives his ideas about natural selection; I'm not sure what you were trying to prove with it exactly.

Pwcca, I did not suggest "YOU" personally feel discrimminated against. You are the one who brought this up. I said that it's come from both sides, so nobody can honestly feel discrimminated against on here. Who hasn't made demeaning comments on here Pwcca in one way or the other? And you want me to go through the threads on this forum and quote each instance? You have GOT to be kidding me. I did this with Linda recently and you think I don't want to go through it again.


I have to laugh at this. Can't you actually take a big dose of your own advice and apply it? Rather than telling others not to do something you guys keep doing yourself? Which is whining on here about double standards or unfairness. Worry a bit more about your own integrity, I totally agree!

To put it simply, Bex, I think he was referring to the title of this thread, which is "Evolution, the big joke." If I'd very cleverly started one called "Creationism, the big joke," you mean you wouldn't bat an eyelid? If I very cleverly called April Fools Day, Christians Day instead, you wouldn't bat an eyelid? For that matter, if I very cleverly wrote that cartoon about Hovind teaching a physics class, you wouldn't bat an eyelid? What, can't you take a joke?

Some people here are unable to write a post without including silly below-the-belt personal remarks. I try to ignore it now because it's obviously not going to stop, there is no moderation here which has any interest in making it stop.

I do agree, though, I'd much prefer to focus on the issues and avoid bickering. If you could help encourage such a focus here I'd be much obliged.

Yes, that's true Linda, the title is insulting. But no I would not bat an eyelid if you or someone on your side typed up a post called "Creationism, the big joke". Why on earth would I? Look at the comments made by both sides on here and often in retalitation to eachother. This is often what happens on debate forums, they pull no punches. Christianity is another matter, that is not the actual subject of this forum and is a personal faith. To insult Christianity, you are insulting the "person" of Christ. Would you like your father personally insulted (if you had love for your father? or your child?). That's the difference.

Yep I sure can take a joke Linda, very much so. But can you?



Well of course you and Linear never do this yourself eh Linda? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/angelwing.gif" alt="" /> I think CTD typed ONE parody post on here. Take a look at the ongoing comments of you and Linear as well, dotted all through the posts between you guys and CTD. Not exactly complimentary either are they? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> and if you read the bottom of his humor post, you'll see why he did the parody. But I keep forgetting how angelic you guys are and how desperate you are to stick to the issues and keep personal comments out right?. Inbetween the ongoing putdowns, accusations and silly reverse psychology games (now claiming he's really hurting the creation cause and doing us an injustice, gotta love that tactic), I too can see you both straining really hard to stick to the topic.

Honestly linda, you'd think nobody was reading these posts or even clicking onto what you and Linear are playing at.

"Playing at"?

I'll admit to getting frustrated when someone deliberately dodges the subject, makes claims they've provided evidence when they haven't, posts logical fallacies, ignores it when someone has pointed out the scientific inaccuracies in their posts, and makes remarks desgined to do nothing but provoke. It is difficult to stay patient but I'm getting some good lessons in trying. You'll notice that I've rarely, if ever, directed this impatience at you because when you talk here you do tend to follow the rules of good debating and you try to discuss scientific issues. You also don't try to wind people up or insult them. Moderators are good to have on a forum because they can keep the dodgy tactics in check with everyone. When it's a free-for-all, then you inevitably get people taking advantage. Even moderators get warnings -- one of them gave the list owner of EvC a suspension once when he overstepped the mark -- but I prefer to see this happen so that the debate can stay focused and respectful.

So you're saying that God is reaching down his hand when populations get close to resource limits and he slows down reproduction? Why doesn't He do that for mice, or rabbits, or deer or thousands of other populations? Are arctic squirrels His chosen species?

The abstracts that you provided don't say that. In fact, there are indicators that the change in reproduction patterns are linked with resource stress. Less food per individual and other stresses seem to cause hormonal changes that decrease the fertility cycles.

Yes. Under stressful conditions, human women have been known to be less fertile. This reaction to stress (less food, water, living space) may be higher in other animals such as arctic squirrels.

Which scientists think this change in reproductive rates is a problem for evolution? What are their conclusions about this "self regulation" effect in regards to species survival and evolution?

Now, before you tell me to do the research (shift burden of proof), remember you're the one who said this "self regulation" of population size is a problem for evolution. So, you need to provide something more than "oh look, I found something that I declare is a problem for evolution...therefore it is!" If it is really a problem, then the scientists should have looked into it far enough to find out. Provide some support for your allegation.

Thank you Linda. But consider this. I don't have the knowledge of terminology and other aspects that CTD has, so when I debate, I am really speaking in layperson's terms with a layperson's understanding, and am not able to argue on the same level. So I am unlikely to wind any of you up very much or pose much of a threat perhaps? CTD can, because he can speak the same language. This is what I suspect is the main upset for you and Linear. I could be mistaken, but that's what I'm picking up.

I think he's articulate, intelligent and amusing and an asset to the creation side, NOT a threat as Linear tries to make out <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> I enjoy his ability to debate you two on your own turf and the fact he's fluent in evolutionese is a bonus and doesn't seem to find the need to resort to the same ongoing nit-pickings that you and Linear do. One parody brought the house down, but was far from the ongoing criticisms that you two have done. Now you're claiming lack of moderation.....you'll notice that Russ has allowed much freedom on all these forums on here. Not just this one. So there's no surprise there, you knew what to expect. If people don't like the way they're run or the freedom? They can always leave.

If he feels CTD is in appropriate to the forum and really needs to be removed or moderated, that's up to him. I see personally that he's doing very well and I don't see any need whatsoever for moderation towards CTD. You guys are apparently not satisfied CTD's arguments, and apparently he's not satisfied with yours... You were never that satisifed with mine either. According to you, I was never really doing much right either at the time. Or not following proper debating "critique" Really after a while, it gets tiring and off-putting. CTD doesn't seem to be distracted by it, nor put off.

I admire that, but I don't envy his task.

"Linked" how? Everything I've seen indicates that regulation is linked in that it anticipates crises and kicks in in order to avoid overpopulation. "Linking" them to trigger only after the crisis is underway would negate any benefit, since everything's starving before the next generation comes along.

Any benefit that is, except the one proposed by Darwin. Starvation situations were claimed by Darwin to weed out the unfit and allow only the very best to survive.

Ah. So it's the "majority of scientists" out! Well played. I give up. I shall not convince you. Happy?

For anyone who allows that evolutionism may be questioned before the "majority of scientists" abandon it, This article I chanced upon yesterday, beginning at the seventh point of discussion, does a fair job of explaining these things.

Do I know the establishment's response? Naturally! We've already seen a couple, have we not? 1.) Preemptively forget the requirement for continual, intense struggle. 2.)Attempt to portray regulation as a 'miracle' of evolution. 3.) Both 1 and 2.

I missed that in the two articles. Could you point out where they say that the population regulation anticipates the crisis?

According to this here Canadian EncyclopediaLemmings seem to be avoiding crises.

More research, more lifeforms, more evidence:
link 1
Link 2
Big old URL

2nd paragraph, Descent of Man says

Beneficial variations are the consequence of severe struggles, thus the varieties of lemming seem to have been unable to evolve. At least the 7 Canadian species - can't expect they'd know as much about the others, can we?

I also chanced to find the Allee Effect. Can't see it'd help much, since going extinct isn't a good way to evolve.

Thank you. That's all I wanted acknowledged.



I believe the character Jesus Chist to be a mere plagiarized persona taken from much earlier mythology, and a summary glance at numerous religions all predating the Common Era by thousands of years attest to this (such as Mithras, Dionysus and Horus, to name a few). Having said that I would never do something like make a post entitled 'Christ, the Big Charlatan' and then get offended if someone makes snide remarks about Charles Darwin. The reverse is exactly what's happened here and that's what I'm trying to point out.

He is just as much a layperson as you are. He can use terminology but that doesn't mean he understands it. He's proved that he often doesn't. Often the only thing he can say about things like homology or oncology is "ha! I don't believe it, therefore it's problem for evolution, therefore creationism is right!"


I only get wound up here when people use the tactics I mentioned to you: denying evidence, dodging the question, making personal insults, using logical fallacies, not supporting their own claims, etc. I'm working on not getting wound up at all because that's what they want. None of this is good debate technique. Have they said anything that winds me up because I'm stumped by it and see it as a problem for evolution? No. Nothing here poses a threat either. Threat to what? Well, maybe to sanity at times, but that's about it.


Since when was it nit-picking to point out scientific inaccuracies, especially when those inaccuracies are meant to be used as evidence that a scientific theory is wrong?

There are others on the mercury forum, who have never talked here but who have observed either publicly or privately that the language used by some people here (not you or Russ, nor me) is disgracefully insulting. I hesitate to suggest that you don't see it because you like the things they are saying and you like the evolutionists being put in their place, but it has to be said that I find it wearing. A moderator would pare this out and keep things focused on the issues, but I don't think that's on the cards with Russ.

Pwcca, it really does depend where you get your sources of information from and who you wish to believe. I choose to believe in 2000 years worth of Christianity that have never failed, even with all the ongoing attacks and attempts to discredit. Christ even stated that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. How right He is. Christ was already described in the old testament, long before His birth. Incredible accurate descriptions even of HIs particular sufferings (not just the crucifixion).

I could go into this further, and start giving quotes, but I somehow don't think you'd be interested and let's face it, we're on very different paths and this is obviously not the subject of debate on this forum.

You are free to your opinion if you feel Christ is a mythical being and those you choose to believe. I am without doubts who I know Him to be and have experienced Him and the supernatural relating to Him within my own life, and believe the bible to be authentic from start to finish.

Linda, I don't mean nit-picking in regards to pointing out inaccuracies or anything like that. I think you know what I'm referring to. I'm just trying to say it comes from both sides, that's all. perhaps I better leave it at that, because I don't want to keep this going.

