Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 50839

Evolution is not even a scientific hypothesis, since there is no conceivable way in which it can be tested.
"Science", however, is not supposed to be something one "believes". Science is knowledge—that which can be demonstrated and observed and repeated. Evolution cannot be proved, or even tested; it can only be believed.

one must weigh the evidence

the evidence for evolution is, and has always been lacking
too much extrapolation and hypotheticals and overwhelming probabilities

the evidence for creation is more believable

1 - Where did the space for the universe come from?
2 - where did matter come from?
3 - Where did the laws of the universe come from? (Gravity, inertia, etc.)
4 - How did matter get so perfectly organized?
5 - Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
6 - When, where, why and how did life come from dead matter?
7 - When, where, why and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
8 - With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
9 - Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
10 - How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books)
11 - Is is possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
12 - Natural Selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep the species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occured if evolution were true?
13 - When, where, why and how did: a) single-celled plants become multi-celled (where are the two-and three-celled intermediates?), b) single-celled animals evolve?, c) fish change to amphibians?, d) amphibians change to reptiles?, e) reptiles change to birds? (
the lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live?
14 - When, where, why, how and from what did: a) whales evole?, b) sea horses evolve, c) bats evolve?, d) eyes evolve?, e) ears evolve?, f) hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc evolve?
15 - Which evolved first (how and how long did it work without the others): a)digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the bodies resistance to its own digestive juices (stomach, intestines, etc)? b) the drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? c) the lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs? d) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? e) the termite or the flagella and its intestines that actually digest the cellulose? f) the plants or the insects that live on them pollonatte the plants? g) the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply or muscles to move the bone? h) the nervous system , repair system or hormone system? i) the immune system or the need for it?


try and remember the very first thing you were taught about evolution and what was repeated to you over and over:

that evolution is a 'fact', even before you were presented so called evidence. It stuck.

ken d, Yahoo! Answers 52 Comments [11/2/2008 3:43:57 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: thejebusfire
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3
Mortok

Well, the first 6 questions have nothing to do with evolution at all. 10 uses a profoundly stupid false analogy. And the rest all seem to be the same question repeated over and over in different ways. Don't you read over anything before you put it on the internet?

11/2/2008 3:52:50 PM

aaa

I suspect a copypasta.

11/2/2008 3:55:47 PM

JDC1

Take the time to learn something and then you won't be
asking so many questions.
That's why very young children ask so many questions.

11/2/2008 4:00:22 PM

Johannes9126

Arguments from ignorance - or better questions from ignorance. If a 9year old pupil asks these questions, he/she is sharp. But if a grown up asks them and puts "evidence for creation" in front, he is the dumbest shit on the internet.

11/2/2008 4:01:43 PM

Duck On Skates

AIG is not a good source for real scientific research.

11/2/2008 4:01:44 PM

LOLWUT

I think Yahoo! should shut down their Answers service, it's obvious it generates dubious results.

11/2/2008 4:13:57 PM

Saika

A wonderful case of goddidit.

11/2/2008 4:53:04 PM



Argument from ignorance: "I don't know the answer to these questions, hence I'm RIGHT!".

Pathetic.

11/2/2008 5:00:15 PM

Painful

Well, I've got nothing better to do...

1 - Nothing to do with evilo-lution
2 - Nothing to do with evilo-lution
3 - Nothing to do with evilo-lution
4 - I'd name a fancy law, but you'lll screw that up, let's stick to everything likes to find that place of lowest energy... sometimes even the lowest energy of the brain in this case...
5 - Takes less energy to be in a certain configuration, please don't misuse the laws of Thermo, I'm a PhD dropout in the subject... mmmm, k?
6 - Well, "dead" has some extra connotations there... you can't start with the answer and then only accept the proof that confirms the answer.
7 - Learn? No. Ate too much and thought - hey, I could be TWO cells now.
8 - You haven't read a lick of biology have you? I'm guessing "sexual" reproduction is hardly in your future so don't trouble yourself.
9 - Try to take over the world? Why do you want to reproduce (lemme guess, to glorify god) the rest of the creatures did it because they could and there is safety in numbers...

10 - Never heard of the monkeys and the typewriters have you? I suppose not, it involves evil MONKEYS!!!!

11 - Sure, but it is just as likely that there are only so many mutations and only so many configurations that work... we could talk about crabs have a different element in their blood to carry oxygen, why would god bother with that then? I mean, if we are white washing the whole thing...
12 - Err... mutations increase the complexity and oh, BTW humans are considerably less complex genetically than other animals, just so you know "ruler over all beasts"
13 - Umm... crack open a book there, 2/3/x celled things still live, mostly in water though, amphibians should be a huge clue to the rest of your questions.
14 - Try a book, really, please and whales moved back from land to the ocean, you can see it really easily by looking at their spine and how it moves, I loved movement studies.
15- See, a cell, lemme explain to you - HAS THESE PARTS... if a cell has all these kind of parts and you make something multi celled, why not specialize? You know, there was this great program on fractals in nature... oh, never mind.

Ok, that wasted a few brain cells... but it was all in the name of SCIENCE!

