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
     Valid Creationis Arguments
       a challenge to creationists

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

    
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks Apoapsis, very interesting article!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 1:08 PM on March 12, 2004 | IP
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A Response


-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 6:12 PM on March 15, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

YET, why do you insist on beating this one subject to death.  I asked for any and all evidences for a young earth/creationist view, and after this amount of time, all you've come up with is one example of anomalous data, from a study which even you have said isn't completed yet.  Despite what you may have heard, one discrepancy does not overthrow 200 years of scientific study.  Do you have anything else, or are you content to believe that one anomalous study is all that's needed?


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 8:39 PM on March 15, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What a pile of crap!  A response?!?  You keep saying the same things over and over and you get them wrong!  The RATE group?  They are no scientific organization, they are a creationist organization with an agenda to cast doubt on real science and prop up their faulty creation myths!  Their science and Humphries is extremely suspect.  I freely admitted that this is a subject that I am not familiar with, I said I'd wait for further results, but you can't let go of it, it's the only thing you've got.  I asked for other young earth evidence and you try to turn it into an admission of victory.  So let's set the record straight, do these zircons provide evidence for a young earth, NO!, as you have said ad infinitum, the data has not been thouroughly analyzed.  
As for evolution being a religion, you still pathetically cling to some twisted definition in a futile attempt to bring science down to your myths:

religion

re·li·gion [ ri líjjən ] (plural re·li·gions)

noun  

1. religion beliefs and worship: people’s beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life


2. religion particular system: a particular institutionalized or personal system of beliefs and practices relating to the divine


3. personal beliefs or values: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by


4. obsession: an object, practice, cause, or activity that somebody is completely devoted to or obsessed by
The danger is that you start to make fitness a religion.

Your interpretation of science as a religion is as worthless as the rest of your arguements!
You ignore the fact that the theory of evolution is not a cause, it is an observable, testable scientific theory.  It is not an obsession, it is merely the best explaination of the diversification of life on the planet.





 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:02 PM on March 15, 2004 | IP
Brother Darwin

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"it is an observable, testable scientific theory.  It is not an obsession, it is merely the best explaination of the diversification of life on the planet."

So far I have only seen examples of diversification within kinds.  Recently I went to a reptile show and they have all kinds of corn snakes now...."rasberry creme", etc.  All of these are from inbreeding within a subset of the population.   But they are still snakes...even corn snakes still.

I do not observe any type of diversification from one type of animal to another.




-------
John Henry
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 5:51 PM on March 17, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I do not observe any type of diversification from one type of animal to another.

That's because creationists are notorious for ignoring the evidence staring them in the face.
Evolution on the scale you're talking about takes far too long to observe in our life time.
But what about all the evidence in the fossil record?  Archaeopteryx is clearly transitional between brids and dinosaurs.  Acanthostega was a fish with legs, clearly transitional between fish and amphibians.  And there are a great number of excellent fossils of the therapsids, or mammal like reptiles.  These examples are exactly what the theory of evolution predicts, they are transitions from one "type" of animal to another.  How are they explained by creation?
We don't even have to go to the fossil record for clearly tranistional animals, let's look at some that are alive today!  The lungfish and mudskippers are transitional between fish and amphibians, fish with lungs, fish that walk on land...  And then there is the duckbilled platypus.  Here is an animal that is endothermic like a mammal, has fur like a mammal, and feeds it's young with milk produced in it's body.  But it doesn't have mammilian breasts, it simply secrets the milk from it's skin.  It has only one exit point from it's body, the cloaca, like a reptile (all other mammals have 2 exit points), the males produce poison like a reptile and it lays eggs like a reptile. Again, evolution has an explaination for this, creationism does not.
There you go a couple of living examples of just what you are asking for.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 08:40 AM on March 18, 2004 | IP
Brother Darwin

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38, your assumption of creationists ignoring evidence does not apply here.  Remember, I was taught evolution in High School and college and believed it.  As things did not add up, I gradually underwent a "paradigm shift" over to the creationist side.

I guess you could say I was an evolutionist who slowly "evolved" into a creationist...except when the actual paradigm shift occurred...that's when I underwent punctuated equilibrium.

I'm not expecting to see a reptile evolve into a mammal in my lifetime.  Because as you say, it would take too long.  

But they're are thousands, if not millions, of different organisms.  Let's just take one type, say, reptiles.

Since everything is upwardly evolving slowly, and since it takes a long long time, and since every type of reptile is the product of such an ongoing process, then I expect to see thousands of different reptiles currently in a state of transition between what it used to be and the next level.

Perhaps some are evolving into birds instead of mammals.  I expect to see some and wonder..."is that an Eastern Fence Swift or is that some type of bird?...I don't know which".  

I would encounter some creatures that I may have to dissect and ask..."is it majority reptile or majority bird?"  Sometimes it might be 100% reptile, sometimes 60% reptile/40% bird, etc.  I expect to see that NOW.  

Especially since the upwards evolution is so slow and happens so generally.

As far as the Platypus, what in your opinion do you think it is a transition of?  Will it be a duck?  By the way, most evolutionists see the platypus as an advanced animal in its own right and not a transitional.  One reason is because of the extremely complicated sensors in it's "bill" that enable it to detect it's food in the dark several feet away.  

As far as lungfish, it is a fish that can breathe air.  That does not necessarily mean that it is part fish/part amphibian.  That is an inference that is brought to the lungfish.

Let me demonstrate.  An eastern legless lizard, or commonly called "glass snake", has no legs, hence it's name.  Yet it is a lizard.  Now to use your lungfish logic on the eastern legless lizard, then which is it?  Is it a snake that is transitioning to a lizard?  Or is it a lizard that is transitioning to a snake?  That would be a lateral move, perhaps not upwards, but still, it is obviously a snake caught halfway to a lizard. ..or is it a lizard halfway to a snake?

There is really no way to decide.  My fact that I have is that it is a lizard without legs.  Whatever I decide it is transitioning into will just be my opinion.  I might be right, or I might be wrong.  

Or...it could just be a lizard that has no legs, period!  It's not a snake evolving into a lizard nor a lizard evolving into a snake!  It is what it is, a legless lizard.  It possibly could have been a lizard that lost it's legs, but it's still a lizard.

There is a point to where our facts stop and our opinions begin.  This is true for both creationists and evolutionists.  




-------
John Henry
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 7:43 PM on March 18, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Brother Darwin, you seem to be under the assumption that animals are moving "upwards" (all reptiles have to evolve into birds or mammals, all fish have to evolve into amphibians, etc.)  This is not what evolution predicts.  Evolution predicts that animals adapt to suit the environment, and those with adaptations which exploit a particular niche or which better allow them to exploit a resource will be the most succesful, thus passing on the adaptation.  There is no reason for all reptiles to evolve into birds.  That particular niche is already filled by animals better adapted to exploit those resources.  If you studied evolution in high school and college, why do you need this explained?  To put it simply, there is no "end product" of evolution.  Evolution is the fine tuning of an organism to better take advantage of the environment.  We as humans are not the pinnacle of mammalian evolution.  Birds are not the pinnacle of reptilian evolution.


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 10:08 PM on March 18, 2004 | IP
Brother Darwin

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ, I'll just assume you did not read the example about the eastern legless lizard, which would be a lateral move, not upwards.


-------
John Henry
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 6:09 PM on March 19, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, I read that part just fine.  It made no sense.  There is a lizard that has adapted to suit it's environment, and that adaptation has led it to lose it's legs.  That does not automatically make it a snake.  It is a legless lizard.  Evolution makes no predictions on what it will become.  So, as you said "that's just your opinion.

If you expect to see changes on the magnitude of reptile to mammal in your lifetime, I hope your taking your vitamins, because you have a long wait ahead of you


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 6:53 PM on March 19, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38, your assumption of creationists ignoring evidence does not apply here.  Remember, I was taught evolution in High School and college and believed it.  As things did not add up, I gradually underwent a "paradigm shift" over to the creationist    side.

