Clarification/Follow-up by scott1328 on 11/15/03 10:19 am:
Answerway mangled the links in my answer here are the urls you should check out:

http://www.talkorigins.org

and

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

I hope these links don't get mangled this time

Clarification/Follow-up by fyvel on 11/16/03 6:15 am:
This is in reply to Scott's comment when he rated my answer:

I do not follw the news groups... I used to be on several at Yahoo! but found them to require too much reading. It's been a while since I've actively pursued my evolution obsession, but I may just go check them out.

Thanks :)

Clarification/Follow-up by PraiseJah on 05/07/04 4:27 pm:
Everybody check out the following:

http://www.arn.org

Clarification/Follow-up by peddler7118 on 08/28/06 9:12 pm:
Scott

Is the best argument you have calling people names? Calling them a liar? Is that how "science" works? Personally attack anyone who disagrees with you. Is that mature in your book?

You called me an idiot and him a liar, you must be a real scientist.

You quotes are on quotation marks “ “ .

Why not go to a creationist website to find out what creationists have to say. With your logic it would be wise to go to a creationist website to find out what evolutionist say.

"Speciation Events"

What does that have to do with evolution of mice to men? So they can no longer interbreed. If a human couple cannot breed successfully are they no longer human?
Evolution needs a source of new genetic information. Speciation is a loss of information. It supports the creation model perfectly but is the opposite of what evolution needs.


"Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution are two names for the same thing. If micro-evolution can occur, then necessarily macro-evolution must occur. Or to put it succinctly: "Micro-evolution IS the proof of macro-evolution. Given enough time, all the micro-evolutionary steps, which creationists say can happen, add up to become what is in retrospect a macro-evolutionary step more commonly referred to as a new species."

That’s deep. Scott says it's so and you can trust Scott! To say given enough time is praying to the god cronos for a miracle. for a reptile to become a bird for instance you need the information to grow feathers, hollow bones, the avian lung, the avian brain, a different tongue, a completely new digestive track and on and on and it all has to work the first time. This is a tremendous amount of new information that never existed previously. Where did it come from?

"Remember one definition of species is a population of mutually fertile organisms. "

Pick one you like. Dogs and wolves are different species but they are interfertile , same with all the Galapagos' finches. What ever definition of species or evolution fits your argument .

"This means that even though all the living members of a population may be mutually fertile, this does not mean that these organisms would be mutually fertile with their descendants."

How do you know that? What would make you think that? Why do you think that?

"When the ancestor and its descendants cease to be mutually fertile, then you could say that a new species has arisen."

You can say anything but all you have done is lost information. Nothing new has been created. The organism is still a mouse or a mule or whatever.

"Once creationists allow that micro-evolution has occurred, then all that remains is to prove that enough time has elapsed so that sufficient micro-evolutionary changes have accumulated to justify naming a new species. "

No, you need a method. descent with modification means nothing. You have to explain where the biotic code came from in the first place and how it rewrote itself to turn pets into people.

"Because all that it takes for macro-evolution to occur is time. The calculation of the age of the Earth has become a target of creationists. This results in attacks on other established disciplines besides biology."

How does time do that, create information? How do you know evolution does occur? Give me an example and send a copy to the Nobel Prize committee.

"Astronomy (Astro-physics)
Visible starlight from 8-15 billion light-years away. Proves the Universe is immensely old."

No it does not. A light-year is a measurement of distance , not time. For example-the store is a ten minute walk. that is a measurement of distance. In a car it would take less time.
The Big Bang has it's own light-year problem, the horizon problem. To choose one theory over another because of a shared "problem" is irrational.
One of the creationists explanations is here:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3843/

"Creationists that need to account for the immense age of the Universe attack astronomy by postulating that light-speed (c) has been *decreasing* since the creation."

No, they don't need to do that . There have been some studies of that possibility with mainstream science as well. It is not necessary as you say. I don't really agree with it but I can't say I know, no one does.
There are much better answers than that.
Perhaps if you went creationist websites to study creationists views instead of atheist.com you might learn something, like the truth for a change as to what creationist actually believe.


"Quantum Physics:
Numerous radioactive dating experiments have been performed that show the age of the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old"

You should get out more . the rate project has shown that radiocarbon is always detected in high enough concentrations in coal and diamonds for it to be possible for them to be even 100 ka let alone millions. High levels of helium in granite shows a life of 6000 years in rocks pot-argon dates at millions. Evolutionists only accept "dates" that agree with the evolutionary time scale, ask Richard Leakey.
In every case in the history of radiometric dating when rocks of known age, volcanic basalts etc. , have been tested in every case the results have been off by at least 200ka ! there is no way to verify any other "dates" . In other words all rocks of verifiable age ever tested were off by at least 1000.00 to one.
Scientist can accelerate decay in the lab by a factor of billions, this shows it can happen in nature as well.

