Charles Darwin film too controversial for religious America.

[squealpiggy]

Typical answer from a brainwashed person.

Look at "Ligers" for example or that new half coyote/half wolf thing.
It just suddenly appeared. this ain't evolution

What on earth are you babbling about?

[Nemisis]

Evolution does not require a single missing link, but innumerable ones. We should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form. But we don't see this—there are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs. The fossils show different sizes of horses, but all are clearly horses. None is on the verge of being some other life form. The fossil record shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between the fossilized "kinds." Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, it would require millions of transitional forms. He believed they would be found in fossil records. They haven't been.

[Nemisis]

You went to the wrong college.



I have a first edition copy of On the Origin of Species. Perhaps you could point out the chapter.



Wrong.



Wrong.



Wrong.

Wow. Three straight misses. If you were taking penalty kicks you would be Jonathan Woodgate, Gareth Southgate and Stuart Pearce.



Yes. Lobe-finned fish:





A deer sprouting wings would be the opposite of what evolution predicts. Silly luddites, always suggest absurd chimaeras who would bear no resemblance whatsoever to what is actually observed or predicted.



Like I said - you went to the wrong college.

Of course I should have gone to the university of Squeallypig

[Nemisis]

biology class spent the first semester discussing how ignorant people used to believe that garbage gave rise to rats, and raw meat produced maggots. This now disproven concept was called "spontaneous generation." Louis Pasteur proved that life only comes from life—this is the law of biogenesis. The next semester we studied evolution, where we learned that the first living cell came from a freak combination of nonliving material (where that nonliving material came from we were not told). "Chemical Evolution" is just another way of saying "spontaneous generation"—life comes from nonlife. Evolution is therefore built on a fallacy science long ago proved to be impossible.

Evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five "heads" in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it's given, non-life will not become alive.

[TheJoker]

Evolution does not require a single missing link, but innumerable ones. We should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form. But we don't see this—there are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs. The fossils show different sizes of horses, but all are clearly horses. None is on the verge of being some other life form. The fossil record shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between the fossilized "kinds." Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, it would require millions of transitional forms. He believed they would be found in fossil records. They haven't been.

You honestly are quite ignorant of how fossilization works, evolution works and transitional forms...

Pakicetids, Indohyus, Ambulocetids, Remingtonocetids, Protocetids, Basilosaurus, Dorudon, Squalodon, Balaenopteridae, Eschrichtiidae... all forms of whales in different forms of evolution...

Interesting that you bring up dogs, seeing as how there Canis Adustus, Canis Aureus, Canis Dirus, Canis Lupus, etc... Different species of dog... hmmm...

You are completely incorrect about fossilized life suddenly appearing... You can quit talking out of your ass now...

[squealpiggy]

Evolution does not require a single missing link, but innumerable ones. We should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form.

Every single fossil is a transitional form. Every single living species is a transitional form. There are and have been innumerable transitional forms.

But we don't see this—there are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs.

What is a wolf? A coyote? A fox? All types of dog? Or all distinct species showing clear morphological and molecular signs of being interrelated?

The fossils show different sizes of horses, but all are clearly horses. None is on the verge of being some other life form.

Horse:



Miohippus:



Hyracotherium

The fossil record shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between the fossilized "kinds."

Define "kinds" or STFU college-boy.

Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, it would require millions of transitional forms. He believed they would be found in fossil records. They haven't been.

Wow. You're quote mining but you're too lazy to even bother finding the quote! This is what Darwin said in Origin...

But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?

Why indeed? He then goes on to say:

It will be more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the Geological Record;

Oh, he answers this question in a whole chapter! But he continues here:

and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed. The crust of the earth is a vast museum; but the natural collections have been imperfectly made, and only at long intervals of time.

So Charles Darwin you 150 years before you were even born!

[TheJoker]

Must be easier for you, just start typing and it doesn't have to make sense or address any evidence infront of you...

No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered. Mutations which increase genetic information would be the raw material necessary for evolution. To get from "amoeba" to "man" would require a massive net increase in information.There are many examples of supposed evolution given by proponents. Variation within a species (finch beak, for example), bacteria which acquire antibiotic resistance, people born with an extra chromosome, etc. However, none of the examples demonstrate the development of new information. Instead, they demonstrate either preprogrammed variation, multiple copies of existing information, or even loss of information (natural selection and adaptation involve loss of information). The total lack of any such evidence refutes evolutionary theory.

Actually, Amoeba has more genetic information stored in it's code than humans have so it's entirely possible...

http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/art..._genomes.shtml

You honestly have no idea what you are talking about...

[Nemisis]

Wow. You're quote mining but you're too lazy to even bother finding the quote! This is what Darwin said in Origin...


Quote:
But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?




Quote:
It will be more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the Geological Record;

Oh, he answers this question in a whole chapter! But he continues here:


Quote:
and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed. The crust of the earth is a vast museum; but the natural collections have been imperfectly made, and only at long intervals of time.

So his answer to us NOT FINDING all these transitional forms is that we ain't looking hard enough in the right places... GTFO

[squealpiggy]

biology class spent the first semester discussing how ignorant people used to believe that garbage gave rise to rats, and raw meat produced maggots.

I told you you went to the wrong college. Biology undergraduate courses typically spend the first year on biochemistry, cell biology, molecular and population genetics and biodiversity. Spending an entire semester on the history of biology is an unconscionable waste of time.

"Chemical Evolution" is just another way of saying "spontaneous generation"—life comes from nonlife.

First of all abiogenesis is a valid field of research in biochemistry. Secondly it is different to spontaneous generation as understood in the 19th century in that the basis for life is replicating complex molecules, not rotten meat or unwatched grain.

Evolution is therefore built on a fallacy science long ago proved to be impossible.

You're just throwing extra words in there now. Fallacy science? Abiogenesis was curiously uncontroversial among the religious set. Unlike evolution...

Evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low.

"Evolutionist"? Semantics fail.

But which "evolutionists" say this? What are their names? What are some of the papers they have said this in?

Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible.

Argument from incredulity. You used the F word earlier, I suggest you look up what it means.

If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five "heads" in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility.

OK let's say you have a thousand coins and you have to flip 100 heads in a row. It's unlikely it will happen by chance, right? OK now let's say you have 1000 coins and you have to flip 100 heads in a row, but every time you flip tails that coin doesn't count and gets discarded. Now the chances are very good you'll reach your target. That is how natural selection works: It discards the coin flips which are not desirable.

What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance.

And of course this sort of thing is precisely the opposite of what evolution predicts. For a coin to grow arms and legs and go sit in the corner and read a magazine is precisely the brand of magic that would be required for special creation.

Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it's given, non-life will not become alive.

You seem to have a very clear definition of "alive". Perhaps you could share it.

[Nemisis]

Must be easier for you, just start typing and it doesn't have to make sense or address any evidence infront of you...



Actually, Amoeba has more genetic information stored in it's code than humans have so it's entirely possible...

http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/art..._genomes.shtml

You honestly have no idea what you are talking about...

So over time we evolved from this Amoeba dubia your saying????