Yes I see the certain comments on here Linda. I don't mind if it's just retaliation or hitting back, or something humourous, but beyond that, it is unnecessary. You expect a certain amount on debate forums, it happens. But when it gets unnecessarily nasty and personal? It's not ok.

Unfortunately Linda, neither of us are moderators here . I've been banned from two forums (one candida and one mercury) for arguing back with the owner after the way someone was treated. All in all, my favourite forum is the amalgam one on here. That's where I spend most of my time!

Very interesting articles which make me have to agree that there are more factors in population control of these species (including rabbits) than just food or predation.
From the article:

I am skipping the other portions of the summary and conclusions section for brevity. As you can see the lowering in reproductive rates is related to a hormonal response to the increase in density of the population. This explains why rabbits bred in captivity and kept in separate cages have an unchecked birth rate while rabbits in the wild exhibit a lowering in the birth rate as population density increases. None of the articles state that this is an anticipatory lowering in birth rate. Rather it is a response (lowering birth rate) to a change (increase in population density).
The hormonal changes that are observed to cause the lowering in birth rate, seem to be triggered by the increase in aggressive behavior that occurs in these species as population density increases. This causal link is not directly well supported in the articles but is referenced from other research.
Also note that the authors do not discount the other factors (predation, food supply...etc) in affecting the population or fitness selection. In fact, they all observed those factors in action. Therefore the struggle for food and to avoid death before breeding is still affecting the characteristics of these populations.

Obviously, these species have added reproductive response to increases in population density as a weapon in their arsenal to avoid extinction. So, Darwin had not accounted for all factors when he stated.


I also don't think Darwin took into account that we can control our own breeding habits in response to a future overcrowding potential.

Lemmings have not evolved? There have been no changes in the characteristics within the populations...ever? Is this an observation or a conclusion of yours? What other biologists have observed this lack of evolving or come to the same conclusion?

I did not see that observation or conclusion in any of the articles you referenced.

I think what CTD is trying to do here is invalidate natural selection by showing that some species have the potential to self-regulate.

Before I say anything else, I want to emphasise that the evidence for evolution is clear. Life has changed since it appeared on earth and the fossil record validates this, as do many branches of science. What's more, when scientists disagree on the subject, what they disagree about is the mechanisms by which evolution occurred, and these are not 100% certain. So what I'm giving here is another idea about a mechanism of evolution.

Darwin saw life as a brutal struggle for survival. This idea has been echoed by many scientists over time, including Richard Dawkins with his "selfish gene" theory. CTD has perhaps inadvertently raised the interesting point that many organisms seem to live in harmony with their environments; they are not only well-adapted, but can respond to an extent as conditions change. It is when those conditions change too drastically, too rapidly, that organisms have to evolve to meet those changes, or go extinct.

What's implied here is that organisms' survival is driven by their environment; however, that this is a dog-eat-dog struggle is one viewpoint, another being that organisms work with each other and with the earth in striving to achieve harmony and equilibrium. Most scientists see this as a fringe idea of little merit, a bit hippy-ish, a bit mystical, but the scientists who advocate it are onto something in my opinion.

I've just started reading a book by Dr. Bruce Lipton, a medical school professor. He's got some fascinating ideas about things. For example, he is currently illustrating his idea that organisms like human beings can be viewed as a symbiotic community of trillions of cells, each of which possesses a rudimentary consciousness and its own mechanisms for survival. The cells of the human body are specialised to do different things because it is efficient and beneficial for each. I've got some ideas about where he's going with this and I'm keen to keep reading. I know that he is going to explain at some point why allopathic medicine is fundamentally flawed, and I think this would appeal to just about everyone on this forum.

Here is part of what he says about Darwin and natural selection:


He also makes a case for genes being blueprints for proteins which are programmed by the environment and the cells themselves. I was saying in another thread that only 40 hox genes control the way an organism develops, and this seems to be the case for all organisms. That's pretty astounding, as my source for that information remarked. Unfortunately the people I was talking with there were so bent on pouring scorn on everything I said that they appear to have missed this. How can 40 genes control the development of organisms? Lipton says a lot about the role of genes in his book and it would be a big effort for me to reproduce it here, but I think his idea of genes being vehicles rather than the architects themselves, is interesting. This also chimes well with Sheldrake's idea of morphogenetic fields.

Most scientists would lose no time in telling me how crazy all of this is, but I think that Lipton and Sheldrake are visionaries who have been thinking "outside the box" and who have a unique perspective on the nature of life and consciousness. All of this seems to be lost when evolutionists and creationists entrench themselves, neither listens to the other, and no alternative ideas are considered. Quite a few of the most hardcore atheist-evolutionists at EvC are former creationists who have gone from one dogmatism to the other -- from believing in creationism, to thinking that science explains everything and that if it isn't detectable with the five senses or if it doesn't fit current scientific ideas, it is magic or fantasy. This is understandable if they are bitter about the years in which they were fed, and believed, the kind of pseudoscience that people like Hovind advocate, but in switching "sides" they've thrown the baby out with the bathwater so to speak. They continue to cut my own ideas to ribbons on other forums and they don't like Sheldrake or Lipton very much.

I've got Elvis to thank for introducing me to Lipton. Not the genuine article of course, but our own unique individual on this forum, who sadly hasn't been active here for a while.

Bex wrote:


Indeed we are all free to our opinions and I hadn't mentioned the fact that I feel Jesus Christ to be a plagiarized mythological character in an attempt to enter a debate in that regard. You choose to have faith that every portion of the bible is literal truth word for word, I choose to believe the evidence predating Christianity, which can only assume the following. Either a) Jesus Christ existed before he was even born in the form of other incarnations (i.e., Mithras, Horus -- even the cross, the Three Wise Men, virgin birth and the Northern Star are all concepts stolen from much much older religions, so how else can this be explained?) Or b) that Jesus Christ was indeed plagiarized from the pagan faiths which Christianity absorbed. You have your belief, I have mine. We're all welcome to our own beliefs and I am not even trying to dissuade you from them.

What's my point? My point is that despite believing everything stated above I still do not have the gaul to make insulting remarks like "I think that Christianity is the most ridiculous thing anyone could believe". This has been said of evoution here: interestingly enough, by the same posters who ignorantly refer to evolution as a religion! -- thus proving that they have no respect for other religions in the first place. I am not targeting you, Bex, nor am I targeting Christianity. If a person uses a gun to kill another, I don't target guns in general. I target the person who chose to wield a gun. So too am I pointing the finger at those who wield their Christian beliefs in improper ways -- I know plenty of people who employ their Christian faith in positive ways. Thus, I do not have a problem with Christianity itself.

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

-- Mahatma Gandhi

If you feel victimized that's certainly not because of anything I've said. I ask that all posters take into account that fact that I have never once mentioned (but very well could do) the fact that pagans such as myself suffer far far more victimization -- primarily by Christians no less -- than Christians themselves. Despite this I take great pains never to have a victim mentality. It only weakens one's argument.

Well kind of like asking which came first the chicken or the egg... but Jesus did exist before he was even born, as God's first son, before he was God's first born son on this earth.

I was wondering if you had ever considered that maybe God sent his son, to be a living savior to his people, as further example to the pagans who continue to this day to worship saviors and gods of rock and wood.

That the authors don't use the word "anticipate" has no bearing. Does the regulation kick in before starvation density is reached or after?

Some of these studies take place under controlled conditions where one food & water are assumed to be supplied. Do you suggest they're rigging the results by starving animals?

Every time I've mentioned Rupert Sheldrake or Bruce Lipton I've been ignored by everybody. I offered an alternative viewpoint to this discussion and I've been ignored again.

Are you really so bent on a knee-jerk objection to whatever is posted here, CTD? What about the idea that organisms live in harmony with their environment -- do you not think this is possible?

If Darwin was right about natural selection, why bring another model into this discussion?

From the rest of the post, it looks like you're thinking Darwin was mistaken, but earlier you indicated he was correct. Please clarify your position.

I was just reading about some similar stuff last night, if I understand it correctly. I have made no firm plans to ignore it.

I'm sure it happened. Does it happen post-fall? That's a tougher question. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />Knee-jerk, I'd say yes, to a limited extent.

Maybe he wasn't 100% correct. No scientist thinks he was some kind of god. As I said in my previous post, that evolution happened is a fact. But we don't know all of the hows. Natural selection has been observed to occur. But maybe we don't understand everything yet about how it works.

I'm about halfway through Lipton's book now. He quotes Darwin as having said, near the end of his life:



Lipton claims that the belief that we are controlled by our genes -- genetic determinism -- has become the central dogma of science. This means it tends to be accepted without question. But it's not necessarily correct. Lipton says that the environment plays a greater role in life than most scientists have given it credit for. This has been seen in experiments at a cellular level. The "brain" of a cell isn't even in the nucleus. The nucleus's purpose is to reproduce cellular components when the old ones wear out. The actual life that's happening in a cell every fraction of a second is controlled by the cell membrane, and also by the proteins throughout the cell and the body. It's these proteins which can control whether or not a gene is expressed. And under certain environmental conditions, a gene may or may not actually be expressed, or "turned on." What's going on outside of the cell, and coming into and out of it, is where the key action is taking place. I'm waiting for Lipton to elaborate on his ideas at a macroscopic level, but I think he's made a good case for individual cells responding to their environment (nutritional, electromagnetic, whatever) in ways that many people have never dreamed of.

Then there's Sheldrake's morphogenetic field hypothesis, which is a little different. Both Sheldrake and Lipton, however, present evidence that contrary to accepted genetic science, acquired knowledge can be inherited. This harks back to the ideas of Lamarck, whom most evolutionists have believed to be discredited for a long time.

It would seem that organisms are responding actively to their environments all the time, and passing these adaptations on to their offspring. I think there's undeniable evidence that natural selection happens, but I think there's much more to be learned from it, and that it perhaps doesn't always happen the way Darwin originally thought.

Having said that, if the environment changes too quickly for adaptations to take place, extinction will occur. This is why it's so important that we don't damage the environment which sustains us and all the other life on earth, beyond repair.

