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 ... 24 25 ... 29 30 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 7:48 PM on December 28, 2009 :
There seems to be an amt of hostility and wild tangents going on here.


Indeed.  If you have the time, you may want to read back through some of the other threads to see why this might be the case.  It becomes very frustrating, for example, when a creationist brings up a subject, claiming that it falsifies evolution, someone starts a thread to discuss JUST THAT subject, and the creationist goes to the thread, refuses to discuss the very subject he brought up, abandons the thread, yet later claims, again, that the subject he brought up in the first place falsifies evolution, as if the entire thread never happened.

That sort of behavior tends to make people angry.


Is this not supposed to be a debate forum?

You would think, but then, copy and pasting or paraphrasing something you've read on a creationist website and ignoring replies is not really a debate, is it?


Are we here to call others liars?

If the shoe fits, I see no real problem.  Best solution is simply not to lie.


I have read to assume that all mammals came from fish, is this true?

Well, sort of - oddly worded, but yes, the evidence indicates that terrestrial tetrapods evolved from a fish ancestor.




(Edited by derwood 12/29/2009 at 3:41 PM).


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:37 PM on December 29, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 5:58 PM on December 23, 2009 :

Why would a fish have evolved lungs while living in water?

Many fish still have lungs - they can gulp air when the water is too turbid or brackish.  Why did his happen?  If yopu are referring to a purpose, then you are asking the wrong question.  If you are asking about a mechanism, the same old one - mutation and selection.  


Were they getting ready for their journey onto land?

No.  There is no evidence of 'pre-planning' of body forms  in nature.


If not, this would be putting the cart before the horse.

The please explain whales for us using YOUR worldview.

AND
if alot of them died trying to leave the water, this would be a BAD idea, committing suicide.

Fish leave the water all the time now.  
The problem with your questions presented as arguments is that they suffer from a rather shallow understanding of the natural world.  Before asking how a fish with a lung might live, why not first look around the web (or even - gulp - open a book!) at fish physiology and anatomy?


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:46 PM on December 29, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 10:34 PM on December 28, 2009 :
You seem to be another Lester. I haven't caught you lying yet though.


He also ignored my question regarding his claim about 'millions of mutations.'  But he seems to be ignoring me in general.  I wonder if he is a sockpuppet.





-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:54 PM on December 29, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I noticed your question (and the lack of response thereof).

But the evolution from fish to mammal took millions of years. Isn't it conservative to assume at least 1 mutation per year? Isn't it reasonable to conclude that it took millions of mutations?

I'm sure many of those mutations wouldn't have been conductive to the evolution of mammals, but still.

Did you want for him to provide his own reasoning behind that claim?

I don't think there's any. Perhaps it was us who suggested the millions of mutations to him, i don't recall.

In any case, he asked that question with the obvious purpose of saying "Isn't it odd that X amount of mutations just happened to appear in the right order to produce a mammal from a fish? Isn't it lucky?" or something like that. That being the case, i say let him. Let him assume billions or trillions of mutations.

He doesn't understand the cumulative power of Evolution.

WISP, FENCER, ETC. - Might I suggest that instead of answering Lester's posts with new information, that we simply copy and paste the last posts we wrote that Lester ran away from.
Sounds reasonable. It's not like he has anything new to say.


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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:37 PM on December 29, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think you guys, especially Wisp are a tad bit too hostile to Lester. Lester is defending himself but his remarks are not what I would call rabid. These posts are getting quite complex with ramifications of questions and for me to answer every quest from everyone is not feasible, too many of you. Got to keep it simple. So I address this with the time I have

Sure a fish  could pull itself and crawl through the tangled, vegetation packed WHILE UNDERWATER. But once one land, it would be too weak.
How weak is "too" weak?
I contend it would be too weak to withstand gravity not having the proper skeletal apparatus. A fish is designed for swimming. Did the fish undergo an intricate set of many many mutations just so that it was able to breathe air out of water and have skin that could withstand dry air,,,while underwater? !!!

ALSO I said "My bone of contention is the theory that fish developed arms,legs, and all other land dwelling features by virtue of  their "swampy environment".
You said "That's not a theory, but a hypothesis."

I want to know, are you buying that hypothesis?




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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 6:36 PM on December 29, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

PC - you might get Neil Shubin's book 'Your Inner Fish'.  Shubin is a paleontologist and evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago, co-discoverer of Tiktaalik.  Shubin does a wonderful job explaining how the transition from fish to tetrapod took place.   He points out specific examples of molecular genetics that show how such evolution can occur.

Written for the layperson by an expert in the field.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:03 PM on December 29, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

porkchop
I think you guys, especially Wisp are a tad bit too hostile to Lester.
I think i'm hostile to dishonesty wherever i find it.
Lester is defending himself but his remarks are not what I would call rabid.
Why would they? It's not like he has real complaints. He doesn't have to withstand dishonesty, dodges, imprecisions, or anything like that.

Sure a fish  could pull itself and crawl through the tangled, vegetation packed WHILE UNDERWATER. But once one land, it would be too weak.
How weak is "too" weak?
I contend it would be too weak to withstand gravity not having the proper skeletal apparatus.




If those images are not sufficient to make you take your claim back, then i guess i don't really understand your claim.

A fish is designed for swimming.
In this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_locomotion
you can find forms of locomotion other than swimming.

The site lists:
# 1 Swimming

   * 1.1 Body/caudal fin propulsion
         o 1.1.1 Anguilliform locomotion
         o 1.1.2 Sub-carangiform locomotion
         o 1.1.3 Carangiform locomotion
         o 1.1.4 Thunniform locomotion
   * 1.2 Median/ paired fin propulsion
   * 1.3 Dynamic lift

# 2 Walking
# 3 Burrowing
# 4 Flying

Many fishes, particularly eel-shaped fishes such as true eels, moray eels, and spiny eels, are capable of burrowing through sand or mud. Ophichthids are capable of digging backwards using a sharpened tail.


This fish is able to soar for up to 400 mts

LOTS of fish walk the bottom of the ocean.


I'm not trying to be rude, but i'm under the strong impression that you don't know what you're talking about.






Does the mudskipper have a "highly developed land skeletal structure" or not?


You also ask why would a water-dwelling animal have "highly developed hand skeletal structure".

Does this creature have one of those?


I won't pretend i know what you're talking about. I don't.

Did the fish undergo an intricate set of many many mutations just so that it was able to breathe air out of water and have skin that could withstand dry air,,,while underwater? !!!
NO!!!

Mutations don't occur "to" anything, or "so that" anything, or "in order to" anything. They occur all the time, for no reason, with no purpose, with no direction.

You're systematically leaving Natural Selection out of the equation. Without it you have nothing.

ALSO I said "My bone of contention is the theory that fish developed arms,legs, and all other land dwelling features by virtue of  their "swampy environment".
You said "That's not a theory, but a hypothesis."

I want to know, are you buying that hypothesis?
I'm not sure. I need to inform myself better. I thought the Tiktaalik was kind of a big mudskipper, and that that's how it happened. But the acanthostega seemed to be an aquatic creature and it already had little fingers.


Perhaps the Tiktaalik gained strength in its limbs and then became a full-time water-dweller again.

It's pretty clear that the ichtyosthega did make incursions on land, but that doesn't seem to be the case with the acanthostega. It had lungs, but also gills, and the evidence suggests that its backbone was too weak for that.

That's what the evidence suggests. If you have any other interpretation, present it and we'll discuss it.

I don't. So, for now, i accept that hypothesis.



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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:48 PM on December 29, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrapod

Check it out, porkchop.


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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 02:20 AM on December 30, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 5:37 PM on December 29, 2009 :
I noticed your question (and the lack of response thereof).

But the evolution from fish to mammal took millions of years. Isn't it conservative to assume at least 1 mutation per year?


There are many more than that.  But the issue is how many mutations took part in the transition.  Every human is born with ~120 brand new mutations.  That is many millions - tens of millions - of unique mutations in the human gene pool every year.  The overwhelming majority appear to be neutral, as we would expect.  Some, of course, cause problems, and some may be beneficial.  

Point is, sure, many millions of mutations seperate humans from fish, but of those, how many actually are relevant to the body plan and physiology changes?  A very small number.


Isn't it reasonable to conclude that it took millions of mutations?

I think that is a common misconception.  Considering that there are only a few tens of thousands of genes and a similar (perhaps somewhat larger) number of regulatory regions, positing millions of mutations FOR the transition would require the wholesale de- and reconstruction of nearly the entire expressable genome.

I'm sure many of those mutations wouldn't have been conductive to the evolution of mammals, but still.

Did you want for him to provide his own reasoning behind that claim?

