Re: Evolution?
While studying Rhesus monkeys, a certain blood protein was discovered. This protein is also present in the blood of some people. Other people, however, do not have the protein. The presence of the protein, or lack of it, is referred to as the Rh (for Rhesus) factor.
ak-47 you would not dicover this and help save lot of humans since your thinking is so rigid .
Re: Evolution?
I was asked to comment on the article posted by PakPatriot, and I'll go ahead and do that. The arguments made against the problems set forth by creationists seem to be pretty valid, although keep in mind I skimmed thru the whole article really quickly. So I'm not going to dissect it and nitpick small points.
I will make a point however, and I've stressed it before, that MACRO-evolution is the idea that creationists usually have in mind when they argue against evolution theory. They do not think of allele frequencies, micro-evolution, R vs. K populations, bottleneck theory, etc etc. So just keep in mind when a creationist is arguing, chances are, they are talking about macro-evolution. The idea that ALL species generated from ONE single original cell. There is just not enough evidence to PROVE THAT. In fact, there isn't even enough evidence to say that our line jumps from monkeys and then out of monkeys came a human race. Perhaps we're related in some way or the other, but like I've said, looking at these fossils - who knows? Maybe monkeys have sprung off humans? Directionality is an issue. Also, the fact that we don't have a missing link is an issue that is known to every scientist on the face of this earth, and to most people who watch the discovery channel.
The other point I want to make is regarding transitional fossils. You can have all the transitional fossils you want baby, but the biggest missing transitional fossil IS the missing link. That's what the missing link is. Its the perfect fossil that will show us a total transition between ape to human.
Even in evolution theory, there is still some debate as to how the tree looks. Did we come off apes, and chimpanzees are our sister race? Or did we spring directly from chimpanzees? I'm not up to date totally on the latest evidence in this aspect, but from what I remember, I think the last addition was that chimpanzees are our sister race, because of the high match frequency in our genetic code.
But like I've said. What does the genetic code really show? Evolution? So we match in high numbers, and so we evolved from them? Or does it show that God was experimenting with chimpanzees before He "invented" us, usuing the chimpanzee as a premature model?
Re: Evolution?
By the way, you being a creationist, and giving the evolution theory credit where its due...they're not mutually exclusive tasks...
I think you can totally believe in evolution and still believe in a God. Just then you have to believe that God might have created evolution, that's all.
Re: Evolution?
Do yourself and those of us who labor through your posts a favor - read up on a subject before calling others stupid about something you have not clue about and are not willing to study.
It would do you good to read the “cut and paste” as it refutes the argument (if that is what you call creationism) much more than your rebuttal" evolution doe’snt even address the most basic question where the first life arose from". That is a different “theory” that scientists don’t even study anymore because they do not limit science to fundamentalist bias.
Re: Evolution?
I think that’s true as well. That makes all this debate unneccessary. Any religion I’ve studied could be interepreted (if you weren’t hung up on literal translation) where human evolution could have occurred.
Re: Evolution?
studied this subject in junior school and its very simple not difficult to comprehend and reftute i think you should do yourself a favour and actually provide something called facts and not try and pass of fiction as facts it is clear you are the one with no clue! try again
Re: Evolution?
When someone provides facts, you respond with "cut and pasting from google is not refuting the argument". As if you have provided one shred of proof for creationism. There are plenty of websites you can google if you really want to read up on the facts.
Refute the arguments instead of calling it fiction. Paleontology has yielded numerous transitional forms from fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to bird and bird to mammal.
If God created life (which no one will ever prove or disprove), he could have done it through evolution. Why limit him? Because you are limiting the stories of the Quran which he meant to be allegorical?
*"A major function of fundamentalist religion is to bolster deeply insecure and fearful people. This is done by justifying a way of life with all of its defining prejudices. It thereby provides an appropriate and legitimate outlet for one's anger." *Harper Collins
Re: Evolution?
hello everyone.. interesting to read your comments regarding evolution
it is very interesting to note that the same science which we live our life in (actually depend on it) - we do not beleive in it....
I will explain something in plain letters...
We live in a world that is full of surprizes and intersting things.
It is very interesting to note that Science is not a religion
science accepts changes - its Laws and theories can be changed - provided someone brings a proof (which can be proved according to certain established laws)... science even gives Nobel prizes to those who Challange their established their laws..
Scientists do not KILL people (for Blasphamy etc) in case someone dare to challange their long established law / theory... in other words SCIENCE is very flexible...
