Creation Or Evolution? Vote!

[Jistuma 1996]

Here as a quote of someone that begs to differ:

 

 

So Lucy`s hip bone, the key factor in proving that she wasn't just another ape, was found 1.5 miles away! Don't you find that... disturbing?

Please tell me where you got that from, because, when I try to google that quote, all I find is creationism websites, meaning that it was probably missquoted and used out of place. Then the one you are quoting has no gasp of how evolution works, stating things which are true in the face of evolution and make sense, and then saying that they are wrong and make no sense. Lucy does not look like an ape, nor a human, it's between the two with other atributes.

I'll teach you a bit about how to do research. First off, don't use google anymore, it saves the sites you chose and when you search anything, it will end up always in the same kind of sites. So now you research "banana", and probably instead of it appearing sites of what a banana is, it comes as a proof that the banana was created so that it would be something for humans to eat, and that that means it was designed by a god. Actually could you try it? I actually want to know if google would go that far, could you write "banana" on goggle and tell me if any creationist website appears? It's just a test. Either way, try using bing or yahoo. Then, if you want to search about what Lucy really is, research "Lucy fossil implications discoveries". You can also just use the wiki and find out many things about Lucy that would give you a ground to believe or not believe what you quoted.

Also, see the little 3 at the end of the sentance?

And what evidence supports the idea that this creature walked

upright? The angle that the upper leg bone makes with the lower leg bone

at the knee. Looking head on, chimpanzee and gorilla legs have an angle

of 0 degrees. Humans have an angle of about 9 degrees. If the angle is

much greater it gives a “knocked kneed” condition in humans. Lucy and

the australophithecines have a larger angle of about 15 degrees.³

That means it was taken from somewhere and the conculsions taken from somewhere, do you see a little number in this paragraph?

But hold on, the story gets better. Dr. Johanson gave a lecture at

the University of Missouri in Kansas City, Nov. 20, 1986, on Lucy and

why he thinks she is our ancestor. It included the ideas already

mentioned and that Lucy’s femur and pelvis were more robust than most

chimps and therefore, “could have” walked upright. After the lecture he

opened the meeting for questions. The audience of approximately 800 was

quiet so some creationists asked questions. Roy Holt asked; “How far

away from Lucy did you find the knee?” (The knee bones were actually

discovered about a year earlier than the rest of Lucy). Dr. Johanson

answered (reluctantly) about 200 feet lower (!) and two to three

kilometers away (about 1.5 miles!). Continuing, Holt asked, “Then why

are you sure it belonged to Lucy?” Dr. Johanson: “Anatomical

similarity.” (Bears and dogs have anatomical similarities).

There isn't one, this was just made up by the man who wrote this. And if you notice he's quoting the sientist, without telling where he got the quotes, giving the source or fully quoting everything the sientist said, which makes these probably a fabrication.

I tracked down what you wrote to the "http://www.forerunner.com" but it doesn't say there where the quotes are from (the little numbers). Could you tell me the right site where you got the test so I can go there and actually look at the quotes and where they come from and what they say? Because there is a lot of things like that who creationists just... read one sentence, and ignore all the rest around it.

As I write this I make some research on this case, and for example, the knee bone which is said to have been discovered a mile from Lucy, is not in fact part of Lucy, but is the first knee bone ever discovered of an austrolopitecus. It was the knee discovery that lead the researchers to the place where Lucy was found, but it was not from Lucy itself. (this taken from wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AL_129-1, but I found this in other places who lead me there). So yes, a knee bone was discovered a mile away from Lucy, and it's not part of her...

[edit] to futher continue on the statement of the knee, I also found this:

On November 20, 1986 Donald Johanson, Lucy's discoverer, lectured at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. After showing slides of Lucy, Johanson showed another slide of a knee-joint, and gave reasons why this fossil helped confirm Lucy as a pre-human ancestor. Johanson was then asked by Roy Holt: "How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?". Johanson replied that the knee-joint was found "60-70 metres lower in the strata, and 2-3 kilometres away." When asked, "Then why are you so sure it [the knee-joint] belonged to Lucy?" Johanson answered, "Anatomical similarity." (Tom Willis, " 'Lucy' Goes to College", CSA News, Cleveland MO, February 1987).

[To avoid any misunderstanding, it should be noted that the question was not how far away from Lucy her own knee joint was found, but rather how far away from Lucy was the knee joint found by Johanson the previous year. The discoveries and locations of both the original knee joint (1973) and Lucy (1974) are described in Donald C. Johanson and Maitland E. Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind (1981) and in the April 1982 issue of the American Journal of Physical Anthropology. Johanson argues that the original knee-joint is of the same species as Lucy [australopithecus afarensis] because of anatomical similarity, and points to it as one of several evidences to claim that these creatures walked upright.]

This I found in http://www.rae.org/pdf/lucy.pdf.

I would watch these, but my parents hate YouTube, and have thus banned me from watching anything on it... so i cant really respond to this...

... That is incredibly sad to see happen...

