PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


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

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     numbers not in evolutionists f
       numbers not in evolutionists f

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ... 21 22 ... 29 30 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What I am trying to determine is if you could trace man back 30+ Mil yrs ago, what he would look like. Is there a reference somewhere in this regard?

What I meant by primate is "monkey-like" in appearance. I do not think we look monkey like today if you know what I mean common sense-wise.



-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 9:00 PM on December 13, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 12:00 AM on December 14, 2009 :
What I am trying to determine is if you could trace man back 30+ Mil yrs ago, what he would look like. Is there a reference somewhere in this regard?
Of course.

Here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution

What I meant by primate is "monkey-like" in appearance. I do not think we look monkey like today if you know what I mean common sense-wise.
Common sense is crap. We look monkey-like.

Every primate would look at itself and reach the arrogant conclusion that they're special, different and nothing like the rest of the primates.

Drop your common sense, because it's crap.
Again, we're gill-less, organic RNA/DNA protein-based, metabolic, metazoic, nucleic, diploid, bilaterally-symmetrical, endothermic, digestive, tryploblast, opisthokont, deuterostome coelemate with a spinal chord and 12 cranial nerves connecting to a limbic system in an enlarged cerebral cortex with a reduced olfactory region inside a jawed-skull with specialized teeth including canines and premolars, forward-oriented fully-enclosed optical orbits, and a single temporal fenestra, -attached to a vertebrate hind-leg dominant tetrapoidal skeleton with a sacral pelvis, clavical, and wrist & ankle bones; and having lungs, tear ducts, body-wide hair follicles, lactal mammaries, opposable thumbs, and keratinized dermis with chitinous nails on all five digits on all four extremities, in addition to an embryonic development in amniotic fluid, leading to a placental birth and highly social lifestyle, with no tail.

That's objective.



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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:15 PM on December 13, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Forget common sense? It's crap?  Is that what you do?
Common sense gets me through life, how about you?




-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 9:35 PM on December 13, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 9:00 PM on December 13, 2009 :
What I am trying to determine is if you could trace man back 30+ Mil yrs ago, what he would look like. Is there a reference somewhere in this regard?


I would say google is your best friend there. 30 million years ago we were still primates. Before primates we were still mammals, then reptiles, then amphibians, then various marine life until we are left with a single cell floating in the water.

What I meant by primate is "monkey-like" in appearance. I do not think we look monkey like today if you know what I mean common sense-wise.


What we mean by primate, is anything in order primate. And if you look at the scientific classification of humans, we are under the order primates, making us a primate. While you may not thinking we look like other primates, I think there is more similarity than you might think.

While I think we all use laymen terms and definitions, I know I do, here it's a little different. The scientific terms are used and preferred, and if you do not use them properly people will call you out on them, as you might have noticed.


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


Posts: 551 | Posted: 9:36 PM on December 13, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 9:35 PM on December 13, 2009 :
Forget common sense? It's crap?  Is that what you do?
Common sense gets me through life, how about you?


In science you do have to forget common sense. Mainly because common sense is usually wrong when it comes to science. And as Wisp has pointed out, it isn't objective.


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


Posts: 551 | Posted: 9:42 PM on December 13, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 9:35 PM on December 13, 2009 :
Forget common sense? It's crap?  Is that what you do?
Common sense gets me through life, how about you?


Common sense tells me that an electron cannot penetrate a potential barrier higher than it's energy level, but your computer wouldn't work if it didn't.



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

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:24 PM on December 13, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Albert Einstein
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.



Common sense might get you through life if you lack imagination or intelligence, but it surely will not get you through Science.

(Edited by wisp 12/14/2009 at 11:44 AM).


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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 07:59 AM on December 14, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I should maintain SOME common sense.
As an evolutionary agnostic I still have a quest or two to put to the forum. I know about natural selection environmental pressure coupled with mutations is what drives evolution, right?
Is this what causes species' to further develop their bodies?


-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 8:34 PM on December 14, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I should maintain SOME common sense.
Suit yourself.

It will be a burden if you try to be a scientist, but that's unlikely anyway.

As an evolutionary agnostic
The word is 'ignorant'.
I still have a quest or two to put to the forum.
I don't know what you're saying.
I know about natural selection environmental pressure coupled with mutations is what drives evolution, right?
No. There's more. There's genetic drift... Oh, and genetic recombination (it produces more variation than mutations)... Oh, and horizontal gene transfer... Oh, and hybridization...
Is this what causes species' to further develop their bodies?
I guess so...

Further than what?

By the way, have you already learned that we're primates?

It's objective. Not subject to opinion. It's something you know or ignore.

Edit: I mean, even if Evolution is false, we're still factually primates. If it turns out that your god made us, he chose to made us primates. Apes, more precisely.


