PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Definitions, please -
       transitional, for lester

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester wrote:

What terms should we define here –not enough or fossils or transitionals –what is it that you’d like to know?


I would like to know, as I've asked repeatedly already, what YOUR definition of Transitional Fossil is.


You've repeatedly claimed, without ANY attempt at supporting the claim, that there are none (or not enough).  This despite the fact that the YEC poster A-E said that Archaeopteryx was a transitional, and despite the fact that YEC Kurt Wise, PhD., has stated that there are in fact many good examples of transitionals (still wondering what Lester knows that actual PhDs don't).


So please DEFINE, in a general sense, what YOU mean when you write "transitional fossil", then provide an EXPLICIT, SPECIFIC example as to what you would expect to see in, say, a dinosaur-to-bird transitional.

Once you have defiend transitional fossil as asked above, please move on to this:

As for the subject at hand and assuming you do understand the terms –‘transitionals’ are few and far between given the abundance of fossils lining the walls of Natural history museums. Gradualism is absent. Gaps are systematic and large in general ...



Here, you imply that there ARE transitonals, but claim they are too few. in essence.

Please EXPLAIN how many transitionals would be sufficient and how you came to that number, and also explain WHY some number is required.

Upon finishing that, please explain what you mean by GAPS.  Gaps between what?  What would you expect to see where there are gaps and WHY?

Please answer these simple, basic inquiries BEFORE continuing to claim the things you do on these issues.  If you cannot do even this, then your opinions really are totally without merit and should not be taken seriously, much less listened to.


(Edited by derwood 10/21/2009 at 5:08 PM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 5:06 PM on October 21, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I was about to ask the same thing. He says that the transitionals are few. Is that a Freudian slip?

Pretty much like this one:
anti-evolutionist
although Manatees (may or) may not have evolved from hoofed ancestors. the whales certainly did.
I don't like to claim victory over technicalities, but i think their words are meaningful. Isn't it possible that they actually don't believe what they say?

The PDF you posted is quite amusing, derwood. I think the word is 'risible'.
Creationist palaeontology is an immature field,
Yeah, like it's proponents.
the resources of creationists are severely limited,
Their wits?
and the 'transitional form' issue has a low priority in the creation model.
...
As a creationist response to evolutionary claims of transitional forms is developed, a new vocabulary should be adopted.
Words is all they have...



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:23 AM on October 22, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 08:23 AM on October 22, 2009 :
I was about to ask the same thing. He says that the transitionals are few. Is that a Freudian slip?

Pretty much like this one:
anti-evolutionist
although Manatees (may or) may not have evolved from hoofed ancestors. the whales certainly did.
I don't like to claim victory over technicalities, but i think their words are meaningful. Isn't it possible that they actually don't believe what they say?


It is hard to tell.  The cognitive dissonance, either way, is astounding.


The PDF you posted is quite amusing, derwood. I think the word is 'risible'.
Creationist palaeontology is an immature field,
Yeah, like it's proponents.
the resources of creationists are severely limited,
Their wits?


Which is odd, seeing as how Wise is a professor at a private Christian college.  Yuo'd think they could amass a fraction of the money the Ken Ham did to build a multi-million dollar 'museum' to actually do some creation research.  The fact that YEC/ID types claim 'no money' when YEC/ID propaganda mills that churn out videos and books and send charlatans on the lecture circuit tells one what they are rweally interested in, and it is NOT testing their claims.


and the 'transitional form' issue has a low priority in the creation model.
...
As a creationist response to evolutionary claims of transitional forms is developed, a new vocabulary should be adopted.
Words is all they have...



And sleazy ones at that.



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:36 AM on October 22, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester

While your at it....
I asked some time ago for you to define macroevolution because your use of this word suggests a different definition to that used by scientists. You have been avoiding this one for quite a while now.

(Edited by waterboy 10/22/2009 at 7:27 PM).

(Edited by waterboy 10/22/2009 at 7:29 PM).


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 7:26 PM on October 22, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

derwood
Which is odd, seeing as how Wise is a professor at a private Christian college.  Yuo'd think they could amass a fraction of the money the Ken Ham did to build a multi-million dollar 'museum' to actually do some creation research.  The fact that YEC/ID types claim 'no money' when YEC/ID propaganda mills that churn out videos and books and send charlatans on the lecture circuit tells one what they are rweally interested in, and it is NOT testing their claims.
That reminds me of Philip Morris, the tobacco company that aired some TV ads that showed their charity.

Turns out they spent more money on the ads than on the charity they bragged about.

And yet that wasn't as ridiculous as this. At least Philip Morris didn't say they were poor.

Creationists should just shut up and do something! Demonstrate that they can distinguish a meaningful sequence of DNA from a meaningless one! That shouldn't be expensive OR difficult (if there was any truth to it). Do something! Pray for money, if you need it that badly!

I bet that the creationists in this forum and many others would pay a couple of bucks in exchange for better data with which to debunk Evolution. I think they would even pay for some goddamn definitions (transitional, information, macroevolution, etc) they can safely give us! If there was any chance of safe definitions, of course.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:15 PM on October 22, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have a feeling that the creos have deserted this site. Timbrx seems to have left a while ago. Anti-Evolutionist stated that he was leaving for some time. Lester is no longer replying to posts, even those directly addressed to him. ... The silence is deafening.


-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 04:08 AM on October 23, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 08:23 AM on October 22, 2009 :
I don't like to claim victory over technicalities, but i think their words are meaningful. Isn't it possible that they actually don't believe what they say?


I think for those who actually try to debate or have a conversation on evolution and creation for a period of time eventually know that evolution is true on some level. But because they have been brainwashed into worshiping the Bible as God's ultimate, infallible word, they feel that they have to go against evolutionists for God, or their soul perhaps. Either that or they are so scared to try they essentially put their fingers in their ears and shout "lalalalala, I can't hear you, lalalalala".


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 06:14 AM on October 23, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well Derwood, I think we would all agree that a transitional fossil is one which clearly lies between ‘this’ and ‘that’ –this being, for instance an ‘invertebrate’ and ‘that’ being, for instance a  ‘fish’. So we’d need a particular invertebrate’s features becoming clearly fishy…. Something like archaeopteryx doesn’t qualify as a transitional between bird and dinosaur (except in some imaginations)since one doesn’t see the most obvious ‘altered’ features like the leg turning into the wing or the scales turning into the feathers. One big jump does not suffice since fossils are iffy things in the first place without some kind of evidence that one kind of creature can, in principle, turn into the other. Strictly fossils are useless as evidence for macrotransformation since all we really know is that they died. We certainly can’t use that for evidence that one kind changed into another kind of creature.(If your dog got buried on top of your pet mouse, would later generations conclude that the mouse turned into a dog over millions of years? -we'd think they were pretty thick if they did.). BUT I’d be happy to concede defeat if there was a general picture of gradualism in the fossil record. Evolutionists themselves agree that there is a problem with that and hence ‘punctuated equilibrium’ was born as an excuse for why there is no gradualism in the fossil record. Let’s face it, we need to first establish that DNA can mutate the information for scales into the DNA information for feathers or there is no reason to carry on believing in the big jump at all in any part of the fossil 'record'.

Why don’t you give me your traditional definition for ‘transitional’ and then we’ll criticize and jeer at your definition or use it to disconfirm ‘transitional’ instead?

This despite the fact that the YEC poster A-E said that Archaeopteryx was a transitional


That was his potential opinion but only in the case that there were many more to confirm the principle -  so if I recall correctly, you are misquoting for the second time on purpose presumably to give the wrong impression of A-E’s position.

YEC Kurt Wise, PhD., has stated that there are in fact many good examples of transitionals


I don’t think anyone doubts that evos flash this transitional and that at us periodically but they really are few and far between and always the same dubious candidates like archie and the whale transition and the horse (particularly bad), human ape transitions (extremely suspect bunch) and tiktaaklkik. Most animal groups in the fossil record however have no clear ancestors that evos can even guess at, and this can be seen by the way that they guess which one it might have been or call it a ‘mystery’ or call it ‘rapid evolution’ (code for we have no clue what comes inbetween). When you consider that there are over 200 million fossils catalogued, there really should be many many clear transitional fossils that we could point to and then we would all see that they were in fact related and transforming from one to another.
That way there would be no debate and we'd all be 'clever' evolutionists together.

then provide an EXPLICIT, SPECIFIC example as to what you would expect to see in, say, a dinosaur-to-bird transitional.


Semi-scale, semi-feather or semi leg,semi-wing since one obviously has to change into the other and cannot be done in one jump. One with scales and one with wings begs the question.

Here, you imply that there ARE transitonals, but claim they are too few. in essence.


No I didn’t –I wrote ‘transitionals’ like this because they are claimed to be transitionals but we don’t accept that they are in fact transtitionals.

Please EXPLAIN how many transitionals would be sufficient and how you came to that number, and also explain WHY some number is required.


Evolution most obviously must entail grad-u-a-lism meaning slow and gradual as befits a process of random genetic mutation with no particular direction. Thus we should expect to see a general picture of gradualism. So to be very clear, we should not find 100 000+trilobites but no clear ancestor; 1000 bats but no clear ancestors; 500 000 fish and 1 000 000 invertebrates and nothing to really indicate clearly which invertebrate became a fish, which invertebrate turned into which other invertebrate etc. There should not be the occasional lone suspect, it really should be obvious but it isn’t and if you’d like me to quote the paleontologists who agree with me on the state of the ‘record’, I’d be happy to oblige.


please explain what you mean by GAPS.  Gaps between what?  What would you expect to see where there are gaps and WHY?


Unicellular organisms to multicellular invertebrates; invertebrates to fish –big gaps.
What would I expect? Why Derwood, many transitional forms of course – isn’t this what the entire conversation is about. Are you being obtuse for effect?

Please answer these simple, basic inquiries BEFORE continuing to claim the things you do on these issues.  If you cannot do even this, then your opinions really are totally without merit and should not be taken seriously, much less listened to.


And if you can’t give me this general picture of gradualism then surely, by the same token, your opinions are without merit?










   



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:56 AM on October 23, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Either that or they are so scared to try they essentially put their fingers in their ears and shout "lalalalala, I can't hear you, lalalalala".


Really Fencer, anyone would think there was a record of gradualism or great evidence for macroevolution the way you're speaking. You are the one going 'lalalala' I'm afraid and I fear that it is because you seek approbation from the majority and thus refuse to see the reality of the ridiculous position you're in. I don't know whether I have pointed this out to you yet but theistic evolutionists really are like Lenin's 'useful idiots' -the atheists put up with you because they 1)don't want to discuss their failings with origin of life issues and thus push them aside as if somehow that is not part of their story (when it clearly is)  and
2) you don't straight out disagree with them so they think you think that they're clever and that's just fine.
Ask them what they think about your  fence-sitting position?  I'd be interested to hear their replies.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 10:03 AM on October 23, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:03 AM on October 23, 2009 :
Really Fencer, anyone would think there was a record of gradualism or great evidence for macroevolution the way you're speaking.


Than you misunderstand my comment. Things like the flood are so far out there for modern science to consider, it is ridiculous to even comprehend how a sane person with basic understanding could think that Noah's flood happened verbatim. Even if evolution was overthrown by every scientist overnight creationism would still not be considered for the simple fact that creationism cannot be positively supported. The idea that creationism cannot be supported beyond bashing evolution shows how weak the creationism idea is in the field of science, and I think a lot of objective creationists know it.

You are the one going 'lalalala' I'm afraid and I fear that it is because you seek approbation from the majority and thus refuse to see the reality of the ridiculous position you're in.


Interesting. I "seek approbation from the majority". I'm not sure if I've told you or not, but the vast majority of my family is (in all practical purposes) creationists. The only person in my family that I'm 100% sure isn't a creationist is my father. I know my pastor isn't a creationist, but doesn't have a problem with creationists. Many of my friends on campus, and all the people that go to the same Bible study as I do, are creationists themselves. I would say my best friend, as well as several good friends I've known for years, are creationists. It is sometimes hard for me to fathom how I am wanting approval from the majority when I look at who I interact with the most.

I don't know whether I have pointed this out to you yet but theistic evolutionists really are like Lenin's 'useful idiots' -the atheists put up with you because they 1)don't want to discuss their failings with origin of life issues and thus push them aside as if somehow that is not part of their story (when it clearly is)


That has not really been my experience. I know and understand the atheist philosophy/argument/stance on the origin of the universe, and I find it quite elegant and persuasive. Personally I find it a little more persuasive than anything I've seen from a theist. I have a feeling Derwood will capitalize on my next statement; in the end it is my faith that allows me to say God started it rather than the net evidence.

2) you don't straight out disagree with them so they think you think that they're clever and that's just fine.


Huh? I don't straight out disagree you, does that mean you think that I think that you're clever? I have meet some really smart atheists, and I've meet some pretty damn near retarded ones too.

Ask them what they think about your  fence-sitting position?  I'd be interested to hear their replies.


Sure, to any non-Christian out there; What do you think of my "fence-sitting position"?


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 12:16 PM on October 23, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:56 AM on October 23, 2009 :
Well Derwood, I think we would all agree that a transitional fossil is one which clearly lies between ‘this’ and ‘that’ –... Something like archaeopteryx doesn’t qualify as a transitional between bird and dinosaur (except in some imaginations)since one doesn’t see the most obvious ‘altered’ features like the leg turning into the wing or the scales turning into the feathers.



Yeah, I guess not.

So, apparently your defintion of transitional fossil is "one which clearly lies between ‘this’ and ‘that’ ".  

Now we see that "clearly" is your escape clause.
So, even though Archaeopteryux CLEARLY has multiple features of both birds and dinosaurs, it doesn't count because it does not meet your personal criterion, which, as we have established, is "one which clearly lies between ‘this’ and ‘that’ ".

Thank you for being so scientific, precise, and reasonable.

One big jump does not suffice since fossils are iffy things in the first place without some kind of evidence that one kind of creature can, in principle, turn into the other.

What "big jump"?

This is where a general knowlwedge of genetics and development might come in handy, which is what I see you alluding to.  This happens very often.  In fact, Paul nelson of the Discovery Institute once claimed that molecular phylogenetics does not produce good evidence for evolution since molecular phylogenetics does not identify the mechanisms of evolutionary change.

If you cannot see why that is a silly argument, it is most likely because you are about to use a similar argument yourself.

We certainly can’t use that for evidence that one kind changed into another kind of creature.(If your dog got buried on top of your pet mouse, would later generations conclude that the mouse turned into a dog over millions of years? -

Not if they were competent, for such fossils would be in contemporaneous strata and a paleontologist would have been aware of such things as fossil progression and relative dating and such.  Things that creationists cannot be bothered with.

BUT I’d be happy to concede defeat if there was a general picture of gradualism in the fossil record.

No you wouldn't.
You will be a creationist no matter what evidence you are presented with.

But why don't we add gradialism to the terms you should define, because I recall you lambasted me for misrepresenting what YECs mean by 'gradualism' (yet would not actually explain what you DO mean) when I laid out a scenario in which YECs demand to see a nubbin getting longer and longer over generations and finally becoming a finger.

Yet in your rejection of Archaeopteryx, that line of 'reasoning' is EXACTLY what you are employing - you reject Archaeopteryx because there is 'too big of a jump' between a 'leg' and a 'wing'.

You could at least TRY to be consistent in your idiosyncracies.

Evolutionists themselves agree that there is a problem with that and hence ‘punctuated equilibrium’ was born as an excuse for why there is no gradualism in the fossil record.

I submit that you understand punk eek as well as you do genetics and the fossil record.  

Have you read Gould and Eldridge's paper?  I have - it is on my desk here somewhere...

Are you aware that they fully acknowledge that there are many good examples of gradualism in the fossil record?

Is it your position that ALL evolution MUST proceed via gradualistic means?  And if so, why - for surely so educated a creationist as you must understand that evolutiond does in fact NOT hold that ALL evolution must proceed gradualistically?

In other words, your requirement of strict gradualism is a strawman.

Let’s face it, we need to first establish that DNA can mutate the information for scales into the DNA information for feathers or there is no reason to carry on believing in the big jump at all in any part of the fossil 'record'.


Hold on - let's take this one fallacy via personal definition at a time - I've asked you to define informaiton before, too, and I've gotten gibberish.  

But allow me to use your criterion against YECism - untuil you can establish that a deity actually can create a fully formed adult human male by blowing on dirt, there really is no reason to assume any of the bible is true.

Works for you, why not for me?

And further, you are employing a rather naive and disingenuous criterion - you are claiming in essence that if we do not know everything right now, then we can in effect know nothing  This is pure hubris and nonsense.
If such a position had merit, we would still be anointing with oils and sacrificing pigeons over running water to cure disease, as the OT tells
us.

Why don’t you give me your traditional definition for ‘transitional’ and then we’ll criticize and jeer at your definition or use it to disconfirm ‘transitional’ instead?

I only jeer at Dunning-Kruger hubris.

My definition of transitional fossil is much like yours - except that I do not append arbitrary and self-serving caveats to make sure that I can prove my point no matter what.

I find the Wiki definition sufficient:

"Transitional fossils (popularly termed missing links) are the fossilized remains of intermediary forms of life that illustrate an evolutionary transition. They can be identified by their retention of certain primitive (plesiomorphic) traits in comparison with their more derived relatives, as they are defined in the study of cladistics"

Couldn't have said it better.
Thus, Archaeopteryx is a very good transitonal form.
This despite the fact that the YEC poster A-E said that Archaeopteryx was a transitional


That was his potential opinion but only in the case that there were many more to confirm the principle -  so if I recall correctly, you are misquoting for the second time on purpose presumably to give the wrong impression of A-E’s position.


Really?

Well, first, since I did not actually quote him here, your charge is just plain bullshit - unless you really do not understand what  a quote is?
I am used to YECs hurling false charges, but this one is pretty comical and silly, even by YEC standards.

But let's see - I wrote:

"This despite the fact that the YEC poster A-E said that Archaeopteryx was a transitional."

Here is what he wrote, in its entirety:

the predicted dino-bird's should look like the Archaeopteryx. with some dinosaur characteristics (such as the bony tail) and some bird characteristics (such as the feathers).

But...
the existence of one such creature is not proof of evolution.
yes it fits into evolutions predictions. no question about that. but it is not enough.


By your own criterion, you 'misquoted' him, too.

He allowed that Archaeopteryx was a transitional, but he claims it is not enough to 'prove' evolution.  

However, I did not present A-E's acknowledgement as support for evolution, jst that Archie is a transitional.

So not only did you, by your own criterion, misquote A-E, you have totally misrepresented my use of his position.

How un-christian of you.

YEC Kurt Wise, PhD., has stated that there are in fact many good examples of transitionals


I don’t think anyone doubts that evos flash this transitional and that at us periodically but they really are few and far between and always the same dubious candidates like archie and the whale transition and the horse (particularly bad), human ape transitions (extremely suspect bunch) and tiktaaklkik.

Not to further cloud a thread that was supposed to focus solely on your defintions of a couple of terms, but we see here some assertions devoid of suppiort (what's new?) regarding a number of things.  I've seen your take on whale evolution, and it was like talking to a 3rd grader who had read a comic book. I suspect your other positions are similarly based on the screeds of some underqualified creationist hack, like Menton, and are thus similarly worthless.

SNIP irrelevant editorializing

please stay on task

then provide an EXPLICIT, SPECIFIC example as to what you would expect to see in, say, a dinosaur-to-bird transitional.


Semi-scale, semi-feather or semi leg,semi-wing since one obviously has to change into the other and cannot be done in one jump. One with scales and one with wings begs the question.


WHY can it not be done in 'one jump'?  What counts as a 'semi-wing'?

Does a bat have a wing or not?  Does a pterosaur have a 'wing' or not?

Archeaopteryx has a forelimb struture very similar to a standard dinosaur limb - is it a wing because it has feathers or is it a limb because it has a manus?

For someone claiming a doctorate, you seem completely unable to employ technically relevant and precise terminology.  It is almost as if you are gleaning yuor talking points from some website or something.
Here, you imply that there ARE transitonals, but claim they are too few. in essence.


No I didn’t –I wrote ‘transitionals’ like this because they are claimed to be transitionals but we don’t accept that they are in fact transtitionals.


And you do not acceopt them because they do not meet some arbitrary and idiosyncratic set of ever-changing criteria.

Wonderful

Well, OK - I won't accept Yahweh is real until I see a miracle.  But not just any miracle. A certain kind o fmiracle.  And I won't tell you what kind of miracle I will accpet until you give me an example, that way I can simply claim that THAT is not the kind of miracle I am looking for.

Right?  That is what you are doing, so you can't complain.

Please EXPLAIN how many transitionals would be sufficient and how you came to that number, and also explain WHY some number is required.


Evolution most obviously must entail grad-u-a-lism


S_T_R_A_W_M_A_N

Let us all know when you've moved beyond ICR and AiG and Jack Chick talking points, will you?

(Edited by derwood 10/24/2009 at 10:38 AM).

(Edited by derwood 10/24/2009 at 10:54 AM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:44 PM on October 23, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Fencer27 at 12:16 PM on October 23, 2009 :
I have a feeling Derwood will capitalize on my next statement; in the end it is my faith that allows me to say God started it rather than the net evidence.