Please bear in mind that while Sheldrake and Lipton are scientists who originally had good reputations and sterling careers, they are now marginalised from the mainstream and considered to be cranks. New ideas can take time to gain a foothold, and some old paradigms are deeply ingrained in mainstream science. Those of us who know the flaws in the allopathic medical system and who know that CAM works, are aware of this problem, especially when there's a lot of money being funnelled into the mainstream system.

Like I said, I think it's important to keep an open mind, which is what science is all about. If the evidence seems to be leading us in new and exciting directions then so be it. Some of the scientists I talk to on another forum absolutely hate this. One of them told me yesterday that I am spouting nonsensical delusions. I get it from them and from you too -- it's pretty funny really.

I see what you're saying. My only thought here was that if I'm not mistaken, there have been insults on both sides towards either creationism or evolution.......which is the subject of this forum (I'd need to seek out the posts to get the quotes). The thing is, evolution, unlike Christianity does not believe in a "personal God".

That's what I'm getting at. E.g. if you guys had a personal God/s that you believed in, I "might" state I disagree or point out why (as you have done), but there is no way I would insult that. Evolution is not a religion in the sense of a personal God. The only reason it's referred to as a religion I guess is because we believe it is a *system of belief*, in fact for us, I believe personally, that for evolution to be true, it would still require the supernatural (that's my belief). But obvously a "personal God" is definitely not part "evolution science".


Yeah that is true. I remember hearing someone say "I don't mind Christ, it's His fan club I have a problem with". But let us not forget the many around the world doing much for their fellow man, putting Christ's words into action (and there are many). People too quickly forget this and focus on the worst, when in my experience I've actually been around many wonderful Christian people. Perhaps that's what also drew me to Christ? Seeing Him through them. I've been around some pretty rotten ones too. Christ even said that "Not all who cry Lord, Lord and would enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but those that do the will of my Father". We'll be judged also on how we treated our fellow man, especially the least of them. (well in the world's eyes, they might be least).

Some of those experiments look more like ESP than anything else. I don't deny that such things take place, but the establishment does. They've forgotten that "science" just means looking for knowledge. Ruling things out, or off-limits is generally unscientific.

I myself complained to my roommate that the only thing wrong with M & Ms was that they don't come in dark chocolate. Never told anyone else, but within 6 months they came out with purple-packaged, dark chocolate M & Ms. As the chocolates are a most important food group, I consider this to be a milestone. Maybe I'm biased a little.

It's a shame we don't always have all the facts. The rat maze thing could be a result of scent: more rats following the same path; or they could have accounted for scent, and taken countermeasures.

I'm curious about which things are open to question, in your opinion. You still seem dogmatic about "evolution did happen", and "natural selection has been observed".

I'm also concerned that this discussion (already somewhat off-topic) is going to become directionless.

Sheldrake considers ESP to be one aspect of the extended mind, which exists due to the workings of morphic fields. This article clarifies a little better than the previous link I gave.


This is very true, and it's something all of us should keep in mind.


Not the most concrete evidence I've ever seen for precognition. But it's not hard to find convincing examples of it.


There's a fair bit of info out there of you Google it. The tank was filled with water so I don't think scent was likely to be a factor. When scientists don't like an experimental result, they usually pick apart the methodology and find something to criticise there. The randomization wasn't good enough. The statistical methods were flawed. It hasn't been replicated by other scientists enough times, or those scientists weren't objective enough. The list goes on and on, as it usually does for parapsychology experiments. Scientists were apparently doing that for the rat experiments, but were they right? I don't know. What I do know is that Shedrake is an intelligent scientist whose own methodologies are exhaustively rigorous, and he is unlikely to be citing experiments like the rat one if they had obvious flaws -- though I'd be laughed out of town if I said that to the scientists who think he's a crank.


Everything is open to question, and it should be. We should never be 100% arrogant that we are right about something and fully understand it.

I say that evolution happened because the evidence for it is so strong. I can't see a better explanation for the sorting of the fossil record. I say that natural selection has been observed because it has been. Scientists can test these things in a lab with yeasts and bacteria and other little critters that reproduce very quickly, and whose environments can easily be controlled artificially. But you don't even need a lab to see it in action. How else do you think antibiotic resistance has developed?

I'm not dogmatic about those things, it's not as if I have some need to believe in them. But they make a lot of sense and they fit with the evidence.


That's never stopped anyone here before. Besides, look at the title of this thread. What is "on topic" for that, since it's a joke in itself to begin with?

Biologist Prof Richard Lewontin, Feb., 2008:
source

This is an interesting article, though it would be helpful if you could supply some comments of your own about what you think the main point is, or your opinion of it.

I read The Guardian. I like it. It's a liberal UK newspaper (bet you didn't want to hear that).

I've never heard of this particular scientist, and I'd have to research these ideas he's presented before I could comment knowledgeable on much of this. I question why he thinks we can't sure about which species walked upright and which dragged their knuckles. The morphology of a skeleton, and the way it is put together, can tell us a lot about that. For example, a gorilla's head has the neck projecting out of it at almost a 90 degree angle because it's walking on all-fours most of the time. Our heads are perched almost directly on top of our necks because we are bipedal. The hip-bones tell a similar story.

What he says about the evolution of cognition is interesting. Most scientists are reductionists; they think that if we break everything down and study its smallest components, we will figure out how it works. They think that consciousness must be a function of parts of our brain. I've spoken to people who refuse to entertain any alternative notion, even though there's increasing evidence that this is simply wrong.

Like I said, what I see is that evolution happened and is happening still; and that natural selection happens. How these things happen is not completely understood, and I rather suspect that we know less than we think. There might even be some food for thought here for people who think that evolution is an exclusively random process of mutation and natural selection. That's a possibility but my gut feeling is there's more to it than that. There certainly is, if Lipton is right about how organisms respond to their environments, and if Sheldrake is right about the existence of morphic fields.

I'll have to look up Professor Lewontin and find out more about what he's actually saying and what his evidence is. If he's into consciousness research then he's probably familiar with Lipton and Sheldrake too.

Yep, Lewontin appears to be saying similar things to Lipton, though it doesn't appear that the two have collaborated on any research. Lewontin is almost 80 and he's got top-notch credentials.

From Wikipedia:


also,


I can't stand Dawkins, so anyone who takes a stab at him is OK in my books.

One of Lewontin's books is called Biology as Ideology: The Doctrine of DNA, so like Lipton he rejects the prevailing paradigm of genetic determinism (and the research he's done seems to make him well-qualified to do so). He also cited the fact, as Lipton has, that the human genome project provided some shocking information for genetic determinists.

Basically, conventional thought held that the body needed one gene to provide the blueprint for each of the 100,000+ different proteins that make up our bodies, plus at least 20,000 regulatory genes, which orchestrate the activity of the protein-encoding genes. Scientists concluded that the human genome would contain a minimum of 120,000 genes located within the 23 pairs of human chromosomes.

However, they found that the human genome consists of approximately 25,000 genes -- only 20% of what was expected. Guess what else we've found out? A microscopic nematode roundworm called Caenorhabditis has 24,000 genes. And the rather-more-complicated fruitfly has 15,000. This kind of hard data cannot be ignored and is going to have to force scientists to change their persepctive on things.

Just to add, for other alt med enthusiasts here -- Lewontin appears to also believe that the environment was the cause of the decline of several virulent diseases in the human population, and not vaccines.

He's right. There's a word for it too. Bathroom.

Prior to which people in cities did their business in kettles and left them in the corner of the room and dumped them out the window now and then. Thus the phrase, not a pot to pee in.

The lack of horse manure in streets helps a lot too.

There seems to an amazing amount of evidence that vaccinations are responsible for several, maybe more, conditions in themselves.

So he's absolutely right and probably a bit ahead of his time with that.

You read the studies, they say that most of the time the mechanism that causes the birth regulation to "kick in" is the increased population density. Apparently, the higher density of animals increases aggression (road rage during rush hour?) which cause fertility and the desire to mate to decrease. It is a mechanism that mimics anticipation of a starvation event by responding to increase in population density. It is interesting that in the study of mice, lemmings, and rats that it wasn't just the increase in the target species population density that triggered the response but also increases in other species (that interacted competitively with the target species) population density. Those other species would be in contact with the target species during competition for food, providing the same impact as an increase in the target species population density. Like a big crowd at the salad bar. It increased aggression.

So it is not actually anticipation of the starvation event that lead to reproduction reduction but the reaction to an event (increase in population density) that would have lead to the starvation event. The increase in aggressive behavior caused the population density to lower and avoid the starve off. So, in the case of these animals, their aggression in a crowded condition turns out to be a positive adaptation for their species.


If that is what you got from my answer, you will have to show me where I misspoke because I did not say anything about "rigging the results".

If you want to quibble over this, go right ahead. Explain how we can differentiate between actual anticipation, and "mimicry" thereof. Explain how it makes a difference & salvages the Darwin/Malthus paradigm.

Earlier you said.It may be true that less food will trigger self-regulation, but I intend to make it clear that it isn't the only trigger found in nature. The lemming research has failed to find any resource shortage.

It doesn't salvage the Darwin/Malthus paradigm if that means that food availability is the only thing that directly causes population density limiting. Darwin may not be right in all cases but that doesn't mean he was completely wrong. You were the one who said that God forces a limit on population before the starvation phase. I was just pointing out the conclusions of the scientists on the cause of this population limiting behavior; an evolutionary development of aggressive behavior when in crowded situations (high population densities) that subsequently lowered birth rates. High population densities make competition for resources (food, shelter...etc) more fierce and thus increases aggression between individuals. I guess angry mice don't like to get it on.
Now if you want to believe that God, as the architect of evolution, caused this behavior to be selected for, then so be it. If you want to tell me that God watches the population densities of mice and then reaches down to mess with the little mouse hormones to make them less horny, then you will have to provide a little more than your say-so.