(Edited by wisp 12/14/2009 at 8:56 PM).


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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 8:55 PM on December 14, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ok so for the most part I got the idea.

Were there fish back in time that became land animals?



-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 9:05 PM on December 14, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Here is a list, in decreasing order of age.

Summary of Late Devonian Tetrapods   Name  Devonian Stage(million years ago) Location
Elpistostege   Late Givetian/Early Frasnian (378)         Quebec, Canada
Livoniana   Late Givetian/Early Frasnian       Latvia & Estonia
Panderichthys        Late Givetian/Early Frasnian (378)           Latvia
Tiktaalik        Early to Middle Frasnian               Nunavut, Canada
Elginerpeton         Late Frasnian (368)                  Scotland
Obruchevichthys            Late Frasnian (368)              Latvia
Metaxygnathus            Late Frasnian to Late Famennian             New South Wales, Australia
Jakubsonia            Early Famennian              Oryol Region, Russia
Strud jaw            Late Famennian (365)                  Belgium
Acanthostega           Late Famennian (363)                  East Greenland
Ichthyostega           Late Famennian (363)                   East Greenland
Tulerpeton           Late Famennian (363)                  Tula Region, Russia
Hynerpeton           Late Famennian (361)                   Pennsylvania, USA
Densignathus           Late Famennian (361)                    Pennsylvania, USA
Red Hill humerus          Late Famennian (361)                   Pennsylvania, USA
Ventastega            Late Famennian               Latvia
Sinostega             Late Famennian                 Ningxia Hui, China
Tetrapod Trackways          Frasnian and Famennian              Australia, Ireland & Scotland


-------
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: 9:30 PM on December 14, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Am I going to be quizzed on all that? I skipped class that day.
anyway, as for fish, would there have been any fish like you see today who totally depend on being immersed in water that made their way out to being total land creatures?


-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 7:15 PM on December 15, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Your language is too twisted...

I don't know if this will answer your unclear question, but here you go:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S4TA9RfDb8

Or perhaps this will:


Meh, i can't pretend i understand you.



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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 7:51 PM on December 15, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I've seen those amphibious things before, ugly yes. But were they at one time total underwater creatures? That is, would they have died if they were out of water?






-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 8:00 PM on December 15, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I've seen those amphibious things before, ugly yes.
They're gorgeous. Aren't you disrespecting your god?
But were they at one time total underwater creatures?
You know our answer is yes.
That is, would they have died if they were out of water?
You don't need to clarify what an underwater creature is. Yes, every animal has aquatic ancestors.


(Edited by wisp 12/15/2009 at 9:13 PM).


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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:12 PM on December 15, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 7:15 PM on December 15, 2009 :

anyway, as for fish, would there have been any fish like you see today who totally depend on being immersed in water that made their way out to being total land creatures?


The walking catfish has rudimentary lungs so it can breath air.




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

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:27 PM on December 15, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Porkchop

I've seen those amphibious things before, ugly yes.


You mean Tiktaalik?  I imagine Neil Shubin would disagree with you.  I'm not sure that we would classify Tiktaalik as an amphibious creature. It was intermediate  between fish and amphibian.  It lived in shallow water, where it probably propped itself up on occassion to gulp air.  But it also had gills like a fish.


But were they at one time total underwater creatures? That is, would they have died if they were out of water?


Their ancestral species (if you go back far enough) were, surely.

The point really is that we find transitional species in the fossil record that suggest (very strongly) that evolution did occur.  The fossils always occur in the order prdicted by ToE - we always find them in the right age geological strata/rock.  

As Wisp pointed out in just another recent post of his, this in itself is powerful evidence for evolution.  If we were to find Fred Flintstone's fossils mixed in with dinosaur bones, then that would totally refute ToE.  But so far paleontologist haven't ever found such fossils out of order predicted by ToE.

(Edited by orion 12/16/2009 at 09:39 AM).
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:53 PM on December 15, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 04:27 AM on December 16, 2009 :
The walking catfish has rudimentary lungs so it can breath air.


[YEC Head]
Yeah, but that's clearly not a transitional, obviously god designed it that way. If evolution were true then by now it would have evolved into an elephant or a hippo or a whale. Obviously it is none of these things ergo and therefore we can posit the theoretical truth and by the proof that obviously goddidit, prove that evilution is a crock and therefore the bible is troo[/yec head]


(Sorry, since the YECs seem a bit thin on the ground I'd take up the mantle of overseer of trooth and proof for a moment.)




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

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

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 07:42 AM on December 16, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

anyway, as for fish, would there have been any fish like you see today who totally depend on being immersed in water that made their way out to being total land creatures?
I think i finally got it.

You want the fish we used to be. No demi-fish. No lungs. Just a fish with no air-breathing abilities.

