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
     numbers not in evolutionists f
       numbers not in evolutionists f

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ... 17 18 ... 29 30 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

oldest real ants found were from 90 million years ago


So they haven't done very much over 90 million years? How did they date them? Did they use the dates of the index fossils they found them with, or did they radiometrically date the rock they found them in? Both ways are based on unprovable assumptions so how can we be sure? Why haven't ants done more given all that time?


-------
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: 05:29 AM on July 7, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OK, let's talk the science, like you want.

Quote from Apoapsis at 10:09 PM on July 3, 2009 :
Now, Wells wouldn't do any quote mining would he?  Let's see where "remain unresolved" comes from.

Currently,with the exception of the well-resolved phylogenetic history of the deuterostomes (1), the relationships between and within protostome and diploblastic metazoan phyla remain unresolved(2–5). The uncertainty surrounding metazoan relationships may result from analytical and biological factors such as insufficient amounts of available sequence data, mutational saturation, the occurrence of unequal rates of evolution between lineages, or the rapidity with which metazoan phyla diversified (3–7).

Only one of the phyla in deuterostomes are the chordates, so those are well resolved.
[/size]


Here is a listing of the deuterostomes which according to Antonis Kostas in Science  310 (5756), 1933. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1116759] have  "well-resolved phylogenetic history"
Deuterostomia
 Phylum Echinodermata
 Ateroidea (starfish)
 Crinoidea (crinoids)
 Echinoidea (sea urchins, sand dollars)
 Edioasteroidea (like starfish)
 Eocrinoidea (dawn crinoids)
 Ophiuroidea (brittle stars)
 Phylum Hemichordata
 Phylum Chordata Infraphylum Terapoda
 Urochordata *
 Fish Class Chondrichthyes (cartilaginous fishes like sharks and rays)
 Fish Class Actinopterygii (bony ray finned fish)
 Fish Class Sarcopterygii (lobe-finned fishes, consisting of lungfish and coelacanths)
 Amphibians
 Reptiles
 Dinosauria
 Dinosaurs
 Birds
 Mammals

From: Tree of Life

Kostas' article details the difficulties of resolving the order of radiations in the Cambrian time period, yet his figures show 100% support values for the ability to resolve organisms having spines.  Look at Figures 1 and 2.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 2:17 PM on July 7, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Shouldn't an ant be a footlong grasshopper or some such progressed being that is capable of love by this point in evolutionary time?

 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 5:43 PM on July 7, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 6:11 PM on July 7, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That was hilarious.


-------
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: 7:51 PM on July 7, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

YES HILARIOUS !!!
Wisp you are a true judge of comedy!
 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 8:29 PM on July 7, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 5:31 PM on June 27, 2009 :
Quote from Apoapsis at 12:50 PM on June 21, 2009 :
Quote from Lester10 at 06:56 AM on June 21, 2009 :

Apoapsis
They are actually quite different, the cephalopod eyes have a much superior design to human eyes.


The point is that their design is much closer to that of the human eye than it is to the design of a fish eye. So are we descended from the octopus or the fish?


On what basis do you make this statement?  The design of a human eye is closer to that of a fish than of a cephalopod, indicating closer relationship to fish than octopus.




And another issue dropped like a hot potato.


More science.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:46 AM on July 8, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:29 AM on July 7, 2009 :
oldest real ants found were from 90 million years ago


So they haven't done very much over 90 million years?


? There are over 12K species of ants today, yes nothing happened in 90M years.

Or are you saying that an ant should have evolved into a new class or order by now? But this is not a logical statement and isn't supported by any evidence that organisms must change dramatically, even after 120 million years, which is the date of the oldest ant btw. If an organism thrives in an environment, like sharks, there is no reason why it would evolve into something else, no matter how much time you put on it.

How did they date them? Did they use the dates of the index fossils they found them with, or did they radiometrically date the rock they found them in? Both ways are based on unprovable assumptions so how can we be sure? Why haven't ants done more given all that time?


All current dating methods used by real scientists have been proven reliable, and there is no reason why they would be off so much as to make the YEC version a credible option.


-------
"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: 01:27 AM on July 8, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If an organism thrives in an environment, like sharks, there is no reason why it would evolve into something else, no matter how much time you put on it.

The problem with evolution is that there’s a dumb excuse for everything. A belief that it happened allows you to find a plausible reason for everything. So many things are still the same as in the Cambrian. You can recognize so many fossils as the same organisms that exist now and yet somehow some unicellular original organisms turned into rocket scientists in the same time available for nothing to happen to so many others. Those big changers must have really gone from horrible environment to horrible environment endlessly in order to keep changing so radically. Does this sound real??
If an organism thrives in an environment, like sharks, there is no reason why it would evolve into something else, no matter how much time you put on it.

Why? Why shouldn’t they end up in an office or on the moon. What’s so good about their environment? On the other hand, the ones in the bad space should have just moved then they wouldn’t have had to add all those organs and other paraphernalia. This story sucks so much.
All current dating methods used by real scientists have been proven reliable

You’ve got to be joking. No two methods give the same dates on the same rock. It’s pick a date depending on where you found it and preferably the one closest to the dates for the geological column that were already decided before radiometric dating got started. There are so many unprovable assumptions in the radiometric dating technique, it’s no wonder it doesn’t work.
To make it even clearer it gives dates of 100’s of 1000’s to millions of years too old for rocks of known age why would we trust them then for rocks we don’t know the ages of?
and there is no reason why they would be off so much as to make the YEC version a credible option.