11/2/2008 5:12:17 PM

484

1) Big Bang
2) I didn't come from anywhere, that would imply that there was a point in time at which it did not exist. There is no evidence to support such a claim.
3) They are inherent properties of matter.
4) Question is too vague to answer
5) Term "organization" remains undefined. The energy present in the universe didn't come from anywhere. There has never been a point in time at which it did not exist.
6) Conditions on pre-biotic Earth catylized the formation of Adenine Guanine Cytosine Thymine and Uracil. More detailed answer can be found by researching "Abiogenesis."
7) Reproduction is quality of life. If it did not reproduce itself, it would not be life. Life couldn't have "learned" to reproduce itself as primitive organisms lacked a nervous system, let alone cognition.
8) Another organism capable of sexual reproduction (see "plasmid")
9) Lower animals lack cognition. Higher animals have sex drives.
10) Mutation produces genetic variety on which natural selection may act. Latin script down into it's component strokes, then preferentially choosing the ones that are closest to Kanji WILL eventually generate Kanji characters. (I am aware that Kanji is the Japanese name, but they are the same characters). Moreover the Chinese radical for "ear" looks almost exactly like the Greek character beta.
11) To paraphrase www.creationtheory.org "It's a family tree, not a family sponge." Creation can explain the similarities, but not the differences.
12) I hate it when creationists say that mutation is to random to produce order, and claim that natural selection cannot generate new code. THERE ARE TWO PROCESSES THAT WORK TOGETHER. Natural selection acts upon the variation produced by random mutation.
13) a) There is no such thing as a "single celled plant." Multi-cellular organisms probably evolved from colonies of single celled organisms in which each of the constituents over successive generations developed increasingly specialized habits. b) There is no such thing as a "single celled animal. c) Tiktaalik, lungfish, any of the various fish capable of maneuvering & surviving on land for brief periods. d) When where why and how did your deity make reptiles? e) birds?
14) Replace evolve with God make. Difference being that the scientific community actually does have answers. READ A FUCKING BOOK.
15) a) You can trace the evolution of the digestive system yourself though animals Porifera, Cnidarians, Flatworms, Mollusks. b) The ability to reproduce, billions of years. c) prove that the gas mixture is "perfect." Gasses, respiratory system (don't assume lungs were first) mucous lining. Quite a while, I don't think fish have said mucous lining. d) Neither. Early organisms used RNA to store their genetic information. e) Eating wood is part of the definition of a termite; if it didn't do that, it wouldn't be a termite. f) Plants, billions of years. Many many plants today live where there are no insects, many more do not require insects to pollinate other plants. g) Muscles predate the others. Cnidarians have them. h) Nervous system, is again found in cnidarians. There is no such thing as a "repair system or a "hormone system." i) the need for an immune system, billions of years.

11/2/2008 5:15:03 PM

Sisyphus

I'm suffering from feline induced insomnia at the moment so I won't answer all of your inane points but I'll tackle a few:
8 - With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce? probably one of it's "sister" cells who were also capable of reproducing sexually
9 - Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?) Plants and animals (except humans) are unable to consider the future. Therefore they just try to get as many babies as possible out there. I suppose Carpe Diem would be the best way to describe most animal's view of the world.
11 - Is is possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor? That is one hypotheses but it doesn't make any sense. Why would an "intelligent" creator use a land based model for creating a sea creature (whales). There are too many holes in that "logic" for it to be taken seriously
14 - When, where, why, how and from what did: a) whales evole?, b) sea horses evolve, c) bats evolve?, d) eyes evolve?, e) ears evolve?, f) hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc evolve? a) genetic evidence has indicated that whales evolved from what we would identify as hippopotamuses d)eyes probably started as a simple light receptor then through MANY intermediate steps evolved into eyes as we know them. We know that eyes are an evolutionary advantage because they evolved independently in different types of animals at different times in different ways (I would suggest Dawkin's "The Ancestor's Tale" for more in depth info.
15 - Which evolved first (how and how long did it work without the others): a)digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the bodies resistance to its own digestive juices (stomach, intestines, etc)? b) the drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? c) the lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs? d) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? e) the termite or the flagella and its intestines that actually digest the cellulose? f) the plants or the insects that live on them pollonatte the plants? g) the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply or muscles to move the bone? h) the nervous system , repair system or hormone system? i) the immune system or the need for it? [b] they all coevolved. As one thing evolved and changed, another evolved and changed to match it.

Read: The Ancestor's Tale, any biology text book (I vaguely remember covering this stuff in the 10th or 11th grade)...of course, I wasn't home skuled.

11/2/2008 5:25:54 PM

John-in-Oz

Your questions are evidence of your ignorance, rather than evidence for anything in nature.

11/2/2008 5:28:55 PM

Mister Spak

Where did god come from?

11/2/2008 5:33:32 PM

JimLad

Let's give this a go.

1-5 have nothing to do with evolution; they are physics-based questions, and I am not a physicist.
6-8 have nothing to do with evolution; they are questions on abiogenesis, a tentative field of biology which is not my forte.

9: It is important to realise that it is very likely that reproduction came before anything could be fairly described as 'living'. Simple molecules similar to RNA self-replicated; those that were 'best' at this survived. Modern organisms are full of genes which improve their chances of being replicated, through the modern medium of sex.

10: This question will be very difficult to answer without going into the complex mechanisms of DNA transcription and translation, so I suggest you look it up yourself.

11: Yes, it is possible, but so improbable it does not need considering.

12: This question shows complete lack of understanding of natural selection. NS selects those mutations that best adapt the organism to its current environment. If selection pressures are high, evolution speed increases.