You never told us what doesn't add up, but since virtually all worlds biologists (99.8%) disagree with you and say that all the evidence found to date supports the theory of evolution and nothing else, what do you know that they don't?

Since everything is upwardly evolving slowly, and since it takes a long long time, and since every type of reptile is the product of such an ongoing process, then I expect to see thousands of different reptiles currently in a state of transition between what it used to be and the next level.

See, here is where I have to doubt your claims about studying evolution.  The theory of evolution does NOT say everything is evolving upwardly.  This is a typical strawman arguement creationists who don't understand evolution make.  Evolution merely goes with what survives, organisms may increase in complexity over time or decrease in complexity over time. Evolution has no goal to upwardly evolve anything.  Now, technically every organism is in a state of transition between what it was before to what it will become in the future but since we have no idea what environmental pressures will affect any given organisms evolution, we have no idea what they will evolve into in the future.  But since we see thousands of different species of reptiles in various degrees of relatedness, it's obvious evolution has occurred.

I would encounter some creatures that I may have to dissect and ask..."is it majority reptile or majority bird?"  Sometimes it might be 100% reptile, sometimes 60% reptile/40% bird, etc.  I expect to see that NOW.

And if you had bothered to do any research whatsoever, you would have seen just that.
Crocodilians (alligators, crocodiles) are more closely related to birds than they are to snakes and lizards.  From here:
Crocs/Birds

"There is confusion as to where the crocodilians evolutionary fit among the reptilians.  They are in the class Reptilia, a group that excludes birds, even though it is generally understood crocodilians are more closely related to birds than snakes, lizards, or turtles (Naish 2001 and Britton 2002).  Although birds belong to the class Aves (not Reptilia), they are placed in the subgroup Archosauria with the crocodilians."

Just what you asked for...

As far as the Platypus, what in your opinion do you think it is a transition of?  Will it be a duck?  By the way, most evolutionists see the platypus as an advanced animal in its own right and not a transitional.  One reason is because of the extremely complicated sensors in it's "bill" that enable it to detect it's food in the dark several feet away.

Oh please, the platypus' bill is not a traditional bird bill, it's a snout covered by a fine fur, the platypus has no bird like characteristics at all.
In my opinion and that of, again, virtually every biologist alive, the platypus (all monotremes, actually) is a transition between reptiles and mammals, I thought I made that clear in my last post.  Most biologists do NOT see it as an advanced animal because of the extremely complicated sensors in it's snout.  All biologists see it as a
species of primitive mammal that made it's way to the isolated island of Australia where there were no placental mammals to compete against it.  It is just as evolved as any other organism on the planet.  From here:
Platypus

"Monotremes were the transition between the reptile-ruled world of the Mesozoic to the mammal-ruled world of the Cenozoic."

I see you ignored the other characteristics of the Platypus that I mentioned, that it lays reptile like eggs, it has only 1 exit point from it's body like a reptile, it's poisonous like a reptile.  What's your explaination for these?

As far as lungfish, it is a fish that can breathe air.  That does not necessarily mean that it is part fish/part amphibian.  That is an inference that is brought to the lungfish.

A fish that can breath air, that sounds like an excellent definition of an amphibian!  The lungfish has 2 distinct methods of breathing and mudskippers have this plus fins that can act as legs on land.  This fulfills your request to see animals that have a mix of characteristics, these are true transitionals.  If this doesn't satisfy you, tell me what you mean by animals that are transitional...
As far as fish to amphibians, from here:
Fish/Amphibs

"Almost 400 million years ago, a sturdy-finned fish clambered onto land to explore the possibilities of terrestrial life. Not only did it find safety from its predators, but a feast of insects as well.
This first fish out of water is thought to have been a sarcopterygian (lobe-finned fish) and it gave rise to a fish-like creature with stouter limbs: the first amphibian."

Let me demonstrate.  An eastern legless lizard, or commonly called "glass snake", has no legs, hence it's name.  Yet it is a lizard.  Now to use your lungfish logic on the eastern legless lizard, then which is it?  Is it a snake that is transitioning to a lizard?  Or is it a lizard that is transitioning to a snake?  That would be a lateral move, perhaps not upwards, but still, it is obviously a snake caught halfway to a lizard. ..or is it a lizard halfway to a      snake?

Once again you use a poor analogy.  Snakes are not simply lizards without legs, they have other physiological differences.  It is not a snake or a lizard caught in mid transition as you say.  the legless lizard is a lizard without legs, a lizard that faced similar pressures to snakes, this is an example of convergent evolution.  As you say:

Or...it could just be a lizard that has no legs, period!  It's not a snake evolving into a lizard nor a lizard evolving into a snake!  It is what it is, a legless lizard.  It possibly could have been a lizard that lost it's legs, but it's still a lizard.

and this is readily apparent to biologists.

There is a point to where our facts stop and our opinions begin.  This is true for both creationists and evolutionists.

I'll agree with you here.  But as more evidence is found, analyzed and compared, as more experiments and tests are conducted, more facts are obtained, theories become stronger or are falsified.  And evolution has been a fact for many years now and the theory of evolution, one of the strongest theories in science, is the only scientific, fully supported explaination for how evolution works.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:48 PM on March 19, 2004 | IP
Brother Darwin

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Eagle Eye TQ,

Dude!  I guess you missed where I said, "I'm not expecting to see a reptile evolve into a mammal in my lifetime.  Because as you say, it would take too long."

Even though I disagree with many of the views Demon38 has, at least his posts are thoughtful and show sincere effort (at least he reads posts before he responds).

I'll come back in a little while and post in response to Demon38...

Bro_Darwin


-------
John Henry
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 11:49 AM on March 20, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Whatever.  Maybe when you come back, you could take the time to read the title of this thread, and maybe even follow along, hmm?


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 8:26 PM on March 20, 2004 | IP
Brother Darwin

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Demon38:  Here are my thoughts.

You said, “The theory of evolution does NOT say everything is evolving upwardly.”  You then went on to say more in that paragraph but that’s the gist of it.  

I agree with you.  Remember, I later mentioned a “lateral” direction.  Lateral is different than upwards.  Perhaps you just missed that.

However, even though evolutionary changes would be going in various directions per individual population cases (upwards, lateral, downwards), the whole concept is based on a general upwards direction.  If that were not so, we would not be here because we would still be swimming around in that “warm little pond”.  But what’s your point?  The only thing that would impact my point would be for you to say that upwards direction NEVER happens.  And I know you don’t mean that.

While not everything would be going upwards, many things would be.  I would expect enough to make the classification lines a lot more fuzzy than they are.  Hmmmm....is it majority reptile or majority bird???  We don’t encounter that situation in real life, especially as a common occurance.  

You said, “And if you had bothered to do any research whatsoever, you would have seen just that.  Crocodilians (alligators, crocodiles) are more closely related to birds than they are to snakes and lizards.”

Ah yes.  When I think of crocodiles I instantly think of birds.  I saw a crocodile sitting on my bird feeder the other day.  At least I think it was a crocodile.  It looked about 10 feet long and was eating the suet.  I would have taken a picture but it flew away before I could get a shot.

I think the bottom line here is that to you, common features MUST equal common descent.  I can respect that as a hypothesis, but not as an established fact.  

You said, “Oh please, the platypus' bill is not a traditional bird bill, it's a snout covered by a fine fur, the platypus has no bird like characteristics at all.”

Yes indeed.  That’s why I put quotes around the word “bill” in my post.  

You said, “All biologists see it as a species of primitive mammal”.

I seriously doubt that you could know for sure that ALL see it that way.  Although I get your point.  But if they view complex receptors that allow it to pick up on tiny electric fields generated by prey in murky dark water as “primitive”, then I disagree with their interpretation of what is “primitive” and what is not.

What’s my explaination of a platypus’ wierd features?  It seems to be in a “class” of it’s own.  Since you know exactly where and how it came from, can you tell me what it is transitioning into?  

