Haha, thanks for the laugh! You clearly don't know what you're talking about
I must agree

Thanks pyramidial for a good early morning laugh, helps to wake up If you really want to I will explain natrual selection to you in length and in detail but there's nothing really to say that hasn't been said already...One thing is for sure though, it does not imply intelligence in any way, it is not an active or conscious process, it just mean the organisms that are better adapted (say they have longer necks so can get to food easier or have an anatomy which enables them to run faster to escape predators) have greater chances of surviving and therefore reproducing, passing their genes onto the next generation resulting in the evolution of certain traits that are beneficial for the organisms survival.

religion results in blind following, you follow what your tolod and don't question, yet those who did are the reason that we have what we do today. natural selection is the weeding out the week and sick so the strong adn healthy can continue to reproduce and make a species succesful. really i have nothing to say frogfish already hasn't. if you think my witing skilss are bad,wah, then obviously your private cristian school is poorly educationg you, i can write, but don't care about spelling when on the computer, and had you gotten a good education, you would have known what the hell you're talking about.

You have misunderstood.

I never said NS implied intelligence; we know the concept is billed as blind and mindless. What I said was that selection is a synonym for intelligence since it takes some kind of intelligence to choose. Therefore, **natural** selection is a logical impossibility because the same has no mind or intelligence. Darwinists do the selecting for nature since it is not alive and has no mind. IDists credit the Landlord.

pyramidial

You have misunderstood.

I never said NS implied intelligence; we know the concept is billed as blind and mindless. What I said was that selection is a synonym for intelligence since it takes some kind of intelligence to choose. Therefore, **natural** selection is a logical impossibility because the same has no mind or intelligence. Darwinists do the selecting for nature since it is not alive and has no mind. IDists credit the Landlord.

pyramidial

What I said was that selection is a synonym for intelligence since it takes some kind of intelligence to choose

If, according to creationists, the world is only 6,000 years old. Why is my culture 15,000 years old, according to Smithsonian????

You have misunderstood.

I never said NS implied intelligence; we know the concept is billed as blind and mindless. What I said was that selection is a synonym for intelligence since it takes some kind of intelligence to choose. Therefore, **natural** selection is a logical impossibility because the same has no mind or intelligence. Darwinists do the selecting for nature since it is not alive and has no mind. IDists credit the Landlord.

pyramidial

Awwwww, all you evolutionists are gonna be soooooo bummed after you die. The most extraordinary things in life are never complicated. Have a little FAITH! It's soooo easy and you don't have to conduct any tests or do any research. Let Him in!

Awwwww, all you evolutionists are gonna be soooooo bummed after you die. The most extraordinary things in life are never complicated. Have a little FAITH! It's soooo easy and you don't have to conduct any tests or do any research. Let Him in!

In answer to your questions
1) I never said they where unsuccessfull, but it likely when all life was unicellular there would be a much greater level of competitive pressure on the organism.

2)Predatation, competition, mutation within colonial organisms or during reproduction.
3)Because they arn't dying out and are everywhere, literally everywhere.

4)See 2). They are well adapted to there environment and they are everywhere, we can not observe all of them either. It may also evolve into a different species of unicellular organism. It could be that a multicellular form is not as advantagous. This would mean if it did evolve it would not survive. I'm not this is empirically testable however, as I stated early evolution is not a fast process so testing such a theory would be a very long and difficult thing to test.

Could I ask what niches are available to a unicellular organism if it became multicellular, I could probably guarantee that the niche is in fact not available.

why do they change? becsue of competition! becouse if they don't they will not be a successful species, becsue if they don't there species will go extinct, THATs why animals evolve, THATis why there are so many chiclids in lake Tanganyika! you want proof? that lake is living proof of evolution! chiclids are evovling SO fast, we can't even count them, in 100 years, so many new specises have evolved, they evolved to fast to study! nowm where the hell is my 250 grand?hmmm? anyone?

Brand new information about what could have influenced the evolution of multicellular life! http://www.plos.org/press/pone-02-02-janhunen.pdf

Evolution can only work with what is already there

it takes great expanses of time for something to evolve so far that it no longer resembles it's ancestor and even then you will usually still have vestigial features that they inherited from their ancestors.

Possible exceptions, random mutations that change the animal drastically but are favourable and are maintained in the population as this individual now has an adaptive advantage and hence gets to reproduce more successfully but even then, an animal does not change into something entirely different.

This is speculation and cannot be tested... a nice bed-time story.

Are you saying that at present there isn'tt one condition on earth that is suitable for multi-cellular organisms to evolve from single-celled organisms, even when you nor anyone else know what these conditions are.
Nice-bedtime story with a touch of circular reasoning...

So at present this is a nice story to tell without any factual basis...


Ditto 3-billion years ago... An attempt at circular reasoning?


Are you saying competition is less now than 3-billlion ago and that that is the reason why single-celled organisms are not evolving into multi-cellular organisms at present? Can't see how anybody can prove this... Otherwise I would classify this as circular reasoning.

