Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Qur'anic studies today
Today at 08:29 PM

مدهش----- لماذا؟؟؟؟
Today at 02:47 PM

NayaPakistan...New Pakist...
Yesterday at 08:51 PM

No Outsiders? Except at t...
Yesterday at 08:35 PM

Freely down loadable Boo...
Yesterday at 03:45 PM

'Islamic State' a.k.a. IS...
by zeca
October 14, 2019, 07:47 PM

Catalan protests
October 14, 2019, 06:06 PM

Excellence and uniqueness
October 14, 2019, 12:15 PM

Neo prounouns & facism
October 13, 2019, 10:35 PM

New tunisian prez
October 13, 2019, 09:24 PM

Kyrgyzstan and islamisati...
October 13, 2019, 01:36 PM

Kashmir endgame
October 12, 2019, 11:24 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: FreeSoul007 vs Prince Spinoza: theory of evolution

 (Read 12244 times)
  • 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • FreeSoul007 vs Prince Spinoza: theory of evolution
     OP - January 13, 2011, 04:32 AM

    Right iv created this topic to have a one on one debate with Prince Spinoza on the theory of evolution. Reason i created this topic because it was getting very messy in the chatroom, partly due to people butting in, it becomes a 10 on 1 on showdown which is a distraction and you can't keep up with them all.

    I request to the admins to ban everyone from participating in this debate apart from Prince Spinoza, am sure he can handle himself well  whistling2 

    Note: It might take me between a day to a whole week in replying to Prince Spinoza due to my busy lifestyle. Am self-employed and also have a social life...far far away from the internet Wink Even when i am on the net, alot of stuff i do on the net is worked related and i really don't need to waste 15/30 min's to reply to someone when i got more important stuff to do.

    So however long it is i don't reply, don't think i have run away from the debate.....Patience is a Virtue.

    Debate with Class.
  • Re: FreeSoul007 vs Prince Spinoza: theory of evolution
     Reply #1 - January 13, 2011, 04:40 AM

    It would help the discussion if you presented an argument.
  • Re: FreeSoul007 vs Prince Spinoza: theory of evolution
     Reply #2 - January 13, 2011, 04:43 AM

    Present it, carry on from the chatroom.

    Obviously give us evidence that we have evolved from the Ape's.
  • Re: FreeSoul007 vs Prince Spinoza: theory of evolution
     Reply #3 - January 13, 2011, 04:47 AM

    Oh god. Roll Eyes

    Start here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

    I look forward to your refutations.

    I'm curious, what is your understanding of evolution?
  • Re: FreeSoul007 vs Prince Spinoza: theory of evolution
     Reply #4 - January 13, 2011, 04:49 AM

    And I'd like to see your arguments for intelligent design.  Afro
  • Re: FreeSoul007 vs Prince Spinoza: theory of evolution
     Reply #5 - January 13, 2011, 04:56 AM

    Not a good start..i kid. As you are Uni student you should know that you are not allowed to use Wiki as a reference as it's not a credible source of information. Anyone can simply go on there and edit what they want.

    The CIA was even dumb enough to leave their track's behind on editing Fidel Castro wiki page.

    Also please present it on here for all of us to see and not just merely post a insignificant link.

     
  • Re: FreeSoul007 vs Prince Spinoza: theory of evolution
     Reply #6 - January 13, 2011, 05:00 AM

    I'm not presenting the page as evidence. I'm presenting the evidence referred to on that page as evidence. Smiley There are links to scientific journals.

    But yeah, what is your understanding of evolution, and why do you think it isn't true. That might be helpful...
  • Re: FreeSoul007 vs Prince Spinoza: theory of evolution
     Reply #7 - January 13, 2011, 05:03 AM

    If this was a boxing match, Prince Spinoza would be running around the ring trying to win on point's with little petty jab's.
  • Re: FreeSoul007 vs Prince Spinoza: theory of evolution
     Reply #8 - January 13, 2011, 05:11 AM

    Roll Eyes

    You wanted the arguments for evolution. Some of them are there. If you have any refutations beyond "omg its on wikipedia" then please say so.  It's all referenced. But of course, where the arguments are published has no bearing on their soundness or truth value.

    Do you want an explanation of evolution? Will that help? Most people who don't accept evolution don't have the first clue about it.
  • Re: FreeSoul007 vs Prince Spinoza: theory of evolution
     Reply #9 - January 13, 2011, 05:21 AM

    Evolutionists claim that all the living things we see today emerged spontaneously by one species turning into another. If this claim were true, the Earth would be full of intermediate form fossils linking different living species to one another. However, no intermediate form fossil has to date been encountered.

    We have found Dinosaur's  fossil's/skeleton's from million's of year's ago, why ain't we found the fossil's  of an ape/human?
  • Re: FreeSoul007 vs Prince Spinoza: theory of evolution
     Reply #10 - January 13, 2011, 05:36 AM

    No. The claim is that they arose gradually in tandem with changes in the environment.