About your lungfish, I think it takes more to make an amphibian than a fish that can breathe air.  There are other differences.  However, I get your point.  I think that here again your logic is:  similar features MUST always equal common descent.  I disagree with your deduction.  Similar features may or may not equal common descent.  You may have the hypothesis of common descent but unless you can witness or repeat it, it is not a fact.  

You said, “Once again you use a poor analogy.  Snakes are not simply lizards without legs, they have other physiological differences.  It is not a snake or a lizard caught in mid transition as you say.”

I’m glad you got the purpose of my illustration.  I agree with you 100%.  And a lungfish is not an amphibian!  To put it in your words, “they have other physiological differences”.  I could not have said it better myself.  Oh by the way, you are going against your standard rules of deduction.  You were pointing out a similar feature yet you were denying common descent.  So I guess your “similar characteristics MUST equal common descent” rule is selective and is used only when you are trying to “prove” fish-to-philosopher evolution.  Otherwise, you discard it.  That’s very convenient!

You said, “And evolution has been a fact for many years now and the theory of evolution, one of the strongest theories in science, is the only scientific, fully supported explaination for how evolution works.”  

I strongly agree with you that the theory of evolution is the only fully supported explaination for how evolution works.  I purposefully delete out the scientific reference in your statement when refering to the “fish to philosopher” components of the theory.  It contains scientific components in the theory.  But the components of the theory are held together by unscientific philosophy and unprovable assumptions, just like creationist theories and assumptions.  






-------
John Henry
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 10:38 PM on March 20, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think the bottom line here is that to you, common features MUST equal common descent.  I can respect that as a hypothesis, but not as an established fact.

I don't think that common features equal common descent.  Worms don't have legs, I don't think they're closely related to snakes. Sharks and dolphins both have fins, I don't think they're closely related.  Convergent evolution can account for similar features in animals that are not closely related.  But when you have a number of similarites coupled with other, independent evidence, like genetic relatedness or fossil evidence of evolutionary history, I think that does consititute strong evidence for a common ancestor.  You laughed at my example of crocodilians and birds being closely related, but this is what you asked for, a mixture of characteristics and they are genetically related.  Crocodiles and alligators are more closely related to birds than they are to snakes and lizards.  By making fun of this example you're trying to imply that this isn't the case but it's not just my assertion, it's the consensus of biology that says they're related.
If you doubt this consensus, give us evidence to support your assertion, just because they don't look alike is no reason to doubt their connection.  And if they are just seperately created animals why are they so similar genetically?  There is a reason that the results from the  phylogenic tree, comparative anatomy, the fossil record and modern genetic research all match, all agree with each other.  That reason is evolution!  How is creationism a better explanation?  

You said, “All biologists see it as a species of primitive mammal”.  I seriously doubt that you could know for sure that ALL see it that way.  Although I get your point.  But if they view complex receptors that allow it to pick up on tiny electric fields generated by prey in murky dark water as “primitive”, then I disagree with their interpretation of what is “primitive” and what is not.

That the platypus is a transition between mammals and reptiles is the consensus of biology.  Are there a few that doubt this?  I'm sure there is, but the vast majority of biologists agree, the evidence is overwhelming.
Primitive means that the monotremes arose earlier than placental mammals, it has nothing to do with it's sense organs.  Sharks arose much earlier than the monotremes and they have a complex electro detection sense, are you saying that sharks aren't a primitive species?  Complex senses are nothing new.

What’s my explaination of a platypus’ wierd features?  It seems to be in a “class” of it’s own.  Since you know exactly where and how it came from, can you tell me what it is transitioning into?

You say the platypus is in a class of it's own, then why are it's characteristics a mix of reptiles and mammals?  You asked for animals that show diversification from one type of animal to another.  The platypus fits this description!  It lays reptilian eggs!  It has a reptilian execretory system!  The males produce poison!  yet it has fur and is endothermic, like a mammal!  Why is this in a class of it's own?  Why isn't this exactly what you asked for?
The second part of your question is nonsense, if we don't know what environmental pressures an animal is going to face in the future, how can we tell what it will evolve into?
But this does bring up and interesting point.  Many times creationists don't understand what a transitional really is.  It doesn't mean the organism is directly ancestoral, a direct link between A and B, although it can be.  It also doesn't mean a half formed animal that is ill suited to survival.  A transitional organism show a mix of characteristics, it is a viable organism that is just as suited to survival in it's niche as anything else.  The platypus shows us that there is a bridge between mammals and reptiles.  The monotremes were able to migrate to Australia before it was cut off from the other land masses.  Here it found an ecological niche it could exploit, there were no placental mammals to compete with, so it thrived in this niche.  (Biogeography is another evidence of evolution, but we'll save that for another thread).  This transitional animal thrived for millions of years without the need to change.  This is what is predicted by evolution.  An animal well suited to it's environment will remain relatively stable as long as the environment does.  Being a transition between mammals and reptiles is not an inpedement to the platypus' survival.

You claim that the platypus is in a class of it's own, to support your claim, please tell me why it's egg laying habits, it's execretory system and it's poison glands are NOT reptilian...

About your lungfish, I think it takes more to make an amphibian than a fish that can breathe air.  There are other differences.  However, I get your point.  I think that here again your logic is:  similar features MUST always equal common descent.  I disagree with your deduction.  Similar features may or may not equal common descent.  You may have the hypothesis of common descent but unless you can witness or repeat it, it is not a fact.

Again, I'm not basing common decsent soley on common features.  What the lung fish and the mudskippers show are fish that breath air and can move on land.  Remember, you asked for animals that have a mix of features.  It is evidence that a plausible path for fish to amphibian evolution exists.  But once again, this is not the only evidence.  We look to the fossil record and find corroborating evidence.
We see some fish developing more and more land dwelling characteristics.  From here:
Tetrapod

"378 MYR ago- Panderichthys--These are lobe-finned fish. Panderichthys was a rhipidistian,osteolepiform fish. The skull bones of these fish are bone for bone equivalents to the skull bones of the earliest tetrapods. (Carroll 1988, p. 160). These are the only fish whose fin bones fit the tetrapod pattern of humerus, ulna and radius in the forelimb and femur, tibia and fibula in the hindlimb. (Thomson, 1991, p. 488), Yet these limbs still have fins on them (Coates, 1994,p. 174). Their brain case is so much like that of the earliest tetrapod, they were originally classified as tetrapods until a complete skeleton was found. Then is was proven that they were really still fish. (Ahlberg and Milner, 1994, p. 508). This fish also had lungs and nostrils (Vorobyeva and Schulze, 1991, p.87) but also had gills. These things really looked like tetrapods until you see the fins. The teeth had infolding enamel which is identical to that of the earliest tetrapods. Unlike all fish but like the tetrapods, the Panderichthys have lost the dorsal and anal fins, leaving 4 fins in the place where legs would be in the Tetrapods.(Ahlberg and Milner, p.508). This contradicts Gish's claim that there is no fossil which shows loss of fins. (Gish, 1978, p. 78-79). Unlike fish, Panderichthys had a tail, like the amphibians with the fins stretched out along the top (Carroll, 1995, p. 389; Carroll, 1996, p. 19)."

Evidence upon evidence supports the fish to amphibian lineage.  What have you got to falsify it?

So I guess your “similar characteristics MUST equal common descent” rule is selective and is used only when you are trying to “prove” fish-to-philosopher evolution.  Otherwise, you discard it.  That’s very convenient!

Selective?  Yes you must look at all the evidence, as I said, similar characteristics must be evaluated, did they evolve from the same structures, how similar are the underlying structures...  Snakes and legless lizards are different because they have different skull structures, different vertabrae stucture, and we can trace them back through the fossil record and see they evolved from different ancestors.  Fish and amphibians are similar, we can see how fish could live on land, how they could breath and move on land and the fossil record shows conclusive evidence that once they began exploring the land, they evolved to live on it permanently.  Once again, multiple lines of evidence converge to support evolution.