That was my goal.  It is one thing to just toss out a number becase it seems plausible, it is another to be able to explain why one thinks the tossed-out number really IS plausible.

I don't think there's any. Perhaps it was us who suggested the millions of mutations to him, i don't recall.

In any case, he asked that question with the obvious purpose of saying "Isn't it odd that X amount of mutations just happened to appear in the right order to produce a mammal from a fish? Isn't it lucky?" or something like that.

Which also implies a poor grasp of evolutionary genetics.

That being the case, i say let him. Let him assume billions or trillions of mutations.

He doesn't understand the cumulative power of Evolution.
 Few that argue against it do.

WISP, FENCER, ETC. - Might I suggest that instead of answering Lester's posts with new information, that we simply copy and paste the last posts we wrote that Lester ran away from.
Sounds reasonable. It's not like he has anything new to say.

Not that he really said anything before - it was always - ALWAYS - assertions that he could not/would not explain or support, paraphrases from the latest creationist book he read, etc.




(Edited by derwood 12/30/2009 at 10:24 AM).


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:11 AM on December 30, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I noticed your question (and the lack of response thereof).

But the evolution from fish to mammal took millions of years. Isn't it conservative to assume at least 1 mutation per year?
There are many more than that.  (...) Point is, sure, many millions of mutations seperate humans from fish, but of those, how many actually are relevant to the body plan and physiology changes?  A very small number.
Yeah, that's what i figured... That's why i said that they wouldn't have been conductive to the evolution of mammals. I've read that our functional genes are quite few.
Isn't it reasonable to conclude that it took millions of mutations?
I think that is a common misconception.  Considering that there are only a few tens of thousands of genes and a similar (perhaps somewhat larger) number of regulatory regions, positing millions of mutations FOR the transition would require the wholesale de- and reconstruction of nearly the entire expressable genome.
I'd say it depends on the definition of "take" when you use the phrase "It took X amount of mutations for a fish to become a human".

If we mean that they were "necessary" or "conductive", then not many mutations would be "required" (i'm aware that our functional genes aren't that many).

You can also take the amount of mutations as a measure other than time. Something else that can "elapse" (when we say "it took" we mean in time), not necessarily being conductive.

Oh... My dictionary tells me that you don't use the word "conductive" as we use the word "conductivo" in Spanish...

I mean "edifying"... But with a specific direction.

There's another ambiguity in the expression. Lots of mutations can theoretically happen to very few genes. The few genes that separate us from fish could have underwent a lot of mutations.

In any case, i can see now that mine wasn't a happy turn of phrase. Thanks for pointing it out.



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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 1:30 PM on December 30, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Porkchop, i have more for you.

What do you think about this fossil?:

We know exactly what it is, but... What would you call it?

Can you think of any creationist-friendly explanation for its existence?

Edit: Here is a video depicting a flying fish. Amazing!


(Edited by wisp 12/30/2009 at 6:05 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: 1:40 PM on December 30, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, when you have time to answer, let me know.

Meanwhile... Isn't it time for a new debate?


Intelligent Delivery VS Reproductionism


It's a long postponed debate. I'm sure Intelligent Delivery proponents must have come up with some new interesting arguments by now.


(Edited by wisp 12/30/2009 at 5:55 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: 5:44 PM on December 30, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Am I supposed to respond to ALL off those posts/questions? I told you you not feasible.
Anyway It looks like you posted alot of salamander type specimens. They seem to be amphibious.

You also ask why would a water-dwelling animal have "highly developed hand skeletal structure".
Does this creature have one of those?
It did not look like it, it was just bouncing around with minimal effort in the water, AFAIK.

Why would a fish that is so well ensconced in water do a 180 and get adapted for land? Why would not it "get better suited for water" instead? This would mean it's organs would undergo metamorphic changes, it's limbs, nervous system, blood type etc. It's a hard pill to swallow for me. Or am I a fool?







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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 7:51 PM on December 30, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I want to know, are you buying that "swampy environment" hypothesis?

I'm not sure. I need to inform myself better. I thought the Tiktaalik was kind of a big mudskipper, and that that's how it happened. But the acanthostega seemed to be an aquatic creature and it already had little fingers.

Sounds maybe you are having doubts? I can't imagine fish would be in the same unchanging environment long enough to start growing arms and legs. no small "feat"


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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 7:57 PM on December 30, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why would a fish that is so well ensconced in water do a 180 and get adapted for land? Why would not it "get better suited for water" instead? This would mean it's organs would undergo metamorphic changes, it's limbs, nervous system, blood type etc. It's a hard pill to swallow for me. Or am I a fool?

You don't seem to be grasping the point that hand like fins and lungs WERE an advantage IN THE WATER!  these fish were becoming better adapted for living in their watery environment!  It wasn't a 180 degree change like you're claiming.  what organs would go through a "metamorphic change"?  I don't think you're being a fool, I just think you won't look at the evidence objectively.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:08 PM on December 30, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I want to know, are you buying that "swampy environment" hypothesis?

What hypothesis aren't you buying?  We know from the massive coal deposits from the Devonian that there were huge swamps for great lengths of time.  Is that what you can't buy?  And if it is, why do you doubt the evidence, and what evidence do you have to counter it?

I thought the Tiktaalik was kind of a big mudskipper, and that that's how it
happened.


No, Tiktaalik was definitely a fish, a fish with wrists....
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:14 PM on December 30, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But the mudskipper is a fish too.

You mean that the Tiktaalik was completely aquatic, Demon?

porkchop
Am I supposed to respond to ALL off those posts/questions?
It would be cool.
I told you you not feasible.
Just 7 questions (i counted). Most of them yes/no questions.
Anyway It looks like you posted alot of salamander type specimens.
Just one: the axolotl.
They seem to be amphibious.
No. The axolotl is completely aquatic (of course, we know that its ancestors weren't).

You also ask why would a water-dwelling animal have "highly developed hand skeletal structure".
Does this creature have one of those?
It did not look like it, it was just bouncing around with minimal effort in the water, AFAIK.
Ok, so you're saying that, even if it had hands, and legs, and elbows, et cetera, that wasn't a "highly developed land skeletal structure" (HDLSS for short).

Then what's your problem? You were "amazed" that a creature would evolve a HDLSS before leaving the water. If the axolotl doesn't have a HDLSS, then evolving it from this...

...doesn't seem too amazing anymore.

To me, evolving from this...

...to this...

is much more impressive than from this...

...to this.


Why would a fish that is so well ensconced in water do a 180 and get adapted for land? Why would not it "get better suited for water" instead?
LOGICAL FALLACY > FALSE DILEMMA

From Wiki:
The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. Closely related are failing to consider a range of options and the tendency to think in extremes, called black-and-white thinking. Strictly speaking, the prefix "di" in "dilemma" means "two". When a list of more than two choices is offered, but there are other choices not mentioned, then the fallacy is called the fallacy of false choice, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses.

You're leaving out the possibility that a change that made the creature better suited for land could ALSO make it better adapted for water.

For instance, "more strength". That one's easy.

This would mean it's organs would undergo metamorphic changes, it's limbs, nervous system, blood type etc. It's a hard pill to swallow for me.
You're exaggerating. From the creature that already had lungs, limbs, elbows, wrists and fingers (without leaving the water yet) the changes weren't as dramatic as you're depicting them.
Or am I a fool?
You're not paying attention, and you put too much confidence in your objectivity and ability to analyze things.

The 180º thing was very poor.

I want to know, are you buying that "swampy environment" hypothesis?
I'm not sure. I need to inform myself better. I thought the Tiktaalik was kind of a big mudskipper, and that that's how it happened. But the acanthostega seemed to be an aquatic creature and it already had little fingers.
Sounds maybe you are having doubts?
Hahahahaha! OF COURSE!
Do you think there's anything wrong with that?

This is Science. You're not supposed to accept things by faith.

I can't imagine fish would be in the same unchanging environment long enough to start growing arms and legs. no small "feat"
Luckily, Evolution isn't limited by your imagination. Or mine, for that matter.

How much time would be "long enough", according to you?


(Edited by wisp 12/31/2009 at 02:54 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: 02:52 AM on December 31, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Waaait a minute...

You said that a HDLSS would be needed to leave the water.

Then you said that this creature doesn't have one:


Is it safe, then, to assume that this one doesn't have one either, according to you?


It looks to me as no HDLSS (whatever that might be) is needed to leave the water.



-------
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: 03:15 AM on December 31, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But the mudskipper is a fish too.
You mean that the Tiktaalik was completely aquatic, Demon?