There is absolutely no proof that those Ciclids evolved/adapted because of random mutations. Phenotypic plasticity is probably what happened seeing that it happens so fast. Meaning it is only a reshuffling of active and inactive genes, which is only adaptation. Don't count on them adapting to get wings, lungs or feet anytime soon or the next billion years... You will need new information in the genome for that, not reshuffling of the genome. Can anyone provide an example of an animal gaining new genetic information (not a loss of function) through random mutation, it would be really interesting to study?
Nice article. However after reading it I can't help but get the feeling that it is entirely based on speculation. "Could"� (3 times) and "probably"� (7 times) are not words that one often sees in cancer research and medicine articles, and when these words are found, the assertions are testable in vitro or in vivo. Imagine an anti-cancer drug probably working but there is no way to verify its efficacy; no-one would buy into that theory.
The theories presented in the article can only be verified by finding life on planets with slightly more massive and short-lived stars. At present I don't buy into this theory and one shouldn't proclaim it as fact. A nice exercise for one's imagination and story-telling ability, the article seems to be pushing for funding to look for life in planetary systems with short-lived stars. A waste of money at the present moment (in my opinion) because it is untestable and cannot be verified (by all means try to make it a testable theory). Maybe test in future when star-travel is possible.
So at the moment I would classify this as a nice bed-time story.

How did it get there in the first place?

Any vestigial features in humans you know of?


Any example of this happening? Not looking for a loss of function as result of mutation, those are the only examples I can find.

This is speculation and cannot be tested... a nice bed-time story.


Nice-bedtime story with a touch of circular reasoning...

So at present this is a nice story to tell without any factual basis...

Nice article. However after reading it I can't help but get the feeling that it is entirely based on speculation.

Your wrong pretty much all the way through there.

You don't understand evolution, you answers show that, go check it out properly. Evolution is not just an over night thing. It takes a very long time, even a "fast" evolution takes a long time. Evolution is scientific theory becuase it is testable, if you choose to be ignorant that is your problem.

Yes and we have new so many ciclid species from just phenotypic plasticity, that would not lead to changes in diet, feeding pattern size, etc. Why would fish develop wings, lungs etc are you just trying to show your lack of comprehension towards evolution and ecological niches and competition?

And when life started there where niches that where ecological niches that where not filled, hence animals that could adapt to take advantage of these did and evolved after time into new species.

I won't bother with a link because it is clear you will ignore it because it might show your wrong (oh wait I bet your expert in biology and hence know far more about it than those who study this!)

VESTIGAL FEATURES:
Do you have a wisdom teeth to creat dentist?

Evidence derived from paleontology, anthropology, and experiment indicates very convincingly that a reduction in jaw size has occurred due to civilization. The main associated factor appears to be the virtual absence of inter proximal attrition, but initial tooth size may have some effect. Jaw size and dental attrition are related and they have both decreased with modern diet. Jaws were thought to be reduced in size in the course of evolution but close examination reveals that within the species Homo sapiens, this may not have occurred. What was thought to be a good example of evolution in progress has been shown to be better explained otherwise.

Do you have an appendix just so it can get poisoned?

Do you have a tail bone for fun?

If you have an overpowering host of revolutionary scientific facts/ studies that support creationism and make it a more believable case than the case for evolution, please do feel free to share them with us.

You don't have to be a creationist to laugh at some of the proposed theories or stories in evolution theory. Are you actually agreeing that some of the stories forced down as fact should be discarded. Well done, lets teach the kids facts not stories.

I'm sorry you got me, you stumped me, i don't know where i got it wrong, you are going to have to show me without resorting to ad hominem attacks.
What is "fast" evolution? How is the evolution of single-celled organisms testable/observable?
Maybe i put it incorrectly. Don't count on fish getting any additional functional organs, tissue or structures, they will either adapt and become...fish, or go extinct. Why did the common ancestor of whales and dolphins develop fins, i mean why would they? Any answer you give will not be testable or observable, and that would equate to an imaginative story.
I guess you are going to tell us all how life started... I guess you are going to inform us exactly what kind of niches there were. Or is it going to be another story full of speculation?
I was fed with all these stories in my EVO313 class, i just got sick of it and wanted some real science, e.g. cellular biology, cancer biology, physiology etc. I'm no expert like so many seem to be here...
Quote from: MacGregor, A.J., 1985. The Impacted Lower Wisdom Tooth, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 3.

Maybe dentists evolved due to civilization...
2) Are you saying that the colon is also a vestigial organ only to give us colon cancer? The human appendix have bona fide functions.
3) No, several muscles converge from the ring-like arrangement of the pelvic (hip) bones to anchor on the coccyx, forming a bowl-shaped muscular floor of the pelvis called the pelvic diaphragm. The incurved coccyx with its attached pelvic diaphragm keeps the many organs in our abdominal cavity from literally falling through between our legs. Fun hey...
You don't have to be a creationist to laugh at some of the proposed theories or stories in evolution theory. Are you actually agreeing that some of the stories forced down as fact should be discarded. Well done, lets teach the kids facts not stories.

I noticed how you failed to answer my question...Evolution is based on scientific facts and theories, yes you cannot prove everything however can you prove creationism or make a half way believable case for it? That would definately be a first...or do you have a whole different novel theory to explain everything in a scientifically sound and logical way, more scientifically sound and logical than the theory of evolution? As i said, please do share.