Oh yes there is reason. There’s still C14 in all the layers of the geological column where organic material is found. There shouldn’t be any detectable C14 in rocks older than max 60 000 years so what is going on? It's called 'contamination' because they can't get rid of it. But nobody allows themselves to think of the obvious because then what would happen to 'evolution?'


 



-------
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: 10:39 AM on July 8, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:39 AM on July 8, 2009 :
[
Oh yes there is reason. There’s still C14 in all the layers of the geological column where organic material is found. There shouldn’t be any detectable C14 in rocks older than max 60 000 years so what is going on? It's called 'contamination' because they can't get rid of it. But nobody allows themselves to think of the obvious because then what would happen to 'evolution?'


Ambient neutron flux results in a background level.  Can you suggest anyplace on earth that would have a zero count?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:19 AM on July 8, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The problem with evolution is that there’s a dumb excuse for everything. A belief that it happened allows you to find a plausible reason for everything

It's not a belief, it's an established fact.

Why? Why shouldn’t they end up in an office or on the moon. What’s so good about their environment?

Why shouldn't sharks end up in an office???  Once again, you demonstrate how much you don't know about evolution.  It's not a ladder to intelligence.  It's about successfully breeding in a given environment.  Sharks dominate their ecological niche, they reproduce successfully.  That's all evolution demands.  Why in the world would you think that they would evolve intelligence???

You’ve got to be joking. No two methods give the same dates on the same rock.

ridiculous!  Didn't you ever here of concordance???  The reason we know radimetric dating is accurate is because different dating techniques give us the SAME dates.  Not only that radiometric dating techniques agree with other dating techniques!  You are absolutely wrong here.
From here:
RadiometricDating
"Because radiometric dating is one of the most commonly used methods of determining age, these techniques are under constant attack from young earth supporters. A few creationists, armed with only a cursory knowledge and a desire to think that they're better than scientific "experts", may misunderstand the process of radiometic decay and just not believe it works. This is often accompanied by ignoring the high concordance of radiometric methods."

HIGH CONCORDANCE OF RADIOMETRIC METHODS.  This means that many methods are used to verify a date obtained for a sample.

Here's passage from "Radiometric Dating A Christian Perspective"
Christian

"We have covered a lot of convincing evidence that the Earth was created a very long time ago. The agreement of many different dating methods, both radiometric and non-radiometric, over hundreds of thousands of samples, is very convincing. Yet, some Christians question whether we can believe something so far back in the past. My answer is that it is similar to believing in other things of the past. It only differs in degree. Why do you believe Abraham Lincoln ever lived? Because it would take an extremely elaborate scheme to make up his existence, including forgeries, fake photos, and many other things, and besides, there is no good reason to simply have made him up. Well, the situation is very similar for the dating of rocks, only we have rock records rather than historical records. Consider the following:

There are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other methods such as tree rings and ice cores.
All of the different dating methods agree--they agree a great majority of the time over millions of years of time. Some Christians make it sound like there is a lot of disagreement, but this is not the case. The disagreement in values needed to support the position of young-Earth proponents would require differences in age measured by orders of magnitude (e.g., factors of 10,000, 100,000, a million, or more). The differences actually found in the scientific literature are usually close to the margin of error, usually a few percent, not orders of magnitude!
Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.
Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined.
Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several thousand years.
The mathematics for determining the ages from the observations is relatively simple."

So you are dead wrong, radiometric dating methods AGREE.  That's why we are so confident that they are accurate.  You just continue to spread false information without bothering to check your sources.

Oh yes there is reason. There’s still C14 in all the layers of the geological column where organic material is found. There shouldn’t be any detectable C14 in rocks older than max 60 000 years so what is going on?

Bacteria present in those layers of the geological column are still producing C14, so it's not 60,000 years old.  Your problem is solved, you are wrong again.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:37 PM on July 8, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 12:37 PM on July 8, 2009 :
Bacteria present in those layers of the geological column are still producing C14, so it's not 60,000 years old.  Your problem is solved, you are wrong again.


OK, I'll take exception to this comment.  C14 is produced by neutrons interacting with N14.  The highest production rate is in the upper atmosphere, with the neutron source being cosmic rays.

Nitrogen is present throughout the earth's crust, it is for instance the impurity in diamonds that results in a yellowish shade.  Neutrons are also present throughout the crust, produced from various sources such as decay of radioisotopes, and interaction with cosmic rays or neutrinos.  It is therefore nonsensical to ever expect to find a zero level for C14.  This is a matter of scientific interest, since for many experiments you want to find a detector fluid that has the minimum background count.  I think the lowest I've seen comes from an oil reservoir that had an apparent age of 250kyears.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 1:12 PM on July 8, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Again, did you bother to read any of the refutations of Marshall's self-serving gibberish or not?
Quote from gluteus_maximus at 7:49 PM on June 30, 2009 :
Ok, Does a design plan for your body occur naturally?

Yes.


DNA is a design plan, a code but you chose not to refer to it as a code.


DNA is a molecule.  Calling it a code is jsut shorthand for describing what happens when it interacts with other molecules.  It is a post hoc metaphor.


A language is a code that when decoded, has meaning / information.  DNA fits this example. So DNA occurred naturally?

Yes.

WE give the outcome "meaning".  
Tree rings, when 'decoded' have meaning/information.

Are tree rings not natural?