But the components of the theory are held together by unscientific philosophy and unprovable assumptions, just like creationist theories and assumptions.

What components of the theory of evolution are held together by unscientific philosphy? or unprovable assumptions?  The evidence is overwhelming and supported by multiple lines of evidence!  You have yet to show us any of these, and you have yet to show us any evidence for creationism.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 1:49 PM on March 21, 2004 | IP
Brother Darwin

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38, the term "transitional" to you means what ever you need it to in order to match up with your theory.  

I go back to my original points, because the same bottom line issue is exhibited again.  Remember, I come from more of an systems engineering background, not a "historical science" background.

There is applied science, where we build computer systems, map the human genome, develop vaccinations, etc.  That is applied science.  We observe the present and we design and invent working things (like computer systems or the space shuttle or medicene) based on what we observe in the present.  This is REAL science.

Then we have a "science" where people observe the present using scientific methodology, and then they invent stories about the unobservable, untestable past.  Some stories may be pretty close....others may not be.  This stories about the past will be invented based on that persons philosophical framework.

This is where you seem to be unable to distinguish the difference between actual data and interpretations about the data.

Your fish to philosopher type of evolution is untestable.  Therefore it is your philosophy.  Just don't call that part of it a fact.  You are entitled to your beliefs.  Just try to distinguish where the real data stops and your personal beliefs about the unobservable, untestable past begin.


-------
John Henry
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 2:16 PM on March 21, 2004 | IP
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

in regard to Origins of the Higher Groups of Tetrapods (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991),

the book again and again demonstrates that similarity lies in the eye of the beholder, and that the particular hypothesis being advocated strongly colors perceptions of morphological resemblance.


-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 2:56 PM on March 21, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

original link please


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 5:58 PM on March 21, 2004 | IP
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Bowler, Peter J., Review of In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.

"We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions."


-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 8:58 PM on March 21, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Bowler, Peter J., Review of In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.

"We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions."


The National Center for Science Education wrote to Dr. Gee about these claims, once again you creationists have taken quotes out of context and distorted Dr. Gee's position.
From here:
Ncse

The Discovery Institute’s Viewers Guide to the PBS “Evolution” series claims in several places (for example, on page 11) that the series “…leave(s) viewers with the misleading impression that the evidence for human evolution is much stronger than it really is.” The Guide attempts to discredit the scientific implications of the human fossil record by quoting (on pages 11, 40, 47, 88, and 111) passages from the 1999 book In Search of Deep Time by Dr. Henry Gee, who is also Senior Editor, Biological Sciences, for the journal Nature. Dr. Gee has sent us the following comments:
The Discovery Institute has used unauthorized, selective quotations from my book IN SEARCH OF DEEP TIME to support their outdated, mistaken views.


Darwinian evolution by natural selection is taken as a given in IN SEARCH OF DEEP TIME, and this is made clear several times e.g. on p5 (paperback edition) I write that "if it is fair to assume that all life on Earth shares a common evolutionary origin..." and then go on to make clear that this is the assumption I am making throughout the book. For the Discovery Institute to quote from my book without reference to this is mischievous.


That it is impossible to trace direct lineages of ancestry and descent from the fossil record should be self-evident. Ancestors must exist, of course -- but we can never attribute ancestry to any particular fossil we might find. Just try this thought experiment -- let's say you find a fossil of a hominid, an ancient member of the human family. You can recognize various attributes that suggest kinship to humanity, but you would never know whether this particular fossil represented your lineal ancestor - even if that were actually the case. The reason is that fossils are never buried with their birth certificates. Again, this is a logical constraint that must apply even if evolution were true -- which is not in doubt, because if we didn't have ancestors, then we wouldn't be here. Neither does this mean that fossils exhibiting transitional structures do not exist, nor that it is impossible to reconstruct what happened in evolution. Unfortunately, many paleontologists believe that ancestor/descendent lineages can be traced from the fossil record, and my book is intended to debunk this view. However, this disagreement is hardly evidence of some great scientific coverup -- religious fundamentalists such as the DI -- who live by dictatorial fiat -- fail to understand that scientific disagreement is a mark of health rather than decay. However, the point of IN SEARCH OF DEEP TIME, ironically, is that old-style, traditional evolutionary biology -- the type that feels it must tell a story, and is therefore more appealing to news reporters and makers of documentaries -- is unscientific.


I am a religious person and I believe in God. I find the militant atheism of some evolutionary biologists ill-reasoned and childish, and most importantly unscientific -- crucially, faith should not be subject to scientific justification. But the converse also holds true -- science should not need to be validated by the narrow dogma of faith. As such, I regard the opinions of the Discovery Institute as regressive, repressive, divisive, sectarian and probably unrepresentative of views held by people of faith generally. In addition, the use by creationists of selective, unauthorized quotations, possibly with intent to mislead the public undermines their position as self-appointed guardians of public values and morals.


The above views are my own and do not necessarily represent those of my colleagues at NATURE or any opinion or policy of the NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP.
Henry Gee


It's extremely dishonest to take quotes out of context in an effort to distort a speakers position, like many creationists, you are guilty of this.  Can't find any real evidence to refute evolution so you have to fabricate it, typical...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:30 PM on March 21, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks Demon.  That's why I was wanting the original link, so I could see where he got the quote from, and also see if they had the quote in context.  Once again, creationists stoop to quote mining.


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 9:40 PM on March 21, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38, the term "transitional" to you means what ever you need it to in order to match up with your theory.

I thought we were talking about "transitional" as a biological term.  Since all biologists define the term precisely the way I use it, I fail to see
how I'm manipulating the meaning to suit my purpose.  Demonstrate how I am using the term incorrectly in a biological sense or retract the accusation.  Just because you don't know what the term means in a biological context doesn't mean I'm twisting the definition...

There is applied science, where we build computer systems, map the human genome, develop vaccinations, etc.  That is applied science.  We observe the present and we design and invent working things (like computer systems or the space shuttle or medicene) based on what we observe in the present.  This is REAL science.

Mapping the human genome is applied evolutionary science.  All modern medicine is evolutionary in nature.  This is applied evolutionary science based on what we see in the present.  By your definition, evolution is REAL science.

Then we have a "science" where people observe the present using scientific methodology, and then they invent stories about the unobservable, untestable past.  Some stories may be pretty close....others may not be.  This stories about the past will be invented based on that persons philosophical framework.

Sorry, all the evidence we observe to support evolution is observed in the present.  The more evidence we find, the better our tools are to test it, the better the theory becomes.  The theory of evolution is based on no ones philosophical framework, it has been supported by all evidence found to date, it has been rigourously tested for 150 years.  The scientific method strives to eliminate philosophical frameworks from it's observations.  

Your fish to philosopher type of evolution is untestable.  Therefore it is your philosophy.  Just don't call that part of it a fact.  You are entitled to your beliefs.  Just try to distinguish where the real data stops and your personal beliefs about the unobservable, untestable past begin.

You simply have to look at the data, the fossil record, genetics, comparative anatomy and the overwhelming conclusion is everything on this earth evolved and evolved from a common ancestor.  You make many uninformed general statements but you can't (or won't ) answer the specific questions I've put to you.  You dropped the discussion about the platypus, you know longer want to discuss fish to amphibian evolution, I can only assume you can't refute the points I made...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:53 PM on March 21, 2004 | IP
Brother Darwin

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, this has been fun, but its time consuming.  So this will be my last post for awhile.  

So I guess you can view this as my final summary.  Demon38, I truly believe that you cannot see the forest for the trees.  You are so indoctrinated in the evolutionary theory that you cannot separate actual facts from your own interpretations about the facts.

From the interaction on this post, I am more and more convinced that the fish-to-philosopher type of evolution cannot be falsified.  Not because it really is true, but because data can be selected or discarded based on what the theory needs.  A new story about “millions of years ago” (like it was actually observed) can be invented for any type of situation.  All data is observed through “glasses” assuming the theory is true.

