I rise to my feet and applaud! That was outstanding!!!!! Thank you Tarheels.

That's actually a very nice post Doug! I would like to point out that we don't hate science. We basically take issue with the theory of evolution and abiogenesis. That's it.

This is getting ridiculous.


The article I quoted from is an overview of some recent research, and NOT the research paper itself. Do you know how to use/read footnotes? The article I quoted, if you looked at the link to it that you were already given, was footnoted. That footnote gave you everything you needed to find the research paper that the quoted material was taken from.

If you follow this link you will find all of the measurements you say are missing in glorious detail:

The research paper you couldn't be bothered to look for

This link goes directly to the ENTIRE research paper that is listed as a source in the exact quote I had in my reply. It took me exactly 20 seconds to paste the name of the paper into Google and find it.

Bingo, Bango, Bongo - I WIN!!!!!!

Its only outstanding to anyone who doesn't know a darn thing about dating.

Dates are founded on several different methods like hoar frost analysis and electrical analysis, which have nothing to do with thickness. All of these methods are used and the correct date is given if all of the methods agree with one another. Its stupid to think scientists base it on one method.

Also they landed on glacier. What do glaciers do? They move.
Ice cores are only taken on stable foundations.

One of the stupidest articles I ever read.

And the only reason you take issue with it is because it threatens your world view. Your beliefs.

If you want to take issue with theory of evolution and abiogenesis, then take issue with the whole of science.

Lets see you challenge relativity and gravitation and see how well that goes.

I was about to say I could already hear the word "stupid" or "incorrect interpretation of data" or the last resort, "It's on a Christian website" but Cimber was too quick on the draw.

Would you rather me be more polite? The article was stupid and it needed to be pointed out, because anyone who knows a thing or two about science is well versed in how dating methods occur.

I don't care about the dating - that was a great story! And why are you getting so upset Cimber? Are you tracking my posts? I'm not attacking now, and I won't because that's not how I roll - usually. I've already seen Mattshark flip out today, and I'd hate to see the same thing from you.

Isn't that why you are opposed to the idea of an omniscient, omnipresent Creator? Because it threatens your world view?

Why? The last time I checked, science was not a take it or leave it type of process, and neither was reasoning. I have no problem with science, I even have little problem with the theory of evolution... if it's right all it means is that God used a different method than what some of us thought, if it isn't right then it was still a useful tool in many ways, I have a problem with the way some people use it to prop up their world view and to try to beat down the world view of others. If anyone ever decides to use gravitation to support their zealotry I may find reason to question their use of it, but not gravitation itself.

250 feet deep in 50 years is only five feet per year. Not exactly a record-setting accumulation rate. The AiG folks are correct in pointing out that one can't just assume that a particular event took "millions of years." There has to be some evidence behind the number. That's what glaciology is for; I suggest they discuss it with a glaciologist. There's one in the building next to mine.

I have noticed that the folks at AiG talk in terms of "everybody says" and "people think" without ever specifying who "everybody" and "people" are. We need to be specific about what it is that is/isn't "millions of years old" or why it should be surprising that 600 feet of mud should accumulate in a ravine at Mt. St. Helens. A sedimentologist could probably help them tell the difference between deposits laid down in weeks and those laid down over millenia. Did they talk to one? Or were they content with uninformed speculation? I would have to ask how the St. Helens deposit differs from marine deposits and did the folks at AiG consider these differences?

In science, we try to answer EVERY question about a phenomenon so as to gain the proper understanding of it, rather than filling in the gaps with speculation as AiG seems to do.

As snow accumulates, it compresses. Layers above gradually squeeze the air out so that the ice becomes denser and layers that started out ten feet thick compress down to inches. If anybody is claiming "millions of years" of ice accumulation for the Greenland Ice Cap, I don't know about it, but I do recall 250,000 being talked about for some of the thicker portions where there is little ice movement to carry accumulations away.

In short, it sounds to me like AiG hasn't done its homework. They need to find experts who can give them the understanding they lack.
Doug

Hey, be as impolite as you want to be, you're not a believer so the mods won't get on you about it and it's hilarious how predictable it can be.

You're right. This is getting ridiculous. Doug

Good that you found the article. Now if you would just read it.