13a: This occurred around 3-2 billion years ago in the oceans of the time due to selection pressures for solar-obtained nutrition/energy. Look up Vovox and Rhodophyte for possible intermediates.
13b: See above, around a billion years previous. These organisms would not have fossilised due to their fragile composition.
13c: See Pandericthys, Tiktaalik, Elginerpeton, Icthyostega and Pederpes to name just a few fish-amphibian transitional fossils.
13d: See Proterogyrinus, Tseajaia and Solenodonsaurus to name a few amphibian-amniote transitional fossils.
13e: See Pedopenna, Archaeopteryx, Confuciosornis and Icthyornis to see the beautiful transition from dinosaurs to birds.

14a: Ambulocetus, Basilosaurus, Dorudon, Eurhinodelphis...
14b: I have no idea off the top of my head, but it might make some interesting research.
14c: Icaronycteris, Archaeonycteris, Palaeochiropteryx, Hassianycteris and Archaeopteropus.
14d-f: These are so well-documented in evolution that it is amazing that people still trot them out as 'proof against'. Just look them up yourself.

15a, c, f-i: Most likely these evolved simultaneously as they are incredibly useful for any organism possessing them.
15b: The ability. See response to question 9.
15d: RNA came first.
15e: Termites have flagella? I'm not a termite specialist, anyone else care to answer?

11/2/2008 5:46:48 PM

Bored One-time Poster

You walk into a large, well-decorated hallway.

Mr. Black is dead on the floor, clearly having been beaten to death. Miss Scarlet is holding a blood-stained lead pipe.

Since you didn't directly observe the event, either it never happened or God did it.

11/2/2008 6:01:48 PM

Osiris

The problem is that evolution has nothing to do with much of what you are asking for. There is not one single theory to explain everything in the Universe, because much of the Universe was formed by different natural process. Therefore there are multiple different theories that work together to explain the Universe and evolution isn't one of them. But I will answer your questions and point you in the direction of the right theory.

1. The space for the Universe is created as the Universe expands. Since we know the Universe is still expanding this is pretty much a fact.
2. Energy can be converted into matter. This is what the Big Bang did. Much of the energy that was released by the Big Bang was converted into matter.
3. The "laws" of the Universe are human principles created to explain certain natural phenomenon. In short we created those laws, but we did not create the phenomenon, those have always existed as a part of the Universe and are results of different things working on each other.
4. Probably very quickly. Matter has a natural tendency to move towards order, and order can be created of out chaos without any intervention. Again this is a fact.
5. Define organized.
6. It didn't. Life came from organic matter. Rocks and metals are dead matter. Phosphate lipids and nucleic acids are organic matter. Life originated some 3 billion years ago, which are when some of the oldest fossil bacterial colonies were found.
7. Life never learned to reproduce. So you fail for a loaded question.
8. Cells are not capable of sexual reproduction so never.
9. Lower order organisms don't have the cognitive abilities to realize that, and most of them don't take care of their young. Higher order organisms have sex drives. But here's another thing, organisms that don't reproduce don't have their genes passed down, so usually the genes that do get passed down are ones from animals that have a very powerful sex drive. It doesn't take a genius to realize that being a horny bastard can be a survival trait.
10. There's a lot of examples really. Take into account a New Hampshire kid who was born with a gene that improved muscles. At age six he had twice the muscle mass most kids would have and half the fat. There's even more examples in nature.
11. It could. But you would have to prove this designer first of all. Since evolution has more evidence behind it then it is the most likely explanation for homologous structures.
12. Complex organisms have a better chance of out competing more primitive ones, so evolution would have a natural tendency towards complexity.

The next couple of questions are too long to answer. Take a look at talk origins. Also despite your claim at the end science classes do present the evidence for evolution when teaching it. Also you're never told it's a fact.

11/2/2008 6:14:27 PM



Funny, not a single thing you said disproves evolution or proves creationism. Quit trying to beg the quesstion!

11/2/2008 6:21:33 PM

Calilasseia


Let's take a look at this shall we?

NOTE: I'll adopt the convention of addressing personal pronouns to the original author of this piece.

Evolution is not even a scientific hypothesis, since there is no conceivable way in which it can be tested.


Complete bullshit. Want a list of peer reviewed scientific papers containing direct experimental tests and validation of evolutionary hypotheses? Here you go:

Cavefish as a Model System in Evolutionary Developmental Biology by William R. Jeffrey, Developmental Biology, 231:, 1-12 (1 Mar 2001) - contains experimental tests of hypotheses about eye evolution

Crystal Structure Of An Ancient Protein: Evolution By Conformational Epistasis by Eric A. Ortlund, Jamie T. Bridgham, Matthew R. Redinbo and Joseph W. Thornton, Science, 317: 1544-1548 (14 September 2007) - refers to the reconstruction of ancient proteins from extinct animals by back-tracking along the molecular phylogenetic trees and demonstrating that the proteins in question WORK

Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory by J.R. Weinberg V. R. Starczak and P. Jora, Evolution vol 46, pp 1214-1220, 1992 - EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Experimentally Created Incipient Species of Drosophila by Theodosius Dobzhansky & Olga Pavlovsky, Nature 230, pp 289 - 292 (02 April 1971) - EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Founder-flush speciation in Drosophila pseudoobscura: a large scale experiment by A. Galiana, A. Moya and F. J. Alaya, Evolution vol 47, pp 432-444, 1993 - EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Genetics of Natural Populations XII. Experimental Reproduction of Some of the Changes Caused by Natural Selection by Sewall Wright & Theodosius Dobzkansky, Genetics, 31(2): 125-156 (1946) - direct experimental tests of natural selection mechanisms