Keep in mind, creationists make certain assumptions also.  But the difference is that they are aware of when they do it.  They seem to be better able to distinguish between where the data truly speaks for itself and where interpretation is brought to the data.  

As a creationist, I do not deny the data.  But when I view the data as a whole, then it comes down to the point that I cannot see how the natural processes that are in place and observable now (that are eventually driving the universe downhill) can be the same processes that brought everything into existence.  Such an idea seems to go against observable science and common sense.  

But that’s enough of that.  Let me review and make a few observations that do not add up to me.  

When I bring up the point that since “upwards” evolution takes millions of years so that we can’t observe it, then  right NOW we should expect to see thousands of specimens that look weird because they are at the in-between point.  Maybe it’s 60% reptile and 40% mammal or something.  Or a leg is not quite a leg anymore and it’s sort of like a wing but not quite.  Perhaps it might be another million years before the creature has slowly transformed into a brand new type of animal.  (Keep in mind this is a completely different scenario than variations within the kind – which is 100% observable NOW.  Like finch beak variations for example).

Demon38 responded by saying that, “It also doesn't mean a half formed animal that is ill suited to survival.”  That sounds really authoritative and all, but if we stop to think a minute, how can that be?  If a reptile is slowly evolving into a bird, and the idea is that it does so due to mutations building up over eons, then that IMPLIES that the transformation occurs in STAGES.  If that were true, then as a general rule, we should see many animals running around today that are in such a stage.  They may be somewhere in the middle.  If this isn’t what we should see, then are you advocating the “hopeful monster” type theory?  

Not only that, I would not expect this situation to stop with animals.  Why shouldn’t it continue on with humans?  We should have some humans that are part of the way towards something even more advanced (and some lateral and less advanced) than human.  But hey, maybe some people do observe that!  Maybe these “advanced” humans are what’s really behind the UFO sightings!

Demon38 brings up the “fact” that a crocodile is closer related to a bird than to lizards and snakes.  He says, “Crocodilians (alligators, crocodiles) are more closely related to birds than they are to snakes and lizards.”  And…”Crocodiles and alligators are more closely related to birds than they are to snakes and lizards.”  All of this is supposed to imply that it is some kind of transitional.

To put this in perspective, here is what I wrote:  “I would encounter some creatures that I may have to dissect and ask..."is it majority reptile or majority bird?"  Sometimes it might be 100% reptile, sometimes 60% reptile/40% bird, etc.  I expect to see that NOW.”

Demon38 replied:  “And if you had bothered to do any research whatsoever, you would have seen just that.  Crocodilians (alligators, crocodiles) are more closely related to birds than they are to snakes and lizards.  “

Never mind the fact that crocodiles are cold blooded, and birds are warm-blooded!  Nah!  That’s not a major difference, is it?  I’m just supposed to accept that crocodiles are more closely related to birds!  Why?  Because the fish-to-philosopher theory needs them to!  In other words, the TOE can just ignore what is doesn’t need and pick and choose what it does need.

About the platypus, we are told to ignore the fact that it has some really complex electro-detectors in its “bill” for detecting prey.  We should ignore this because the “goo-to-you-via-the-zoo” theory needs it to be a transitional.  Demon38 says, “Sharks arose much earlier than the monotremes and they have a complex electro detection sense, are you saying that sharks aren't a primitive species?  Complex senses are nothing new.”  

Notice that all evidence is interpreted through the assumption that the fish-to-philosopher theory is true.  It’s this type of argument, “See, the shark evolved before the platypus and it has complex senses, so that proves the platypus evolved”.  So all you need to do is to accept the belief in evolution concerning the shark, when it evolved in the unobservable past, etc., and THAT is proof for the platypus.  So all you need is to believe that evolution is true in order to prove that evolution is true.  It’s as simple as that!  Everything is filtered through evolutionary “glasses”.  Any item can be picked up to use as “proof” or discarded so as not to interfere, according to whatever the theory needs at the moment.  

Next, we have the quote from Young Earth Toad.  Then Demon38 quoted more about the quote and claimed it was taken out of context.  But when I read it, it seems to demonstrate what I have been talking about even more…about the difference between the data and the beliefs about the data.

I am going to copy Demon38’s quote next, so as to get the entire thing.  We don’t want it taken out of context!  Within the quote, I will interject comments that begin and end with ***, so you can tell what was the original quote and what is my interjection.  

“The Discovery Institute’s Viewers Guide to the PBS “Evolution” series claims in several places (for example, on page 11) that the series “…leave(s) viewers with the misleading impression that the evidence for human evolution is much stronger than it really is.” The Guide attempts to discredit the scientific implications of the human fossil record by quoting (on pages 11, 40, 47, 88, and 111) passages from the 1999 book In Search of Deep Time by Dr. Henry Gee, who is also Senior Editor, Biological Sciences, for the journal Nature. Dr. Gee has sent us the following comments:
The Discovery Institute has used unauthorized, selective quotations from my book IN SEARCH OF DEEP TIME to support their outdated, mistaken views.


Darwinian evolution by natural selection is taken as a given in IN SEARCH OF DEEP TIME,        

***note:  look at his words “taken as a given”… I believe here he means that for both the changes within kind type of evolution (micro-evolution and currently observable) and the fish-to-philosopher type of evolution (unobservable).  Notice that it is pre-assumed, or “taken as a given”***

and this is made clear several times e.g. on p5 (paperback edition) I write that "if it is fair to assume that all life on Earth shares a common evolutionary origin..." and then go on to make clear that this is the assumption I am making throughout the book.  

***  Wow!  This is great.  This is what I’ve been saying all along, and Demon38 has now posted this for me.  Gee is admitting his assumptions instead of demanding that they be taken as fact, he wrote “…this is the assumption I am making throughout the book”.  For some reason, Demon38 does not want to follow the lead and also admit his assumptions, he just wants everyone to take what he says as fact and undisputable!  Oh, and anyone who disagrees with him is obviously uneducated and does not understand anything about science! (even people with college degrees in science who oppose him)***

For the Discovery Institute to quote from my book without reference to this is mischievous.

***It’s not that its quoted in order to mischievously make it look as though Mr. Gee does not believe in the fish-to-philosopher theory, that indeed would be out of context.  The reason why its quoted like that is to show that an evolutionist was recognizing that some of his “facts” are indeed assumptions!  And that, is not a misquote.  I believe this is what Young Earth Toad was probably trying to do.  Young Earth Toad’s quote was good already, but for Demon38 to quote the entire expanded version is even better!***


That it is impossible to trace direct lineages of ancestry and descent from the fossil record should be self-evident.  

***Hey, tell that to Demon38!  Thanks Demon38 for providing this quote!***

Ancestors must exist, of course  

***of course…because as he stated earlier the fish-to-philosophy theory is “a given” and that is the ASSUMPTION he has chosen to go by***

but we can never attribute ancestry to any particular fossil we might find.

***Please tell that to Demon38!  Thanks Demon38 for providing this quote!!!***

Just try this thought experiment -- let's say you find a fossil of a hominid, an ancient member of the human family. You can recognize various attributes that suggest kinship to humanity, but you would never know whether this particular fossil represented your lineal ancestor - even if that were actually the case.

*** yeah!  Go on… go on… please someone tell this to Demon38 and TQ ***

The reason is that fossils are never buried with their birth certificates. Again, this is a logical constraint that must apply even if evolution were true

*** yeah!  Go on…go on….please someone tell this to Demon38 and TQ***

which is not in doubt, because if we didn't have ancestors, then we wouldn't be here.

*** its not in doubt to him, because he has already told us that he has chosen to accept goo-to-you-via-the-zoo evolution as a given, as a fair assumption.  That’s fine.  But the next question would be “Is that the only fair assumption and how would we know?” ***

Neither does this mean that fossils exhibiting transitional structures do not exist, nor that it is impossible to reconstruct what happened in evolution.