No, you're right Wisp.  My mistake, I thought for a second that mudskipers were amphibians, but no, they are true fish.
I think the latest hypothesis is that Tiktaalik could and did pull itself up on land for short periods.  But the main advantage of it's leg like fins was climbing into shallow water that larger swimmers couldn't operate in to hunt prey.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 1:43 PM on December 31, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Tiktaalik had other features that made it transitional between fish and tetrapod.  

- weight bearing finger and wrist bones allowing it to prop itself up - perhaps to gulp air.

- Spicacles on top of its head suggesting that the animal had lungs, as well as gills.  As noted, lungs would have been useful in shallow, oxygen-poor water environments - such as swamps.

- a more robust ribcage to help support the animals weight outside water, or when propping itself up to gulp air.  

- lacked a feature most fish have - bony plates in the gill area that restrict lateral head movement.  It has a neck, and was able to move its head somewhat  independently of its body.  A feature that fish lack.

As pointed out, these transitional fish-tetrapod species were not 'attempting' to live on land.  Natural Selection was merely allowing them to take advantage of the environments of that time.  These features that animals like Tiktaalik display were useful for later adaptation to living on land, where there already was thriving plant and arthropod populations.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 3:17 PM on December 31, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 3:17 PM on December 31, 2009 :
Natural Selection was merely allowing them to take advantage of the environments of that time.  These features that animals like Tiktaalik display were useful for later adaptation to living on land, where there already was thriving plant and arthropod populations.



But the environment they were in was WATER. They were very well suited for water already. Why wouldn't natural selection grant them the ability to swim faster or improve themselves in WATER?



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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 5:05 PM on December 31, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This would mean it's organs would undergo metamorphic changes, it's limbs, nervous system, blood type etc. It's a hard pill to swallow for me.
You're exaggerating. From the creature that already had lungs, limbs, elbows, wrists and fingers (without leaving the water yet) the changes weren't as dramatic as you're depicting them.

To gain fur, warm bloodedness, efficient air breathing capability, skin to no longer need moisture, stronger limbs, different jaw structure, ear bone structure, ability to give live birth, diaphram, etc,etc  I do not believe is exaggerating. How many mutations had to fall into place?


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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 5:12 PM on December 31, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But the environment they were in was WATER. They were very well suited for water already. Why wouldn't natural selection grant them the ability to swim faster or improve themselves in WATER?

Because of the environment they were in, fast swimming was NOT an advantage.  That's the point, the ability to breath air and leg like fins was an improvement IN WATER that allowed them to survive better IN WATER.  
Other fish in other environments DID evolve into faster swimmers and those lungs that evolved became swim bladders in other species of fish.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 6:00 PM on December 31, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

porkchop
orion
Natural Selection was merely allowing them to take advantage of the environments of that time.  These features that animals like Tiktaalik display were useful for later adaptation to living on land, where there already was thriving plant and arthropod populations.
But the environment they were in was WATER. They were very well suited for water already. Why wouldn't natural selection grant them the ability to swim faster or improve themselves in WATER?
Who says it didn't?

YOU?

Just who do you think you are?

We've already told you. Natural Selection selects for things that are an advantage to the population's current environment. You always need to assume that. And you don't, for some reason, and in spite of everything we've been saying.

Like this:
Demon38
You don't seem to be grasping the point that hand like fins and lungs WERE an advantage IN THE WATER!  these fish were becoming better adapted for living in their watery environment!  It wasn't a 180 degree change like you're claiming.  what organs would go through a "metamorphic change"?  I don't think you're being a fool, I just think you won't look at the evidence objectively.


Or this:
wisp
LOGICAL FALLACY > FALSE DILEMMA

From Wiki:

The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. Closely related are failing to consider a range of options and the tendency to think in extremes, called black-and-white thinking. Strictly speaking, the prefix "di" in "dilemma" means "two". When a list of more than two choices is offered, but there are other choices not mentioned, then the fallacy is called the fallacy of false choice, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses.

You're leaving out the possibility that a change that made the creature better suited for land could ALSO make it better adapted for water.

For instance, "more strength". That one's easy.


Why would a fish that is so well ensconced in water do a 180 and get adapted for land? Why would not it "get better suited for water" instead? This would mean it's organs would undergo metamorphic changes, it's limbs, nervous system, blood type etc. It's a hard pill to swallow for me. Or am I a fool?
wisp
You're exaggerating. From the creature that already had lungs, limbs, elbows, wrists and fingers (without leaving the water yet) the changes weren't as dramatic as you're depicting them.
To gain fur, warm bloodedness, efficient air breathing capability, skin to no longer need moisture, stronger limbs, different jaw structure, ear bone structure, ability to give live birth, diaphram, etc,etc  I do not believe is exaggerating. How many mutations had to fall into place?
Man... Focus...

The subject was the changes it underwent WITHOUT LEAVING THE WATER.

YOU were the one that delimited the subject. You were talking about the fish.

Geez...

Look, here's a tip: When scientists say things that don't make sense to you, the problem is probably you. So be humble.



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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 6:02 PM on December 31, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm trying to be humble but this fish to mammal story is quite remarkable if true.

Demon38
You don't seem to be grasping the point that hand like fins and lungs WERE an advantage IN THE WATER!  these fish were becoming better adapted for living in their watery environment!  It wasn't a 180 degree change like you're claiming.  what organs would go through a "metamorphic change"?  I don't think you're being a fool, I just think you won't look at the evidence objectively.

"hand like fins and lungs WERE an advantage IN THE WATER!"

if the above is true, please explain. Ever tried swimming pushing off with your fingers separated?





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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 10:04 PM on December 31, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[b]gain fur, warm bloodedness, efficient air breathing capability, skin to no longer need moisture, stronger limbs, different jaw structure, ear bone structure, ability to give live birth, diaphram, etc,etc


Just so I understand, how did the above benefit a fish while still living underwater? It's a contradiction.




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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 10:13 PM on December 31, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm trying to be humble but this fish to mammal story is quite remarkable if true.
Well, this is a remarkable field of Science.

The story is quite remarkable, yes. And yet it's as unremarkable as possible.

Can you come up with some less remarkable one?

We've been asking you all this time. You haven't made any comment about it.

Demon38
You don't seem to be grasping the point that hand like fins and lungs WERE an advantage IN THE WATER!  these fish were becoming better adapted for living in their watery environment!  It wasn't a 180 degree change like you're claiming.  what organs would go through a "metamorphic change"?  I don't think you're being a fool, I just think you won't look at the evidence objectively.

"hand like fins and lungs WERE an advantage IN THE WATER!"
if the above is true, please explain.
Here you go:


Where do you think this creature lived?

Ever tried swimming pushing off with your fingers separated?
Here you go:


Nobody said its fingers were like ours. Your comment was an undercover strawman. I don't like strawmen.

Besides, what exactly are you doubting?

If we tell you that that creature lived on land you wouldn't believe it either.

You just won't believe anything. And you'll think you're being a skeptical critical thinker.

The fossil is there. It's clear that it existed. Are you cool with that, at least?

Besides, i've shown you the very thing you're objecting to IN A LIVING SPECIES!!:


What else do you want???

You won't answer...

porkchop
gain fur, warm bloodedness, efficient air breathing capability, skin to no longer need moisture, stronger limbs, different jaw structure, ear bone structure, ability to give live birth, diaphram, etc,etc
Just so I understand, how did the above benefit a fish while still living underwater? It's a contradiction.
Keep trying to be humble. You're failing so far.

If you think you found a contradiction, the problem is probably you. So be humble.

Such a thing DID_NOT_HAPPEN, and nobody said it did.

Now, perhaps you'll get irritated, and think "Yeah, somebody said that!" or something.

Well, no. Read again, take your time, pay attention.


(Edited by wisp 1/1/2010 at 01:33 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: 10:52 PM on December 31, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

By the way, you dodged this:
Waaait a minute...

You said that a HDLSS would be needed to leave the water.

Then you said that this creature doesn't have one:


Is it safe, then, to assume that this one doesn't have one either, according to you?


It looks to me as no HDLSS (whatever that might be) is needed to leave the water.


Don't be like Lester. Don't pretend it's lack of time. You're already playing dumb. You don't want your own contradictions to be pointed out.

You're not being humble at all.

And if you don't have time to talk about your own doubts, refrain from posting.


(Edited by wisp 12/31/2009 at 11:14 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: 11:11 PM on December 31, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 10:13 PM on December 31, 2009 :
[b]gain fur, warm bloodedness, efficient air breathing capability, skin to no longer need moisture, stronger limbs, different jaw structure, ear bone structure, ability to give live birth, diaphram, etc,etc


Just so I understand, how did the above benefit a fish while still living underwater? It's a contradiction.