-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 4:10 PM on July 8, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The irony is staggering...
Quote from Lester10 at 10:27 AM on July 1, 2009 :
Does a design plan for your body occur naturally?
Yes


How can you know that??

We know that it doesn't occur naturally.



How can you know that?

Details please.





-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 4:11 PM on July 8, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 11:03 AM on July 1, 2009 :
Because every animal ever found fits in the phylogenetic tree of life.


No, they don't. Molecular biology gives us different and contradictory trees of life from the expected morphological tree of life.

Can you expand on that with details and examples?
Or is this just something you read in some creationist essay?

So which should we believe? We've discussed this before so lets not ignore the reality of the situation and default to what we prefer to believe.

It has little to do with preferences.

If we find some animal that seems like a mixture, you say that it's an original design, and we say that it's probably a transitional


You only see what you want to see.

But not you, right?



-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 4:13 PM on July 8, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:58 AM on July 3, 2009 :
Because every animal ever found fits in the phylogenetic tree of life.

No, they don't. Molecular biology gives us different and contradictory trees of life from the expected morphological tree of life. So which should we believe? We've discussed this before so lets not ignore the reality of the situation and default to what we prefer to believe.

Now is the time for you to back that up.

Why do i even have to ask?

I suppose I assumed you were around when we discussed this previously and recently and didn’t need to be reminded. I did speak of the Whippo hypothesis where similarities in fossils originally suggested that hippos were evo sisters of pigs and camels but far removed from whales. Similarities in molecules now suggest that hippos are evo sisters of whales but far removed from pigs and camels.


So, it is your position that new evidence should be ignored?

Figures...

That is the only way the lie of creationism can flourish.


Convergent evolution is the term used for similarities that are not thought to be due to common ancestry. But if similarities are the primary evidence for common ancestry, how can we know when they are not due to common ancestry?

Because the similarities have to be put in a context.  



It now seems, according to the example above, that the fossil similarities on which Darwinists originally relied were never evidence for common ancestry at all.

And the 'evidence' that Johnsonists rely on is a predetermined belief that the ancient rantings of homophobic, xenophobic goat herders os 100% true...


If the original fossil similarities were not evidence for common ancestry, how do we know that the molecular similarities are? Why should we trust either hypothesis?


The methods employed to determine molecular phylogenies have been tested on knowns.

Can't really do that with fossils.
Or ancient scrolls.

In 1999, evolutionary biologist Michael Lynch wrote: “ Clarification of the phylogenetic relationships of the major animal phyla has been an elusive problem, with analyses based on different genes and even different analyses based on the same genes yielding a diversity of phylogenetic trees.”

Which creationist website/book did you crib that from?

Let me guess - 'Design of Life', Dembski's latest repackaged same-old same-old?

Why no reference?


Is it perhaps because if one looks at the the actual paper , one might see this:

"The results of this study suggest that, with appropriate levels of taxon sampling and a focus on conserved regions of protein-coding sequence, complete mitochondrial genome analysis may be sufficiently powerful to elucidate the genealogical relationships of many animal phyla."

I wonder why Dembski and Wells and all the other cretins who quote only what you showed do and do not discuss anything else in the paper.

You people seem to enjoy being told half the story (or less) by your handlers.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 4:25 PM on July 8, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 10:09 PM on July 3, 2009 :
Quote from Lester10 at 05:58 AM on July 3, 2009 :

In 2005, biologist Antonis Rokas and colleagues used 2 different methods to analyze fifty genes from 17 animal groups. They noted that “different phylogenetic analyses can reach contradictory inferences with absolute support.” and concluded that the evo relationships among the phyla “remain unresolved.”


Try reading the source rather than Moonie Wells.

The use of single or few genes is now recognized to be insufficient for the confident resolution of many clades (4, 11, 12). In contrast, analyses of larger amounts of data have robustly resolved relationships in many taxonomic groups (11–14), even after allowance for a high percentage of missing data (12–14). Thus, to increase resolution of metazoan relationships, we used experimental and bioinformatic approaches to assemble a data matrix composed of 50 genes from the 17 selected taxa (15).

So an experimental technique is unable on the first try to resolve the relationship between all life?  Let's see how it works after a few years.

Now, Wells wouldn't do any quote mining would he?  Let's see where "remain unresolved" comes from.

Currently,with the exception of the well-resolved phylogenetic history of the deuterostomes (1), the relationships between and within protostome and diploblastic metazoan phyla remain unresolved(2–5). The uncertainty surrounding metazoan relationships may result from analytical and biological factors such as insufficient amounts of available sequence data, mutational saturation, the occurrence of unequal rates of evolution between lineages, or the rapidity with which metazoan phyla diversified (3–7).

Only one of the phyla in deuterostomes are the chordates, so those are well resolved.

Give it up Lester, your handlers are lying to you and making you look foolish.

(Edited by Apoapsis 7/3/2009 at 10:12 PM).



Isn't that just pathetic?

Wells also made a HUGE quote mine in his book (well, I only found one, then, I didn't bopther to check any others) in which he lops off half a sentence from an article to make it seem like a particular issue is a field-wide one.

They are liars, plain and simple.  That or they are monumentally incompetent.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 4:27 PM on July 8, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 03:58 AM on July 5, 2009 :
Apoapsis
Give it up Lester, your handlers are lying to you and making you look foolish.


Actually it is your handlers that are making you look foolish, you just haven't noticed yet.


How are things in the 9th grade these days?



