muchomike & atheist

FaithHealer3

Originally posted by Sj鴈n at 2005-5-5 07:58 PM:
So if monkeys did evolve.. Why MonKeys still exist today...? arent they  all supposed to evolve into humans?

ha ha ha.. that clearly shows that you don't know much about evolution. Your understanding of evolutions is very very bad.

Here is a good website for you to learn about evolution..  http://www.talkorigins.org



[ Last edited by FaithHealer3 on 5-5-2005 at 10:10 PM ]

vixen

Originally posted by FaithHealer3 at 2005-5-5 09:48 PM:


ha ha ha.. that clearly shows that you don't know much about evolution. Your understanding of evolutions is very very bad.

Here is a good website for you to learn about evolut ...

Precisely, that's why better to not take them seriously when they start claiming that evolution is crap and all.

Thing is,they simply don't comprehend and I don't blame them because evolution is not an easy concept to understand as most people seem to think,...very few biologists and evolutionary scientists have a full grasp on it.

[ Last edited by vixen on 6-5-2005 at 02:10 AM ]

vixen

Sjoen wrote:
Suppose you come across brick stones  top of each other, as arational person are you going to claim that someone had positioned them that way or did they climbed  top of each other by chance.

But the fallacy of your reasoning is that you are comparing an artefact (a layer of bricks or television is a man-made object) to the natural world;the universe which may or may not need a creator.So your reasoning fails because an unnatural object like the layer of bricks(or the television) are *not* analogous(same) to the universe or anything that exists naturally.Can you understand this?

[ Last edited by vixen on 6-5-2005 at 02:07 AM ]

no,i dont understand your excuse to twist things around
i was indeed 'paraphrasing', his question


can u explain to me WHY The 410million year old coelacanth is still the very same fish alive today? whyy it didnt evolved into any imaginary byproduct of your imagination  it? read this

Until about fifty years ago, evolutionists thought that such a creature indeed existed. This fish, called a coelacanth, which was estimated to be 410 million years of age, was put forward as a transitional form with a primitive lung, a developed brain, a digestive and a circulatory system ready to function on land, and even a primitive walking mechanism. These anatomical interpretations were accepted as undisputed truth among scientific circles until the end of the 1930's. The coelacanth was presented as a genuine transitional form that proved the evolutionary transition from water to land


and you two still havent answered me why didnt the Coelacanth didnt evolve one bit...
btw
Variation within species is NOT EVOLUTION

[ Last edited by Sj鴈n on 6-5-2005 at 04:01 AM ]

H猷L鰃頧

I think youre denying to understand the truth of evolution applies in our life

How can aqua life transition to mainland. Many found fossil prove the is not much change like mosquitoes & ant. Will you explain the very first creation?

Accepting Darwinism means you agree to racism & demoralize your God believed. Try Google about 'Ota Benga', where the White feel the Blacks is 'animal' in the name 'evolution'. Hitler also hail to Darwinism to subject thier Aryanism over the Jew.

Darwinism is biggest lie in science evolution


The evolution theory is unacceptable.

Originally posted by FaithHealer3 at 5-5-2005 09:48 PM:
Your understanding of evolutions is very very bad.

DARSITA

Originally posted by FaithHealer3 at 5-5-05 03:40 AM:
Ha ha ha do some research first before you ask dumb questions. Monkeys did evolve.

You didn't actually evolve from a monkey, but ape-like mammals.

vixen

Sjoen wrote:
and you two still havent answered me why didnt the Coelacanth didnt evolve one bit...

This is because the fish is adapted to and thrives in a relatively stable environment,with its relatively stable genome.In other words,it is no longer subjected to any evolutionary force as it is already filled its environmental niche.

Or maybe only its mitochondrial genome probably changed,while the morphology remain unchanged due to the deep sea environment where Coelacanths live in?

And there is no part of the theory of evolution that says species *must* change.

btw
Variation within species is NOT EVOLUTION

Yeah like.. natural selection is NOT EVOLUTION  [/sarcasm]

Sigh.. why dont you start reading something like "The Dummies Guide To Evolution" first? LOL.

[ Last edited by vixen on 7-5-2005 at 08:54 PM ]

FaithHealer3

Originally posted by Sj鴈n at 2005-5-6 03:53 AM:
can u explain to me WHY The 410million year old coelacanth is still the very same fish alive today? whyy it didnt evolved into any imaginary byproduct of your imagination

Wrong again.

The modern coelacanth are of different species from the ancient coelacanths. Even the modern coelacanths are divided into two different species.. Latimeria chalumnae and Latimeria menadoensis.


The ancient and fossiled coelacanths were small in size.. modern coelacanths are much bigger, their length is about 1.5meter.

and there is no such thing as "must evolve".

variation within species is NOT evolution

This fish, called a coelacanth, which was estimated to be 410 million years of age, was put forward as a transitional form with a primitive lung, a developed brain, a digestive and a circulatory system ready to function on land, and even a primitive walking mechanism. These anatomical interpretations were accepted as undisputed truth among scientific circles until the end of the 1930's. The coelacanth was presented as a genuine transitional form that proved the evolutionary transition from water to land


BUT  IT DIDNT HAD ANY OF THOSE TRAITS, untill today its still a fish

[ Last edited by Sj鴈n on 7-5-2005 at 11:37 PM ]

FaithHealer3

Originally posted by Sj鴈n at 2005-5-7 11:35 PM:
variation within species is NOT evolution

ha ha ha.. again that show how little you know about evolution. Variation within species is one of the key-factor in evolution. Variation are due to mutation in the gene.

