To 'Andya Primanda' n his 'evolution deceit'

[Andya_Primanda]

Peace Kashif,

For the sake of accuracy, no, humans don't evolve from monkeys. Humans evolve from apes. There is genetic evidence for this like the overall 95% DNA similarity, shared broken genes (like the gene coding for vitamin C and the gene controlling the sense of smell), similar Y chromosome banding pattern.

For the fossil record of humans
http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs

And here's a picture (hope this works)
http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg
http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex3

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

I don't believe I could convince anyone with this... not those ones who already 'decided to know' what's happening back then. But if you wish, we can discuss it.

Evolution occur by chance alone? I also disagree. There is an element of determinism in evolution, namely natural selection.

If you mean that evolution rules out God, I also disagree. God's in charge of everything, including evolution.

ps Not sure if I still have it, but here's something I write a while ago for a conference. About Harun Yahya creationism.
http//redrival.com/evolusi/YOGYA2004.pdf

[jonny_k]

Peace Kashif,

For the sake of accuracy, no, humans don't evolve from monkeys. Humans evolve from apes. There is genetic evidence for this like the overall 95% DNA similarity, shared broken genes (like the gene coding for vitamin C and the gene controlling the sense of smell), similar Y chromosome banding pattern.

For the fossil record of humans
http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs

And here's a picture (hope this works)
http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg
http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex3

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

I don't believe I could convince anyone with this... not those ones who already 'decided to know' what's happening back then. But if you wish, we can discuss it.

Evolution occur by chance alone? I also disagree. There is an element of determinism in evolution, namely natural selection.

If you mean that evolution rules out God, I also disagree. God's in charge of everything, including evolution.

ps Not sure if I still have it, but here's something I write a while ago for a conference. About Harun Yahya creationism.
http//redrival.com/evolusi/YOGYA2004.pdf

Khi- All these things r frauds. This shows u did not see the clip 'The collapse of Evolution' at http//www.harunyahya.com/m_video_index.php
Coz if u wld have then ud know tht even reknown evolutionists have admitted tht the difference btw these supposed Homo Agastor, Homo Sapien, etc r ONLY RACIAL. N 2ndly evolution means tht complex things form from simple things by chance. This is wht evolution means. Plz correct ur views abt evolution. It is n always will be an atheistic theory. The 95% similarity is also very deceitful. As i made clear even if the similarity was 99% yet it is utterly impossible tht the apes evolve inmto humans by natural selection coz we are still talking about 300,000,000 nucleotides that must be haphazardly re-arranged to change the ape into a human. The probability laws preclude this as an utter impossibility. The human gene contains 30,000,000,000 nucleotides; 1% of that is 300,000,000.
It is thus utterly impossible in terms of probability. U ignored this completely. GOD Bless!

[unknownuser]

Hello IDMKhizar,

you wrote
"Evolution is an imaginary process in which it is believed tht complex subtances form from the simple by mere chance or random mutauions. However this is utterly impossible. Order does not arise from chaos haphazardly but always chaos arises from order.

I think your main contention is that "order" does not arise from chaos and that "complex" subtances do not form from "simple" substances by mere chance. But if it can be scientifically proven that order can and does arise from chaos will that validate theory of evolution for you?

Regards,

[jonny_k]

I think your main contention is that "order" does not arise from chaos and that "complex" subtances do not form from "simple" substances by mere chance. But if it can be scientifically proven that order can and does arise from chaos will that validate theory of evolution for you?

Regards,

Khi- U mean by chance rite? If u mean tht theres intellgence behind it then ofcourse order can form from chaos but definitely not by chance. This never happens. Its against the laws of logic. We as humans can make something orderly out of junk coz we posess intelligence. The theory of thermodynamics also refutes this order by chance theory since energy always travels from a high concentrated area 2 a low concentrated area n never vice versa without some intelligent driving force. If this unlogical incidence cld ever happen it wld validate evolution yes but it cant. GOD Bless!

[unknownuser]

Hello imdkhizar,

You are correct to say that the second law of theromdynamics states disorder increases with time but this is for only CLOSED system. Life is a OPEN system and therefore this law does not apply.

I am not sure if you heard of John Conway? He is a British mathematician who invented the "Game of Life". It is a "celluar" automation program which demonstrates how following very simple set of rules order can arise from chaos not just order but complex "bioform" seems to arise from random interactions.

Here is a link.

http//www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/

As a programmer I can see great merits in this cellular automation program...

Regards,

[jonny_k]

Hello imdkhizar,

You are correct to say that the second law of theromdynamics states disorder increases with time but this is for only CLOSED system. Life is a OPEN system and therefore this law does not apply.

