Evolution is now A FACT OF LIFE

[Malic]

---

Not dirt, dust molded into clays is what is a more accurate interpretation.

But would explain why so many people have dirty minds...

my goodness james, dirt dust clay mud it carries the same sense.

The problem is not that man evolves, of course man evolves as a species evolves. Dogs evolved from wolves and are in 1000's of sizes, shapes, and breeds; but they are all dogs and yet their DNA is that of the wolf, and not that of a fish or bird.
Man's DNA is still in the early mapping stages, and already we have determined that or DNA shows that we came from a single parent. 1 mother and 1 father. This is verifiable fact and not Theory unless one wants to say that DNA is not science. I have never found a single article stating DNA proves we were fish. Species evolve but are of that species, members of species go extinct. I am sure 100's of species of monkeys and apes have gone extinct. You can call it man if one choses but it will stii be a dead monkey or ape. There is no missing link, because we and human not monkeys and apes, even if we do not like it.

-Evolution within species proves Evolution.
-of course, human DNA does not prove we were fish, because our ancestor were more evovled than fish. wrong analogy james.

This is what causes the most problem between the two views Creationism and Evolution:
Creationist believe the single parents were on the Ark above the sea. (DNA presently show probability)
Evolutionist believe the single parents crawled up from out of that sea.(DNA proves?)
Let forget dead monkey bones, fables, stories, Bible, Darwin.Chose a science that can prove something DNA, which can be proven in court as verifiable evidence. What does the DNA show us.

you know james, i can interpret your statements in various ways, to avoid misrepresentation kindly elaborate your point at hand. don't play safe.

[jamesmusslewhite]

Scientifically heres another reason:

Incest can lead to more disease in offspring


The findings have important implications for endangered species, which may find mating with relatives unavoidable if they have a small pool of potential mates, say the researchers from Cornell and Binghamton University.
Using a powerful technique of genetic analysis to disentangle the family histories of hundreds of wild crows, the researchers were surprised to find that nearly a quarter of newly hatched crows result from matings between mothers and sons or other such close family members as cousins, aunts, uncles, nephews and nieces.
While this level of inbreeding might be expected in small, isolated populations where birds have few mating options, the study revealed surprisingly high rates of familial matings in a large, open population of crows around the Ithaca, N.Y., study location.
"It's very rare to find inbreeding and incest in wild populations in birds," said Andrea Townsend, a graduate student in the Cornell Lab of Ornithology's Fuller Evolutionary Biology Program and the paper's lead author. "But in some cases, it might be that people expect it won't happen, so they are not looking for it."
By measuring the overall survival rates of both normal and inbred crows, the researchers found that the inbred crows often died in the nest prior to fledging, and those that did fly off were far more susceptible to such diseases as avian pox and bacterial infections.

Extracted from:

taboo in incest - Hanapin sa Google

It plagued the old European Royal families, Royalty could only marry Royalty. England's Henry the 8th was a byproduct of this problem. It can causes various birth defects, mental defects, and immunity problems. There pockets in isolated American rural areas that have long been known to be a persistent problem.

[jamesmusslewhite]

two links provided here: from Yahoo, from Spokesman

my goodness james, Spokesman provided nothing not even a link. The article was written in a LOCAL newspaper by a certain Alan Alexander, is this guy a scientists? where did he got his basis for his conclusion that Lucy is fraud?

the other link is from Yahoo, and after the article in the bottom a link is provided that leads to Science/AAAS | Scientific research, news and career information

and if we compare the two articles the former looks more like a tabloid with no reference from real scientists.

I say yahoo is more credible.

Yes and this is from that very article from Yahoo

the statement pertains to Ardi,
"This is not that common ancestor, but it's the closest we have ever been able to come," said Tim White, director of the Human Evolution Research Center at the University of California, Berkeley.
So if not a common ancestor, and no discovery so far has been closer as a common ancestor; then why do the Lucy sites state that she is? She is a direct link or not? Yahoo shows she must therefor be an extinct monkey or ape species. She did have a brain the size of a chimpanzee. You did say you trust Yahoo or are they now liers and stupid too?

