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
     Animals against evolution
       Incredible creatures that defy evolution

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

    
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am well versed in Louis Pasteur work that show that the spontaneous generation of life failed in his experiments.  Those experments, however, did not mimic the conditions of the early environment on earth.  

You are correct in saying that today life cannot arise from non-life on earth.  But you seem to ignore the fact that conditions on earth 3 1/2 to 4 billion years ago were not the same as today.  

Pre-biotic earth had an atmosphere that favored the formation of life from non-life substances.  Recent research suggests this (see http://newsrelease.uwaterloo.ca/news.php?id=4348).

Early earth's atmosphere did not contain any oxygen.  Oxygen is a very reactive element, and only exists in our atmosphere as a by-product of photosynthesis.  But life does not require free oxygen to evolve.

Do some research of some reputable scientific literature, instead of quoting the inaccurate, and extremely misleading, material found on Creationists web-sites.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 2:10 PM on March 10, 2008 | IP
noone

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Spontaneous generation is the incorrect hypothesis that nonliving things are capable of producing life.

Found here:
http://www.infoplease.com/cig/biology/spontaneous-generation.html

Is this a creationist site?

The erroneous notion of life arising from non-living material is recorded as early as Aristotle's time in 4th century BC.

Your science hasn't gotten too far since then.
See here:
HISTORY OF BIOLOGY – HOW KNOWLEDGE OF LIFE EVOLVED

http://www.mayamarkova.com/biology/B2History/B2History.htm

 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 4:06 PM on March 10, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Perhaps you should read some recent research rather than something cutting off at 1944.

Wikipedia - Origin of Life


-------
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: 5:03 PM on March 10, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Replay to 'noone' -

You are quoting some early ideas/notions from several centuries ago.  Those have no bearing on what modern science knows about the earth today, and what it was like during it's earliest beginnings.  During the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries it wasn't even imagined that the earth was 4.6 billion years old!  Your references refer to the history of the science of biology during it's early years.  Science has progressed in leaps and bounds since the days of Louis Pasteur.  

Try presenting something more substantial to support your case.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 5:40 PM on March 10, 2008 | IP
noone

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You are the one that claims that abiogenesis and  Spontaneous Generation accounts for life on earth. I only point out to you that for thousands of years people have believed this theory. It is not a new idea and dates as far back as Aristotle's time in the 4 th century BC.
Scientist have disproved it.!  I don't have to prove to you that neither theory has merit. Do your own search on Google.

"Try presenting something more substantial to support your case."


Life comes from life. That is the tested and observed fact.
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 7:06 PM on March 10, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I never said that Spontaneous Generation and abiogenesis were the same thing.  They're not.  Spontaneous generation was an idea held prior to Louis Pasteur's experiments that life could spring forth from decaying organic matter.  Pasteur provided experimental evidence that spontaneous generation does not occur.

Abiogenesis is entirely different.  Abiogenesis is a more recent hypothesis that given the right conditions, life can evolve and develop from non-living material.

However, this process takes TIME, and most likely happened in stages.  It didn't happen spontaneously!

You're getting the facts mixed up.

Again, how do you think life on earth began?


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 9:51 PM on March 10, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well Pasteur disproved that life doesn't spontaneously arise from dead organic material, like the soup broth he used for his experiments.  But since the begining of life on earth could NOT have arisen from dead organic material (begining of life!), Pasteur in no way disproved life from non life.  You're not claiming that the primordial soup was chicken noodle, are you?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:14 AM on March 11, 2008 | IP
noone

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 9:51 PM on March 10, 2008 :
I never said that Spontaneous Generation and abiogenesis were the same thing.  They're not.  Spontaneous generation was an idea held prior to Louis Pasteur's experiments that life could spring forth from decaying organic matter.  Pasteur provided experimental evidence that spontaneous generation does not occur.

Abiogenesis is entirely different.  Abiogenesis is a more recent hypothesis that given the right conditions, life can evolve and develop from non-living material.

However, this process takes TIME, and most likely happened in stages.  It didn't happen spontaneously!

You're getting the facts mixed up.

Again, how do you think life on earth began?