Firstly evolution in microorganisms has been observed, it has even been observed in Drosophila spp. Artificial speciation in Drosophila
This is not phenotypic plasticity, this is evolution forming an man made species. Done by selective breeding. Same can be said about the domestic sheep Ovis aries.

The development of anitbiotic resitance is a form of evolution and has been shown in many bacterial species. Adding antibiotics to bacterial populations has a similar effect to a mass extinction event on a small scale. How to test and observe this, you look down a microscope. - Look at google scholar or pubmed for plently of papers on this.

Why would a cetacean develop fins, better for swimming and there are vestigal features of the animals skeleton that show this as well as DNA barcoding that clearly links them to there nearest relatives the Artiodactyla, the family, which include goats, hippos, pigs etc. There are also clear corolations between Sarcopterygii fish and tetrapods. This shown within the fossil record and again through DNA barcoding. .

Such things are seen through developmental biology and the vestigal features shown on developing embryos of many species including us

FYI vestigal features don't have to have no purpose currently, however it is fair to say that you wisdom tooth article continues to show it is a vestigal feature because our behaviour as a species has evolved and the has not been any use found for a human appendix yet. The coccyx may support muscle but it is still the vestage of a tail.

Maybe creationists can provide you with a theory just as plausible as evolution's magical abiogenesis. There isn't a lot you can prove in evolution theory that happened millions of years ago, except look at skeletons. I think the comment from the evolutionist Lord Solly Zuckerman some time ago about anthropology will make you think and start not to blindly believe: “...it is legitimate to ask whether much science is yet to be found in this field at all.". Look into it.

Phenotypic plasticity it is: The ability of the same genotype to express various phenotypes. Can be observed in dogs, cattle, sheep, Drosophyla etc.. Plain Mendelian genetics. Polar bears that turn brown after a few generations in zoo...
http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/imag...de&ei=UTF-8
http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/imag...UTF-8&src=p
Compare the cubs to the mom. Is that dirt or colour? Is it possible that genes interact with the environment to adapt and not just randomly mutate to produce functionless proteins?

Antibiotic resistance is a form of adaptation by the bacteria, whereby mutations occur in the DNA leading to bacterial proteins that cannot interact with the antibiotic and the bacteria survive. The altered protein is less efficient, as a result of mutation, in performing its normal function and in an environment without antibiotics, the non-mutant bacteria are more likely to survive because the mutant bacteria cannot compete as well. No new information is added as is required in evolution of molecules to man.
We are currently struggling to get rid of a Penicillin/Streptomycin bacteria in our cell cultures. Evolution theory isn't helping here, just good old science.

I'm sure that you can clearly link red parrots to roses with enough speculation. DNA barcoding is not a science at present. Feel free to try and persuide scientists that it is. It is a nice observation though.

Pretty sure there isn't a single embryologists that will agree with that statement.

It would be nice if you could provide a completely functionless structure in humans that is there as a result of evolution. Did you even bother to read the whole article on wisdom teeth?
Really who does not believe evolution/adaptation? It is all around us. Just more observable evidence is needed to prove the extrapolation that everything came from molecules. It is funny how creationists and evolutionists agree that all organisms adapt, but creationists choose to believe that everything was magically created and then adapted, and evolutionists believe that everything magically came from molecules, magically became more complex and then adapted.

Well as i have been saying in the last few posts continuously if you can provide more convincing proof for creationism than there is for evolution, PLEASE DO SHARE. until then i will follow your advice and go with the theory that has more scientific facts supporting it rather than blindly following an old book.....

Wrong, this would not form a new species. Looking different is not the same as speciation.

Polar bears btw have have hair like fibre optics, their colouration represents there environment around them, their hairs is actaully not coloured at all.

That is still evolution. You say yourself mutations occur and the bacteria survive because of it, just because they couldn't compete in other circumstances does not mean it is not evolution

Really, I know a few developmental biologists, It was also a module during my degree, they and my text books say otherwise.

What is the function of the appendix in humans then?

Vestigal feature can still have function as previously stated.

As regards to that statement a change because a change in lifestyle IS STILL EVOLUTION AND STILL MAKES THE WISDOM TEETH VESTIGAL.

Evolution does not claim molecules magically became complex and adapted

it shows a mechanism for speciation through things we know, like genetic drift. mutation, reproductive isolation.

It has been proven that you can make naturally occuring amino acids. Which are a basis for biological organisms.

Oh do share your special complete definition of speciation, i am suffering from amnesia.

Nice myth, are you going to propagate that to rest of the world as truth as well.
Is Polar Bear Hair Fiber Optic?, Daniel W. Koon, Applied Optics LP, vol. 37, Issue 15, pp.3198-3200, 1998.
Myth busted.

Or adaptation. It most definitely is not an example of evolution in the sense that these bacteria are going to become something else than bacteria.

Maybe you should become an embryologist, just so that you can discover these things for yourself. Don't say it is so because someone said so, and i would love to see those embryological textbook pictures that seemed to have pulled the wool over your eyes.

Seeing that you don't read the articles i post, here are the functions:
The appendix contains a high concentration of very specialized structures called lymphoid follicles. Lymphoid follicles in the appendix produce cells that produce antibodies that control which essential bacteria come to reside in the caecum and colon in neonatal life.

(1) if the human nose were actually as well developed as, say, the nose of a prosimian or New World monkey; Nope, its vestigial
(2) if the human nose contributed significantly to smell recognition during mate selection;
QUOTE
Nope,not as much as in monkeys, therefore it is vestigial

(3) if we could demonstrate via phylogenetic or systematic methods that the human nose and other primate smelling apparatus were not structurally homologous as side branches from the face. Nope, can't, therefore it is vestigial

An additional possible observation would contradict the conclusion of vestigiality by the evolutionary definition:
(4) if phylogenetic methods indicated that no predicted ancestors of humans ever had a large adapted nose for smelling purposes (i.e., that a large, smelling apparatus is actually a derived primate character, not a primitive one). Nope, haven't sen that before, so there you have it, the human nose is obviously a vestigial structure according to sound evolutionary definition.
Pfff, laughable.

Still haven't read the article hey? What was thought to be a good example of evolution in progress has been shown to be better explained otherwise...

How else did it become complex and adapted?

Creationists agree with that.

Please tell me you are not referring to the Miller-Urey experiment. That can't and does not prove anything. Sugars and and lipids can also be made naturally and are also part of cells. So what.

Besides the complete lack of even a published hypothesis how life originated and all the insurmountable problems such a hypothesis will have to go through before it even looks like a theory, nope, i don't have theory.
Maybe a barking neutron with two electrons less than a fruit-basket decided to give amino-acids a conscience so that they willfully decided to replicate and form functional proteins just for the heck of it, and then life randomly started. I have as much proof of this happening as there is for abiogenesis. What do you think, try and debunk it? How about answering a few of my questions?

Why would it still being bacteria stop this being a form of evolution exactly?

I'm a zoologist, I have no interest in becoming an embryologist. Do you think gills on a developing fetus are not vestigal then? Just because they are functionless does not mean they are not there, the same goes for webbed feet.

Lymphiod follicles are also found in the large intestine. Hence the body can survive without a appendix.
Male nipples and human body hair are also considered vestigial.

Thus, the vermiform appendix is in no way a vestigial organ but a specialized structure

The appendix is not however used to break down plant matter which is its original function, the nose is still used for chemical detection, its oringinal function. Something which is also taken into account, there that example is irrelavant.

We already know that DNA is a self replicating molecule.

We know of various methods that make small alterations in DNA.

No they do not. They think life on this planet is as it always was.

It is perfectly valid as reasoning to how life could have began. It did say it proves anything, it does provide a large amount of evidence.

Trying to shoot holes in one theory does not make the alternative theory any more valid if you cannot provide more convincing evidence for the alternative. I think Matt is doing a good job at answering your questions and quite frankly i can't be bothered as i have more important things to do than to explain evolution to someone who is refusing to supply evidence for the 'alternative theory' he is supporting and has resorted to trying to disprove evolution in the hope that that will be enough evidence...

I'm not "trying" to shoot holes in a theory, just showing that most, if not all the icons of evolution (abiogenesis, embryological recapitulation etc.) are in fact a bunch of old-wives tales with no factual basis.

Does that necessarily mean that the theory is wrong?

Might as well call it adaptation... Evolution in the sense that it is going to be something else than bacteria, nope sorry.
What we are seeing in bacteria is the random degradation/mutation of proteins as a result of the poor DNA replication machinery present in bacteria. Under stressful situations like anti-microbial treatment, the mutated/degraded bacteria gets selected.
I'm still looking for one example in literature where a new novel protein has been created as a result of random mutation. You can't just have degradation and hope for increasing complexity.

Oh dear, maybe you should read a few embryology books to increase your literature further than Haeckel. You will find that the human embryo never has gills and it never has slits and those "gill slits" you are referring to are actually a series of pharyngeal pouches that develop into the thymus gland, the parathyroids, and the middle ear canals. The gills in fish are their breathing apparatus but the pharyngeal pouches are not related to breathing at all. They are not enriched with capillaries for oxygen exchange.
It is a plain fact to embryologists that the human embryo does not recapitulate an imaginary, evolutionary past.

The function does not specifically lie within the lymphoid follicles, but the strategic placement of the appendix as it is important during the development of neonatal life in the setup of healthy intestinal flora therefore neonatal appendectomy will impair mucosal immunity.You are probably better off with an appendix as there is a negative association of prior appendectomy in patients with Ulcerative Colitis.
Another study found that 84% of patients with leukemia, Hodgkin's disease, cancer of the colon, and cancer of the ovaries had an appendectomy, while only 24% of healthy individuals in the study had an appendectomy. You can survive without a kidney, but you are better off with it, same can be said for the appendix.

The function of the appendix was never to break down plant matter (cellulose specifically) as it can't do that. Only bacteria can digest cellulose. You won't find any cellulose digesting bacteria in any appendix, doesn't matter which animal, as the secretion of antibodies from the appendix targets the cellulose digesting bacteria. You are confusing it with the large cecum in herbivores, which do not have an appendix. Chimpanzees do not have an appendix, yet evolutionary postulations would have us believe that a tailed mammal without an appendix gave rise to a (common ancestor) monkey with a tail but still without an appendix, which then gave rise to an ape without a tail but with an appendix, and then on to man where the appendix is supposedly vestigial but with well characterized functions. Is coming or is it going?
Maybe you should open up a thread where you can debate vestigiality... You can debate for the nose being a vestigial organ, as that argument still stands.

DNA is not a self-replicating molecule. I haven't seen it magically self-replicate after extraction. It does however degrade under oxidative conditions. Cells have marvelously complex mechanisms intact to prevent mutation in DNA and keep it intact. Even more complex mechanisms allow DNA to replicate without alterations.

Radiation, carcinogens, oxidative stress... all harmful to cells...

No it is not proof of anything other than the fact that amino acids form under redox conditions . Amino acids where created in a redox state, and then it is assumed that life started under redox conditions, this is circular reasoning. However evolutionary scientists believe that the atmosphere was already in an oxidative state when life was suppose to magically start. That amino acids in a bottle experiment is only evidence that amino acids are formed under.... you guessed it... redox conditions, wonderful chemistry.

You don't need to increase complexity for evolution.

This is still evolution, they do not have to become eukaryotic or archeobacterial to evolve.

Pharyngeal arches are considered remnents of gills as they are the basis of gills in fish.

The appendage was located under and behind the last sacral vertebra suggesting a true vestigial tail with a delayed process of regression.

Anything to say on the webbed feet and hands we have during development?

Yes but you can not survive with no Kidneys, you can survive with out an appendix,

Your arguement for the nose does not stand at all.

This article disagree with chimps not having a vermiform appendix A Primer of Primate Pathology: Lesions and Nonlesions

as does The primate appendix

The appendix is still believed to be associated with the cecum however.

What about body hair and male nipples?

It may degredate out of a cell in our atmosphere, however the current atmosphere is extremely different to that of the atmosphere over 3 billion years ago, so you can not compare. In the cell it does replicate its self however.

Whitehead Institute MIT Interseting article about life origins.

, but when you mate DNA is altered slightly

But it has to be presumed to have started somewhere would it not? This has some basis behind it, we know such conditions exist and the is life that can survive such conditions.
So what are you thoughts on the origin of life? Where did it come from?

Although at some point evolution theory does demand it, since everything evolved from a single cell. At present there is no mechanism to describe this magical increase in complexity (first you will have to observe this phenomenon, which at present has not been observed), or maybe i haven't searched hard enough... Would be nice to observe it though.
Although it looks like everything is becoming dysfunctional due to mutation, unless that dysfunctionality lends it a survival edge.
Don't know how you got to that one. Pharyngeal arches in fish lead to gills, Pharyngeal arches in human embryos lead to the thymus, parathyroids, and the middle ear canals. Exactly how are they related?
This so-called "human tail vestigial" is actually a dorsal cutaneous appendage as a result of defects of closure of one or more vertebral arches, which may be associated with malformations of the spinal cord, nerve roots, congenital fibrous bands, lipomas, and congenital cysts. It is a defect in development, not a return to our "ancestral form", and is a marker for spinal dysraphism.
Donovan DJ, Pedersen RC. Human tail with noncontiguous intraspinal lipoma and spinal cord tethering: case report and embryologic discussion. Pediatr Neurosurg. 2005 Jan-Feb;41(1):35-40.
The so-called "tail" during development actually has a function. During development, the spine is at first longer than the body because the muscles and limbs do not develop until they are stimulated by the spinal nerved. So the spine must grow and mature enough that it can send out the proper signals for muscles, limbs, and internal organs to begin their growth. For this reason, the spine at first is bigger than the limbs, but later the arms and legs become largest. It is therfore not a useless "vestigial tail".
Since all animals with hands and feet have those during development, why would it be vestigial? Hox genes (unique to each animal) control the breakdown of these structures by inducing apoptosis.

You survive without a stomach as well...
Why not? Should we go through the exercise of why the stomach is vestigial as well?

My apologies, i was referring to New world monkeys.
An article i pasted as reference earlier if you read carefully.
Even though it is a separate structure. Guess the appendix is as much associated with the cecum as the small intestine is.

Exactly how does evolution explain male mammal nipples? According to evolutionary theory, the male/female differentiation evolved much earlier than mammals are supposed to have evolved from reptiles. That is, there were allegedly already males and females long before females evolved breast-feeding. Incidently, male nipples have a function during development. Mammalian embryos contain characteristics of both sexes at first, because they all have basically the same genetic information, and this information is expressed as efficiently as possible as the embryo develops. For example, in all human embryos, at first both the müllerian duct system (female) and the wolffian duct system (male) develop, because both sexes have the genetic information for these structures (a features creationists term "design economy" and "efficient embryological development"). The subsequent differences are the result of designed chemical signals that control the expression of the information. E.g., a gene set usually found on the Y chromosome controls the levels of testosterone and dihydroxytestosterone (DHT) secretion. Above a certain level, these hormones suppress the development of the müllerian duct system and promote the wolffian duct system, so the embryo takes on masculine characteristics. Below a certain hormone level, the opposite happens, and the embryo takes on female characteristics. Male nipples respond to these higher levels of androgens. Nipples aren't evidence for evolution (how does evolution explain it?) and not evidence against creation.

According to evolution theory, human hair is useless and humans won't have hair in a few generations as it is vestigial and useless.
However:
Human body hair, which covers almost the entire body, has a functional advantage over other mammal hair in that it has a high degree of touch perception, which occurs when a hair is moved or bent.
Hair on top of your head covers the spot where about 40% of heat dissipates. Fine body hair also plays an important role by extending the boundary layer, preventing excessive skin loss.
When you perspire, or sweat, the hairs grasp the sweat and keep it near you. This will keep your body cooled.

There is no consensus on what the atmosphere was like 3 billion years ago. Some say oxidized form, some say reduced form. DNA does not replicate by itself... You are right, it does replicate itself through a very complex mechanism that does need RNA, DNA, proteins and a temperature and pH regulated environment.

Ah, the RNA world hypothesis, very interesting. The best hypothesis so far but with enormous, near impossible, hurdles to overcome. Do hope they come to a conclusion sooner rather than later.

Changing of pre-existing genetic information? Mendelian genetics?
Life must be there to survive such conditions. Which conditions are you referring to?

My thoughts on the origins of life:
Science tries to explain origin of life in a naturalistic manner, but can't at the moment (abiogenesis), although it is believed that the fossil record points out that it is a given, which is not scientific.
Creationism explains life as the result of purposeful design created by a creator. Non-naturalistic, although as indirect evidence they will point to the genetics as a code and that all codes requires a creator, as well as as irreducible complexity. Some creationists believe that the fossil record also prove creationism, and that it is just a matter of interpreting the evidence in the "correct" manner.
Both belong to the realms of philosophy at the moment in my opinion.

For the moment i like science.

This could continue on for ever like this. So we should agree to disagree are that is all we are likely to agree on in relation to this matter and if I continue, I continue to use this as a good excuse not to work.

BIG CHANCE TO WIN $250,000 AND PROVE THERE IS NO GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.

Observed phenomena:

Most thinking people will agree that..

A highly ordered universe exists.
At least one planet in this complex universe contains an amazing variety of life forms.
Man appears to be the most advanced form of life on this planet.
Known options:

Choices of how the observed phenomena came into being..

The universe was created by God.
The universe always existed.
The universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known as evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed.
Evolution has been acclaimed as being the only process capable of causing the observed phenomena.

Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:

Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.
Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.)
Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution).
Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themselves.
Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution).
People believe in evolution; they do not know that it is true. While beliefs are certainly fine to have, it is not fair to force on the students in our public school system the teaching of one belief, at taxpayers’ expense. It is my contention that evolutionism is a religious worldview that is not supported by science, Scripture, popular opinion, or common sense. The exclusive teaching of this dangerous, mind-altering philosophy in tax-supported schools, parks, museums, etc., is also a clear violation of the First Amendment.

How to collect the $250,000:

Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 above, under "known options") is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence. Only empirical evidence is acceptable. Persons wishing to collect the $250,000 may submit their evidence in writing or schedule time for a public presentation. A committee of trained scientists will provide peer review of the evidence offered and, to the best of their ability, will be fair and honest in their evaluation and judgment as to the validity of the evidence presented.

If you are convinced that evolution is an indisputable fact, may I suggest that you offer $250,000 for any empirical or historical evidence against the general theory of evolution. This might include the following:

The earth is not billions of years old (thus destroying the possibility of evolution having happened as it is being taught).
No animal has ever been observed changing into any fundamentally different kind of animal.
No one has ever observed life spontaneously arising from nonliving matter.
Matter cannot make itself out of nothing.
My suggestion:

Proponents of the theory of evolution would do well to admit that they believe in evolution, but they do not know that it happened the way they teach. They should call evolution their "faith" or "religion," and stop including it in books of science. Give up faith in the silly religion of evolutionism, and trust the God of the Bible (who is the Creator of this universe and will be your Judge, and mine, one day soon) to forgive you and to save you from the coming judgment on man’s sin.

*NOTE:

When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:

Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
Planets and stars formed from space dust.
Matter created life by itself.
Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).
Answers to Commonly Asked Questions about the $250,000 Offer

Students in tax-supported schools are being taught that evolution is a fact. We are convinced that evolution is a religion masquerading as science and should not be part of any science curriculum. It has nothing to do with the subject of science. There are at least six different and unrelated meanings to the word “evolution” as used in science textbooks.

Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.
Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets.
Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter.
Macroevolution- Origin of major kinds.
Microevolution Variations within kinds- Only this one has been observed, the first five are religious. They are believed, by faith, even though there is no empirical evidence to prove them in any way. While I admire the great faith of the evolutionists who accept the first five I object to having this religious propaganda included in with legitimate science at taxpayer’s expense.
Even a quick review of a typical public school textbook will show that students are being deceived into thinking all six types of evolution above have been proven because evidence is given for minor variations called micro-evolution. The first five are smuggled in when no one is watching.

This deception is a classic case of bait and switch. One definition of evolution (such as “descent with modification”) is given and the others are assumed to be true by association. The first five meanings are believed by faith, have never been observed and are religious. Only the last one is scientific. It is also what the Bible predicted would happen. The animals and plants would bring forth “after their kind” in Genesis 1.

Many have responded to my offer of $250,000 for scientific proof for evolution. The terms and conditions of the offer are detailed very clearly on my web site www.drdino.com. Here are some answers to some commonly asked questions.

The offer is legitimate. A wealthy friend of mine has the money in the bank. If the conditions of the offer are met, the money will be paid out immediately. My word is good.
The members of the committee of scientists that will judge the evidence are all highly trained, have advanced degrees in science as well as many years of experience in their field. For example: there is a zoologist, a geologist, an aerospace engineer, a professor of radiology and biophysics, and an expert in radio metric dating to name a few. They are busy people and do not wish to waste time on foolish responses. Nor do they wish to waste time arguing with skeptics and scoffers who seem to have nothing else to do than ask silly questions when they really don’t want answers (so far this has been the typical response to the offer). I will not reveal their names for this reason. Any legitimate evidence will be forward to them and they will respond. At that time they may identify themselves if they choose. The merit of the evidence presented and the reasonableness of their response does not depend on who they are.
Evidence of minor changes within the same kind of plant or animal does not qualify as evidence and will not be sent to the committee to waste their time. For example, doubling the chromosome number of a sterile hybrid does not add additional genetic information; it duplicates what is already present in the parent plant. Because of the absence of additional genetic information the resultant plant can't be classified as different or new species. The plant may differ in a number of ways - bigger, vigorous as observed in any polyploid plants. Such easily recognizable phenotypic changes have confused many. Some evolutionists have jumped to the conclusion that a new species has been evolved. The key is that no new genetic information has been added. Even a new “species” is not proof for evolution as the offer calls for. See the conditions of the $250,000 offer on the web site. Some have insisted on a precise definition of the word “kind”. The Bible defines “kind” as those that are able to “bring forth” or reproduce. Those animals that were originally able to reproduce were of the same kind. There may be diversity now, 6000 years later, that could cause some varieties of the original kind to not be able to reproduce now. For example, I understand that rabbits from Alaska cannot breed with rabbits from Florida yet they are still the same kind of animal. It is obvious that a dog and a wolf are the same “kind” of animal (they are currently classed as different “species” yet are inter-fertile-- hmmm, what is the precise definition of “species”?) where a dog and a fish are not. While there may be some blurry areas that would be worthy of research in defining the original kinds, rather than muddy the issue with these type questions it would be wise to focus on the obvious cases like the dog/fish comparison. These are obviously different “kinds” of animals. So, for the sake of clarity, prove the dog and the fish evolved from a common ancestor. The honest scientist would be wise to admit that no evidence exists that could begin to prove the dog and the fish have a common ancestor. He may believe that they are related but that is not science and that is my point in the offer. Some believe this type of evolution happens but it should not be presented to innocent students as a “fact”. Further, it certainly is not evidence that the other four definitions of evolution have occurred.
The idea that the majority of scientists believe in the theory is not evidence either. Majority opinion is often wrong and must be corrected. History is full of examples.
Anonymous letters will be ignored.
Rather than simply sending in scientific evidence for evolution, some have wasted lots of their time and mine sending letters demanding to know who is on the committee, what bank account the money is in, asking Bill Clinton type questions about the definition of words like “is”, etc. When I do not respond the way they want me to they post notices on their web sites claiming that I owe them the money or that the offer is a sham! It is obvious they are using the Red Herring tactic to draw attention away from the fact that they have no evidence to support the religion of evolution. I tell everyone who inquires, if you have some evidence, send it in, don’t beat around the bush. Give us the best you have on the first try please to save time.

Many have offered evidence of microevolution and assumed that the other 5 meanings of the word are somehow magically connected. They don’t seem to realize that they are blinded to the obvious. Treat the $250,000 offer as a lawyer would treat a ‘who-done-it’ case. It is your job to prove that what is being taught to our kids as fact (all six meanings of the word evolution above), is indeed a fact. If this cannot be done then it should be admitted that evolution is a religion but not a science. Some say it is unfair to define evolution including the origin of the universe. They say it only has to do with “change in gene frequency over time.” All you need to do is read your local textbook and see that all 6 meanings of the word are part of what is taught as evolution theory. If these nay Sayers are agreeing that it should not be included then they should help me get it out of the books, if they are genuine.

Over the years I have heard many evolutionists say, “Evolution is a theory like gravity is a theory. Don’t you believe in gravity?” They repeat this mantra as if repetition will make it true. Their example is silly of course. We can all observe gravity every moment of our lives. We can do tests and experiments to verify the theory of gravity. No one has ever seen an exception to it. By the same token, no one has ever observed evolution nor been able to demonstrate any evolution beyond minor variations within the kind. To try to make evolution science by associating it with theories like gravity is ridiculous.

Nearly all responses to my $250,000 offer go something like this: “Of course no one can prove evolution, can you prove creation?” This response is what I expected and wanted. Neither theory of origins can be proven. Both involve a great deal of faith in the unseen. So my next logical question is: “Why do I have to pay for the evolution religion to be taught to all the students in the tax supported school system?” Since all taxpayers are being forced to pay for evolution to be taught exclusively in public schools and evolutionists have had the last 130 years and billions of dollars in research grants to prove their religion, the burden of proof is on them to supply proof of their theory.