Hedgehog Signalling Controls Eye Degeneration in Blind Cavefish by Yoshiyuki Yamamoto, David W. Stock and William R. Jeffery, Nature, 431: 844-847 (14 Oct 2004) - direct experimental test of theories about eye evolution and the elucidation of the controlling genes involved

Initial Sequencing of the Chimpanzee Genome and Comparison with the Human Genome, The Chimpanzee Genome Sequencing Consortium (see paper for full list of 68 authors), Nature, Vol 437, pp 69-87, 1 September 2005 - direct sequencing of the chimpanzee genome and direct comparison of this genome with the previously sequenced human genome, whereby the scientists discovered that fully twenty-nine percent of the orthologous proteins of humans and chmpanzees are IDENTICAL

Origin of the Superflock of Cichlid Fishes from Lake Victoria, East Africa by Erik Verheyen, Walter Salzburger, Jos Snoeks and Axel Meyer, Science, vol 300, pp 325-329, 11 April 2003 - direct experimental determination of the molecular phylogeny of the Lake Victoria Superflock, including IDENTIFYING THE COMMON ANCESTOR OF THE 350+ SPECIES IN QUESTION and NAMING THAT ANCESTOR as Haplochromis gracilior

Phagotrophy by a flagellate selects for colonial prey: A possible origin of multicellularity by M.E. Boraas, D.B. Seale and J.E. Boxhorn, Evolutionary Ecology Vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 153-164. Feb 1998 - direct experimental test of hypotheses about the origins of multicellularity

Protein engineering of hydrogenase 3 to enhance hydrogen production by T. Maeda, V. Sanchez-Torres and T. K. Wood, Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 79(1): 77-86 (May 2008) - DIRECT EXPERIMENTAL APPLICATION OF EVOLUTION IN THE LABORATORY TO PRODUCE A NEW BIOTECHNOLOGY PRODUCT

Resurrecting Ancient Genes: Experimental Analysis Of Extinct Molecules by Joseph W. Thornton, Nature Reviews: Genetics, 5: 366-375 (5 May 2004) - direct experimental reconstruction in the laboratory of ancient proteins from extinct animals

Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura by E. del Solar, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, vol 56, pp 484-487, 1966 - direct experimental test of selection mechanisms and their implications for speciation

The Master Control Gene For Morphogenesis And Evolution Of The Eye by Walter J. Gehrig, Genes to Cells, 1: 11-15, 1996 - direct experimental test of hypotheses concerning eye evolution including the elucidation of the connection between the Pax6 gene and eye morphogenesis, and the experimental manipulation of that gene to control eye development

The Past As The Key To The Present: Resurrection Of Ancient Proteins From Eosinophils by Steven A. Benner, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 99(8): 4760-4761 (16 April 2002) - direct experimental reconstruction of ancient proteins from extinct animals

Apparently the authors of those scientific papers found ways in which evolution could be tested. But then they paid attention in science classes at school.

"Science", however, is not supposed to be something one "believes". Science is knowledge—that which can be demonstrated and observed and repeated.


And those scientific papers above contain direct observations of the requisite phenomena of interest, direct demonstrations of their workings, and are replicable. Game over.

Evolution cannot be proved, or even tested; it can only be believed.


Poppycock. See those scientific papers above. Assuming of course that you are capable of reading them in the first place.

one must weigh the evidence


The authors of the above papers did. Once again, game over.

the evidence for evolution is, and has always been lacking


Those scientific papers above suggest otherwise. As do the 18,000+ scientific papers published in evolutionary biology in the year 2007 alone. Unless of course you wish to suggest that all those scientists fabricated the contents of those papers, in which case, I'd love to see you try and pay out the libel damages that would be applicable upon falsely impuging the reputations of the authors of over 18,000 papers.

too much extrapolation and hypotheticals and overwhelming probabilities


Bullshit. See those scientific papers above? No "extrapolation" or "hypotheticals" involved, just direct experimental results. Always assuming of course you know what experimental results ARE in the first place.

the evidence for creation is more believable


WHAT evidence is there for "creation" again? Only I've yet to see it turn up in any peer reviewed scientific paper. If you happen to think that a 3,000 year old book of myths, written by ignorant Bronze Age nomads who were apparently too incompetent to count correctly the number of legs that an insect possesses, counts as "evidence" here, then you need to go back to school and learn what proper evidential standards are.

Meanwhile, let's address this little list ... another of those "lists" creationists are so fond of ...

1 - Where did the space for the universe come from?


It's obvious that you never paid attention in science class here. Because if you had, you would know that this has nothing to do with Darwin's theory of evolution. The theory of evolution, as initially postulated by Darwin, and subsequently built upon and expanded by 150 years of scientific endeavour, is a theory in biology, and concerns itself solely with the long term behaviour of populations of reproducing living organisms. The question of what mechanisms were responsible for the instantiation of the observable universe and its contents is the remit of cosmology, which is a branch of physics. But then the critical thinkers are used to ignroant creationists being too stupid to work out which branches of science are appropriate for which classes of real world phenomena.

If you want a detailed answer to the above, ask a physicist. Neil Turok would be a good choice, particularly as he published recently two papers in which he presented a testable mechanism for the instantiation of the observable universe.

2 - where did matter come from?


Never heard of E = mc² ???