Ok, here you go:

Living version:

Not very remarkable. Right?

And this too (i hope you don't come up with the silly question "How could we descend from two fish?" and figure it out on your own):


And a series of videos showing you the transformation:

1/9

2/9

3/9

4/9

5/9

6/9

7/9

8/9

9/9

Some parts of those videos aren't very serious or accurate (for instance, the sound technicians felt the need to make the creatures grunt in some way or another at all times, which is kinda dumb). I sense a high dose of entertainment.



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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:22 AM on December 16, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, those are the fish I was talking about, the kind you catch when your uncle takes you fishing. So if those had zero air-breathing ability, how and why did mutations occur to get them moving on their journey onto land?



-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 4:45 PM on December 16, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 4:45 PM on December 16, 2009 :
Yes, those are the fish I was talking about, the kind you catch when your uncle takes you fishing. So if those had zero air-breathing ability, how and why did mutations occur to get them moving on their journey onto land?


How and why can the walking catfish do it right now?

Quote from Apoapsis at 10:27 PM on December 15, 2009 :
Quote from porkchop at 7:15 PM on December 15, 2009 :

anyway, as for fish, would there have been any fish like you see today who totally depend on being immersed in water that made their way out to being total land creatures?


The walking catfish has rudimentary lungs so it can breath air.








-------
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: 5:08 PM on December 16, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So... how and why did mutations occur to get them moving on their journey onto land?


-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 5:22 PM on December 16, 2009 | IP
firechild

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 5:22 PM on December 16, 2009 :
So... how and why did mutations occur to get them moving on their journey onto land?


A common Creationist mistake. Evolution has no plan, multiple variations can develop and exist but evolution only occurs when the variation gives an advantage to one segment of the population. In this case it was the untapped resources that the terrestrial environment offered. Remember at this point there were no large terrestrial animals (insects, worms and other invertebrates has already moved onto land). This meant that there was an abundance of food, a distinct lack of predators and vast amounts of space. The aquatic environment places many stresses on the body of any organism, osmoregulation, thermoregulation etc. There were so many reasons why terrestrial animals had an advantage over their aquatic relatives. This is not to say that the (more) terrestrial animals survived at the expense of the aquatic but it does mean that they diverged along different evolutionary pathways. Fish still exist today because they are still suited to that environment (and they are more numerous in species than they were at the point of divergence), amphibians still exist after a line evolved into reptiles though they have been reduced in numbers due to competition.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 6:50 PM on December 16, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Right to all that, but it does not answer my quest. What started mutations to complacent fish that allowed them to be land dwelling?
Thanks.


(Edited by porkchop 12/16/2009 at 7:51 PM).


-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 7:48 PM on December 16, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What started mutations?

Well, copying mistakes.

Do you want the chemistry behind it?



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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 7:53 PM on December 16, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Mistakes? that's pretty amazing. But how many mistakes/mutations would it have taken to complete the process to go from a water living fish to an air-breathing land creature who had forsaken the water?



-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 8:08 PM on December 16, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There's no such a thing as a "complete process".


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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 8:15 PM on December 16, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

By "complete" you could guess I meant no longer in the water but fully living on land.


-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 8:30 PM on December 16, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I take baths. So i guess my process isn't complete yet.


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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 8:38 PM on December 16, 2009 | IP
firechild

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 8:08 PM on December 16, 2009 :
Mistakes? that's pretty amazing. But how many mistakes/mutations would it have taken to complete the process to go from a water living fish to an air-breathing land creature who had forsaken the water?



Evolution is a constant process so you are attempting to find times for evolution between 2 undefined points. Tiktaalik, the transitional species between fish and amphibians lived around 375 mya, the first reptile is believed to be Hylonomus which is dated to around 312 mya, so you have an evolutionary period of about 63 million years.



 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 8:47 PM on December 16, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:



I envy lots of things from Americans. But when it comes to the place religious ideas have in your society, i'm soooo glad i'm not there...

Also, high school bullies and popularity competitions.

Are those things real, or are they just a weird constant exaggeration from your movies?



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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 01:16 AM on December 17, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What's all these cartoons and religion? I have asked some innocent questions to the evolution defenders because I want to know more about the process, any harm in that? Getting back to my "question" here goes again...

How many mistakes/mutations would it have taken to complete the process to go from a water living fish to an air-breathing land creature who had forsaken the water?


-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 5:10 PM on December 17, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 5:10 PM on December 17, 2009 :
I have asked some innocent questions to the evolution defenders because I want to know more about the process, any harm in that?


Have you asked innocent questions or loaded ones?

The answer is, we don't know how many mutations it takes.  You have about 100 that your parents didn't have.  You could possibly breathe water better than they could, but we'll never know unless your environment changes.