And how do you know it was always underwater?  Do you know everything?  Tell us how to get such perfect knowledge.

The changes we are talking about would and are advantages to fish we see today in the same environments that the data indicates existed many millions of years ago in the Devonian.  Are you declaring that impossible?

(Edited by Apoapsis 1/1/2010 at 12:08 AM).


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

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:33 PM on December 31, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And how do you know it was always underwater?
I think he just assumed that we say that (assuming being so much easier than paying attention).


-------
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: 01:30 AM on January 1, 2010 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

looks like I am just in time to draw attention away from Porkchop. (it sadens me that wisp's last post is attacking him instead of his argument)
lets just hope I can draw the attention back onto the topic, and not onto myself.


honestly, I may have missed a few key parts of the discussion, so this post may not be on topic at all :P

to start, here is my response to
Quote from wisp at 1:40 PM on December 30, 2009 :
What do you think about this fossil?:

We know exactly what it is, but... What would you call it?

Can you think of any creationist-friendly explanation for its existence?
this 'fossil' you show us is an artists impression of a tetrapod, specificity a Crassigyrinus. it would appear that the artist put emphasis on highlighting the inefficient size of the limbs in proportion to the body.

and you ask for a creationist-friendly explanation for its existence?
I don't fully understand this question. are you asking 'why would God create a fish with legs?' ?
(assuming that this is the intent of your question)well why not? it sure does make an interesting design feature.

and if I predict this correctly, your rebuttal will be something along the lines of "but it makes no sense to create a fish with legs, thats just stupid. now evolutions explanation makes sense, it is logical, and it is factual (or so I claim)"
and IF (and only IF) you decide to run with the view point that God wouldn't design animals with quirky features (ie. a fish with legs). then I will point you to another animal with a quirky feature, one it is far easier to believe God has a sense of humour than it is to believe such a thing just happened by chance. that animal/feature is the Woodpecker's Tongue




trying to keep on subject (I think I may have drifted off for a bit there :])
the current point of interest is the existence of HDLSS (or close resemblances thereof) in fully aquatic animal.

(please excuse my paraphrasing)
the evolutionists argue that:
- HDLSS are a stepping stone between fish and land animals
- the existence of HDLSS's in the fossil record support the ancestry of fish to man.
- the existence of HDLSS's in living specimens show that not all original "legged fish" (I shall now call them that) did not evolve into land creatures.

the creationists argue that:
- God created fish with legs. (as to why? maybe legs are beneficial, maybe God just has a sense of humour)
- the existence of HDLSS's in the fossil record support the fact that some creatures are extinct. nothing new there
- the existence of HDLSS's in living specimens show that not all original "legged fish" became extinct.


of these arguments there is at least one point that I am willing to share my views on. that is the benefits of a fish having legs as opposed to fins.
now, we all know how legs work right? you place the foot section on the ground and walk forward (I put it this simply because I seem unable to satisfactory word instruction on how to walk)
so if a fish is interested in walking along the bottom of a pond, then why not use a limb that is designed for the job?


and to close...

first Demon38 made the statement that
hand like fins and lungs WERE an advantage IN THE WATER!

Porkchop then asked the rhetorical question
Ever tried swimming pushing off with your fingers separated?
, implying Demon38's statement to be inaccurate
and now wisp states
Nobody said its fingers were like ours. Your comment was an undercover strawman. I don't like strawmen.
something here seems amiss

the acronym HDLSS stands for "highly developed land skeletal structure"
thus implying that the skeletal structure is highly developed for use on land. (duh!)

so assuming that all three statements are true, we can conclude that the fins on such animals as the axolotl by definition do not have a HDLSS (highly developed land skeletal structure), but rather have a SSHDFTUOPOSATBOAPOOBOWWJHTVRTSSOLCWHAWASU (skeletal structure highly developed for the use of propelling ones self along the bottom of a pond or other body of water which just happens to vaguely resemble the skeletal structure of land creatures who have appendages with a similar use)



PS: I think I am still off topic. didn't it have something to do with numbers...? or favours...?


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 02:11 AM on January 1, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hahaha! I liked your post. xD

looks like I am just in time to draw attention away from Porkchop.
Haha! Indeed!
(it sadens me that wisp's last post is attacking him instead of his argument)
I attack dishonesty, fallacies, poor thinking, arrogance (only if it gets in the way, otherwise i don't care), and stuff like that.

lets just hope I can draw the attention back onto the topic, and not onto myself.
You try too much. Haha!
honestly, I may have missed a few key parts of the discussion, so this post may not be on topic at all :P
Nevermind. It has been off-topic for a dozen pages now.

to start, here is my response to
wisp
What do you think about this fossil?:

We know exactly what it is, but... What would you call it?

Can you think of any creationist-friendly explanation for its existence?
this 'fossil' you show us is an artists impression of a tetrapod, specificity a Crassigyrinus.
Ok, you impressed me.

How did you do it? Did you read the name in the link?

Well, that's smart too.

it would appear that the artist put emphasis on highlighting the inefficient size of the limbs in proportion to the body.
It would appear? To whom?

Does this image seem objective enough to you?


and you ask for a creationist-friendly explanation for its existence?
I don't fully understand this question. are you asking 'why would God create a fish with legs?' ?
NON-FUNCTIONAL legs.

By the way, your use of color codes impresses me too. Creationists tend to have a hard time even quoting.
(assuming that this is the intent of your question)
The intent is to get an answer to that question. Quite simple.

It was possible that your answer was "Its legs were functional but they shrank due to devolution", or something like that.
well why not? it sure does make an interesting design feature.
How do you test for "interesting"?

If that's the reason your god does things, go ahead, design a way to test it and do your research.

Before that, i don't know what you're talking about (and my guess is that you don't either).

and if I predict this correctly, your rebuttal will be something along the lines of "but it makes no sense to create a fish with legs, thats just stupid. now evolutions explanation makes sense, it is logical, and it is factual (or so I claim)"
Not bad. But my actual rebuttal goes more along these lines:

It makes no sense that your god thinks its interesting to add body parts, structures, genes, et cetera, so as to make living things appear to be a part of a branching tree whose roots go back 3.5 billion years ago.

But yeah, it's stupid also.

and IF (and only IF) you decide to run with the view point that God wouldn't design animals with quirky features (ie. a fish with legs). then I will point you to another animal with a quirky feature, one it is far easier to believe God has a sense of humour than it is to believe such a thing just happened by chance. that animal/feature is the Woodpecker's Tongue
I don't know about it. I doubt it will make me think of any gods though. Who knows.

the current point of interest is the existence of HDLSS (or close resemblances thereof) in fully aquatic animal.
An explanation would come in handy. A description at least. For i don't know what it is (and my bet is that none of you know either).

(please excuse my paraphrasing)
Sorry, but i won't.
the evolutionists argue that:
- HDLSS are a stepping stone between fish and land animals
No paraphrasing. Quote that. I don't know what you're talking about.

That might be true. I don't know. I'm sure scientists would define it before speaking about it though.

- the existence of HDLSS's in the fossil record support the ancestry of fish to man.
I don't know what you're talking about, but everything supports that, yeah.

- the existence of HDLSS's in living specimens show that not all original "legged fish" (I shall now call them that) did not evolve into land creatures.
Not all of them did not evolve into land creatures...

Sorry, i'm not strong on double negatives.

Oh, wait... I got it. Drop the second "not" and it's ok. Yeah, i do say that, and i guess we all do.

the creationists argue that:
- God created fish with legs. (as to why? maybe legs are beneficial, maybe God just has a sense of humour)
No problem. Go test for humor. Design a way to test for that, and go do your research.

Otherwise your whole position is a giant shrugging of shoulders.

Not anti-evolutionist, but anti-Science.


We learn. We grow. Science gives us amazing progress.

You just shrug your ignorant shoulders.

- the existence of HDLSS's in the fossil record support the fact that some creatures are extinct. nothing new there
Well, the very concept of HDLSS is quite new to me.

Pardon me if i have my doubts regarding the knowledge you people constantly claim to have.

- the existence of HDLSS's in living specimens show that not all original "legged fish" became extinct.
I can only guess, since i don't know what a HDLSS would look like.

(...) so if a fish is interested in walking along the bottom of a pond, then why not use a limb that is designed for the job?
I don't know what you mean.

I don't even know what you mean by "designed". You mean "better"? Show us your designs and we'll check them. I don't know what you're talking about.


and to close...

first Demon38 made the statement that
hand like fins and lungs WERE an advantage IN THE WATER!
Porkchop then asked the rhetorical question
Ever tried swimming pushing off with your fingers separated?
, implying Demon38's statement to be inaccurate
and now wisp states
Nobody said its fingers were like ours. Your comment was an undercover strawman. I don't like strawmen.
something here seems amiss
Yeah. Your thinking. =D

He did imply that we say its hands were like ours, and that it swam using them. Even if that was true, nobody said it (not that i recall).