Yes, I will capitalize on it by saying So What?

My position on how the universe started is I don't know.

I have no beef whatsoever with someone who posits a deity as the 'originator' of the universe, or even the first life for that matter - BECAUSE we don't know.

I think[./i] that life arose naturalistically for a number of reasons, but in terms of my position on evolution, for example, it really has no bearing, since evolution deals with pre-existing life.  It is about the origin of [i]species, not the origin of life or of the universe or of gravity.*

So, you're still cool with me, brother!



*this was actually used as an argument againt 'Darwinism' by that jackass Ben Stein in an interview.- he claimed that 'darwinism' could not explain gravity, so what good was it...


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:52 PM on October 23, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
Well Derwood, I think we would all agree that a transitional fossil is one which clearly lies between ‘this’ and ‘that’
So... I guess scientists must develop some methods to test for clarity.

Or perhaps they should just phone you and you'll tell them.

–this being, for instance an ‘invertebrate’ and ‘that’ being, for instance a  ‘fish’.

Petromyzon marinus, commonly known as sea lamprey, are a primitive eel-like species native to the coast lines of the Atlantic Ocean. Their bodies are comprised of soft cartilage. They have smooth scaleless skin and lack bones, paired fins, a lateral line, a swim bladder, and a jaw (Bowen, 2006).

Next step: test for clarity.
Will you volunteer to design the trials, Lester?

So we’d need a particular invertebrate’s features becoming clearly fishy…
Be merciful, Lester! We don't know what you mean!


Is this fishy enough? It has no bones, and no proper jaw, and no proper gills, and no proper scales... It has a spinal cord, even if not quite like ours.


In this site they recommend it as a dish.

To me its like retroactive cannibalism.

Oh, i think now is when you say 'But if it's alive today that disproves Evolution!', showing once again your ignorance on the subject you're trying to discuss.

In this site they show you the genetic evidence that
there is a suite of genes (the Hox and Dlx genes, which define a cartesian coordinate system for the branchial arch elements, Fgf8/Dlx1 genes that establish proximal jaw elements, and Bmp4/Msx1 genes that demarcate more distal elements) that are found in both lampreys and vertebrates in similar patterns and roles, and that vertebrate upper and lower jaws are homologous to the upper and lower "lips" of the lamprey oral supporting apparatus.

Do you get now what 'homology' means? The bat's wing is homologous to the human arm, and not to the bird's wing.

By the way, do you see one kind or two kinds here?:



It's a simple question.


Something like archaeopteryx doesn’t qualify as a transitional between bird and dinosaur (except in some imaginations)since one doesn’t see the most obvious ‘altered’ features like the leg turning into the wing or the scales turning into the feathers.
But dinosaurs had feathers long before what theoretically would satisfy you as a transitional between dinos and birds. So if we showed you scales turning into feathers you'd still (rightly) call it a dinosaur.

One big jump does not suffice since fossils are iffy things in the first place without some kind of evidence that one kind of creature can, in principle, turn into the other.
Bla bla bla. Talk science. What do you want?

Transitionals? Define them. But only with pertinent words.
Information increase? Define it.
Macroevolution? Define it.

Strictly fossils are useless as evidence for macrotransformation since all we really know is that they died.
If your Bible said they didn't die, you would ignore yet another thing. You'd be claiming evidence that they ever lived.
Actually some of your folk do believe that they never lived. That the devil put them to tempt us, or Yahweh to test our faith, or something.

BUT I’d be happy to concede defeat if there was a general picture of gradualism in the fossil record.
Another thing to define...

I really don't know what you mean.
If you mean 'a universally constant rate of change', then it's a strawman.

I've seen you people criticize the exact opposite: that chimps don't give birth to humans.

They imagine that the fact that we don't find crocoducks is evidence against Evolution.

Of course, if we did find a crocoduck they would still use it as evidence against Evolution (correctly this time).

Evolutionists themselves agree that there is a problem with that
With your version of gradualism? Aye, there must be.
and hence ‘punctuated equilibrium’ was born as an excuse for why there is no gradualism in the fossil record.
Call it what you will. It makes sense. We've seen it in action. We've seen a cascade of 'rapid' changes vis à vis some environmental selective pressure.

Let’s face it, we need to first establish that DNA can mutate the information for scales into the DNA information for feathers or there is no reason to carry on believing in the big jump at all in any part of the fossil 'record'.
Oh! THAT comes first!! Not the huge amount of evidence that Evolution did occur, but something about the creationist interpretation of 'information' in the DNA!! Of course! Silly scientists!

Why don’t you give me your traditional definition for ‘transitional’ and then we’ll criticize and jeer at your definition or use it to disconfirm ‘transitional’ instead?
Traditional?
Whatever: a species that lies between two other species in the same evolutionary line.

That wold be mine. It's deprived of subjectivity.

Subjectivity: Judgment based on individual personal impressions and feelings and opinions rather than external facts (example: 'clearly').

derwood
This despite the fact that the YEC poster A-E said that Archaeopteryx was a transitional
That was his potential opinion but only in the case that there were many more to confirm the principle -  so if I recall correctly, you are misquoting for the second time on purpose
You can't misquote without (you know?) quoting...

I don’t think anyone doubts that evos flash this transitional and that at us periodically but they really are few and far between and always the same dubious candidates like archie and the whale transition and the horse (particularly bad), human ape transitions (extremely suspect bunch) and tiktaaklkik.
You keep ignoring this simple question: how did we guess where to find what?

You said that our faith made us find them, but not how.
And you have faith in giants, unicorns and an ark, and you still find nothing.
Is our faith stronger?

About humans and apes (another demonstration that you don't know what you're talking about, since humans never ceased to be apes), i'd like you to address this:

Creationists look way too puzzled before this non-puzzle.

Now that i think about it, i have the perfect clarity test! Ask a bunch of creationists if something is A or C. When the amount of creationists that say that it's clearly A equals the amount of creationists that say it's clearly C, then it's clearly B!

I've given the word 'clearly' an objective meaning! I'm a genius! Hahaha!

derwood
then provide an EXPLICIT, SPECIFIC example as to what you would expect to see in, say, a dinosaur-to-bird transitional.
Semi-scale, semi-feather
You lose. Nothing right between dino and bird would have that.

Asking for things that we don't predict doesn't mean you win, but quite the opposite.

Evolution most obviously must entail grad-u-a-lism
De-fine-it.
meaning slow and gradual as befits a process of random genetic mutation with no particular direction.
What would 'slow' mean? It sounds subjective (i.e. non scientific). You make no differences, so it looks like you say the rate of change should be constant (always 'slow').

In that case it's a clear (objectively clear) strawman, and you lose (again).

Thus we should expect to see a general picture of gradualism.
In the fossil record? An illustration of a constant rate of change? No, we shouldn't.

If you say we should, say why. Support your claim. Convince us.

please explain what you mean by GAPS.  Gaps between what?  What would you expect to see where there are gaps and WHY?
Unicellular organisms to multicellular invertebrates;
invertebrates to fish
–big gaps.
Define 'big'.

What would I expect? Why Derwood, many transitional forms of course
Define 'many'.
And why would you expect many? I'd say that we do have many. But never mind. You claim that we SHOULD find many. Support your claim. What do you know about fossilization that makes you say that?
– isn’t this what the entire conversation is about.
About the amount of fossils? Certainly not. It's about you demonstrating that you know what you're talking about by providing some definitions.

Please answer these simple, basic inquiries BEFORE continuing to claim the things you do on these issues.  If you cannot do even this, then your opinions really are totally without merit and should not be taken seriously, much less listened to.
And if you can’t give me this general picture of gradualism then surely, by the same token, your opinions are without merit?
Define 'gradualism'.

If it's a strawman (so far it certainly looks like it is), then why must we provide for it?


(Edited by wisp 10/23/2009 at 10:15 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:08 PM on October 23, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

Even if evolution was overthrown by every scientist overnight creationism would still not be considered for the simple fact that creationism cannot be positively supported.


Well then your belief can’t be supported either, neither can the straight naturalist evolutionist’s belief be positively supported since proteins don’t form naturally and nothing of what they contend happened can be recreated. That means our basics and yours are all philosophy and we need to look at the evidence in the present to see which view is better supported. That means creation is the best supported whether they like it or not. The fossil record is clearly in creation’s favour, as well as lack of natural formation of the ingredients required for life, as well as the design inherent in nature, as well as the lack of positive confirmation for macromutation.
The funny thing is when spontaneous generation was disproven, men just moved the same principle into the deep and distant past (chemical evolution) so that it couldn’t be directly falsified –quite clever that.

It is sometimes hard for me to fathom how I am wanting approval from the majority when I look at who I interact with the most.

Point taken Fencer. I just think maybe you don’t think it is real science until academia has a majority approval rate. You are all too impressed by them. Scientists have been very wrong in the past you know and each ‘scientist’ has a very narrow field of speciality. They are all indoctrinated into evolution philosophy from their earliest days of academia so it’s no wonder they are majority evolution supporters. It’s not as if the majority lecture in it or do research in it, but the most convicted ones are actively propagating it like the priests of a relatively new religion based on a very old one. I really hope your friends break through that mist of yours one day.
; in the end it is my faith that allows me to say God started it rather than the net evidence.

You see that’s what I can’t understand. I don’t see their explanation of the origin of life as elegant or persuasive.Nor do I see any netevidence pointing in their direction. I see it as story telling at it’s most ridiculous. Do you know that the laws of physics just break down with the Big bang? Do you know that proteins don’t form naturally, nor does DNA nor do cell membranes and natural selection isn’t any help because that only comes into play once you have reproduction? If you can’t get the basic ingredients of life to form naturally (or even in a modern super-equipped lab for that matter), how do you imagine that all the vital ingredients happened to find each other naturally and start reproducing???? This scenario is so hugely imaginative that I can’t imagine how you find it even vaguely persuasive next to the obvious need for an intelligent organizer.

Huh? I don't straight out disagree you, does that mean you think that I think that you're clever? I have meet some really smart atheists, and I've meet some pretty damn near retarded ones too.

What I mean is that they can handle your position because it means you have bought into their position for the most part - which means you appreciate how they think. I, on the other hand, don’t – so I am the real enemy.






-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 02:36 AM on October 24, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

They have private messages for that.

Can we start discussing science?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 03:12 AM on October 24, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

Wow, powerful post Wisp! Are you the only one allowed to discuss things when and how you please ad infinitum?Do you want to stick to the topic - definitions? Then ask for a definition, define something....

Do you have nothing to say about the origin of life or the fossil record discussed above?
Is that suddenly not science?Or are you not enjoying that topic?

Come now, you can do better than that surely!


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 03:32 AM on October 24, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wow, powerful post Wisp!
Answer it, if you please.
Are you the only one allowed to discuss things when and how you please ad infinitum?
I don't believe i do that. If i do, sorry. Now science, please.
Do you want to stick to the topic - definitions? Then ask for a definition, define something....
I did.

Transitionals? Define them. But only with pertinent words.
Information increase? Define it.
Macroevolution? Define it.
Gradualism? Define it (you said it should be 'slow', but you didn't clarify).
Big gap? Define 'big'.
We should expect many transitionals? Define 'many'.
Also, define 'clearly' in some scientific manner, or drop that word.

Besides i explained homology to you, and gave 'clarify' an objective meaning. I explained to you that you can't misquote without quoting. I've explained to you that humans never ceased to be apes. I designed a test for 'clarity'. I explained to you that we shouldn't find scale/feather in the transitional that you ask, i defined 'transitional' and 'subjectivity'.

So don't tell me to do what i did.

Do you have nothing to say about the origin of life or the fossil record discussed above?
Is that suddenly not science?Or are you not enjoying that topic?
You were exchanging personal impressions. I don't want to discuss that in this thread. It doesn't even bother me that you do, but that you use it to avoid some real subjects.

Come now, you can do better than that surely!
Stop dodging.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 04:47 AM on October 24, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 10:08 PM on October 23, 2009 :
Lester
Well Derwood, I think we would all agree that a transitional fossil is one which clearly lies between ‘this’ and ‘that’
So... I guess scientists must develop some methods to test for clarity.

Or perhaps they should just phone you and you'll tell them.


Well, from what we have seen on here, the YECs answer would depend on what was presented.  IOW, his answer would be crafted to prop up his pre-determined position.  Which is why he cannot bring himself to do the honest thing and actually provide his definitions in such a way so as to not allow him an escape hatch no matter what is presented.

Evo:  Here is an example of a transitional.

YEC:  Nope, it is not exactly halfway between its ancestor and its descendants

Evo:  OK, here is one that is.

YEC: Nope, the flapdoodle is not exactly halfway between A and C.

Evo:  So, what - you think all evolutionary processes must proceed along a smooth gradation from A through B to C?

YEC:  NO!  You are misrepresenting our position!

Evo:  OK, well, what IS your position?

YEC: You see, the flapdoodle cannot go from A to C in one big jump, no no.  It must proceed along a smooth gradation from A through B to C.

Evo:  But you just said that was a misrepresentation!

YEC:  Stop being pompous!

(Edited by derwood 10/24/2009 at 12:55 PM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:59 AM on October 24, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 02:36 AM on October 24, 2009 :
Even if evolution was overthrown by every scientist overnight creationism would still not be considered for the simple fact that creationism cannot be positively supported.


Well then your belief can’t be supported either,


Your denial and refusal to accept evidence is not evidence that none exists.  Since many other creationists with legitimate degrees acknowledge that there in fact IS evidence for evolution (including transitionals) you are just engaging in sad denial.  Your Faith must be pretty weak indeed.


...since proteins don’t form naturally and nothing of what they contend happened can be recreated.


1. You are conflating abiogenesis and evolution, as YECs often do.

2. If such things were recreated, doubtless YECs would count is as evidence for creation/design, since the experiment was designed, etc...


So, going to define GRADUALISM now?

And while you are at it, please explain how it is that ALL evolution must conform to your idiosyncratic notions of it.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:06 AM on October 24, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 10:08 PM on October 23, 2009 :

Creationists look way too puzzled before this non-puzzle.


Interesting.  I mean, if those crack YEC science experts - I mean come on - Jack Cuozzo the orthodontist?  who could ask for a more acclaimed expert on paleoanthropology than a dentist with no actual paleoanthropological training or experience who claiims to have been shot at by the 'darwin police' in Paris for doing something he had been given permission to do! - if THESE guys cannot agree, then YECism is in CRISIS!!!

But seriously - a common cretin trick is to simply declare a hominoid trantional to be 'fully ape' or 'fully human' despite any blending of characteristics.  As your chart shows, the criteria that any particular YEC propagandist employs can differ from another.  And while we can see legitimate scientists have defferences of opinion on al manner of things, I doubt that you will find any actually relevantly educated and trained scientists declaring something that is clearly so hard to classify one way or the other as 'fully human' or 'fully ape', and if you actually understand primate systematics and evolution, you will realise how completey stupid that contrived distinction actually is.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:14 AM on October 24, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Looking at the hominid fossil record, one cannot help but notice a clear transitional path between earlier primates and modern day H sapiens.  But YEC cannot accept that, even though it is plain to see, because it would put their belief in Biblical literalism in crisis.  The inerrancy of the Bible must be preserved at all costs - even if it means distorting the truth, lying, or just plain denial.  Bury your mind in ignorance.  

And what of the numerous errors, inconsistencies, and moral dilemmas that the Good Book presents?  Ignore them, or conviently reinterpret them.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:40 PM on October 24, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Their denial is quite childish. Besides their denial of facts is closely related to their incapacity to provide definitions. That being the case simple reverse psychology would make them give some revealing answers.

-I can show you an invertebrate that descends from those who became fish.
-Show me!
-You won't be able to deny its fishiness.
-Show me!
-Ok, but don't be a hypocrite. If you see fishiness say so.
-Promise.
-Ok, here you go:

-Are you kidding? That looks nothing like a fish. It's just a weird invertebrate.
___

-I can show you an fish that descends from those who were just starting to become fish.
-Show me!
-You won't be able to deny that it has some traits from it's invertebrate past.
-Show me!
-Ok, but don't be a hypocrite. If you see that it looks anything like an invertebrate, say so.
-Promise.
-Ok, here you go:

-Are you kidding? That looks nothing like an invertebrate. It's just a weird fish.

This technique is based on reactance (a trait which is seen in high rates among children and creationists).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 1:59 PM on October 24, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Very good Wisp.  

The two pictures depict different views of the same animal.  Of course Lester will reconize your example immediately as a Conodont, an extinct chordate resembling a jawless eel - somthing like today's lamprey.  Conodonts are significant in that they are among the first animals with teeth, and among the earliest ancestors of vertebrates - 500 million years ago.

See chapter 4 of Neil Shubin's excellent book - 'Your Inner Fish'.  Funny, I just finished reading about Conodonts yesterday.  Good timing.  :0)
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 5:14 PM on October 24, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 02:36 AM on October 24, 2009 :
Well then your belief can’t be supported either, neither can the straight naturalist evolutionist’s belief be positively supported since proteins don’t form naturally and nothing of what they contend happened can be recreated.


I think I'll call out that strawman. Evolution doesn't require that proteins can be formed naturally, only that they are here, like life itself. It doesn't matter how life got here, the plain fact is that it is here and evolution explains the diversity of life after it was started.

However, I do disagree that proteins can't for naturally. Proteins are made up of amino acids bonded together through peptide bonds, which can be created naturally under the right conditions.

That means our basics and yours are all philosophy and we need to look at the evidence in the present to see which view is better supported. That means creation is the best supported whether they like it or not. The fossil record is clearly in creation’s favour,


Again, just because you can disprove evolution doesn't automatically mean that creationism is the answer. How can creationism be positively supported? We have never observed God, we have never observed anything being created from magic, incantations or ex nihilo.

as well as lack of natural formation of the ingredients required for life,


Amino acids can form naturally, as well as micelles, and we can create the purines of RNA/DNA.

as well as the design inherent in nature, as well as the lack of positive confirmation for macromutation.


What about any positive confirmation that the Judeo-Christian God created everything as described in Genesis? Besides, I think you made up the word "macromutation". It is little mutations that add up over time that produce the macro results creationists are always harping on, not macro-mutations that would cause a crocoduck.

The funny thing is when spontaneous generation was disproven, men just moved the same principle into the deep and distant past (chemical evolution) so that it couldn’t be directly falsified –quite clever that.


Abiogenesis isn't about spontaneous generation, it is educated hypotheses about the likely formation of life on Earth through extensive, observed processes.

Point taken Fencer.


To be fair, my religion might be a hindrance for the degree I want to get, especially if I go to grad school and get a career in a related field. Not to mention I do hang out with a lot of atheists and not very religious people as well.

I just think maybe you don’t think it is real science until academia has a majority approval rate. You are all too impressed by them.


I think there is something to it when over 99% of scientists say that evolution is right.

Scientists have been very wrong in the past you know and each ‘scientist’ has a very narrow field of speciality. They are all indoctrinated into evolution philosophy from their earliest days of academia so it’s no wonder they are majority evolution supporters. It’s not as if the majority lecture in it or do research in it, but the most convicted ones are actively propagating it like the priests of a relatively new religion based on a very old one.


You could say the same about any scientific theory, why single out evolution?

I really hope your friends break through that mist of yours one day.


Some are trying, but I think many of them are oblivious to the fact that I'm not a YEC.

You see that’s what I can’t understand. I don’t see their explanation of the origin of life as elegant or persuasive.


Not so much on the origin of life, I'm pretty much on the mindset that God created life via chemical evolution, but more when it comes to the beginnings of the universe before the big bang.

Nor do I see any netevidence pointing in their direction.
It seems the least subjective to me.
I see it as story telling at it’s most ridiculous.


Like the caricature of the whole process. We all started from a gigantic explosion, and over millions of years stars, planets and galaxies magically formed all by themselves! Than, life spontaneously formed from a bolt of lightning striking a mud puddle. And over millions of years, those tiny, microscopic life forms, magically changed into you and me.

The alternative proposed by YECism: God created everything in six days, created a man from the dust and a women from his rib all no more than 10K years ago. And God decided to put a tree with fruit in it that when you eat it, you get banned. And through God's perfect creation He decided to essentially create an evil tree and put it in the garden with easy access to Adam and Eve. Than He allowed Satan into the garden, and a talking snake convinced Eve to eat from the evil tree, and she than convinced her husband to eat a piece of fruit?

Do you know that the laws of physics just break down with the Big bang?


Yes, why is that a problem? It is just an unknown at this point. All the evidence points to a big bang, just because we don't understand it all isn't grounds to just throw up your hands and say 'God did it'.

Do you know that proteins don’t form naturally,


Amino acids do, and they are the building blocks of proteins.

nor does DNA


We've synthesized the purines, there is no reason to say that DNA couldn't have formed natural so far in science.

nor do cell membranes


Micelles, primitive cell membranes, do spontaneously form in aqueous solutions, and what we know about pre-biotic Earth.

and natural selection isn’t any help because that only comes into play once you have reproduction?


You can have reproduction of primitive cells without life. All you need is a self replicating polymer. Unless I'm mistaken a strain of RNA can act as an enzyme synthesizing basic replication, and if it is surrounded by a micelle, you essentially have a primitive cell.  