Tell us, according to your understanding, what is the meaning of evolution?

Originally posted by Sj鴈n at 2005-5-7 11:35 PM:
This fish, called a coelacanth, which was estimated to be 410 million years of age, was put forward as a transitional form with a primitive lung, a developed brain, a digestive and a circulatory system ready to function on land, and even a primitive walking mechanism. These anatomical interpretations were accepted as undisputed truth among scientific circles until the end of the 1930's. The coelacanth was presented as a genuine transitional form that proved the evolutionary transition from water to land

The ancient coelacanths had the characteristic of a fish that looked like evolving into a land creature.. some of the ancient coelacanth might have done just that.. some might have evolve into the modern coelacanths.

Anyway, coelacanths are not the only water creatures with "water to land" transitional features.. there are others.

Originally posted by Sj鴈n at 2005-5-7 11:35 PM:
BUT  IT DIDNT HAD ANY OF THOSE TRAITS, untill today its still a fish

So what? Me.vixen already explain it to you, yet you act so blur.

Its not a "must" thing for a creature to evolve.

Anyway, modern day coelacanth are not the same species as the ancient coelacanths.

vixen

Looks like we are just wasting our time with Sjoen,eh FaithHealer?

I suggest that Sjoen try reading up about what evolution is all about and start from the basics.Good luck.

well, since you insisted, okayy lets talk with reasoning

Thnx you or your explaination about the fish , but respectively modern day coelacanths is still a fish , not a lizard , nor a mamal, not even an amphibian

even the lung fish which can live on land is onsidered a fish nd not an amphibian , what have you both verified a while ago isstill regarding the variation within a species and not transitory to another as in h to mammal , untill today there is yet solid proof that such transitional animals and half lizard birds, theres not even enough fossil eidence to support this theory ...by right there should be hundreds and thousands of transitionatory fossils but there is none, and if there are still its so few in number

FaithHealer3

Originally posted by Sj鴈n at 2005-5-10 03:37 AM:
well, since you insisted, okayy lets talk with reasoning

You can start by giving your defination of evolution.

You asked me a totally irrelevant question like capital of russia.. and you kept whining and whining when i didn't respond to your irrelevant question. When you discredit evolution, i asked a totally relevant question Tell us, according to your understanding, what is the meaning of evolution?.. and you "buat bodoh" aje.. ha ha ha

Originally posted by Sj鴈n at 2005-5-10 03:37 AM:
Thnx you or your explaination about the fish , but respectively modern day coelacanths is still a fish , not a lizard , nor a mamal, not even an amphibian

Thats obvious, isn't it?

Originally posted by Sj鴈n at 2005-5-10 03:37 AM:
...by right there should be hundreds and thousands of transitionatory fossils but there is none, and if there are still its so few in number

You are not sure whether transistional fossils exist or not.. aren't you? Looks like you been confused by the likes of Harun Yahya.

First you need to realise that fossils are not easy to find.. having said that, many fossils are being discovered and identified.. according to the period the fossiled creature lived.  Some of the fossils are in the transitional group. There are plenty of fossils in the transitional form.

f.y.i..  given below are websites giving information on the Water-to-Land transitional fossils.

http://www.origins.tv/darwin/tetrapods.htm#Tetrapods

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html

http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/transfos.htm

yah and bears evolved into whales as they tried to swim...

vixen

FaithHealer:

See that? First he says he wants to reason properly,and now makes such  statement when he is shown to be wrong again.

Sjoen is clearly not here to debate/discuss in a rational mature manner nor do I think he would change his stance.He is just hell-bent on dissing evolution no matter what,even when he knows he is in the wrong.

FaithHealer3

Originally posted by vixen at 2005-5-11 10:08 PM:
FaithHealer:

See that? First he says he wants to reason properly,and now makes such  statement when he is shown to be wrong again.

Poor Sj鴈n, his mind refuses to learn.

The dummy don't even know the meaning of evolution and yet he wants to condemn it.

So far, we know that evolution is based on evidence.. and God is based on illusion.

Fuzzman

Originally posted by FaithHealer3 at 2005-5-11 11:56 PM:
Poor Sj鴈n, his mind refuses to learn.The dummy don't even know the meaning of evolution and yet he wants to condemn it. So far, we know that evolution is based on evidence...and God is based on illusion.

Evolution is based on evidence? Good. Then show me where evolution began For Mankind...based on evidence of course!

ARI FUZZMAN

FaithHealer3

Originally posted by Fuzzman at 2005-5-13 02:11 AM:

Evolution is based on evidence? Good. Then show me where evolution began For Mankind...based on evidence of course!

First, tell me what you know about evolution. Give the meaning of evolution. What is your understanding of evolution?

Don't chicken-out like Sj鴈n did.

anti_aktivis

Hmmmm if there is evolution . Hmmmm what is there when the evolution is not yet start Hmmm who create or define the evolution process. Who create the so call thing that later evolve to us

Fuzzman

Originally posted by FaithHealer3 at 2005-5-13 04:27 PM:
First, tell me what you know about evolution. Give the meaning of evolution. What is your understanding of evolution?Don't chicken-out like Sj鴈n did.

Chicken out? Last thing on my mind bro. We can talk but we can do without the attitude that's been sparking around. You people behave as if you're all involved in a firefight in some imaginary hot war zone!

Evolution? By scientific acceptances, it means progression from point A to point B on the path of "no turning back" where there is a strong linkage in the areas of physical and genetic properties. How's that for starters?

So when did evolution begin for Mankind?

ARI FUZZMAN