    This 'intermediates', 'transition fossils', 'missing link' business is creationist nonsense. Every fossil ever discovered, bar the dead ends, is in the transition phase. They are all intermediaries. Evolution isn't a means to an end. Every missing link found creates two new missing links. One on either side.

    Humans are apes. What you are expecting is some sort of science fiction mutant half-monkey-half-human. There are thousands of fossils linking species together. They are in museums round the world. There are countless pictures online.
  • Re: FreeSoul007 vs Prince Spinoza: theory of evolution
     Reply #11 - January 13, 2011, 06:01 AM

    Every missing link creates two more missing link's? this is theory is never ending. Have they found fossil's of a human slightly different from us?

    You ever heard of the "Piltdown man" fraud? Where your Darwinist friend's had to use FRAUD to try to prove their false theory correct.



    Uploaded with ImageShack.us

    Uploaded with ImageShack.us

    ORANG-UTAN JAW AND A HUMAN SKULL: Piltdown man fossil, which deceived the world of science for more than 40 years, was in fact a scientific fraud committed by evolutionists combining two different pieces of bone. On the left is the false fossil and on the right the imaginary Piltdown man illustrated based on it.

    A well-known doctor and also an amateur paleoanthropologist, Charles Dawson came out with an assertion that he had found a jawbone and a cranial fragment in a pit in Piltdown, England in 1912. Even though the jawbone was more ape-like, the teeth and the skull were like a man's. These specimens were labeled the "Piltdown Man". Alleged to be 500 thousand years old, they were displayed as an absolute proof of human evolution in several museums. For more than 40 years, many scientific articles were written on the "Piltdown Man", many interpretations and drawings were made, and the fossil was presented as an important evidence of human evolution. No less than five hundred doctoral theses were written on the subject.45 The famous American paleoanthropologist Henry Fairfield Osborn said "…we have to be reminded over and over again that Nature is full of paradoxes and this is an astonishing finding about early man…" while he was visiting the British Museum in 1935.46

    In 1949, Kenneth Oakley from the British Museum's paleontology department attempted to try the method of "fluorine testing", a new test used for determining the date of some old fossils. A trial was made on the fossil of the Piltdown Man. The result was astounding. During the test, it was realised that the jawbone of the Piltdown Man did not contain any fluorine. This indicated that it had remained buried no more than a few years. The skull, which contained only a small amount of fluorine, showed that it was only a few thousand years old.

    The latest chronological studies made with the fluorine method have revealed that the skull is only a few thousand years old. It was determined that the teeth in the jawbone belonging to an orang-utan had been worn down artificially and that the "primitive" tools discovered with the fossils were simple imitations that had been sharpened with steel implements.47 In the detailed analysis completed by Weiner, this forgery was revealed to the public in 1953. The skull belonged to a 500-year-old man, and the mandibular bone belonged to a recently dead ape! The teeth were thereafter specially arranged in an array and added to the jaw and the joints were filed in order to resemble that of a man. Then all these pieces were stained with potassium dichromate to give them a dated appearance. These stains began to disappear when dipped in acid. Le Gros Clark, who was in the team that disclosed the forgery, could not hide his astonishment at this situation and said that "the evidences of artificial abrasion immediately sprang to the eye. Indeed so obvious did they seem it may well be asked - how was it that they had escaped notice before?"48 In the wake of all this, "Piltdown Man" was hurriedly removed from the British Museum where it had been displayed for more than 40 years.

  • Re: FreeSoul007 vs Prince Spinoza: theory of evolution
     Reply #12 - January 13, 2011, 06:04 AM

    Tell me, Do you believe what Darwin said and respect him?
  • Re: FreeSoul007 vs Prince Spinoza: theory of evolution
     Reply #13 - January 13, 2011, 06:09 AM

    I am familiar with the piltdown man hoax. It has no bearing on the truth value of evolutionary theory. Besides, creationists hoaxes far outnumber those from evolutionists.

    Yes every missing link creates two more, because you will never be satisfied with any amount of evidence.

    Homo Neanderthalensis were different from us. Here is a whole skeleton.

  • Re: FreeSoul007 vs Prince Spinoza: theory of evolution
     Reply #14 - January 13, 2011, 06:09 AM

    Tell me, Do you believe what Darwin said and respect him?


    Incredibly so.
  • Re: FreeSoul007 vs Prince Spinoza: theory of evolution
     Reply #15 - January 13, 2011, 06:24 AM

    Really? you don't think he was a racist? He thought that the white race is superior then African or Asian race.

    In the 19th century, when Darwin put forward his claim that living things had not been created, that they had emerged by coincidence, and that the human being had a common ancestor with animals and had emerged as the most highly developed organism as the result of coincidence, perhaps most people could not imagine what the results of this claim would be. But in the 20th century the end result of the claim was lived out in terrible experiences. Those who saw human beings as a developed animal, did not hesitate to rise by treading on the weak, to find a way of disposing of the sick and weak, and to carry out massacres to get rid of races which they saw as different and inferior. Because their theory with a mask of science told them that this was a "law of nature." The disasters Darwinism brought to the world began in this way, and gathering speed, spread over the whole world.