"Creationists argue that radioactive decay rates are not constant but have also decreased since the creation. "

You know nothing of what creationist believe except the stories you get from talk/origins-atheist.com
Creationists have shown that the rates have fluctuated upward in the past.
Creationist argue that there are 3 unknowable assumptions in radio-metric 'dating"

First assumption is that there was no daughter isotope when the rock formed. This has been proven to be a false assumption by testing rocks of a known age, real science in the lab, not evolution.
Second that the rate of decay has been constant. This is impossible to know about any particular rock. What we do know it could be off by a factor of billions, real science in the lab again.
Third assumption. there has been no contamination , by water , volcanism , earthquakes etc.
try doing a math equation with 3 unknowable factors. The age of the earth cannot be proven but 90% of the evidence points to a young earth.
The earth's magnetic field is weakening too fast. Same with Jupiter , Neptune etc.
Not enough salt in the sea.
Tidal recession of the Moon.
Radiocarbon in diamonds and coal.
Short and long period comets and on and on.


"I am not a quantum physicist so I cannot even begin to guess the ramifications of such a claim. Perhaps a quantum physicist would be able to shed some light on this (if he didn’t die laughing at such a preposterous claim)"

These claims were made by physicist. You are so brainwashed you don't believe there really are world class biologist, geo-physicist, astrophysicist, etc. etc. that are creationist.
You are deluded.
Here are just a few of them.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

“3. Geology:

"Erosion features such as the Grand Canyon or the erosion caused during periods of Glaciation are explained in two ways.

a. Noahs flood

b. The verse in Genesis 1 that says "And God separated the dry land from the waters..."

You know less about the Bible than you do about science. That verse is about creation not the flood. You are embarrassing yourself. If I was an evolutionist I would ask you to quit posting.

"These two vast movements of water are said to account for all the observed erosion features.

The sheer absurdity of Noahs flood has been discussed many times. I will not rehash them here."

How could you know as you know nothing about it.
Where you aware that the world's greatest geo-physics program, Terra, was written by the world's leading expert on computer modeling for plate tectonics the Creationists John Baumgardner?

http://www.globalflood.org/papers/geophysicsofgod.html

Maybe you should get some grasp of what creationist actually teach and what the Bible says instead of this juvenile name calling you hold so dear.

Clarification/Follow-up by peddler7118 on 08/30/06 5:50 pm:
Scott

This is a cut and paste from talk/origins

Cladoselache (late Devonian) -- Magnificent early shark fossils, found in Cleveland roadcuts during the construction of the U.S. interstate highways. Probably not directly ancestral to sharks, but gives a remarkable picture of general early shark anatomy, down to the muscle fibers!
Tristychius & similar hybodonts (early Mississippian) -- Primitive proto-sharks with broad-based but otherwise shark-like fins.
Ctenacanthus & similar ctenacanthids (late Devonian) -- Primitive, slow sharks with broad-based shark-like fins & fin spines. Probably ancestral to all modern sharks, skates, and rays. Fragmentary fin spines (Triassic) -- from more advanced sharks.
Paleospinax (early Jurassic) -- More advanced features such as detached upper jaw, but retains primitive ctenacanthid features such as two dorsal spines, primitive teeth, etc.

Notice the subjunctive mood. Probably this , probably that. Sounds like Darwin wrote it.
There is not one undisputed transistional form just ad hoc stories, no science here.

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, in an interview on BBC television, said...
I mean the stories, the narratives about change over time. How the dinosaurs became extinct, how the mammals evolved, where man came from. These seem to me to be little more than story-telling. And this is the result about cladistics because as it turns out, as it seems to me, all one can learn about the history of life is learned from systematics, from groupings one finds in nature. The rest of it is story-telling of one sort or another. We have access to the tips of a tree, the tree itself is a theory and people who pretend to know about the tree and to describe what went on with it, how the branches came off and the twigs came off are, I think, telling stories

Clarification/Follow-up by peddler7118 on 08/31/06 4:40 pm:
yesterday I went down the list of transistional forms on talk/origins.
I stopped counting at 80 subjunctive mood phrases like probably was , or possibly was , or seems to be etc.
Why is that? If evolution is a fact, please name one?