Sorry, but when something is being covered up, and you can not use religious oriented websites due to double standard ridicules over semantics, and You live where the population of 140,000 residence can not maintain a decent library. If it has religion attaced to the website it is automatically scoffed, ridiculed, and disregarded. Because a religious educated person are can not possible have good questions or understand theories, and all sould be just ignored and ask no questions, because that is how science works, right? The only thing you want to hear are your own facts, and we must accept your facts and sources are not bias and are not misleading. That is not critical thinking, rater it is critical behavior.

I am amazed that you actually think science websites are going to display articles that directly contradict them. Here is my theory, I want to keep my Government Grant monies, so let me post information that I may be wrong or misleading you. Yes I am sure that happens in the real world, or just in your real world?

Lucy is a monkey or ape, not man, Yahoo proves it, debate your own standard.

This is either a stalemate or a checkmate, depends on your next move.

[jamesmusslewhite]

my goodness james, dirt dust clay mud it carries the same sense.

Just stated what was written.


-Evolution within species proves Evolution.
-of course, human DNA does not prove we were fish, because our ancestor were more evovled than fish. wrong analogy james.

As a Creationist I can believe everything can evolve and some munpulated. Because you can develop new breeds of people, dogs, cats, birds, horses, fish. you can cross breed a horse and donkey and get a mule, breed two mules and you get nothing.

Evolution wants man to have crawled out of a pond(ancient aquatic species) climbed into a tree(ape species) then drop out of trees, learned to walk upright use a computer and make ridicules claims of origin(humanoid)

DNA proved species we know fish DNA, we know monkey DNA, and we know DNA. So what in our human genome sequencing actualy connects the 3 different DNA signatures that must still be present lock away by this 6 million year walk through fantasy land.

I know the DNA evidence and mathematical probabilities that present man all have 1 single parent.
World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089 There would be no standing room on earth.

A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations. The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 by the 4,478,296 power.

Physicist Melvin Cook, Nobel Prize medalist found that helium-4 enters our atmosphere from solar wind and radioactive decay of uranium. That at present rates our atmosphere would accumulate current helium-4 amounts in less than 10,000 years.

Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field.( Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field (2nd edition, 1983)) Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years.

Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of polonuim-214 in crystalline granite. The half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds! To record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state instantaneously. This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form.

The human brain is the most complicated structure in the known universe. It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells. This structure receives over 100 million separate signals from the total human body every second. If we learned something new every second of our lives, it would take three million years to exhaust the capacity of the human brain. In addition to conscious thought, people can actually reason, anticipate consequences, and devise plans – all without knowing they are doing so. That even as amazing as our brain is we only use under 8%. The so called Law of Natural Selection states, "if you do not us it, you loose it. So why is our brain over 92% larger than we need?




you know james, i can interpret your statements in various ways, to avoid misrepresentation kindly elaborate your point at hand. don't play safe.

Explain were is the DNA evidence that conclusively shows man came from monkey and fish. Simple question.

Just a few facts and questions so that the evolutionist who are so well versed in the sciences can confront the common sense question that brings their beliefs into the realm of Sci-fi fantasy, and not based in natural occurrences in the real world.

[Alramzz]

-thumbs up lang ko ani na comment ako nabasa ..

Creationists
Wed Jun 11 08:22:28 BST 2008 by David

First of all, I'll state that I'm Christian. Did you ever stop to think that possibly evolution was the tool God used to create?

Did you ever stop to think that Genisis was written in terms that people of those times could understand? How do you explain to people 6000 years ago what 1 billion years is? How do you explain to people who just learnt how to write what a single cell organism is?

[jamesmusslewhite]

That would be very safe to say that the CREATIONIST was owned by EVOLUTIONIST . That the THEORY now is a FACT . If science can only find out what was before the BIGBANG THEORY and it should debunk all the arguments presented by the CREATIONIST . WHy ? Its because the EVOLUTIONIST's BIGBANG THEORY is closely related to the CREATIONIST'S 1st day of creation , the separation of the NIGHT and DAY , DARK and LIGHT respectively . So if there is something else earlier than BIGBANG ... nothing is earlier than the first day of creation so it justifies that the Book of Genesis is indeed a STORY not worth telling .

If they can only present something na fact about just anything before BIGBANG ... it is indeed a BREAKTROUGH ! It will put to an end sa lalis sa EVOLUTION and CREATION once and for all .

================================================== ================================================== =====

For the moment and hope in our LIFETIME , we'll wait for more SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH regarding the origin of BIGBANG and dont discount yet the story of creation as a basis of summarized presentation versus the evolution's systematic and detailed theory .