    Darwin's close friend Professor Adam Sedgwick was one of the people who saw what dangers the theory of evolution would give rise to in the future. He remarked, after reading and digesting The Origin of Species, that

        "if this book were to find general public acceptance, it would bring with it a brutalization of the human race such as it had never seen before." [1]

    And truly, time showed that Sedgwick was right to have doubts. The 20th century has gone down in history as a dark age when people underwent massacres simply because of their race or ethnic origins.

    "The Preservation of Favored Races..."

    Most Darwinists in our day claim that Darwin used the expression "By the Preservation of Favored Races" in the subtitle to The Origin of Species only for animals. However, what those who make this claim ignore is what Darwin says about human races in his book.

    Darwin claimed that the "fight for survival" also applied between human races. "Favored races" emerged victorious from this struggle. According to Darwin the favored race were the European whites. As for Asian and African races, they had fallen behind in the fight for survival.

        At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. [2]

    As we have seen, in his book, The Origin of Species, Darwin saw the natives of Australia and Negroes as being at the same level as gorillas and claimed that these races would disappear. As for the other races which he saw as "inferior," he maintained that it was essential to prevent them multiplying and so for these races to be brought to extinction. So the traces of racism and discrimination which we still come across in our time were approved and lent justification by Darwin in this way.

    Darwin's racist side showed its effect in much of his writing and observations. For example, he openly set out his racist prejudices while describing the natives of Tierra del Fuego whom he saw on a long voyage he set out on in 1871. He described the natives as living creatures "wholly nude, submerged in dyes, eating what they find just like wild animals, uncontrolled, cruel to everybody out of their tribe, taking pleasure in torturing their enemies, offering bloody sacrifices, killing their children, ill-treating their wives, full of awkward superstitions". Whereas according to the researcher W. P. Snow, the Tierra del Fuegians were "fine powerful looking fellows; they were very fond of their children; some of their artifacts were ingenious; they recognised some sort of rights over property; and they accepted the authority of several of the oldest women." [3]

    As has been seen from these examples Darwin was a complete racist.
  • Re: FreeSoul007 vs Prince Spinoza: theory of evolution
     Reply #16 - January 13, 2011, 06:37 AM

    Il debunk Homo Neanderthalensis later on tommorrow or the day after.

    Bye for now.  Wink
  • Re: FreeSoul007 vs Prince Spinoza: theory of evolution
     Reply #17 - January 13, 2011, 06:39 AM

    Really? you don't think he was a racist? He thought that the white race is superior then African or Asian race.


    The truth value of evolution isn't dependent on Darwin's character. This is a form of fallaciuous argument knows as 'argumentum ad hominem', where you try to attack the debator rather than the argument.

    Quote
    In the 19th century, when Darwin put forward his claim that living things had not been created, that they had emerged by coincidence, and that the human being had a common ancestor with animals and had emerged as the most highly developed organism as the result of coincidence, perhaps most people could not imagine what the results of this claim would be. But in the 20th century the end result of the claim was lived out in terrible experiences. Those who saw human beings as a developed animal, did not hesitate to rise by treading on the weak, to find a way of disposing of the sick and weak, and to carry out massacres to get rid of races which they saw as different and inferior. Because their theory with a mask of science told them that this was a "law of nature." The disasters Darwinism brought to the world began in this way, and gathering speed, spread over the whole world.

    Darwin's close friend Professor Adam Sedgwick was one of the people who saw what dangers the theory of evolution would give rise to in the future. He remarked, after reading and digesting The Origin of Species, that

        "if this book were to find general public acceptance, it would bring with it a brutalization of the human race such as it had never seen before." [1]

    And truly, time showed that Sedgwick was right to have doubts. The 20th century has gone down in history as a dark age when people underwent massacres simply because of their race or ethnic origins.


    This is a result of a misinterpretation of natural selection, knows as Social Darwinism. Co-operation and 'altruism' are abundant in the animal kingdom. If your goal is to propagate 'your' genes then there are better ways than every man for himself. You don't even have to reproduce. For it is genes that are the unit of evolution and not organisms, and your genes are present in other organisms.

    Quote
    "The Preservation of Favored Races..."

    Most Darwinists in our day claim that Darwin used the expression "By the Preservation of Favored Races" in the subtitle to The Origin of Species only for animals. However, what those who make this claim ignore is what Darwin says about human races in his book.

    Darwin claimed that the "fight for survival" also applied between human races. "Favored races" emerged victorious from this struggle. According to Darwin the favored race were the European whites. As for Asian and African races, they had fallen behind in the fight for survival.