But on the other hand.. RELIGION
Does not accept any CHANGE -
Change on their Fundamental concepts is Considered a Great Sin.. for which someone who even thinks about it is a Great Sinner and will definitely go to Hell ... and live thereforever... and will be BURNED ALIVE in Hellfire.. forever and forever and forever..
Religion usually does not accept LOGIC and any established laws - if things go against it.. but accepts anything if evidence is in favour of it...
With evolution - we see the facts everyday in our life.. but we reject them. It is very intersting that SCIENCE has told us that we as Human specis have dominated this earth for only 10,000 or 15,000 years, But no one thinks about the many many millions of years that have passed. There have been specis which were powerful (Dynosaours etc) which were quite-powerful.. and we have evidenc of that (bones as their fact of existance)
anyhow.. in simple words.. saying that I am used to Cold Weather or Hot weather is part of evolution... REMEMBER that Evolution takes several hundred thousand years to be clearly visible - Like a Train Rail.. its bends are not visible - but from a larger distance
I hope you people will use your COmmon Sense
Re: Evolution?
You could paste all the nonsense you want and it would still be useless because none of it has any credibilty…
And two, even if you did, it would be laughed off as another example of your poor knowledge of science…
What to expect, you obviuosy didnt bother to actually read the article knowing full well that it would expose your idiocy for what it is…
BUT PLEASE INSTEAD OF TALKING OUT OF YOUR BUTT, POST SOMETHING WITH EVEN A LITTLE BUT OF CREDIBILITY…
Read a little on what evolution is before you come here and talk…
Re: Evolution?
A lot of the stuff you talk about according to the article is stuff that not related to evolution… The debate in question is on the existance of cells, not on which direction it took… But you have to understand that just because you (and myself) lack the expertise to examine genetic lines and to make asesment doesnt mean that others who do have that expertise cant do so with some high degree of accuracy.
The article makes the point that the reason creationist arguments seem to valid is because they dont actually address the question of evolution itself.
The part of the transitional fossil is there aswell… You should go back and read the article in full because otherwise this debate is irrelevent.
The article also addresses the much uttered back bone of the creationist theory that “it only a theory” line…
We know, according to the article with a HIGH degree of certainty that evolution occured and what order it took… Thats the most we can expect of any scientific theory.. It points out that most theories only become FACT not when something is beyond the shadow of a doubtm which is impossible, but when it is believed to be off VERY high degree of certainty.
Re: Evolution?
i love it how you put it down so simply :k:
Re: Evolution?
I like to believe in god and in evolution… Problem arrises when people begin turning it into a god versus sceince issue which is immposible to win.. Science has evidence to back it up while creationists have GOD himeself… lol 
Relgion gives us an outline, Science gives us the details…
Re: Evolution?
LOL… You learned it in JUNIOR school and your hear trying to act as though your an expert 
RIDICULOUS..
Read the cut and paste on why the old “evolution is only a theory” jargon is such crap!
Re: Evolution?
Read it and got bored because read this same trash when i was 15 so cut and pasting it again what did you achive a big fat 0 have a banana and try again 
Re: Evolution?
What aspects of Evolution we are discussing over here? Chemical, Cosmic or Organic? I mean if we evolved from Apes then why do we have Apes? Future Eligible Bachelors hmmmm? 
Also, why not women? 
Why always Men were Apes, Donkeys and Monkeys?
If Creationists so much belief in their ‘belief’ why can’t they publish their report scientifically? Why do we have to quote unquote same old verses. If you believe in it, prove it.
Thee iz sho exhusting. 
Re: Evolution?
Lol.. And that only means that your still as stupid as you were then:)
Re: Evolution?
lol…
Re: Evolution?
I think your knowledge in science is a bit weak.
Re: Evolution?
^Hai hai, that was certainly a defensive reply,classic sign of mental fatigue:) ... Im not giving you my reply to the article, im asking you to read it and give your, reply.. If you like, I can provide more links, perhaps shorter articles for you to read...?
My knowledge bhan jee in sceince is better then you may imagine, infact I wonder how strong your grounding is... But before we start comparing degrees, I suggest you save your judgements for someone else... I think you need to read the article^ If you cant come up with a coherant rebuttle to the article, then by all means, excuse yourself from the debate as you did before...
Re: Evolution?
Is there anyone out there who doesnt believe in Evolution who isnt full of Sh1t?
Can anyone of you actually read more then two line per post?