Facts???

Abiogenesis is not a fact!  At best it is a unproved theory.  You are the one who has his facts mixed up.
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 09:51 AM on March 11, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think you're right about that - abiogenesis has not been proven yet.  Life hasn't been produced from non-living matter in the lab - yet.  However, some building block molecules such as amino acids (the stuff that makes up protein molecules) have been produced in the lab (ie; the famous Miler-Urey experiment in 1953) using a simple mixture of hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water and electrical sparks.  

The Miller-Urey was an important milestone because of this - it did show that more complex organic building block molecules can be formed from inorganic compounds given the right conditions.  Conditions similar to what is thought to have existed on early earth.  Research continues to refine what that early earth environment was like.

I think Sherlock Holmes would agree that the clues to the origin of life on earth in this regard are compelling.  

What do you say, Dr. Watson?
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:28 AM on March 11, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To my immediate post above, I will also add that the fossil record also strongly implies that abiogenesis occurred.  The first life forms in the fossil record are those of single cell cyanobacteria - blue green algae.  Not multicellular organisms, but single cell creatures.  Just what you would expect from abiogenesis.  I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to connect the dots here.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:39 AM on March 11, 2008 | IP
noone

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Where is your proof?
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 11:19 AM on March 11, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Where is my proof of what?  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:26 PM on March 11, 2008 | IP
noone

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


What's this recipe for abiogenesis? ---It's so simple, basically: "Take one warm "habitable" planet, and just add water!" --then, wave the magic-wand of "time" over it.

Many of these people think abiogenesis obviously occurred on earth, and therefore must be happening repeatedly throughout the universe. Some of the media buzz about the results of abiogenesis research creates the almost deceptive impression and hope that science has all but proven it to have happened.
--But if this is true, then why don't abiogenesis advocates write up the schema of how it could happen (not necessarily how it did happen), and turn it in to the "Origin of Life Prize" committee and collect the $1 million for doing so?
---(Not only that, but there will surely be a Nobel Prize waiting for them.)

Why doesn't somebody do this? ---Because abiogenesis in the real world would present huge biochemical problems and probability problems to which no one seems to have reasonable answers.

Evolution is baseless without a good theory of abiogenesis, which it does not have..
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 2:41 PM on March 11, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution is baseless without a good theory of abiogenesis, which it does not have..


Nonsense.  Evolution obviously occurs, regardless of what we know of how life originated.  Read the scientific literature.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 2:53 PM on March 11, 2008 | IP
noone

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 2:53 PM on March 11, 2008 :
Evolution is baseless without a good theory of abiogenesis, which it does not have..


Nonsense.  Evolution obviously occurs, regardless of what we know of how life originated.  Read the scientific literature.





If a T-Rex evolved from a tadpole and then evolved into a canary I would expect to find fossils of the transition species and there are none. The cockroach is unchanged in 65 million years as are spiders and flies and mosquitoes. Oh yeah, only some creatures evolve and some don't. The Coelacanth is another example of a creature millions of years old that are unchanged today. It was believed by many that the Coelacanth "gave rise to land creatures." Hundreds of fossils of this prehistoric fish were extant in museums. "It possessed, most interestingly of all perhaps, strange stumps connecting its fins to its body. These short stumps reminded scientists of beginning legs. . . ." With these fins the Coelacanth could not only swim, but walk the ocean floor and wade onto shore. The Coelacanth, according to the records of the rocks, had lived 200 million years before the dinosaurs. . . . But they had started on their downward trail at least 100 million years ago. The youngest fossil remains of them were judged to be 70 million years old. In December, 1938, the captain and crew of a trawler fishing off the southeast coast of Africa caught one. They still thrive today.
Wake up people! Evolution is a great theory but it doesn't fit the facts.
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 3:10 PM on March 11, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do you even understand how evolution works?

Here is some information about the Coelacanth from the Talk Origins web-site.

The modern coelacanth is Latimeria chalumnae, in the family Latimeriidae. Fossil coelacanths are in other families, mostly Coelacanthidae, and are significantly different in that they are smaller and lack certain internal structures. Latimeria has no fossil record, so it cannot be a "living fossil."


