Since we could not have got here by evoultion, are all the creationists automatically correct??

Question

Because of this info??

Blessings
David
Do Species Evolve From Other Species?

If life was created by evolution, one would expect gradual transitions among living things. The fossil record doesn't show gradual transitions. Species appear completely developed, not partially developed. Organs appear fully developed -- indeed, if they weren't the organism would probably die. There are many single cell life forms, but no known forms of animal life with 2, 3, 4 or even 20 cells. One would expect to find many of these, as transitional life forms. Experts feel that the fossil record is complete and has been thoroughly studied, yet there are evolution gaps between:

single celled life forms and invertebrate
fish and amphibians
amphibians and reptiles
reptiles and birds
primates and other mammals
many plants
In evolution theory, mutation is the primary way that new genetic material is thought to become available for evolution. However, more than 99% of induced mutations are defects. No mutant has ever been observed that crossed the line to another species.

Organisms have never been found to cross the boundaries between species. This is because the size, number, and kind of chromosomes are different for each species. If two species have the same number of chromosomes, differences in size or shape prevent cross breeding. Abnormal crosses have always resulted in sterility of the offspring -- such as the breeding of a horse and donkey resulting in a sterile mule, or a lion and tiger resulting in a sterile tiger.

Answer 1

David, just because you deny evolution doesn't mean creationism is automatically correct.

Answer 2

No

1) your 'info' is one falsehood after another hence it is meaningless. NO, you would not expect gradual transitions among LIVING things (read link 1 if you can't get your mind around that). Organs co-evolve from primitive precursors as the organism evolves. The vast majority of mutations are NEUTRAL, a small percentage are detrimental, and are selected against by NATURAL SELECTION, a tiny percentage are beneficial and are selected FOR. Single chromosome mutations have been observed to produce new species (as if it is relevant). Speciation HAS been observed in living populations. And finally yes, that is how speciation works - once populations become genetically different enough they can't remix.

In summary it is all lies and misinformation (why are religious fundamentalists always so lacking in morals?... even apart from the whole lets kill people by sending science back to the dark ages thing.... and how in the world is denying the evidence of evolution not calling the God who left it all a liar?)

2) if evolution was false then the all-species-created-6000 years-ago-as-they-are-now hypothesis, along with any other hypotheses that people could come up with, would still be a hypothesis.

Answer 3

The short answer is "no."

It is possible that one or more Creationists may be correct; however not all Creationists' views are identical even with respect to the topic of origins. Therefore, not all Creationists can be correct.

Moreover, the error or falsity of one position cannot automatically guarantee the veracity of any competing position. At this point, it is perfectly plausible that no one knows the truth regarding origins.

Extraordinary things sometimes do happen in such a way that man is confounded; observations that defy accepted "natural laws" are almost always dismissed -- both by scientists and by ordinarily-sophisticated people -- as fantastic imaginations.

And that is the trouble with science: it requires repeatability of cause and effect in ways that reasonably prove or disprove a theory predicated on unbiased observations. The people causing dissent regarding the topic of origins are generally fools unable to grasp the magnitude of the issue with which some wrestle.

It is popular among virtually every pagan ... and among most "intellectual" persons of faith ... to believe that evolution accounts for origins -- and *that* popularity fuels the vehement anti-Creator drivel of idiots that (despite their credentials) don't really understand the strengths of evolutionary science.

As bad as that seems, the Creationism and ID crowds suffer from similar misrepresentation among those purporting to represent their ranks; however, unlike the people misrepresenting evolution, these people are usually regarded as "religious nut-cases" (a surprisingly accurate appellation having relatively good precision).

Whatever position you support, some of the more vocal "experts" -- on either side of the argument -- don't seem to understand the scientific method, rely on heresay and fabricated opinions, and materially misrepresent either the evidence or the logical conclusions indicated by the evidence (or both).

There is money, power and prestige in creating divisions among people -- and countless hangers-on gravitate to one position or the other in order to be part of what they perceive as an elite.

That you are asking questions is good: it evinces your curiosity. Just don't stop looking for the truth as soon as you've got a handy answer. Test each belief and prove whether it is true: don't merely accept it because someone else told you or you read it in a popular publication.