        At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. [2]

    As we have seen, in his book, The Origin of Species, Darwin saw the natives of Australia and Negroes as being at the same level as gorillas and claimed that these races would disappear. As for the other races which he saw as "inferior," he maintained that it was essential to prevent them multiplying and so for these races to be brought to extinction. So the traces of racism and discrimination which we still come across in our time were approved and lent justification by Darwin in this way.

    Darwin's racist side showed its effect in much of his writing and observations. For example, he openly set out his racist prejudices while describing the natives of Tierra del Fuego whom he saw on a long voyage he set out on in 1871. He described the natives as living creatures "wholly nude, submerged in dyes, eating what they find just like wild animals, uncontrolled, cruel to everybody out of their tribe, taking pleasure in torturing their enemies, offering bloody sacrifices, killing their children, ill-treating their wives, full of awkward superstitions". Whereas according to the researcher W. P. Snow, the Tierra del Fuegians were "fine powerful looking fellows; they were very fond of their children; some of their artifacts were ingenious; they recognised some sort of rights over property; and they accepted the authority of several of the oldest women." [3]

    As has been seen from these examples Darwin was a complete racist.


    None of this affects whether the theory of evolution is right or not. Roll Eyes

    I think it would help if you actually first take the time to understand how debate works.
  • Re: FreeSoul007 vs Prince Spinoza: theory of evolution
     Reply #18 - January 13, 2011, 06:48 AM

    Ok very briefly...

    1) There exists hereditary material. This codes for the biological processes in all living organisms.
    2) This hereditary material is passed on to offspring.
    3) The offspring will not be identical. Mutations occur and meiosis reshuffles chromosomes potentially forming new genes. (A gene here will be defined by G.C. Williams words - "I use the term gene to mean 'that which segregates and recombines with appreciable frequency'".)
    4) More offspring are produced than can be sustained by the environment.
    5) Selection pressures will discriminate between organisms. Some organisms will be more suited to the current environment than others, and hence will perform better than other. This is often stated as the tautology "survival of the fittest".
    6) Those that perform best, with regards to food/shelter/mates and a million other things will obviously be more likely to have a greater number of offsprings than those that do not perform as well.
    7) They will pass on their favourable traits to their offspring (or at least some of them) and the process starts again.
    8 ) Those organisms with the favourable traits will tend to have more offspring. Over time the frequency of the favourable traits will increase in a given population.
    9) This is evolution. As the environment changes over time, the frequency of xyz alleles change and thereby the kinds of organisms present change.
    10) A certain proportion of the population may be isolated from the rest by some means. The most obvious example is geographically. Both groups of populations will face different selection pressures and therefore evolve differently. There comes a point when the two groups differ so much that they classed seperately based on physiologocial/behavioural/morphological variations and/or they can no longer interbreed (to produce fertile offspring). Hence the two groups have become somewhat distinct species.

    I can't make it much simpler than that ^ Is there any of that you don't understand, don't agree with, don't believe?
  • Re: FreeSoul007 vs Prince Spinoza: theory of evolution
     Reply #19 - January 13, 2011, 06:59 AM

    The truth value of evolution isn't dependent on Darwin's character. This is a form of fallaciuous argument knows as 'argumentum ad hominem', where you try to attack the debator rather than the argument.

    This is a result of a misinterpretation of natural selection, knows as Social Darwinism. Co-operation and 'altruism' are abundant in the animal kingdom. If your goal is to propagate 'your' genes then there are better ways than every man for himself. You don't even have to reproduce. For it is genes that are the unit of evolution and not organisms, and your genes are present in other organisms.

    None of this affects whether the theory of evolution is right or not. Roll Eyes

    I think it would help if you actually first take the time to understand how debate works.



    So you don't believe in everything what your prophet Darwin say's? He is the figured head of the the theory of evolution, the face of it  Tongue

    So you respect a person that would think of you of a lower race form just because you are Asian or African? His theory here was clearly wrong, isn't it?

    Wasn't it the Nazi's that adopted many of Darwin's theory's of evolution and the survival of the fittest crap?

    His idea's, his theory's have major flaw's we can see. I only scratched the surface here, i can dig a deeper.
  • Re: FreeSoul007 vs Prince Spinoza: theory of evolution
     Reply #20 - January 13, 2011, 03:14 PM


    So you don't believe in everything what your prophet Darwin say's? He is the figured head of the the theory of evolution, the face of it  Tongue


    No Darwin wasn't right about everything. His book became more erroneous with every edition, the first was the most accurate, before he succumbed to outside pressures. But he was amazingly close, he didn't know about Mendelian genetics for one. But the study of evolution has moved on since then.

    That Darwin is the face of evolution doesn't have an effect on whether it is true or not. I can't make this any more simpler. We are considering the theory of evolution on its own merits. Darwin wasn't the only person to independently conceive of the idea of evolution by natural selection.