-------
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: 5:25 PM on December 17, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Are we talking in the millions of mutations to chg a water breathing fish into a land animal with legs? And based on mistakes?



-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 6:30 PM on December 17, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 12:30 AM on December 18, 2009 :
Are we talking in the millions of mutations to chg a water breathing fish into a land animal with legs? And based on mistakes?


Quite obviously you are asking loaded questions. I'm sure that you think that you are very clever and that you anticipate being able to soon go AHA! I've caught you out. You said 'blah' when 'blah' is clearly impossible so .... we get the idea. How about you get to the point and actually say what it is that you really really want to say.


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

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

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 6:55 PM on December 17, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am asking as I go along, looking for answers, being inquisitive.Anything wrong with that? You sound suspicious.


-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 7:53 PM on December 17, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 6:30 PM on December 17, 2009 :
Are we talking in the millions of mutations to chg a water breathing fish into a land animal with legs? And based on mistakes?




Why would you think they are mistakes?

Suppose it took 1000, so what?


-------
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: 8:58 PM on December 17, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 01:53 AM on December 18, 2009 :
I am asking as I go along, looking for answers, being inquisitive.Anything wrong with that? You sound suspicious.

Your keen perception stops at the door of the blindingly obvious.


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

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

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 02:01 AM on December 18, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

He's trying to build material for his amazing point (like we didn't know what it is and hadn't refuted it dozens of times already).

Porkchop, make that number as high as it can help your point.

Now make it.



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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 03:24 AM on December 18, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Why would you think they are mistakes?
Suppose it took 1000, so what?


Wisp said they were mistakes. I don't know anything about the specifics of what evolution is but I am getting the idea from what I have read and asking tough questions.



-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 5:21 PM on December 18, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 5:21 PM on December 18, 2009 :

Why would you think they are mistakes?
Suppose it took 1000, so what?


Wisp said they were mistakes. I don't know anything about the specifics of what evolution is but I am getting the idea from what I have read and asking tough questions.


Why do you think you are asking the right questions?



(Edited by Apoapsis 12/18/2009 at 6:40 PM).


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

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 6:36 PM on December 18, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Is this a debate forum? Am I allowed to ask only certain questions?



-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 6:50 PM on December 18, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 6:50 PM on December 18, 2009 :
Is this a debate forum? Am I allowed to ask only certain questions?


I'm suggesting that as you learn more, your questions will become more sensible.



-------
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: 8:59 PM on December 18, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

All I can do is ask so I can understand a point at a time.
Is my question not sensible? I am trying to figure out how a fish goes through certain mutations & how many to become a land animal and what needs to be accomplished for that to happen. Now I am told it is by mistake. What gives?




-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 9:07 PM on December 18, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 9:07 PM on December 18, 2009 :
All I can do is ask so I can understand a point at a time.
Is my question not sensible? I am trying to figure out how a fish goes through certain mutations & how many to become a land animal and what needs to be accomplished for that to happen. Now I am told it is by mistake. What gives?


Mutations are essentially mistakes in the DNA. So fish became reptiles through mistakes made over millions of years in their DNA. We (or at least I) simply don't know how many mutations it took to go from a fish to a reptile, but we do know the basic steps and the time frame on how this happened.


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


Posts: 551 | Posted: 10:31 PM on December 18, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

would these mutations be considered beneficial? What if they were not?



-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 09:38 AM on December 19, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The organisms that had them would be more likely to die than ones with beneficial mutations.  That's how evolution works.


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

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 1:42 PM on December 19, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So for a fish that lives in water, would not a mutation that allows it to live in water more efficiently be beneficial rather then one that takes it away from water?



-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 7:40 PM on December 19, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So for a fish that lives in water, would not a mutation that allows it to live in water more efficiently be beneficial rather then one that takes it away from water?

You have to look at the environment the fish is in.  At the time fish started to evovle lungs, the earth was getting warmer so the lakes and streams they were living in were getting smaller and warmer, and the warmer water gets the less oxygen it can hold.  Evolving lungs allowed them to better survive in the smaller, warmer, less oxygenated lakes, streams and rivers.  They could now, in addition to their gills, gulp oxygen directly from the air.  We see lungfish that do this today.  So these mutations allowed the fish to live in the water more efficiently but when some of these environments changed even more, some of these fish could now live longer on land also.  It was initially beneficial to the fish.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:30 PM on December 19, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 7:40 PM on December 19, 2009 :
So for a fish that lives in water, would not a mutation that allows it to live in water more efficiently be beneficial rather then one that takes it away from water?


Why would a mutation that increases capability in air decrease capability in water?

You have about 100 mutations that your parents didn't have. maybe you can breath water better than they can.



-------
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: 9:33 PM on December 19, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ... 21 22 ... 29 30 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by:
ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.