Once you have energy in place, and Turok's papers provide a mechanism for lots of energy being present in the initially instantiated universe, then matter arises from that energy. The reverse process, by the way, namely the conversion of matter into energy, is the mechanism via which nuclear bombs work, something you might like to reflect upon if ever one is dropped upon you.

3 - Where did the laws of the universe come from? (Gravity, inertia, etc.)


Once again, ask a physicist. Who will tell you that this is a work in progress. Which, before you are tempted to gaze gleefully upon this response, in no way confers any legitimacy whatsoever upon Bronze Age mythology. If you are unable to understand why "science doesn't have all the answers yet" does NOT equal "3,000 year old mythology is therefore true by default", you need to go back to school and retake Logic 101.

4 - How did matter get so perfectly organized?


Once again, did you attend any science classes at school?

Once you have matter, gravity causes it to aggregate together. It's the reason that your feet remain connected to Planet Earth and you don't float off into space. Entities with positive mass attract each other via gravity.

5 - Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?


Once again, ask a physicist.

I suspect you will have to spend a decade or more re-taking elementary science classes before you're ready for Turok's papers. But, those papers contain a testable answer for this.

6 - When, where, why and how did life come from dead matter?


You really do have a major problem with scientific understanding, don't you?

This question is the remit of a scientific discipline called abiogenesis. Which is the remit of organic chemistry. Again, a separate scientific discipline. However, there are a good number of papers in the field that propose well defined mechanisms for the appearance of the constituents of life and their organisation into self-replicating entities. Since you, like other creationists, seem so fond of lists, here's another to add to your collection - a list of relevant abiogenesis papers containing various mechanisms for appropriate chemical reactions that have been tested in the laboratory and determined to work:

A Production Of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions by Stanley L. Miller, Science, 117: 528-529

A Self-Replicating Ligase Ribozyme by Natasha Paul & Gerald F. Joyce, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 99(20): 12733-12740, 1st October 2002

A Self-Replicating System by T. Tjivuka, P. Ballester and J. Rebek Jr, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 112: 1249-1250 (1990)

Carbonyl Sulphide-Mediated Prebiotic Formation Of Peptides by Luke Leman, Leslie Orgel and M. Reza Ghadiri, Science, 306: 283-286 (8th October 2004)

Cations As Mediators Of The Adsorption Of Nucleic Acids On Clay Surfaces In Prebiotic Environments by Marco Franchi, James P. Ferris and Enzo Gallori, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 33: 1-16 (2003)

Chemistry for the Synthesis of Nucleobase-Modified Peptide Nucleic Acid by R. H. E. Hudson, R. D. Viirre, Y. H. Liu, F. Wojciechowski and A. K. Dambenieks, Pure Appl. Chem., 76(7-8) 1591-1598, 2004

Evolution Of Amino Acid Frequencies In Proteins Over Deep Time: Inferred Order Of Introduction Of Amino Acids Into The Genetic Code by Dawn J. Brooks, Jacques R. Fresco, Arthur M. Lesk and Mona Singh, Molecular and Biological Evolution, 19(10): 1645-1655 (2002)

Homochiral Selection In The Montmorillonite-Catalysed And Uncatalysed Prebiotic Synthesis Of RNA by Prakash C. Joshi, Stefan Pitsch and James P. Ferris, Chemical Communications (Royal Society of Chemistry), 2497-2498 (2000) [DOI: 10.1039/b007444f]

Lipid Bilayer Fibres From Diastereomeric And Enantiomeric N-Octylaldonamides by Jürgen-Hinrich Fuhrhop, Peter Schneider, Egbert Boekema and Wolfgang Helfrich, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 110: 2861-2867 (1988)

Molecular Asymmetry In Extraterrestrial Chemistry: Insights From A Pristine Meteorite by Sandra Pizzarello, Yongsong Huang and Marcelo R. Alexandre, Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 105(10): 3700-3704 (11th March 2008)

Montmorillonite Catalysis Of 30-50 Mer Oligonucleotides: Laboratory Demonstration Of Potential Steps In The Origin Of The RNA World by James P. Ferris, Origins of Life and Evolution of the biosphere, 32: 311-332 (2002)

Montmorillonite Catalysis Of RNA Oligomer Formation In Aqueous Solution: A Model For The Prebiotic Formation Of RNA by James P. Ferris and Gözen Ertem, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 115: 12270-12275 (1993)

Nucelotide Synthetase Ribozymes May Have Emerged First In The RNA World by Wentao Ma, Chunwu Yu, Wentao Zhang and Jiming Hu, The RNA Journal, 13: 2012-2019, 18th September 2007

Organic Compounds In Carbonaceous Meteorites by Mark A. Sephton, Natural Products Reports (Royal Society of Chemistry), 19: 292-311 (2002)

Peptide Nucleic Acids Rather Than RNA May Have Been The First Genetic Molecule by Kevin E. Nelson, Matthew Levy and Stanley L. Miller, Proc. Natl, Acad. Sci. USA., 97(8): 3868-3871, 11th April 2000

Prebiotic Amino Acids As Asymmetric Catalysts by Sandra Pizzarello and Arthur L. Weber, Science, 303: 1151, 20 February 2004

Racemic Amino Acids From The Ultraviolet Photolysis Of Interstellar Ice Analogues by Max P. Bernstein, Jason P. Dworkin, Scott A. Sandford, George W. Copoper and Louis J. Allamandola, Nature, 416: 401-403