    Quote
    So you respect a person that would think of you of a lower race form just because you are Asian or African? His theory here was clearly wrong, isn't it?


    Darwin could have been the biggest racist ever. Evolution could be a racist theory. None of it matters to whether it is true or not.

    Quote
    Wasn't it the Nazi's that adopted many of Darwin's theory's of evolution and the survival of the fittest crap?


    Yes that's what happens when you misunderstand and misrepresent Evolution. As I said, see 'social darwinism'. But again, even if the theory of evolution promoted such behaviour it still doesn't change that it's true. Nor does it necessitate that we act according to what it (could have) conveyed.

    Quote
    His idea's, his theory's have major flaw's we can see.


    Please point them out. You seem to be confused about how to go about proving a scientific hypothesis false.
  • Re: FreeSoul007 vs Prince Spinoza: theory of evolution
     Reply #21 - January 13, 2011, 03:16 PM

    You know I thought it was going to be a little more sophisticated than this...
  • Re: FreeSoul007 vs Prince Spinoza: theory of evolution
     Reply #22 - January 14, 2011, 04:18 AM

    I am familiar with the piltdown man hoax. It has no bearing on the truth value of evolutionary theory. Besides, creationists hoaxes far outnumber those from evolutionists.

    Yes every missing link creates two more, because you will never be satisfied with any amount of evidence.

    Homo Neanderthalensis were different from us. Here is a whole skeleton.

    (Clicky for piccy!)


    Right the argument is not that we have different feature's, it's that if we was once ape's that evolved into what we are today.

    This does not prove anything, it does not prove that we evolve or evolved from ape's. Yes it is different from "us" but human's today are different from "each other".

    Do not just post a pic and say look!! Proof !! It's different.!! Provide some evidence backed up with fact's.

    Different human race's have different feature's.

    This is the scull of a HOMO Neanderthalensis below.




    Now let's look at the Scull's of human's "modern" and how they differ.

    Evolutionary paleontologists portray different Homo erectus, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, and archaic Homo sapiens human fossils as indicating different species or subspecies on the evolutionary path. They base this on the differences between these fossil skulls. However, these differences actually consist of variations among different human races that have existed, some of which have become extinct or have been assimilated. These differences have grown less pronounced as human races have intermixed over time.


    Native Peruvian from the fifteenth century.


    Middle-aged Bengali.


    Male from the Solomon Islands (Melanesia) who died in 1893.


    German male aged 25-30.


    Male Congolese aged 35-40.


    Male Inuit aged 35-40.

    Different ain't they?

    If, thousands of years in the future, scientists discover the skull of an American who lived in the 2000s and was some 1.90 meters tall, and compare it with the skull of a Japanese individual who also lived in the 2000s but was only 1.60 meters tall, they will observe a great many differences between them—first and foremost, in terms of size. If, on the basis of these differences, they then suggest, that the Japanese were primitive and that Americans were several rungs higher up the developmental ladder, of course they will be making an interpretation that in no way reflects the true state of affairs.

    In addition, skull volume is no criterion for measuring anyone’s intelligence or capacities. There are many humans with well-developed bodies but insufficiently developed intelligence. In the same way, many people have bodies and therefore, skulls, smaller than those of others, but who are nevertheless highly intelligent. Their skulls cannot be evaluated by the scientists of the future, at least not in a scientifically valid way and on the basis of dimensions alone, to set out any supposed evolutionary line of progression—because that sequence will not reflect the true facts. Differences in skull size are known to be totally unrelated to intelligence and ability. If someone spends his life in intense mental activity, his skull will not grow in size. Only his mental abilities will get stronger.. Intelligence varies, not in relation to skull size, but according to the organization within the brain itself.

    In relating the fictitious story of human evolution, evolutionists point to the volume, eyebrow protrusions or brow structures of the skulls they find, and set up their own supposed evolutionary sequence and family trees. But the structural differences in fossil skulls are no evidence of evolution: These skulls belong either to extinct species of apes, or else to various human races that once existed. It is entirely logical that skulls belonging to different human races should display structural differences. Different species of fish have differently shaped heads. For example, the head shape of a trout bears no resemblance to that of an eel, although both are fish. Similarly, there may be differences between the skulls of different human races.

    It is perfectly natural that there should be differences in the eye sockets, forehead structures, muscular structures and skull volumes between Pygmies and British people, Russians and Chinese, Australian Aborigines and Eskimos, Negroes and Japanese But these differences do not mean that one race is descended from another, or is more primitive or more advanced than another. An aboriginal race will always maintain the same distinctive features for as long as it does not intermarry with members of another race. No matter how much time passes, these human beings will never evolve in such a way as to acquire different characteristics. Their skull volumes will not become any larger than they are now, and they will not acquire different anatomical structures.