"The only reasonable interpretation of these findings is that there has been very recent clonal expansion and geographic dissemination of the nine most closely related isolates (8 query organisms plus FPR3757). These results rule out the formal hypothesis of convergent evolution."

"Many of these 472 SNPs were present in more than one isolate, consistent with divergence from a common ancestor (SI Table 2)." <---------Pre-existing

Nothing in this article demonstrates an increase in genetic information or new information. The relation was identified to be consistent with common ancestory.

If the mods are uptight about me saying the article was stupid, they have bigger issues to deal with. Anyone who doesn't see its stupidity and how flat out wrong it is, is breaking a rule in and of itself: 2d. Accuracy: Do not post material that is knowingly or intentionally false, inaccurate or misleading.

The article is no stupider than a person saying the earth is flat. Both are stupid statements, because the people who said the respective statements didn't take the time to research a darn thing.

Maybe you would like to prove abiogenesis to us?

Maybe draw up an experiment for us so we can demonstrate abiogenesis in our own homes?

So, have you actually read the article at the link I gave you?

You tell me my post has no merit, I point out how to get to the detailed information, and all you can do is agree with me that this is getting ridiculous?

When I said "This is getting ridiculous", what I mean is this:

I see post, after post, after post, after post that answers questions that some users on the creationist side of the argument keep asking over and over again. These posts never get replied to, or get replied to in a way that makes it obvious that the answer was not read, or the link never followed or read.

It is ridiculous for you to tell me that a post to a NEWS Story ABOUT some research doesn't contain ALL of the measurements you say are required for the article to have merit.

As I said, the NEWS story was FOOTNOTED, giving you all of the information you needed to find out if the NEWS article had merit or not. You obviously DID not bother looking at the data behind the article, and, instead, declared my post without merit out of hand.

That is what is ridiculous.

I have made it very easy for you: go to my post that links the RESEARCH PAPER, read the research paper that the NEWS article was reporting ABOUT, and then come back and tell us whether the research has merit or not.

I'll check, but I believe the only warning issued on this thread so far has been to Non-Creationists. Made by me. A Non-Creationist Mod.

Could everyone posting here please avoid words that are likely to inflame the conversation. If you believe that an article is Unresearched, then unresearched is a far better word than Stupid, for example.

From the Forum guidelines pinned above:

3e. Flamebaiting: Do not intentionally instigate "flame wars" or bait others in to making personal attacks.

3f. Abusive behaviour: Do not be rude, insulting, offensive, snide, obnoxious or abusive towards other members.

Thanks in advance,

Tiggs
[Forum Mod Team]

You know I certainly respect your beliefs IAS. This is always a hot topic--more so, I think, than any Biblical issue!--and we all have a stance we are firmly rooted in. Way it will always be.



Abiogenesis ... Yeti, take a gander at the following documentary dealing with said topic. Only about 8-10 minutes in length. I know you're not going to agree--and that's perfectly fine--but take a look just for the heck of it, okay? About 4 minutes in is when AG et al is addressed in detail.

6th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
http://youtube.com/watch?v=t3k0dDFxkhM&feature=related

EVOLUTION

1 Foundational Falsehood of Creationism (Hard-hitting, but please watch)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY&feature=related

PBS: EVOLUTION
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/about/overview_series.html

MK,

Sean

Chill out. Your link was to a news story. That's what some people think technical writing is. Next time, link to the research article first.

And while you're at it, you might want to reply to what I said, rather than what WWF said. And besides, this is only one round in the battle and the creationists have been taking it in the shorts. Don't you think it would be good for their egos to get SOMETHING right?
Doug

I already posted a response to the article. Most of what was observed was due to common ancestory. I suggest you go back and read the article yourself. Nobody is saying it had no merit.

Ughh. I think I'll start with tarheel's AiG link.
But. I'd like this to be a little more organized.
At the bottom of the page, I have questions directed towards either TarHeels, WWF, or Yeti.
Please make sure you answer the questions directed towards you.
Just making sure everybody hears. Of course, I doubt it will happen, because every other question I ask WWF or Yeti is ignored. Maybe TarHeels will be different.