Ribozymes: Building The RNA World by Gerald F. Joyce, Current Biology, 6(8): 965-967, 1996

RNA-Catalysed Nucleotide Synthesis by Peter J. Unrau and David P. Bartel, Nature, 395: 260-263 (17th September 1998)

RNA-Catalyzed RNA Polymerization: Accurate and General RNA-Templated Primer Extension by Wendy K. Johnston, Peter J. Unrau, Michael S. Lawrence, Margaret E. Glasner and David P. Bartel, Science, 292: 1319-1325, 18th May 2001

RNA-Directed Amino Acid Homochirality by J. Martyn Bailey
, FASEB Journal (Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology), [b]12: 503-507 (1998)

Self Replicating Systems by Volker Patzke and Günter von Kiedrowski, ARKIVOC 5: 293-310, 2007

Sequence- And Regio-Selectivity In The Montmorillonite-Catalysed Synthesis Of RNA by Gözen Ertem and James P. Ferris, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 30: 411-422 (2000)

Template-Directed Synthesis Of A Genetic Polymer In A Model Protocell by Sheref S. Mansy, Jason P. Schrum, Mathangi Krisnamurthy, Sylvia Tobé, Douglas A. Treco and Jack W. Szostak, Nature, 454: 122-125 (4th June 2008)

The Antiquity Of RNA-Based Evolution by Gerald F. Joyce, Nature, 418: 214-221, 11th July 2002

The Descent of Polymerisation by Matthew Levy and Andrew D. Ellington, Nature Structural Biology, 8(7): 580-582, July 2001

The Generality Of DNA-Templated Synthesis As A Basis For Evolving Non-Natural Small Molecules by Zev J. Gartner and David R. Liu, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 123: 6961-6963 (2001)

The Lipid World by Daniel Segré, Dafna Ben-Eli, David W. Deamer and Doron Lancet, Origins of Life And Evolution of the Biosphere, 31: 119-145, 2001

The Origin And Early Evolution Of Life: Prebiotic Chemistry, The Pre-RNA World, And Time by Antonio Laczano and Stanley R. Miller, Cell, 85: 793-798 (14th June 1996)

The Roads To And From The RNA World[/i] by Jason P. Dworkin, Antonio Lazcano and Stanley L. Miller, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 222: 127-134 (2003)

Thermostability Of Model Protocell Membranes by Sheref S. Mansy and Jack W. Szostak, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 105(36): 13351-13355 (9th September 2008)

Two Step Potentially Prebiotic Synthesis Of [chr]945[/chr]-D-Cystidine-5'-Phosphate From D-Glyceraldehyde-3-Phosphate by Carole Anastasi, Michael A. Crowe and John D. Sutherland, Journal of the American Chemical Society (Communications), 129: 24-24 (2007)

Needless to say, the above list is not exhaustive by any stretch of the imagination. There are tens of thousands of papers extant in the abiogenesis literature, beginning with Miller's 1953 paper. However, since abiogenesis has only been an extant scientific discipline for 55 years, there is still much research left to conduct. Be advised that said research is being conducted, however.

7 - When, where, why and how did life learn to reproduce itself?


Well since self-replication has been demonstrated in RNA strands of around 16 nucleotides in length, this capability was present before the first protocells came into being. See the above list of abiogenesis papers. Joyce (1996), Unrau et al (1998) and Johnston et al (2001) are among the relevant papers. Since we have evidence of this, because this was demonstrated in the laboratory, and indeed we now have evidence for a wide range of sef-replicating molecules and the appropriate reaction mechanisms for their replication, life didn't have to "learn" to reproduce itself, it was a natural consequence of the relevant reaction mechanisms in organic chemistry.

8 - With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?


Oh dear. It seems you entertain the mistaken idea that sexual reproduction came into existence fully formed in an instant, with fully differentiated male and female organisms. Wrong. As anyone who has observed yeast cells in the laboratory will tell you. These are cells that possess a differentiation between cell types that is more primitive than modern male and female cells, and indeed the cells in question switch sexes with each haplooid cell division. Read all about it here, where a concise explanation is provided. Oh, and since the genome of Saccharomyces cerevisiae has been sequenced in full, the detailed genetic mechanism is pretty well understood, having been studied for some time.

9 - Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)


This question presumes the existence of only one species in an ecosystem. Once the first protocells existed, imperfect replication would pretty soon have led to the development of differentiated protocell types occupying different niches, including the first predatory niches, long before resource exhaustion became an issue. It's not as if those protocells would have had large appetites in any case. Doesn't take much food substrate to keep bacteria fed, for example.

10 - How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books)


Oh dear, argument from incredulity and ignorance. Time to list more papers where this process has been observed taking place and for which we have detailed genetic information with regard to the mutations in question ...