    For example, various Malaysian native peoples living today possess the same large muscular protrusions and backward-slanting brow structure as that of the skulls of Homo erectus, which evolutionists regard as being a primitive ancestor. If evolutionists’ claims were true, the Malaysian natives in question should have a structure and appearance of humans who have recently evolved from being apes and have not yet developed fully into Homo sapiens. Yet that is not the case at all. The fact that anatomical features of the H. erectus skull can still be seen today shows that H. erectus was not a primitive species and also, that evolutionists’ scenario of the human family tree is a fiction.

    In short, the fact that some past human races had anatomical structures different from human beings alive today in no way constitutes evidence in favor of evolution. Anatomical distinctions can be seen in all periods of recorded history and among all different human races. Americans and Japanese, Europeans and Australian Aborigines, Eskimos and Negroes or Pygmies all have distinctively different skulls. But this does not mean that some of these races are any more developed or more backward than the others.

    People have now fully realized that Darwinism, the worst scandal in the history of the world, is built around lies, hoaxes and irrational claims. In the 21st century, the whole world is witnessing Darwinism’s collapse.
  • Re: FreeSoul007 vs Prince Spinoza: theory of evolution
     Reply #23 - January 14, 2011, 04:31 AM

    Do you also believe Animal's like Tiger's for example have evolved?

    You should have had this in the bag by now, you have a head-start by mile's off, considering that you have studied this topic long ago and am learning about it as we debate.
  • Re: FreeSoul007 vs Prince Spinoza: theory of evolution
     Reply #24 - January 14, 2011, 05:00 AM

    I find it amazing that people think that the universe, the earth, the perfect system running it and every thing in it emerged by chance.

    Putting my personal Islamic belief's aside, i would wonder, how this all came about? surely what are the chance's that everything happened  by chance and there was no creator that intended it to happen? The chance's of that are Impossible.

     Just look at the sun and the moon, rotating around the earth perfectly! Out of all the never ending space in the universe, the sun and moon ended up close to earth rotating around it perfectly.!! Forget everything else, just focus on the sun! without it we won't exist ! look at all much benefit's we get from the sun.

    So everything came in to place by chance? Il give you example, If i told you that the laptop am using came to existence by a hurricane that swept all the part's together and it and somehow it formed this by mere chance, would you believe it? what are the chance's of that happening by chance? I think everybody will agree that's impossible.!

    Our earth, everything in it and the system running is far far greater then a Laptop or anything man has created.Forget everything else.!! Tell man if it can create a simple fly from scratch. I MEAN FROM SCRATCH. Not using the genes or what not from another Fly.

    Even if i wasn't a Muslim, i couldn't become a Atheist or simply believe everything fell in to place by chance.Id still believe there must be a greater being that has put everything into place.
  • Re: FreeSoul007 vs Prince Spinoza: theory of evolution
     Reply #25 - January 14, 2011, 06:04 PM

    Right the argument is not that we have different feature's, it's that if we was once ape's that evolved into what we are today.


    For the last time, we are still apes.

    Quote
    This does not prove anything, it does not prove that we evolve or evolved from ape's. Yes it is different from "us" but human's today are different from "each other".


    Duh, that IS evolution.

    Quote
    Do not just post a pic and say look!! Proof !! It's different.!! Provide some evidence backed up with fact's.


    You asked for something that was different from modern humans. (Granted there is no consensus on whether Neanderthals were a separate species.) I could have provided you with Homo Rudolfensis or Homo erectus or Home habilis (which is the most unlike modern humans among the homo species) or countless others. For a more comprehensive list see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Genus_Homo

    Quote
    Different human race's have different feature's.


    Uh huh, and how did that happen if the gene pool consisted of that of one human male and one human female?

    Quote
    *snip*


    Please reference your sources in future. Don't attempt to categorise fossils by simply looking at pictures of them. The methods involved are pretty sophisticated and beyond the scope of this discussion, though a brief explanation can be provided if required. I don't know why creationists are so hung up on the fossil record. Anything posted will either be considered too similar or too different. There is far more interesting evidence. Some are shown in the very first link on the thread.If you refuse to read there isn't much I can do. Do you want me to just paste from scientific journals, because that can be done.
  • Re: FreeSoul007 vs Prince Spinoza: theory of evolution
     Reply #26 - January 14, 2011, 06:06 PM

    One of my favourite, explained pretty well by therationalizer.

    I'd like to suggest that we both present what we feel is the strongest argument.  This way if our strongest argument is debunked then there is no point in bringing up another argument on account that it would be weaker.

    So, I shall start.

    1: Evolution is an observed fact - google it.
    2: Evolution through natural selection is the scientific theory that says how natural selection guides the fact of evolution to create different (but similar) species.

    The evidence I feel is strongest for evolution through natural selection (hereinafter written as "evolution+ns") is that of endogenous retroviruses.

    A retro virus invades a cell.  It then snips the DNA within the cell and inserts a copy of its own DNA.  When the cell is replicated its DNA is processed in order to create the relevant proteins, during this process the RV's DNA is processed and a copy of the RV made which then goes off and invades another cell.  This means that the DNA copy within that cell is permanently altered.  Each cell of our bodies contains a copy of our entire DNA.  The DNA within the single cell is altered, not our entire DNA.