LoL. So, the article summarized:
"lol guys you see there was this plane, and it was like under 75 m of ice, and scientists think that ice takes forever to build up! wrong! God exists! The world is 6,000 years old!"
Answers:
-Ice layers are counted by different methods (mainly, visible layers of hoar frost, visible dust layers, and layers of differing electrical conductivity) which have nothing to do with thickness. These methods corroborate each other and match with other independently determined dates (Seely 2003).

-The airplanes landed near the shore of Greenland, where snow accumulation is rapid, at about 2 m per year. Allowing for some compaction due to the weight of the snow, that accounts for the depth of snow under which they are buried. The planes are also on an active glacier and have moved about 2 km since landing. Ice core dating takes place on stable ice fields, not active glaciers. The interior of Greenland, where ice cores were taken, receives much less snow. In Antarctica, where ice cores dating back more than 100,000 years have been collected, the rate of snow accumulation is much less still.

-A report of "many hundreds" of layers in the ice above the Lost Squadron may also be explained by the airplanes' location on Greenland. That location is relatively warm because it is low and more southerly; its surface gets repeatedly melted during the summer, creating multiple melt layers per year. At the site of the GISP2 ice core, melting occurs only about once every couple centuries. Melt layers are easily distinguished in ice cores. The more than 100,000 layers in ice cores are definitely not melt layers (Seely 2003).


Links:
http://noanswersingenesis.org.au/kuechmann_cretin_comedy.htm

Seely, Paul H. 2003. The GISP2 ice core: Ultimate proof that Noah's flood was not global. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 55(4): 252-260. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Seely.pdf

Brinkman, Matt, 1995. Ice core dating. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html


Oh. And can we PLEASE keep the consciousness argument out of this? It has nothing to do with Creationism, or scientific evidence.



OK. LISTEN UP PEOPLE. I'm just dead sick of people mixing up some very basic terms. USE THESE from now on; do not interchange them.
here's the stink.
Fact of Evolution- the fact that organisms evolve. This is a FACT because Evolution has been observed several times in nature.
Obviously, thousands of examples have already been given, but here's where you should go to find them:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo1...peciation.shtml <-- The entire Berkeley site is EXCELLENT
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/s...php?topic_id=52

If you are still unconvinced that natural selection and micro Evolution, and Macro Evolution occur, simply ask for more examples!

The Theories of Evolution- different theories about the specific Evolutionary tracks of certain species. AKA the theory(ies) pertain to HOW Evolution occurred in the past. Extremely well backed by fossil record evidence, and DNA evidence, and homologeous structure evidence. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Abiogenesis- The IDEA(NOT a theory) that primitive life can arise from non-life.

The Theory of Abiogenesis- The theory that life on our planet arose from non-life.

The Law of Biogenesis- Has NOTHING to do with what we are talking about; In modern Biology, it is no longer considered a strict law. Quite simply, the law of Biogenesis states that a mouse cannot just pop into thin air; IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ABIOGENESIS.
See:
http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/3-1.html

THERE.


The beginning has nothing to do with Evolution. Either a God created the first few cells of life, or they arose on their own.



That was a joke, right?
right?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/23.Cases.HTML
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo1...peciation.shtml




The Reality:
Creationist Side: "We think Caesar's real name was bob."
Evolutionist Side: "Obviously, nobody alive has ever observed Caesar, but all the historical evidence points that Bob was not a Roman name, and that Caesar's name was Caesar."


No. A 2,000 year old book that contradicts most of modern science says God made us.


Sigh. IT IS VERY EASY. I don't know if you know about him, Yeti, but there was this guy, called Jesus. Christians don't seem to like him a lot anymore, and don't pay much attention to him, but he simply said that if you worship God quietly and humbly, and if you are a good person, you will go to heaven. Your faith is supposed to listen to this guy, even though someone in your faith actually doing so is rare.
Jesus said nothing about believing a 2,000 year old book to be 100% literal.



I answered this in EXTREME detail in Yeti's last thread.
Here's a WONDERFUL link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution
Notice how the fossil record fits together so perfectly.
Please tell me what issue you have with any of those fossils transitioning to the next.



Yes, but when we also show that Evolution happens, and how DNA evidence practically proves evolution(below), the possible path, which all the fossils have been found in, is by far the best choice.
DNA evidence for Evolution:
http://godbegone.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-...-evolution.html
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/ingman.html
http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html
http://txtwriter.com/Backgrounders/Evolution/EVpage13.html
http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHA.