*** if goo-to-you-via-the-zoo were true, then that would be an accurate statement.  However, you would never 100% know for sure if you really had your reconstruction right, because you weren’t there to eyewitness it over the millions of years.  But even though this statement is valid if goo-to-you-via-the-zoo were true, that condition in itself does not prove that goo-to-you-via-the-zoo is true. ***

Unfortunately, many paleontologists believe that ancestor/descendent lineages can be traced from the fossil record, and my book is intended to debunk this view.

***  Hey!  Somebody tell Demon38!  Thanks Demon38 for providing this quote. ***

However, this disagreement is hardly evidence of some great scientific coverup -- religious fundamentalists such as the DI -- who live by dictatorial fiat -- fail to understand that scientific disagreement is a mark of health rather than decay.

*** this is also a valid statement.  However, what some evolutionists like Demon38 hate to admit is that evolutionists can also “live by dictatorial fiat”.  Evolutionists are in the same boat!  Mr. Gee is being very thoughtful here.  He is not in the same boat.  He is telling up front that his belief in evolution is an assumption he has CHOSEN to accept as a given.  ***

However, the point of IN SEARCH OF DEEP TIME, ironically, is that old-style, traditional evolutionary biology -- the type that feels it must tell a story, and is therefore more appealing to news reporters and makers of documentaries -- is unscientific.

*** Will somebody please tell that to Demon38?  Hey Demon38, thanks for providing this quote. ***

I am a religious person and I believe in God. I find the militant atheism of some evolutionary biologists ill-reasoned and childish, and most importantly unscientific -- crucially, faith should not be subject to scientific justification.

*** His belief in God cannot be scientifically proven or disproven.  It’s kind of hard to experiment on God in a test tube.  However, beliefs, either for or against God, will tend to produce a presupposition when analyzing data.  No person, not even a scientist, is totally without a bias 100% of the time.  This is true for evolutionist scientists and creationists scientists alike. ***

But the converse also holds true -- science should not need to be validated by the narrow dogma of faith.

*** True.  And again, this can be a stumbling block for both evolutionists and creationists.  It will be exhibited in different ways for each group.***

As such, I regard the opinions of the Discovery Institute as regressive, repressive, divisive, sectarian and probably unrepresentative of views held by people of faith generally.

***I don’t know who the Discovery Institute is so I don’t know what they’ve done.  Some people can be so “religious” that they will ignore real observable science or look at science as evil or something.  Evolutionists can do the same type of behavior but in a different way.  With them, it usually comes out as demanding that their assumptions be accepted as fact.***

In addition, the use by creationists of selective, unauthorized quotations, possibly with intent to mislead the public undermines their position as self-appointed guardians of public values and morals.

*** When anyone does this then I agree.  Although I think most creationists would not use his quote out of context.  Again, the great thing about the quote is not that it’s used to say that he disagrees with the fish-to-philosopher theory.  If used in that way then it would be taken out of context.  His quote is so good because its nice to see an evolutionist frankly admitting that he has chosen specific assumptions about the unobservable past instead of demanding them as undeniable fact.***


The above views are my own and do not necessarily represent those of my colleagues at NATURE or any opinion or policy of the NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP.
Henry Gee”

***  Even though I disagree with Henry Gee’s assumptions, he still seems to be very clear in his statements about realizing where the actual data ends, and his own interpretations of the data begin.***  

Then Demon38 closed with his thoughts on Toad’s quote with, “It's extremely dishonest to take quotes out of context in an effort to distort a speakers position, like many creationists, you are guilty of this.”  

As I said, if it’s quoted just to show that Gee admits that he chooses to make certain assumptions (a noble thing for Gee to do) then its not dishonest.  Also, a curious thought strikes me.  Considering something dishonest seems like a morality judgment.  And since if we all evolved, then we evolved the concepts of morality.  And if we evolved the concepts of morality, then there are really no absolutes.  So the idea of being dishonest is more like a creationist type of idea, not a “survival of the fittest, red in tooth and claw” type of idea.  Are you starting to convert over to the creationist side Demon38?

Finally, let me close with one last quote from Demon38.  This final quote typifies everything I’ve been trying to say.

Demon38 said, “Mapping the human genome is applied evolutionary science.  All modern medicine is evolutionary in nature.  This is applied evolutionary science based on what we see in the present.  By your definition, evolution is REAL science.”  

Now, what kind of deduction is that?  Is he implying that you must know about and believe in the fish-to-philosopher theory in order to find a new vaccine, build a new rocket system, or develop a new medicine?  You do not even need to know or believe the fish-to-philosopher theory in order to observe how things operate right now!  All you have to do is observe and test things now.  It does not matter what you believe about evolution or creation in order to observe the law of gravity, operating right now in the present!  You have all kinds of people working in applied science.  You have creationist rocket scientists and biologists just like you have atheists rocket scientists and biologists.

If you read evolutionary material, especially websites such as the talk origins variety, you will see this type of “merging” technique used frequently.  Some evolutionists (like Demon38) will attach the word “evolutionary” to observable, testable, repeatable science.  Thereby it seems to give their unobservable stories about the past a false sense of scientific security.  Whenever you read posts, watch for that and you will see that tactic employed very frequently.

Well.  I have other stuff I have to do.  I’ll probably drift in again sometime in the future.

Bro Darwin



-------
John Henry
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 8:54 PM on March 23, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So I guess you can view this as my final summary.  Demon38, I truly believe that you cannot see the forest for the trees.  You are so indoctrinated in the evolutionary theory that you cannot separate actual facts from your own interpretations about the facts.

Failed to see the forest for the trees???!??  You ignore comparative anotomy, nested hierarchies, the entire fossil rocrd, biogeography, all genetic strudies, endogenous retroviruses just to name a few examples of the mountains of evidence supporting evolution.  You have in no way falsified them!  Talk about willfully ignorant!

From the interaction on this post, I am more and more convinced that the fish-to-philosopher type of evolution cannot be falsified.  Not because it really is true, but because data can be selected or discarded based on what the theory needs.  A new story about “millions of years ago” (like it was actually observed) can be invented for any type of situation.  All data is observed through “glasses” assuming the theory is
true.


You were given examples of how the theory of evolution could be falsified, finding a modern mammal fossil along side of a prehistoric animal fossil, discrepencies between nested hierarchies and genetic tests, ect...  None of these attempts at falsification have been successful.  You claim that evolution can not be falsified, you are wrong again!

As a creationist, I do not deny the data.  But when I view the data as a whole, then it comes down to the point that I cannot see how the natural processes that are in place and observable now (that are eventually driving the universe downhill) can be the same processes that brought everything into existence.  Such an idea seems to go against observable science and common sense.

You do not deny data??!??  You deny the existance of transitional fossils and transitional lifeforms still alive today!  With nothing more than a plea to incredulity as your evidence!  You deny an old earth based soley on your superstitious fantasies!  Here's the data viewed as a whole:
Life has changed throughout the history of the earth.  Over 200 years ago scientists recognized this, different strata contain different organisms, the deeper you go, the organisms are more dissimilar to modern life.
How did life change?  Genetics answers this question.  DNA is mutable, it changes the offspring of organisms.  How do we know life changed?  Because we see transitional organisms in the fossil record.  How when you look at all the data can you NOT see that evolution is real???  You play games, you distort the evidence, but you can't explain this basic set of facts and the explaination that the theory of evolution provides for these facts.
You say such ideas go against observable science, well, you haven't explained how they go against science to us yet...

When I bring up the point that since “upwards” evolution takes millions of years so that we can’t observe it, then  right NOW we should expect to see thousands of specimens that look weird because they are at the in-between point.  Maybe it’s 60% reptile and 40% mammal or something.  Or a leg is not quite a leg anymore and it’s sort of like a wing but not quite.  Perhaps it might be another million years before the creature has slowly transformed into a brand new type of animal.  (Keep in mind this is a completely different scenario than variations within the kind – which is 100% observable NOW.  Like finch beak variations for example).