As for your ad hominem against Wells, whenever I see an ad hominem, I take Phil Johnson's advice and look to see why attention is being diverted from science to personal insults.


Another creationist that does not understand what an ad hominem is.



So how about you answer all the other charges that say that the morphological trees contradict the phylogenetic trees and various different molecules in the same organism contradict one another and let's not forget:

.... the main problem with molecular phylogenies is not that they conflict with the morphological evidence nor with each other. Their main problem is that they assume the common ancestry they purport to prove.


That is either a lie or is meant to mislead those who won't bother to find out if it is true.


Molecular phylogenetic techniques have been tested on knowns and been shown to be highly accurate.

Anything even remotely similar been done in creation land?


Of course, does Wells and Johnson not ASSUME creation which they then purport to prove (by lying and quote mining)?



-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 4:32 PM on July 8, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 10:04 PM on July 6, 2009 :
It's too bad you don't have something to say by yourself.  :-(



That would require an understanding of the material.

It is much easier to simply let someone tell you what to think and defend it.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 4:33 PM on July 8, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 5:43 PM on July 7, 2009 :
Shouldn't an ant be a footlong grasshopper or some such progressed being that is capable of love by this point in evolutionary time?



Shouldn't a person purporting to be able to argue against the science of evolution exhibit at least a basic understanding of it?



-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 4:35 PM on July 8, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 4:25 PM on July 8, 2009 :
Which creationist website/book did you crib that from?


Try "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design", by Wells.




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 4:52 PM on July 8, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 4:52 PM on July 8, 2009 :
Quote from derwood at 4:25 PM on July 8, 2009 :
Which creationist website/book did you crib that from?


Try "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design", by Wells.





Should be named "The Integrity-Challenged Guide to Lying for Rev. Moon".


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 5:22 PM on July 8, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OK, I'll take exception to this comment. ...

Yes, you're right.  My misinformation came from a half remembered article that I didn't bother to read again.  
But the point still stands, C14 in the earth's crust doesn't support the claim that the earth can't be older than 60,000 years.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:16 AM on July 9, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Convergent evolution is the term used for similarities that are not thought to be due to common ancestry. But if similarities are the primary evidence for common ancestry, how can we know when they are not due to common ancestry?
Why don't we call the tylacine a "canine"?

Because, in spite of how it looks, it is (was) a marsupial.

And by saying that it's a marsupial (would you dare to say it?) we're saying that it's more closely related to other marsupials than to non-marsupials.

In this case morphology (and our geographical knowledge) was more than enough to realize that.

My prediction as an evo is that a DNA analysis will concur.

Wanna bet, Lester?

What excuse will you come up with when it turns out i magically guessed again?

It IS convergent evolution. And this hypothesis is quite falsifiable. Just run the frikin DNA test.

We can predict things with our premises.

With yours you can't predict anything. Just post-hoc rationalizations. "Yahweh wanted it exactly like THIS".

Usually we don't get surprised because our expectations are met.

Usually you don't get surprised because your expectations are nonexistent.

timbrx
Lester
Programs on computers require intelligence -all I see is my monitor, I can imagine the material parts require chemistry but the programs encoded therein require intelligence.
DNA is programmed information. Non-material and originating from intelligence.
And since humans are a part of nature and making things like books and computers is a product of human nature than books and computers are just as natural as bird nests and termite mounds.
Yesss!!!

So tell me: Do you see intent, purpose, intelligence or information in bird nests and termite mounds?

derwood
Lester
As for your ad hominem against Wells, whenever I see an ad hominem, I take Phil Johnson's advice and look to see why attention is being diverted from science to personal insults.
Another creationist that does not understand what an ad hominem is.
Derwood is right, Lester.

"He's got it wrong. He's stupid."
That's not an ad hominem.
This is:
"He must be wrong because he's stupid".

By the way, ants evolved from wasps.
The bulldog ants of Australia and Tasmania still have a pain inflicting sting.
And many ants still develop wings for the nuptial flight.

Ants departed from wasps 120 million years ago.

I hope they don't ask for any insect fossils from that time! That would be very difficult!

Oh, wait... Found one. =D


And more recently wasps have lost their wings again.
This looks like a (weird and furry) ant, but it's a wasp.

Source: http://www.eyelevelpasadena.com/2007/07/11/mysterious-red-ant/

It's called the "velvet ant". But some know better than that.

If they ever found an ant that looks a lot like the first one i posted (posing in ambar), they would be less related to the rest of the ants.

If they only found one...
Oh, wait! Found one! =D


Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4760982.ece

And, gluteus, it doesn't look like they will be good lovers any time soon, for a simple reason: no selective pressure.



-------
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: 05:10 AM on July 11, 2009 | IP
christcaller

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Things like evolution vs creation have become irrelevant. The churches and mosques will be filled now that the afterlife has finally been scientifically confirmed. Its astonishing that they released the diary (doesaccount.com)


-------
truth is truth
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 9:20 PM on July 16, 2009 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just... not even worth responding to.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 10:20 PM on July 16, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just one more trying to separate $22 from the gullible.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 05:33 AM on July 17, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 9:59 PM on February 18, 2009 :
Sight is a good example. One of you previously mentioned a light sensitive bacteria or something, suggesting that sight would eventually evolve from this humble beginning. I'm curious as to how complex this simplest form of sight really is?


