How could so many animals, and even us humans, have survived for so long if everything started out with only 2 members? I mean, the size of the gene pool between 2 individuals cannot possibly permit such a vast population can it?

I'm no expert in biology, but I do know the importance of having a large gene pool to survive, and to me a gene pool between 2 people to support more than 6 billion is just not possible.

If someone could explain to me how this is possible, I'd really appreciate it.

That's it?
That's all you could come up with?

In any case, how do you explain evolution, which bases itself on the theory that there was only a single, single-celled creature that everything else evolved from?

You see, that's where you're wrong. It doesn't say all life evolved from one single celled creature. It simply states that life evolved from single celled creatures.

One must also take into account that evolution allows for diversification of the gene pool, while creationism does not. Under creationism, two humans were somehow made from dirt and reproduced to form a society of billions of individuals. I find that a touch hard to believe.

But yes, this is all I could come up with. I thought a solid fact that disproves creationism was a pretty important thing, then again, I am speaking with tony1, for whom nothing is important besides his Bible...

*Originally posted by Xelios
You see, that's where you're wrong. It doesn't say all life evolved from one single celled creature. It simply states that life evolved from single celled creatures.*

I see you weren't paying attention.
If life evolved from single-celled creatureS, then there would have had to have beeen more than one around.
If so, then multiple evolutionary lines would have been started, each of which would have to have had identical genetic structures, since their offspring generations later would have to able to mate.
That's even more far-fetched than believing that one cell could grow from bare rock.

Now you're asking me to believe that such a miracle occurred not once, but many times.
Not only that, but each evolutionary line reached the same level of complexity to allow each line to mate with other lines.
Wow!
Is there no end to your credulity?

*One must also take into account that evolution allows for diversification of the gene pool, while creationism does not. *

Evolution demands that almost identical gene pools evolved apart from each other, yet at the same rate, and into very similar individuals.

Oh yes, THAT is much easier to believe.

*But yes, this is all I could come up with. I thought a solid fact that disproves creationism was a pretty important thing*

What is solid about the evo version of that?
You're asking grownups to believe that thousands of creatures evolved apart from each other, but with identical genetic structures and in identical times.
And with no trace of any of that in the fossil record.

How are you going to examine unicellular organisms millions of years old from fossiles?

Of course they would all have the same basic genetic structure, they live on the same planet. It's not like one organism is going to develop special lungs to breathe neon gas or something. If genetic structure did vary that dramatically, those organisms simply died, leaving the ones with similar genetic structure to survive and reproduce.

As for their offspring being able to mate, I'm not sure but I don't think a human can mate with a fish. Just as a plant can't mate with a mouse...

It's pretty simple really. If the genetic structures of the different organisms were not very similar, they would not have survived. If a certain genetic trait kept an organism alive and well why change it? The only way genetic structure would significantly differ is if parts of the Earth were in a different atmosphere, or had a different gravitational value. Obviously, this wasn't the case.

*Originally posted by Xelios
How are you going to examine unicellular organisms millions of years old from fossiles?*

Aside from the spurious issue of "millions of years," who said anything about unicellular fossils?
I'd be interested in seeing a horse from, say, North America, along with a horse from, say, Africa, that evolved separately, yet almost identically.

*Of course they would all have the same basic genetic structure, they live on the same planet.*

It's easy to argue that a posteriori.
Try explaining how that would come about from bare rock.
Like try to explain how conditions in Africa and North America would be so similar as to evolve identical animals with identical genes.

*If genetic structure did vary that dramatically, those organisms simply died, leaving the ones with similar genetic structure to survive and reproduce.*

Says who?
Who says that a difference in genetic structure causes death?

*It's pretty simple really. If the genetic structures of the different organisms were not very similar, they would not have survived.*

That sounds like a Dilbert explanation.
"The proof for evolution is that the animals that survived, survived.
Therefore, evolution is true."

*The only way genetic structure would significantly differ is if parts of the Earth were in a different atmosphere, or had a different gravitational value. Obviously, this wasn't the case. *

Obviously, if you don't mind skipping the proof for such an off-the-wall statement.
The only actual way genetic structure would differ significantly is if evolution is true.
Since it doesn't, evolution had nothing to do with it.
Evolution is supposedly random.
Everything being more or less the same is rather strong evidence that evolution is crap.
Actually, the idea that cells supposedly evolved from rock proves that evolution is crap.