Anyway, once again, WWF has been quite pwned. I find it hilariously how he enters and leaves threads as soon as he is whumped. At least TarHeels and Yeti don't do that!


I'm getting sick of this last, desperate 'Well, technically you can't prove it!!!!!' argument. It is absurd. Son, you, and Yeti are all guilty of it now.
Technically, I can't prove that the universe wasn't created yesterday by the FSM.



OK. Well, you asked, so here's a basic proof of Common Descent.
So, it is a FACT that we have observed Evolution in nature.(See Above, and 1,000000 other posts)
The usual Creationist arguments tend to be:
"LOL fossil record holes!"
--Nope. First of all, there are few to zip holes in the fossil records. Those that are there can always be filled in with simply Micro evolution changes. Creationists tend to forget that fossils are freak accidents that rarely occur.

"Well, you can't prove it!"
--We can't prove ANYTHING IN LIFE. GET OVER IT. One must accept a reality which is supported by the most, and best evidence.
As this thread has proved, either our local creationists are rather incompetent, or there is no non-debunked evidence for Creationism.

"Those are just SMALL changes, you need LARGE changes for Evolution"
Obviously, Creationists forget one thing. This is of utmost importance.
WHAT IS TO STOP SMALL CHANGES FROM BECOMING LARGE CHANGES?

So. Here are the questions. Please reply to them. Pretty Please?

To: All Creationists
1. What is stopping the 'small', micro Evolution changes from adding up to create a completely different animal?

2. Can you explain any 'holes' in the Evolution of Man Timeline Provided?

3. Can you offer some more scientific evidence for Creationism?

To TarHeelsFan:
Any comments on the Ice stuff?

To WWF:
1. Did you even read my post?

To YetiHunter:
1. Can you write a clear, concise few sentences on what are your problems with Evolution, and back up any Evolution related claims you make?
2. Can you write a clear, concise few sentences on how Radiometric dating can be wrong, when a large number other dating methods agree that the Earth is old?
3. Can you explain the problems you have with the examples of Speciation and micro Evolution given?





OK, Guys.

My respect for Creationists will go quite a bit up if those questions are actually answered by someone.
Based on past results, I seriously doubt they will be, but...


Cheers,
SQLserver

The entire problem of Creationism has to do with ignorance. No offense, but you honestly don't realize the hole you keep digging yourselves into, do you?
You aren't just 'attacking Evolution and Abiogenesis.' You are attacking and completely uprooting almost all of modern science.

Here's a nice list of sciences a Fundamentalist Creationist interpretation of the bible would uproot.



1. Modern Ethics*
2. Common Sense*
3. Biology
4. Botany
5. Meteorology
6. Geology
7. Nuclear Physics
8. Chemistry
9. Cosmology
10. Astronomy
11. Paleontology
12. Anthropology
13. Archeology
14. Physics
15. The Bible(as it contradicts itself several times over)*
16. Medical Science
17. Bacteriology
18. Psychology
19. MicroBiology
20. Virology
21. acology
22. aerolithology
23. aerology
24. agriology
25. anatomy
26. anthropobiology
27. astrogeology
28. astrophysics
29. autecology
30. cetology
31. climatology
32. cometology
33. cytology
34. dendrochronology
35. Egyptology
36. ekistics
37. epidemiology
38. ethnogeny
39. genetics
40. geochemistry
41. geochronology
42. geogony
43. geomorphogeny
44. glaciology
45. heliology
46. historiology
47. meteoritics
48. micropalaeontology
49. mineralogy
50. neurology
51. neurobiology
52. nosology
53. orology
54. palaeoclimatology
55. psychognosy
56. Sinology
*These aren't Sciences, but the bible still contradicts them!
And that's all supposed to be the 'theory of evolution', right?

Ask about anyone of those.
Cheers,
SQLserver

Did sql say something?

Probably the same thing that is stopping an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent Creator from having created all life.


Is your respect something we should be craving? Why? Do you want us to respect you? Do you need us to?

Some much needed humor ...

The Simpsons Evolution Intro
http://youtube.com/watch?v=5X4L-Q9MHCg

Sean

Pwned? Sure, obviously Quite honestly, I don't think it's possible to pwn people with wikipedia links, even 50 of them at one time. We all know you try.