A two-celled eye:



Studying the larvae of the marine ragworm Platynereis dumerilii, the scientists found that a nerve connects the photoreceptor cell of the eyespot and the cells that bring about the swimming motion of the larvae. The photoreceptor detects light and converts it into an electrical signal that travels down its neural projection, which makes a connection with a band of cells endowed with cilia. These cilia - thin, hair-like projections - beat to displace water and bring about movement.
Simple Eyes Of Only Two Cells Guide Marine Zooplankton To The Light


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:20 PM on July 19, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's amazing, Apoapsis! And so unanswerable!


-------
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: 02:43 AM on August 21, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hi Wisp, hope the holiday was good!

That's amazing, Apoapsis! And so unanswerable!


Pity about the trilobite eye.

So are you saying that this marine ragworm exists today (hence the photo) and still has a 2-celled eye! You mean it's evolved that much in how many 100 million years! I'm impressed. Clearly I'm missing the point and this is unanswerable.




-------
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: 06:34 AM on August 21, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What you asked for:

Quote from Apoapsis at 10:20 PM on July 19, 2009 :
Quote from timbrx at 9:59 PM on February 18, 2009 :
Sight is a good example. One of you previously mentioned a light sensitive bacteria or something, suggesting that sight would eventually evolve from this humble beginning. I'm curious as to how complex this simplest form of sight really is?


What you got:

A two-celled eye:



Studying the larvae of the marine ragworm Platynereis dumerilii, the scientists found that a nerve connects the photoreceptor cell of the eyespot and the cells that bring about the swimming motion of the larvae. The photoreceptor detects light and converts it into an electrical signal that travels down its neural projection, which makes a connection with a band of cells endowed with cilia. These cilia - thin, hair-like projections - beat to displace water and bring about movement.
Simple Eyes Of Only Two Cells Guide Marine Zooplankton To The Light


What's the problem?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:36 AM on August 21, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You mean it's evolved that much in how many 100 million years!
What's the problem?


How can this be the answer to the question?



-------
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: 05:43 AM on August 22, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
Hi Wisp, hope the holiday was good!
Why thank you! Yes it was! Hello to you!

-How simple?
-Two cells.
-How can this be the answer to the question?
-What's the problem?



-------
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: 6:43 PM on August 22, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So are you saying that this marine ragworm exists today (hence the photo) and still has a 2-celled eye! You mean it's evolved that much in how many 100 million years! I'm impressed. Clearly I'm missing the point and this is unanswerable.




-------
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: 05:21 AM on August 23, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So are you saying that this marine ragworm exists today (hence the photo) and still has a 2-celled eye!


For its particular way of life, it merely has to be able to distinguish more light or less light.   So for it, the set-up is perfect.  No selective pressure to make anything more complex.  When an organism is well-fitted to its environment, natural selection actually prevents evolution.  It's called "stabilizing selection."

You mean it's evolved that much in how many 100 million years! I'm impressed. Clearly I'm missing the point and this is unanswerable.


It's perhaps the third or forth step from a simple organism which can only detect light by its effect on the cell generally, to an eye that can resolve an image.  In some phyla, most of the steps are still preserved in living members of the phylum.   Would you like to see that?



 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 05:42 AM on August 23, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

For its particular way of life, it merely has to be able to distinguish more light or less light.   So for it, the set-up is perfect.


Why did the trilobites have such a complex eye so early on in the game? Why were things so tough and imperfect for the trilobite? It must have been going through hell.

How do we know that a trilobite's eye evolved? It appeared so suddenly and so complex at first appearance, after all.
It is only your evolutionary worldview that insists that everything had to have evolved from simpler organisms. It is certainly not the fossil evidence that tells you that.

So the trilobite had a terribly complex eye around 600 million years ago and now on this earth we have some organisms that haven't got past the 2-cell stage?

It's all a very strange story -I don't know if it makes sense to you but I'm having trouble digesting it.

Of course if that ragworm was created that way then it would make sense if it is still pretty much the same as when it was created.

When an organism is well-fitted to its environment, natural selection actually prevents evolution.


That's the story -but is it true?

In some phyla, most of the steps are still preserved in living members of the phylum.   Would you like to see that?


I'd love to.



-------
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: 06:10 AM on August 23, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Barbarian observes:
For its particular way of life, it merely has to be able to distinguish more light or less light.   So for it, the set-up is perfect.

Why did the trilobites have such a complex eye so early on in the game?


It didn't.  The earliest known ones, like Agnostus, don't have eyes.   And the complex schizochroal eyes took many millions of years to evolve.  Early trilobites that had eyes, had holochroal eyes.
http://www.trilobites.info/eyes.htm

Why were things so tough and imperfect for the trilobite?


For many of them, it wasn't tough at all.  They did quite well with simple eyes, or no eyes at all.  Others were active swimmers, many of them predators, and they evolved much better eyes.

How do we know that a trilobite's eye evolved?


Gradual evolution in the fossil record.

It appeared so suddenly and so complex at first appearance, after all.


Someone's had a little fun with your trust in them.

It is only your evolutionary worldview that insists that everything had to have evolved from simpler organisms.


As you see, it comes down to evidence.

It is certainly not the fossil evidence that tells you that.


Surprise.

Barbarian observes:
When an organism is well-fitted to its environment, natural selection actually prevents evolution.  It's called "stabilizing selection."

That's the story -but is it true?


It's directly observed today.   For example, a group of carnivorous lizards are, in their normal habitat, very stable.   Put them into a habitat with no prey, and their jaws change to better eat plants, and they evolve a cecal valve to better digest them.

