[Grey Wolf]

Not quite. Who's to say that the bat didn't evolve in an area where the snakes all travelled on the ground? Perhaps the early bat fled to the trees, and there it evolved the wings to provide a better freedom of movement.

[jpheu]

Scuddle,
Your first paragraph... The evidence for creation in the evedentary proof is just as compelling as the evedentary proof of evolution.(If not more) Plus there are plenty of disproofs of evolution.

Your second paragraph....  is pure opinion.  I see nothing resembling apes on the ceiling of St. Peters.

[vyper]

Originally posted by an0n



And on a totally off-key note: I'd happily stand before God and mouth off.

Seconded, if He exists he's got a **** load to answer for. A "Prime Directive" is not a valid excuse either.

[jpheu]

Grey wolf,
If evolution is gradual the rat would have begun to sprout wings and eventually they would get in the way of evading a preditor and eventually died.
If evolution is quick then why haven't we seen it anywhere in recorded history.  Surely someone might have mentioned a rat suddenly sprouting wings (or something like it) in the last 10,000 years of history.

[Scuddie]

Well, forgive me, but I absolutely hate it when people consider theory as untrue because it hasnt been fully proven (which I said, is literally impossible).  And I didnt say people looked like apes, I said more ape-like features.  Rounder eyes, not as square headed, deeper jaws, etc.  People still look like people, but they are different nonetheless.

Has it occured to nobody that both evolution and creation may be true?  Probably not very many.  Because obviously, religion is mythology, and science is an act of the devil.

[WeatherOp]

Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Not quite. Who's to say that the bat didn't evolve in an area where the snakes all travelled on the ground? Perhaps the early bat fled to the trees, and there it evolved the wings to provide a better freedom of movement.

But, then why didn't the hawk get it then, or the owl at night? And with such long toenails, how did he get in the holes to protect him? Or how could he climb.

[Janos]

Originally posted by WeatherOp
Let me ask a question, it says

" Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, whales and many snakes develop hind limbs as embryos which are reabsorbed before birth"

Ok, now lets say that snake devolped one leg or lets say two and he kept it when he was born. How would have he survived? Snakes depend on speed and stealth. With two big back legs he would have trouble even moving, how could he be quick enough to catch that mouse or such. In one word, he couldn't he would end up food for some hawk, or other snake that DIDN'T have back legs.

[/b]

what

Of course? (Of course, back legs are such complex features that once lost they cannot be regained in their former shape or form. Lost finger's don't just grow back if the gene that directs the coding has been lost.) I don't really get your point.

And I have also herd of that bats evoloved from rats, that the grew long front toenails and slow devoloped skin on those toenails.  How could he survive? He would end up food for a Snake with no legs.

Bats are insectivores, so you are wrong on that. The evolution of bats is unclear, though - they are insectivores, but as far as I know we don't have very good fossil archive about them.

And that is the problem with evolution, these "mid" evoloving animals would have died far before they could reproduce. And transfer the gene. [/B]

Those features don't just pop up all of a sudden. They evolve gradually. Also, they must have a positive impact in order to be preserved and eventually evolve into something else. Same thing all over and over again. And of course, the usage of traits can vary as well. Evolution has no goal, it's barely the process of trying to adapt to current enviroment.

[jpheu]

Scuddie,
Theories arn't necessarily untrue because it hasn't been proven, but becaust it hasn't been proven dosn't mean it is true.

People have blended evolution and creation.  That theory is the day-age theory.

[Flipside]

Funny thing is, I don't use the fact I believe in evolution to try and say the Christ never existed..... funny dat...

[Zarax]

Simple answer:
Rats go out at night, snakes and eagles don't.

Derived answer:
This is a gaming community, if you want to rant about other topics please go elsewhere.

Just a friendly advice

[Janos]

Originally posted by jpheu


Where and when has evolution been reproduced?  That is the test it must undergo.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
Speciation is one form of evolution. That has been proved.

[WeatherOp]

Originally posted by Zarax
Simple answer:
Rats go out at night, snakes and eagles don't.

Derived answer:
This is a gaming community, if you want to rant about other topics please go elsewhere.

Just a friendly advice

Yeah, your right, it's about time to let this one go.

But, just to you guys with one last thought, some snakes do come out at night. And thats not evolution, they are still the "same" kind of fish, a bass is still a bass, a catfish is still a catfish.

[vyper]

Originally posted by Flipside
Funny thing is, I don't use the fact I believe in evolution to try and say the Christ never existed..... funny dat...

It appears you're argument is being nicely skirted there.

[jpheu]

Janos,
"They evolve gradually. Also, they must have a positive impact in order to be preserved and eventually evolve into something else."

If something evolves slowly how can it have a positive impact?  Lets take the rat to bat example.  A rat to evolve into a bat slowly must change his diet, shrink his nose, grow different teeth(to accomodate the different diet), shrink his tail, sprot webbing at his front paws, grow extra bones and cartelege, learn echo location, go nearly blind, grow larger, more sensitive ears, etc.  At any point a gradual evolution would yield him useless and a prime target for preditors, thus stopping that evolution.