Porkchop makes things up, and then proceeds to timidly "debunk" them by asking incongruent rhetorical questions, as if he knew what he's talking about.

You people get lost in words instead of looking at reality. You love words (even though you're not too good with them) because they're all you have.

We're good with words AND facts.

the acronym HDLSS stands for "highly developed land skeletal structure"
thus implying that the skeletal structure is highly developed for use on land. (duh!)
Right.

Go test for "highness", and we'll talk.

For i don't know what you're talking about (and my guess is that you don't either).



so assuming that all three statements are true,
Assume what you will, but before defining or accurately depicting HDLSS, you still have nothing, and i still don't know what you're talking about.

Perhaps real scientists have come up with a use for that concept, and have defined it in a useful way.
If that's true, and you know it, please, let me know.
For i don't know what you're talking about (and my guess is that you don't either).

we can conclude that the fins on such animals as the axolotl by definition do not have a HDLSS (highly developed land skeletal structure),
I don't see why.

Porkchop asked why would they develop a HDLSS before leaving the water. So i guess he thinks some aquatic creature has one of those. Now you are concluding that he was wrong.

Or am i wrong?

In any case, i still don't know what you're talking about (and my guess is that you don't either).

but rather have a SSHDFTUOPOSATBOAPOOBOWWJHTVRTSSOLCWHAWASU (skeletal structure highly developed for the use of propelling ones self along the bottom of a pond or other body of water which just happens to vaguely resemble the skeletal structure of land creatures who have appendages with a similar use)
Hahaha! That's funny.

But you people go around redefining reality, instead of looking at 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: 04:52 AM on January 1, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

PorkchopWhy would a fish have evolved lungs while living in water? Were they getting ready for their journey onto land? If not, this would be putting the cart before the horse.


Demon38They evolved lungs so they could gulp oxygen from the air in the shallow wetlands and swamps they were living in because the water was becoming less and less oxygenated.  This wasn't in preperation for moving on land (although it worked out that way), it directly benefited the fish while it was living totally in water.


Like in Grimms fairy tales?

Porkchop to Demon 38 If your scenario is true(shallow wetlands and swamps and dried out ponds) why wouldn't the fish have died from the bad conditions or how long did they endure such conditions?, were the swamps perpetually shallow, did not rains replenish them, did they not dry up completely?


Did the genes sense a plan and mutate just the right things or were they lucky to produce lungs with attendant blood supply and all the correct biochemical changes required to carry and process oxygen in this new way?
Where are all the flops? Where are all the strange things that couldn’t work? The mutations are random after all, even if natural selection apparently selects out the best errors with no future plan.

Firechild Secondly, this shows that further evolution to land dwelling was not required and not selected for.


Not required? You’re making it sound like a plan with a purpose.

Demon38 Coal takes many millions of years of plant matter to accumulate, so we can safely say that there were large amounts of wetlands and they persisted for millions of years.  Where's your counter evidence?


Coal can also form very rapidly under the correct temperature and pressure conditions.
Radiometric dating is full of assumptions. When you know the dates, it doesn’t work well at all so why trust it for the dates we don’t know?
What do you say about trees stretching through ‘millions of years’ of coal seams? (polystrata fossils) –did they stand there for millions of years without rotting and gradually being covered by millions of years of sediment?

Porkchop I thought water habitating fish struggle to get back into the water when they find themselves out by flopping to do so.
Wisp Most do.


Yes and the others start mutating lungs by accident and very rapidly?

Porkchop Too many suppositions to make it believable.
Wisp You keep imagining our suppositions so you feel you have refuted something, and get to sleep better.


Sorry Porkchop, you don’t really think that your ‘lack of imagination’ counters their absolute right to make up whatever story fits their preconceived belief/philosophy. You have to understand that nothing was planned. It all just happened. When you think like that, you need to make all the scenarios up ad lib.

PorkchopWHY would a fish need a highly developed land sketal apparatus while in water in the scenario you just suggested.?
Wisp YOU call it that. You're thinking backwards.


Yes, you have to believe it happened first, then the whole imaginative story comes together with miraculous ease.That’s how evolutionary ‘science’ works.

Lester When Wisp mentions my many, many….. ad infinitum dodges, what he really means is ‘can we get off this topic here and get back to what I can handle.’
Wisp No. It means "You were defeated in a certain topic, and now you're playing dumb."


Defeated!? You’re joking? And I missed it…I’ll just have to lie down and die now. Are you the referee as well?

Wisp You don't need to defend it. You don't need to stop mentioning it when it has been refuted.


Well then you’ll have to refute something, not carry on pretending to yourself that you managed to refute something. That’s not cricket.

No. Just admit defeat in one topic, correct yourself, and we can move on.


Just as soon as you come with the goods Wisp.

You said you understood homology. You didn't (you thought it had something to do with convergent evolution). You didn't admit your mistake. You lied.


Evolutionists say homology shows relationship - except where the same features developed independently in separate lines; then it looks like relationship but isn’t. That’s ‘convergent evolution.’ So how do we know when it is relationship or not since straight homology can be misconstrued.You obviously missed the point.

You constantly claim that Evolution is about random chance. You know it's not. You lied.


Oh, so now it’s a planned purposeful thing?

Not so. It's my poor English and my lack of knowledge about the difference between "a doctorate" and "a PhD". I thought they were the same thing.

"M.D." confuses me too. Edit: Perhaps it stands for "Medical degree".

Oh, and military rank.

And yeah, when derwood said you claimed that i thought it was a confirmation of my notion that they were the same thing.

I was wrong. I admit it. I take it back. I didn't mean to say anything false.


Nice tactic. Wisp admits to be incorrect on something arbitrary and Lester is forced to admit that a land mammal evolved into a whale and a fish evolved into a land dwelling creature –oh, and it is obvious to anyone with half a brain. Well that’s easy then!

I know much more than you about these things, and i still wouldn't dare to make a fool of myself implying to be knowledgeable.


HAHAHAHAHA!! You humble soul you.


Derwood So, no PhD (why did it take you so long to clarify?) - that leaves what - an EdD?


No, wrong again.

Derwood I took courses in physics, chemistry (organic and inorganic), biochemistry, psychology, pathology, genetics, etc., too - but I don't think I've ever tried to embellish my area of expertise by claiming to have a "background" in all of that.


I think you embellished my qualifications claim because you thought I should agree with you about evolution otherwise.

DerwoodWe actually assumed you claimed to have earned a better degree than you now let on.


Assumed, yes. What is a better degree? Is a PhD the epitome of success? Am I missing something here?

Wisp (or Derwood) You would think, but then, copy and pasting or paraphrasing something you've read on a creationist website and ignoring replies is not really a debate, is it?


Who does that Derwood (or Wisp)? You keep accusing creationists of doing that, (the implication being, of course, that they have no original thoughts of their own and you somehow do). I seem to have missed that activity altogether. Do you think it could be your imagination?

Porkchop Are we here to call others liars?
Derwood If the shoe fits, I see no real problem.  Best solution is simply not to lie.


So you should try that sometime, Derwood –and encourage your friend Wisp as well.

Derwood There is no evidence of 'pre-planning' of body forms  in nature.


Absolutely. As Richard Dawkins puts it you see what looks like design but there absolutely is no such thing, and you have to keep reminding yourself that things like the parts of an eye just fell together, piece by thousands of mistaken pieces, with no plan or purpose. It sounds incredible but it’s absolutely true!

Derwood about Porkchop He also ignored my question regarding his claim about 'millions of mutations.'  But he seems to be ignoring me in general.  I wonder if he is a sockpuppet.


Doubtless he finds you as obnoxious as everybody else does and is managing to restrain himself.

WispBut the evolution from fish to mammal took millions of years.


If you believe evolution even happened, it would need to take millions of years or else the supposed mechanism of mutation and natural selection would be inadequate for the job. It would be in any case if you consider the rate of mutation and limit it to inheritable reproductive cell mutation, it still wouldn’t be good enough for the job but that is not something the evolutionist wants to hear because then they have to imagine that we have it all backwards. The thing is to believe first and work out the details later knowing that it did in fact happen.

Wisp to other evolutionists He doesn't understand the cumulative power of Evolution.


Or doesn’t believe it, based on multifactorial absurdities.

Orion Shubin does a wonderful job explaining how the transition from fish to tetrapod took place.