If you can’t get the basic ingredients of life to form naturally (or even in a modern super-equipped lab for that matter), how do you imagine that all the vital ingredients happened to find each other naturally and start reproducing???? This scenario is so hugely imaginative that I can’t imagine how you find it even vaguely persuasive next to the obvious need for an intelligent organizer.


Yes, and a literal interpretation of Genesis makes much more sense.

What I mean is that they can handle your position because it means you have bought into their position for the most part - which means you appreciate how they think. I, on the other hand, don’t – so I am the real enemy.


To be fair YECism has basically condemned anyone who believes in evolution, including all TEs.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 7:11 PM on October 27, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Orion
Conodonts are significant in that they are among the first animals with teeth, and among the earliest ancestors of vertebrates - 500 million years ago.


Or the Encarta version:
It has been suggested that they were vertebrates closely related to modern-day hagfish (myxinoids). Because conodont-bearing organisms are regarded as vertebrates, they may represent one of human beings’ earliest ancestors.

Or my version:
We think it is a vertebrate that looked something like a hagfish. If evolution is true then this 'maybe a vertebrate' would be one of the oldest 'maybe a vertebrate's ever found.
If evolution is true, it would be something like our great great great...granddaddy!


(Edited by Lester10 10/30/2009 at 06:32 AM).


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 06:23 AM on October 30, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

. Evolution doesn't require that proteins can be formed naturally, only that they are here, like life itself.


That is the theistic evolution position. You hesitate to say how it got there which is far safer than pretending that it must have appeared naturally and then running on that assumption despite all evidence to the contrary.

However, I do disagree that proteins can't for naturally. Proteins are made up of amino acids bonded together through peptide bonds, which can be created naturally under the right conditions.


No they can’t. Tell me about these right conditions.

Again, just because you can disprove evolution doesn't automatically mean that creationism is the answer.


But it certainly means that evolution is not the answer.

How can creationism be positively supported?


Gaps in the fossil record, evidence of design, look around.Do you imagine that God just created the first life and then ran away? Exactly what is it you believe?

We have never observed God, we have never observed anything being created from magic, incantations or ex nihilo.

Nor have we seen proteins nor DNA forming naturally, so why should we prefer the naturalistic explanation? You sound as if the God you are supposed to believe in is impotent and cannot create ex nihilo. He did speak the world into existence remember or do you have another Bible?

Amino acids can form naturally, as well as micelles, and we can create the purines of RNA/DNA.


Some amino acids and only if we create  unnatural lab conditions that allow it. Creating purines does not equate to creating DNA/RNA nor does it explain how they came to be ordered to form functional proteins.

It is little mutations that add up over time that produce the macro results


According to the story yes but can little micromutations actually be extrapolated that way without some evidence?

Abiogenesis isn't about spontaneous generation,


It is life from lifeless chemicals –precisely the same –but more difficult to falsify directly since it happened long ago and far away according to the official evolutionist’s guide book of spectacular stories.

it is educated hypotheses about the likely formation of life on Earth through extensive, observed processes.


It is a philosophical position based on no evidence but with wishful thinking as a vital ingredient.
What observed processes are you imagining here? Perhaps you’re talking about the non-formation of proteins and DNA by natural processes nor even by unnatural lab intervention.
I’m pleased you find that non-evidence convincing.

To be fair, my religion might be a hindrance for the degree I want to get,


Your religion is only a hindrance to the religion they want to convert you to. So you’re going to have to drop the theistic thing if you want to get with the real programme. It shouldn’t be difficult for you, you don’t believe God anyway so why bother? You’ll be an agnostic in no time, relax, they’ve got you and you’re even helping other people not to believe so you’re just one of the boys. Of course God did say that if you cause just one of the little ones who believe in me to doubt, it would be better for you to be drowned in the sea, I think with a weight attached or something (scuse my version, don’t know where to find that quote) –but that doesn’t matter because you don’t believe the Bible anyway.

I think there is something to it when over 99% of scientists say that evolution is right.


Firstly I don’t think you’ve got your numbers quite right but nevertheless it is the majority religion of academia. What would you be if you were reared on Mormonism? Or Hinduism? If you have no real strong faith when you go into academia, you will come out an evolutionist, that much is sure.
Remember the majority of scientists used to believe in spontaneous generation for over 2000 years but they were wrong. You’re supposed to actively try to disprove a theory and see if it holds true. Evolutionists don’t do that so they remain in their deception. It is called ‘wilful blindness’.
Saying that evolution is right is not the same as having the evidence to back their assertions.

Scientists have been very wrong in the past you know and each ‘scientist’ has a very narrow field of speciality. They are all indoctrinated into evolution philosophy from their earliest days of academia so it’s no wonder they are majority evolution supporters. It’s not as if the majority lecture in it or do research in it, but the most convicted ones are actively propagating it like the priests of a relatively new religion based on a very old one.
You could say the same about any scientific theory, why single out evolution?


Because evolution is a belief/philosophy about the past. It cannot be observed, tested or repeated so you can’t use the scientific method at all. That’s what makes it different.

, I'm pretty much on the mindset that God created life via chemical evolution, but more when it comes to the beginnings of the universe before the big bang.


Please explain. So God created life (unicellular presumably) and what did he do before the Big Bang?

The alternative proposed by YECism: God created everything in six days, created a man from the dust and a women from his rib all no more than 10K years ago. And God decided to put a tree with fruit in it that when you eat it, you get banned. And through God's perfect creation He decided to essentially create an evil tree and put it in the garden with easy access to Adam and Eve. Than He allowed Satan into the garden, and a talking snake convinced Eve to eat from the evil tree, and she than convinced her husband to eat a piece of fruit?


You see you discuss what the Bible says in such derogatory terms, why do you bother with it at all? Is God not capable of creating a man from dust, is a big bang more plausible? Where did the material come from for the bang? Where did the energy come from for this hypothetical bang and why do the laws of physics break down completely for this hypothetical event?
By the way we YEC’s didn’t propose it, it is the story of life that God gave us. We just happen to believe it and you just don’t, so you are left with the unenviable task of  making up your own story.

Like the caricature of the whole process. We all started from a gigantic explosion, and over millions of years stars, planets and galaxies magically formed all by themselves! Than, life spontaneously formed from a bolt of lightning striking a mud puddle. And over millions of years, those tiny, microscopic life forms, magically changed into you and me.


Well this is what evolutionists say after all. Admittedly they try to use big and complicated words to make it sound more plausible but the gist of the story remains the same.

Do you know that the laws of physics just break down with the Big bang?
Yes, why is that a problem?

Errrr, because it doesn’t work?!
All the evidence points to a big bang, just because we don't understand it all isn't grounds to just throw up your hands and say 'God did it'.


What? No, all the evidence does not point to a big bang. It is merely a necessary part of the evolutionist story. If there’s no God, a big bang is as good as anything to get the thing started. You have to go from nothing to everything after all. A little bit of ‘quantum’ magic sans a creator to muddy the water!
If all the evidence points to a big bang as far as you can ascertain, then what did God ever do in your opinion? Finance the bang, provide the energy? Provide the laws of nature? Who is your God?

Do you know that proteins don’t form naturally,
Amino acids do, and they are the building blocks of proteins.


And a protein is about as far from a bunch of amino acids as Shakespeare is from alphabet soup. I’m pleased you’ve got some of the letters forming but how do you arrange them into meaningful content without an organizer that knows what the letters have to say in order for them to build a functional protein? You can’t just throw them in the corner and expect them to self-arrange and if they somehow managed to arrange themselves out there in nature, why can’t scientists with lots of brains do it even in a well equipped laboratory?
So tell me what view do you subscribe to for protein formation –the primordial soup or the side of a volcano?

nor does DNA
We've synthesized the purines, there is no reason to say that DNA couldn't have formed natural so far in science.


Well that’s not a lot of help. You need the pyramidines too and according to what you admit, they can’t form them in well equipped labs with lots of brain power then it is hard to imagine how they came together naturally. You have to believe that it is possible. It requires faith.
DNA is needed to make proteins but many proteins are needed for copying and translating of the DNA into proteins. So which came first, the DNA or the proteins? The first living organism would have required at least 20 proteins in order to function and each one would require at least 900 letters of DNA. That means at least 18 000 theoretical letters of DNA need to self assemble without the benefit of natural selection in order to get the first living cell together. Isn’t that too incredible for you? Why does it sound more likely than a supernatural creator, one that you sort of but not quite believe in. Why would you believe that nothing arranged the DNA and nothing caused reproduction to come about? It must have been a hell of a coincidence the days all these elements just happened to be together in the same place at the same time.
If it’s even remotely possible, why isn’t it happening today?

You can have reproduction of primitive cells without life. All you need is a self replicating polymer. Unless I'm mistaken a strain of RNA can act as an enzyme synthesizing basic replication, and if it is surrounded by a micelle, you essentially have a primitive cell.


You’re confused –it’s all imaginary. You are just choosing what you would prefer to imagine.

Yes, and a literal interpretation of Genesis makes much more sense.


Well it is more sensible you see because it involves an intelligence factor maybe even the one that gave us intelligence? Unless you think our brains are just a bunch of neurons with no organization just lucky coincidence. Don’t you think an intelligent designer makes far more sense then this imaginary self organization that doesn’t happen anytime except long ago and far away?

To be fair YECism has basically condemned anyone who believes in evolution, including all TEs.


Well condemnation would be a harsh word to use but yes we do think they are all equally deluded, but we’re not about to punish them, so ‘condemned’ doesn’t really fit. We really just want to reason with them and preferably get them saved before the next big bang - which they won’t be expecting because, like Noah’s peers before the flood, they weren’t listening. There’s no real excuse for making up your own preferred story and then believing yourself. It is a common human weakness though.






-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 09:23 AM on October 30, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you want tons of empty rhetoric decorated with vast quantities of pompous arrogance then try Dr.Lester out.

Like in this thread.

Quote from Lester10 at 09:23 AM on October 30, 2009 :
However, I do disagree that proteins can't for naturally. Proteins are made up of amino acids bonded together through peptide bonds, which can be created naturally under the right conditions.


No they can’t. Tell me about these right conditions.


Yes they can.
How can creationism be positively supported?


Gaps in the fossil record,


I suggest you discover what the phrase "supporting evidence" means.  


evidence of design, look around.


I look around me and I see evidence of evolution.



We have never observed God, we have never observed anything being created from magic, incantations or ex nihilo.

Nor have we seen proteins nor DNA forming naturally, so why should we prefer the naturalistic explanation?


I've already provided links to papers indicating the abiotic formation of purines and pyrimidines.  You denying the evidence jsut makes you look that much more desperate and/or dishonest.

Amino acids can form naturally, as well as micelles, and we can create the purines of RNA/DNA.


Some amino acids and only if we create  unnatural lab conditions that allow it. Creating purines does not equate to creating DNA/RNA nor does it explain how they came to be ordered to form functional proteins.


I heard that screeching noise, then I realized that it was the goal posts being moved again.

I always get a kick out of this sort of juvenile behavior from creatins.  They exasperatingly proclaim that DNA cannot form natruialistically, then you show that it can, then they claim that THAT does not show how life came to be.  

But the fact remains, the building blocks CAN arise abiotically and in extreme conditions.

Can the creationist show even the 'building blocks' of their out of this world claims?
Can they show, maybe, the creation of an amoeba by having a demigod blow on dirt?



It is little mutations that add up over time that produce the macro results


According to the story yes but can little micromutations actually be extrapolated that way without some evidence?



The presence of the patterns of mutation IS the evidence.


Abiogenesis isn't about spontaneous generation,


It is life from lifeless chemicals –precisely the same –but more difficult to falsify directly since it happened long ago and far away according to the official evolutionist’s guide book of spectacular stories.

Spectacular stories?  Like that dude living inside the belly of a fish?  Like a porr woman being killed and turned to salt for simply watching God destroy a town?

Sorry bub - I'm afraid that your wacky beleif system has cornered the market on 'spectacular stories'.
I think there is something to it when over 99% of scientists say that evolution is right.


Firstly I don’t think you’ve got your numbers quite right but nevertheless it is the majority religion of academia.

Funny - in a sad way - how religionists alwyas try to drag everthing down to their level.

What would you be if you were reared on Mormonism? Or Hinduism? If you have no real strong faith when you go into academia, you will come out an evolutionist, that much is sure.
Remember the majority of scientists used to believe in spontaneous generation for over 2000 years but they were wrong.


Where did you go to school?

Um, CREATION was the religion of most scientists for the last 2000 years, NOT spontaneous generation.


You’re supposed to actively try to disprove a theory and see if it holds true. Evolutionists don’t do that so they remain in their deception.

You have to first formulate the theory, do you not?  ANd how does one go about doing that?

Tell me, oh science expert - how many IDcreationists/creation scientsts out there do you think engage in this version of 'science' you espouse?

By the way we YEC’s didn’t propose it, it is the story of life that God gave us. We just happen to believe it ...


Yup.

You just BELIEVE it...


So, are you finally going to define "gradualism" or will your use of THAT term depend on which baseless argument you are trying to use at the moment, too?




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:16 PM on October 30, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:23 AM on October 30, 2009 :
That is the theistic evolution position. You hesitate to say how it got there which is far safer than pretending that it must have appeared naturally and then running on that assumption despite all evidence to the contrary.


It is not the theistic evolution position, but what evolution theory explains, the diversity of life, not how it got here.

But it certainly means that evolution is not the answer.


So...

How can creationism be positively supported?


Gaps in the fossil record,


How so?

evidence of design, look around.Do you imagine that God just created the first life and then ran away? Exactly what is it you believe?


So what type of things would we look for in something that is designed?

I am not a deist, I don't think God just walked away. I think He used natural means to create life and then diversify it, and we can understand the natural mechanisms God used through science.

Nor have we seen proteins nor DNA forming naturally, so why should we prefer the naturalistic explanation?


Even if there was no evidence that proteins or DNA can form naturally, it is an established scientific fact that they exist, but not with God. At least scientifically God isn't even in the ring.

I have to go, more to come later.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 9:12 PM on October 30, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester10
Fencer
Evolution doesn't require that proteins can be formed naturally, only that they are here, like life itself.
That is the theistic evolution position.
No. It's just the ToE.

You think it's theistic because you don't understand it. It's no more theistic than the Theory of Gravity.
You hesitate to say how it got there which is far safer than pretending that it must have appeared naturally and then running on that assumption despite all evidence to the contrary.
Yes. We hesitate. And you call us arrogant...
Again, just because you can disprove evolution doesn't automatically mean that creationism is the answer.
But it certainly means that evolution is not the answer.
That's irrelevant. You only dislike Evolution because it goes against your beliefs. It's your beliefs what you really care about.
How can creationism be positively supported?
Gaps in the fossil record,
Gaps? Gaps???

You can't even begin to ponder creationism without thinking about Evolution.
We have never observed God, we have never observed anything being created from magic, incantations or ex nihilo.
Nor have we seen proteins nor DNA forming naturally, so why should we prefer the naturalistic explanation?
It doesn't matter to the ToE. DNA could have been invented by a race of intergalactic midget robots that evolved inorganically and planted life here on Earth (fact that the ToE has no need for proteins to be able to form naturally doesn't make it theistic at all, as you can see). The ToE would still work fine.
You sound as if the God you are supposed to believe in is impotent and cannot create ex nihilo.
You sound as if the God you are supposed to believe in is impotent and cannot create in less than 6 days, or through natural mechanisms.
It is little mutations that add up over time that produce the macro results
According to the story yes but can little micromutations actually be extrapolated that way without some evidence?
No. Not without tons of evidence.

We have it, you don't.

We say: phylogenetics, dendrochronology, fossil record, junk DNA, viral insertions, appendix, coccyx, darwin's spot, third eyelid, goose bumps, plantaris muscle, wisdom teeth, extra ear muscles, comparative embryology, races, artificial selection, radiometry, transitionals, vestigiality, speciation, races, venom toxicity, venom resistance, weapons, sexual selection, sperm competition, predation, parasitism, comparative anatomy, homologies, biogeography, mimicry, higher rate of change in isolated populations, differential parental investment, whales with legs, evolutionarily stable strategies (all over the Earth), and so much more!

You say: look around!

We do look around. We've found much more than you ever will.

Abiogenesis isn't about spontaneous generation,
It is life from lifeless chemicals


You're indulging in name calling, instead of speaking about real and concrete things.
–precisely the same –
No.


Maggots from rotten meat. THAT has been disproved.

but more difficult to falsify directly since it happened long ago and far away according to the official evolutionist’s guide book of spectacular stories.
Nevermind. Let's say it didn't happen. Let's say Yahweh did it.
Now what?
Evolution is still a fact, and Yahweh lied to you about how he pulled the trick.
it is educated hypotheses about the likely formation of life on Earth through extensive, observed processes.
It is a philosophical position based on no evidence but with wishful thinking as a vital ingredient.


What observed processes are you imagining here?

Perhaps you’re talking about the non-formation of proteins and DNA by natural processes nor even by unnatural lab intervention.
I’m pleased you find that non-evidence convincing.
What if we leave abiogenesis aside? You're wasting energy trying to disprove something that's not vital to the ToE. Focus.

Of course God did say that if you cause just one of the little ones who believe in me to doubt, it would be better for you to be drowned in the sea, I think with a weight attached or something (scuse my version, don’t know where to find that quote) –but that doesn’t matter because you don’t believe the Bible anyway.
Yeah baby! That's the bigotry i love!

Fencer, Lester makes sense. He shows you what Christianity is (or at least ought to be).

Firstly I don’t think you’ve got your numbers quite right but nevertheless it is the majority religion of academia. What would you be if you were reared on Mormonism? Or Hinduism?
You just copypaste all our arguments. It's not funny anymore. It's getting creepy.
When are you going to make some of your own? You even project your projection, and say that we project!

Darwin and Wallace weren't raised in the ToE. So there. Your claim has been easily debunked.

On the other hand, your argument (well, it's actually ours) can still be used against Christianity. Because you don't get the Christian infection without some exposure.
I've proven to you that the only exposure needed to get to the ToE is exposure to nature.
Remember the majority of scientists used to believe in spontaneous generation for over 2000 years but they were wrong.
Yes. Science demonstrated that they were wrong. Not religion.
You’re supposed to actively try to disprove a theory and see if it holds true.
Yes. The ToE does.
Evolutionists don’t do that
Go find any animal that doesn't belong in the phylogenetic tree. A unicorn, for instance. The ToE will be in real trouble when you do.
so they remain in their deception. It is called ‘wilful blindness’.
That's called 'name calling'.
Saying that evolution is right is not the same as having the evidence to back their assertions.


Your turn. =D

But before that, please, define 'gradualism'. It's about time.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 01:17 AM on October 31, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But it certainly means that evolution is not the answer.
So...


So it’s either creation or evolution. If it can’t be evolution, then …..what can it be?

How can creationism be positively supported?
Gaps in the fossil record,
How so?


No gradualism means no mutation and natural selection as the mechanism for evolution. If everything appears fully formed and functional with no evidence of how it got there –for example in the Cambrian and the Ordivician where the most evidence for gradualism should exist – then life in its different forms did not appear by trial and error, it was there in from the beginning in all its glory.

So what type of things would we look for in something that is designed?


Nanomachinary, functionally integrated systems –engineering that needed intelligence for its genesis.

I am not a deist, I don't think God just walked away.


So you’re not a deist but neither are you a Christian theist because you don’t believe the Bible (except where you feel like it) so what are you?

I think He used natural means to create life and then diversify it, and we can understand the natural mechanisms God used through science.


Well the Bible says very clearly that that is not how God did it and there’s more than enough evidence to indicate a lack of gradualistic evolution in the fossil record and there’s no positive evidence for macroevolution eg. A cat can never be a dog nor anything else for that matter, a fruit fly remains a fruitfly no matter what. The Bible says they will bring forth their own ‘kind’ –it says that quite a few times and what evolutionists believe and what the Bible says are two very different things. All the evidence sits with the account in the Bible; all the imagination sits with the evolutionists who have to believe what they have never seen nor demonstrated –it’s called a faith position.

Natural laws exist but only because we have a law giver. We can do science because we have God given intelligence and natural laws that can be counted upon. Evolution gives us no foundation for intelligence nor for natural laws. How can we even trust our evolution produced minds if that is what they are? Evolution has no basis for rationality.

Even if there was no evidence that proteins or DNA can form naturally, it is an established scientific fact that they exist, but not with God.


Yes they exist, but how did they come to exist? Can they form naturally or not? With a lot of human intervention you can get polypeptides, but functional proteins do not form naturally nor can they form in the presence of water, nor can they form macromolecules in the presence of oxygen and there is evidence for the presence of oxygen in precambrian times when oxygen wouldn’t have been an asset. Without oxygen there couldn’t be protein formation and with oxygen, no proteins. There are so many catch–22’s in origin of life theory but evolutionists retain their faith against all evidence to the contrary.
What do you mean ‘not with God’. If you can’t see God, does that mean he isn’t there? And then where does that leave you? Why bother?
If there are gaps in the fossil record meaning no gradualism and there is no way for proteins and DNA to form naturally; if even intelligently operated chemical laboratories working under contrived circumstances are not managing well with the origin of life, then isn’t there a possibility that God made life? Why did God need to use evolution? Couldn’t He do it in six days like He said He did? If He has the power to create life in the first place, surely He could do it anyway He chose to? What does the evidence support? Has anyone observed macroevolution? No, it is accepted by faith? Can life form without intelligent intervention? No, even intelligence is having a hard time so ‘naturally’ forming life is real wishful thinking.

