Knupfer

If we look at life on Earth 500 million years ago, we can say that each and every species is now extinct. However, there are more species on Earth today than existed then, and they are all descendents of the originals of 500 megayears.

That's pretty convenient. In order to claim that fictitious animals once lived, all anyone has to say is that they became extinct. By that reasoning, one can say that aliens once lived on the planet and have now become extinct. You guys are so funny. But you're really good at making up fairy tales. So again, all you prove is that one of the biggest creiateria for "scientific" theories is that NO ONE IN THE PAST OR PRESENT HAS WITNESSED THEIR ASSERTIONS. That fits the definition of a fairy tale perfectly.

look at what glaciers do. they are made of ice, they move. they move rocks, planes, people, anything thats on or in them.

Glaciers can only move when they are on top of water. Otherwise they're frozen solid. So only when ice melts into water, can objects embedded in ice move. So it's water that transports objects from one area to another, not ice. Does anyone here even think? So again, instead of going with ancient accounts, scientists make up even more convoluted and impossible stories like claiming that ice moved the rocks.

So if this is a science forum, all you people have shown is that scientists not only know nothing about basic biology but they have no clue about geography either. Unbelievable.

The bible is not a scientific reference. Please don't use it as such in the science subforums.

 

And in this instance it's completely wrong. How would water remain liquid in space without an atmosphere to keep it from freezing? Clearly the earth was here before water accumulated on it.

 

Knupfer, you offer no argument that hasn't been debunked thousands of times here in this forum. Everyone is tired of hearing the same junk from creationists, garbage that is distorted (like your misinterpretation of the Neanderthal DNA study), and arguments from incredulity with nothing but your religious beliefs as a foundation.

 

There are other places for you, since you are unwilling to learn even the basics of evolution. If you continue to derail science threads with your faith-based "feelings", you will start accumulating infractions towards a banning. Go ahead and rant about persecution and censorship, as I said we've heard it all before. I don't expect you to change because what you believe is sacred to you, while science remains at least a little bit skeptical about everything.

Sorry but "You've been debunked" isn't a valid refutation. But since reality demonstrates that apes or monkeys don't turn into humans, I'll stick with reality. ;)You can live in the twilight zone where aliens and half-apes & half - humans live.

Knufper - Let's see. You think evolution is a delusion. You think that global warming is not impacted by humans, and that it's all a ploy by Al Gore to raise money in different technology sectors. You have yet to supply any proof or evidence of your assertions, and expect everyone to take you seriously...

 

I have to ask...

 

 

Are you a pastor or religious leader somewhere? The parallels are uncanny.

What scientists miss is the fact that climate has always been cyclic and will continue to be cyclic. In the 70's when we had several cold years, scientists claimed we were going into another ice age. So all scientists prove is that they really know nothing but instead make money on guessing games that they always change.

I would like to point out to the casual reader here that Knupfers posts on evolution can be safely ignored. You won't be missing anything of importance or any accurate reflections of reality by doing so.

Sorry but that doesn't refute my post because anyone who knows basic biology knows what I said is correct. So all you've proven is that you can't admit you're wrong and have no desire to tell the truth...either that or you really don't understand basic biology.

Never wrestle with a troll, you both get dirty and the troll likes it.

Sorry but that doesn't refute my posts or defend yours which even you know. So since you can't defend evolution without contradicting reality and basic biology, then personal attacks are all you have. So I expect nothing more from you.

had nothing to do with the bible, it was to explain observations.

Sorry but ice doesn't carry objects from one area to another one. Water does. So why do scientists dismiss the flood when water is a better explanation and over 200 ancient people have passed along accounts of a flood and NO ONE has passed along an account of a global ice age? The answer is easy; because it's in the bible.

you mean like the bible did? the bible contradicts its own history, it is not the be all and end all of correctness you know. it wasn't even written as a historical document but rather a book to teach people morals. much like Aesops fables.

Sorry but unless you even know what happened in history, then you cannot claim that the bible contradicts history. And that's of course why you didn't list a specific part of history that you claim the bible contradicts.

more than that, there are U shaped valleys which cannot be explained by water erosion but are seen where glaciers are. this indicates that it was a glacier that caused them, U shaped vallies are also absent at latitudes close to the equator except in regions of high altitude where glaciers could form and are still there.