I already agreed that the only trigger was not food, besides I said "resource shortage" not just food shortage. Am I now supposed to be slammed for a statement that I already agreed was not entirely correct? Regardless, my last post stated that the trigger was population density causing aggressive behavior. Just because Darwin hadn't described all causal criteria for individual and species selection, doesn't make him wrong about everything else. If being wrong about one thing makes you wrong about everything then neither you nor I could be trusted to provide any correct information. Shoot, no one could. Good thing the world doesn't work that way.

Observation of natural selection can be difficult.

Problem 1: Lab experiments are not natural. You say yourself they control the environment artificially. By definition, they are artificial selection. There is also a lack of recourse to any feedback & interaction with other lifeforms which could be present in a natural environment.
Problem 2: In nature, natural selection is only observed in the past tense. It's used to create a story of how such-and-such may have taken place. But science requires predictive power. Anyone can use natural selection to explain any past result. Try me if you doubt this. It isn't hard - try it yourself.
Problem 3: To scientifically observe natural selection in nature, one must evaluate fitness and make predictions. Who can confidently make these evaluations?
Problem 4: Without natural environmental stress, there is no struggle. The "unfit" thrive right along with the "fit".
Problem 5: "Sexual selection" can work at cross purposes with natural selection.

On topic or not, I don't think disorganization and confusion are a prudent path to progress. I don't intend to spend millions of years slinging around random words and hoping for good results.

If you agree that observations of self-regulation run counter to Darwinian natural selection, we could examine the Neo-Lamarkian paradigm to see if it can operate without struggle. Previously Lamarck's ideas were applied to the other side of the issue - they provided variety, and then during times of competition, natural selection chose from what was provided.

How then do you propose to salvage Darwinian natural selection? Have you something to offer in place of fierce competition?
Since when is getting clarification the same thing as slamming? I've observed that you rely heavily on obfuscation, but I didn't know you had become one with it.

But speciation has been observed in labs. Surely this is proof that natural selection can occur. The results might be different in the lab than in nature, depending on what the environmental factors are, but the process still happens.


We've watched it happen in modern times. Why would we now have antibiotic resistant bacteria and pesticide resistant weeds if natural selection were not occurring?


As regards pathological bacteria in the gut: Which ones are going to be "fitter" in that environment, those that get killed by antibiotics or those that are resistant? It's not always so hard to see which traits have turned out to be successful adaptations.


Show me a single species that is unaffected by disease. Most also are prone to predation. Natural selection says that the individuals that are best adapted to the environment will have the most offspring, and over time their genes will be the ones which survive in the population.

There's also the idea I've been discussing that organisms are always adapting themselves to their environment. And there's the morphic fields idea.


Obviously they need to be in balance. If an animal's mate-attracting characteristics cause it to be less adapted to its environment -- say, more prone to predators -- then that needs to be weighed up against mating success and number of offspring.

You might be interested in this article: New Evidence That Natural Selection Is A General Driving Force Behind The Origin Of Species


I'm not sure that you've made a case for a completely self-regulating population, as can be seen in your conversation with LinearAQ. I also think that organisms adapt to their environment even when there are no marked stresses on the population. Organisms and their environments are very tightly bound together.


We already have. And if there's merit in it, which there might be, then it would work as a part of natural selection. It just doesn't involve genetic inheritance.

Artificial selection isn't natural selection. I don't care if it's achieved by poisoning or starving, artificially killing off unwanted members of the population is not natural selection. I do not intend to confuse one for the other. Is not that one of the secrets for believing in natural selection?
This is both past-tense and artificial. There have always been resistant strains. Poisoning the others demonstrates that the poison works.Poison works? That's not news.
So was Darwin wrong when he said struggle was required? Even with the benefit of struggle he couldn't convince Huxley.

I suspect the common reasoning is that natural selection is a proven observation, thus it must take place whether it can be justified or not. I don't advocate assuming natural selection is true without investigating.And the purpose of refusing to address things one-at-a-time? If Darwinism can stand, why do you call for reinforcements?

"Completely self-regulating"? I don't even know what you mean by that. Is that what you require before you can admit Darwin was wrong when he maintained that all populations are growing as fast as they can until checked, frequently overpopulating, forcing themselves to struggle, and thereby enabling natural selection to operate?

If you want to pick a model and discuss it, fine. If you want to throw multiple models into the discussion & hope nobody notices that Darwinism fails, I promise not to fall for it. I don't think you'll have more than one taker.

Please explain what your meaning of "Darwinian natural selection" is.

Natural selection still exists even in this situation. Some mice and lemmings are still born from the coupling of their parents. Those males and females had to compete in order to wind up with each other. Even the aggressive behavior is a trait that was selected for "naturally". What is happening in this situation that leads you to believe that natural selection went away.

From dictionary.com
ob·fus·cate
1. to confuse, bewilder, or stupefy.
2. to make obscure or unclear: to obfuscate a problem with extraneous information.
3. to darken.

I was not intentionally trying to make anything obscure or to bewilder you. In fact I don't see my reply to you as doing any of that. I do however see your accusation that I was suggesting the scientists starved animals to rig their results, as obfuscation.

I've noticed that those who study self-regulation nearly always include some phrase like "this species has evolved a means to avoid overpopulation".

Now there's pretty much only one way anyone can believe this: everything that exists evolved, so this mechanism evolved. But they don't seem to have given it any more thought.

Consider what's supposed to have evolved. Consider it carefully.

Once upon a time, the species has no regulation. Reproduction is full-throttle, all the time. One day, an individual emerges which by some means or another is equipped for self-regulation. When the population density rises, this individual stops reproducing. The rest keep going & going. They overpopulate, struggle, etc. Meanwhile, the self-regulating individual goes extinct. The trait is removed from the population.

I know evolutionists & their faith in luck. Some will say the SRI could get lucky & survive. So what? The cycle just repeats. Round 2: SRI & offspring will again stop reproducing, forfeiting the field to the competition. How many cycles can they survive? Rigid evodoctrine calls for extinction in the very first round, but even loosening up the Darwinism can't account for cycle after cycle.

The trait in question must exist from the very beginning. It cannot arise, compete, and survive in a population that does not possess it. It's very nature is to not compete, and not pass on to future generations.

Perhaps. However, in complex situations like species interactions, no matter how simple you want to be, there is usually no simple answer.
The aggressive behavior could have existed first and the reduction in birth rate could have been a trait later. The reduction in birth rate could have helped a group of ancestors of all these rodents survive geographically isolated from the rest of their species. Then when the others had starved off, the now predominant individuals could have had sway in their ecosystem.

I agree that my suggestions above are conjecture, but so is your simple conclusion.

You act as if the reduction in birth rate is a complete stopping of the birth of all lemmings. None of the papers and articles that you provided say anything like that. In fact they point out that the birth rate reduces below the losses due to predation, sickness and the like; it doesn't stop.

Do you have a problem with Darwin's many explanations?
All mice and lemmings are born from the coupling of their parents.

Now what form of competition are you talking about? Darwin never claimed this. Darwin never said just living any old ordinary easy life would lead to evolution. He always maintained just the opposite.
Nothing has led me to believe it ever was there to begin with.
I didn't accuse you. I asked you your position. You equated this with "slamming".

Speaking of clarifying, are you switching now to one of LindaLou's NeoLamarchist models? Struggle is a key ingredient of Darwin's model. "Survival of the fittest" doesn't mean survival of everyone else too.

In what way does aggression help matters? I don't see that it has any impact on the price of tea in China.
Isolated groups have even less space at their disposal. This would make the problem worse because they'd overpopulate more quickly. Invoking evoluck, shorter cycles would wipe the trait out that much faster.

Self-regulation isn't restricted to lemmings. It's been observed in tons of animals and plants. Some are known to slow down, and some are known to stop reproduction altogether.

But even a slowdown is a "competitive disadvantage". Natural selection is supposed to quickly and efficiently rid the population of such specimens.

Darwin is not considered an inerrant god - do tell


That is so funny, ha no kidding. How true.

Self-regulation, unnatural selection, again, never though of Darwinism that way but how true.

But how about this...

There was a day, 75-100 years ago for instance, when some people willingly bought into these ideas, some abhorred them, and some people unfortunately were the unwilling victims of the idea of (un)natural selection, or plainly, population control as far as humans are concerned.

By now though things have changed, we hope at least, for the better. Christian parents educate their kids about darwinian and evolution rhetoric, much of the public is aware and angry about past 'experimental' population control programs, including even Auswich-Birkeneau and Treblenka in there, and of course there are those who march on proclaiming pro-abortion and self-regulation.

But population control is not a requirement, at least in free countries, so things like abortion and sterilization are a choice. I truly do not fully comprehend every aspect of the pro-life side/ i am on the pro-life side, I would never teach abortion as right and proper to anyone. but do not believe abortion should be made illegal over the age of 18 in this social climate. I do consider it murder, life is sacred, but... I have no issue whatsoever with virulent supporters of evolution and abortion practicng self-regulation on their own populations and families. If they feel so strongly about these issues, by all means they should practice what they preach. Perhaps there is a weakness in their genes which causes them to think as they do, but eventually they will more or less eliminate themsleves in the process of doing what they believe is best for themselves and thus survival of the fittest will be accomplished.

God, in the bible , never told his people to rush to the cities of the worshippers of Molech and stop them from their infanticides. He told them only, do not do as they do.

I do have great difficulty with the deceitful practice of teaching these types of social darwinian ideas in places like public schools, especially without a balanced discussion of options, and especially especially without parental consent. But as long as we maintain legal organizations to pursue the infringment of parental rights or deceitful coercsion of individuals, things should go exactly as the proabortionists plan and, as has been happening steadily as the years go by, they become a smaller and smaller minority and the world is a better place to live in because of less strife.

<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/cauyfkghsw.jpg">

Linda, your own posts are cumbersome. There is a lot to reply to, including more stuff you throw in on top of it.