The evolutionist of the 19th, 20th, and 21st century and finally evolved the theory of Big Bang, science stated in the last decade that evidence it is conclusive that at the split second the big bang there would have been a massive radiant bust of energy in the black void of space.

3,300 years ago it was written: And God said, "Let there be light." It just took 3,390 years for science to figure that one out and it was written on page 1, if you are waiting for them to explain the God, Jesus, and his miracles? You just may be waiting for a little while.

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

Since there was no evidence of scientific explanations to back up the Genesis story then it's an obvious reason that it was magic. Creating all living things in just 6 days is sometimes absurd and uncleared. How big is God's hands to place all these living natural things that the earth is considering the area is 510 million square kilometers?

It is ABSURD and UNCLEAR because like what I said in the previous reply , it is a SUMMARIZATION compared to the SCIENCE SYSTEMATIC PRESENTATION . It is a SUMMARIZATION because its a story but we dont need to discount the events of the Book of Genesis because the odds are high that the inspired SCIENTIST made their first move of RESEARCH , OBSERVATION and CONCLUSION based on the summarized CREATION story that eventually became the systematic EVOLUTION THEORY .

Afterall ... MAGIC or not ... there is a MOVER of all things UNMOVED . If we say its MAGIC , there is what we call the The GREATEST MAGICIAN , MAGICIAN of all MAGICIANS , PROVIDER of all MAGICS etc. Hope SCIENCE can expound more on what kind of MAGIC WAND was used to create all things in just 6 days .

@JAMES

3,300 years ago it was written: And God said, "Let there be light." It just took 3,390 years for science to figure that one out and it was written on page 1, if you are waiting for them to explain the God, Jesus, and his miracles? You just may be waiting for a little while.

Its probably because of the procedures of SCIENCE to come up with FACTUAL STATEMENTS . Thats why it took that long . I only gave 3 procedures for SCIENCE STUDIES which is RESEARCH , OBSERVATION and CONCLUSION which are the very basic protocol for studies but AFAIK ... there 7 all in all to seriously conduct a study .

[Malic]

Yes and this is from that very article from Yahoo

the statement pertains to Ardi,
"This is not that common ancestor, but it's the closest we have ever been able to come," said Tim White, director of the Human Evolution Research Center at the University of California, Berkeley.
So if not a common ancestor, and no discovery so far has been closer as a common ancestor; then why do the Lucy sites state that she is? She is a direct link or not? Yahoo shows she must therefor be an extinct monkey or ape species. She did have a brain the size of a chimpanzee. You did say you trust Yahoo or are they now liers and stupid too?

-did we argue on whether Ardi is the Human and Ape's common ancestor? no james. The point there is, these fossils (lucy and ardi) point to our early human ancestor. Common ancestor between ape and human is not the point.

Read this...Researchers have long argued about whether our early ancestors passed through a great-ape stage in which they looked like protochimpanzees, with short backs; arms adapted for swinging through the trees; and a pelvis and limbs adapted for knuckle-walking (Science, 21 November 1969, p. 953). This "troglodytian," or chimpanzee, model for early human behavior (named for the common chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes) suggests that our ancestors lost many of the key adaptations still found in chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas, such as daggerlike canines and knuckle-walking, which those apes were thought to have inherited from a common ancestor.

Evidence has been hard to come by, however, because there are almost no fossils of early chimpanzees and gorillas. Until now, the oldest known skeleton of a human ancestor was Lucy, who proved in one stroke that our ancestors walked upright before they evolved big brains. But at 3.2 million years old, she was too recent and already too much like a human to reveal much about her primitive origins. As a result, researchers have wondered since her discovery in 1974, what came before her--what did the early members of the human family look like?

now...can you see the whole picture? we are discussing evolution james not common ancestors.

lucy sites state that she is the common ancestor? what site james? can you provide the link?

Sorry, but when something is being covered up, and you can not use religious oriented websites due to double standard ridicules over semantics, and You live where the population of 140,000 residence can not maintain a decent library. If it has religion attaced to the website it is automatically scoffed, ridiculed, and disregarded. Because a religious educated person are can not possible have good questions or understand theories, and all sould be just ignored and ask no questions, because that is how science works, right? The only thing you want to hear are your own facts, and we must accept your facts and sources are not bias and are not misleading. That is not critical thinking, rater it is critical behavior.

no excuses james.