Why should we see millions of weird creatures running around now??  Evolution branches out, new species do arise!  Macro and micro evolution are essentially the same.  Given enough time, the small microevolutionary changes can accumulate to add up to macroevolutionary changes.  You have yet to show a barrier to this, so your arguement is worthless.

Demon38 responded by saying that, “It also doesn't mean a half formed animal that is ill suited to survival.”  That sounds really authoritative and all, but if we stop to think a minute, how can that be?  If a reptile is slowly evolving into a bird, and the idea is that it does so due to mutations building up over eons, then that IMPLIES that the transformation occurs in STAGES.  If that were true, then as a general rule, we should see many animals running around today that are in such a stage.  They may be somewhere in the middle.  If this isn’t what we should see, then are you advocating the “hopeful monster” type theory?

But we see these stages in the fossil record!  How can you just ignore the thousands upon thousands of transitional fossil s that have been found to data!  Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees!!!  How can I say we wouldn't see a half formed animal that is ill suited to survive?  Because if it was ill suited to survive, it wouldn't survive!  But evolution doesn't work that way!  Every stage is fully functional and suited to survival!  

Not only that, I would not expect this situation to stop with animals.  Why shouldn’t it continue on with humans?  We should have some humans that are part of the way towards something even more advanced (and some lateral and less advanced) than   human.

But it does continue in humans, most humans have 50 to 100 mutations in their genetic makeup.  But in our world where we control our environment, where we take care of our sick and wounded, what mutations would be great enough to ensure the survival of one group of humans over the rest?  You still don't know how evolution works!  Why should we have some humans that are part of the way towards something more advanced.  You've been told that evolution doesn't work toward advancement, it only works towards that which survives.  The human race has spread out and populates the entire planet, what environmental pressures exist that would cause a more advanced human????  What would be your definition of more advanced humans?  There are people from Europe who have a genetic predisposition to be highly resistant to the AIDS virus, are they more advanced?  This is certainly a highly desirable trait, but are they more advanced?  You keep making the same error over and over, equating evolution with advancement when it just isn't the case!

Never mind the fact that crocodiles are cold blooded, and birds are warm-blooded!  Nah!  That’s not a major difference, is it?  I’m just supposed to accept that crocodiles are more closely related to birds!  Why?  Because the fish-to-philosopher theory needs them to!  In other words, the TOE can just ignore what is doesn’t need and pick and choose what it does need.

don't except that crocodilians are more closely related to birds just on my say so!  Check out the research yourself!  Or better yet, get a degree in biology and do the research yourself!  This isn't just ME saying they're closely related, this is the concensus of biology!  Once again you're argueing against all ready established data with nothing to support your position except the fact that you don't understand it!  Comparative anatomy supports croc/bird relatedness, structures more similar between crocodilians and birds than crocodilians and other reptiles, the brain and the crop for example.  And this is supported by genetic evidence.  From here:
Croc/bird

"DNA sequences from four slow-evolving genes (mitochondrial 12S and 16S rRNA, tRNA Val, and nuclear a-enolase) now provide strong statistical support for a bird-crocodilian relationship."

So, once again, I have given you your mixed animals and you can't refute the examples I give.  Yeah, crocs are cold blooded and birds are warm blooded, but since the evidence is so conclusive that they are related, it should be obvious to anyone who studies the facts that warm blodedness MUST have evolved from cold blooded animals, what other conclusion can be reached by this data?  It seems YOU are the one ignoring the evidence!

About the platypus, we are told to ignore the fact that it has some really complex electro-detectors in its “bill” for detecting prey.  We should ignore this because the “goo-to-you-via-the-zoo” theory needs it to be a transitional.  Demon38 says, “Sharks arose much earlier than the monotremes and they have a complex electro detection sense, are you saying that sharks aren't a primitive species?  Complex senses are nothing    new.”  

Where did I say to ignore the evidence of advanced electro receptors in the platypus' bill?  More correctly, I said complex senses are nothing new, they are accounted for by evolution.  Please demonstrate  how evolution can not account for this sense.  I mentioned the shark to show that complex electro receptors most definitely predate the platypus.  And once again you ignore the reptilian traits of the platypus, because you can't explain them with creationism!  Running away from the evidence doesn't change it!

Notice that all evidence is interpreted through the assumption that the fish-to-philosopher theory is true.  It’s this type of argument, “See, the shark evolved before the platypus and it has complex senses, so that proves the platypus evolved”.  So all you need to do is to accept the belief in evolution concerning the shark, when it evolved in the unobservable past, etc., and THAT is proof for the platypus.  So all you need is to believe that evolution is true in order to prove that evolution is true.  It’s as simple as that!  Everything is filtered through evolutionary “glasses”.  Any item can be picked up to use as “proof” or discarded so as not to interfere, according to whatever the theory needs at the moment.

Sorry, no...Evolution was derived from simply going with the facts, the assumptions before evolution was proposed were all those of creationism but even though they were dogmatically accepted, the evidence for evolution was overwhelming, that is the only reason evolution is accepted today.

Next, we have the quote from Young Earth Toad.  Then Demon38 quoted more about the quote and claimed it was taken out of context.  But when I read it, it seems to demonstrate what I have been talking about even more…about the difference between the data and the beliefs about the data.

The only reason I used that quote was to show how dishonest YoungEarth toad really is.  Dr. Gee does support evolution. nothing more nothing less...If you want me to use more modern quotes to support evolution, no problem, since the entire scientific community accpets it...

Also, a curious thought strikes me.  Considering something dishonest seems like a morality judgment.  And since if we all evolved, then we evolved the concepts of morality.  And if we evolved the concepts of morality, then there are really no absolutes.  So the idea of being dishonest is more like a creationist type of idea, not a “survival of the fittest, red in tooth and claw” type of idea.  Are you starting to convert over to the creationist side Demon38?

Don't be ridiculous!  Creationism is a fairytale falsified over 200 years ago!  With all your goobledegook, all your false evidence, all your wrong interpretations of the theory of evolution, you haven't done one thing to shake my acceptance of evolution!  How do you go from moarality has no absolutes to dishonesty is a creatinist idea?  Granted, most creationists are dishonest, but I don't think that's really your point!  

Now, what kind of deduction is that?  Is he implying that you must know about and believe in the fish-to-philosopher theory in order to find a new vaccine,

Essentially yes, vaccines are products of evolutionary medicien, as are antibiotics.  About Darwinian medicine in general:
Evomed

"Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is the central tenet of modern biology. Darwinian medicine offers a new perspective on human health. Application of Darwin's ideas to the evolution of pathogenic organisms, and consideration of their coevolution with their human hosts, has given modern medicine new insights into why we get sick and the ways in which we heal. Traditional medicine has focused on the proximate causes of diseases and treatment for their symptoms. By considering human health and disease from an evolutionary perspective, modern medicine is gaining new insights into why diseases occur, and how the human body is adapted to respond to them."

Notice in the begining where it says cnetral tenet of modern biology...

And from here:EvomedII

"Darwinian medicine helps us to understand
>Why treating some symptoms may neutralize our adaptive defenses (cough, pain, fever)
>Why has evolution not freed us from organisms that cause diseases (evolutionary arms race)?
>Why are some health problems worse today than in the past (heart disease, cancer - diseases of civilization)?
Darwinian medicine helps us to understand
>Why have genetic diseases not been eliminated by natural selection?
>Why does the evolutionary design of our bodies predispose us to certain illnesses (backaches)?"

There you go, here are a few ways the theory of evolution has influenced modern medicine.
So yes, if you want to do any research in modern biology, you must understand evolution.  

You do not even need to know or believe the fish-to-philosopher theory in order to observe how things operate right now!

But you have a much better understanding of the why and how of natural processes if you understand the theory of evolution!  

It does not matter what you believe about evolution or creation in order to observe the law of gravity, operating right now in the present!