The so-called "vestigial hind legs" are not useless at all, but appear to help/ strengthen the reproductive organs-the bones are different in males and females. Not understanding a function, should not quality as a "non functioning" vestigial organ. They are "copulary guides’ and in sperm whales act as an anchor for the muscles of the genitalia. To describe these bones, which actually carry out important functions, as ‘vestigial organs’ is nothing but Darwinistic prejudice.

Also, how do they know that these bones "were" hindlimbs in the first place? Again this is based on huge assumptions. These bones in comparison with the whale are very small. The body of a whale is immense and these bones attached to the pelvis serve functions that the evolutionist seems to be ignoring as having any other function other than being "leftovers", because they have already decided that whales were once land dwelling animals, therefore these bones must be the remnants of hindlimbs. How do they know this? If these bones were hind-limbs, then where are the front ones? Unless of course this apparent once land dwelling animals walked around on only hind legs ;-) Oh no that's right, the front legs evolved into.....flippers!!! (according to the evolutionist).

As for snakes, the so-called vestigial "hind limbs" ( little claws near the tail end). These are also used during mating. I think I have repeated this for the second time now. maybe the flippers on mammals were actually once wings. I mean why not? If legs can turn into flippers, why not wings too?

If they were legs, how is this evolution? What possible advantage could a land-dwelling animal have to lose its limbs? I thought evolution was a gaining of information, not a loss of information. Why are we not seeing this today by the way? Why are we not seeing any kind of land-dwelling animal evolving? Why is it always "well it happened in the past", the lonnnngggg distant past, the one where none of us were there to "conveniently NOT see it happen.



The whale's hearing is to a whale what eyesight is to us. I am not sure if I'd be so quick to dismiss this as having no purpose. There will be a reason why they're there and usually later, it is figured out "why". How long are evolutionists going to keep making the same old mistakes? the same ones they made with the gill slits, egg sac and all those things. Absolutely embarrassing, but also very revealing and something that should cause anybody to consider very carefully the things we are being told. Fancy calling all those things evolution in babies, when instead they were the essential part of its development.



Why do you assume that this must mean it evolved? Obviously they are different creatures and have different functions. Is it so illogical that same Creator could produce different types of creatures using many of the same biological parts and much of the same bio-chemical technology. Why would he do otherwise? once again, you are asking us to believe something you nor your superiors have never seen happen, just because it's excludes intelligent design. Name your bias, because this is exactly what this is about. It just depends which bias you want to be bias with. This isn't science Linda. Common design does not exclude any of these things. Are the boat, plane, and car related? No. They are similar because they were all designed for a similar purpose - transportation. And they all came from the mind of man - creations.



Can anybody accurately define anything??? A species to me is any group capable of interbreeding. Variations are the differences within the same kind (e.g. german shepherd dog - terrier - poodle etc). How many do I accept? I don't know how many there are. Sorry. Well for me to know how these variations occured, I would need to go right back to the beginning and have a look at all the originals. How many were created originally before breeding emphasized certain traits? How much is in the genetics to allow for such variation through breeding to occur? These are questions that I cannot conceivably answer as I wasn't there. And hate to break it to you....but neither were you ;-) Did God create the first "two" dogs with the wide range of genetic potential to allow for such variation?..... Or did evolution produce this? we can take guesses at the origins, unfortunately they remain unqualified guesses because we can't see it happen and haven't seen it happen.



They all "make do" very well as they are don't they? I would say they do very well with how they were designed. First of all, you cannot prove they descended from anything, other than the observation that they reproduce after their own kind and always have done, as far as history has been able to show us. Again, how does patterns and similarities disprove a common designer? Evolutionists love to tie us up with primates and telling us that we all evolved from a common ancestor simply because we share similarities....I guess I have to ask that according to you we share similarities to a fruit fly and a worm....what exactly did we evolve from Linda and why are there worms and fruit flies still? Why are they not evolving into anything else? The monkeys only went so far too. What stopped them from achieving further developments? We're still trying to get them to talk. parrots do much better, perhaps we are more closely related to them considering their speech capacity?



I'd be interested to find how and from where new information is added to a "simple cell" that then becomes a highly complex ordered machine/creature. Otherwise, it seems that the most simple cell is ALREADY highly complex and ordered. You want people to believe that this is the result of chance.....I don't know of anything that starts of simply and evolves. I cannot think of a thing. I mentioned earlier that the tree is the result of a seed, but the seed contains already complex information for a tree to grow from it. Without that complexity, how can anything be possible? Who or "what" puts the information there or adds the new information to the seed to tell it to grow a tree....all of this requires intelligence/purpose in the very beginning.



You need to be mindful of the fact you're doing the same thing. Anything is possible Linda, perhaps aliens dropped us off here from another planet. Whatever it is, stop calling it science. You can fit anything into your belief system, but it doesn't mean it happened. Our origins are most definitely a mystery. I believe in ultimate design. You believe in....well it seems chance/coincidence being responsible for order and incredible complexity and wonder.



Near enough to, they just add a lot of time and slowwwww development in order to make their theory sound apparently "credible". .How does a simple single cell, on it's own, develop into such a complex, highly ordered structure? From where does it get this information? Again how does time perform the miraculous? What miracles does time achieve Linda? What is it about time that for you makes a random exploxion/ process into a well functioning universe/solar system with laws? Chuck on a few billions years and have people believe anything and it works. People do. Time makes all the difference. Time to me has only shown that things grow, things age, things eventually die. But it sure doesn't do the miraculous, unless of course there is some kind of intelligent intervention involved. I can't imagine time itself is a creative intelligence.



Give me an example where a beneficial mutation has caused one kind of creature to evolve into another? Where do we observe this? And how does a muck up / loss of information prove that all things evolved from simple celled organisms? I can't find anything in what you are throwing at me, here, and there is a heck of a lot of it, that tells me that intelligence or design is not responsible. Mutations or not, it does not prove one kind becoming something else.



Actually, you did a pretty good job of getting OFF the point of that thread. This is a debate forum, therefore expect to have your theories questioned/challenged. I'm not claiming victory for anything, only God can do that. It's His handiwork afterall.

"Vestigial" does not mean "useless". It is a descriptor used in identifying parts that no longer perform their original function. The bones that evolutionists claim were parts of legs in ancestors of whales are identified by their similarity to the leg and hip bones of land animals. Coupling that with the fossil lineage of the whales that shows the changes through generations, evolutionists categorize those bones as vestigial.


So you are saying that evolutionists looked at whales, then determined that they must have been land animals once, as just a guess? What did they do...flip a coin? I guess the coin didn't flip in favor of fish.
Anyway, according to your conjecture, after randomly choosing whales as former land animals, evolutionist paleontologists happened to find fossils with all the attributes of whales except they had small legs. Then in an earlier period in the fossil record, they just happened to find another fossil with all the attributes of the whale except a slightly smaller head and bigger legs than the previous fossil. They just happened to keep finding fossils that, as the age of the fossils was greater, the legs were bigger, the flippers were less like flippers, the hip bones were more like a hip....etc.
Strangely, fossils that look similar to modern fish but with a few changes, never show a change toward previously having legs. No matter how far back they look, paleontologists only find that animals with similarities to fish are only simpler fish.

I guess that coin flip was lucky for the evolutionists, otherwise they wouldn't have been able to find fossils that they could pretend are ancestors of a sea creature that they wanted to say was formerly a land creature.

Because the whale predecessor fossils don't show wings, then flippers. However, you can look at penguin ancestry if you are interested in wings to flippers evolution.

Evolution is not some kind of pathway to the stars. It is a change in organisms that may or may not meet a particular survival need. If the change meets a survival need, then the species evolves. If it does not meet survival needs then that species dies out...extinction.
Who says it is not happening now? Creatures have been changed in our lifetime. Dog breeds are evolution. Yes it is directed by man and forced to occur more rapidly than in nature. However, the breeding of dogs to make a cairn terrier that can go into gopher holes shows that animals have the capability to change and become better than others of its species at obtaining a food source. If man can change animal populations, why can't changes in the environment cause changes in the animal populations?



Common design does not account for the same changes caused by endogenous retroviruses in animals that are related to each other. Quick explanation:
1. Viruses multiply by taking over a cell in a host organism and inserting it's RNA into the DNA of the cell.
2. The cell then tries to divide by copying its own DNA, but that DNA has the virus RNA in it so that is copied too.
3. Instead of the cell dividing, the virus is copied and the cell dies.
4. When the virus inserts its RNA, it is placed in a random location on the cell's DNA. Because of the randomness, sometimes the replication of the virus does not happen and the DNA of that cell is simply changed. This is somewhat rare.
5. Sometimes the cell affected is a sperm or egg cell. This is also rare and it causes the copy of the virus RNA to remain in the progeny of that sperm or egg cell. This can be detected by looking at the DNA of an animal and seeing where the virus RNA is. The virus RNA left in the animal's DNA is called an endogenous retrovirus.
6. Since the location of the retrovirus on the DNA string is random, plus the infection of a reproductive cell (sperm or egg) is rare, it is unlikely that 2 unrelated species would have retrovirus RNA in the same place in their DNA.
7. However, the same retrovirus RNA has been found in the same location on the DNA strings of bovines (cows) and whales. Not only that, but multiple retrovirus RNA strings have been shown to match up between bovines and whales, less so between bats and whales, and even less so (but still some!) between whales and horses.
8. The retrovirus RNA commonality of this order is not shown between whales and fish, or whales and birds.

So what do you think caused this retrovirus commonality between whales, cows, bats and horses? Do you think God just put these RNA strings in the DNA for reasons of His own when he created these creatures (and all the extinct creatures we see in the fossil record) during creation week 6000 years ago?

Since God randomly put in those RNA strings, do you also think that when evolutionists did that coin flip to decide which sea creature they would say had land animal ancestors, they just happened to get lucky that whales had endogenous retrovirus RNA that matched these land creatures so closely?

Maybe God affected the coin flip so these guys wouldn't look so foolish when they presented their "Big Joke" to the world. But why would He do that?