 

That's like looking at trees in a forest and claiming that the earth was once covered in trees. :rolleyes:There are many reasons for valleys which could have been caused by any number of things including the fact that they could have been created that way! So imagining what could have happened based on an observation is called speculation, not science. But speculating impossible things that no one has ever witnessed belongs in the realm of science fiction not science. Sorry.

And clearly you haven't gotten anything out of it, because you can't even get the basics right. If you read up on the basics of evolution you might be better off.

So what you're saying is that evolution does not maintain that humans are the descendants of apes or lower primates. Is that correct? If so, I agree with you 100%. ;)Humans have always come only from humans. So since you claim I'm wrong about what evolution maintains, then you've just denied your whole theory. Sorry.

Because a) we haven't waited a few million years to see and b) there's no reason for natural selection to make descendants with sheep-like characteristics to survive.

That's right, you haven't waited millions of years to see. So your claims are merely speculation, not observable phenomena. So they're no different than claiming that in a million years, humans will evolve into aliens. That's called science fiction, not science.

That makes perfect sense. I'm sure you can explain how bacteria rapidly become resistant to antibiotics or suddenly develop the ability to digest new materials with your model. Or how SARS and HIV spontaneously appeared, after evolving from previous viruses. Or why people are worried about H5N1 bird flu suddenly developing the ability to spread among humans easily. Or dozens of other phenomena that have been observed and are explainable through the theory of evolution.

 

Please do explain those phenomena. I'd be interested to hear your version of events.

I'm glad you brought this up because it actually disproves evolution. Bacteria become resistant to antibiotics because it's the job of a cell to survive. So they become more virulent bacteria. They do not become healthier cells. A cell can only do what the nucleus programs it to do. So a bacterial cell can only remain a bacterial cell and re-enforce the characteristics it already contains.

So bacterial cells do not mutate into healthy cells any more than a "lower primate" mutates into a superior primate. So your example proves my point and disproves evolution.

Knupfer, you are a troll and an ignorant troll at that. If I thought for one moment you were actually looking for knowledge instead of trolling for the creationist cause I would give you information to show just how wrong you are but I am sure that no matter what argument I used you would continue to believe your religious fundamentalist BS and take no heed what so ever of any facts presented that disagree with your narrow stupidity worshiping world view.

Sorry, but you're not giving me information; you're giving me made up scenarios from the imaginations of men. ;)An that's why of course, no one knows who the common ancestor is and why of course, apes don't turn into people in reality. And neither do cows breed pigs, monkeys, mules or humans any more than apes or monkeys breed humans in reality. So writing a story of how an ape could have turned into a man is no different than writing a story of how an alien could have turned into a man. I'm sure one could say that an alien who's as fictitious as the common ancestor just...well...mutated into a human being as well. You guys are so funny. What could happen is called science fiction. What does happen is called science. So you first need to get educated on the difference between the two.

Since Satan is the ruler of the air and his job is to keep people from God, then most of the world will buy into Satan's delusions. Another delusion is that of an ice age.

Why did this ridiculous theory come into place to begin with? The answer is easy; to try to prove the bible wrong. But the problem is, that in order to prove the bible wrong, one must again, make up his own history, a history which is not only bizarre and impossible, but which NO ONE in the past can verify.

Louis Agassiz first came up with this ridiculous theory when he noticed some rocks in the northern plains not indigenous to that area. So how did they get there? The most obvious and rational explanation is a global flood which, incidentally, is verified by the accounts of over 200 ancient cultures. But that would verify the bible so he can't say that. Instead, he put his own slant on it and claimed that FROZEN water once covered the earth.

What Agassiz neglected was the fact that in order for the earth to be covered by frozen water, there first had to be water that covered the earth because ice is of course, frozen water...unless, the ice, just came down from the the heavens in the form of snow and/or freezing rain which melted because the temps raised for a few months to melt the snow and then dipped back below freezing a few months later to freeze the melted snow into ice.

Of course there are zero ancient accounts of this convoluted scenario, but who cares? Since in the scientific world, the imagination is considered evidence, let's keep imagining some more.

So an ice age would mean that even south of the equator, the temps all stayed below freezing for millions of years, then one day, they popped back up to above normal and melted all the ice. But the temps north of the equator still remained below freezing for...let's say, millions of years...no, hundreds of thousands of years...no, actually, as long as we're imagining, let's go back to millions of years. yeah, that sounds better. Maybe we should take a vote and the majority wins.

