Dr. Dino wrote:
12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
Mutation and selection obviously, we know
this happens thanks to interesting little organisms like the nylon bug flavobacterium K172, an organism which feeds on NYLON, and only NYLON, a material that didn't even exist anywhere on earth till the 1930s! In addition there are organisms like MRSA, an organism in practically every hospital in the western world, that has evolved
to become resistant to antibiotics that we have synthesised.
Now, there's a chance they read AiG too, and there's a supposed rebuttal to the nylon bug and it's gaining of genetic information, but i'm nice and found you the rebuttal to that here
* Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
To be honest, i don't know where and when, but i do know that they can
. A multicellular form of the green alga, Chlorella vulgaris
has been observed evolving in the lab from the unicellular form! And again, since i'm so nice, here's a link
How did the intermediate forms live?
Well, since it's been observed that Irreducible complexity
which is what Mr "I bum sheep" Hovind is trying to steal from Michael Behe can and does happen on it's own. Just because something is irreducibly complex now does not mean it always was, for instance, the above nylon bug.
* bats evolve?
A shew like creature, they even still share several traits with them.
* Eyes evolve?
Photoreceptive cells and millions of years of mutation and selection. As for when/where i couldn't tell you.
* DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
It's thought RNA was around in the early earth(from precursor materials, thrown out by supernovae), and recently, humanity found an RNA type that actually does the chemistry necessary to start a DNA strand off, which revolutionised the abiogenesis world. More on abiogenesis here (where ribose comes from)
* The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
* The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
* The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
* The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
All your average irreducible complexity arguments. Easily refuted when you show him organisms that don't have them.
* The immune system or the need for it?
Why the need for it if evolution doesn't happen?
16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
Cos it's the best one that has the most evidence, duh. Like round-earth theory is taught and not Flat Earth theory, which is too trying to be taught in schools
17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
Chance that was anything but blind. Natural selection was the unconscious designer.
18. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
Because those that do would breed better than competitive ones. Social animals exist all over nature, even ones between multiple species!
22. *What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
the fact a creationist is asking this amuses.
24. *Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
Vastly divergent taxa in the fossil record?
25. *What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?
26. *Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
Didn't your God do that? What? He was already there? So he didn't come from anything, he came from nothing, gotcha.
1. Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable,
Scientifically inferrable, if you have evidence which contradicts these, please present it, and no the bible does not count.
or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)
Science, obviously, i'll admit i'm wrong when contrary solid evidence is presented. Cos i'm you know...honest.
2. Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?
3. Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe?
Possible, just not necessary and a bit childish imo.
If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?
Show his existence, not his works which look precisely like he disguised them to be autonomous natural processes.
4. Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?
I love this quote... also from the National Academy of Science... for people who say "evolution is JUST a theory, not a law or a fact!"
"Laws are generalizations that describe phenomena, whereas theories explain phenomena. For example, the laws of thermodynamics describe what will happen under certain circumstances; thermodynamics theories explain why these events occur. Laws, like facts and theories, can change with better data. But theories do not develop into laws with the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the goal of science."
5. What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?
People might cry because they're related to other animals. But then again, what is the end result of people who believe the Earth goes round the Sun?I'm fairly sure Hitler and Stalin believed that!
* It is all they have been taught.
* They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).
There is no actual morality in a sovereign based egalitarianist morality.
* They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.
Yes, that must be it, the evilutionist forces are there to make a mockery of all who disagree, they don't do it on their own, no....
* They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
* Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.
The Shadows aren't real, kent.
7. Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don’t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?
It's interesting you mixed in real fossils with ones disproven via scientific method in there. You dishonest fuck.
8. Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?
No, because that's stupid, as it is fact, again, what about flat-earth creationists? They should get equal time too, right?
9. What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents said, "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."
A fucking ridiculous educational system where any bullshit is taught as long as some assmonkey thinks it should.
10. Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.
Evolution is not a religious worldview no, it's the description of natural processes. I'm afraid of cretinism being taught in schools because it's fucking stupid, most christians consider you whackos an embarassment and accept evolution. Time to just die and move on. I leave you with a quote:
Eberhard Dennert, At the Deathbed of Darwinism, [b]1904[/b] wrote:
"Today, at the dawn of the new century, nothing is more certain than that Darwinism has lost its prestige among men of science. It has seen its day and will soon be reckoned a thing of the past. A few decades hence when people will look back upon the history of the doctrine of Descent, they will confess that the years... were in many respects a time of carnival; and the enthusiasm which at that time took possession of the devotees of natural science will appear to them as the excitement attending some mad revel