    If the invaded cell is either an egg or a sperm then the life which results from a fertilisation of that egg or sperm will have their entire DNA based on the DNA with the RV DNA insertion.  Once the RV is passed on via DNA it becomes an endogenous retro virus (ERV.)  An RV inserts itself at a random place within the genome.  The human genome is approximately 3.4 billion in length.  Seeing two people with the same virus injected into the same part of their DNA shows that they inherited that DNA mutation from a common ancestor.

    When we examine the human genome and the genome of chimps (which have a DNA length of approx 3 billion base pairs) we see that there are 7 instances of ERVs in common with humans.  Not only are these the same virus in each case but they are also in exactly the same location within the genome.  The chances of two independent creatures (with a shortest genome of 3 billion base pairs) getting the same infection at the same place 7 times is 1 in (3 billion to the power of 7.)

    Then you have to factor in how many different RVs could have infected this location and account for the fact that in each of these 7 instances it is the same RV.

    Also, based on the length of a DNA and the average number of mutations observed per generation + the average life expectancy of the species it is possible to count the number of mutations within the virus DNA and get an approximate period of time at which the infection took place.  In each of the 7 instances the number of mutations corroborated that the infection took place at the same time in both chimps and humans.

    So, the probability of 2 different species getting infected in the same place is
    1 in 0.2187E+67 (2187 with 63 zeros after it)

    Which alone is a fantastically small probability.  Then factor in it being the same virus AND going endogenous AND happening at the same time and you end up with a number so unbelievably small that it just isn't going to happen.

    But that's not all!

    Not only are there 7 in common with chimps there are a number of ERVs which (chimps + humans) share with Apes.  Showing that a common ancestor with an ERV DNA mutation split into two species, which would later become Apes and the ancestor of Humans/Chimps.  In fact if we look at the genomes of the various species on Earth today we observe this ERV phenomenon all over the place.

    ERV in mammals also seen in
    Apes, which have additional ERVs also seen in
    Chimps, which have additional ERVs also seen in
    Humans

    It's the same for species of birds and reptiles too, with some ERVs being present in all reptiles for example, and then additional ones existing only in more closely related species of reptile.  The same in other mammals too, where cats will share the same ERVs as other mammals but not the same ones as Apes, but more amongst the various cat species.

    In short, the ERV observations corroborate the evolutionary tree of life (humans + chimps from a common ancestor, that ancestor from a common ancestor with apes.........from a common ancestor of mammals.)

    As you can see the evidence from ERVs in humans/chimps alone is incredible.  Then add in all the other species and it is fantastically incredible.  Also take into account that this is not DNA that was "put in from the start as part of some clever design" these are viral infections which mutated the species' DNA at various points after life had started.

    How do we know these are retroviruses?

    DNA is made of the nucleotides A,T,G, and C.  The other side of the helix is predictable because they always pair up like so

    A to T
    G to C
    (and complimentary to above)
    T to A
    C to G

    So let's take some imaginary DNA

    ATG CAT GCA TGC AAA ATG CAT GCA TGC
    TAC GTA CGT ACG TTT TAC GTA CGT ACG

    One side of the helix is at the top, the other complimentary side is beneath it.  I have separated them into 3's to make it easier to read.

    When an RV cuts the host DNA is does not cut a straight line, what it does is to cut one side of the helix at position X, and the opposite side at X+Y.  So in a case where Y=3 what you'd get after a cut is this

    ATG CAT GCA TGC AAA snip ATG CAT GCA TGC
    TAC GTA CGT ACG snip TTT TAC GTA CGT ACG

    And then with the RV's DNA inserted...

    ATG CAT GCA TGC AAA --- --- --- --- --- Huh? ATG CAT GCA TGC
    TAC GTA CGT ACG Huh?  --- --- --- --- --- TTT TAC GTA CGT ACG

    The "Huh?" denotes a gap in one side of the helix due to the cut  and "---" the virus DNA.  The virus then inserts its own DNA at the staggered cut position.  Now when the body processes this DNA to duplicate the cell look what happens.  The Huh? gaps in the DNA are filled in by the body with their complimentary nucleotide

    In the top cut position the TTT below is complimented by AAA at the top.
    In the bottom cut position the AAA above is complimented by TTT at the bottom.

    (Note that I only used AAA TTT to make it easier to spot, the RV injects its DNA at a random place and could therefore work on any combination of ATGC.)

    So you see we end up with a duplicate sequence of 3 nucleotides.  If I exclude the virus DNA from the pattern you will see this

    Before
    ATG CAT GCA TGC AAA ATG CAT GCA TGC
    TAC GTA CGT ACG TTT TAC GTA CGT ACG

    After
    ATG CAT GCA TGC AAA AAA ATG CAT GCA TGC
    TAC GTA CGT ACG TTT  TTT TAC GTA CGT ACG

    Note the duplicate AAA and complementary TTT.