Even if the modern coelacanth and fossil coelacanths were the same, it would not be a serious problem for evolution. The theory of evolution does not say that all organisms must evolve. In an unchanging environment, natural selection would tend to keep things largely unchanged morphologically.


Coelacanths have primitive features relative to most other fish, so at one time they were one of the closest known specimens to the fish-tetrapod transition. We now know several other fossils that show the fish-tetrapod transition quite well.


There are several good transitional fossils between fish and tetrapods:


- Most fish have anterior and posterior external nostrils. In tetrapods, the posterior nostril is replaced by the choana, an internal nostril opening into the roof of the mouth. Kenichthys, a 395-million-year-old fossil from China, is exactly intermediate between the two, having nostrils at the margin of the upper jaw (Zhu and Ahlberg 2004).


- A fossil shows eight bony fingers in the front fin of a lobed fish, offering evidence that fingers developed before land-going tetrapods (Daeschler and Shubin 1998).


- A Devonian humerus has features showing that it belonged to an aquatic tetrapod that could push itself up with its forelimbs but could not move it limbs back and forth to walk (Shubin et al. 2004).


- Acanthostega, a Devonian fossil, about 60 cm long, probably lived in rivers (Coates 1996). It had polydactyl limbs with no wrists or ankles (Coates and Clack 1990). It was predominantly, if not exclusively, aquatic: It had fishlike internal gills (Coates and Clack 1991), and its limbs and spine could not support much weight. It also had a stapes and a lateral sensory system like a fish.


- Ichthyostega, a tetrapod from Devonian streams, was about 1.5 m long and probably amphibious. It had seven digits on its rear legs (its hands are unknown). Its limbs and spine were more robust than those of Acanthostega, and its rib cage was massive. It had fishlike spines on its tail, but these were fewer and smaller than Acanthostega's. Its skull had several primitive fishlike features, but it probably did not have internal gills (Murphy 2002).


- Tulerpeton, from estuarine deposits roughly the same age as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega, had six digits on its front limbs and seven on its rear limbs. Its shoulders were more robust than Acanthostega, suggesting it was somewhat less aquatic, and its skull appears to be closer to later Carboniferous amphibians than to Acanthostega or Ichthyostega.

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 4:04 PM on March 11, 2008 | IP
noone

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have finally found positive proof that evolution is real. I have no more doubts. See here:
http://www.5min.com/Video/How-Evolution-Happens-4804307
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 4:40 PM on March 11, 2008 | IP
noone

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 4:04 PM on March 11, 2008 :
Do you even understand how evolution works?

Here is some information about the Coelacanth from the Talk Origins web-site.

The modern coelacanth is Latimeria chalumnae, in the family Latimeriidae. Fossil coelacanths are in other families, mostly Coelacanthidae, and are significantly different in that they are smaller and lack certain internal structures. Latimeria has no fossil record, so it cannot be a "living fossil."


Even if the modern coelacanth and fossil coelacanths were the same, it would not be a serious problem for evolution. The theory of evolution does not say that all organisms must evolve. In an unchanging environment, natural selection would tend to keep things largely unchanged morphologically.


Coelacanths have primitive features relative to most other fish, so at one time they were one of the closest known specimens to the fish-tetrapod transition. We now know several other fossils that show the fish-tetrapod transition quite well.


There are several good transitional fossils between fish and tetrapods:


- Most fish have anterior and posterior external nostrils. In tetrapods, the posterior nostril is replaced by the choana, an internal nostril opening into the roof of the mouth. Kenichthys, a 395-million-year-old fossil from China, is exactly intermediate between the two, having nostrils at the margin of the upper jaw (Zhu and Ahlberg 2004).


- A fossil shows eight bony fingers in the front fin of a lobed fish, offering evidence that fingers developed before land-going tetrapods (Daeschler and Shubin 1998).


- A Devonian humerus has features showing that it belonged to an aquatic tetrapod that could push itself up with its forelimbs but could not move it limbs back and forth to walk (Shubin et al. 2004).