Which post are you asking if I read?

All I said was it was an interesting article. It was 250 ft. under the ice, it was lying on its "belly" which means it didn't sink, the ice accumulated on top of the planes at a very rapid rate, which I find interesting. I never said it's proof for anything, maybe AiG did but I didn't. It was the first site I came across. Geez......And Sqlserver, try not to come to a conclusion about myself before you find out why I posted it. Thanks

Anyone explain things better than Carl Sagan?

COSMOS - Clip 5: "Human Evolution Animation"
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZQrkJchlldA&feature=related

Sean

Thank you - my beef was the fact that many things in this thread have been rejected out of hand, without anyone actually looking at the info provided.

I had read the research paper the article quoted and saw what you mentioned, and was surprised that no one on the creationist side had jumped on it.

All of my comments had to do with the fact that the original linked article (which wasn't mine, by the way) was rejected by some out of hand because the article didn't contain all of the measurements used by the researchers.

I don't think it is too much for people to do a bit of work and find some info on their own.

The information needed to get to the "missing measurements" was right there.

End of rant

PS - I applaud you for actually doing your homework on this one.

*sigh* Sgl, Sql - here we go again (I love that part) - you give out too much rope! We can just pick it up and run with it, then you're all messed up. Let me just ask you to do one thing, since you have those MONDO finding and pasting skills. Would you please find one scientific example of an organism, even a simple one like a bacteria, morphing into a more complex form like say a eukaryote? Then we'll all shut up (or at least I will).

Oh no, I didn't mean I pwned you; Everyone else did. If I didn't believe you were already beaten on your ridiculous stance on the Bacteria Evolution paper, then I would have responded to you. I didn't bother.

I meant that post. Seems pretty clear you didn't read it; Perhaps you just searched the page for WWF, and then responded to only the found sentences.

I read both links. What didn't you understand about either of them?

I think we all need to chill out here, folks. There have been some good links provided on both sides. Let's read them and we can comment on them tomorrow or, better yet, after we've had a weekend and a beer and time to relax a little.
Doug

I cannot believe this. Yeti-
Don't you realize how you are making yourself look like a stereotypical blind Creationist?

I do believe you are one, but it seems to be that you are trying to prove to us that you are!
WHY, WHY can you not answer a few, simple questions? Even WWF answered his!(Although he didn't answer the ones directed towards ALL Creationists)

Oh, and here you go.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/04/10...g.indonesia.ap/
Frog involves to breath in through skin, without lungs.
That seems more complex to me.

Oh, and:
http://www.fda.gov/Fdac/features/795_antibio.html
Streptococcus pneumoniae, among other bugs, evolve to resist penicillin.
That seems more complex to me.

Of course, you want a Creationy Answer.
Well, here you go.


1. It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of

* increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
* increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
* novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
* novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.

2. A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
* Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
* RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
* Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.