African elephants were very well-fitted to their environment, and changed little.   Then poachers started shooting males for their ivory.    In a very short time, the size of tusks became reduced until some populations have mostly males evolved to be tuskless.

Barbarian on evolution of eyes:
In some phyla, most of the steps are still preserved in living members of the phylum.   Would you like to see that?

I'd love to.


OK...



Read the details at:
http://www.weichtiere.at/english/mollusca/eyes.html

More examples can be found in George Gaylord Simpson's The Meaning of Evolution.

(Edited by Yehren 8/23/2009 at 6:56 PM).
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 6:55 PM on August 23, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why did the trilobites have such a complex eye so early on in the game?
It didn't.  The earliest known ones, like Agnostus, don't have eyes.   And the complex schizochroal eyes took many millions of years to evolve.  Early trilobites that had eyes, had holochroal eyes.


How do we know that these eyes evolved? What if different trilobites just had different kinds of eyes. I'll bet the progression is not simple to complex as you go through the layers where trilobites first appear. I'll try to check on that -but I'll bet I'll find that simple and complex are all mixed up.

Someone's had a little fun with your trust in them.


Mostly I find evolutionists have fun with people's trust actually. For example I asked on a previous thread where bats evolved from and somebody sent a photo of a bat fossil as in 'voila!' The problem was that the bat fossil looked like every other bat fossil and he was trying to pass it off as an early bat ancestor. either he was doing that knowing that he was trying to fool me or else he got it off an evolutionist website that was intentionally deceiving people. This has happened quite a few times so when you tell me that trilobite eyes started off simpler and got more complex, I hesitate to accept it.
You do know of course that no matter what happened with trilobite eyes, trilobites themselves arose very suddenly with nothing linking them and unicellular organisms so you still have a problem. I would really like to see your response to the evolution of trilobites before I investigate for myself.

It is only your evolutionary worldview that insists that everything had to have evolved from simpler organisms.

As you see, it comes down to evidence.


So evidentially what did all the invertebrates evolve from -can you show me? Where did the fish come from? Can you show me? Where did the dinosaurs come from? Can you show me? Where did the bats and pterosaurs come from? Can you show me? I need to see this evidence in order to become a believer. Thank-you.

For example, a group of carnivorous lizards are, in their normal habitat, very stable.   Put them into a habitat with no prey, and their jaws change to better eat plants, and they evolve a cecal valve to better digest them.


Variation within the kind. They're not developing anything that they didn't have the genes for. They will also remain lizards no matter what hardships should come their way. That is all their genome is capable of producing.

African elephants were very well-fitted to their environment, and changed little.   Then poachers started shooting males for their ivory.    In a very short time, the size of tusks became reduced until some populations have mostly males evolved to be tuskless.


It seems to me that the males that were shot had the biggest and best tusks. Culling them selected out the best genes for big tusks. All that was left were the ones with inferior or non-existant tusks. When the hunters culled the ones with smaller tusks, they too were removed from the gene pool so all that was left were the genes for ones with no tusks or very small tusks. What do you think? You don't really think that the genes were planning this do you?

I'll hold my comments on the mollusc eyes until I've investigated further. But one question: Do different kinds of molluscs have different kinds of eyes? Like trilobites? I know very little about molluscs.


-------
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: 09:48 AM on August 24, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:48 AM on August 24, 2009 :
You do know of course that no matter what happened with trilobite eyes, trilobites themselves arose very suddenly with nothing linking them and unicellular organisms so you still have a problem. I would really like to see your response to the evolution of trilobites before I investigate for myself.


Trilobites are the descendants of Precambrian anthropoid like creatures.  We're not sure precisely which, if any, of the fossils that have been found are direct ancestors to trilobites, but there are a number of possibilities.

Further, on what we know about homeotic genes from developmental biology (evo-devo), then it is expected that there will be points in time when changes to the regulatory genes can lead to significant and sudden changes in body structure.

In short, none of this is a problem for the modern synthesis.  However, the mere existence of Precambrian or Cambrian fossils and rock strata pose an insurmountable problem for creationism. The mere fact that you would use the trilobite argument means you've have tacitly admitted creationism is not an accurate portrayal of the history of life on Earth.




(Edited by Mustrum 8/24/2009 at 12:13 PM).


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 12:11 PM on August 24, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:48 AM on August 24, 2009 : I need to see this evidence in order to become a believer. Thank-you.


It is not a question of belief.  I notice that you always use words in discussing evolution that are appropriate for religion, but not for science.  In short, science is a series of adjustments, some fine some major, that allows us to build more accurate and better predicting models and theories over time.

As I'm sure you've been told many times (when will it sink in?), in science one builds theories and then tests these theories with evidence.  If the theory holds up, then we conditionally accept that theory as an explanation for a given phenomena.  If not, we no longer accept the theory and move on.

Of course, there's bit more to it than that, but that's the essence of how science works.  The creationist propaganda technique of equating this process to religion is flawed and only fools those not familiar with science.



(Edited by Mustrum 8/24/2009 at 12:21 PM).


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 12:20 PM on August 24, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Trilobites are the descendants of Precambrian anthropoid like creatures


Can I see them? Preferably side by side with a trilobite. Thanks.

We're not sure precisely which, if any, of the fossils that have been found are direct ancestors to trilobites, but there are a number of possibilities.