[Janos]

Originally posted by jpheu
Janos,
"They evolve gradually. Also, they must have a positive impact in order to be preserved and eventually evolve into something else."

If something evolves slowly how can it have a positive impact?  Lets take the rat to bat example.  A rat to evolve into a bat slowly must change his diet, shrink his nose, grow different teeth(to accomodate the different diet), shrink his tail, sprot webbing at his front paws, grow extra bones and cartelege, learn echo location, go nearly blind, grow larger, more sensitive ears, etc.  At any point a gradual evolution would yield him useless and a prime target for preditors, thus stopping that evolution.

Rat to bat is incorrect, goddamnit, because rat is a rodent while a bat is an insectivore.
So, scratch over some of those. Then you can think about the radar/blindness. Some bats have pretty good sight on bat terms (usually the dayactive ones), some don't. The radar organ would be supplemental for sight (at first it would be just a communications tool, which has no negative consequences), until it would bypass sight, and so on - besides insectivores are traditionally pretty weak-eyed, being primarly nocturnal animals who rely on smell and hearing instead of vision.
"Half a wing" is useful for gliding, for example. The insectivore that evolved into a bat (assuming that bats are monophyletic) did not grow extra bones, either. Larger ears have no negative consequences, at least in nocturnal animals. At none point would gradual evolution render the protobat useless. Besides, evolutionary theory does not support the idea of half-winged, half-blind protobat. Such an animal would not be sufficintly adjusted  to it's enviroment and would die.

We do see animals in transitional phases, but it's not that simple as you think. Sugargliders and flying squirrels and most notably the fishes that live partially on dry land.

[jpheu]

Janos,
Your link again hasn't reveiled anything. I looked into the first instance that the link quotes which is:
A new species of mosquito, Culex molestus, isolated in London's underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens. [London Times 1998; Byrne and Nichols 1999]

 The only thing that diferentiates between the two is that the molestus lives underground, but only part of the time.  This is not evolving it's using what's presented. Kinda like I choose to live in Maryland rather than Pennsylvania.  That isn't evolution.

I'm not going to look into the other examples since one is suspect then they all are.  Furthermore, none of them represent a change in species.   A mosquito is a mosquito.
Finally if you have preconcieved notions of what your going to find then you will find it.  In other words if you first assume evolution is true then you can find evedentiary evidence to support it.  That is the problem combining Scientific proof and evedentary proof.  The scientific approach is that you have a theory and find proof for it, but it has to be reproducable.   Evedentary is it isn't true until the evidence says it is.  Scientists combine the two and assume it is true without allowing untainted evidence to prove for or against.

[jpheu]

Janos,
"We do see animals in transitional phases, but it's not that simple as you think. Sugargliders and flying squirrels and most notably the fishes that live partially on dry land."

How are those transitional?  Flying Squirrels, for example, have some aspects of squirrel and others of other creatures, but why assume they are transitional?  They haven't transitioned in known history and they should if your going to hold to a slow evolution.  You have the same precocieved notions as the scientist.

[ksw walker]

The truth is in the hearts of those that believe. I believe all the planets, space, earth and everything in it was created in 6 days. Why do I believe that you ask? Because the Bible is the book of truth.

John 14:6
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Revelation 1:8 8“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”

The (I, AM) Is Jesus Christ. Just in case you don't know what alpha and omega mean. Alpha the beginning of time Omega is the end of time. This verse is talking about Jesus being here from the beginning of time. In the book of John Jesus said He was the truth. By the way don't make the mistake of thinking that I have religion. I have a relationship. The difference is you can only get a relationship through Jesus Christ and get to know the author that wrote the Bible. That is how you have true understanding of God's word. And it all starts by a seed of faith.

[Flipside]

The first mistake most people make when thinking about evolution is thinking it is 'going' somewhere. It isn't, it is merely happening.

Cheetahs didn't think.... 'Hmmmm we need to be faster to catch the prey', the slow prey got eaten, the fast prey bred. After a surprisingly short while, the creature becomes synonymous with it's evolutionary niche 'As fast as a Cheetah, as strong as an Elephant' etc. Slow Cheetahs die, because they cannot catch the fast prey.

Think about it this way, there are 4 Billion people on Earth, every single one of them is evolutionarily different, different tastes, opinions and abilities.

In the wild, only those with the most effective genes would breed. It's hard to understand evolution because we have created a society in which that no longer applies, so because we don't see natural selection at work, we find it hard to take it into our lives.

Edit : Oh, and the Bible also describes 'Heaven' by dimensions, and I hope you don't mind sharing a room...

[Zarax]

There's something strange going on here...
I smell trolls incoming.
Look at the posters and number of posts...
Some of them are joining here just to get into this discussion.
It would be better if the admins takes a look at this.