Khi- Life is an open sytem? The whole universe is a closed sytem. Show me one approved experiment where order emerged as the result of chance.

I am not sure if you heard of John Conway? He is a British mathematician who invented the "Game of Life". It is a "celluar" automation program which demonstrates how following very simple set of rules order can arise from chaos not just order but complex "bioform" seems to arise from random interactions.

Here is a link.

http//www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/

As a programmer I can see great merits in this cellular automation program...

Regards,

Khi- No i havent seen this be4. Howver somebody made n designed this program so chnce can be eliminated. Also i believe this program waits 4 certain cells 2 be filled n then goes on n displays them. All the processes r therefore not shown. This then is no great deal n yet it is an intelligent program which does this. This is however not possble with a cell in order 2 function ALL things must be present a once. This is known as the Irreducible Complexity of life. Ill study this further however. Anyways wht i wanted 2 tell u simply is tht when we look at a watch we wld never dream of saying tht it came abt by mere chance but tht somebody designed it. Similarly looking it the incredibly complex structure of a living cell how can we say tht tht was just chance? See how illogical this is? GOD Bless!

[unknownuser]

Hello imdkhizar,

The cellular automation program is based on chance interactions and it is the basis of this program. But study it yourself and let me know what you think of it.

And I am glad that you mentioned the Watch. If you have time I suggest that you read "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins. The book gives a clear explanation how this Watch was designed....

Regards,

[jonny_k]

Hello imdkhizar,

The cellular automation program is based on chance interactions and it is the basis of this program. But study it yourself and let me know what you think of it.

And I am glad that you mentioned the Watch. If you have time I suggest that you read "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins. The book gives a clear explanation how this Watch was designed....

Regards,

Khi- This fraud has been well refuted at the following sites
http//www.rae.org/MutationProgram.htm
http//www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp
But the actual pt is tht of the irreducible complexity of life
check out
http//www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/darwin_critique2.htm
GOD Bless!

[Andya_Primanda]

Peace Kashif,

And here's a picture (hope this works)
http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg
http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex3

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

Khi- All these things r frauds. This shows u did not see the clip 'The collapse of Evolution' at http//www.harunyahya.com/m_video_index.php
Coz if u wld have then ud know tht even reknown evolutionists have admitted tht the difference btw these supposed Homo Agastor, Homo Sapien, etc r ONLY RACIAL. N 2ndly evolution means tht complex things form from simple things by chance. This is wht evolution means. Plz correct ur views abt evolution. It is n always will be an atheistic theory. The 95% similarity is also very deceitful. As i made clear even if the similarity was 99% yet it is utterly impossible tht the apes evolve inmto humans by natural selection coz we are still talking about 300,000,000 nucleotides that must be haphazardly re-arranged to change the ape into a human. The probability laws preclude this as an utter impossibility. The human gene contains 30,000,000,000 nucleotides; 1% of that is 300,000,000.
It is thus utterly impossible in terms of probability. U ignored this completely. GOD Bless!

See, I told you you'd dismiss all my evidence by saying they're fakes, illusions, etc. I applaud your faith in Harun Yahya's words and I'm convinced that you'd never be persuaded even if I add more.

But anyway. Can you show me any living human race with a combination of traits like Homo erectus?

[jonny_k]

Peace Kashif,

And here's a picture (hope this works)
http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg
http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex3

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

Khi- All these things r frauds. This shows u did not see the clip 'The collapse of Evolution' at http//www.harunyahya.com/m_video_index.php
Coz if u wld have then ud know tht even reknown evolutionists have admitted tht the difference btw these supposed Homo Agastor, Homo Sapien, etc r ONLY RACIAL. N 2ndly evolution means tht complex things form from simple things by chance. This is wht evolution means. Plz correct ur views abt evolution. It is n always will be an atheistic theory. The 95% similarity is also very deceitful. As i made clear even if the similarity was 99% yet it is utterly impossible tht the apes evolve inmto humans by natural selection coz we are still talking about 300,000,000 nucleotides that must be haphazardly re-arranged to change the ape into a human. The probability laws preclude this as an utter impossibility. The human gene contains 30,000,000,000 nucleotides; 1% of that is 300,000,000.
It is thus utterly impossible in terms of probability. U ignored this completely. GOD Bless!

See, I told you you'd dismiss all my evidence by saying they're fakes, illusions, etc. I applaud your faith in Harun Yahya's words and I'm convinced that you'd never be persuaded even if I add more.