That’s the most common excuse of evolution –“we’re not precisely sure which are direct ancestors”. Translated that means ‘none of anything that can be found looks remotely like them but our faith that one thing changed into another somehow assures us that one of these Precambrian things did in fact turn into a trilobite.” It’s a dodge, though maybe you just don’t realize it yet. It’s all in the presupposition that evolution did in fact happen.

Further, on what we know about homeotic genes from developmental biology (evo-devo), then it is expected that there will be points in time when changes to the regulatory genes can lead to significant and sudden changes in body structure.


Oh! So that’s why nothing prior to a trilobite looks remotely like a trilobite. That’s the second most common excuse usually given. It’s a rescue device –I just hope you will realize it one day. It’s also called rationalization and it is required by the theory despite being nothing more than imagination.

In short, none of this is a problem for the modern synthesis.


Of course not. Faith overrides all practical considerations.

However, the mere existence of Precambrian or Cambrian fossils and rock strata pose an insurmountable problem for creationism.


Sorry this is making no sense to me. I want to clearly see my insurmountable problem so please give it to me gently.

The mere fact that you would use the trilobite argument means you've have tacitly admitted creationism is not an accurate portrayal of the history of life on Earth.


Tacit what!!! You wish. You’re going to have to explain further –this is still not making any sense. There’s no tacit anything here. Evolution is not an accurate portrayal of the history of life on this earth and that’s a fact.

It is not a question of belief.  I notice that you always use words in discussing evolution that are appropriate for religion, but not for science.


That’s because I’m trying to explain to you that evolution is a religion and so I’m using words of religion to describe it.
Of course I’m not talking about microevolution or variation which is evidential. I’m talking about the imaginary leaps that evolutionists believe in.

Of course perhaps this is a good time to point out that creationists call minor variation ‘microevolution’ but actually they do not believe that the minor variation is for the most part due to mutations. They (we) believe that this variability is built into the genome from the beginning so that the dog kind will for instance have the genes for long and short hair, long and short legs, long and short noses etc. and that natural selection works to select different genes for different environments but can only select from what already exists. For example, short haired dogs would tend to die out in Alaska so after a while there will be no genes left for short hair and all the dogs will be long haired.

When I talk about science, I’ll use scientific words.

.  In short, science is a series of adjustments, some fine some major, that allows us to build more accurate and better predicting models and theories over time.


And sometimes scientists dogmatically hold on to basically incorrect presuppositions and believe what they have no evidence for and keep adjusting the model to keep it looking as if the basic presuppositions are in fact correct when they are in fact not.

As I'm sure you've been told many times (when will it sink in?), in science one builds theories and then tests these theories with evidence.


Except in the case of evolution where plausible stories evolve to fit in with the missing evidence.

If the theory holds up, then we conditionally accept that theory as an explanation for a given phenomena.  If not, we no longer accept the theory and move on.


Ha! You’re dreaming. Evolution theory holds up against the worst discouragement and the greatest lack of evidence.

The creationist propaganda technique of equating this process to religion is flawed


It will only become flawed when evidence presents itself that conclusively shows us to be incorrect; which isn’t happening.




-------
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: 06:47 AM on August 25, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:47 AM on August 25, 2009 :
Trilobites are the descendants of Precambrian anthropoid like creatures


Can I see them? Preferably side by side with a trilobite. Thanks.


See trilobite info here.

(Edited by Mustrum 8/25/2009 at 07:39 AM).


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 07:38 AM on August 25, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:47 AM on August 25, 2009 :
We're not sure precisely which, if any, of the fossils that have been found are direct ancestors to trilobites, but there are a number of possibilities.


That’s the most common excuse of evolution –“we’re not precisely sure which are direct ancestors”. Translated that means ‘none of anything that can be found looks remotely like them but our faith ...


It is not an excuse, but an honest statement of the state of our knowledge.  It's perfectly fine to say "I don't know" about something.


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 07:43 AM on August 25, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:47 AM on August 25, 2009 :
Further, on what we know about homeotic genes from developmental biology (evo-devo), then it is expected that there will be points in time when changes to the regulatory genes can lead to significant and sudden changes in body structure.


Oh! So that’s why nothing prior to a trilobite looks remotely like a trilobite. That’s the second most common excuse usually given. It’s a rescue device –I just hope you will realize it one day. It’s also called rationalization and it is required by the theory despite being nothing more than imagination.



I was attempting to introduce you to some of the stuff we are finding out via evolutionary developmental biology.  Unless you have some basic understanding of such things, then you don't even know what it is you are arguing against.  It's like when you poo-poo radiometric dating you seem to be unaware that you are attacking the very basics of modern physics and saying that folks like Bhor, Feynman and on and on didn't have a clue concerning the nature of atoms.  

Also, based on what you just said, it seems you've already made up your mind about what the fossils say without knowing anything about them.  




-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 07:51 AM on August 25, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:47 AM on August 25, 2009 :
That’s because I’m trying to explain to you that evolution is a religion and so I’m using words of religion to describe it.


And you are dead wrong to do so.  All you are doing is showing disrespect to both religion and science when you talk that way.




-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 07:53 AM on August 25, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:47 AM on August 25, 2009 : Of course perhaps this is a good time to point out that creationists call minor variation ‘microevolution’ but actually they do not believe that the minor variation is for the most part due to mutations. They (we) believe that this variability is built into the genome from the beginning so that the dog kind will for instance have the genes for long and short hair, long and short legs, long and short noses etc. and that natural selection works to select different genes for different environments but can only select from what already exists. For example, short haired dogs would tend to die out in Alaska so after a while there will be no genes left for short hair and all the dogs will be long haired.