    So to identify an ERV we first look for duplicate base pairs and then compare the DNA between them with the DNA of known retroviruses.

    So we know
    1: The mutation is due to an RV infection.
    2: The mutation went endogenous.
    3: Approximately when the RV went endogenous.
    4: The mutation was passed onto descendants.
    5: The descendants diverged into separate and distinct species.


    So either all species evolved from other ancestor species (including humans) or a divine creator first created all life, reused DNA patterns (because they worked?), and then for some unknown reason came back multiple times over a span of millions of years and altered the DNA of groups of species with retro virus DNA at the same time in order to make it look as though they had all inherited an ERV DNA mutation from a common ancestor.


  • Re: FreeSoul007 vs Prince Spinoza: theory of evolution
     Reply #27 - January 14, 2011, 06:08 PM

    Do you also believe Animal's like Tiger's for example have evolved?


    All life.

    Quote
    You should have had this in the bag by now, you have a head-start by mile's off, considering that you have studied this topic long ago and am learning about it as we debate.


    It's hard to argue against non-existent arguments. You've averaged about 10 logical fallacies a minute.
  • Re: FreeSoul007 vs Prince Spinoza: theory of evolution
     Reply #28 - January 14, 2011, 06:28 PM

    I find it amazing that people think that the universe, the earth, the perfect system running it and every thing in it emerged by chance.


    Order and chaos are relative.

    Quote
    Putting my personal Islamic belief's aside, i would wonder, how this all came about? surely what are the chance's that everything happened  by chance and there was no creator that intended it to happen? The chance's of that are Impossible.


    What made the creator happen?

    Quote
    Just look at the sun and the moon, rotating around the earth perfectly!


    Science has moved on since the Qur'an was written. Keep up. The earth goes round the sun.

    Quote
    Out of all the never ending space in the universe, the sun and moon ended up close to earth rotating around it perfectly.!! Forget everything else, just focus on the sun! without it we won't exist ! look at all much benefit's we get from the sun.


    You are working backwards. Everything is 'perfect' (it isn't) for us because we evolved in it. We have evolved to survive on what we have, hence why we need it. If we had evolved in different conditions, what we'd need for survival would be different, and then you'd be saying THAT is the only configuration that can sustain life. Let me put it this way -

    Imagine I fill a glass with water. What will happen? The water will shape and adapt to fit its surroundings -  the glass. Now Imagine I place it in the freezer, come back a few hours later, remove the now-ice from the glass and place it on a table. You wander in a short while later and spot the ice and glass, separately. Any reasonable person would reason the water had shaped to fit the glass, was frozen and now can only fit this particular glass. But you, instead, would conclude that this glass has been designed and created to fit this piece of ice! The designer must have been indeed intelligent. Manufacturing the glass to the exact measurements required, in a perfect material to hold the ice. A tiny difference and the glass would no longer be able to hold the ice. Surely it must have been created. Surely it can't have been chance.

    Quote
    So everything came in to place by chance?


    Evolution by natural selection is the very opposite of chance. There is a designer, of sorts. It is the environment, it guides and shapes evolution. Very slowly.

    Quote
    Il give you example, If i told you that the laptop am using came to existence by a hurricane that swept all the part's together and it and somehow it formed this by mere chance, would you believe it? what are the chance's of that happening by chance? I think everybody will agree that's impossible.!


    I have already pointed out the flaw in this type of argument on chat. Do you disagree with it, not understand it, or have just forgotten it?

    Quote
    Our earth, everything in it and the system running is far far greater then a Laptop or anything man has created.Forget everything else.!! Tell man if it can create a simple fly from scratch. I MEAN FROM SCRATCH. Not using the genes or what not from another Fly.


    Nature had 4.5 billion years. We've had decades. We have come incredibly close. And we will manage it. But that is neither here nor there.

    Quote
    Even if i wasn't a Muslim, i couldn't become a Atheist or simply believe everything fell in to place by chance.Id still believe there must be a greater being that has put everything into place.


    You are arguing that the world must have been designed because it is complex/perfect. Any designer must be more complex/perfect, hence by following your logic he must have been designed too.

    There is only one process we know of by which intelligence can arise from simplicity. Gold star if you can guess what it is. You are thinking too... humanly... though I guess its only natural, you have evolved to assign agency of phenomena to 'intelligent' beings, after all. Smiley
  • Re: FreeSoul007 vs Prince Spinoza: theory of evolution
     Reply #29 - January 14, 2011, 06:35 PM

    I didn't want this to turn into a copy+paste match. But whatever. I'm running short on time but I will provide you with examples of imperfections in humans and other modern animals when I get a chance. And then we can do a bit of genetics, I prefer that to fossil evidence. Smiley
  • 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »