evolution

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
I'm outta here you guy's are hypocrites,critsizing creationist when your own theory needs faith I'll debate your faith another time peace.

Hey, I didn't criticize creationists, or Intelligent Design, I just personally find Evolution to be more probable...and well the real hypocrite is certainly you, asking for evidence and then denying all that you are given....

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
One thing, throw in no common ancestors or transitional forms in there and the second rule of thermodynamics continue to have in that theory just like creationist.

That sentence made no sense at all..but I would say Evolution has some more evidence supporting them than Christian creationism has.

Again, why do Scientists call it a "theory"? Oh yes, cause it is a "theory"...

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
We would need an increase in the number of traits.

Of our traits that are currently active...yeah, I suppose, but not of the traits that are possible.

I also like how he acts like there is no fossil record before the Cambrian. Life didn't "suddenly" appear, it became more diverse and wide spread.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vendian/critters.html

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
I know it can't turn a fish into a land animal moron unless it already has the traits, that's obvious.

You basically answered my question with "I don't know jack shit about DNA but I know rabbits can't turn into fish"

Well what the ****, GO AND READ about DNA and RNA and what mutations to these building blocks of life do.

Want to know something interesting? After monkeys, the animal with the DNA genome closest to a human's, is the common housefly.

Well how the **** can that be!? ZOMGZ

Hey, want to find the answer? Try looking in a field of science called "Molecular Biology"

http://www.genetichealth.com/G101_Changes_in_DNA.shtml

http://www.dnaftb.org/dnaftb/27/concept/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Display&dopt=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=15640092

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_evolution

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/

http://mcb.harvard.edu/BioLinks.html

I just posted 7 links, the final one having another dozen or so in it.

Stop trying to push your ignorant garbage on us, however old you are, you're not old enough to have done more research on the subject of evolution than 100 years worth of scientists.

Deoxyribonucleic Acid. Arguing about it and I forgot you don't even know what it is. Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA

Bardock> No, I won't hit you! I guess Nocturne needs things cut out in cardboard for him.

During the first weeks after conception a human foetus bears resemblance to a shark foetus. Shows common ancenstry. I believe you are trying, in vain, to impress some knowledge on DNA and mutations on Blue Nocturne. Have you not noticed, that he WILL not understand you, and will stoop to petty insults and childish denial no matter how hard you try?
Perhaps try to read a little on fossil-formation? 🙂 Not every single species that has walked the Earth had left a fossil, they are not formed easily. However, we have enough to see evolution.

Lana> Oh, don't bother with Blue Nocturne. He does not read posts, or he is utterly incapable of making logical deductions. Don't waste your time on him, I tried.

I really don't think I'm going to bother anymore, it appears he's never so much as taken a high school biology course or he'd be able to understand what we're talking about.

I hate feeling like I'm talking to a brick wall.

(nice to see you around again, btw!)

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I also like how he acts like there is no fossil record before the Cambrian. Life didn't "suddenly" appear, it became more diverse and wide spread.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vendian/critters.html

Pay attention to what I said, The organisms that appear have no common ancestry.

Originally posted by Bardock42

Again, why do Scientists call it a "theory"? Oh yes, cause it is a "theory"...

A theory is when soemthing is half true evolution is completely bogus

Originally posted by Bardock42

Of our traits that are currently active...yeah, I suppose, but not of the traits that are possible.

We have the a limit to are traits it's called the gene pool, we can't become a lizard or w/e evolutionist believe because you cannot add new traits to the gene pool.

Originally posted by Lana

However, the DNA of many living things are very similar. Humans and apes have about 99% of the same DNA. Humans and horses have about 95%, I believe. Considering the amount of coding in a single strand of DNA....that is a lot of identical coding we share with those animals.

The 99% myth is dead were around 95% similar,and it doesn't matter humans have various traits but new traits cannot be added to the gene pool due to mutation.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
The 99% myth is dead were around 95% similar,and it doesn't matter humans have various traits but new traits cannot be added to the gene pool due to mutation.

Yeah they can.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah they can.

Proof please.

Oh and omega Archaeopteryx is dated younger then it's descendants.

Originally posted by The Omega

Lana> Oh, don't bother with Blue Nocturne. He does not read posts, or he is utterly incapable of making logical deductions. Don't waste your time on him, I tried.

I responded to lana's lactose intolerant claim.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
I responded to lana's lactose intolerant claim.

Yeah, and your response was bullshit. Anyone who's taken a high school bio class would agree with my call about your response as well.

I love how my very informative post was conviently ignored.

My post which answers this ****ing question that Nocturne asks yet again.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Proof please.

AND STOP TRIPLE POSTING

Lana> Why, thank you. Likewise...

Well, I guess it's ultimately a question of whether or not those I debate with show willingness to listen to arguments. Otherwise it's just a waste of my time really, and frankly... I will not debate with Creationists as if their hypothesis is something worth my while 😄

Arachnoidfreak> Don't bother with Nocturne. I know, I used to spend a lot of time on people like him, somehow thinking that logic, science and intelligent debate could shed some light. But if people keep screaming "GIMME PROOF", when other dabters have spend a lot of time give proof, answers and evidence, it's clear we're dealing with an attentionseeking teen-ager, who is not INTERESTED in debate, just interested in getting attention.
Do like me 😄 Put him on ignore (it also makes the thread-pages a lot shorter) 😉

I think that's a great idea. He even admitted in some thread that he doesn't read links.

So...How about that fish with legs that was found in Canada, or has that discussion been and gone? Ol' Tiktaalik roseae must stir-up some trouble with the ol' oxymoronic 'Intelligent Design' ers...

Edit: Clicky da linky dink-dink

In December 2005, federal Judge John E. Jones III ruled that ID must meet the same fate that creationism met in 1987 when the Supreme Court ruled religious doctrines can't be promoted in secular institutions under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Judge Jones wrote in his decision regarding a policy of the Dover, Pennsylvania, school district that added ID to the school's biology program:

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy....

From: http://www.skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html

(... would time and again lie... ) Interesting, isn't it?

What's the difference between ID and creationism?