3. According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).

4. The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000).

References:
1. Adami et al., 2000. (see below)
2. Alves, M. J., M. M. Coelho and M. J. Collares-Pereira, 2001. Evolution in action through hybridisation and polyploidy in an Iberian freshwater fish: a genetic review. Genetica 111(1-3): 375-385.
3. Brown, C. J., K. M. Todd and R. F. Rosenzweig, 1998. Multiple duplications of yeast hexose transport genes in response to selection in a glucose-limited environment. Molecular Biology and Evolution 15(8): 931-942. http://mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/15/8/931.pdf
4. Hughes, A. L. and R. Friedman, 2003. Parallel evolution by gene duplication in the genomes of two unicellular fungi. Genome Research 13(5): 794-799.
5. Knox, J. R., P. C. Moews and J.-M. Frere, 1996. Molecular evolution of bacterial beta-lactam resistance. Chemistry and Biology 3: 937-947.
6. Lang, D. et al., 2000. Structural evidence for evolution of the beta/alpha barrel scaffold by gene duplication and fusion. Science 289: 1546-1550. See also Miles, E. W. and D. R. Davies, 2000. On the ancestry of barrels. Science 289: 1490.
7. Lenski, R. E., 1995. Evolution in experimental populations of bacteria. In: Population Genetics of Bacteria, Society for General Microbiology, Symposium 52, S. Baumberg et al., eds., Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 193-215.
8. Lenski, R. E., M. R. Rose, S. C. Simpson and S. C. Tadler, 1991. Long-term experimental evolution in Escherichia coli. I. Adaptation and divergence during 2,000 generations. American Naturalist 138: 1315-1341.
9. Lynch, M. and J. S. Conery, 2000. The evolutionary fate and consequences of duplicate genes. Science 290: 1151-1155. See also Pennisi, E., 2000. Twinned genes live life in the fast lane. Science 290: 1065-1066.
10. Ohta, T., 2003. Evolution by gene duplication revisited: differentiation of regulatory elements versus proteins. Genetica 118(2-3): 209-216.
11. Park, I.-S., C.-H. Lin and C. T. Walsh, 1996. Gain of D-alanyl-D-lactate or D-lactyl-D-alanine synthetase activities in three active-site mutants of the Escherichia coli D-alanyl-D-alanine ligase B. Biochemistry 35: 10464-10471.
12. Prijambada, I. D., S. Negoro, T. Yomo and I. Urabe, 1995. Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5): 2020-2022.
13. Schneider, T. D., 2000. Evolution of biological information. Nucleic Acids Research 28(14): 2794-2799. http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/
14. Zhang, J., Y.-P. Zhang and H. F. Rosenberg, 2002. Adaptive evolution of a duplicated pancreatic ribonuclease gene in a leaf-eating monkey. Nature Genetics 30: 411-415. See also: Univ. of Michigan, 2002, How gene duplication helps in adapting to changing environments. http://www.umich.edu/~newsinfo/Releases/20...2/r022802b.html


All of the said scientific studies have found increases in genetic information in organisms. They have OBSERVED genetic code increase.

On your specific example:
No. I cannot find a scientific experiment or observation in which this has been observed.
However, it is quite possible, and there is a lot of evidence to support the link between basic bacteria and Eukaryotes.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/...ature04546.html <-- Login required
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote#Origin_and_evolution
http://www.geocities.com/jjmohn/endosymbiosis.htm
http://tolweb.org/Eukaryotes/3
http://fire.biol.wwu.edu/hooper/204_08protists.ppt

Cheers,
SQLserver

The problem you run into with things like the frog example is that there's no evidence of it evolving from anything else. No evidence of it evolving from a frog with lungs, therefore claims of evolutions are just supposition.

One could assert that it was created like that.

First, it is quite obvious, as pointed out by basically everyone, that you have looked at your answers right in the face, and pretended they weren't there.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, once again, YOU DIDN'T ANSWER MY QUESTIONS. You only answered the one just for you. Go back and check all of the questions for ALL CREATIONISTS.


Well, if I were you, I'd like to look like an intelligent person, participating in an intelligent debate.
From your reply, seems like you are incapable of that. You've just kind of busted into a thread, that is supposed to be about SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR CREATIONISM, and talked about just about everything BESIDES that!
Then, I ask some simple questions, and the best thing you can produce is a sarcastic, rather useless answer.



Please stop. I'm getting sick of your personal attacks, purposely annoying behavior, and obvious efforts to have a laugh at our expense and try and drive us crazy.

You see, the thing is, Picking up and running with the rope IS NOT A GOOD THING, especially when I make it easy for you to create a half-way decent reply. Running with the rope is an evasive tactic that basically shows you have nothing to contribute besides annoyance.

-SQLserver

Well then it is a very good thing that I provided a dozen other examples of OBSERVED increases in genetic code via mutation, which is complexity, no?
I find it hilarious that all you can do in return is respond to one of the weaker examples.
Look:
I may seem like I'm being particularly harsh, but I'm rather mad that all the posts recently directed towards me seem to be sarcasm, evasive, or an obvious idiotic laugh at my expense.(AKA Trolling)
-SQLserver

Ummmm, I'm the only one who critiques the articles, so you aren't making any sense. What they seemed to highlight was common ancestory in the strains, which I quoted from the article. I suggest you go back and read through everything if this went over your head.

I've also stated many arguments providing scientific evidence for creation. Please actually take the time to read through the thread before making comments that are untrue.

OK - so, will you agree then that evolution as it has been described in the theory of evolution has never been observed? Namely, that lesser or rather less complex organisms change, or evolve into more complicated ones over the passage of time?