[Lego XBOX 915]

Evolution for Dummies

Lets name this certain bacteria as α. Lets say α resides in your stomach. α is part of a colony of other α's which are completely identical. However there are some other bacteria which are identical in almost each respect named β. This β has a further developed cytoplasmic shell thus protecting it from a certain anti-biotic. β is in an insignificant minority.

To clarify on β. β is a bacterial cell which was subject of a genetical error during the division of α. Bacteria being large colonies of thousands and thousands, furthermore them reproducing every 20 minutes makes the probability of having a mutation increased.

Back to the story. You get stomach aches, you take a generalized anti-biotic. This attacks and destroys all the α type of the colony, leaving the minority of β types living. You have just helped the evolution of the β type species.

This is how bacteria come to be immune to anti-biotic. Its not because of them becoming used to it, its because they randomly generate a defense against it. This also explains however, the way evolution works, accelerated of course as the scale bacteria evolve in is tiny. This can be applied to some human beings now having AIDS immune T4 lymphocytes. These humans are thus superior in a world where AIDS claims many because of a small change in the genetic code induced randomly by either radiation or simple genetical mistakes when duplicating.

I wasn't sure if anyone had explained this, so I was just giving my little guide to evolution. If you contest this, I'm sorry to say, but you are wrong to. This is plainly based off pure logic.

 

Because this was completely ignored, this is your absolute and logical proof to the existence of evolution. End of story.

[Dargene 51]

I love you lego.. so so much.

[hammer01 29]

Please tell me where you got that from, because, when I try to google that quote, all I find is creationism websites, meaning that it was probably missquoted and used out of place. Then the one you are quoting has no gasp of how evolution works, stating things which are true in the face of evolution and make sense, and then saying that they are wrong and make no sense. Lucy does not look like an ape, nor a human, it's between the two with other atributes.

I'll teach you a bit about how to do research. First off, don't use google anymore, it saves the sites you chose and when you search anything, it will end up always in the same kind of sites. So now you research "banana", and probably instead of it appearing sites of what a banana is, it comes as a proof that the banana was created so that it would be something for humans to eat, and that that means it was designed by a god. Actually could you try it? I actually want to know if google would go that far, could you write "banana" on goggle and tell me if any creationist website appears? It's just a test. Either way, try using bing or yahoo. Then, if you want to search about what Lucy really is, research "Lucy fossil implications discoveries". You can also just use the wiki and find out many things about Lucy that would give you a ground to believe or not believe what you quoted.

Also, see the little 3 at the end of the sentance?That means it was taken from somewhere and the conculsions taken from somewhere, do you see a little number in this paragraph?There isn't one, this was just made up by the man who wrote this. And if you notice he's quoting the sientist, without telling where he got the quotes, giving the source or fully quoting everything the sientist said, which makes these probably a fabrication.

I tracked down what you wrote to the "http://www.forerunner.com" but it doesn't say there where the quotes are from (the little numbers). Could you tell me the right site where you got the test so I can go there and actually look at the quotes and where they come from and what they say? Because there is a lot of things like that who creationists just... read one sentence, and ignore all the rest around it.

As I write this I make some research on this case, and for example, the knee bone which is said to have been discovered a mile from Lucy, is not in fact part of Lucy, but is the first knee bone ever discovered of an austrolopitecus. It was the knee discovery that lead the researchers to the place where Lucy was found, but it was not from Lucy itself. (this taken from wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AL_129-1, but I found this in other places who lead me there). So yes, a knee bone was discovered a mile away from Lucy, and it's not part of her...

[edit] to futher continue on the statement of the knee, I also found this:This I found in http://www.rae.org/pdf/lucy.pdf.... That is incredibly sad to see happen...

I`ll respond to this during the weekend because right now i am swamped with school...

 

Oh and BTW the link doesn't work...

 

Because this was completely ignored, this is your absolute and logical proof to the existence of evolution. End of story.

...that entire section is based off assumptions. It is not coming from the perspective of us not knowing if evolution is true, as you cant prove something unless you try to come from that perspective...

 

 

 

 

Basically just posting this here so people know i`m not out of the game and that i haven't given up...

[Lego XBOX 915]

Pardon me, but my whole section is based of logic and proven science. Everything has been proven under microscope, personally I have done pracs on this in genetics class. Now, you can ignore it saying they are 'assumptions' but you haven't even bothered trying to counter it. That shows you /can't/ counter it and thus I'm surely right. If you can find evidence which could disprove what I wrote beforehand, I'd like to see it. Something written in a book centuries ago doesn't count.

[steelersfan1221 300]

If you aren't too influenced by religion, you'll vote for Evolution.

 

If you are, then you'll vote for one of the other choices.

 

Simple.

[Bashar al-Assad 120]

Show me why the Bible is wrong!

Well it isn't necessarily wrong but I don't see ANY evidence proving Creationism. Please show me what evidence PROVES it exists. I don't want long quotations slandering evolutionism, I want hard and solid facts.

 

If you aren't too influenced by religion, you'll vote for Evolution.

 

If you are, then you'll vote for one of the other choices.

 

Simple.

That isn't exactly true, I am quite influenced by religion, I simply find no excuse or proof or evidence stating any reason or explanation on as why I should believe in Creationism.