But anyway. Can you show me any living human race with a combination of traits like Homo erectus?

Khi- Homo erectus, Homo Sapien archaic , etc have already been dismissed by evolutionists themselves. In which century r u? Still in the 1950s. I dont wanna repeat myself again nagain. It has been admitted tht the differences btw these is no more than racial. Besides just showing some pics of skulls is NOT evidence by any means. Did u forget the frud of the piltdown man where an orang uttans jaw was fixed in a human skull? Y shld i trust evolutinists presenting more skulls which they faked in there labs? Once liars always liars. GOD Bless!

[unknownuser]

Hello imdkhizar,

I take it you have not read it? nor will you ever read it? That?s not very objective of you idmkhizar is it? How can we be objective if we do not study the source materials ourselves? We can't just go by silly refutation of Harun Yaha, who uses out of context quotes from other people's work. This kind of refutation is very misleading if not outright deceitful.

Did you know that some papal representatives refused to look through Galileo?s Telescope, in fear they might see the truth of it all? Are you afraid of reading "The Blind Watch Maker"? I am also wondering if you have ever read Darwin's "Origin of the Species"? Or his record of the voyages he made on board the Beagle? If you did then you would have realised what he was trying to achieve or what sort of man he was, and that he was not trying to deceive anyone. He was only trying to explain the appearances of species in the fossil records...

As for the "Irreducible Complexity" your link

http//www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/darwin_critique2.htm

Here is quote from this article

"FOOTNOTES

1. Irreducible Complexity is defined as the base level of complexity below which a system no longer functions. Thus an irreducibly complex system is one comprising several unique interacting components that contribute to the basic function of the 'system' and wherein the removal of just one component renders the whole system no longer functional. An irreducibly complex system cannot 'evolve' by slight, successive modifications to a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is, by definition, non-functional and as such would have no purpose and presumably could not be the subject of 'natural selection'. (Source 'Darwins Black Box' by Michael Behe p39)"

Writers of this article acknowledges that the source material to be Michal Behe's "Darwin's Black Box". Have you ever read this book? Behe himself acknowledges many of the Darwinian Principles of Evolution as a fact. He even agrees that that the 100% match of DNA sequences in the pseudogene region of beta-globin was proof that humans and gorillas shared a recent common ancestor. His contention is that the "Molecular Evolution" is not accounted by Darwinism and in this he has a good case. It is hard to refute Behe on this because we don't have "fossil" records of Molecular Evolution like we do for the evolution of organisms. Perhaps it is a challenge to current and future scientists to test this "irreducibly complex" concept of Behe's in the laboratory, to either deny it or confirm it. But either way, it will not, in my view, rule out the presence of an Intelligent Designer in the Grand Design of the Universe...

But I can now see how you get your ?knowledge? from. You rely on refutations of others and thats a very faulty premise. If you really think Evolution is false then I suggest you read the source materials and derive your own understanding and insights from them...

I would like to hear your views on the cellular automation program?

Regards,

P.S. your link http//www.rae.org/MutationProgram.htm. Please note that Dawkins Mutation program is incredibly ?simplified? model of what mutation is. It is only a ?model? to demonstrate the principles and not absolute truth. The article writers created their own program admit the following"we make an assumption that when a letter (or gene) matches a desired goal, there is something that prevents it from further mutation, even though there is no biochemical evidence or process to back up this assumption." If there no biochemical evidence for it why add it in the program?...but again never rely on any one individual for your source of knowledge. Read as much as you can read and then derive your own understanding and insights from these sources?

[Andya_Primanda]

Khi- Homo erectus, Homo Sapien archaic , etc have already been dismissed by evolutionists themselves. In which century r u? Still in the 1950s. I dont wanna repeat myself again nagain. It has been admitted tht the differences btw these is no more than racial. Besides just showing some pics of skulls is NOT evidence by any means. Did u forget the frud of the piltdown man where an orang uttans jaw was fixed in a human skull? Y shld i trust evolutinists presenting more skulls which they faked in there labs? Once liars always liars. GOD Bless!

And I want to repeat myself again It doesn't matter what evidence I throw at you, you'll still dismiss it as fakes, illusions. So there's no point in arguing with you, you've already decided.

[jonny_k]

And I want to repeat myself again It doesn't matter what evidence I throw at you, you'll still dismiss it as fakes, illusions. So there's no point in arguing with you, you've already decided.

Khi- It's the evolutionists who become red hot n biased against creationists not the vice versa. Theyve lied so many times. Y shld i trust them now if they bring up trans form fossils. If i find such myself i told u ill rethink it. GOD Bless!