Maybe it was just one lucky coin flip.

Maybe all that, Linear, without quoting all that you said above, is simply a result of whales being mammals, like dolphins, like cows. Hard to say what God may or may not have done, when and for what reasons, I am quite reluctant to say I have all the answers myself just to try to make creation look good. This one gets relegated to the 'don't know really' pile, for me. But don't know which really is the only true answer, and is not evidence of evolution either. It is just as possible God gave them the ability to transverse short spans of land and they simply are not adapted to that at the moment, but maybe could be again someday. On the other hand, since lots of creatures were bigger thousands of years ago, shrinking or growing parts is kind of meaningless. Could just indicate longer lifespans even. Old whales are BIG whales. Any fish really. Do fish ever stop growing? There are some really big catfish in the Mississippi river. Big enough to eat you, really. And giant squid...

There are catfish that can walk, walk across roads, to get to a channel of water on the other side. A bit of a hazard in parts of Miami. But catfish are not mammals to the best of my knowledge.They have gills only. A dolphin, or whale, can survive out of water, as long as it's skin stays moist. They transport them to aquariums in helicopters from time to time, no tank needed, just a spray bottle.

Maybe a better question is... WHAT'S THIS?

Mystery Creature In Utah Baffles Biologists
http://www.local6.com/slideshow/news/15791230/detail.html

I read in the accompanying article, they say... 'ummm, maybe it's a trout of some sort...' hardly I'd say, that is definitely not a trout. If trout had jawlines like that and fangs that long, no one would let their kid fish for them. Does not resemble a trout at all. I know trout! Looks more like a short cobra than a trout to me.

There are a lot of strange creatures on this earth no one has ever been able to explain, they are popping up all the time. maybe we should start a strange creatures thread.

Aside from you telling me that you don't know the answer, I really am not following what you are saying. However, I will try to address some parts.

"I don't know" is not evidence for evolution. True, but I wasn't addressing "I don't know". I was pointing out fossil and genetic evidence that seems to support evolution.

Whales are not fish.

The Blue Whale is the biggest animal that has ever existed on Earth.

Some fish grow all their lives, some don't. Whales don't

This does not have anything to do with fossils that have the characteristics of whales except they have legs. Unless, you are saying that God put legs on them in the past (for walking, short distances?) and took them back off later.

Whales breathe in air. They don't have gills so they don't need water in order to breathe. If they stay underwater too long they drown. What does this have to do with whales evolving from land mammals?

Why is this a better question in regard to evidence for or against evolution?

And how is the "original function" determined? By assuming they evolved. This is another example of circular reasoning.

Unwilling or unable to identify the assumption.

I notice that neither definition of "vestigial" is useful. One relies upon circular reasoning and the other upon ignorance (& hope of the perpetuation of ignorance).
Really? According to whom? LinearAQ, talkdeceptions, AIG?

How do they know that anyway? there are some really big really old whales out there according to stuff I've read over the years. They are mostly just guessing at the ages. I mean really, who was tracking blue whales 75 years ago?



I'd say, nothing... they can survive as both still, given eitther a watery or nice misty atmosphere. No proof of evolution there at all, why do you ask?




It's an I don't know. A blatant i don't know. there are lots of anomolies out there. How you catagorize life forms without even having a full description of them all is, ummm,... a better question still.

Good thing the skin was still on it is all I have to say or some evo biologist somewhere would have wasted 10 years and millions of taxpayer dollars trying to prove it was an ancient trout.

fruit flies anyone? you know they are spending $200,000 this year just on fruit fly research or was it 2,000,000. A nice cushy job for some politically proper evo that needs one. Good for the national debt... while they bicker about how much more to raise taxes next year you figure how how to pay the mortgage with whats left. Well we won't be the first society that was brought to ruin by it's leadership and their toys. Hungry civilians are a good cheap labor source. I do have that figured out anyway, and it's not theory.

In other words, they are now useless to the creature, because they do not serve them in anyway right? A similarity to leg/hip bones does not mean they were hindlimbs, if it's there it serves a function and it most certainly does serve a vital function towards reproduction. I've repeated this now for the third time. What lineage of whales? There isn't one, just the evolutionary wish list.

The whale has many incredibly complex mechanisms that makes it vastly different than land-dwelling mammals. For example, whales have a huge chamber of sperm oil that allows adjustment of buoyancy at different depths, and are equipped with features that allow them to withstand the enormous amount of pressure they encounter at great depths. Their eyes have a far higher refractive index to allow them to see in water, and their ears can pick up airborne sound waves under high pressure. Whales also possess very complex sonar capability.




I'd like to see photographic fossil evidence of these stages. The flippers being less like flippers, etc, and the gradual evidence for the transition from land dwelling creature to the mammals we see today. There are variations within kinds that my have bigger or smaller aspects of their anatomy....that's not evolution. Using other variations or other creatures that existed and pinning "earlier ancestors in transition" on them is not proof for evolution. Coin tossing? Just wishful thinking and lots of assumptions. You must be able to prove that the fossils are definitely transitional forms of earlier whales, rather than other kinds of creatures or variations.

If evolution were true, the fossil record should be inundated with evidence of transitional forms. Yet there is not even a "single" example. And now you're onto penguin evolution when you haven't even provided proof for the whale. I don't accept animated pictures as proof for anything.



This is not evolution. If you really want to use the word - micro evolution, then I guess you can but guess what? The dogs didn't become anything else, they stayed dogs. What is the evolutionist to do? Not even intentional breeding can make a dog a "non dog", yet he/she wants us to believe that nature can do it all by itself. Why are you asking me questions? Evolution should have provided the proof without question. Changes in the environment? What changes in the environment have caused one kind of animal becoming an entirely new species over time? We know that animals develop thicker coats, but I've not yet seen any animal changing into something else as a result of the environment. Again, no evolution here. Variation/breeding is not one kind becoming something else given lots of time and chance.



I do not know enough about viruses to comment on your list here Linear, perhaps someone more familiar with this can? I'd still like to know how one kind of animal has become another kind of animal and I'd like to SEE proof of the entire transitional stages.

If you want to side-track me onto viruses and all those things, it's pointless. You should be able to give solid evidence that one kind of animal has become an entirely new kind of animal. Not just tell me "well it's possible because of this" or "how do you explain this?" We've already been told it's happened, why are you resorting to stuff to explain that is might be possible if it's already "apparently" taken place? you don't need to resort to the virus stuff, just give plain evidence and visual proof of one kind of animal becoming something else. Very simple.


<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/fevuilrhio.jpg">

"This water's kinda cold, but I sure would like to be a sea creature. Maybe I'll find Atlantis"

<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/lzklemkvvo.jpg">

Poor wolf, foiled again! This aquatic lifestyle just doesn't seem to want to take hold. Time to go back to the Designer and demand swimming and scuba lessons!

No they are useless as legs. They may still retain some other function.
The evolutionary wish list denied by you ishereandhere

Well, you could look into the links above and the links referenced by them and you might get photographs of all the skeletons found so far. However, I doubt that you will believe these paleontologists are telling the truth, because you already said it is a lot of bull.....

Ok...I'll show you a transitional if you tell me what a "true" transitional is supposed to look like. You can use the "supposed" whale evolutionary tree as your basis for deciding what the transitional should look like.

So how different does it have to become before you would declare it is no longer "micro" evolution. How far away from the original wolf (where dogs came from) should the progeny be before you say that it is not wolf anymore? What is the dividing line? Is it toy poodle, mastiff or terrier? How about one that looks like a cat?

When does "micro" become "macro"? You'll have to tell me where the demarcation point is because neither of those terms are used to describe evolution since almost all changes are small. They just add up to big changes over time.

You will see that when you can tell me when you would call it another kind of animal.

Those whale "drawings" are from the fossils of animals that were dug up by paleontologists. Some of the middle ones were dug up because these paleontologists predicted approximately what level in the fossil record they should be found. Amazingly, they found them in the layers of rock that it was predicted that they would be found. According to you these guys are just making this stuff up and are a bunch of liars. So they shouldn't have been able to find anything, much less find a fossil that matched their prediction.


1. There is no such thing as scientific proof, only evidence in favor of or in refutation of a particular theory.
2. Do a little research before you discount the theory. I got you a few links on whales that lead to other links. I looked into 7-day creation for quite some time, finding almost no supportive scientific evidence, before abandoning it.

Um yep, you're right! Never seen a whale walk on water! But these bones aren’t even vestigial as mentioned previously time and time again. These “pelvises” are different in the males and females and play an important role in sexual reproduction, why do you fail to acknowledge this? There’s probably nothing more important to the whale’s ongoing survival!

Example of so-called vestigal organs:

Tonsils - which supply phagocytes to the mouth and pharynx to destroy certain harmful bacteria.

Parathyroid glands - which regulate the calcium and phosphate balance in the plasma.

Appendix - which plays a part in the control of intestinal flora and fights disease in the intestinal tract.

Thymus gland - studies show that it confers antibody producing capacity to the lymphoid tissue during the early portion of life.

Coccyx bone - which serves as an attachment to the sphincter anal externus muscle which is used in eliminating waste from the large intestine.

This should give people just a wee example of what evolutionists have attempted put across as "useless" (or leftovers). I already gave the example of the human embryo and all the bollocks that surrounded that too and this is usually ignored or "overlooked", and then they wonder why we're not suckered into more of the same <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/looney.gif" alt="" />

Thanks for the charts in the links, but evolutionists have already been caught adding/subtracting or exaggerating certain aspects to fit in with their theory or placing fossils together as transitional forms, when they really do not know if they are or not. We know crocs do well in water and land....does this make them a transitional form? Are they in the middle of becoming a complete land dwelling creature or sea mammal? I very much doubt it, they've been this way since we've known about them. But the evolutionist would have us believe differently and no doubt would have us believe they are on their way to becoming something else. Funnily enough, whatever it is that a creature does, whether in water, on land, or dwells in both, they seem to do just fine as they are. One wonders why the evolutionist can never accept any creature for being what it is....common ancestors are one thing, but evolution? One kind evolving into a completely different creature? How can any amount of time produce that? What is it about time that is magical to the evolutionist I wonder?