So the vote is, let's say, 50 to 49 that the water melted south or the border first. We'll pick a nice round number and claim that 2 million years later, the temps began to rise north of the equator because of "global warming". But suddenly, the temps stopped so that man could exist on the earth. Boy, that was convenient! we lucked out there.

So why did the whole earth which was supposedly hot after the "Big Bang" suddenly plunge into sub-freezing temperatures and then just...well...rise again so that man could exist on earth? The answer is easy; because in the imagination, anything's possible.

And there's also something called genetic duplication, where duplicate genetic material is accidentally introduced into chromosomes and then mutates to serve different functions than the original material.

First of all, all animals and humans eventually die, the fit as well as the unfit.

Secondly, every species breeds defective offspring and in every species the fit offspring can be killed by predators or disease just as well as the unfit. So again, natural selection is a myth.

Unfortunately, I've studied evolution for probably longer that you've been alive. The difference is that you've blindly bought into it and I've seen both sides of it. So since you aren't capable of looking at evolution objectively, then you're not capable of seeing its flaws even though they're as plain as day.

And there's also something called genetic duplication, where duplicate genetic material is accidentally introduced into chromosomes and then mutates to serve different functions than the original material.

And how does a human gene "accidentally' get into ape genes? :eek:By your claims, then elephant genes can accidentally get into human genes. Everything you say is all coming from your imagination. Observing genetic duplication then claiming that that's how man was formed is no different than seeing trees in a forest then claiming that the earth was once a giant forest.

Sorry, but an ape can't gradually change into a human any more than a human can gradually change into an elephant. Again, do you know how descendants are produced? Or not? Do you know what mating and breeding results in? Do you know why no human has ever produced a goat as a descendant? or not?

Do you not understand what speciation by natural selection and reproductive isolation is?

Natural selection is a myth. The fit and the unfit always co-exist in every species. Mating and breeding is what passes along genes to offspring, not environment or adaptation. So evolution has made up imaginary scenarios and false statements to try to fit a square peg into a round hole.

Traits can be inherited through genes.

And how do genes pass from parent to offspring? Through mating and breeding. So sorry, but humans can't "inherit" tiger genes unless we can breed with tigers. So the rest of your statements are moot.

So you dispute the concept that DNA can, indeed, change over time. You know, mutations and duplication and that sort of stuff.

 

That makes perfect sense. I'm sure you can explain how bacteria rapidly become resistant to antibiotics or suddenly develop the ability to digest new materials with your model. Or how SARS and HIV spontaneously appeared, after evolving from previous viruses. Or why people are worried about H5N1 bird flu suddenly developing the ability to spread among humans easily. Or dozens of other phenomena that have been observed and are explainable through the theory of evolution.

 

Please do explain those phenomena. I'd be interested to hear your version of events.

A mutation acts on what is already present in the cell. Animal DNA doesn't "mutate" into human DNA any more than goat DNA mutates into elephant DNA.Mating and breeding between animals capable of breeding together is what produces descendants. That's basic biology.

But evolution gets into science fiction; "Let's say that long ago there was once a giant half-man half-beast that turned into a human? In the imagination, anything's possible which all sci-fi books and movies demonstrate. So again, you need to know the difference between science and science fiction.

So "my" version is what happens in reality; apes breed apes, humans breed humans. your version is conjuring up a fictitious animal and claiming that it turned into a person. My version is thus based on reality. Your version is based on your imagination which makes it imaginary.

Huh?

 

You seem to have a misguided understanding of speciation.

 

Let's suppose I find a group of apes living in Africa and steal half of them and dump them in Australia. Then I wait a good, say, ten million years, and come back and compare the apes. They'll be different.

 

Why? Because tiny changes have accumulated over time. Could I look back through all the ancestor apes and say "this is where it became a new kind of ape"? No. Can I look back through human history and pick the one human where "this one's parents were not human"? No. The change between parent and child is almost always tiny.

 

Infinitesimally small changes add up. Ask anyone who's done integral calculus.

How do you know they'll be different? :eek:You're simply making up stories. Sorry friend, but one animal doesn't change into another just because you want it to. Do you not understand what re-production is? reproduction is when a species reproduces itself, not another animal.

So the theory of evolution is nothing but a "what-if" game which is what sci-fi moves and books are based on. "What if once upon a time, a gazillion years ago an ape turned into a human? That's no different than saying; 'once upon a time aliens once changed into humans through mutations." You guys are so funny. You really need to learn the difference between science and science fiction.