At least scientifically God isn't even in the ring.


According to the little minds of men that call themselves ‘scientists’ and exclude God a priori because they can’t handle the whole God idea.
They can exclude God as a cause when we start seeing proteins and DNA and living cells with cell membranes forming naturally.
I’ll believe bridges build themselves when I see it happening as well.  

 




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 03:40 AM on October 31, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester10
But it certainly means that evolution is not the answer.
So...
So it’s either creation or evolution.
Logical fallacy: false dilemma.

You're forgetting, say... The Matrix Theory. This could be a giant simulation.

Or what if we're all just your imagination?

Your dilemma is completely artificial.

If it can’t be evolution, then …..what can it be?
Mmm... Zeus did it?

How can creationism be positively supported?
Gaps in the fossil record,
How so?
No gradualism means no mutation and natural selection as the mechanism for evolution.
Oh... A partial definition of NON gradualism... We're still waiting for a definition of gradualism. This thread is for you to provide definitions, you know?
If everything appears fully formed and functional with no evidence of how it got there –for example in the Cambrian and the Ordivician

where the most evidence for gradualism should exist
Says who? Start a thread and elaborate on that, please. Unless you're just tossing empty claims, of course.
then life in its different forms did not appear by trial and error, it was there in from the beginning in all its glory.
Except for predation. Right? That glory wasn't there in the beginning according to your beliefs. So there were none of all the glorious hunting strategies and other glorious things we see in the wild. Is that what you believe?
So what type of things would we look for in something that is designed?
Nanomachinary, functionally integrated systems –engineering that needed intelligence for its genesis.
Cool! You found none (you certainly tried, with the bombardier beetle and the bacterial flagellum).

Well the Bible says very clearly that that is not how God did it
And that pi = 3.
and there’s more than enough evidence to indicate a lack of gradualistic evolution in the fossil record
I would post this again:

But since we don't know what you mean by 'gradualism' i don't really know if those images will help.
and there’s no positive evidence for macroevolution eg. A cat can never be a dog nor anything else for that matter,
Don't you feel lonely believing that?
Because baraminology states that a couple of super cats in the ark 'degenerated' into the lion, tiger, leopard, cheetah and house cat that we have today.

http://baraminology.blogspot.com/2007/09/call-for-new-kind-of-seminary.html

And only in 4k years!

Your people not only believe in Evolution, but a super rapid one!

a fruit fly remains a fruitfly no matter what.
You actually mutated it. First you had a 'fruit fly', and then you had a 'fruitfly'.
And if you tell me that it's not relevant, i respond that it is as relevant as what you really meant: just words, nothing substantial.

Name calling isn't evidence for creationism (or even against Evolution).
The Bible says they will bring forth their own ‘kind’ –it says that quite a few times
And yet you're clueless as to what it means.
How many kinds of marsupials are there?

Aren't you ashamed of using words you don't understand?
and what evolutionists believe and what the Bible says are two very different things. All the evidence sits with the account in the Bible;
And yet you will present none. And you'll believe that the 'gaps' are evidence for a god that made the universe in 6 days (the Earth seemed quite difficult, for it took more time than the rest of the Universe).
all the imagination sits with the evolutionists who have to believe what they have never seen nor demonstrated
Yahweh, giants, unicorns, water into wine...
–it’s called a faith position.
You say it as if it was a bad thing.
Natural laws exist but only because we have a law giver.
And that's fine with the ToE. So it's irrelevant. Focus.
Evolution gives us no foundation for intelligence
Yes it does.
nor for natural laws.
Obviously.
How can we even trust our evolution produced minds if that is what they are?
We can't. So we have to test, check and double-check. And do double blind studies.
The fact that you don't trust my mind demonstrates that your position is clearly flawed.
Evolution has no basis for rationality.
Huh?

At least scientifically God isn't even in the ring.
According to the little minds of men that call themselves ‘scientists’
I call them that too. And they call each other that too. And even you call them that too.
and exclude God a priori because they can’t handle the whole God idea.
They handle it better than you do.

Can you handle the idea of a china teapot in orbit around the Sun between Mars and the Earth?
I can. And i give it a very small chance of being correct.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 04:28 AM on October 31, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No. It's just the ToE.


The TOE requires life to come from non-living chemicals, it’s an atheistic system, they don’t allow for God but they know they can’t explain it, so they think they can officially leave that part out. You’ll see that it is part of what evolution is all about though by looking in school textbooks where they do discuss the supposed origins of life from Big Bang to primordial soup even though it is a religious position.
Theistic evolution allows for the creation of life by an intelligence. They just apparently think that God made unicellular life and it diversified all on its own –another religious position.

Yes. We hesitate. And you call us arrogant...


Evolutionists hesitate not because they’re not arrogant but because you have no evidence for the production of life from non-living chemicals. They nonetheless believe that life came from non-life but there are so many problems with that belief that they can’t even begin to explain it.

You only dislike Evolution because it goes against your beliefs. It's your beliefs what you really care about


No, evolution contradicts the available evidence –that’s the problem. It’s you that refuses to see even though the evidence stands in direct opposition to your belief system. Systematic gaps in the fossil record are a prediction of creation, not evolution. The refusal of fruit flies to be anything but fruit flies is a prediction of creation, not evolution. If evolution was true, all that mutating should have produced something new in the fruit fly –it didn’t, but you carry on believing. Creation is against your beliefs and that is what you really care about.

It doesn't matter to the ToE. DNA could have been invented by a race of intergalactic midget robots that evolved inorganically and planted life here on Earth (fact that the ToE has no need for proteins to be able to form naturally doesn't make it theistic at all, as you can see). The ToE would still work fine.


Except that it never happened and you refuse to see it. All systematic gaps mean to you is that the missing pieces haven’t been found yet. That they will be found you don’t doubt because you know you are right despite the evidence against your belief. How many fossils will be enough for you to see that those gaps are never going to go away?

You sound as if the God you are supposed to believe in is impotent and cannot create in less than 6 days, or through natural mechanisms.


He could have created in less than 6 days or through natural mechanisms but he told us very carefully and thoroughly what he did do. The evidence confirms that the Bible is true. That means that a fruit fly will always be a fruit fly and the gaps will remain in the fossil record no matter how many fossils we dig up.

According to the story yes but can little micromutations actually be extrapolated that way without some evidence?
No. Not without tons of evidence.
We have it, you don't.


You’re quite wrong you know. You have evidence for micromutational change, the macro part is assumed. Don’t call speciation macro change, that is a dodge. If you want to say that a fruit fly can be something other than a fruit fly than give me an end result that is not a fruit fly.

We say: phylogenetics, dendrochronology, fossil record, junk DNA, viral insertions, appendix, coccyx, darwin's spot, third eyelid, goose bumps, plantaris muscle, wisdom teeth, extra ear muscles, comparative embryology, races, artificial selection, radiometry, transitionals, vestigiality, speciation, races, venom toxicity, venom resistance, weapons, sexual selection, sperm competition, predation, parasitism, comparative anatomy, homologies, biogeography, mimicry, higher rate of change in isolated populations, differential parental investment, whales with legs, evolutionarily stable strategies (all over the Earth), and so much more!


And we say a lot more than ‘look around’ though that is our most obvious evidence. We say phylogenetics is evidence of common ancestry, the fossil record supports creation, junk DNA doesn’t exist, viral insertions are functional and thus not viral after all, appendix – not vestigial, coccyx –not vestigial , goose bumps -design, wisdom teeth – refined foods, comparative embryology -fraud, races – what? artificial selection –supports limitations on change, transitionals -imagination, vestigiality -garbage, speciation –limited change, races –not again! comparative anatomy –common creator, homologies –common creator, mimicry -design, whales with legs –you have got to be joking –I’ve seen it, it isn’t a whale, it’s wishful thinking and so much more!!!

Pigs can’t fly either, by the way.



Nevermind. Let's say it didn't happen. Let's say Yahweh did it.
Now what?
Evolution is still a fact, and Yahweh lied to you about how he pulled the trick.


No, you’ve forgotten about the gaps in the fossil record and the lack of evidence for macroevolution. It wasn’t Jahweh that lied. It’s the evolutionists who don’t like Jahweh that are either lying or brainwashed.

What if we leave abiogenesis aside? You're wasting energy trying to disprove something that's not vital to the ToE. Focus.


But there’s still no evidence for gradualism, so the ToE is still lacking evidence, abiogenesis aside.

Remember the majority of scientists used to believe in spontaneous generation for over 2000 years but they were wrong.
Yes. Science demonstrated that they were wrong. Not religion.


Yes, well it was their problem since they made it up in the first place.

You just copypaste all our arguments. It's not funny anymore. It's getting creepy.


I have no idea what you are talking about –please explain. You sound paranoid.

You’re supposed to actively try to disprove a theory and see if it holds true.
Yes. The ToE does.


No it doesn’t. Evolutionists like their theory sooo much that they repeatedly ignore the evidence. Take Darwin, he knew that the fossil record didn’t support his theory and he said it was the gravest objection that could be brought against it, but he ignored the falsifying evidence and believed himself in any case. He made the excuse that in the future the vast multitude of required intermediates would be found. The problem is even worse today but evolutionists everywhere live in hope and denial  ignoring the real evidence that lies before them.

Fruit flies are mutated over millions of generations in an attempt to see something new appear. All they get is mutated, messed up fruit flies, no new organs or parts at all and again evolutionists ignore the evidence and insist that macroevolution is true and that mutations and natural selection drive it.
It’s completely astonishing!

By the way, love the trilobites but what exactly is your point?

But before that, please, define 'gradualism'. It's about time.


You’ve got to be joking. Don’t you have a dictionary? Is gradual not a part of your vocabulary? Or is it ‘-ism’ that confuses you. How about ‘one thing g-r-a-d-u-a-l-l-y turning into another mutation by mutation. Would that do?
You all know what it means when you try to invent the evidence for a land mammal turning into a whale - but now you need to know what it means –wow!








-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 09:44 AM on October 31, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 03:40 AM on October 31, 2009 :
How can creationism be positively supported?
Gaps in the fossil record,
How so?


No gradualism


Oh - you defined what YOU mean by "gradualism" did you?

I must have missed it.  Please point it out.

I mean, an honest Christian scientist of YOUR caliber would not just keep employing terms of purposefully ambiguous definition for the sole purpose of being able to argue against whatever evidence is presented, now would one?

Let us briefly recap your position on 'gradualism' -

I provided a scenario of gradualism as defined by YECism as the requirement that the evolution of a finger start out as a nub on the hand which, successively over many generations just got a little longer until it was identifiable as a finger.
YOU told me that was a misrepresentation.
I asked you to correct me.

You did not.

I later asked what EXACTLY you would expect in a transitional, you refused to provide any meaningful answer, yer dismissed Archaeopteryx because its wing was not half-way between a dinosaur limb and a bird wing.
Which pretty much means that my scenario was CORRECT, but that you recognized the absurdity of it and tried to deny it, while at the same time, preserving your avility to employ that very absurd notion when you feel it necessary to do so.

Pathetic.


means no mutation


Are you of the position that all mutations produce only a tiny alteration in morphology?
Yes or no.


and natural selection as the mechanism for evolution. If everything appears fully formed and functional with no evidence of how it got there –for example in the Cambrian and the Ordivician where the most evidence for gradualism should exist – then life in its different forms did not appear by trial and error,

Trial and error is Yahweh's way, is it not?
Did He not first make dirt-man and then make animals such that dirt-man could pick one ot mate with?  And only after dirtman failed to pick a beast for an helpmeet, that Yahweh finally got the great idea to make a female dirtman?


So what type of things would we look for in something that is designed?


Nanomachinary, functionally integrated systems –engineering that needed intelligence for its genesis.

In other words, you would take human activity and project it onto the natural world using analogies and metaphorical or desriptive language AS evidence.
It is only nanomachinery to non-nano-sized entities.  

Well the Bible says very clearly that that is not how God did it

The bible also says clearly that opne has to hate their family to be Christ's disciple.  It also says clearly that to cure leprosy, you must have a priest sacrifice a pigeon over running water.  It also says clearly that the earth rests on pillars.  It also says clearly that the sky is solid.

and there’s more than enough evidence to indicate a lack of gradualistic evolution

Without a definition of gradualism within the context of evolution, this is just rhetoric.

in the fossil record and there’s no positive evidence for macroevolution eg. A cat can never be a dog

And a creationist can apparently never present anything other than asinine strawman caricatures of what they claim to understand inside and out.
Natural laws exist but only because we have a law giver.

LOL!

Are you for real?

You think that the 'Law of Gravity' exists because there was a 'lawgiver'?

My god - what kind of school did you get your degrees from???

Even if there was no evidence that proteins or DNA can form naturally, it is an established scientific fact that they exist, but not with God.


Yes they exist, but how did they come to exist? Can they form naturally or not? With a lot of human intervention you can get polypeptides, but functional proteins do not form naturally nor can they form in the presence of water

Really?

What do you think comprises ~60% of the cytosol within which proteins are made?

, nor can they form macromolecules in the presence of oxygen and there is evidence for the presence of oxygen in precambrian times when oxygen wouldn’t have been an asset.

So, in your eyes, the mere presence of oxygen means that every square nanometer of the earth at that time had oxygen concentrations sufficient to prevent macromolecule formation?

Tell us why, oh expert on organic and inorganic chemistry, why the wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald is so well preserved...


Without oxygen there couldn’t be protein formation and with oxygen, no proteins. There are so many catch–22’s in origin of life theory but evolutionists retain their faith against all evidence to the contrary.

If only abiogenesis were a requirement of evolution...

Much better to have faith that one of several tribal deities took it upon himself - before there were tribes, of course, to create the unioverse and everything in it in 6 24 hour days no more than 10,000 years ago.
That is much more rational.


If there are gaps in the fossil record meaning no gradualism


Unsupported assertions are for imbeciles.  Put up or shut up.



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:14 PM on October 31, 2009 | IP
Galileo

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

People can certainly have there own opinions about what a transitional fossil/form is, but surely the only definition that should count for anything is the actual definition:

"A transitional fossil is one that looks like it’s from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two.  "
(From Christian website www.wasdarwinright.com)

It doesn't matter how much evidence you can show creationists because they have and  always will say that nothing we ever have found or will find in the future will ever fulfil the criteria of transitional fossil/form. If by some miracle that a creationist did actually realise that a fossil was transitional, they would just turn around and demand that we showed them something they knew couldn't exist.

Why do I keep thinking about Growing Pains?



-------
Hallowed are the Invisible Pink Unicorns
 


Posts: 160 | Posted: 6:12 PM on October 31, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
No. It's just the ToE.
The TOE requires life to come from non-living chemicals,
Not at all. It just requires that life changes, and that more individuals are born than those who survive.

What makes you think otherwise?

Yeah, we tend to believe in abiogenesis. Most of us do. But that's by no means a requisite for the ToE. WE are NOT the ToE.
Now be honest, and admit your mistake.
it’s an atheistic system,
No more than the Theory of Gravity. And you don't fight it.
they don’t allow for God
That's an outright fabrication.
but they know they can’t explain it,
Wait... Who's 'they'?
If you're still talking about the ToE ('they' would be nonsense then), then of course it can't explain God (if 'it' means 'God', i'm not sure).
so they think they can officially leave that part out.
Yes we can. It plays no role in Gravity either. God plays no role in ANY science. So that's not the real issue with you and the ToE. Don't lie.
You’ll see that it is part of what evolution is all about though by looking in school textbooks where they do discuss the supposed origins of life from Big Bang to primordial soup even though it is a religious position.
To hell with school textbooks! Let's talk science! If you don't want to talk about science just say so, and let's get this over with.
Theistic evolution allows for the creation of life by an intelligence.
Regular Evolution does too, because it ignores the beginning of life.
And you either don't understand this simple fact, or you're being dishonest.

Either way, stop it.
They just apparently think that God made unicellular life and it diversified all on its own –another religious position.
Yes. And it's not part of any scientific theory.

Yes. We hesitate. And you call us arrogant...
Evolutionists hesitate not because they’re not arrogant but because you have no evidence for the production of life from non-living chemicals.
That does not belong to the ToE.

Man... Don't be stubborn! Focus! Abiogenesis is NOT the ToE!

How many times do we have to tell you??

They nonetheless believe that life came from non-life but there are so many problems with that belief that they can’t even begin to explain it.
And that doesn't matter one bit when treating the ToE.

Sigh...

Man...

You only dislike Evolution because it goes against your beliefs. It's your beliefs what you really care about
No, evolution contradicts the available evidence –that’s the problem.
What available evidence? Start threads! Defend your interpretations of the evidence! Do something about it, or shut up already!
Systematic gaps in the fossil record are a prediction of creation, not evolution.
Creation predicts gaps??? Gaps??? You can only talk about gaps when thinking in evolutionary terms. How weak is creationism then, that it needs Evolutionary concepts?

And exactly how does it predict them?

I'm kinda tired of you tossing claims over and over again without ever defending them. I'm starting a thread, since you won't. Defend that claim.
The refusal of fruit flies to be anything but fruit flies is a prediction of creation, not evolution.
Doesn't creation predict (postdict, actually) that a couple of supercats can turn into lions, tigers, panthers, cheetahs and house cats, and all of that in 4k years?
If evolution was true, all that mutating should have produced something new in the fruit fly –it didn’t, but you carry on believing.
You say it did in the supercat. Or something like that.
Or don't you?
Creation is against your beliefs and that is what you really care about.
My beliefs are not important. Predictions are important. And the ToE is a tool that allows me to make excellent predictions on many areas (including human behavior).

It doesn't matter to the ToE. DNA could have been invented by a race of intergalactic midget robots that evolved inorganically and planted life here on Earth (fact that the ToE has no need for proteins to be able to form naturally doesn't make it theistic at all, as you can see). The ToE would still work fine.
Except that it never happened
You don't know that.
But again, if you could only talk about things you know about you'd be doomed.
and you refuse to see it.
I refuse to see that there were no midget robots?
Well, when i'm talking about Evolution i don't really care about them.
All systematic gaps mean to you is that the missing pieces haven’t been found yet.
Yes, pretty much. I think you're right on this one (although i have no clue about what 'systematic' means in this case).

Why do you think that's a problem?

Answer in the new thread, please.

That they will be found you don’t doubt because you know you are right despite the evidence against your belief.
We knew about the Tiktaalik. About the ambulocetus and the rodhocetus too (after we found the Pakicetus).

We don't care if you say that they're not in the same evolutionary line (or that evolutionary lines don't exist). We predicted them.

Not only all of these fossils have been found: they have been found in the right strata.

Why would a flood bury them in that order?

Oh, i know, i know!!! Best swimmers on top, right?

Hum... But why doesn't that work for the animals that were just beginning to walk on land, according to our imaginative stories? Why are they found on top of those whose anatomy makes them look like better swimmers?

How many fossils will be enough for you to see that those gaps are never going to go away?
I'm not afraid of the gaps. There will always be gaps. If we found a creature, and its grandson, there's a gap, and i don't care.

I don't really know why you bring it up.

'We see gaps. Ergo, Evolution is a lie.'

Between your postulate and your conclusion there's a BIG GAP! Hahahaha!

I chew gum. Ergo, Yahweh is a lie.

He could have created in less than 6 days or through natural mechanisms but he told us very carefully and thoroughly what he did do.
What's your evidence?
The evidence confirms that the Bible is true.
Show me evidence for the 6 days. And unicorns. And giants.
That means that a fruit fly will always be a fruit fly
Fruit flies don't care about what we call them. If we select them for, say, eating meat, you'd say either:
A) It's still a fruit flie (even if it doesn't eat fruits anymore).
Or:
B) This is evidence for intelligent design.

and the gaps will remain in the fossil record no matter how many fossils we dig up.
Every time we fill a gap we're left with TWO gaps. Each fossil we find adds a new gap.
So?

According to the story yes but can little micromutations actually be extrapolated that way without some evidence?
No. Not without tons of evidence.
We have it, you don't.
You’re quite wrong you know.
No, i don't. If you think so, defend your position instead of dropping real subjects and saying obscure generalities like 'The fossil record is evidence for creation'.

Get real.

You have evidence for micromutational change, the macro part is assumed.
I don't know what macro is. If it's not speciation, then i have no clue. And i think you don't either.
Don’t call speciation macro change, that is a dodge.
There's nothing to dodge, unless you provide a clear definition of 'macroevolution' and 'microevolution'.

Bear in mind: you have to define them i such a way that nothing goes in between. If it's a valid distinction you should have no problems.

Until you do, stop mentioning it.

If you want to say that a fruit fly can be something other than a fruit fly
I kill it and it's a cadaver. I paint it and it's a cheap and gross decoration.
than
*Then.
give me an end result that is not a fruit fly.
You'll call it a fruit fly no matter what.

Don't ask for name changes. Ask for genetic or physical changes!

When reality doesn't help you guys, words is all you're left with (and you're not very good with them either).