I am amazed that you actually think science websites are going to display articles that directly contradict them. Here is my theory, I want to keep my Government Grant monies, so let me post information that I may be wrong or misleading you. Yes I am sure that happens in the real world, or just in your real world?

Lucy is a monkey or ape, not man, Yahoo proves it, debate your own standard.

This is either a stalemate or a checkmate, depends on your next move.

Public information must be accurate, that's what i believe. Contradictions do not necessarily points to falsehood.


Yes james it does happen in the real world but in discussions like this, you must be as honest as possible, you must re-check the information before you post them. Honesty counts. and you must strive for it. so next post, i expect you to be more accurate and honest. okay james?

yes yes lucy is not a man, she's called Ardipithecus ramidus. remember that name james.

[Malic]

As a Creationist I can believe everything can evolve and some munpulated. Because you can develop new breeds of people, dogs, cats, birds, horses, fish. you can cross breed a horse and donkey and get a mule, breed two mules and you get nothing.

your view of the theory proves your miscalculated take on Evolution.

Evolution wants man to have crawled out of a pond(ancient aquatic species) climbed into a tree(ape species) then drop out of trees, learned to walk upright use a computer and make ridicules claims of origin(humanoid)

no james, evolution did not say that. That's purely a personal interpretation obviously lacks accurate understanding of the whole process of evolution.

DNA proved species we know fish DNA, we know monkey DNA, and we know DNA. So what in our human genome sequencing actualy connects the 3 different DNA signatures that must still be present lock away by this 6 million year walk through fantasy land.

then study the scientific case for common descent.

Common Descent- is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another.

A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations. The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 by the 4,478,296 power.

Physicist Melvin Cook, Nobel Prize medalist found that helium-4 enters our atmosphere from solar wind and radioactive decay of uranium. That at present rates our atmosphere would accumulate current helium-4 amounts in less than 10,000 years.

Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field.( Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field (2nd edition, 1983)) Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years.

Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of polonuim-214 in crystalline granite. The half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds! To record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state instantaneously. This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form.

The human brain is the most complicated structure in the known universe. It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells. This structure receives over 100 million separate signals from the total human body every second. If we learned something new every second of our lives, it would take three million years to exhaust the capacity of the human brain. In addition to conscious thought, people can actually reason, anticipate consequences, and devise plans – all without knowing they are doing so. That even as amazing as our brain is we only use under 8%. The so called Law of Natural Selection states, "if you do not us it, you loose it. So why is our brain over 92% larger than we need?

these further proves the intelligence of a hidden force.

[jamesmusslewhite]

your view of the theory proves your miscalculated take on Evolution

no james, evolution did not say that. That's purely a personal interpretation obviously lacks accurate understanding of the whole process of evolution.

then study the scientific case for common descent.

Common Descent- is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another.

these further proves the intelligence of a hidden force.

So evolutionist do not believe we evolved from primordial soup? That man is the decendant of a process that started as one cell microorganisms, forming into more complex cells, which left the soup and evolved form primate to the modern man? The embryo charts use in textbooks throughout the world which are attempts to show that human embryos as well as those of other land animals have remnants of gill structures and fish tail, never happen. That every time they find a new dead monkey they are not trying to force it into our past history. So your answer is
no james, evolution did not say that. That's purely a personal interpretation obviously lacks accurate understanding of the whole process of evolution.

When I give a very lenient math formula showing population growth from 8 people over 4,500 years can easily account for 6 billion and in 41,000 years from just 1 breading pair would be trillions of humans. and when I ask for DNA prof which is the only modern conclusive test to verify commonality of species.
You tell me, then study the scientific case for common descent.

Then I give a list of questions that defy common descent, and evolutionist time theories, showing the possibility of a flood and Noah event is possible within the biblical story. And doubt of the claim that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, even Millions old, not even 100,000 years old. And use true and accurate variable natural facts you say, these further proves the intelligence of a hidden force.

Have you thought of a career in politics, you do have the rhetoric skills for it. I am impressed at the skill of your evasiveness. You are slipperier than Teflon, I will give you that one. You can call a man a lier and answer no questions. Insult and man's family and give no apology. Disregard anything you want and present anything you choose as Law. Even when trapped in contradictions by you own posts chose to change the subject, And when presented with hard questions that directly contradict evolution theories, you choose to hint of a higher power. Incredible