A New Nylon Oligomer Degradation Gene (nylC) on Plasmid pOAD2 from a Flavobacterium sp. by Seiji Negoro, Shinji Kakudo, Itaru Urabe, and Hirosuke Okadam, Journal of Bacteriology, Dec. 1992, p. 7948-7953

Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the pre-existed, internally repetitious coding sequence by Susumu Ohno, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 81, pp. 2421-2425, April 1984

Insertion Sequence IS6100 on Plasmid pOAD2, which degrades Nylon Oligomers by Ko Kato, Kinya Ohtsuki, Hiroyuki Mitsuda, Tetsuya Yomo, Seiji Negoro and Itaru Urabe, Journal of Bacteriology, Feb 1994, pp 1197-1200

Convergent Evolution of Antifreeze Glycoproteins in Antarctic Notothenioid Fishes and Arctic Cod by Liangbiao Chen, Arthur L. deVries and Chi-Hing C. Cheng, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, vol 94, pp 3817-3822, 1997

Evolution of an Antifreeze Glycoprotein by Liangbiao Chen and Chi-Hing C. Cheng, Nature, vol 401, pp 443-444, 1999

Evolution of Antifreeze Glycoprotein Gene from a Trypsinogen Gene in Antarctic Notothenioid Fishes by Liangbiao Chen, Arthur L. deVries and Chi-Hing C. Cheng, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, vol 94, pp 3811-3816, 1997

Functional Antifreeze Glycoprotein Genes in Temperate-Water New Zealand Nototheniid Fishes Infer An Antarctic Evolutionary Origin by Chi-Hing C Cheng, Liangbiao Chen, Thomas J Near and Yumi Jin, Journal of Molecular and Biological Evolution, Vol 20, no 11, pp 1897-1908, 2003

Nonhepatic Origin of Notothenioid Antifreeze Reveals Pancreatic Synthesis As Common Mechanism in Polar Fish Freezing Avoidance by Chi-Hing C Cheng, Paul A. Cziko and Clive W. Evans, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, vol 103, pp 10491-10496, 2006

Once again, the real scientists, namely the people who paid attention in science class at school, have worked this out. Your inability to understand how this can take place doesn't invalidate their work, just as 2+2=4 would not be invalidated just because someone was too stupid to understand addition.

11 - Is is possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?


No. Because your purported "creator" would be under no restriction in this manner, given that your purported "creator" is postulated to be capable of anything that arises according to whim. Which, incidentally, is why supernatural magic men do not constitute an "explanation" for anything, because once you introduce magic, anything goes. If you don't understand why your purported "creator" is an instance of magic, then again, you need to return to school and engage in the appropriate study.

12 - Natural Selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep the species stable.


Wrong. You really never did pay attention in science class, did you?

Natural selection only keeps a species stable if doing so maintains the ability of that species to reproduce and produce descendants. If, on the other hand, circumstances in an ecosystem change, and one part of a population possessing a particular collection of mutations suddenly becomes favoured over those that do not, then those favoured individuals in the population will reproduce with more success, and in time dominate the population.

Oh, and while we're at it, let's knock on the head one common misconception. Namely that somehow, those individuals possessing the newly favoured mutants would only mate with each other, and exclude those that did not as choices of mating partner. There is no reason to suggest that this would be the case. Consequently, diversity with respect to other genes would be maintained. The particular favoured genes would eventually spread throughout the population in future generations, but since each organism would possess a large number of genes, it would only be the small number of positively selected genes that would replace the equally small number of genes selected against. Diversity with respect to other genes, particularly genes that were neutral with respect to selection, would be maintained and these would continue to move about the population from generation to generation with the same frequency of transmission they did prior to the ecosystem event leading to positive selection of the other genes. This would continue until some of those genes became positively or negatively selected for as a result of another ecosystem or environmental change.

How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occured if evolution were true?


Never heard of gene duplication? It happens, has been observed taking place, and has been documented doing so in the scientific literature. See the above papers on antifreeze glycoproteins in Notothenioid fishes, which was the result of a duplication of a pancreatic trypsinogen gene, followed by mutation of the copy, and positive selection upon those mutants that produced an antifreeze glycoprotein.

Also, see the frog species Hyla versicolor. Which arose from ancestral stock of Hyla chrysocelis via a wholesale duplication of the entire genome (a polyploidy event) and thus became tetraploid instead of diploid. We know this because we can trace the ancestry of the Hyla versicolor genome back to the Hyla chrysocelis ancestor, in much the same way as it's possible to establish paternity in a lawsuit. You do understand what inheritance means, don't you?

13 - When, where, why and how did: a) single-celled plants become multi-celled (where are the two-and three-celled intermediates?)


Oh dear, more ignorance writ large ...

See the list of papers I provided earlier containing direct experimental tests of evolutionary hypotheses? The advent of multicellularity is one of those experimentally tested hypotheses. See the paper above by Boraas et al (1998), in which this occurred in the laboratory and was observed taking place.

b) single-celled animals evolve?


Look up "endsymbiont hypothesis". Lynn Margulis has won awards for her work in this field.

c) fish change to amphibians?


Look up the palaeontological evidence provided by tetrapod fossils. And also various papers on HOX genes and their applicability to the evolution of the vertebrate limb. A particularly good one being:

Developmental Data and Phylogenetic Systematics: Evolution of the Vertebrate Limb by Paula M. Mabee, Journal of American Zoology, 40: 789-800 (2000)

Oh look, once again, real scientists have done the work.

d) amphibians change to reptiles?


Well one important development was that of the amniotic egg. See this textbook for more on this. Since the requisite information is now part of a university textbook, you can again regard the requisite steps as having been elucidated by scientists.

e) reptiles change to birds? (the lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc are all very different!)