- Acanthostega, a Devonian fossil, about 60 cm long, probably lived in rivers (Coates 1996). It had polydactyl limbs with no wrists or ankles (Coates and Clack 1990). It was predominantly, if not exclusively, aquatic: It had fishlike internal gills (Coates and Clack 1991), and its limbs and spine could not support much weight. It also had a stapes and a lateral sensory system like a fish.


- Ichthyostega, a tetrapod from Devonian streams, was about 1.5 m long and probably amphibious. It had seven digits on its rear legs (its hands are unknown). Its limbs and spine were more robust than those of Acanthostega, and its rib cage was massive. It had fishlike spines on its tail, but these were fewer and smaller than Acanthostega's. Its skull had several primitive fishlike features, but it probably did not have internal gills (Murphy 2002).


- Tulerpeton, from estuarine deposits roughly the same age as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega, had six digits on its front limbs and seven on its rear limbs. Its shoulders were more robust than Acanthostega, suggesting it was somewhat less aquatic, and its skull appears to be closer to later Carboniferous amphibians than to Acanthostega or Ichthyostega.




Claim CC212:

   There are no transitional fossils between fish and tetrapods.

Source:

   * Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 82-83.
   * Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life—How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 72.


CreationWiki response:

First of all, note that both of the cited sources predate all of Talk Origins' references, so at worst they are out of date.

Furthermore, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is not a good source of creation literature. At best, its authors show signs of poor scholarship.

(Talk.Origins quotes in blue)

1. There are several good transitional fossils:


Evolutionists see every animal and person as a transitional form, and they tend to interpret the fossil evidence from this standpoint. They often use remains that are so fragmented as to allow plenty of room for evolutionary assumptions. They sometimes ignore their own dating methods, placing "older" fossils after "younger" fossils to make the order agree with the theory. They may also ignore bigger differences that eliminate any possible trend.

   * Reference: Transitional forms

a. Most fish have anterior and posterior external nostrils. In tetrapods, the posterior nostril is replaced by the choana, an internal nostril opening into the roof of the mouth. Kenichthys, a 395-million-year-old fossil from China, is exactly intermediate between the two, having nostrils at the margin of the upper jaw. [Zhu and Ahlberg 2004]


First of all, Kenichthys is based on one incomplete skull with no articulated bones, making it impossible to assemble an entire skull. The so-called internal nostril is what seems to be a notch between the premaxillary and maxillary. This notch could result from missing bone.

The lack of pictures or even illustrations of this incomplete skull makes an independent analysis impossible. Most articles on this fossil are so filled with evolutionary interpretations that they have no independently useful data. Also, the fossil is from China, where there is known to be a large fake fossil industry, and there is no indication that the authors personally found the fossil in the ground. If they bought it from a dealer, it could be a result of this fake fossil industry.

Even if they are right about the notch being an internal nostril, it is dated as 25-30 million years too old to be transitional between fish and amphibians. There are several types of lobe-finned fish that are considered ancestors to amphibians that are dated younger than Kenichthys but show no evidence of this internal nostril. This fact alone eliminates Kenichthys from being a transitional fossil between fish and amphibians.

   * Reference:Article 15 — Nostrils

b. A fossil shows eight bony fingers in the front fin of a lobed fish, showing that fingers developed before land-going tetrapods [Daeschler and Shubin 1998].


It is known as Sauripterus. Its fins have eight finger-like digits, the same as the number on the feet of some amphibians. Sauripterus could not walk—the bones were too thin—and it is not even considered an ancestor to amphibians. So it is just a kind of fish with an unusual fin.

   * Reference: Fins and Fingers in One Fishy Fossil


c. A Devonian humerus has features showing it belonged to an aquatic tetrapod which could push itself up with its forelimbs but could not move it limbs back and forth to walk [Shubin et al. 2004].


So both reptiles and mammals have totally aquatic kinds—so what? Maybe this is a totally aquatic kind of amphibian. It's hard to tell from just a vague reference to a humerus.


d. Acanthostega, a Devonian fossil, about 60 cm long, which probably lived in rivers [Coates 1996]. It had polydactyl limbs with no wrists or ankles [Coates and Clack 1990]. It was predominantly if not exclusively aquatic: it had fishlike internal gills [Coates and Clack 1991], and its limbs and spine could not support much weight. It also had a stapes and a lateral sensory system like fish.