If you believe it, I’m sure it is quite possible to make that story up. The story would not be ‘scientific’ however, it would be imaginative and faith-filled. The scientific method would be quite impossible to apply to once-off supposed past events.

He points out specific examples of molecular genetics that show how such evolution can occur.


You mean that supposedly show how evolution could occur if it did in fact occur.

Wisp to Porkchop I'm not trying to be rude, but i'm under the strong impression that you don't know what you're talking about.


Nicely said, Wisp – not a trace of arrogance. HAHA!

Derwood The overwhelming majority appear to be neutral, as we would expect.  Some, of course, cause problems, and some may be beneficial.


So do you suppose that the neutral ones are largely contributing to the upward evolution which is supposed to have happened or would it be the few ‘might be’ beneficial ones? Of course those few ‘might be beneficial’ mutations would have to be in the reproductive cells to be of any use to evolution.

Wisp Point is, sure, many millions of mutations seperate humans from fish


If evolution happened that is.

Wisp about Lester Not that he really said anything before - it was always - ALWAYS - assertions that he could not/would not explain or support, paraphrases from the latest creationist book he read, etc.


Dream on Derwood

Porkchop Am I supposed to respond to ALL off those posts/questions? I told you you not feasible.


Well that’s too bad Porkchop, that means you are guilty of avoiding everything and probably lying as well – not yet perhaps, but soon enough.

If it makes you feel any better, I know exactly how you feel. They are hoping you will go away in time – preferably soon so that they can claim victory having ‘refuted’ all your arguments decisively and forced you into hiding.

Demon 38 I think the latest hypothesis is that Tiktaalik could and did pull itself up on land for short periods.  


How much can you tell from the dead bones, I wonder. They used to think similar things about the coelocanth based on fossil bones alone –they were wrong.

Porkchop But the environment they were in was WATER. They were very well suited for water already. Why wouldn't natural selection grant them the ability to swim faster or improve themselves in WATER?


Good question Porkchop.

Demon38 Because of the environment they were in, fast swimming was NOT an advantage.


Nice guess, Demon. Lawyers would call it speculation. Part of a jolly fine story.

Wisp Who says it didn't?

YOU?

Just who do you think you are?


Who do you think you are? You believe the speculative scenarios dreamed up by evolution’s faithful followers and refuse the opposing interpretations and any disagreement and then call your opposers arrogant. Nice move Wisp! Very convincing.

Wisp Well, this is a remarkable field of Science.

The story is quite remarkable, yes. And yet it's as unremarkable as possible.

Can you come up with some less remarkable one?


What? So you want Porkchop to imagine something less remarkable? This is all SOOO scientific!

Wisp to Porkchop Besides, what exactly are you doubting?


Hopefully not evolution. Darwin forbid!!

Wisp to Porkchop Keep trying to be humble. You're failing so far.

If you think you found a contradiction, the problem is probably you. So be humble.


There Porkchop –it’s that simple! Wisp is the humble one and we should all now be able to see that quite clearly.

Wisp Don't be like Lester. Don't pretend it's lack of time. You're already playing dumb. You don't want your own contradictions to be pointed out.

You're not being humble at all.

And if you don't have time to talk about your own doubts, refrain from posting.


You can tell he has a legal background, hey Porkchop. Harrassing the witness. Objection!! If it helps at all, you sound perfectly reasonable, not at all arrogant and Wisp is trying all the same tricks on you that he wastes on me. Soon he will tell you that he has no choice but to call you a liar as well. You see Wisp never lies, he despises liars and whoever doesn’t agree with him is by definition a liar or so it seems.

Plod on Porkchop. We aren’t quite on the same page from the sound of it but at least you’re asking the right questions.


Wisp The environment doesn't control the rate of mutation, nor gives them directions. Natural selection promotes those mutations that are useful in that environment.


Well isn’t it lucky then that the whale happened to develop fin after fin after fin and all those things needed for water rather than some wings or some more legs or eyes that didn’t like water or something. I wonder where all the billions of duds are that weren’t good mutations for survival in water?

Did the genes know anything about sound waves before accidentally mutating the parts of the ear needed to convert sound waves from air to mechanical to nervous and then to integrate those nervous impulses into something we could understand and act on?

Did the voice box know anything about the ear?

Did the eye know anything about colour before it just happened to arrange itself into something that worked so miraculously with electromagnetic radiation? Where are all the billions of duds?

How did male and female reproductive systems develop separately without a common plan and then just happen to work together? How did the thus produced male and female find one another  - and know what to do? When they did what they did, how did things just happen to happen from there? Sounds much like a plan with a purpose to me but then I apparently lack imagination.

You’re so lost Wisp –you can just admit it now, I don’t mind.


     





(Edited by Lester10 1/1/2010 at 08:36 AM).


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


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:12 AM on January 1, 2010 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I hope you don't mind, but I took the liberty of shortening your post so that people could get the gist of what your saying without needing to read so much.
Quote from wisp at 04:52 AM on January 1, 2010 :
i don't care (...) Creationists tend to (...) i don't know what you're talking about (...) Who knows (...) i don't know what it is (...) I don't know what you're talking about (...) That might be true. I don't know (...) I don't know what you're talking about (...) the very concept of HDLSS is quite new to me (...) Pardon me if i have my doubts (...) I can only guess, since i don't know (...) I don't know what you mean (...) I don't even know what you mean (...) I don't know what you're talking about (...)You people get lost in words (...) We're good with words AND facts (...) For i don't know what you're talking about (...) and i still don't know what you're talking about (...) For i don't know what you're talking about (...) I don't see why (...) am i wrong? (...) in any case, i still don't know what you're talking about (...) you people ...


perhaps I am being to harsh on you. you did compliment me on my use of colour codes after all =)
although I will request you refrain from using hyperbolic statements about generic groups. such as "Christians always..." or "evolutionists always..." (such as when you said "We're good with words AND facts". you should speak for your self (and even then don't be surprised if people disagree))



anyway... yes I did read the name in the link.
and I would wager that some of the evolutionists whould have needed to do so aswell, even though you said "We know exactly what it is" (remember what I said about using hyperbolic statements about generic groups)

and... yes. it appeared so to me.
if your second image is accurate (and I have no reason to believe otherwise) then the artist was right to do so.
yes, the image does seem objective enough.

"why did God create fish with NON-FUNCTIONAL legs?"
non-functional how? non-functional in the sense that the legs wouldn't carry their weight out of water?
would it be wrong of me to suggest that this fish never left the water at all? to suggest that the legs where ONLY used to propel the fish along the bottom of the pond (or where ever it lived)?
I will agree with you that the legs would not function (well enough to be of any benefit) for the purpose of propelling the fish on dry land. will you agree with me that the legs Would function for propelling the fish under water?

sorry, my mistake. I should not have used the term "intent" in that sentence.
when you asked for a creationist-friendly explanation for its existence?, I reworded your question so as to clearly define what question I was answering.
and then instead of saying "assuming that this is the intent of your question", what I should of said was "assuming you have no major objections with the wording I used to clarify your question"

same with the double negative. my fault. sorry.
as you realised it should not have had the second 'not'


"I don't even know what you mean by "designed". You mean "better"? Show us your designs and we'll check them. I don't know what you're talking about."
yes I did mean better in this sentence. the reason I made the word designed in Italics was to point out a pun. (it didn't work as well as I hoped)
as for showing you my designs... if the appendage in question is to be designed to propel its owner across the bottom of a body of water with maximum efficiency. then one needs to weigh the energy costs to distance travelled.
admittedly I haven't the faintest idea what the value of these variables are. But I will guess that there is more energy wasted from the use of fins over the use of legs due to the fact that when fins are in use the kinetic energy transferred from the fins is split between moving the fish forward AND moving the water back. where as with legs, no energy is wasted moving the ground back XD
but as you said: I show you my designs, and then you check them.


the next section of your response goes like this
Yeah. Your thinking. =D
first you compliment me on my good thinking.
as you should
He did imply that we say its hands were like ours, and that it swam using them. Even if that was true, nobody said it (not that i recall)
then you attack Porkchop for the specific statement he (incorrectly) made. abd its implied meaning.
once again, as you should
Porkchop makes things up, and then proceeds to timidly "debunk" them by asking incongruent rhetorical questions, as if he knew what he's talking about
then you continue to attack Porkchop. making hyperbolic statements that imply he always acts (responds) in a certain way.
NOT as you should (I know it is a thin line. but using words like "tends to" and "usually" will help you to stay on the right side)
You people get lost in words instead of looking at reality. You love words (even though you're not too good with them) because they're all you have
then you go into attacking ALL creationists. making totally outrageous statements (I felt the word hyperbolic was becoming a little Cliché).
Defiantly NOT as you should have done !
We're good with words AND facts
same here. this is an outrageous statement. the 'facts' are what is in debate. and as for your use of words... I personally don't think your skill with them tends to one extreme or the other.