BTW, the scientific method calls for evidence to support a hypothesis.
It doesn't call for the hypothesis to support the evidence, like you're doing.

I'd be interested in seeing a horse from, say, North America, along with a horse from, say, Africa, that evolved separately, yet almost identically.
Considering there is only a temperature difference, I'd be surprised if it didn't evolve almost identically. Of course, it's not like a horse suddenly popped up in each of the continents...
Like try to explain how conditions in Africa and North America would be so similar as to evolve identical animals with identical genes.
Which animal native to Africa has the exact same genes as one native to NA? I'd like to know.
Who says that a difference in genetic structure causes death?
No one. But the significant divergence of genetic structure will. Like I said, if an organism developed lungs that breathed neon gas it would die.
That sounds like a Dilbert explanation.
"The proof for evolution is that the animals that survived, survived.
Therefore, evolution is true."
I'm not trying to prove evolution in this statement, I'm simply disproving your statement.
The only actual way genetic structure would differ significantly is if evolution is true.
Since it doesn't, evolution had nothing to do with it.
Evolution is supposedly random.
Evolution is random, it's just that some random combinations of genes cannot survive on Earth, and so we don't see them. Evolution didn't have fish in the Atlantic grow arms, while fish in the Pacific grew an extra head. Why? It's not needed. If you have no use for another head, why evolve another? Evolution states that organisms changed to suit theirs and new environments better, not so you could point out how rediculous an extra head for a fish would be.
BTW, the scientific method calls for evidence to support a hypothesis.
It doesn't call for the hypothesis to support the evidence, like you're doing.
Nowhere in my posts was I trying to prove evolution. I simply asked a question, and as a response to your uneducated answeres I posted statements disproving your statements. But it's good that you're actually admitting that evidence for evolution exists, you have taken your first big step into the real world.

*Originally posted by Xelios
Considering there is only a temperature difference, I'd be surprised if it didn't evolve almost identically. Of course, it's not like a horse suddenly popped up in each of the continents...*

Well, which is it?
Yes, they evolved identically, or no they didn't?

*Which animal native to Africa has the exact same genes as one native to NA? I'd like to know.*

Ignoring the minor differences, how about the mammoth and the elephant?

*But the significant divergence of genetic structure will.*

Arguing from the absence of divergent genetic structure today doesn't prove that divergent genetic structures died out.
A simpler explanation is that there never were any divergent genetic structures.

*Like I said, if an organism developed lungs that breathed neon gas it would die.*

So what?
What about divergent genetic structures that didn't develop into neon-breathing creatures?

*I'm not trying to prove evolution in this statement, I'm simply disproving your statement.*

And I'm disproving yours.
Arguing from today backward to prove evolution isn't valid.
You have to argue from nothing in the distant past to a variety today.

*Evolution is random, it's just that some random combinations of genes cannot survive on Earth, and so we don't see them.*

Apparently you don't get it.
We aren't just talking about the placement of base pairs in existing genetic structures.
Why aren't there animals with no genes at all?
Why are genes necessary?
Machines don't need them.
Why aren't there alternative genetic structures that pass on genetic information in a way completely different from the way DNA works?
Why aren't there animals that use copying methods like a photocopier, or a camera?

*Nowhere in my posts was I trying to prove evolution.*

I see that, but we differ as to why.
You think it's because you were "disproving" my statements.
I think it's because evolution can't be proven and you know it.

*But it's good that you're actually admitting that evidence for evolution exists, you have taken your first big step into the real world. *

I admit that evidence exists.
I don't admit that evidence for evolution exists.
You, on the other hand, having recently attended school, don't understand how propaganda works.

The way it works is to state some random thought.
Punish the people who don't believe the random thought with low marks.
Reward the people who do believe the random statement with lots of work, followed by higher marks.
Make sure the work is liberally laced with references to the random statement.
That way the suckers will associate the reward with the work, instead of with the statement, like Pavlov's dog.

Sucker.