And we say a lot more than ‘look around’ though that is our most obvious evidence.
Obvious? People who have not been exposed to the Bible would never conclude that Yahweh did it. In fact they made up lots of different gods to explain it. So no, Yahweh isn't obvious.
We say phylogenetics is evidence of common ancestry,
You do??? Don't try to confuse me! Haha!
the fossil record supports creation,
Yeah, you say it, but don't support it. Saying things is easy.
junk DNA doesn’t exist,
Show us the evidence.

Here:
http://www.youdebate.com/cgi-bin/scarecrow/topic.cgi?forum=3&topic=55518
viral insertions are functional and thus not viral after all,
I meant this:


Viral insertions show you how different species are related.

Please, take the time you need to understand the graphic.

appendix – not vestigial,
But you've demonstrated that you don't know what 'vestigial' means.
coccyx –not vestigial
But you've demonstrated that you don't know what 'vestigial' means.
goose bumps -design
What for? We have them when we feel cold (as if we had fur), and when we're scared/angry (as if we had fur and wanted to appear bigger, just like any other animal with goose bumps).
wisdom teeth – refined foods,
Huh?
comparative embryology -fraud,
Start a thread, or don't mention it.
races – what?
Races. Like African, Caucasian, Asian, Doberman, Collie, Angora, stuff like that.
artificial selection –supports limitations on change,
What are those limitations, exactly?

Can we select dogs that walk in two legs? Would that impress you? What would? Something that we could do in your lifetime, according to the ToE, that would be impossible according to YEC.
transitionals -imagination,
But with the Tiktaalik our dream came true! Actually with many others too.
vestigiality -garbage,
Does Yahweh produce garbage?

Didn't you say that you had no problem with loss of function? That you were ok with the legless lizard's vestigiality?

Let's see...
Here:

Posted by Lester10, at 07:24 AM on April 5, 2009
How did i guess that the legless lizard would have vestigial legs when i was a teen and didn't know about legless lizards OR vestigial limbs? My correct guess made my trust in that consensus stronger.
Nobody has any problem with loss if information due to mutational corruption. The lizard's original information was corrupted.
You admitted that vestigiality was possible.

Gotcha! =D

speciation –limited change,
Yeah, every change is limited. So? What's the relevance of that comment?
races –not again!
Haha, sorry. xD
comparative anatomy –common creator,
Why? I started a thread about it.
Here:
http://www.youdebate.com/cgi-bin/scarecrow/topic.cgi?forum=3&topic=55749

You replied once, without even attempting to defend your position.

So don't mention it.
homologies –common creator,
Same:
http://www.youdebate.com/cgi-bin/scarecrow/topic.cgi?forum=3&topic=55749

Let's discuss it there. And if you don't want to discuss it, don't mention it.
mimicry -design,
Start a thread and present your evidence, or don't mention it.
whales with legs –you have got to be joking –I’ve seen it, it isn’t a whale, it’s wishful thinking and so much more!!!

We've found all of those. Which ones are whales to you?
Pigs can’t fly either, by the way.
Which is evidence for Evolution.

Every creature we find fits nicely in the phylogenetic tree. A flying pig wouldn't.

Nevermind. Let's say it didn't happen. Let's say Yahweh did it.
Now what?
Evolution is still a fact, and Yahweh lied to you about how he pulled the trick.
No, you’ve forgotten about the gaps in the fossil record and the lack of evidence for macroevolution.
Show me your logic behind your claim about gaps, or don't mention it.
Define macro and micro so that nothing falls in between, or don't mention it.
It wasn’t Jahweh that lied. It’s the evolutionists who don’t like Jahweh that are either lying or brainwashed.
Yahweh is a cool evil god. I do like it. It reminds me of Mojojojo.


And i'm not an atheist. And Fencer and Yehren are theists.

But there’s still no evidence for gradualism, so the ToE is still lacking evidence, abiogenesis aside.
Does your definition of 'gradualism' imply that the rate of change must be constant or not?

I've asked you before, and you don't reply.
Until you do, i don't know what you mean.

Remember the majority of scientists used to believe in spontaneous generation for over 2000 years but they were wrong.
Yes. Science demonstrated that they were wrong. Not religion.
Yes, well it was their problem since they made it up in the first place.
Who's 'they'?
Please, answer this one.

You just copypaste all our arguments. It's not funny anymore. It's getting creepy.
I have no idea what you are talking about –please explain.
Yes:
You're a religious person, so you call us religious.

Your beliefs are based on faith, so you say the same thing about us.

You're arrogant, so you call us arrogant.

You refuse to see the evidence, so you say that we refuse to see the evidence.

You project, and you say that we project (not before i pointed out that you were projecting, of course).

And lots more that i can't remember right now.

You sound paranoid.
Let's ask the rest of the participants of this debate.

If they agree, would you say that we're all paranoid?

Evolutionists like their theory sooo much that they repeatedly ignore the evidence.
Present it and defend your interpretation.

Put up or shut up. You've abandoned plenty of threads already.

Take Darwin, he knew that the fossil record didn’t support his theory and he said it was the gravest objection that could be brought against it,
Poor Darwin. He knew no better.

We do now.

I'm thankful to Darwin. Nevertheless we know much more about Evolution than he could ever imagine.

Such is Science.
but he ignored the falsifying evidence
Hahaha! You just said that he didn't! That he said it was the gravest objection to his theory!
and believed himself in any case.
Ok, but he didn't ignore it, and you know it (i know you know because you said it).
He made the excuse that in the future the vast multitude of required intermediates would be found.
Did he? He said that all of them would be found? When? I don't recall...
The problem is even worse today
Why?
but evolutionists everywhere live in hope and denial
We hope, yeah, but we find too.

What about you?

What about unicorns, giants and a huge ark?
ignoring the real evidence that lies before them.
Projecting.

By the way, love the trilobites but what exactly is your point?
That you acknowledge that they are trilobites. Thank you!

So you admit that they are trilobites, and yet you don't see evidence of gradualism... Your definition of gradualism must be very strange.

But before that, please, define 'gradualism'. It's about time.
You’ve got to be joking.
I'm not.
Don’t you have a dictionary?
Creationist-English? No, i don't.
Is gradual not a part of your vocabulary?
Yes. But we're talking about real things, so you have to match real things with your concepts.
Or is it ‘-ism’ that confuses you.
No. If you said 'gradual change' i still wouldn't understand what you mean.
How about ‘one thing g-r-a-d-u-a-l-l-y turning into another mutation by mutation. Would that do?
No. What's 'gradually'?

Sounds like what you call 'microevolution', but you admit to 'microevolution', so it shouldn't be it...

Gradual change = microevolution? Yes or no?

Does your definition of 'gradualism' imply that the rate of change is constant or not?

You all know what it means when you try to invent the evidence for a land mammal turning into a whale - but now you need to know what it means –wow!
No. We want to know what YOU mean.


(Edited by wisp 10/31/2009 at 8:34 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 8:32 PM on October 31, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood

I later asked what EXACTLY you would expect in a transitional, you refused to provide any meaningful answer, yer dismissed Archaeopteryx because its wing was not half-way between a dinosaur limb and a bird wing.


You say I saw how ridiculous it was to expect a small protuberance on the hand to elongate to a finger one step at a time but there was nothing ridiculous about my expectations at all. How else does one proceed from no finger to one finger without a genetic recipe for such a thing? You mutate little by little between none and one until you have a finger –the same for the other fingers that just happened to accidentally mutate to form part of a useful hand.
And here’s the strawman –it takes millions of years but I want to see every
Step. No, Derwood, you’re trying to impress your non-existant audience once again. You see, I don’t mind just one reasonable intermediate between none and one with nones and ones on either side but don’t give me the fully fledged finger and expect me to believe it arose slowly via mutation and natural selection.
The same with archie –give me a few intermediates between leg and wing and between scale and feather and I’ll be satisfied but don’t give me archie with full  wings and feathers and expect me to accept it as an intermediate.

You evolutionists know exactly what we expect. Nobody could be that thick –but you have nothing on offer to fill the gaps, that’s why you try to get away with birds like archaeopteryx.
Anything you don’t understand here, Derwood???

Pathetic I agree, but you should look in the mirror when you say that.

Are you of the position that all mutations produce only a tiny alteration in morphology?
Yes or no.


No, but the only large mutations you see are adverse, never beneficial so don’t give me a bad morphological example and expect me to imagine the good ones because it won’t do.

Trial and error is Yahweh's way, is it not?


He did a lot better than that –he wrote whole genetic programmes for each creation. Trial and error is evolution’s way. The complete genetic programmes explain why you can only find sudden arrivals of complete animals and plants with no sign of their evolution.

Without a definition of gradualism within the context of evolution, this is just rhetoric.


Well Derwood, you might not understand the concept even though you supposedly teach it. So here are a few quotes for you:

"the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology - we fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favoured account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."[1]
Harvard Paleontology professor  Dr. Stephen J. Gould.


As for Darwin - he himself admitted that the fossil record was the most serious objection to his theory. But rather than modify his theory, Darwin chose to make excuses for the data. Note: This is usually frowned upon in the scientific community. Theories ought to explain the data, not rationalize it away.

Darwin never lost faith in the theory, the only puzzle was how to account for the plainly misleading aspects of the fossil record.
It is one thing to say that there are gaps, and quite another thing to claim the right to fill the gaps with the evidence required to support one’s theory. Darwin’s arguments could claim at best that the fossil record was not fatal; they could not turn the absence of confirming evidence into an asset.
Phillip Johnson –Darwin on Trial

Newsweek (1980) “Is Man a Subtle Accident” Nov 3 1980, 95
In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated.
David B Kitts of the school of geology and Geophysics at the University of Oklahoma wrote:
Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of ‘seeing’ evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of ‘gaps’ in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleotology does not provide them.
So Derwood, I know you want to start splitting hairs over definitions, as if you don’t understand unless transitional is defined, but sorry, you know what I’m talking about and no amount of splitting is going to make the evidence go away.

You think that the 'Law of Gravity' exists because there was a 'lawgiver'?


Precisely.

So, in your eyes, the mere presence of oxygen means that every square nanometer of the earth at that time had oxygen concentrations sufficient to prevent macromolecule formation?


Oh I see, you think there were hidey holes where the oxygen couldn’t go. So it’s not a matter of there was or there was not oxygen, it’s about imagining where this protein formation could have happened.

If only abiogenesis were a requirement of evolution...


No it isn’t –it’s apparently no longer considered to be part of evolution because evolutionists make up enough stories without taking that on as well. In that case they should take out those sections of the origin of life that appear in school books on evolution.

Unsupported assertions are for imbeciles.  Put up or shut up.


Absolutely –you spend so much time on ad hominems that there’s no time for any evidence.














(Edited by Lester10 11/1/2009 at 06:12 AM).


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 06:03 AM on November 1, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

it’s an atheistic system,
No more than the Theory of Gravity. And you don't fight it.


There’s nothing atheistic about the theory of gravity. The ToE, on the other hand assumes abiogenesis and no role for God, so it is an atheistic philosophy.

Creation predicts gaps??? Gaps??? You can only talk about gaps when thinking in evolutionary terms. How weak is creationism then, that it needs Evolutionary concepts?

And exactly how does it predict them?


It’s not an evolutionary term, it is a fact that fits into anybody’s vocabulary. If there are gaps, then gradualism is missing, it’s as simple as that. Evolution predicts gradualism –creation predicts specific kinds of created animals and plants and no chance of one kind turning into a completely different kind. For instance there may be a wolf, a dog, and a coyote in the dog kind but they are distinct from the cat kind; the dog kind can never give rise to the cat kind.

Doesn't creation predict (postdict, actually) that a couple of supercats can turn into lions, tigers, panthers, cheetahs and house cats, and all of that in 4k years?


That’s right. There’s vast ability to diversify built into each ‘kind’s’ genome and speciation appears to have occurred pretty rapidly.

Predictions are important. And the ToE is a tool that allows me to make excellent predictions on many areas (including human behavior).


Like what?

All systematic gaps mean to you is that the missing pieces haven’t been found yet.
Yes, pretty much. I think you're right on this one (although i have no clue about what 'systematic' means in this case).


"The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."
- Stephen J Gould

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?"

Colin Patterson

“He (Darwin) was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn’t look the way he predicted it would and, as a result, he devoted a long section of the origin of species to an attempt to explain and rationalize the differences…..Darwin’s general solution to the incompatability of fossil evidence and his theory was to say that the fossil record is a very incomplete one…..well we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition  than we had in Darwin’s time. "
David Raup –Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago

George Gaylord Simpson: Paleontologist
“Tempo and Mode in Evolution”
"This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate."

David B Kitts of the school of geology and Geophysics at the University of Oklahoma wrote:

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of ‘seeing’ evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of ‘gaps’ in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleotology does not provide them."

So tell me Wisp, when will enough fossils be found for you to be able to tell whether evolution has in fact occurred? How many would we need to convince evolutionists that evolution never happened? The evidence does not support evolution and all these people are evolutionists. Why do they remain optimistic –because philosophy overrules their good sense in every case. Darwin might have had good reason to think that the fossil record would yield his predicted transitionals in time but time is up I’m afraid. The record bears witness to creation.

We knew about the Tiktaalik. About the ambulocetus and the rodhocetus too (after we found the Pakicetus).


Bad examples everyone. I’ve discussed Tiktaaklik with you already. Ambulocetus, the walking whale –what a joke. How the hell can they call that a ‘walking whale’ –only because they put it in the line up from land mammal to whale on account of its ‘whale like meat eating teeth’. Where does that leave the hippo that according to molecular evidence is actually the land mammal most closely related to the whale? Hippos have grinding, plant eating teeth so suddenly the teeth are not so important as when they thought ambulocetus was the relative.
As for Rodhocetus, scientists speculated that it might have had a fluke and flippers like a whale but meantime they changed their minds because there is no evidence for any such thing. It’s a very dodgy business, this sucking of transitional forms out of pure imagination –it tends to come back and bite you much like all lying, wishful thinking and pure fabrication does.

We don't care if you say that they're not in the same evolutionary line (or that evolutionary lines don't exist). We predicted them.


Yes, predicted them, found some animal’s dead fossilized bones and imagined they fit the spot - and the rest is history.

Why would a flood bury them in that order?


It didn’t. Evo’s deceive themselves regularly. Feathered dinosaurs, pigs with wings, the whole cabang.

Not only all of these fossils have been found: they have been found in the right strata.


That doesn’t mean that the ones with legs had anything to do with becoming whales and just because they happen to have the same kind of teeth is no evidence at all. Can hyenas or hippos give birth to different kinds of animals today –right, correct, the answer is no and only in your warped imagination was it possible long ago and far away. Imagination is definitely an asset in the wild and whacky world of evolution. Carry on dreaming.

Judging by the comments below Wisp, you are trying to emulate your questionable hero Derwood -leave it to him please, it doesn't suit you.

Now be honest, and admit your mistake.
Don't lie.
And you either don't understand this simple fact, or you're being dishonest.
Don't be stubborn! Focus!
How many times do we have to tell you??


Your patronizing tone has a hollow ring. Actually it reminds me of Kiki the parrot in the Enid Blyton adventure stories
"How many times have I told you to shut the door"
Blow your nose, wipe your feet"







-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 09:36 AM on November 1, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:03 AM on November 1, 2009 :
Derwood

I later asked what EXACTLY you would expect in a transitional, you refused to provide any meaningful answer, yer dismissed Archaeopteryx because its wing was not half-way between a dinosaur limb and a bird wing.


You say I saw how ridiculous it was to expect a small protuberance on the hand to elongate to a finger one step at a time but there was nothing ridiculous about my expectations at all.
How else does one proceed from no finger to one finger without a genetic recipe for such a thing? You mutate little by little between none and one until you have a finger –the same for the other fingers that just happened to accidentally mutate to form part of a useful hand.


Um...

So you are saying that my scenario - as presented from a YEC perspective on gradualism - was actually correct, despite the fact that previously claimed it to be a misrepresentation of YEC lore.

And you wonder why creationists are generally considered to be disingenuous and deceptive?

Consider the part I bolded - I suggest you take an undergraduate comparative vertebrate anatomy course and an actual evolution course.  What you seem to think evolution must have done is, in fact either a strawman or a demonstration of how little you truly understand about genetics and evolution.

And here’s the strawman –it takes millions of years but I want to see every
Step.

'It' may take millions of years, but not in the fashion you need it to.  You see, fingers (digits) evolved from fin rays.  Tetrapods started out with more than 5 fingers - 5 digits got 'locked' into the vertebrate body plan many millions of years ago.  There has been a reduction in numbers since then.

As I have mentioned on here before, your naivete re: genertics and development is what forces you to laughably emand a series fo steps where there are none.  As I have mentioned on here before, your take on gradualism is naive and idiosyncratic.  As I have said on here before, a single point mutation can cause wide-ranging morphological alterations.

But you don't actually seem to want to understand any of it.

No, Derwood, you’re trying to impress your non-existant audience once again.

You're projecting again.  I am just trying to counter lies and distortions made in the name of Yahweh the lover of foreskins.

You see, I don’t mind just one reasonable intermediate between none and one with nones and ones on either side but don’t give me the fully fledged finger and expect me to believe it arose slowly via mutation and natural selection.

I see that you are intent to continue to believe in your strawman fantasies.  I suppose if I was as reliant on my worldview as you were, I would deny anything that might weakenit, too.  But this is just getting silly.  You might want to review - or learn about for the first time - what evolution actually entails.  You just keep making a fool of yourself with these crationWiki-level assertions and condescensions.

The same with archie –give me a few intermediates between leg and wing

Archie HAS the intermediate between leg and wing.

and between scale and feather

Are you so sure that feather must have come from scale?  I am not.


and I’ll be satisfied

No you won't.  Your ever-changing definitions/critera show that.


but don’t give me archie with full  wings and feathers and expect me to accept it as an intermediate.

'Full wings' - please define 'full wing' for us.  Archie's wing is NOT like a modern bird wing, nor is like  a'leg'.  It is a clear intermediate.
As for feathers, I have already mentioned that there is evidence of feathers predating Archie, as well as not-quite=modern feathers.

But here we see the YEC doing what YECs do - we present Archie as a dino-to-bird transitional, and now the YEC wants to see specific intermediates (the criteria for which would immediately change upon presentation) that form parts of Archie - this from a group of people thjat cannot provide ANY evidence whatsoever that their tribal creation myth has ANY veracity whatsoever.

You evolutionists know exactly what we expect.

No, we don't.  That is why we have been asking you repeatedly and for some time to tell us.  For you keep changing your requirements.

Nobody could be that thick –but you have nothing on offer to fill the gaps, that’s why you try to get away with birds like archaeopteryx.
Anything you don’t understand here, Derwood???


Yes - how a supposed Christian claiming a doctorate with a science background can be simultaneously so dishonest and disingenuous and scientifically illiterate.


Pathetic I agree, but you should look in the mirror when you say that.


Why - I am not the one with ever-changing criteria who cannot seem to understand freshman level genetics, anatomy, development, evolution, etc.


Are you of the position that all mutations produce only a tiny alteration in morphology?
Yes or no.


No, but the only large mutations you see are adverse, never beneficial so don’t give me a bad morphological example and expect me to imagine the good ones because it won’t do.

A mutation is a mutation.  What do you think a 'large' mutation is?
Oh  -  don't use the bible as evidence for anything, because it is not evidence.

Trial and error is Yahweh's way, is it not?


He did a lot better than that –he wrote whole genetic programmes for each creation. Trial and error is evolution’s way.


So, why did he have to make dirt-man, then make all the animals for dirt-man to choose a mate form, and only when dirt-man did nto want to bed-down with the beasts did foreskin-lover finally make a female?
Why did the foreskin lover produce all those creationary dead ends?


The complete genetic programmes explain why you can only find sudden arrivals of complete animals and plants with no sign of their evolution.


These 'programmes' you speak of - any actual evidence for them?  Or is this just laughavble extrapolation from Scripture?

Without a definition of gradualism within the context of evolution, this is just rhetoric.


Well Derwood, you might not understand the concept even though you supposedly teach it.

I do understand it - I am asking you to define it because I don't think YOU do.  
For example, speciation can be 'gradual' but the evolutionary changes that lead to it do not have to be.  That is one level.  Another level is that the concept of gradualism does NOT preclude catastophes or relatively fast change, it is that the overall scheme of things will average out and be 'gradual.'  But you knnow that, just as you knew how genetics disproves evolution (LOL!!!).


So here are a few quotes for you:

"the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology - we fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favoured account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."[1]
Harvard Paleontology professor  Dr. Stephen J. Gould.


Let me guess - AiG?

Let me help you out... You just presented a doctored quote mine.  Here is the whole quote, the parts the liars for  jebus you cribbed it from in bold:

***
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.
"

Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks.

Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.

For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning [1]. [derwood note - READ THE NEXT SENTENCE CAREFULLY!!!]The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record."
***

What say you, doctor - you think your hanlders were being truthful to you?

I'll not give creationist lawyer Johnson nor 30 year old Newsweek quotes the effort.
So Derwood, I know you want to start splitting hairs over definitions, as if you don’t understand unless transitional is defined, but sorry, you know what I’m talking about and no amount of splitting is going to make the evidence go away.