Assume what you will, but before defining or accurately depicting HDLSS, you still have nothing, and i still don't know what you're talking about.
in case you misunderstood, the three statements I was assuming where true where
1) Demon38 - hand like fins where an advantage in the water
2) Porkchop - [implied] human hands as fins are ineffective
3) wisp - the hand like fins of the fish in question are not too similar to human hands
so I was assuming that none of these people lied. sounds fair to me.
and when you said "before defining or accurately depicting HDLSS, you still have nothing". well I DID define HDLSS
highly developed land skeletal structure = skeletal structure is highly developed for use on land
perhaps I should have elaborated.
a 'skeletal structure' that is 'highly developed for use on land' would have characteristics / design elements that are highly useful for fulfilling the specific function of propulsion across dry 'land'. such characteristics can be tailored for specific circumstances. eg: the feet of a rock wallaby are corrugated for extra grip and the legs designed for superior jumping capabilities. the feet of elephants have a large footprint (pun) to help support the elephants weight.
using this definition we can then say that the axolotl (and other such legged fish) do not have HIGHLY developed land skeletal structures. for the skeletal structure of the fins are not developed enough for use effective use on land at all.

Porkchop asked why would they develop a HDLSS before leaving the water. So i guess he thinks some aquatic creature has one of those. Now you are concluding that he was wrong.
yes I am concluding that aquatic creatures do not have HDLSS. simply by definition. because these are not "hands" or "feet" that the fish have. these are fins (of sorts) that preform the same stepping motion as legs, and thus it is really no big deal that they resemble the legs of land creatures. they do basicly the exact same function. except the fish don't need as strong legs because they utilise the buoyancy of a life in water.

I am also in agreeable with Porkchop, why would fish develop HDLSS before leaving the water?
I know given the nature of chance mutations they don't exactly have a choice in the matter, but if you give a fish legs (real, capable of carrying it out of the water legs) it will still act like a fish. it will eat the same food its siblings eat, it will make a nest in the same environment as its siblings will. and chances are it will mate with one of its siblings (although its kids will have a higher chance of being a retarded like him)

and finally...
you may (or may not have) noticed that on the way down your response I skipped the bit where you claim my post as being "anti-Science" and a "giant shrugging of shoulders"

you said this because twice in my last post I stated that the reason God created fish with legs was because he had a sense of humour. this being a major cop-out from answering the question.
BUT maybe you should pay closer attention to what I also said at the same time
as to why? maybe legs are beneficial, maybe God just has a sense of humour[/b]"maybe legs are beneficial"!

I then also briefly go into How legs can be beneficial
of these arguments there is at least one point that I am willing to share my views on. that is the benefits of a fish having legs as opposed to fins.
now, we all know how legs work right? you place the foot section on the ground and walk forward (I put it this simply because I seem unable to satisfactory word instruction on how to walk)
so if a fish is interested in walking along the bottom of a pond, then why not use a limb that is designed for the job?
and later I also specificity said that the skeletal structure of the fishes fins/legs are
highly developed for the use of propelling ones self along the bottom of a pond

and in this post I elaborated even more on how legs are more efficient than fins for propelling its owner across the bottom of a body of water with maximum efficiency.


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 08:45 AM on January 1, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:12 AM on January 1, 2010 :

No. Just admit defeat in one topic, correct yourself, and we can move on.


Just as soon as you come with the goods Wisp.


Lester:

Well known geneticist Dr Crow said we are ‘genetically inferior to a cave man’ (if there were such a thing).

Really? He said that?  I've had email conversations with Dr.Crow and he has lamented having his statements misused by creationists. Surely, you can provide a source for that claim?


You constantly claim that Evolution is about random chance. You know it's not. You lied.


Oh, so now it’s a planned purposeful thing?


Sure - just like when what you believe happened - Yahweh the Hebrew Shy Man blew on dirt and a fully-formed adult human popped out.
Derwood So, no PhD (why did it take you so long to clarify?) - that leaves what - an EdD?


No, wrong again.

One should wonder why you will not just say.  Mail order degrees, I admit, are not something to be proud of.


Derwood I took courses in physics, chemistry (organic and inorganic), biochemistry, psychology, pathology, genetics, etc., too - but I don't think I've ever tried to embellish my area of expertise by claiming to have a "background" in all of that.


I think you embellished my qualifications claim because you thought I should agree with you about evolution otherwise.


Actually, you claimed to have a "doctorate" in a science-related subject and claimed to have knowledge of anatomy, etc. to make your religious opinions seem to have more merit than they really do.  It is called credential embellishment (aka lying) and for some odd reason, creationists seem to do it an awful lot.

DerwoodWe actually assumed you claimed to have earned a better degree than you now let on.


Assumed, yes. What is a better degree? Is a PhD the epitome of success? Am I missing something here?


Apparently, yes, for it is people with PhDs who instruct those with degrees like MD.  A PhD - an actual earned research-oriented doctorate from an accredited institution of higher learning -  is the epitome of success in a particular discipline.

Wisp (or Derwood) You would think, but then, copy and pasting or paraphrasing something you've read on a creationist website and ignoring replies is not really a debate, is it?


Who does that Derwood (or Wisp)?

You do.


Shall I dig up all the hero worshipping of morons like Werner and Gitt aht you've engaged in, followed, of course, by your usual running away?



Quote from Lester10 at 09:29 AM on October 15, 2009 :
we show that DDT-R, a gene conferring resistance to DDT, is associated with overtranscription of a single cytochrome P450 gene, Cyp6g1.


Well there’s your clue, thanks for that Derwood. You see, it works like this –the resistance was already present and thus the Drosophila survived and reproduced.

Ummm...

I think you may want to read it again.
The gene that confers resistence confers resistence BECAUSE it is overexpressed due to the information-gaining mutation.


The problem is that this is not an example of evolution since the mutation already existed.


If the mutation already existed then it would not be considered a mutation, now would it?

You need to read more than one sentence at a time:

"Resistance and up-regulation in Drosophila populations are associated with a single Cyp6g1 allele that has spread globally. This allele is characterized by the insertion of an Accord transposable element into the 5' end of the Cyp6g1 gene."

The accord transposon inserted into the promoter region of this allele and that insertin causes the overexpression.  Those drosophila without it cannot metabolite DDT and die.

This was not presented as evolution, this was presented as an information-gaining mutation.  That much should have been obvious from the title of the thread.

Obviously it blocked the DDT action, which the others were unable to do - but in every case the blocking is due to loss of function or rearrangement of proteins or membranes or overproduction of something already in existence,  which subsequently prevented the action of the pesticide.


How, exactly, is making more of something a loss?  What rearrangement are you referring to?  Did you read the paper?  Or are you just tossing out anything you can to reject this out of hand?

As I wrote:

1. It is a clear example of an adaptive trait produced via a genetic "mistake"
2. It shows that a 'new' protein or a 'new' gene need not be produced to alter physiology/phenotype
3. It shows that, if this is not considered as a gain of information by YEC/ID-types, then their 'no new information' arguments are really irrelevant.

Thanks for proving my point.



That is not the new information you require for macroevolution;

I did not say it was.  I presented this as an example of an information-gaining mutation.  A genetic 'mistake' provided a population of drosophila with the ability to metabolize DDT.  A clear adaptive (i.e., beneficial) advantage.  If thsi si NOT an increase in informaiton, then clealry an increase of informaiton is not actually required for adaptive benefits to evolve.

it is the disturbed or distorted information that carries with it a fitness cost.

What is the cost and how did you figure it out?

There is also less genetic variability in the population since you have eliminated the genetic variability present in the population that was wiped out.

So, whern Yahweh killed millions of humans in the flood, what happened to all that variability?
How on earth did we get all the variation we see today from 4 inbreeding pairs?
You CANNOT claim that they possessed all the variability, as you are claiming here that loss of part of a population confers a loss of genetic variability.

Please explain.  

Further, you are conflating a populations genetic variability with what goes on in one genome.  And even further, the loss of those not resistent, i.e., those without the beneficial mutation, apparently did not affect the overall fitness of drosophila.


Resistance and up-regulation in Drosophila populations are associated with a single Cyp6g1 allele that has spread globally.


It spread globally because it survived. It survived because of a mutation or variant allele it already possessed.


Right - an information gaining mutation conferred an adaptive, beneficial advantage to the population.

What, exactly, do you think a mutation acts on?  I thought you had a science doctorate, yet here it seems as though you are unaware of basic genetics, something covered in introductory undergraduate biology.