I do not have time or interest in getting involved in long e-mail debates, but I will talk to anyone by phone or debate with any qualified scientist (even a panel of evolutionists) in a public forum at a university, on radio or TV, as long as there is equal time for each position not each person. If you call, please have a list of topics to discuss or questions to ask and feel free to record the conversation if you like. Just inform me that you are recording please. I hope this response is satisfactory.

I have taught for years that evolution is nothing but a religion mixed in with real science. Many have been duped into believing in it. There is no evidence that any plant or animal ever can or did change to any other kind or creature. It is time that intelligent people the world over began to admit that the king has no clothes! There is no evidence for changes between kinds of animals. The Bible teaches that God made them to “bring forth after their kind.” This is all that has ever been observed. The same Bible teaches that everyone will face the Creator one day to be judged for everything they have said, done or thought. I recommend that everyone prepare for that day by taking advantage of God’s mercy and forgiveness afforded through the free salvation offered to any who will confess their sin and receive Jesus Christ as their Lord. If you are interested in learning more about becoming a Christian, please call me. I travel a lot but always take time for calls when I am in the office. I am most often in Wednesday through Friday at 850-479-3466. Check my itinerary on my web site for my location if you need to talk with me while I am out speaking. If possible, attend a seminar. Seminars are free and we always have a question answer time for those who attend.

Sincerely,
Kent Hovind

source:http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67

Or we can both agree on facts if you want. Feel free to point out were i was factually incorrect.

I will contend the following as "fact":
1) At present there is no mechanism to describe the evolution of a single-celled organism to the complexity of life today.
The modern synthesis of Neo-Darwinism says that: natural selection and random mutation = evolution from single-celled organisms to man. Natural selection plays a part in "choosing" the fittest randomly. However mutation only leads to degradation of intracellular systems, and i cannot see how single-celled organisms "degraded" into the complexity of life we see today, no matter how long it takes.

2) The level of complexity in organisms have to be present before evolution/adaptation can take place. There is no mechanism (currently) how DNA molecules can assemble through natural processes. Believing it can (atm) is pure faith.

3) Recapitulation is a myth.

4) Most, if not all of the icons of vestigiality is myth. (How about a thread to discuss this?)

Feel free to discuss it if you have time between the cryptozoology and stegosaurus mating arguments.
Non-abrasiveness and spelling are not requirements, but would be nice

Or we can both agree on facts if you want. Feel free to point out were i was factually incorrect.

3) Recapitulation is a myth.

4) Most, if not all of the icons of vestigiality is myth. (How about a thread to discuss this?)

Modern biology rejects the literal and universal form of Haeckel's theory. Although humans share ancestors with many other taxa (roughly, fish through reptiles to mammals), stages of human embryonic development are not functionally equivalent to the adults of these shared common ancestors. In other words, no cleanly defined and functional "fish", "reptile" and "mammal" stages of human embryonal development can be discerned. Moreover, development is nonlinear. For example, during kidney development, at one given time, the anterior region of the kidney is less developed (nephridium) than the posterior region (nephron).

The fact that contemporary biologists reject the literal or universal form of recapitulation theory has sometimes been used as an argument against evolution by some creationists. The argument is: "Haeckel's hypothesis was presented as supporting evidence for evolution, Haeckel's theory is wrong, therefore evolution has less support". This argument is not only an oversimplification but misleading because modern biology does recognize numerous connections between ontogeny and phylogeny, explains them using evolutionary theory without recourse to Haeckel's specific views, and considers them as supporting evidence for that theory.

Unfortunately, some older editions of textbooks in the United States still erroneously cite recapitulation theory or the Haeckel drawings as evidence in support of evolution without appropriately explaining them as being misleading or outdated. Because the actual scientific theory is difficult to explain in layman's terms, expressions of doubt about evolution that point to the flaws in Haeckel's arguments typically go unchallenged in popular media.

Generally, if a structure pre-dates another structure in evolutionary terms, then it also appears earlier than the other in the embryo. Species which have an evolutionary relationship typically share the early stages of embryonal development and differ in later stages. Examples include:

The backbone, the common structure among all vertebrates such as fish, reptiles and mammals, appears as one of the earliest structures laid out in all vertebrate embryos.

The cerebrum in humans, the most sophisticated part of the brain, develops last.

If a structure vanished in an evolutionary sequence, then one can often observe a corresponding structure appearing at one stage during embryonic development, only to disappear or become modified in a later stage. Examples include:

Whales, which have evolved from land mammals, don't have legs, but tiny remnant leg bones lie buried deep in their bodies. During embryonal development, leg extremities first occur, then recede. Similarly, whale embryos (like all mammalian embryos) have hair at one stage, but lose most of it later.

The common ancestor of humans and monkeys had a tail, and human embryos also have a tail at one point; it later recedes to form the coccyx.

The swim bladder in fish presumably evolved from a sac connected to the gut, allowing the fish to gulp air. In most modern fish, this connection to the gut has disappeared. In the embryonal development of these fish, the swim bladder originates as an outpocketing of the gut, and is later disconnected from the gut.