But we're not talking about the law of gravity, we're talking about the theory of evolution.

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
             - Theodosius Dobzhansky

And the "law" of gravity is only an observation of how gravity works, it doesn't explain gravity, or tell what it is...

You have creationist rocket scientists and biologists just like you have atheists rocket scientists and biologists.

While you might have a creationist rocket scientists, there are very few creationist bilogists.  Polls put the number at 99.8% of modern biologists accepting the theory of evolution.  This is because when tye really examine the evidence, evolution is really the only explaination that makes sense.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:04 AM on March 24, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hey Brother Darwin, you want an example of a weird animal in the midst of a change?  How about a flying squirrel?  Give it a few million years with the right selective pressures, and I can almost guarantee yo that the bat will not be the only flying mammal around.

BTW, you kind of gave yourself away with that "goo-to-you-via-the-zoo" bit.  A little advice for you: Don't listen to Hovind.

And you may also want to work on reading comprehension.  When Gee said the assumption in the book was that evolution was a given, he was saying that there was no need to explain the concept, as it is accepted as fact.  When he said it is impossible to trace a direct ancestor, he meant it is impossible to narrow it down to one species.

A little advice:  before you try this again, look up the meaning of a "strawman arguement".  Also, do some research.  You are so abyssmally ignorant of the absolute basics of science that debating with you is like debating with my three year old niece.  That's not really fair, she at least listens when someone speaks, rather than covering her ears and chanting "I don't believe you!  You're wrong!  I don't understand you, so you're wrong!"  Really, it's sad.  Not only did Demon and I fully explain and answer your questions, we provided links and explanations.  You, in your ignorance, ignored our responses.  Not only that, you twisted the meanings beyond belief in order to erect a straw man to demolish.  Pathetic, ignorant, and saddening.  I hope when you next come in you will at least do some basic research


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 01:41 AM on March 24, 2004 | IP
wehappyfew

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Young Earth Toad at 2:48 PM on February 25, 2004 :

Demon38: Remained virtually unchallenged???  Surely you jest!

Remains virtually unchallenged in a complete sense. No 'critique' of the RATE work will be even close to complete until a detailed, technical description of the experimental results is published in the up coming book due next year in 2005. So far all 'critiques' are only relying on a laymans description ("3. That creationist scientists who researched this subject for years are blind enough to miss something you thought you could spot immediately after reading a short layman’s summary of the work.") of the experimental results of this seven year RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) project.

Demon38: From here:RATE
This site mentions some of the problems with this "hypothesis"

Some things it failed to mention were who this 'reviewer' ("Regarding the critiques referenced above, one reviewer noted a number of deficiencies in the paper.") was and how and where they attained this 'data.' Without this information, that list of 'problems' is speculations based on a laymans understanding of the data, by someone we don't even know (it could
have even been a fourth grader). Who ever it was knew exactly how much of the data was omitted ("1. Some one third of the data was omitted from the analysis."), therefore either this person is outright lying or either him/her works (or used to work recently) with ICR. Not only does this 'reviewer' as we know him/her know exactly how much data was omitted, he/she knows exactly what parts ("3. Some of the best fitting data, which would have produced results that support the old-earth model, were arbitrarily omitted.") of the data were omitted. I personally find that to be rather amusing.

Demon38: If you want to discuss these points more in depth, I'm game.  I'm still reading up on this, it's new to me but already it sounds like more dishonest creatinist bluster, a lot of hot air with no real science to back it up.

Im not going to dissmis it so quickly, although Im not going to dogmatically except it either. As of now the data seems valid for a young earth, but I am waiting on the further details before drawing a final conclusion.


If Young Earth Toad is still around, I would be glad to provide more details.  I am the reviewer (who could be a fourth grader) who wrote the critique of Humphreys' paper.

Someone else summarized my main points in this site. That site contains links to the entire text of my critique (here - not sure if it is still active), which in turn contains links to the original data published by ICR HERE.

Within this paper published by Humphreys, anyone can discern the problems I have outlined, including the data omitted from the analysis. No special training is required, only an analytical and critical mind.

To summarize again, in my own words this time, Humphreys' paper is fatally flawed, and the data within it supports an old Earth - while conclusively ruling out a Young Earth. I would be glad to discuss each point in detail, if any YECs are around to debate.
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 11:30 PM on May 13, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I would be glad to discuss each point in detail

This part pretty much guarantees you'll have no takers


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 02:17 AM on May 14, 2004 | IP
Carns

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let's be honest

you CAN NOT prove evolution
you CAN NOT prove creation

Besides.... Creation is counterpoint to the big bang... not evolution

the counter to evolution inferred by creation believing people is uh... NO evolution.

Creation speaks to the beginnings of matter and all life forms.
evolution speaks to the change of existing life forms and offers no proof of how they got there in the first place

creation/evolution aren't even the correct topics to debate since they aren't mutually exclusive... for example
you can debate whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable, because its either one or the other
you can't however debate in the same forum creation and evolution with any resolution or accuracy because they do not require by definition that the other be false

why do so many of you debator's insist on choosing topics that are doomed to not resolve

p.s. notice that there isn't a science forum in here debating proven things such as gravity.
wow, that would get a lot of posts wouldn't it





-------
Inherent Freedom For All
 


Posts: 95 | Posted: 09:14 AM on April 24, 2005 | IP
Karah379

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I see your view of Christians is quite obscure, but sad to say, so often true. Many
Christians don't act like they should and they have thoughts wrong too, we're not perfect.
First of all, nobody should have to completely understand God, because if we did, that
would mean that He's on the same intellectual level as us, which would make us in a world
of trouble. Another thing, Christians are sinners too. God doesn't hate sinners, He loves
them. God hates sin, but doesn't hate the sinner. All sinners are forgiven, and Jesus died
for each and every one of us. That's how much God loves you and me. The difference
between a born again Christian and someone else, is that the Christian realizes his/her sin
and accepts the gift of forgiveness and wants to live for the Lord. Now as for supporting
the creation view, look around you. The sunset, the sunrise, seasons, animals, joy, love. Relationships. We are built to reason and relate. That comes from a gift of something
higher. Having supporting information within the past 20 years proves nothing. Any of
that info would barely have hda the chance to with stand the test of time. It's the proof
that's withheld many, many decades that's reliable (i.e. the Bible).


-------
Karah
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 10:11 PM on April 24, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let's be honest

Yes, let's...

you CAN NOT prove evolution

While no theory in science is ever proven 100%, the theory of evolution is one of the strongest theories in science.  It is accepted by virtually all biologists, 99.9% in the U.S.A.
It is the central concept in biology, it is successfully used in industry, farming, breeding and medecine.  If the theory of evolution was wrong, we couldn't use it in bioengineering, animal husbandry or treating disease.  And while the theory of evolution explains the how's and why's, that evolution happens is a fact, it has been observed in the wild and in the lab.

you CAN NOT prove creation

Creation is not a scientific theory, so science has nothing to do with it.  Creationism, on the other hand, is a scientific theory that was falsified over 200 years ago, that is, it was proven wrong.

Besides.... Creation is counterpoint to the big bang... not evolution

Not to most christians, The Big Bang was just how God created...

Creation speaks to the beginnings of matter and all life forms.

Just as other primitive myths do, why is creation by the christian god anymore believable than creation by Zeus, Ra, Odin, ect.

evolution speaks to the change of existing life forms and offers no proof of how they got there in the first place

Evolution doesn't deal with how they got there, other sciences handle that.  Evolution isn't concerned with how they got there in the first place, that has no bearing on how evolution operates.

for example
you can debate whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable, because its either one or the other


The tomato is technically a fruit...

p.s. notice that there isn't a science forum in here debating proven things such as
gravity.


That's because gravity is so poorly understood.  No one knows what gravity is yet.
Yeah, we know it's affects, but that's it.  We have a long way to go before we understand the theory of gravity as well as we understand the theory of evolution.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 6:12 PM on April 25, 2005 | 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.