I kno wwhat you are talking about - you are wanting to be vague so that you can always just toss in a 'Yeah, but what about part X?  Huh?  Where is ITS transitional??'  Just as you have done here.

You think that the 'Law of Gravity' exists because there was a 'lawgiver'?


Precisely.

So you have just implied that in all your rigoroous educational training, you never learned what 'law' means in science?

So, in your eyes, the mere presence of oxygen means that every square nanometer of the earth at that time had oxygen concentrations sufficient to prevent macromolecule formation?


Oh I see, you think there were hidey holes where the oxygen couldn’t go. So it’s not a matter of there was or there was not oxygen, it’s about imagining where this protein formation could have happened.

There are places on earth TODAY where oxygen dpoesn't go.

Are you truly this ignorant, or are you engaging in that oh-so-common YEC selective ignorance?

If only abiogenesis were a requirement of evolution...


No it isn’t –it’s apparently no longer considered to be part of evolution because evolutionists make up enough stories without taking that on as well. In that case they should take out those sections of the origin of life that appear in school books on evolution.


Abiogenesis was NEVER part of evolution - that is juat another YEC lie.

Unsupported assertions are for imbeciles.  Put up or shut up.


Absolutely –you spend so much time on ad hominems that there’s no time for any evidence.

I submit that you do not know what 'ad hominem' means any more than you kow what the function of a keeled sternum in birds is.


I see that you've tappend some quote mines of late.  A sure sign of desperation, for I am sure you've not read those papers or books.  

Why did you lie to us about your degree?  Did you think we woul dbe impressed or something and be less likley to demolish your arguments (or rather, the lack thereof)?







(Edited by Lester10 11/1/2009 at 06:12 AM).






-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 8:56 PM on November 1, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

it’s an atheistic system,
No more than the Theory of Gravity. And you don't fight it.
There’s nothing atheistic about the theory of gravity.
It doesn't contemplate any gods. Just like the ToE.

They have the same amount of atheism.

You see atheism in the ToE just because it contradicts YOUR sacred book.
But your sacred book isn't special to Science.

If the Bible said anything against gravity you'd say that the Theory of Gravity is atheist too.

And no matter how many times you negate it:
The ToE doesn't need Abiogenesis or the Big Bang.

Even if we were a simulation in a supercomputer, or God's thoughts (which is a valid way to look at the Universe, in my opinion), Evolution would still be correct.

The ToE, on the other hand assumes abiogenesis and no role for God,
Not true. The ToE doesn't touch that subject. It assumes nothing.
so it is an atheistic philosophy.
You think that just by repeating you'll get away with it?
It's a strawman, Lester. So either you STILL don't understand this simple fact, or you're being dishonest.

It's not the ToE that believes in Abiogenesis. It's US! And we're not the ToE!

Creation predicts gaps??? Gaps??? You can only talk about gaps when thinking in evolutionary terms. How weak is creationism then, that it needs Evolutionary concepts?

And exactly how does it predict them?
It’s not an evolutionary term, it is a fact that fits into anybody’s vocabulary.
I didn't say 'evolutionary term', but 'evolutionary concepts' (and that you think in 'evolutionary terms'). Not the same thing (i apologize if i wasn't clear).

You can only get a gap between two things if there IS a line that joins them.

You say that there's no such a line between the Pakicetus and modern whales. So there should be NO gaps in your view.

If you see gaps, then not only we're right: you know it.

If there are gaps, then gradualism is missing,
So you believe in jumps. I have no problems with that.

What's yours?
Evolution predicts gradualism
I still don't know what you mean, and you've dodged my questions about it.

Do i have to repeat them?
What's 'gradually'?

Sounds like what you call 'microevolution', but you admit to 'microevolution', so it shouldn't be it...

Gradual change = microevolution? Yes or no?

Does your definition of 'gradualism' imply that the rate of change is constant or not?

If you know what you're talking about, why is it so hard for you to answer simple questions?
–creation predicts specific kinds of created animals and plants and no chance of one kind turning into a completely different kind.
Well, it's very easy to predict obscure undefined things.

I predict that tomorrow you'll still have karma.

Prove me wrong!

For instance there may be a wolf, a dog, and a coyote in the dog kind
May? May???

You said that creationism predicted 'specific kinds'. If that's not an oxymoron (i.e. kinds are species), by 'specific' you probably meant 'clear'. So if you use the word 'may' then you've already lost, because the prediction wasn't fulfilled.

If by 'specific' you didn't mean that, what did you mean? Are you just adding words to make you sound better?

What about the jackal? Does it belong with the dog kind?

What about this critter?


but they are distinct from the cat kind; the dog kind can never give rise to the cat kind.
Of course. If a species could evolve into a preexisting species the ToE would be overthrown.

But, again, just to demonstrate that you know what you're talking about when you say 'kinds', tell me how many kinds of marsupials you know.

Doesn't creation predict (postdict, actually) that a couple of supercats can turn into lions, tigers, panthers, cheetahs and house cats, and all of that in 4k years?
That’s right. There’s vast ability to diversify built into each ‘kind’s’ genome and speciation appears to have occurred pretty rapidly.
How does it appear so?

I mean, what's your basis?

The fossil record? The Bible? What?

Tell me about this critter:

Does it belong to the rodent kind, or the rabbit kind?

Wait, how many rodent kinds are there? Do rats and rabbits belong in the same kind or not?

Predictions are important. And the ToE is a tool that allows me to make excellent predictions on many areas (including human behavior).
Like what?
Oh! So many!

I can predict lots and lots and lots about sexual behavior, and about generosity, and egoism...

I can predict the different sexual strategies for human males and females. Things that make no sense from the creationist view make perfect indisputable sense from the Evolutionary perspective.

If you're really interested start a thread and ask me. I'll be happy to show you tons of human evolutionary strategies and behaviors.

All systematic gaps mean to you is that the missing pieces haven’t been found yet.
Yes, pretty much. I think you're right on this one (although i have no clue about what 'systematic' means in this case).
You quoted this, and then you copypasted several quotes (misquotes, most likely) that i didn't read, instead of telling me what 'systematic' means.
So tell me Wisp, when will enough fossils be found for you to be able to tell whether evolution has in fact occurred?
When?

I don't need any fossils to know that.
We have lots, they fit perfectly, but they are not necessary for the ToE to make excellent predictions about traits of the living species.

Evolution would still be a fact even if we had NO fossils whatsoever.

How many would we need to convince evolutionists that evolution never happened?
Drop the nebulous drama. You could have answered some real and important questions instead of wasting your time with this, and with quotes.
The evidence
That you won't present.
does not support evolution
So you say.
and all these people are evolutionists.
You think i care much about people and their words?
I care about facts.
When you have any, bring it on!

We knew about the Tiktaalik. About the ambulocetus and the rodhocetus too (after we found the Pakicetus).

We don't care if you say that they're not in the same evolutionary line (or that evolutionary lines don't exist). We predicted them.
Bad examples everyone.
But you won't say why. If you do, you won't defend that claim. You never do. You're a quitter.

Besides you avoided the real issue: the fact that we predicted them.
I’ve discussed Tiktaaklik with you already.
Yeah, and you dropped the subject, as usual.

You say 'just a fish', and that we imagine things. But it's a fish with a neck and elbows. We predicted we'd find it, and you still don't address this simple fact. You just drop the subject (this one and dozens of other subjects too).

Ambulocetus, the walking whale –what a joke. How the hell can they call that a ‘walking whale’
Let's not call it that then. I don't care. Names are not important. You care too much about them.

The fact is that the pakicetus had ear bones that are found today only in whales. And it fits our hypothesis that the whales descend from land mammals.

Go find the same ear structures in other unrelated animals and we'll lower our heads in shame.

You need to learn to discuss facts.

–only because they put it in the line up from land mammal to whale on account of its ‘whale like meat eating teeth’.
We do it because we can. If it had feathers, we couldn't do it. If it had wings, we couldn't do it. If it had gills, we couldn't do it.

If Evolution is wrong then there must be some dark forces trying to make it easy for us to think that it's right. And those forces must have access to the fossil record.

Perhaps the Devil? Some of your folk believe just that.

Hippos have grinding, plant eating teeth so suddenly the teeth are not so important as when they thought ambulocetus was the relative.
Exactly. We've learned that they're not as important as we've thought.

We learn, you don't. The fact that you want to use our learning abilities against us is quite amusing.
As for Rodhocetus, scientists speculated that it might have had a fluke and flippers like a whale but meantime they changed their minds because there is no evidence for any such thing.
Is that so? I didn't know that... Can you show me your source?

Anyway, it doesn't surprise me. Smart and honest people change their minds when they see that they were wrong.

You used convergent evolution as an example of homology. I've corrected you, and you still show no signs of admitting your mistake. That's pride, Lester. A capital sin.

You don't like what scientists have to say about the Rodhocetus. Fine. But say something for yourself!


Would you say that the Dorudon DOES look like a whale (unlike the Rodhocetus, apparently)?

I've been wrong many times (like when i used to believe in group selection). I was very happy to be corrected, and i admit my mistake openly.

You won't admit that you were wrong by thinking that Evolution needs Abiogenesis.

It’s a very dodgy business, this sucking of transitional forms out of pure imagination –it tends to come back and bite you much like all lying, wishful thinking and pure fabrication does.
Cut it with the poetic drama. Facts. Talk about facts.

We don't care if you say that they're not in the same evolutionary line (or that evolutionary lines don't exist). We predicted them.
Yes, predicted them, found some animal’s dead fossilized bones and imagined they fit the spot - and the rest is history.
Exactly. And if they didn't actually fit other scientists would raise their voices so as to get a little fame.

They don't because what they'd bring on themselves isn't fame but shame.

Why would a flood bury them in that order?
It didn’t. Evo’s deceive themselves regularly.
Oh, well... Next thing you do is deny that the sky is blue.

If you keep mentioning the cambrian explosion that means that you DO believe that we find things in a specific order. And now you deny it without clarifying.

It seems desperate.

Feathered dinosaurs,
What about them? What do you deny? The feathers or that they were dinos?
pigs with wings,
You try to make it sound ridiculous, but actually winged pigs would overthrow the ToE, and would be the strongest evidence you'd have for creationism.

An animal with a mix of traits from different evolutionary linages would fit your view (which consists in saying 'Anything we find is fine and it was predicted').

We've found 1,160,711 species, and NOT ONE of them discords with the phylogenetic tree of life.

Why don't you try to find one that does? Now THAT would be a serious blow to the ToE.
the whole cabang.
Don't know the word.

Not only all of these fossils have been found: they have been found in the right strata.
That doesn’t mean that the ones with legs had anything to do with becoming whales and just because they happen to have the same kind of teeth is no evidence at all.
Don't dodge the real issue here.

The thing is that we predicted their traits and their strata. I'm not saying that it means that they do belong to the same evolutionary line. I'm not even saying that the ToE is true right now. I'm just saying that we predicted those findings. What do you have to say about THAT?

This would be a possible answer:

Apparently when Yahweh made the animals he used the blueprints for some of them and tweaked them to make other creatures. Apparently the less tweaked designs produced heavier animals that ended up at the bottom during the flood.

Haha! I would be a great creationist!
Can hyenas or hippos give birth to different kinds of animals today –right, correct, the answer is no and only in your warped imagination was it possible long ago and far away.
Haha! We don't think in terms of 'kinds'.

I could ask you: Can you make your karma disappear by tomorrow? Right, you can't.

Imagination is definitely an asset in the wild and whacky world of evolution. Carry on dreaming.
Don't be a drama queen. Just present the facts, and let's discuss them. If you don't have anything to say about facts, then hush.

Judging by the comments below Wisp, you are trying to emulate your questionable hero Derwood -leave it to him please, it doesn't suit you.
Lester, i tried to be civil. I would love to be able to respect you. But you show me great amounts of dishonesty.

I told you that i have no problem with gaps. I said: "Each fossil we find adds a new gap.
So?"

Do you understand?


I show you 1, 5 and 10, and i tell you that they belong to the same line. You mention that there are gaps. We find 3. We place it between 1 and 5 and you have THREE gaps now: 1-3, 3-5 and 5-10.

Then we find 7, and place it between 5 and 10, we'll have FOUR gaps: 1-3, 3-5, 5-7 and 7-10.

So the more gaps we have the better the line will look.

You didn't tell me what goose bumps were designed for. You didn't start a thread about the comparative embryology fraud.

You didn't answer what the limitations are in artificial selection.

You negated vestigiality, and i presented an old quote where you had acknowledge it. And now you shut up.

You said "comparative anatomy –common creator" and "homologies –common creator", even though you dropped the subject in the thread i started specifically about that. I mention that you dropped the subject, and you shut up again...
Your dishonesty is tiresome, Lester.

You say you don't have time to answer to long posts. Well, then don't waste your precious time copypasting silly quotes! Don't waste it talking about how imaginative we are!

You said "mimicry -design". Will you defend that claim, or will it be another orphan?
Start a thread if you have any basis.
If you don't, admit it.

You said
No, you’ve forgotten about the gaps in the fossil record and the lack of evidence for macroevolution.
I asked for you to explain it, but you won't.

I've asked you to define 'micro' and 'macro' in such a way that nothing we see falls in between, but you won't.


I've asked you many times already: Does your definition of 'gradualism' imply that the rate of change must be constant or not?
If you can't answer that simple question how do you manage to keep mentioning it without shame?

You also ignored this:
Remember the majority of scientists used to believe in spontaneous generation for over 2000 years but they were wrong.
Yes. Science demonstrated that they were wrong. Not religion.
Yes, well it was their problem since they made it up in the first place.
Who's 'they'?
Please, answer this one.
I said 'please'. You say that i'm rude or something, but your dishonesty is rude.

You didn't say anything about the images i posted.

Start acknowledging your mistakes (like the one you made when you used convergent evolution as an example of homology), start saying 'I don't know', and start being true to yourself, and you'll see that i behave much better. Seriously.
Because, civil or not, i'm being honest with you.

If you believe that i'm deluded, fine. Really, that's fine. But i would really like for you to know that i'm honest.

If i see that i'm wrong and Evolution is an error i will turn on a dime.
If you show me that not only Evolution is wrong, but that Yahweh created everything, i will run through the streets yelling "It's a miracle! Yahweh did it!"
Do you believe in my honesty?

I put this again at the end so you don't forget it:

Sounds like what you call 'microevolution', but you admit to 'microevolution', so it shouldn't be it...

Gradual change = microevolution? Yes or no?

Does your definition of 'gradualism' imply that the rate of change is constant or not?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:35 AM on November 2, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Consider the part I bolded - I suggest you take an undergraduate comparative vertebrate anatomy course and an actual evolution course.


I might just as well take a course in mythology. Don’t worry I’ll keep myself updated on the latest tall stories of evolution all by myself without any single indoctrinator to lead me.

You see, fingers (digits) evolved from fin rays.  Tetrapods started out with more than 5 fingers - 5 digits got 'locked' into the vertebrate body plan many millions of years ago.  There has been a reduction in numbers since then.

According to the official story, yes, but nobody was there so how can you be sure without the intermediates to demonstrate that that did in fact happen? Faith is not enough for me.

As I have said on here before, a single point mutation can cause wide-ranging morphological alterations.


And as I have mentioned before, when a single point mutation causes wide ranging morphological alterations, they have always been demonstrated to be detrimental to the organism concerned SO why don’t you show me one example where a single point mutation with wide ranging morphological alterations did cause wide ranging beneficial changes.

Like I’ve said before, evolutionists have this uncanny habit of telling us about the beneficial changes while showing us the detrimental ones by way of example. Please don’t let me down here.

But you don't actually seem to want to understand any of it.


It’s not that I don’t want to understand, its that I have no reason to believe it.

I suppose if I was as reliant on my worldview as you were, I would deny anything that might weakenit, too.


That is what you do all the time already.

Archie HAS the intermediate between leg and wing.


No, Archie has wings –no sign of legs becoming wings. Remember the legs were supposed to become wings gradually – a wing doesn’t just spring up fully formed except in fairy tales. So if you imagine that it did, then show me the sorts of random mutations that can instantly create the information required for functional wings from legs –you know, those beneficial mutations with wide ranging morphological changes that you were discussing earlier.

Are you so sure that feather must have come from scale?  I am not.


Well no you’re correct there. They don’t come from the same gene. But that is the indoctrinator story. If feathers didn’t come from scales then scales just went away and feathers just popped up de novo fully formed and functional. Stranger and stranger.

'Full wings' - please define 'full wing' for us.  Archie's wing is NOT like a modern bird wing, nor is like  a'leg'.  It is a clear intermediate.


HAHA! That’s a joke right?!

As for feathers, I have already mentioned that there is evidence of feathers predating Archie, as well as not-quite=modern feathers.


Yes in more modern looking birds, so archie isn’t the transitional between reptiles and birds after all, is he. That’s just a story using a bird that happened to have some features sometimes associated with reptiles but other times associated with birds but is not the earliest example of a bird with feathers
Why don’t you show me these not-quite=modern feathers???

No, we don't.  That is why we have been asking you repeatedly and for some time to tell us.  For you keep changing your requirements.


No, you keep giving deceptive examples and that is why we don’t accept them.
Our requirements have never changed.

Yes - how a supposed Christian claiming a doctorate with a science background can be simultaneously so dishonest and disingenuous and scientifically illiterate.


The usual ad hominems now flowing like water off a duck’s back –You have personally trained me to be insult proof. Your insults are offered by way of evidence and then you get frustrated. Silly.

- I am not the one with ever-changing criteria who cannot seem to understand freshman level genetics, anatomy, development, evolution, etc.


There we go - another silly ad hominem. Well done!

Are you of the position that all mutations produce only a tiny alteration in morphology?
Yes or no.
No, but the only large mutations you see are adverse, never beneficial so don’t give me a bad morphological example and expect me to imagine the good ones because it won’t do.
A mutation is a mutation.  What do you think a 'large' mutation is?


I’m still waiting for your large beneficial mutation example –I notice that so far it is not forthcoming. If there is no such thing, on what does your faith rest?

These 'programmes' you speak of - any actual evidence for them?  


They’re in the DNA.

Another level is that the concept of gradualism does NOT preclude catastophes or relatively fast change


Show me your relatively fast change example of a beneficial mutation that allows survival.It’s no good just to have faith that such things happen.

it is that the overall scheme of things will average out and be 'gradual.'


But there’s no evidence for that. The overall scheme is not gradual by any stretch of the imagination.

[derwood note - READ THE NEXT SENTENCE CAREFULLY!!!]The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record."


Wow Derwood, wonderful quote! I don’t know what you thought you were achieving. All they are explaining is that despite the fact that evolution and genetics demand gradual change, since they don’t find gradual change, they will excuse it with a theory called ‘punctuated equilibrium’ and will say that the evidence of sudden change is explained by this. So heads - evolution is true, tails - evolution is true. It’s called justification of your myth. No matter what the evidence shows, it is exactly what you expected to find. So Darwin’s prediction failed and later evolutionists came up with a plaster to attempt to heal the fatal wound.

You think that the 'Law of Gravity' exists because there was a 'lawgiver'?
Precisely.
So you have just implied that in all your rigoroous educational training, you never learned what 'law' means in science?


Where do you think gravity came from Derwood? Nowhere? Just lucky?

Abiogenesis was NEVER part of evolution - that is juat another YEC lie.


Well, like I say, apparently it has been disowned but it always appears in school books alongside evolution - so is that just to push the evolutionist’s preferred beginning of the story?

Why did you lie to us about your degree?  


I didn’t lie to you about my degree. Is the truth so hard for you to handle?

Did you think we woul dbe impressed or something


My degree needn’t impress you any more than yours impresses me. You still believe the lie.

Oh  -  don't use the bible as evidence for anything, because it is not evidence.

-this from a group of people thjat cannot provide ANY evidence whatsoever that their tribal creation myth has ANY veracity whatsoever.
-
So, why did he have to make dirt-man, then make all the animals for dirt-man to choose a mate form, and only when dirt-man did nto want to bed-down with the beasts did foreskin-lover finally make a female?
Why did the foreskin lover produce all those creationary dead ends?


Oh Derwood, you really have an intense hatred of the God of Creation, Jahweh . I only hope you see reason before you meet him, because meet him you shall, whether you believe in him or not.
-










-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 03:01 AM on November 2, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It doesn't contemplate any gods. Just like the ToE.


And it is just as much a product of God’s as is life.

Even if we were a simulation in a supercomputer, or God's thoughts (which is a valid way to look at the Universe, in my opinion), Evolution would still be correct.

Except that it never happened. It is your delusion.
You say that there's no such a line between the Pakicetus and modern whales. So there should be NO gaps in your view.

There’s not a line or a gap, there’s just no connection at all except in your imagination. Pakicetus was a land mammal and its semicircular canals, unlike all living and fossil whales, were about three times bigger when corrected for body size. That means there is no ear evidence for relationship of pakicetus to water-dwelling cetaceans.
Also it was a land mammal that walked on its legs. It didn’t swim. Apart from that we have no reason to believe that any one kind of animal can change into any other kind of animal. The fact that evolutionists say it happened long ago and far away is not a reliable witness since their tall tales precede them.There never was any other evidence so guess we’ll have to chuck that one too.
You can only get a gap between two things if there IS a line that joins them.