Once again, look up the palaeontological sequences from theropods to true birds, and the data from molecular phylogeny with respect to this. Some good papers include:

1,2,3 = 2,3,4; A Solution To The Problem Of The Homology Of The Digits In The Avian Hand by Günter P. Wagner and Jacques A. Gauthier, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 96: 5111-5116 (April 1999)

Basic Avian Pulmonary Design And Flow-Through Ventilation In Non-Avian Theropod Dinosaurs by Patrick M. O'Connor and Leon P. A. M. Claessens, Nature, 436: 253-256 (14th July 2005)

The Morphogenesis Of Feathers by Mingke Yu, Ping Wu, Randall B. Widelitz and Cheng-Ming chuong, Nature, 420: 308-312 (21st November 2002)

Pulmonary Function And Metabolic Physiology Of Theropod Dinosaurs by John A. Ruben, Christiano Dal Sasso, Nicholas R. Geist, Willem J. Hillenius, Terry D. Jones and Marco Signore, Science, 283: 514-516, (22nd January 1999)

How did the intermediate forms live?


Oh dear, argument from incredulity and ignorance again.

You have enough scientific papers above to work with. Do your own homework for a change.

14 - When, where, why, how and from what did: a) whales evole?


Look it up, stupid. I've provided enough scientific papers above on various topics, it's about time you got off your fat arse and engaged in some intellectual effort yourself. Start with Kate Wong's article in the May 2002 edition of Scientific America (pages 70-79) and work fom there.

b) sea horses evolve


Is this going to be an interminable series of "how did X evolve?" questions, the implication being that if I can't provide at least ten scientific papers on each subject, you're going to claim the question hasn't been answered? Only this would be typical of creationist mendacity in this regard. Anyway, try looking up "molecular phylogeny of the Sygnathiformes" for some answers. One relevant paper here being:

The Evolutionary History Of Seahorses (Sygnathidae: Hippocampus): Molecular Data Suggests A West Pacific Origin And Two Invasions Of The Atlantic Ocean by Peter R. Teske, Michael I. Cherry and Conrad A. Matthee, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 30: 273-286 (2004)

c) bats evolve?


Going to bother doing any of your own homework sometime, or do I have to spoon feed you with everything, you lazy arsehole?

d) eyes evolve?


Look up the Pax6 gene. It's found in everything from nematode worms to humans, and has been established as the master control gene for eye morphogenesis. As covered in the paper I cited earlier by Walter J. Gehrig in the first list of papers.

e) ears evolve?


This is getting tedious. Got anything other than an endless stream of "how did X evolve" questions erected so as to make life deliberately difficult for any single person to answer, because no one person can cover all the relevant science in detail?

f) hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc evolve?


Dealt with feathers above in one of the papers I listed. Go look the rest up yourself and do your own fucking homework.

15 - Which evolved first (how and how long did it work without the others): a)digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the bodies resistance to its own digestive juices (stomach, intestines, etc)?


I've listed enough scientific papers answering your blather above. Do your own fucking homework from this point on.

b) the drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?


Dealt with that in the section on abiogenesis papers above.

c) the lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?


Are you serious?

There is no "perfect" mixture of gases to be inhaled, there is only what is in the atmosphere. Dickhead.

d) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?


See the above papers on abiogenesis and look up "RNA World".

e) the termite or the flagella and its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?


Termites don't have flagella. These are structures found on single celled organisms such as bacteria. If you can't even be bothered to ask sensible questions, why should anyone continue engaging with someone as manifestly pig ignorant as you?

f) the plants or the insects that live on them pollonatte the plants?


Well since pollination was manifestly a later development, the plants came first. We have evidence of land plants dating back to the Silurian. Pollination was a late Jurassic invention.

g) the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply or muscles to move the bone?


What makes you think it was achieved in this simplistic, Lego style "build A then B" manner? Never heard of processes occuring simultaneously?

h) the nervous system , repair system or hormone system?


Since these are largely independent of each other, or at least began so, your question is meaningless.

i) the immune system or the need for it?


Look up "major histocompatibility complex". Which should educate you.You are, after all, manifestly in need of it.

try and remember the very first thing you were taught about evolution and what was repeated to you over and over:

that evolution is a 'fact', even before you were presented so called evidence. It stuck.


That's because it is an observed fact, as those scientific papers I've presented above testify. Going to read any of them any time, bozo, or are you like many other creationists, with a sub-crayon literacy level that precludes you from doing this?

11/2/2008 6:23:04 PM

Eden

Opposite day again? :D

11/2/2008 6:23:28 PM

Barikada

Hi, Kenservative!

11/2/2008 6:33:39 PM

D Laurier

try and remember the very first thing you were taught about evolution and what was repeated to you over and over: Ok, It was that evolution is a mechanism that causes animals to improve, and it was only told to me once, Not over and over.
(it was also wrong)

11/2/2008 6:34:52 PM

Illuminatalie

Evolution is not even a scientific hypothesis, since there is no conceivable way in which it can be tested.

It absolutely amazes me that people can be that conceited to think they've caught something that millions of scientists missed, not because they understand the topic and have learned anything about it, but because "Jesus tells them".

11/2/2008 6:42:25 PM

Skepticmystic

Same old list of Kent Hovind copypasta that pops up wherever enough Creationists gather...

DonExodus did some nice vids answering these:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_LaAx7bSm0">Part 1</a>


<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r31w6kTp7NY">Part 2</a>

11/2/2008 7:02:00 PM

Thinking Allowed

So ken, that's a lot of questions. Do you care to answer them?

11/2/2008 7:03:40 PM

Old Viking

When, where, why and how did the BigMac evolve, and what accounts for its continued existence?

11/2/2008 7:04:08 PM
1 2 3