Acanthostega seems to have been an almost totally aquatic amphibian. Both reptiles and mammals have totally aquatic kinds, so totally aquatic amphibians are possible as well. Furthermore, there is no evidence of a connection to fish; the fossil evidence is too fragmented. Also it is dated as contemporary with Ichthyostega, so there is no clear indication of what Acanthostega would be transitional from and to.

   * Reference: Transitional forms

e. Ichthyostega, a probably amphibious tetrapod from Devonian streams, about 1.5 m long. It had seven digits on its rear legs (its hands are unknown). Its limbs and spine were more robust than those of Acanthostega, and its rib cage was massive. It had fish-like spines on its tail, but fewer and smaller than Acanthostega's. Its skull had several primitive fish-like features, but it probably did not have internal gills. [Murphy 2002]

   * Ichthyostega was a largely aquatic amphibian that was capable of walking on land. This is known to occur in mammals such as seals. There are too many differences with Acanthostega to support evolution, in the absence of intermediate forms.
   * Reference: Ichthyostega stensioei
   * Reference: Ichthyostega: fossils
   * Reference: Transitional forms


f. Tulerpeton, from estuarine deposits roughly the same age as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega, had 6 digits on its front limbs and seven on its rear limbs. Its shoulders were more robust than Acanthostega, suggesting it was somewhat less aquatic, and its skull appears to be closer to later Carboniferous amphibians than to Acanthostega or Ichthyostega.

Tulerpeton is based on fragmented fossil remains. The pectoral girdle is nearly complete, as are one fore and hind limb. The skull and pelvis are fragmented. The fossil also included some small belly scutes. It is claimed that Tulerpeton was less aquatic and that its skull is more like Carboniferous amphibians than those of Acanthostega and Ichthyostega. However, they are dated as roughly contemporary with Acanthostega and Ichthyostega, thus eliminating Tulerpeton as transitional between Acanthostega and Ichthyostega, and Carboniferous amphibians.

   * Reference: Tulerpeton curtum

So of these "good transitional fossils," one is dated as tens of millions of years too old; one is not considered ancestral to amphibians; one is known only from a humerus; three are dated as contemporary with each other with no transitions indicated between them or fish. So the claim stands, there are no transitional fossils between fish and tetrapods.

However, since evolutionists do claim these fossils are transitional, based on their presupposition of evolution, it should be updated to read "There are no real transitional fossils between fish and tetrapods."

http://creationwiki.org/index.php/CC212
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 5:30 PM on March 11, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is a more indepth article from December, 2005 Scientific American that discusses tetrapod evolution.  It explains how in the last 15 years many more tetrapod fossils from 380-360 million years ago have been discovered - some of which are more complete fossils of earlier finds.  These creatures displayed both fish-like structures, but also had more developed air-breathing apparatus.  They are clearly NOT strictly amphibious creatures.

Curiously, it is hypothesized that these earlier tetrapods developed air-breathing and weight-bearing limbs, not so they could walk on land, but so that they could inhabit a shallow water environment.  Probably to take advantage of catching easier prey and avoiding larger preditors.

It was also pointed out in the article that deciduous plant life had evolved during this time, thus there may have been more organic material in shallow water, attracting smaller fish.  Larger fish that evolved into tetrapods followed this food supply, developing stronger limbs in order to gulp air in oxygen poor waters.  

So it could be that movement on land was not the initial driving force behind early tetrapod evolution.  But the development to breath air and bear weight on limbs for shallow water specialization served as a stepping stone for creatures to further adapt to a terrestrial environment.  

The article makes good sense from an evolutionary point of view.  

Also, you have to understand that evolution does not progress in a linear fashion.  Some creatures lead to further evolutionary development, while some creatures lead to a dead-end.  It is naive to think that all of the tetrapods originally listed above were related directly to one another.  They were a class of animals that led to the evolution of features that allowed animals to eventually inhabit a terrestrial environment.

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 01:19 AM on March 12, 2008 | 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.