Oh I see, that’s convenient. So if there’s a gap between a mouse and a table then there IS a line that joins them? In your imagination there is a line joining every living thing by a process called evolution so it’s to be expected.
Gradual change = microevolution? Yes or no?

Does your definition of 'gradualism' imply that the rate of change is constant or not?

Not microevolution no. Rate of change does not have to be constant but is limited by the genetic capabilities of an animal.
What about the jackal? Does it belong with the dog kind?

Well you tell me –does it produce fertile offspring? That is how you tell, is it not?
How does it appear so?

They can reproduce so they are the same kind.
Do rats and rabbits belong in the same kind or not?

Can they produce fertile offspring?
I can predict lots and lots and lots about sexual behavior, and about generosity, and egoism...

Based on a knowledge of human beings not on a knowledge of evolution.
. I'll be happy to show you tons of human evolutionary strategies and behaviors.

Adaptation and survival strategies maybe but you can only call it evolutionary if evolution ever happened at all.
You quoted this, and then you copypasted several quotes (misquotes, most likely) that i didn't read, instead of telling me what 'systematic' means.


The quotes were to better help you to understand systematic, so you should read them. (Clue: systematic could also mean pervasive or throughout)

So tell me Wisp, when will enough fossils be found for you to be able to tell whether evolution has in fact occurred?
When?  

I don't need any fossils to know that.
We have lots, they fit perfectly, but they are not necessary for the ToE to make excellent predictions about traits of the living species.


You don’t have lots, the ones you have are made up. Invented. You don’t know that one dead animal’s bones could give rise to any other dead animal of a different appearance. It doesn’t happen now; how can we possibly know that it happened long ago and far away.

Evolution would still be a fact even if we had NO fossils whatsoever.

Well now that’s an honest comment –you don’t need any evidence! So it is a faith/ religious position just as I’ve always said.
How many would we need to convince evolutionists that evolution never happened?
Drop the nebulous drama

Don’t worry, you already said you don’t need any so it doesn’t matter how the gaps never close, you’ll still think that the links haven’t been found yet.
I care about facts.
When you have any, bring it on!

How about when you have any, bring it on. Of course you don’t need any, because you have faith –but for my sake….
Besides you avoided the real issue: the fact that we predicted them.


That’s a joke right? Pakicetus is a land mammal, Rhodocetus never had flippers nor fins, it’s all imagination because evolutionists needed links for the imagined chain that could be imagined to have turned into a whale. It’s as simple as that –the thought gave birth to some fossil bones that could be misinterpreted to fit the picture.

I’ve discussed Tiktaalik with you already.
Yeah, and you dropped the subject, as usual.


No I think you dropped the subject. I remember discussing how little one can tell from fossilized bones and how a mistake was made when coelocanth was predicted to be the fish amphibian link except when it was found, it turned out to be all fish after all. Given the embarrassing position evolutionists found themselves in when it was discovered that coelacanths were deep water fish, one would think scientists would be more cautious in speculating about the shallow-water environment of the Tiktaalik. After all of the evolutionary propaganda was whittled away, the unbiased reader was left with little more than the fossils of a new unique creature that lived in the water.
The fact is that the pakicetus had ear bones that are found today only in whales. And it fits our hypothesis that the whales descend from land mammals.

Go find the same ear structures in other unrelated animals and we'll lower our heads in shame.

Now would be a good time.
–only because they put it in the line up from land mammal to whale on account of its ‘whale like meat eating teeth’.
We do it because we can. If it had feathers, we couldn't do it. If it had wings, we couldn't do it. If it had gills, we couldn't do it.

So what’s to stop it being simply a land mammal that lived on the land and stayed on the land. The teeth are not unique to whales by any means. Evolutionists just needed a missing link so pakicetus was good enough for the job on account of its teeth. You don’t have any evidence that random mutation and natural selection can change any one kind of animal into any other kind of animal so until you do have this evidence, it’s all just story telling.
If Evolution is wrong then there must be some dark forces trying to make it easy for us to think that it's right. And those forces must have access to the fossil record.

Dark forces huh? I’d say you’re probably right about that but as for having access to the fossil record you’re totally confused. The fossil record has big gaps all over where there should be gradualism; it supports creation and you have already said that you don’t need any fossils anyway, so clearly you don’t care that the fossil record supports creation, you believe in evolution any way.
Hippos have grinding, plant eating teeth so suddenly the teeth are not so important as when they thought ambulocetus was the relative.
Exactly. We've learned that they're not as important as we've thought.

Yes, so you might just as well dump all the ape human transitions based on homology since that obviously doesn’t work in any case. What’s important one day in dream land is not important the next. At least the Bible remains unchanged.
Is that so? I didn't know that... Can you show me your source?

Dr Phil Gingerich in a filmed interview with Carl Werner –author of “Evolution: The Grand Experiment”
When asked about the missing ball vertebrae that would show that rhodocetus had a fluke, he said: “I speculated that it might have had a fluke…I now doubt that rhodocetus had a fluked tail.”
It turned out that the front and back flippers were also a mistaken speculation.
When asked how he knew that it had front and back flippers, he indicated that flippers had also been based on speculation. He then said “Since then we have found the forelimbs, the hands and the front arms of rhodocetus, and we understand that it doesn’t have the kind of arms that can be spread out like flippers are on a whale.”
Speculation is a wonderful thing isn’t it. I think you should be able to see now why we don’t trust the sorts of speculation that comes out of the true evo believer’s camp. We rather check into the details.
 
Anyway, it doesn't surprise me. Smart and honest people change their minds when they see that they were wrong.

Yes they do often but unfortunately usually the damage is done because all these things get trumpeted to the media and then sneak out the back door quietly when they are found to be wrong. The reason they are so often wrong is because the speculation is based on a belief that evolution actually happened. When Gingerich admitted to these things it was only on direct questioning. His fellow whale evolution specialists had no idea that his stories about flukes and flippers were based on speculation nor that he had changed his mind in the interim. They thought it was rock solid.
You used convergent evolution as an example of homology. I've corrected you, and you still show no signs of admitting your mistake. That's pride, Lester. A capital sin.

I beg your pardon, you did what? When? and what is your point exactly? My point was how can homology measure relatedness when things that have very similar homology like sharks and dolphins are supposedly not closely related despite all their major similarities.

Have to go





-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 06:52 AM on November 2, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester,
Sorry I've been avoiding this forum. I have enough fragmentation and diversion in my life without volunteering to enter this labyrinth.

The trouble with definitions, as wisp has pointed out in the past, is that they are relative to the definer.

By strict definition everything is "transitional". I am "transitioning" into an old man. This thread is "transitioning" into a tangle. We are all trapped within the transition between "was" and "will be".

So is it fair to ask an evo to produce a "transitional" fossil? Any fossil is transitional in that it is somewhere in between pure bone and pure rock. But is there such a thing as a "transitional form" with regards to phenotype?

I'm not sure that evos and creos could ever come to an agreement as to whether a fossil evidences a transition from one type of organism into another as the evidence is "frozen" in time and the "transition" is by nature fluid.

I understand that evos see transitions as occurring either slowly or rapidly depending upon the type of transition. So one would expect to see both barely distinguishable minor changes and major alterations perhaps within the same geographical group. Laying aside the problems associated with fossilized remains, the only rational examples of trans phylogenetic transition should be readily observable within animal populations today.

The pictorial examples posted by wisp of eels and lampreys is very interesting. Very similar in many ways but different animals. Are they indeed related? Is there enough genetic evidence to suggest a common ancestor? Or are they simply different kinds of animals designed for a similar environmental niche?

My point here is that our different viewpoints result in different understanding of definitions and they are irreconcilable. And that is why these threads become tangled up messes. And that is why I personally can only take small doses.  
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 09:57 AM on November 2, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What is happening here is quite obvious.  Creos ask for evidence of transitional fossils.  When such fossils are pointed out (Archie, Tiktaalik, transitionals to whales, Ardipiducus ramidus and other hominid fossils, etc) Creationists back-pedal and claim these are not transitionals.  In other words, they try to weasel out!

Fine - weasel out and ignore the evidence.  But the facts remain, the fossils exist.  But besides the transitional fossils, stronger proof of ToE exists in the timely sequence of the fossil order that we observe.  There are no 'Fred Flintstones'.  Find a 'Fred Flinstone' situation and you have disproven ToE.  But so far, none has ever been found.

When it comes to 'transitional fossils', the plain fact is - evolution predicts those, and we find them.  And guess what - they're in the right time frame in which we would expect to find them.  There they are.  And more are being found all the time.

Creationism can't do this.  It's not a workable scientific theory, of course.   It's based on primitive ideas of our origins - just like all the other creation myths that we find from most other cultures.  

The biblical God is a myth.




 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:23 PM on November 2, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 03:01 AM on November 2, 2009 :
Consider the part I bolded - I suggest you take an undergraduate comparative vertebrate anatomy course and an actual evolution course.


I might just as well take a course in mythology. Don’t worry I’ll keep myself updated on the latest tall stories of evolution all by myself without any single indoctrinator to lead me.


I only suggested it since the things you claim evolution entails is clearly the result of not knowing anythign about it.  You've spewed strawmen and caricatures and not much else.


You see, fingers (digits) evolved from fin rays.  Tetrapods started out with more than 5 fingers - 5 digits got 'locked' into the vertebrate body plan many millions of years ago.  There has been a reduction in numbers since then.

According to the official story, yes, but nobody was there so how can you be sure without the intermediates to demonstrate that that did in fact happen? Faith is not enough for me.


You ignore or dismiss the intermediates then demand to be shown intermediates.

Up to demonstrating how Yahweh made  afully-formed man from dirt?  Or are we just sopposed to 'believe' it?


As I have said on here before, a single point mutation can cause wide-ranging morphological alterations.


And as I have mentioned before, when a single point mutation causes wide ranging morphological alterations, they have always been demonstrated to be detrimental to the organism concerned SO why don’t you show me one example where a single point mutation with wide ranging morphological alterations did cause wide ranging beneficial changes.


1. You pointed out no such thing.
2. You continue to demonstrate how little genetics you understand.

Like I’ve said before, evolutionists have this uncanny habit of telling us about the beneficial changes while showing us the detrimental ones by way of example. Please don’t let me down here.


Rhetoric and vacuosness.

But you don't actually seem to want to understand any of it.


It’s not that I don’t want to understand, its that I have no reason to believe it.


Right - because yo've done sufficient research on all of it to know that everyone else who is wrong.

The arrogance and pure hubris of the YEC is astounding.


I suppose if I was as reliant on my worldview as you were, I would deny anything that might weakenit, too.


That is what you do all the time already.


I do?

Oh, right, like when you thought you proved that genetics dopesn't support evolution and you yammered on about fossils..

Right....  You're a legend in your own mind.


Archie HAS the intermediate between leg and wing.


No, Archie has wings –no sign of legs becoming wings.


Why do you continue to make a lying ass out of yourself?



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:58 PM on November 2, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester10
derwood
Consider the part I bolded - I suggest you take an undergraduate comparative vertebrate anatomy course and an actual evolution course.
I might just as well take a course in mythology.
Are you interested in mythology? If so, i don't see why not take a course.

And if you're NOT interested, why claim knowledge on the matter?

derwood
No, we don't.  That is why we have been asking you repeatedly and for some time to tell us.  For you keep changing your requirements.
No, you keep giving deceptive examples and that is why we don’t accept them.
Our requirements have never changed.
And yet you keep failing at telling us what those are.

I started a thread. Go and answer.

derwood
I am not the one with ever-changing criteria who cannot seem to understand freshman level genetics, anatomy, development, evolution, etc.
There we go - another silly ad hominem. Well done!
Ad hominem??

Lester, read the Wiki article. You don't understand Evolution OR logical fallacies. There was no ad hominem there.

derwood
Another level is that the concept of gradualism does NOT preclude catastophes or relatively fast change
Show me your relatively fast change example of a beneficial mutation that allows survival.It’s no good just to have faith that such things happen.
Er... Aren't you contradicting yourself, Lester? Check this quote:
Doesn't creation predict (postdict, actually) that a couple of supercats can turn into lions, tigers, panthers, cheetahs and house cats, and all of that in 4k years?
That’s right. There’s vast ability to diversify built into each ‘kind’s’ genome and speciation appears to have occurred pretty rapidly.
Actually you believe in a much higher rate of change than we do (that apparently slowed down dramatically and leaving no signs that it was ever that high).

If feathers didn’t come from scales then scales just went away
Yeah, in many animals they did.

In others they didn't go away entirely.


Take a close look:

You tell us to look around, and that things look designed. You seem quite impressed by the way things look.
With a hand in your heart, tell me if those tails don't look reptilian.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 2:23 PM on November 2, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 03:01 AM on November 2, 2009 :

Remember the legs were supposed to become wings gradually – a wing doesn’t just spring up fully formed except in fairy tales.

Your reliance upon strawmen and grade-school level caricatures are not doing your reputation any good.

So if you imagine that it did, then show me the sorts of random mutations that can instantly create the information required for functional wings from legs –you know, those beneficial mutations with wide ranging morphological changes that you were discussing earlier.

You are misrepresenting me.  You are pretty good at that.  You ar enot ghood at actually supporting your position, however.
You also show you ignorance re: the concept of information, but that can be more fully demonstrated elsewhere.

Are you so sure that feather must have come from scale?  I am not.


Well no you’re correct there. They don’t come from the same gene. But that is the indoctrinator story. If feathers didn’t come from scales then scales just went away and feathers just popped up de novo fully formed and functional. Stranger and stranger.

Why would scales have to go away?
More reliance upon strawmen and caricature.  And you mocked me for suggesitg you take a course on evolution.

I suggested you do that sinice you have always and continue to engage in, frankly, stupid caricatures and strawmen of evolution.  The odd thing is, you actually seem to think that your strawmen are accurate.  I suppose this is what happens when you learn about evolution from individuals or groups with a vested interest in making the ignorant believe that the lies they tell about evolution will save souls.

'Full wings' - please define 'full wing' for us.  Archie's wing is NOT like a modern bird wing, nor is like  a'leg'.  It is a clear intermediate.


HAHA! That’s a joke right?!

If you actually have a background in anatomy, you would be able to see that it is no joke.
But your claim to such a background is apparently no more honest than your claim to have shown how genetics disproves evolution.




As for feathers, I have already mentioned that there is evidence of feathers predating Archie, as well as not-quite=modern feathers.


Yes in more modern looking birds, so archie isn’t the transitional between reptiles and birds after all, is he. That’s just a story using a bird that happened to have some features sometimes associated with reptiles but other times associated with birds but is not the earliest example of a bird with feathers
Why don’t you show me these not-quite=modern feathers???


Why don't you already know about them?  Why do you continue to deny that there are dinosaurs that predate Archie that possess feathers?
You reject/ignore everything shown to you, what is one more thing?
Why, even a cursory Wiki search turns up what you don't know about....

I may have ot explain all that, since you cannot understand cladograms....


No, we don't.  That is why we have been asking you repeatedly and for some time to tell us.  For you keep changing your requirements.


No, you keep giving deceptive examples and that is why we don’t accept them.

Deceptive, eh?

Please explain what you mean.  You mean deceptive like your doctored Gould quote, or 'deceptive' as in you do not accept what is offered therefore it must be deception?

Our requirements have never changed.

Your changing requirements are legendary.
So much so that there is even a bit of a joke about it - this joke, however, is rooted in an exchange between YEC Duane Gish and a legitimate scientist many years ago.  It goes something like this:

YEC:  Where is the transitional fossil between A and C?
EVO:  We have not found it yet.
YEC: Because it does not exist!  Evo is false!  The fossils say so!

passage of time....

EVO:  Hey YEC - we just discovered B, it is the transitional form between A and C just like you asked about.
YEC:  Well yes, but what comes between A and B and B and C?  You have just discovered two more gaps!


Yes - how a supposed Christian claiming a doctorate with a science background can be simultaneously so dishonest and disingenuous and scientifically illiterate.


The usual ad hominems now flowing like water off a duck’s back –You have personally trained me to be insult proof. Your insults are offered by way of evidence and then you get frustrated. Silly.

On the contrary - nothing I wrote was as a form of argument, therefore, nothing I wrote is an ad hominem.  You, like so many YECs, simply do not seem to understand what an ad hominem is.  It is the employment of an irrelevant characteristic  of an opponant as an argument rather than address their actual argument.
What I wrote is not an ad hominem on several levels:
1. Your level of understanding of these scientific issues are PARAMOUNT to whether or not your own arguments can be constructed with validity (they cannot) and to whether or not you have the ability to rebut the arguments employed against you.  Thus, commentary on your apparent abject ignorance of the issues - often issues YOU have brought up - is not irrelevant, not at all.  Had I commented on your appearance, or your politics, and used THAT to argue against your claim, you would be absolutely right to label in an ad hominem.
2. Even if I had mentioned irrelevant characteristics, I did not use them to formulate an argument or part of an argument.

You are correct about one thing - trying to have an honest, informed discussion with a creationist claiming advanced education is most frustrating, when it is clear that the claim toi education is at best embellished and the YEC seems incapable of engaging in an honest discussion about anything.

By the way - it was not I that, in a seperate thread, warned off a new poster about YOUR arrogance and rhetoric, wass it?

- I am not the one with ever-changing criteria who cannot seem to understand freshman level genetics, anatomy, development, evolution, etc.


There we go - another silly ad hominem. Well done!

Not ad hominem at all.
You tried to 'support' your claim that genetics is against evolution by yammering on about whale fossils - FAIL.  You totally avoided discussing bird anatommy despite claiming a background in anatomy - FAIL.  You refer to a documented lying propagandist as an 'expert' anatomoist and ignore an exposure of his lies and later continue to use him as a source of 'authority - FAIL.

If you consider the truth to be 'ad hominem', I am not the one to blame.

Are you of the position that all mutations produce only a tiny alteration in morphology?
Yes or no.
No, but the only large mutations you see are adverse, never beneficial so don’t give me a bad morphological example and expect me to imagine the good ones because it won’t do.
A mutation is a mutation.  What do you think a 'large' mutation is?


I’m still waiting for your large beneficial mutation example

I'm still waiting for you to explain what a "large mutation" is.  A mutation occurs in the DNA.  How is one 'large' and another  not?


–I notice that so far it is not forthcoming. If there is no such thing, on what does your faith rest?

I have no need for the faith that you re;ly on.

These 'programmes' you speak of - any actual evidence for them?  


They’re in the DNA.


An assertion?  Bravo!  I kknew that was all you had.

Another level is that the concept of gradualism does NOT preclude catastophes or relatively fast change


Show me your relatively fast change example of a beneficial mutation that allows survival.It’s no good just to have faith that such things happen.

Science. 2002 Sep 27;297(5590):2253-6.

A single p450 allele associated with insecticide resistance in Drosophila.
Daborn PJ, Yen JL, Bogwitz MR, Le Goff G, Feil E, Jeffers S, Tijet N, Perry T, Heckel D, Batterham P, Feyereisen R, Wilson TG, ffrench-Constant RH.

Department of Biology and Biochemistry, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK.

Comment in:

Science. 2002 Sep 27;297(5590):2222-3.

Insecticide resistance is one of the most widespread genetic changes caused by human activity, but we still understand little about the origins and spread of resistant alleles in global populations of insects. Here, via microarray analysis of all P450s in Drosophila melanogaster, we show that DDT-R, a gene conferring resistance to DDT, is associated with overtranscription of a single cytochrome P450 gene, Cyp6g1. Transgenic analysis of Cyp6g1 shows that overtranscription of this gene alone is both necessary and sufficient for resistance. Resistance and up-regulation in Drosophila populations are associated with a single Cyp6g1 allele that has spread globally. This allele is characterized by the insertion of an Accord transposable element into the 5' end of the Cyp6g1 gene




Show me your deity making a man from dirt by blowing on it.
it is that the overall scheme of things will average out and be 'gradual.'


But there’s no evidence for that. The overall scheme is not gradual by any stretch of the imagination.

Thank you for demonstrating your inability to grasp the concept.

I would also add that since only the strictest Darwinian evolution demands gradual step-by-step evolution, a form of Darwinism that has not been 'in favor' for many decades, your continued strawman demands for pure "gradualism" simply shows how you are more interested in rhetorical games than any real discussion.
If you want tons of empty rhetoric decorated with vast quantities of pompous arrogance...

[derwood note - READ THE NEXT SENTENCE CAREFULLY!!!]The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record."


Wow Derwood, wonderful quote! BLAH BLAH BLAGH



Incredible - I PROVE that you dishonestly and/or incompetently employed a DOCTORED quote, I provid emore context showing how dishonest it was, and THAT is all ytou can muster?

No apology for lying by quote?  No embarrassment that your YEC christian handlers doctored the quote that you unquestioningly accepted at face value?  Nothing?

Do YECs have no sense of decency at all?


You think that the 'Law of Gravity' exists because there was a 'lawgiver'?
Precisely.
So you have just implied that in all your rigoroous educational training, you never learned what 'law' means in science?


Where do you think gravity came from Derwood? Nowhere? Just lucky?

Jesus.. Are you for real?  Are you really just some snot-nosed loser teenager hanging in mommy's basement?