Secondly, I didn't respond to your list because every time you post you come up with a new list. I've already answered your lists many times but you just ignore or shootdown my responses or refuse to accept that I've answered your questions satisfactorily. Which is pretty much what happens here on these threads in general- which is why I'm trying to phase out of this. I still like the airplane story and would love for you to answer my first question.

Great, so once out of many mutations you'll have one that contributes to an increase in genetic information. However, before you jump up and down in excitement about positive mutations you should keep in mind that these are EXTREMELY rate and that most mutations are harmful to the point of being fatal in an organism. The majority of mutations are neutral or lead to a decrease in genetic information.

If you feel your example was weak, then why did you post it? Also, if I would've responded to one of your other examples whose to say you wouldn't still be claiming I responded to one of the weaker examples you gave. If you feel the examples are weak, then may I suggest not using them to begin with, then you won't have to worry about them being refuted.

Who is us? I thought we were just talking to you. I'm not trying to drive you crazy, I'm talking to you the exact same way you talk to me and others all the time. You always start, or put in somewhere that whole *sigh* thing. I think it's funny. I am actually laughing at it because I think it's funny. Maybe we have a ....... dish it out but can't take it situation here?

Mr. Son,

I would hope you are not guilty of simply ignoring posts you do not wish/feel you can address. Maybe this was but a simple error of not going back far enough in the thread. Your "logic" was addressed HERE

I've read every post in this thread, which is probably more then you can say. I have yet to hear one actual piece of evidence from you for Creationism.



No. The most commonly accepted Theory of Evolution simply says that small changes(some people may believe that big changes can factor in, too) eventually add up to large changes.
QED.
And we've seen hundreds of species changes, mutations, and beneficial mutations.(Not to mention addition of complexity)
Obviously, you don't either, because you have yet to explain why Small changes cannot add up to become large changes.

Glad we are finally in agreement, Yeti. I always knew in the end you would simply admit Evolution was vastly more supported with Scientific observation, evidence, and overall is a better Scientific theory to explain our origins.

Cheers,
SQLserver

1. Genetics. How can you have a completely different animal if it's the result of procreation from another animal?

2. By you understanding, what came right before man? Physical evidence? I would think this would be the easiest information to provide within your worldview.

3. Much scientific evidence has been provided in this thread. Yeti, myself and others have provided plenty. However, faith is also a key component within or belief.

Yeti- I answer your questions. I reply to your posts. You don't; and if you do, the reply is sarcasm, or simply off-topic.
QED, You simply do not show the respect, time, and readiness that I show you to ANYONE on this board who isn't of your opinion.
As an example- Notice how all you decided to talk about was more personal stuff, instead of what the topic is about.
It is quite obvious you are just avoiding a debate; You'd rather argue.


You've shown the same sarcasm, rudeness, and blatant ignorance to just about everyone on this board who isn't of your opinion.

Was the frog a fish prior to that or was it a frog?

Was Streptococcus pneumoniae something other than a bacteria prior to that? Is it not a bacteria now? Isn't it true that in becoming more resistant to penicillin this bacteria also lost genetic variability? That it's resistance is not due to an increase in genetic complexity, but actually a loss of genetic information?

Then you obviously didn't read through the thread, because I quoted numerous evidences from the Bible previously in this thread.

It's the only scientific theory that attempts to explain our origins. Unless you consider Raelianism a scientific theory? Are you a Raelianist? Because, that theory would actually help abiogenisis. I mean, if the aliens with time travelling capability came back to the soup........

Geez dude, read what you type.

1. Simple. SMALL MUTATIONS OVER TIME. See:
http://www.5min.com/Video/How-Evolution-Happens-4804307
Do you consider a fish and a dinosaur to be different animals? Because, as the video portrays, it is very simple to go from fish to dinosaur with small mutations over time. Look at the Timeline of Human Evolution I've posted 4 times:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution
What jump in there is impossible?

2. I've already posted this again above; Look at the timeline. ALL of those are well known fossils.

3. Yes, but no ACTUAL scientific evidence has been provided. A few claims that have been debunked.
Please point me to what you consider Scientific Evidence.



So? After enduring a few pages of pure sarcasm, off-topic personal attacks, and attempts to drive me over the edge, I feel perfectly OK with having lost my cool.
Thanks,
SQLServer