Micro evolution is something we observe. Macro evolution is not. I think it's obvious Linear, no matter how different the breed of dog is, they can interbreed (as long as there is not ludicrous size difference) and they are still obviously dogs. A child can tell a dog very easily, just ask one to point it out. Any kind of dog will do, kids do very well. They don't tend to get confused like adults. The changes are small, they don't "add up" to anything because dogs stay dogs. It is simply variation differences, not one kind of animal becoming something else. Evolution preaches that things are continually evolving/improving and one kind of animal can become something else. We have simply not observed this to be the case. Dogs bark, cats meow......and you want me to show you the the demarcation point?
(cat)<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/garfield.gif" alt="" /> <------- <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shiftyeyes.gif" alt="" /> ------> (dog) <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/snoopy.jpg" alt="" /> if I come up with a dat or a cog, I'll let you know. Though you can ponder about Goofy if you want, he wears a hat and drives a car.



Even if you get a dog to look like a cat (can you give me an example of one by the way?), is it becoming a cat simply because it's been bred to have external characteristics that resemble one? Try interbreeding the two! See what happens. Let me know if achieve success.

Wolves and dog can interbreed and produce fertile off-spring. Wolves can be crossed with any breed of dog. The most common hybrids are wolf bred with malamute, husky, or German shepherd. Although wolf hybrids can occur naturally in the wild, this happens very infrequently due to the territorial nature of the wolf. Most hybrids are the result of deliberate breeding in captivity. This is not evolution, this is cross breeding between very closely related animals.

e.g. Dogote, the result of breeding a male domestic dog with a female Coyote. This particular cross is a German Shepherd / north western Coyote from northern Washington state near the border of B.C.

Coydog, the result of breeding any domesticated female dog breeds with a male Coyote. This particular cross is a Coyote / Irish Setter.

Coywolf, the result of breeding a Wolf with a Coyote. This particular cross is a Coyote / Red Wolf.

Wolfdog, the result of breeding domesticated dogs with wolves. This particular cross is a Gray Wolf / Alaskan Malamute cross.

I think it would be very hard to say how much it's now a wolf, as opposed to how much is dog. So many mixtures of dogs in themselves, let alone breeding wolves and dogs together. This is not evolution. It's a no brainer to see how closely related the wolf and the dog are, and the fact they can successfully interbreed and produce offspring is a testament to that fact. The only issues with this would be size related as I mentioned. Through breeding dogs down to a tiny size, or a huge size. What you are talking about is not evolution though. No kind has miraculously, through time and chance, just started to become something else. Everything you are talking about here is related to breeding. As I mentioned, you can breed lions and tigers together too, though usually there is a problem with sterile offspring.

Where is this magical force of evolution that causes these animals to spontaneously start evolving into another kind of animal? You can't even breed them into another kind of animal, let alone wait for it to happen on its own.



Does man know the mind of God? How on earth can man possibly fully comprehend omnipotence? Are you aware that we as humans are limited and God is not? If God could do any of this at all, what makes you think He's restricted by anything? Do you think God is restricted by His own laws? His own creation? Time? He's outside of it all, He owns it all, He's above it all. He could have done it in 7 hours if He wanted to. Everything is in subjection to Him. So no, you cannot possibly understand the mind or ways of God, nobody can. This is why we call Him "God". Limitless! Timeless! Beyond our comprehension.

But you won't hear me preaching it as science, because number 1, I'm not a scientist, 2 I am a limited human being, 3 I believe it by faith and 4 evolution fails to explain the intricate balance and wonders/laws of the universe, solar system and the life on earth, vast wonders, impossible for the limited mind of man to fully comprehend or explain. I have no problems believing in a creator being. None whatsoever. I find, if anything, that the miracle of life itself and what I see around me remind me of the mind behind it all.

ves·tig·i·al (from dictionary.com)
1. Of, relating to, or constituting a vestige.
2. Biology Occurring or persisting as a rudimentary or degenerate structure.

Hmmm, I guess it doesn't mean useless, just like I said before.

You, of course, can find quotes from biologists that say these organs are useless? And since vestigial means rudimentary or reduced, the coccyx bone is a vestigial tail, even though it has other uses.

What? The Hackel stuff? That was declared incorrect by evolutionist biologists back when Hackel was still alive. But, of course, if one evolutionist tries to perpetrate a fraud then all of us must be frauds. It's a good thing that type of categorization only works for evolutionists. I would hate to think of the problems Christianity would have if all Christians' reputations depended upon the actions of a few like Haggard, Phelps, and Swaggart.

Right, I forgot that all evolutionists are liars and frauds. I don't recall calling you a liar or a fraud. Why do you want to paint me with that brush?

That's because all organisms are transitionals. Crocs are on their way to something else. They have changed some since we've known about them. If you look at croc fossils you can see that even though they are very much the same as now, there are differences.

Small changes occur in species over time. If the environment around that species changes then the changes in the population that help the species in the new environment become more dominant. Small changes over small time eventually lead to big changes over big time. It's like walking. Even if you only walked one mile a day, in 6 years you would have walked across the country.

Will a mastiff breed with a toy poodle if not helped by some kind of artificial method? Since they would not naturally breed, does this make them different species?
If you ask a child to point to a dog and you only provide a coyote and a pug to choose from, will the child point to the coyote or the pug? Is a coyote a dog? So much for the taxonomic skills of children.

Things evolve, they don't necessarily improve. The surviving species fit better in the environment.

How about this?

Breeding between different species is not something that would happen in nature, I'll grant you that. So it is not part of the theory of a common ancestor for all life.
Why isn't it evolution to select certain traits and only allow breeding between animals that exhibit those traits? Do you think that someone just bred 2 random dogs and got a toy poodle? That breeding took years and decades of selection by the breeder. Just because the traits were decided upon by a human, you decide it is not evolution? It's not natural selection but it is change in the allele frequency in a population of organisms so it is artificial evolution.

The magical force is the environment (food, predators, opposite sex of their own species, natural disasters....etc) and its selection of which organisms will live long enough to pass their genes to the next generation.

You're right. God could have done it in 7 seconds at 10 am last Thursday. Why don't you believe that? Is it because the evidence you agree with says that He did it 6000 years ago? So you use some evidence, the Bible, to say God didn't make the universe last Thursday. I use more evidence to say that God made the universe around 13 billion years ago and the Earth around 4.6 billion years ago. According to you, your God that can do anything, cannot do that. Why not?

You seem to think that I don't believe in God, because I believe the evidence points to an old Earth and evolution. I have no problem believing in a God that designed a universe with physical laws that guaranteed humans would result from that design. He's a very clever God who could see the end that came from his 13 billion year design.

Another reason you won't preach it as science is because you can't show evidence that it is true. I can't show evidence of God's hand in evolution so His involvement shouldn't be preached as science. Only the mechanism of evolution, and the evidence that supports the theory can be taught as science. Science cannot be about what people believe unless they can support those conclusions with the available evidence.

If 7-day creation as written in Genesis can better explain the evidence than the theory of evolution, then put forth the explanation, show how it better explains the evidence in the taxonomy, genetics and fossil record, and go claim your Nobel Prize for overturning a key theory in the biological sciences.

“Elements appearing in various life forms which, although often quite underdeveloped, are no longer needed or functional and represent a carry-over from more primitive forms. The human appendix is an example. (Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition, edited by Douglas M. Considine, page 2281).

Hmm, looks like I wasn't "half wrong" <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />. Near enough to useless as I've said before! You've stated these bones no longer serve their original function...which is assuming you know what these bones were, what their original function was and this is a "fact".



Now that you realise that these bones may actually serve a function (and a very important one at that), you are back-peddling and covering yourself as much as possible. Is this quote here near enough to what you believe? ---->

However, If these bones are not attached to the backbone, what holds them in place? Bones are normally anchor points for skeletal muscle. What muscles, if any, attach to these bones?

[b]Ask a cetologist [/b]

Here is a letter from Jim Pamplin to the Curator of Marine Mammals at the Smithsonian Institute:

What muscles are attached to the "pelvic" bones of whales? What are such muscles attached to at their other end? What function do the muscles serve? Are they used for reproduction?
Thank you in advance for any information and sources you might be able to share.

Sincerely,

Jim Pamplin

On June 10, 2003 I received the following reply from:

Phillip J. Clapham, Ph.D.,
Large Whale Biology Program
Northeast Fisheries Science Center
166 Water Street
Woods Hole, MA 025434, U.S.A.

tel. 508 495-2316
fax 508 495-2066
email: [Email]pclapham@whsun1.wh.whoi.edu">pclapham@whsun1.wh.whoi.edu</a>

Hi
I'm forwarding this to an anatomy expert, Jim Mead at Smithsonian...
Phil Clapham

Wednesday, June 11, 2003, I received the following reply from:

James G. Mead, Ph.D.
Curator of Marine Mammals, MRC 108
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution
P.O. Box 37012
Washington, DC 20013-7012
mead.james@nmnh.si.edu
(202) 357-1923
(202) 786-2979 fax


The pelvic bones of whales serve as attachments for the musculature associated with the penis in males and its homologue, the clitoris, in females. The muscle involved is known as the ischiocavernosus and is quite a powerful muscle in males. It serves as a retractor muscle for the penis in copulation and probably provides the base for lateral movements of the penis. The mechanisms of penile motion are not well understood in whales. The penis seems to be capable of a lot of independent motion, much like the trunk of an elephant. How much of this is mediated by the ischiocavernosus is not known.

In females the anatomical parts are smaller and more diffuse. I would imagine that there is something homologous to the perineal muscles in man and tetrapods, which affect the entire pelvic area - the clitoris, vagina and anus.