[Jistuma 1996]

I`ll respond to this during the weekend because right now i am swamped with school...

 

Oh and BTW the link doesn't work...

Oh, seems it's because of the last '.' at the end, here: http://www.rae.org/pdf/lucy.pdf , it should work now.

[hammer01 29]

Oh, seems it's because of the last '.' at the end, here: http://www.rae.org/pdf/lucy.pdf , it should work now.

Dr. Charles Oxnard (University of Western Australia) completed the most sophisticated computer analysis of australopithecine fossils ever undertaken, and concluded that the Australopithecus have nothing to do with the ancestry of man whatsoever, and are

simply an extinct form of ape.

Found the above quote in that same document you gave me...

[Lego XBOX 915]

Before you go all, "I was right!"... There are no fossils which are directly ancestral to our species. However, we do find fossils that are common ancestors to apes and humans, or fossils that came from our common ancestor but of which the species became extinct.

 

Either way, go find a way to disprove my logical demonstration of evolution before trying to disprove other fragile topics.

[hammer01 29]

Before you go all, "I was right!"... There are no fossils which are directly ancestral to our species. However, we do find fossils that are common ancestors to apes and humans, or fossils that came from our common ancestor but of which the species became extinct.

 

Either way, go find a way to disprove my logical demonstration of evolution before trying to disprove other fragile topics.

...wait ...what? do you understand what you just said? You first said that there are no fossils directly related to Humans, then you said that there are fossils common ancestors to apes and humans... err... either i`m not understanding something, or you just contradicted yourself...

 

The point to my other post was that you`re previous post was based upon assumptions... i think that's what you`re referring to, right?

[Lego XBOX 915]

Directly Related =/= Coming from the same common ancestor

 

If you say those two are the same, then you are like everyone who misinterprets common ancestry and you will start saying monkeys/chimpanzees are our ancestor. Which they aren't, they come from a common ancestor.

 

Forget about that, what can you say to prove that my logic post was based on assumptions? That process has been and can be again and again proved under microscope. How on earth can you say that its based upon assumptions? Are you trying to say bacteria doesn't exist, or that genetic mutations don't, or that antibiotic resistance doesn't exist?

 

Please, elaborate on my 'assumptions'.

[hammer01 29]

Directly Related =/= Coming from the same common ancestor

 

If you say those two are the same, then you are like everyone who misinterprets common ancestry and you will start saying monkeys/chimpanzees are our ancestor. Which they aren't, they come from a common ancestor.

 

Forget about that, what can you say to prove that my logic post was based on assumptions? That process has been and can be again and again proved under microscope. How on earth can you say that its based upon assumptions? Are you trying to say bacteria doesn't exist, or that genetic mutations don't, or that antibiotic resistance doesn't exist?

 

Please, elaborate on my 'assumptions'.

The entire post assumes that evolution is in fact true. You cannot prove something right unless you start out assuming that it us false. Plus you would need to look at all the facts, not just ine sliver of biology, or one peice of information. For instance: did you know that the bacteria that you mentioned thatid immune, is due to the fact that it cannot absorb things as well? Which in turn means it doesn't get as many nutrients as it should be getting, thus essentially starving itself? It's like having a gas mask glues to your head, yes you are immune to biohasardous materials and stuff, but you also can't eat, meaning you die anyway. Pretty much the same thing happens to the bacteria...

did this whole thing on my phone, so yeah, I'm awesome...

[Lego XBOX 915]

Just because bacteria's cytoplasmic shell is more resistant or resistant to the antibiotic does not mean it can't absorb nutrients. Unless you do biology don't start assuming things about bacteria and virus. I never said it can't absorb things well, I said its cytoplasmic shell was more resistant to the chemical products released by the antibiotic. Furthermore, lets go from the fact I don't think evolution is true.

-Doesn't think evolution exists-

-Studies bacteria to figure out how they become immune to antibiotics-

-Finds the reason and writes a report-

 

That report would be the one I wrote... The fact is: That is how it works, no matter what point of view you look at it.

Actually, I'll put it this way. Offer to me an explanation as to in which other way that bacteria became immune to an antibiotic. If you can't disprove this theory correctly, I have trumped the accusation that evolution does not exist, because this proves beyond reasonable doubt that evolution exists.

[Dun_Irongut 104]

Just because bacteria's cytoplasmic shell is more resistant or resistant to the antibiotic does not mean it can't absorb nutrients. Unless you do biology don't start assuming things about bacteria and virus. I never said it can't absorb things well, I said its cytoplasmic shell was more resistant to the chemical products released by the antibiotic. Furthermore, lets go from the fact I don't think evolution is true.

-Doesn't think evolution exists-

-Studies bacteria to figure out how they become immune to antibiotics-

-Finds the reason and writes a report-

 

That report would be the one I wrote... The fact is: That is how it works, no matter what point of view you look at it.

Actually, I'll put it this way. Offer to me an explanation as to in which other way that bacteria became immune to an antibiotic. If you can't disprove this theory correctly, I have trumped the accusation that evolution does not exist, because this proves beyond reasonable doubt that evolution exists.

 

I accidentally started to slowly clap in my room. This is thought out quite well; props to you.