Perhaps you'd care to elaborate?

 

Apes and monkeys don't breed elephants, lions, tigers, bears, or humans as descendants, even under evolution. There is no lizard that spontaneously gave birth to a mammal. It's an incredibly gradual process, making the changes almost utterly unnoticeable unless you scale back and look over millions of years.

 

Really. You look foolish when you don't even understand what the scientists are saying.

Do you know what a descendant is? A descendant is not just a first generation offspring. It includes offspring thousands of generations later as well. So sorry, but apes can't produce goats, lions, tigers, bears or humans as descendants whether over millions of years or 9 months! The reason is very simple; because apes don't carry the DNA of the above animals any more than they carry human DNA. So we could never be a descendant of an ape. That's so obvious that even a child can understand it. But not scientists. In fact, in a documentary I just saw, scientists were surprised that they haven't found one ounce of neanderthal DNA in humans. Well duh. That's because only scientists don't understand the birds and the bees.

I am probably the last person anyone would think to call on someone for trolling but I cant possibly understand what you mean?

 

If I could suggest one counter argument is that as you would have it evolution in terms of biological evolution has been studied by such a large variety of sciences with success for it to be nothing at least, and at most maybe just maybe the science of such actually does represent the reality, its just a thought.

Actually, scientists are coming out in droves disclaiming the theory. And again the only reason people buy into it is because they never question the methods of scientists. They simply buy anything scientists say, hook line, and sinker. But if people were capable of thinking for themselves they would understand why apes or monkeys don't breed elephants, lions, tigers, bears or humans as descendants any more than humans breed monkeys, goats, lions tigers or bears as descendants. It's as simple as the birds and the bees.

But unfortunately, people's faith is in the letters after the names of scientists so they blindly believe anything scientists say, then look just as foolish as scientists do when scientists once again say; "We now know that what we once thought was true is not true."

I was going to leave this comment alone, but after reading your other 5 posts so far, and seeing that you called evolution a "delusion," I decided your statement warranted correction.

 

Humans ARE apes.

 

Most everyone already understood that organisms changed. Darwin simply described how and why.

 

 

I'll give you credit for at least using the term ape instead of monkey, but evolution by natural selection is no delusion.

Since evolutionists don't know from which creature man descended because the so-called "common ancestor" is still as imaginary as he's always been, then some people will say we came from monkeys, others say from apes and still others make up other beasts of their imaginations. So since evolution is imaginary, I can see why there's much confusion over from which beast evolutionists claim that man evolved. Either way, calling a human an ape doesn't make it possible for apes to breed human descendants. So it's a waste of time to call a human an ape. So all you're proving is my statement correct that evolutionists don't know the difference between humans and animals.

Nevertheless, if you want to call a human an ape, then what you're actually saying is that humans have always come only from humans as creationists have always known. So either way, you defeat your own theory. Sorry.

I've been butting heads for a year or two on boards with hardcore creationists trying to convince me that information can only be reduced and not added (despite the six-fingered species of humans). Is this the same argument that is typically made about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? If not, what is the typical rebuttal to this question?

 

Also, I would like to read information about the evolution of the precursors to the first single-celled organisms. Can someone direct me to good sources of this type of information?

The only reason that anyone believes in evolution is because people are afraid to question anyone with letters after their names. All one has to understand is the simple birds and bees to know why animals can't breed human descendants. But since most evolutionists don't know the difference between animals and humans, then they're the last group of people to understand basic biology.

Hydrogen is in fact the most common molecule.

 

Apart from this small factual error, I get the feeling you haven't properly understood evolution.

Evolution is a delusion and a perverse one at that. Apes can't breed human descendants whether in millions of years or 9 months. I just saw a documentary on the history channel where scientists were dismayed to find that not one ounce of neanderthal DNA is found in humans. Surprise, surprise. But unfortunately, scientists are the last group of people to understand why animal DNA, particularly the DNA from fictitious animals isn't found in human DNA. And those who are afraid to question anyone with letters after their names are as much in the dark about it as scientists are.

I was wondering if anyone has done some research into this topic. I know there are some quick answers to this question but I think the topic deserves a lot more study.

From his imagination. He simply looked at some people and thought they looked like apes.

My premise is this, there are basically three ultimate destinies for humanity and complex life on the Earth.

 

1. We stay here and ride out the Earth and become extinct along with everything else when a natural disaster of some sort wipes out life on the Earth.