The pelvic rudiments also serve as origins for the ischiocaudalis muscle, which is a ventral muscle that inserts on the tips of the chevron bones of the spinal column and acts to flex the tail in normal locomotion.

The only anatomical works on the pelvis that I known of are in large whales and as follows:

Abel, Othenio 1908 Die Morpholgie der Huftbeinrudimente der Cetaceen. Denkshriften - Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenshaften, Mathematisch - Naturwissenshaftliche Klasse, Wein, 81:139-195.

Arvy, L. 1976 Some Critical Remarks on the Subject of the Cetacean 'Girdles'. Investigations on Cetacea, 7:179 -186,

Avry, L. 1979 The Abdominal Bones of Cetaceans. Investigations on Catacea, 10:215-227.

Hosakawa, H. 1951 On the pelvic cartilages of the Balaenoptera-foetuses, with remarks on the specifical and sexual difference. Scientific Reports of the Whales Research Institute, 5:5-15.

Howell, A. B. 1930 Aquatic Mammals. Charles C Thomas, Publisher, Baltimore, xii + 338 pp. [p. 302 - 309 deal with the pelvic limb in cetacea].

Lonnberg, E. 1910 The pelvic bones of some cetacea. Arkiv fo"r Zoologi, 7(10) :1-15.

Schulte, H. von W. 1916 Anatomy of a fetus of Balaenoptera borealis. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History, new series, 1 (6) : 389-502, pls xliii-lvii.

Struthers, J. 1881 On the bones, articulations and muscles of the rudimentary hind-limb of the Greenland right-whale (Balaena mysticetus). Journal of Anatomy and physiology, 5:141-176 (bones and joints), 301-321 (muscles), pls. XIV-XVII.

Struthers, J. 1889 Memoir on the anatomy of the humback whale Megatera longimana. Maclachlan and Stewart, Edinburgh, [iv] + 188 = [1], 6 pls. Reprinted from the Jouranl of Anatomy and Physiology, 1887-89.

Turner, W. 1870 On the sternum and ossa innominata of the Longniddry whale. Journal of Anatomy and Physiology, 4:271, ill.


Washington, DC 20013-7012
mead.james@nmnh.si.edu
(202) 357-1923
(202) 786-2979 fax

Bottom line is: Not only do the “pelvic" bones serve a very useful purpose in reproduction, but they also function as anchor points for muscles used in swimming.

So much for vestigial bones in whales!!


They are there for SPECIFIC purposes, not some vestigial leftover function and they are vital to the whale's way of life and reproduction.



I think the above should be more than enough for now <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />. The coccyx bone was a tail? Oh yes, where is the fossil evidence that we had tails? The coccyx serves as a point of insertion for several muscles and ligaments including the gluteus maximus and many functions that come from this (need I go into details, this has been repeated before also). The fact they think it was a tail, once again is based on mere assumptions, not fact. The coccyx is just the end point of the tail bone.....at what point do you think it ought to end to have not once been a tail, could you have designed it better? Have yours removed Linear and then see how it feels to sit and perform certain functions <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> It's there for a reason, it ends at the right place, it's designed that way.



Yeah it seems so ludicrous doesn't it? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> The fact they all accepted it as fact and had it in science textbooks for years and guess what? Apparently, it's still turning up. This makes sense, one young guy I debated awhile back started giving me examples of embryo evolution based on Hackels' fraudulent drawings. So it's not a problem when stuff like this gets preached and written as a scientific fact and kept there for as long as possible before they decide to do anything about it? These things were totally fictitious and had nothing to do with honest science or even anatomy, yet somehow it got through to science textbooks, how does this happen Linear? What kind of people are screening these things and allowing fiction to be passed off as fact? I don't see the other vestigal examples today as being any different. Just more of the same. You're just more willing to buy into it than I am, no different from those in Hackel's day.



I think a great deal of denial, assumptions and wishful thinking is involved yes. And they have certainly been caught in the past with hoaxes/lies. Track record is far from reliable. Are you calling me a liar and a fraud, because I believe in 7 day creation? should I assume that you imply this because you do not agree with my beliefs and instead challenge them? Then please stop putting words in people's mouths on here.



So....croc fossils are very much the same as now....but there are differences? What are those differences? Are they just the same types of variations we see in every kind of animal today? Where is the transitional forms showing crocs becoming something else? Sounds to me like they were always crocs and <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> looks like they still are! I seem to recall, and I hope I can find this somewhere. A recent article of a rat that was found (fossilised of course) and how the evolutionists were quite excited by this and passed it off as a transitional earlier form....until they found out the very same kind of rat was being sold in pet shops. If I find the article, I'll be sure to put out all the facts <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />



Time is not going to make one kind of animal into another. Changes in environment don't make one kind of animal into another. Thicker coats go back to being thin again as the weather changes from cold to warm. This is not one kind of animal becoming something else. Breeding can only create variants, so far nothing has shown macro evolution. No amount of walking will change me into another kind of being. Even if I tone my body, if I cease exercise, my body goes back to being untoned. None of these things equal evolution of one kind of being into another kind. Such a comparison doesn't make sense linear. I decide to walk by using my legs.....If I had evoluton on my side, I'd evolve flippers and swim across the ocean to get their faster, or perhaps evolve wings and fly. Funny, no matter how much walking one does, or how slow and frustrating, nobody evolves wheels or anything else to get their quicker. We have to design ways of doing that! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />



Good luck to the Mastiff, thanks to the breeding, the toy poodle is now too small for him/her to have a successful coupling. I'm sure the toy poodle aint too chuffed either, but he/she can probably go and find a terrier some where and do just fine. Size difference can be a problem in any kind. Humans are lucky, we have ways of bridging those gaps. We create ways around it if it poses a problem. Nope, no evolution there. Just variation through breeding. Kids don't usually have problems pointing out any dogs once they know what one looks like. Most dogs pant and bark, be it a deeper or yappier bark, they're all dogs. It doesn't seem to matter which way you try and word your arguments, you can never really get passed the fact you can't prove that these animals evolved at all, let alone evolved through nature. But keep trying!



Let me know when evolution does this, I've not seen it happen yet. I've only seen the results of deliberate breeding and some of those results can be (at least in my eyes) pretty bad and rather sad at times. I think they get further and further away from the original and this can create problems. It's people who interfere to develop and exaggerate certain traits and often to a rather ludicrous degree. If you want to believe that evolution could do this, by all means you're free to believe that.



I believe what the God of the bible has pointed out. If He said it was 7 seconds, I'd have no problem with it, because I believe by faith and believe He's omnipotent. But He said it was a 7 day week (6 days of creation, and He rested on the 7th day). Setting us an example and it has been observed ever since. I cannot be sure how long ago it happened, but following back through each generation, some have have worked out that it appears to be around 6000 years ago (or up to 10,000). God can do anything Linear, if He wanted to evolve the world and use billions of years, that's His perogative, but the bible does not even SUGGEST this. In fact, the opposite! You can try all you want to reconcile the two, but I'm afraid that both beliefs are in total opposition. I believe it both by faith, but also what I observe around me that I feel fits in with the bible. I am in no way obliged to believe in evolution, neither biblically nor scientifically, even if you think I should.<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/taz.gif" alt="" /> And please, once again, can you quit putting words in my mouth?



I wouldn't preach anything as science, unless I could prove beyond doubt that it was and is a fact. Evolutionists do it anyway! Your arguments and comments here are leaning towards being theological and emotional, rather than scientific. You seem to be attempting to fit any "idea" of God into your belief system (If He exists right?) - rather than understanding how others have no problems accepting Him at His word. Is this because of your un-dying faith in evolution and those that propose it? (Man's ideas of how the entire universe came into being). You believe it's science, knock yourself out. Don't expect me to do the same.

I am not interested in claiming any nobel prize for anything are you? I'm just on a debate forum challenging the evolution idea of how everything came into being.

No that is not what I believe. Since I never said anything of the sort, I can't see why you think I do believe that.

What!!!? All of your quotes from above show that the biologists say the pelvic bones in a whale have a function. I asked you to quote from a biologist who said the HUMAN ORGANS you mentioned DID NOT have a function. So, I guess you still have to answer the question.


Those muscles that attach to the coccyx are the same ones that attach to the tail in mammals with tails.

Some humans are born with tails due to a protein mix up during development. Some of those tails even have extra vertebrae.

Show me a current science book that says Hackel's hypothesis is true.


A person's incorrect statements are the reason we should teach what science has accepted. You blame the science teaching evolution and even say that the science teachers are teaching debunked information as true based on your conversation with one knucklehead? Does this even make sense? If one person in your congregation stated to me that Christ and Paul were the same person, should I automatically assume that your church teaches that?



Quote from Bex:
Clearly, implying that all evolutionist falsify information. Perhaps I incorrectly took that to mean you thought all evolutionists were deceitful.

I don't think you are a liar for believing in 7-day creation....just incorrect.

You have not defined the point at which micro becomes macro so your statement that "nothing has shown macro evolution" is nonsensical. How can I show you something when I don't know your definition for it? The theory of evolution does not include the term "macroevolution". It is a creationist term that came about when speciation was shown to occur. BTW: If you could define "kind", it might be helpful also.


I am going to assume that you are being facetious and don't actually believe the theory of evolution teaches that individual organisms evolve.


Yet the kid would probably point to the coyote unless he had been taught what a pug was and what a coyote was.
The question was: Are the Mastiff and the Toy Poodle the same species even though they cannot naturally breed? If you didn't have the knowledge that they were both dogs and saw them in the wild, would you say they were the same species? What about the kid...would he say they were the same?
What about birds? Would the kid say they were the same if he saw a turkey and a robin? What about a robin and a starling?
The taxonomic grouping of animals is not so easy as you declare it is.


Do you accept the idea of trees anointing a king of trees?
Judges 9:8 - 15:

Nothing in the preceding or following verses state that this is just a story. What allows you to declare it is not a true rendering of what the trees did? This is a serious question because you are declaring that you believe the literal Bible. How do you determine which parts are literally true that you can believe actually took place?