As to the comments of [e-mail], the "unending ladder of increasingly superior beings" is interrupted by two things:

A) the quantum effect and

B) "God" is *by definition* the pinnacle of the ladder of increasingly superior beings.

Another way of looking at your "infinite ladder" is to invert it: it's the same as saying, "Joe can never reach point B from point A, because in the first hour, he traveled only half the distance between those points."

In the case of the ladder, "point B" is God, and "point A" is the cosmological equivalent of nothingness; we're "Joe" -- which is to say only that we're somewhere between those points.

People will argue where along the imaginary path (or ladder) between those points we are (or some previous or future generation is), but that's an exercise in asininity: their arguments rest on the premises

1) they have fully apprehended the disparity between "absolute nothingness" and the "self-existent Creator of everything," and

2) that they are competent to evaluate the period of their interest by contrasting it against that standard.

Answer 4

QUIT COPYING AND PASTING ARTICLES!

Here's what you do. Give us the main points of the article and then give us a link to it.

Polar bears mate with Grizzly bears and the offspring is fertile. Also, maybe there is some Evolutionary disadvantage to having 2, 3, 4, or 20 cells. Those organisms were probably out-competed by other organisms. The jump from single celled to multi-celled probably went quickly. You are a moron for not believing in Evolution. I'm sorry. You make the human race look bad.

Answer 5

No..if you prove another scientific theory false you must replace it with another scientific theory, not bible junk. Also you're mainly concentrating on Darwinian evolution. Theres an alternative theory called punctuated equilibrium. Lion and a tiger make a Liger...I'm not joking...

Organisms have never been found to cross the boundaries between species.

Thats because you're describing the huge differences evolution has created between the two former species.

"No mutant has ever been observed that crossed the line to another species."

You have a frontal lobe don't you?

Answer 6

Maybe you would prefer 'adaptation' to 'evolution'. You have to admit that living things adapt to their environments. When the environment changes drastically only the creatures that adapt drastically will survive--that's why you often don't see a slow change occur. Scientists are studying this phenomena in relation to the drastic change occurring because of humans.
When these animals reproduce the species grows, and the 'old' species dies out. How else can it be logically explained?

Answer 7

Giardia lamblia is a diplomonad -- a two celled flagellate.

There are plenty of transitional fossils. Plesiadapiformes are the link between the primates and other mammals. You willful ignorance of archaeopteryx as transitional form between reptiles and birds is glaring.

Female tigons are fertile.

You didn't mention ring species.

If you select the facts you like and ignore the ones you don't like, you can prove anything to yourself.

Answer 8

sir your answer could not be any more wrong. you have fallen in love with your gap theory. but what does it really mean. why do you assume that god is the only alternative hypothesis? you can't say, "well i'm too ignorant about science to know this, so god must have done it", it doesn't work like that.

in fact, god is thousands of times more unlikely than evolution. if you say that evolution is improbable because of gaps, but then you fill in the gaps with intelligent design, you only make the odds thousands of times greater against your own argument.

by your argument, something intricate had to be designed by something farther up the chain, which you believe to be god. But this is a fallacy because it makes a HUGE infinite regress. If you assume that everything has to have been created by a higher being, then you also must assume that the higher being, which is indoubtably more intricate than anything on earth, was created by an even higher being, and so on and so forth.

you creationists want to have your cake and eat it too, but if you stopped to listen to yourself, you would see that the argument you just presented supports my case better than your own.

please email me at [e-mail] if you find any sort of useful argument.

Answer 9

My pricey Desiree, the purely those who carry those matters up are non-believers a range of of the time, like you. We seldom have any arguments because youthful earth or previous earth would not be counted. It purely concerns to you so that you may make a controversy the position there is not any longer one. absolutely I seldom even communicate about faith with my non secular associates because there is not any opt to. the archives as to our creation aren't to any extent further major, purely that we agree that we were created. We do, even if, denounce evolution, because we are able to work out, as all people must be able to work out, that a author is the purely logical answer. And nonetheless we do not argue about that except to communicate about the illogical theory.

Answer 10

It appears the organisms evolve in "spurts" during difficult periods on earth. Some minor evolutions have been document, like changes in beak size in birds.

Answer 11

Even if all known theories explaining evolution are unproven incorrect, creation does not "win" by default.

Creationism is simply an easy answer for a complex, perhaps unexplainable, question.