 

2. Humans colonize the solar system by Terra forming other planets and eventually go to the stars and do the same thing there. We would travel via very fast (near C)space craft to other stars with suitable planets, we might take some complex life with us.

 

3. We colonize the solar system through orbiting colonies and bypass planets altogether. Using these huge colony ships similar to O'Neil cylinders we can spread out slowly and occupy the Galaxy in a few hundred thousands years. again we would take much of Earth's complex life with us. Stars with large populations of asteroid like bodies would be preferred. Tau Ceti is an example of this type of star.

 

If complex life is as rare as some think then we could be thought of as spreading complex life around the galaxy.

Again, science dabbles in the imagination, not reality. So people can imagine all sorts of scenarios about our future except the obvious; we will all be destroyed. That's because of the propensity for human beings to destroy ourselves and of course the fact that the earth is limited in size and cannot tolerate unlimited amount of humans on earth and of course our man-made contraptions that litter the earth. So it's only a matter of time before all mankind will be a thing of the past.

Water is critically important to life. Very few, if any, biological systems or reactions will function without water. There is no substitute for water in life as we know it. Logic would suggest that the evolution of life was also dependant upon the unique properties of water. Is the affect of water taken into consideration within evolutionary theories or is this variable left out even though nothing will work without its unique properties? The answer is this critical variable is left out of the analysis even though it was no doubt critical to every step in evolution.

 

That being said, what is unique about water, is its properties are defined by hydrogen bonding. The observation that hydrogen bonding is also critical to life, in the light of the critical role of water in evolution, suggests that our carbon-nitrogen based life life evolved its hydrogen bonding nature in response to the water. In other words, what better way for water to retain its critical role to life than to push evolution in the direction where it could interface based on the same variable that gives water its unique properties. This keeps water always at the forefront of continuing evolution.

 

Water although just H2O is the most complicated substance in nature with at least 63 anomalies relative to trends of other similar molecules. It makes sense that the energetics in water, which makes these anomalies possible, is also what makes life possible. In terms of speculation, maybe life is evolving to take into consideration the range that is inherent within the water. This is an area of evolution I would like to investigate and discuss in a rational way, even if empirical can ignore this critical variable for a good first approximation.

 

I am not discounting the role of C,N,O, etc, but this doesn't work without water as the mediator. The C,N,O also impacts the water so new states of water become possible for further change in C,N,O, etc. This would make evolution a two-way street.

Yes, your post is logical and factual. The earth was formed out of water as the bible states clearly. But as 2 Peter 3:5 says, "But they deliberately forget that long ago, by God's word, the heavens existed and the earth was form out of water and by water."

The earth's surface is composed of approximately 70% water, the human body is composed of approximately 80% water and most animals gestate in water. So as the bible states and reality confirms, water is the irreplaceable life-giving source. So no, the earth didn't start with a bang, nor did it all form together in a ball the exact distance away from the sun and the moon to have enough sunlight during the day, moonlight at night and the influential tidal surges from the oceans. The big bang is thus another made-up fairy tale by scientists.

There is some information that this may be possible using some simple IVF techniques to remove human or ape antibodies from the semen sample before implantation in the host. There is one chromosome differance between humans and chimpanzees, and has been rumored that this has been achived by Russian scientists, and a Chinese scientist. Anyone else have any info on the subject?

I just saw a documentary on the History channel entitled "Clash of the cavemen." No, it wasn't produced by Steven Spielberg, it was considered a "factual" account of "pre-history". It was the story of a neanderthal woman who was abducted. Now how anyone knew she was abducted is anybody's guess, but since the imagination is considered evidence in the scientific world, then of course, that would include all fairy tales.

In this 'documentary, the statement was also made that there is no evidence of neanderthal DNA in human DNA. Now that fact is obvious to anyone with common sense and a basic understanding of the birds and the bees. But not to scientists because they seem to be the last group of people who are not capable of understanding why ape, or any animal DNA, especially the DNA of fictitious animals can't get into the DNA of humans.

Nevertheless, since again, the imagination is considered evidence in the scientific world, the scientists on that documentary kept insisting that apes or some form of ape bred with some form of modern day human (which is actually bestiality) so that humans could claim our ancestors were apes, or some form of ape.

So even though the facts don't verify the theory of evolution, do scientists care? Not in the least because they know they can use the letters after their names to dupe the public. And that they can.