Sigh, if you had a passing understanding of genetics, then you would realize that your conception of how genes work is incorrect.





-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 07:56 AM on August 25, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:47 AM on August 25, 2009 :
And sometimes scientists dogmatically hold on to basically incorrect presuppositions and believe what they have no evidence for and keep adjusting the model to keep it looking as if the basic presuppositions are in fact correct when they are in fact not.


What's your method of self-correction?

If Answers In Genesis says you are wrong, can you admit it?

Quote from Apoapsis at 7:52 PM on August 24, 2009 :
Straight from Answers In Genesis:

Far Out Claims About Astronomy

The Shrinking Sun

In past years, certain selected data appeared to show a decreasing size for the sun. This suggested that the sun might be powered by gravitational collapse rather than nuclear fusion. Since gravitational collapse is not as efficient as fusion, the sun could not last for billions of years.

There also was an earlier problem with missing neutrinos, which are particles emitted by the solar nuclear fusion process. The neutrino deficit once seemed to support the notion that the sun is shrinking rather than powered entirely by fusion.

However, modern solar telescopes do not detect solar shrinkage. It seems that the original data merely indicated small oscillations or vibrations of the sun. Furthermore, the missing neutrinos now have been accounted for; newer instruments detect precisely the number of neutrinos expected from solar fusion. Although the sun may be undergoing a very small amount of gravity collapse, we can be confident that the sun produces energy by nuclear fusion, not an inward collapse.




(Edited by Apoapsis 8/26/2009 at 01:11 AM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 01:07 AM on August 26, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Mustrum

Do you realize that trilobites have such distinctly different eyes that they would have had to evolve separately  30-40 times to make sense of the fossil data? No one evolved into the next -it's a mess for the evolutionist.

It is not an excuse, but an honest statement of the state of our knowledge.  It's perfectly fine to say "I don't know" about something.


I understand that, but the excuses for lots of things interpreted by evolutionists on a faith basis are wearing thin. The fossil record is very representative of what there is and the vast gaps are even more clear than ever but evolutionists cling to their story despite the clear evidence to the contrary. If evolution were true, evolutionists wouldn't have to keep making excuses for why gradualism is absent; we would all see it clearly. It's difficult dealing with blind people -the evidence is in creation's favour but evolutionists keep seeing evolution due to their belief system about the past.

We say 'look everything was fully formed, diverse and functional at first appearance in the fossil record. Big gaps are apparent between different created kinds'

Evolutionists say "look, it's a mystery but we're working on finding intermediates to fill in the gaps and we know they must be there because we know that evolution is true.Here we even have a few guesses to offer you as evidence!"

And you are dead wrong to do so.  All you are doing is showing disrespect to both religion and science when you talk that way.


I don't think so Mustrum. Call a spade a spade and you never have to eat your words. An unproven belief system about the distant past, a once off occurrence, a story about how we came into existance is called a religion. Science is that observable repeatable stuff. Truth is not disrespectful of anything.

Sigh, if you had a passing understanding of genetics, then you would realize that your conception of how genes work is incorrect.


Sigh, I do have more than a passing understanding of genetics Mustrum, I just don't happen to agree with evolutionists on the state of affairs - neither do any other creationists. If it were so obvious, we would all be in agreement. However what we believe to be true about genetics and variation is true based on the evidence; what you believe about genetics is based on wishful thinking about common ancestors and an unobservable imaginary macroevolution that apparently occurred in the past but appears to occur no more.



-------
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: 05:25 AM on August 26, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis:
Quote from Lester10 at 06:47 AM on August 25, 2009 :
And sometimes scientists dogmatically hold on to basically incorrect presuppositions and believe what they have no evidence for and keep adjusting the model to keep it looking as if the basic presuppositions are in fact correct when they are in fact not.



What's your method of self-correction?


From 'Darwin's Enigma' - by Luther Sunderland

"It is permissable for scientists to attempt to salvage a theory that has flunked a test by making secondary modifications to the theory and trying to make it fit new facts not previously considered. A theory loses credibility if it must be repeatedly modified over years of testing or if it requires excuses continually being made for why its predictions are not consistent with new discoveries of data. It is not a propitious attribute for a theory to have required numerous secondary modifications. Some evolutionists misunderstand this and attempt to point to the continuous string of modifications to evolution theory as a justification for classifying it as the exclusive respectable scientific theory on origins. They often make the strange claim that creation theory could not be scientific because it fits the evidence so perfectly that it never has required any modification. That line of reasoning is like saying that the law of gravity is not scientific because it has not been modified enough."





-------
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: 05:47 AM on August 26, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 04:25 AM on August 26, 2009 :
Mustrum

Do you realize that trilobites have such distinctly different eyes that they would have had to evolve separately  30-40 times to make sense of the fossil data? No one evolved into the next -it's a mess for the evolutionist.



Lester, what's your evidence for the 30-40 times statement?

Did you read the page I linked to?  Did you note such guys as these?








Remember, you said, Translated that means ‘none of anything that can be found looks remotely like them but our faith that one thing changed into another somehow assures us that one of these Precambrian things did in fact turn into a trilobite.” It’s a dodge...

Obviously, you were not familiar with the data when you wrote that.


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 07:27 AM on August 26, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ... 17 18 ... 29 30 ]
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.