Evidence Disproving Evolution

myself | 10/11/02 | gore3000

[Lord_Baltar]

My Friend, I hope you donned your flame suit...

[Hunble]

Giggle, I am just tweeking Gore3000 tonight.

No offence intended or implied.

Sometimes, I may state religious views just to force people to think! As a Freeper, would you expect anything less?

[AntiGuv]

I would wager that the species which follows us will be taller than the species which preceded us. Looking through the human fossil record of the past few thousand years provides ample intermediary evidence of steadily increasing heights.

The only gaps within the evolutionary ladder are those created by the passage of time. The period of time in which a succeeding species loses its ability to procreate with its preceding species. In the event that two groups of the same species undergo this progression in isolation from one another, then the succeeding species will also be unable to reproduce with one another. As they continue to diverge and diversify, you will eventually have dozens, hundreds, even thousands of species no longer able to procreate with one another and which have developed into radically different forms as patterned by their environments.

I would wager a strong guess that we would have a relatively difficult time reproducing with an ancient Hebrew. This would not mean it would be impossible, but that it would be more difficult than reproducing with a contemporary American. As our descendents continue to gradually evolve, then they would eventually find it impossible to reproduce with that same ancient Hebrew. Even farther down the line, they would find it similarly difficult and eventually impossible to reproduce with our contemporaries.

I base my conclusion in part on the difficulties of any other race conceiving children with Australian Aborigines. The difficulty arises because Aborigines have been divorced from the remainder of the human family tree the longest. It's not impossible, but it's less probable because of this chronological divide and the genetic drift which has taken place.

[montanus]

Yes or No, is Evolution absolutly false and my belief in magic correct?

You are demanding one answer to a two-part question. That is the time-honored debate technique known as the complex question, and no one here is falling for it. Give it up already.

[gore3000]

Are you, tonight, stating as a fact that evolution is false?

Yes or No.....

Yes, I am definitely stating that evolution is false and I have been doing so for quite a long time. If you wish to discuss it, just go ahead and tell me why you think I am correct or incorrect.

[elbucko]

I've discovered that if God isn't bigger than my brain, then He can't be God.

I make no assumptions about God, convenient or otherwise, other than he exists. I am a Creationist in church, an evolutionist the rest of the time. I can live in harmony with both concepts. As a matter of truth, I really don't see the dispute. One is religious dogma, the other scientific conjecture. I am comfortable with both in their appropriate venues.

But science in church is blasphemy, and the church in science, beyond the moral, is superstition pretending to be science.

Science, to me is the God given curiosity to learn how God created the physical world. Religion is the courage to look.

[gore3000]

Yes, every fossil is indeed an intermediate to whatever follows.

Well, if the above were true, then you would have strong evidence for evolution. However this is not the case. The coelacanth, the shark and many other living species have not changed in over a hundred million years. The cianobacteria has not changed in over 2 billion years. Evolutionists even admit that frogs, lizards, etc. are the same from hundreds of millions of years back. So clearly, by your own terms, evolution is false.

[Hunble]

Actually, it is kinda related.

By 1850, every scientist in Europe realized that Evolution was a fact, but they had no idea how it worked.

Darwin, even if his origional theory was not able to account for all of the facts, did an outstanding job of explaining about 90% of what we observe today. Not a bad record!

Now people like Gore3000 expect me to dismiss the scientific facts and believe in magic.

Personally, I have absolutly no problems with the theory of magic, even if it is almost impossible to verify using scientific methods.

So, as I see it tonight, Gore3000 is supporting my alternative theory of magic?

[montanus]

An Aborigine is still homo sapians sapains. The are still far, far above chimpanzees.

Regarding the difficulty of interbreeding with Aborignes, I do not know anything about that. Only I assume that the size of the test sample could not be that large. Just how many civilized people are there that even want to breed with Aborignes?

[Hunble]

God created everything using Magic.

I have no problems with that theory!

[gore3000]

Looking through the human fossil record of the past few thousand years provides ample intermediary evidence of steadily increasing heights.

Total nonsense. We still have pygmies and bantus and everything in between. Height has more to do with nutrition than anything else. Further, height has nothing to do with species as the above examples show. This is the problem with evolutionists - first they only select what they like, secondly they ascribe everything to evolution when there are much better and scientifically proven explanations for what they say. For example all species are taller in the tropics than in arctic areas. Has nothing to do with evolution, has to do with adaptation to the environment.

[AntiGuv]

I do not follow your line of reasoning here, so perhaps you could elucidate further. There are dozens of species of sharks and reptiles and amphibians - how does it follow that they have not evolved?

[Hunble]

Giggle:

Has nothing to do with evolution, has to do with adaptation to the environment.

Would you like to re-word that one?

[GeorgeWashington777]

Bump!

[ALS]

[montanus]

I have enjoyed the discussion. I have not debated Creation/Evolution for three or four years now. Hopefully, I have had my fill for a while! :)

And I must compliment all (or nearly all) for keeping this conversation remarkably civil compared to what often happens in these debates!

Good night.

[AntiGuv]

You and your compadre are looking for bright lines where you will find none. The evolutionary model does not depend on brightline transitions and so it is not challenged by your failure to find these regardless of the fact that you have set this as your impossible standard. Sorry.

As for the Aborigines, the rate of miscarriages and stillbirths that follow mixed conceptions are quite high - certainly higher than those of nonmixed conceptions or of mixed conceptions between any of the other races. Were it not such a politically charged argument, then it would be accurate to call Aborigines a subspecies of Homo Sapiens.

[Dimensio]

Hey Dimensio, why don't you argue with what I posted?

Simple. You've proven yourself dishonest. You've blatantly ignored stated facts and repeated falsehoods even after being told that your statements run contrary to reality. You have taken FReeper's quotes out of context so that you can badmouth them for positions that they do not hold.

There's no reason to debate with you when you are willing to resort to dishonest tactics to 'prove' your point.

[gore3000]

Darwin, even if his origional theory was not able to account for all of the facts, did an outstanding job of explaining about 90% of what we observe today. Not a bad record!

Darwin has a horrible record. Let's see, the brachyocephalic index, the melding theory were pretty central to his theory. More importantly though he based his theory on Malthusianism which has been totally disproven. Even worse was his 'brilliant idea' which followed the ridiculous Malthusian theory - natural selection. Now natural selection may be true to a certain extent. However, natural selection only destroys organism, species, and genetic traits, it never creates them. So as an explanation of the descent of man from bacteria it is totally ludicrous. Only a charlatan like him could have pulled such an idiocy as 4-2 = 6 and gotten away with it for so long.

[Hunble]

Darwin has a horrible record. Let's see, the brachyocephalic index, the melding theory were pretty central to his theory. More importantly though he based his theory on Malthusianism which has been totally disproven. Even worse was his 'brilliant idea' which followed the ridiculous Malthusian theory - natural selection. Now natural selection may be true to a certain extent. However, natural selection only destroys organism, species, and genetic traits, it never creates them. So as an explanation of the descent of man from bacteria it is totally ludicrous. Only a charlatan like him could have pulled such an idiocy as 4-2 = 6 and gotten away with it for so long.

Perhaps you are absolutly correct and my theory of migic is a better answer. Hey, if I work very hard, I am sure that the public high school will allow me to teach a class on magic next year.

You Sir, have been my best advocate!