Gravity is a force.   That is all.  The 'law' of gravity - since you clearly do not know what LAW means in science - is simply a statement regarding the observations of gravity's action.
No 'law giver.'
No 'law' as in a set of rules ot be obeyed.

You cannot really be this far out fo the loop, can you?  

Abiogenesis was NEVER part of evolution - that is juat another YEC lie.


Well, like I say, apparently it has been disowned but it always appears in school books alongside evolution - so is that just to push the evolutionist’s preferred beginning of the story?

Oh, well, since it is mentioned in 'school books'
'alongside' evolution, then OBVIOUSLY abiogenesis is part of the theory of evolution!  How did I not realize that?


Why did you lie to us about your degree?  


I didn’t lie to you about my degree. Is the truth so hard for you to handle?

No, your abject ignorance and reliance upon outdated material, strawmen, and caricatures of scientific concepts - such as the 'law of gravity' having a law giver -  makes it is hard to believe.  

Did you think we woul dbe impressed or something


My degree needn’t impress you any more than yours impresses me. You still believe the lie.

It is a lie because your ancient collection of borrowed fairy tales sways so, even though it is all uncorroborated.  Got it...

Oh  -  don't use the bible as evidence for anything, because it is not evidence.

-this from a group of people thjat cannot provide ANY evidence whatsoever that their tribal creation myth has ANY veracity whatsoever.
-
So, why did he have to make dirt-man, then make all the animals for dirt-man to choose a mate form, and only when dirt-man did nto want to bed-down with the beasts did foreskin-lover finally make a female?
Why did the foreskin lover produce all those creationary dead ends?


Oh Derwood, you really have an intense hatred of the God of Creation, Jahweh .


You are confusing my being flabbergasted that an adult in the 21st century can accept the absolutely absurd tall tales and superstitious nonsense of the bible as being 100% true with 'hatred.'  
I do not hate Yahweh any more than Jesus' disciples hated their families (which Jesus told them they must).  How can I hate something that I do not believe even exists?  That would be like hating Santa.


But one will note that you are still absolutely unable to actually provide any positive support for your YEC claims; you ignore parts of pother peoples' posts that you cannot handle, even when it is often regarding issues that YOU brought up in the first place; you do not seem to know what an ad hominem is; you demand precise exquisite detail for your caricature of evolution despite rejecting everything presented to you out of hand; etc.

IOW - a typical creatiojnist.













-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 5:25 PM on November 2, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:03 AM on November 1, 2009 :
Unsupported assertions are for imbeciles.  Put up or shut up.


Absolutely –you spend so much time on ad hominems that there’s no time for any evidence.


You must be one of the 'scientists' who think quotes - even doctored ones - are 'evidence'...

So, here is some evidence:

Dr. Todd Wood, PhD., YEC, wrote the following on his blog the other day:

"Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well."


When I mentioned this before, you pompously marched right over ot his blog and made an ass of yourself, as I recall...


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 5:31 PM on November 2, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
wisp
Lester
wisp
it’s an atheistic system,
No more than the Theory of Gravity. And you don't fight it.
There’s nothing atheistic about the theory of gravity.
It doesn't contemplate any gods. Just like the ToE.
And it is just as much a product of God’s as is life.
I agree.
By your 'and' it looks like we've come to an agreement on this issue. Both theories are equally atheistic.

Even if we were a simulation in a supercomputer, or God's thoughts (which is a valid way to look at the Universe, in my opinion), Evolution would still be correct.
Except that it never happened. It is your delusion.
Instead of wasting your time with useless comments like that you could answer some more questions.
You say that there's no such a line between the Pakicetus and modern whales. So there should be NO gaps in your view.
There’s not a line or a gap,
Good! So you admit that you've been mistaken this whole time?
there’s just no connection at all except in your imagination.
Fine. I'm not discussing that at the moment. Focus.
Pakicetus was a land mammal and its semicircular canals, unlike all living and fossil whales, were about three times bigger when corrected for body size.
True. Large semicircular canals would produce dizziness when turning rapidly. So a decrease in size would come in handy for a species that is adapting to an aquatic environment.

I must have large ones too, 'cause i get dizzy if i turn 720º.

That means there is no ear evidence for relationship of pakicetus to water-dwelling cetaceans.
Sorry. You don't know what you're talking about. There's more to an ear than the semicircular canals.
I'm talking about this:

a) regular generalized land mammal
b) pakicetid
c) remingtonocetid/protocetid
d) a modern odontocete

a) and b) look very much alike.
There's a distinct feature present in pakicetids that are not present in any other land mammals though. Only whales have it nowadays. Take a close look.
The tympanic bone isn't connected to the periotic bone (Per), and it's actually thickened into a structure called the involucrum. Basically, the bony structure of the ear is less tightly attached to the skull, and is more free to vibrate in response to sound transmitted through the tissue of the head. The jaw will capture sound.

This is what has been found.

Besides, in c) the ear drum has dwindled, and the malleus is fused to the bone (which is a clear loss if the animal needs to capture sound waves in air).
Also it was a land mammal that walked on its legs. It didn’t swim.
How do you know that? It's you who keeps saying that we can't know anything about an animal by looking at its bones.
You're contradicting yourself.

What we know is that such an ear structure is helpful to listen underwater, and it's only found today in cetaceans only. We also know that its bones were heavier than normal. My incredible imagination tells me that such a trait would be useful against water buoyancy.

I like swimming. When i fill my lungs i can hold a couple of minutes under water, but fighting the buoyancy makes me waste more energy. So sometimes i grab a couple of stones. But heavy bones would be more useful.

Apart from that we have no reason to believe that any one kind of animal can change into any other kind of animal. The fact that evolutionists say it happened long ago and far away is not a reliable witness since their tall tales precede them.There never was any other evidence so guess we’ll have to chuck that one too.
I'm tired of showing you things that you won't comment...

You can only get a gap between two things if there IS a line that joins them.
Oh I see, that’s convenient.
Huh?
So if there’s a gap between a mouse and a table then there IS a line that joins them?
I'm talking about Evolution. You?
In your imagination there is a line joining every living thing by a process called evolution so it’s to be expected.
Exactly. So WE should see gaps, and YOU shouldn't.

Did you understand it?

Gradual change = microevolution? Yes or no?
Not microevolution no.
An answer!! Amazing!

So how is it different?

Does your definition of 'gradualism' imply that the rate of change is constant or not?
Rate of change does not have to be constant but is limited by the genetic capabilities of an animal.
More like by the designing capabilities of the maker.

Ok then, the rate of change expected from Evolution's gradualism doesn't have to be constant.

Then the discussion is over, Lester. If it doesn't have to be constant there's no reason why we shouldn't expect jumps in the fossil record.

What about the jackal? Does it belong with the dog kind?
Well you tell me
How could i? I don't know what a kind is.
does it produce fertile offspring? That is how you tell, is it not?
But that would only tell me if they belong to the same species.

I think a house cat and a lion can't produce fertile offspring. If my belief was correct that wouldn't stop you from saying that they belong to the same kind. Would it?

You'd say that it was due to devolution or something.

So no, i can't tell you. YOU tell me.

Doesn't creation predict (postdict, actually) that a couple of supercats can turn into lions, tigers, panthers, cheetahs and house cats, and all of that in 4k years?
That’s right. There’s vast ability to diversify built into each ‘kind’s’ genome and speciation appears to have occurred pretty rapidly.
How does it appear so?
They can reproduce so they are the same kind.
They can? Lions and house cats? Do you know this?

Do you or do you not claim that devolution could cause speciation and subsequently prevent a viable offspring?

If you do, then don't waste our time mentioning this.

Do rats and rabbits belong in the same kind or not?
Can they produce fertile offspring?
No, but neither do cats and lions (not that i know of). The same goes with donkeys and horses, and you still say they belong to the same kind.

I can predict lots and lots and lots about sexual behavior, and about generosity, and egoism...
Based on a knowledge of human beings not on a knowledge of evolution.
Wrong. Based on my knowledge on Evolution.

Some things i always knew and they fit my model. Some things i didn't know (about generosity and egoism, for instance), and learned from my model (based on Evolution).

I'll be happy to show you tons of human evolutionary strategies and behaviors.
Adaptation and survival strategies maybe but you can only call it evolutionary if evolution ever happened at all.
Adaptation is the evolutionary process whereby a population becomes better suited to its habitat.

Such a thing cannot happen in your view, i think. How can anything get better at anything with an increase of information, right?

I really don't understand you.

The quotes were to better help you to understand systematic, so you should read them. (Clue: systematic could also mean pervasive or throughout)
Oh, ok, thanks. No need to read them then.

I don't need any fossils to know that.
We have lots, they fit perfectly, but they are not necessary for the ToE to make excellent predictions about traits of the living species.
You don’t have lots, the ones you have are made up. Invented.
You seem to be confused. We were talking about fossils, not about transitionals.
Evolution would still be a fact even if we had NO fossils whatsoever.
Well now that’s an honest comment
All of my comments are.
you don’t need any evidence! So it is a faith/ religious position just as I’ve always said.
Wrong. I do need evidence. And i have lots, besides the fossil record.
We wouldn't know much about how things happened if it wasn't for the FR, but the ToE would still be strong. It explain and predicts beyond the FR.

I care about facts.
When you have any, bring it on!
How about when you have any, bring it on.
Pff. I present them in form of images that you ignore.

What should i do? Send you bones by FedEx?

Of course you don’t need any,
Any what? Any evidence?

You're being dishonest again, Lester. You misunderstand on purpose. That's rude. Be a good Christian and stop lying.
because you have faith
Not in the ToE. The ToE is an explanation. A model. It fits. It predicts.

Besides you avoided the real issue: the fact that we predicted them.
That’s a joke right?
Cut the drama. You know it's not. Stop being dishonest.
Pakicetus is a land mammal,
With an involucrus, like every cetacean, unlike any other land mammal.
Rhodocetus never had flippers nor fins,
I didn't mention flippers or fins.
it’s all imagination because evolutionists needed links for the imagined chain that could be imagined to have turned into a whale.
Whatever. Look at those ear structures.
It’s as simple as that –the thought gave birth to some fossil bones that could be misinterpreted to fit the picture.
Our thoughts seem to be too powerful.

Our thoughts alone gave birth to a fish with elbows and a neck.

Why can't you do the same with your giants, unicorns and the ark?

I've asked you this lots of times, and you ignore my question.

I’ve discussed Tiktaalik with you already.
Yeah, and you dropped the subject, as usual.
No I think you dropped the subject.
That doesn't sound like me at all. If i'm left with nothing to say, i say that i have nothing to say. I'll say 'You're right', or 'I don't know' (which seem to be absent from your vocabulary).
I remember discussing how little one can tell from fossilized bones
And i answered that its eyes were on top, so i know it didn't swim near the surface of deep waters. And that it had elbows that supported weight, so, well, it must have supported weight.

Besides you say that the pakicetus was a land mammal, contradicting your claim that we can't tell things from dead bones.
and how a mistake was made when coelocanth was predicted to be the fish amphibian link except when it was found, it turned out to be all fish after all.
I don't know about this. Can you show me your source?

From your story it appears that they named it before finding it (which seems kinda odd).

The fact is that the pakicetus had ear bones that are found today only in whales. And it fits our hypothesis that the whales descend from land mammals.

Go find the same ear structures in other unrelated animals and we'll lower our heads in shame.
Now would be a good time.
Er... What are you talking about?

I'm talking about the involucrum. Show me an involucrum in an unrelated mammal, and you have my word that i'll lower my head in shame.

So what’s to stop it being simply a land mammal that lived on the land and stayed on the land.
It has heavier bones. But even if it stayed in land, IT HAS A FRIKIN' INVOLUCRUM!
The teeth are not unique to whales by any means.
Don't care.
Evolutionists just needed a missing link so pakicetus was good enough for the job on account of its teeth.
You're forgetting about the involucrum.
You don’t have any evidence that random mutation and natural selection can change any one kind of animal into any other kind of animal so until you do have this evidence, it’s all just story telling.
I don't say things about kinds, because i don't know what those are.

Your religion doesn't mention karma. I could tell you
"You don't have evidence that Jesus has any power over your karma, so Jesus wasn't the Christ".

Dark forces huh? I’d say you’re probably right about that but as for having access to the fossil record you’re totally confused. The fossil record has big gaps all over
Eh???

There’s not a line or a gap
The fossil record has big gaps all over
There’s not a line or a gap
The fossil record has big gaps all over
There’s not a line or a gap
The fossil record has big gaps all over
There’s not a line or a gap
The fossil record has big gaps all over
There’s not a line or a gap
The fossil record has big gaps all over


it supports creation
No. Gaps support Evolution. If evolution wasn't true we would see no gaps. You see them, you lose.
and you have already said that you don’t need any fossils anyway,
True.
so clearly you don’t care that the fossil record supports creation,
Clearly you don't know what you're talking about.

If there was NO fossils whatsoever, Evolution would still be great at explaining and predicting. BUT if we found unicorns and giants, then no. That would support your version of creation, and i wouldn't believe in Evolution anymore.

Hippos have grinding, plant eating teeth so suddenly the teeth are not so important as when they thought ambulocetus was the relative.
Exactly. We've learned that they're not as important as we've thought.
Yes, so you might just as well dump all the ape human transitions based on homology since that obviously doesn’t work in any case.
Logical fallacy > non seqvitvr > petitio principii.

What’s important one day in dream land is not important the next. At least the Bible remains unchanged.
Exactly! And science grows. And you don't like that. You like the 'unchange'.

Is that so? I didn't know that... Can you show me your source?
Dr Phil Gingerich in a filmed interview with Carl Werner –author of “Evolution: The Grand Experiment”
When asked about the missing ball vertebrae that would show that rhodocetus had a fluke, he said: “I speculated that it might have had a fluke…I now doubt that rhodocetus had a fluked tail.”(...)
I meant a link or something.

I googled that phrase and i got two results:
1) Your post in 'Micro to Macro'.
2) A post by some guy by the nick "chisel", with the phrase "Are you a Christian?: Yes, I am a Christian.", in a forum called "bibleforums".

I suspect that you didn't even see the interview you're talking about, and take chisel's word for it.

Anyway, speculation and imagination are important parts of the scientific process. Most breakthroughs go through that.

You don't like them because you don't like science.
 
Anyway, it doesn't surprise me. Smart and honest people change their minds when they see that they were wrong.
Yes they do often but unfortunately usually the damage is done because all these things get trumpeted to the media and then sneak out the back door quietly when they are found to be wrong.
That's absolutely right. To Hell with the media! I don't even have television, nor radio.



You used convergent evolution as an example of homology. I've corrected you, and you still show no signs of admitting your mistake. That's pride, Lester. A capital sin.
I beg your pardon, you did what? When?
Four times just in this thread.
and what is your point exactly?
That convergent evolution has nothing to do with homology.
My point was how can homology measure relatedness when things that have very similar homology like sharks and dolphins are supposedly not closely related despite all their major similarities.
Supposedly? You don't believe in any chance that they are, and neither do we. So that word is superfluous.

And that's a lie. You said:
Well when you consider how often homologous structures are apparently unrelated (as evidenced in so-called convergent evolution)
Homologous structures are always related. And convergent evolution isn't evidence of the opposite, since convergent evolution does NOT lead to homology.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:59 PM on November 2, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood

Dr. Todd Wood, PhD., YEC, wrote the following on his blog the other day:…
When I mentioned this before, you pompously marched right over ot his blog and made an ass of yourself, as I recall...


No Derwood, you are clearly feeling extremely inventive today. You mentioned Todd Wood’s blog (with a link) which mentioned what I said on this forum. Todd Wood must have found what I said on this forum; I never went to him before nor after - thus it was impossible that I made an ass of myself by marching anywhere. Nice story though.



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 03:58 AM on November 3, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

By your 'and' it looks like we've come to an agreement on this issue. Both theories are equally atheistic.


Neither is.

True. Large semicircular canals would produce dizziness when turning rapidly. So a decrease in size would come in handy for a species that is adapting to an aquatic environment.


But pakicetus was a land mammal “All the postcranial bones indicate that pakicetids were land mammals and indicate that the animals were runners, with only their feet touching the ground.”
This is according to Thewissen and colleagues who unearthed more bones of pakicetus that gave a very different picture to the unrealistic but hopeful vision espoused by Gingerich.
In fact, Gingerich has decided that Pakicetus “will have to be put on a side branch…I doubt they have any special relationship to whales.” So in other words, Pakicetus does not have the smaller semicircular canals of the cetaceans and was fully land dwelling and the whole scenario was pure imagination. Of course they still imagine the side branch status but bad ideas die hard and usually get exposed with time. That’s why I prefer the Bible, it doesn’t change. It tells the truth the first time and that holds. We know that kind gives rise to kind and no land mammal ever changed into a whale. In fact the whales were created with the sea creatures before the land mammals were created and evolution never happened. In the end all those evo plans will be exposed. It will be a constant ‘back to the drawing board’ nightmare for the wishful thinkers of the world.

So tell me,when these land mammals developed their special whale-related ear, that would have had to be while they were swiftly running on the land? At what point did they decide that these ears would be better suited to an aquatic existence and then decide to go swimming? It seems they first changed their ears and then decided to take a long swim. Did they then ask Santa for fins and flippers and a blowhole and blubber and to take away their legs and their ears and to help them cope with the high pressure deep water diving and to grow them up from about 150 pounds to about 360 000 pounds. Do you think that all these co-ordinated necessities of the whale grew out of random mutations? There must have been a lot of gradual in-the-wrong direction intermediate creatures that never made it.Where are they? Where are the ones with the fins but not the fluke? Where are the ones with the fluke and legs but not the blubber? Where are the ones that never had the ear mechanism for deep water diving and still had front legs instead of pectoral fins? Surely some of these monstrosities must have been fossilized to add to your picture? Like I’ve said before, your imagination is wonderful, but I think I’ll stick with common sense.

Exactly. So WE should see gaps, and YOU shouldn't.


No we should see gaps and you should have millions more convincing connections.

Adaptation is the evolutionary process whereby a population becomes better suited to its habitat.


But it can’t possibly work that way. If a bear starts swimming a lot, do his reproductive cells sense the habitat and produce mutations in keeping with the environment? No, in fact his reproductive cells can’t respond to the environment at all. If you keep cutting off the tails of rats for many generations, will you eventually get a rat without a tail? No, because the reproductive cells can’t sense the lack of a tail and change accordingly. That’s Lamarckism, something that Darwin believed to his dying day but it’s been disproven and so many evolutionists keep talking as if it is still a viable theory.

Oh, ok, thanks. No need to read them then.

No don’t. They may make you think and we wouldn’t want that!
Wrong. I do need evidence. And i have lots, besides the fossil record.

Like what?
I care about facts…. Pff. I present them in form of images that you ignore.

The problem with your images is that you think I can imagine the way you do about the images that you present, and you appear to think that because you can imagine something, that makes the thing you believe in, real. It’s incomprehensible to me that you can be so easily led by imagination without the requisite evidence.
That's rude. Be a good Christian and stop lying.


You’re so very moral Wisp and I just keep letting you down, don’t I.

Not in the ToE. The ToE is an explanation. A model. It fits. It predicts.


The wishful thought is, unfortunately, mother to the invention.

Cut the drama. You know it's not. Stop being dishonest.


Give me a break oh Derwood’s friend.

Pakicetus is a land mammal…… With an involucrus, like every cetacean, unlike any other land mammal……. I'm talking about the involucrum. Show me an involucrum in an unrelated mammal, and you have my word that i'll lower my head in shame….. It has heavier bones. But even if it stayed in land, IT HAS A FRIKIN' INVOLUCRUM!
,

It was a land mammal. So now would be a good time….
Dr Phil Gingerich in a filmed interview with Carl Werner –author of “Evolution: The Grand Experiment”

I meant a link or something.

I googled that phrase and i got two results:
1) Your post in 'Micro to Macro'.
2) A post by some guy by the nick "chisel", with the phrase "Are you a Christian?: Yes, I am a Christian.", in a forum called "bibleforums".

I suspect that you didn't even see the interview you're talking about, and take chisel's word for it.

I did see the interview and I’ve read the book –have no idea who chisel is.The book is called “Evolution –The Grand Experiment” –by Dr Carl Werner –you should get it, it’s a really great book. The guy spent 30 years or so visiting fossil museums to see what they really have in them. It’s quite an eye opener. I’ve also got his second book called ‘Living Fossils” –also great, very informative, you should get it and the movie with all the interviews.
Anyway, speculation and imagination are important parts of the scientific process. Most breakthroughs go through that.

So do most cock and bull made up stories. Speculations like that an animals had fins and a fluke when no evidence for such a thing exists is wishful thinking, invention of the highest order. Some people get famous with their wasteful imaginings and then books have to be rewritten when they come down off the ceiling.
You’re right I like ‘unchange’, that’s what the truth is, it doesn’t change.
Of course if you like unchange and you believe a lie, that’s another matter altogether.
, since convergent evolution does NOT lead to homology.


According to people who believe in convergent evolution, it does lead to homologous structures by pure chance mutations in different lines altogether.
Look at seals and sea lions –not even related –convergent evolution –but you can barely tell them apart.










-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 10:01 AM on November 3, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.