Ignoring the minor differences, how about the mammoth and the elephant?
They are not genetically identical, and so cannot be applied to your question.
A simpler explanation is that there never were any divergent genetic structures.
Simpler? No. Then one would have to completely rewrite evolution.
What about divergent genetic structures that didn't develop into neon-breathing creatures?
What about them? I see some when I look in my fish tank.
You have to argue from nothing in the distant past to a variety today.
Sounds a bit like religion, don't you think?
I think it's because evolution can't be proven and you know it.
And what if it can't? The same is true for religion, and that doesn't seem to bother you.
I admit that evidence exists.
I don't admit that evidence for evolution exists.
You, on the other hand, having recently attended school, don't understand how propaganda works.
Nice wordplay there. You, having recently read the Bible for the nth time, must have a pretty good idea of how propaganda works, considering that's what most of it is.
The way it works is to state some random thought.
Punish the people who don't believe the random thought with low marks.
Reward the people who do believe the random statement with lots of work, followed by higher marks.
Make sure the work is liberally laced with references to the random statement.
That way the suckers will associate the reward with the work, instead of with the statement, like Pavlov's dog.
Sounds to me like you are describing religion more than science. Except, instead of the good marks you get everlasting life... or so it seems.

*Originally posted by Xelios
They are not genetically identical, and so cannot be applied to your question.*

So you're saying that evolution only applies to identical twins?

*Simpler? No. Then one would have to completely rewrite evolution.*

Oh I see.
Evolution is true, because it is too much work to rewrite all the lies.

*I see some when I look in my fish tank.*

Can you prove that what you see in your fish tank evolved, or are you assuming they evolved because your teacher told you?

*Sounds a bit like religion, don't you think?*

It is exactly like religion.
However, I told you my story.
When are you going to tell yours?

*And what if it can't? The same is true for religion, and that doesn't seem to bother you.*

The problem is that the scientific method calls for proof of a hypothesis prior to reaching a conclusion.
No proof means no conclusion.
If there is no proof of evolution and no conclusion, then I win because I say there is no proof.
You can't win by saying there is no proof, because that's my point.

*You, having recently read the Bible for the nth time, must have a pretty good idea of how propaganda works*

That is correct, and that is also why you have no idea of how it works.

Communism has nothing on the evolutionists when it comes to propaganda.
At least communist propaganda had the intent of pulling people together to build a country which they did.
Evolutionist propaganda doesn't even have a point.

*Sounds to me like you are describing religion more than science.*

Nope, I'm describing your school.

Can you prove that what you see in your fish tank evolved, or are you assuming they evolved because your teacher told you?
Go to your local museum if you want proof.
So you're saying that evolution only applies to identical twins?
Nope.
Oh I see.
Evolution is true, because it is too much work to rewrite all the lies.
Nope. But why rewrite it if there isn't anything wrong with it?
However, I told you my story.
When are you going to tell yours?
Actually, I've told it many times. Maybe you just weren't paying attention.
The problem is that the scientific method calls for proof of a hypothesis prior to reaching a conclusion.
No proof means no conclusion.
If there is no proof of evolution and no conclusion, then I win because I say there is no proof.
You can't win by saying there is no proof, because that's my point.
So basically, if tony says there is no proof then there must not be any?
Evolutionist propaganda doesn't even have a point.
No, understanding how we came to be isn't that important is it?
Nope, I'm describing your school.
Have you been to it lately? I haven't seen a "tony" on the honor roll before...:rolleyes:

*Originally posted by Xelios
Go to your local museum if you want proof.*

That is sooooo lame.
I went, and I found evidence of two things.
1. Creation
2. Idiots believing in evolution

*Nope.*

OK, if evolution doesn't apply only to identical twins, then why do mammoths and elephants have to have identical genes?

*Nope. But why rewrite it if there isn't anything wrong with it?*

Why make stupid points, if you're just going to trash them yourself in your very next post?

*Actually, I've told it many times. Maybe you just weren't paying attention.*

I pay plenty of attention when it comes to evolution.
So far, you've told me the name of your story, evolution.
You haven't said a thing about how it works.
Let's go with a simple description, since I've already dragged you over the coals for claiming you "explain" things.

*So basically, if tony says there is no proof then there must not be any?*

So far, you've done that by not giving me any.

*No, understanding how we came to be isn't that important is it?*

I already know that, but in a sense that's beside your point.
It puzzles me why you would want to have a fairy tale "explaining" how you got here.
Particularly since the fairy tale doesn't actually explain that anyway.
So far, all evolution has been good for is explaining why there are so many books written about a topic with no substance.

*Have you been to it lately?*

Your school is much the same as any other school.
Students not questioning their teachers, for fear of getting a low mark.

Ignored.

Got nothing?

This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here]

Hmm, no thanks.