1. It is a clear example of an adaptive trait produced via a genetic "mistake"


Adaptive but with a fitness cost.


What fitness cost?  Please show your work and explain how you derived this.


No new information –just distortion, deletion or overproduction of old information.

By definition, the addition of more nucleotides (such as via insertion) adds information.
But I know that creationists like to conflate and redefine definitions as it suits them such that they can make any point they feel the need to - even if the points are mutually exclusive.

But since you are making this argument, why don't you start by defining "information" for us.
Explain how your definition is relevant to the scenario at hand.  Then, with something more than assertions gleaned from your favorite YEC websites and books, EXPLAIN how gaining an adaptive trait is not a gain of information.  

2. It shows that a 'new' protein or a 'new' gene need not be produced to alter physiology/phenotype


There is no new phenotype being produced here. That is required for macroevolution.


PHENOTYPE:

phenotype is any observable characteristic or trait of an organism: such as its morphology, development, biochemical or physiological properties, or behavior (Wiki)


PHENOTYPE:

: the observable properties of an organism that are produced by the interaction of the genotype and the environment (Merriam-Webster.com)

I suggest you brush up on basic biology terminology.

3. It shows that, if this is not considered as a gain of information by YEC/ID-types, then their 'no new information' arguments are really irrelevant.


We hesitate to call it new information because it is not new information.


No, you merely assert it, and concoct idiosyncratic post-hoc definitions to ensure that nothing will ever count as 'new information.'


Your example demonstrates the sort of advantage that an armless man has when the enemy comes along with handcuffs to capture the opposition. They can’t handcuff him so he has a temporary advantage. Does that mean that no arms is generally an advantageous mutation or deletion?


None of that is relevant at all to the example I gave.  

Your responses here come across more like a hackneyed set of all-purpose assertions and dodges rather than an attempt to actually address the issue presented.  There was no deletion, there was no loss of fitness.  
An insertion is not a deletion, an overexpression of a protein is not a loss of anything.



“Insect resistance to a pesticide was first reported in 1947 for the Housefly (Musca domestica) with respect to DDT. Since then resistance to one or more pesticides has been reported in at least 225 species of insects and other arthropods. The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds.”
– Francisco J. Ayala. “The Mechanisms of Evolution,” Scientific American, Sept. 1978, p. 65.


Yes, the genetic variants probably were.  Where does the variation come from?



(Edited by derwood 1/1/2010 at 11:01 AM).

(Edited by derwood 1/1/2010 at 11:04 AM).

(Edited by derwood 1/1/2010 at 11:47 AM).


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:49 AM on January 1, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Another one you ran away from - I know it is long, and probably too much for your limited attention span and all...

For Lester the science doctorate-earning creationist to address...


Quote from Lester10 at 12:18 AM on November 8, 2009 :
Derwood
It will never change, no matter what.  Never mind that there are a multitude of different versions of if floating about.  Never mind that there are many internal inconsistencies that prove that it cannot be 100% true and accurate.  Never mind that it contains absurdities and implausabilities that are handwaved away with 'God can do it all' ...


Have you ever read it? This is all the usual tripe that people who have never read it come up with.


Yes, I did read it.  Cover to cover.  And it was shortly after I did actually read it that I concluded that it was nonsense.
The usual tripe from bible worshippers is to claim that those who recognize the internal inconsistencies and nonsese just haven't read it.
In my exoperience, those who reject the bible are the ONLY ones who have read it in any detail.

We know that kind gives rise to kind and no land mammal ever changed into a whale.


No, you assert this to prop up your bible beliefs and reject any evidence to the contrary.


If there was any evidence available to convince us, that would be great.

The evidence is there, as a YEC cultist you are programmed to find any way possible to reject it.  We've all seen you in action on here doing just that.


Your wonderfully confused ‘scientific’ mind asserts that a land mammal’s ears randomly evolved; the ears then happened to suit the water as well as the fins and flippers and blubber and a blowhole, as it turns out, that it later acquired quite by accident. At what point did it decide to go swimming –before or after the blowhole arose by accident? Before or after the fins arose by accident? Did it have to kick its legs to begin with? And the oh so many other coordinated changes all occurred quite by accident? The best mistakes were slowly selected by natural selection and a whale was born. I’m sorry, that’s a fairy tale and I’m sad that you believe it, but unfortunately Santa is no longer part of my life and nor can the frog turn into a prince.(even over millions of years).

Santa is not a part of your life yet Yahweh, who demands foreskins of converts, who mooned Moses, who was one of many deities, who could conjure only a swarm of fleas that Pharoah's magicians couldn't match, who slaughtered untold millions of innocents for doing what he must have known they would do, who cursed us all to extinction, THAT disgusting thing is still part of your life, and belief in that mythical thug drives you to toss out caricatures and argument via personal incredulity to prop up said beliefs.

It is the best you can do, but you are really in no position to comment on my 'scientific mind', as we may recall that you, despite claiming to have a science-related doctorate, did not know what 'phenotype' means, among other things.



A whale is a coordinated engineering masterpiece and if you can’t see that, it’s a pity.


The argument from awe twisted up with the argument from ignorance - klassic Kreationist komedy...

The evidence is all in your imagination. You have to really want to believe it.


Living in so constant a state of denial will eventually take its toll.


Why two contradictory orders of creation?


To play around with the god rejecters of our day who throw aside a common designer and insist on randomness and no plan instead? It certainly shows how evolutionists are not put off by pictures that contradict evolution –they make up fresh new stories instead, stories that make the non-believers mouths drop open in astonishment.


So much nonsense, yet not even an attempt to address a major problem with taking Genesis literally.
That cognitive dissonance will catch up to you one day.

But since you are an expert on mutations - please tell us all - if this evolution really happened, how many mutations would have been required?


Well to be really kind, lets work on just one new protein per new structure and then work out the probability of all these things coming to pass shall we?

Well first, you will need to provide a rationale for why we actually need one new protein per new structure, then I would like to know just what counts as a 'new' structure - what does a whale have that, say, a hippo does not have that is not simply a rearangment of 'old' parts?
Then I wouuld have to know why you want to discuss probability, how you would apply it to this scenario, etc.


for just saying that mutations can't do it is just  abaseless assertion.


Surely since you can’t even show me one macro beneficial mutation, you are indulging in baseless assertion?

I don't know what a 'macro beneficial mutation' is, since you are so averse to actually explaining what you mean.

There must have been a lot of gradual in-the-wrong direction intermediate creatures that never made it. Where are they? Where are the ones with the fins but not the fluke? Where are the ones with the fluke and legs but not the blubber? ...?
Where are the wicked humans killed in  the flood all at once?  Where are the fossil graveyards containing discontemporaneous bones all mixed up, like humans mixed in with triceratopsians, or modern birds (hey, they cannot fly for a year!) ?


You appear to be changing the subject here –


No, I am just showing how naive - and idiotic - your demands are.

where are these intermediate whales?


Where are all the biblical patriarchs?  Where is the ark?  Where are all the intermediates between the original bat kind and the extant 900+ species?

The clear examples of transitions should have legs mixed with fins, tail mixed with fluke, nose changing into blowhole, back legs disappearing?

Legs mixed with fins?  What does that mean, precisely?  You expect it to have a fin on one side and a limb on the other?
As we have seen with Archaeopteryx, your criteria are set in jello and are applied inconsistently and arbitrarily for the sole purpose of never having to acknowledge what those with actual education, knowledge, and experience in the appropriate fields accept.  You never did, for example, try to discuss Archaeopteryx's actual anatomy (e.g., the sternum) despite claiming an understanding of anatomy.  It is almost as if you just claimed such knowledge to make others think you had actually thought this stuff through, yet when you get caught demonstrating that your knowledge of these issues is not what you tried to make it out to be, well, you come across like a TROOO Christian Creationist - you just avoid discussing it.


We’re talking about evolution. Does not believing in my story make yours sound better to you?

Not at all.  But throwing back absurd demands sometimes shows how absurd your own demands actually are.

Why would you expect there to be a fossil of every possible intermediate - and more precisely, every possible intermediate that happens to meet your ever changing, idiosyncratic criteria?



What is the 'intermediate' betweeen this fellow: ….and this one: Or were they created seperately?


I have no idea.


And yet you feel free to declare that Archaeopteryx is not an intermediate, and that whales and land mammals cannot possibly be related.

Something seems inconsistent.  Is it because you have not yet come across a creationist propaganda book dealing with guenons?

you have to propose a MECHANISM by which this level of hyperevolution occurred to produce, for example, 900+ species of bat from the original bat kind in less than 2500 years


Can these bats interbreed or not? Are they the same kind? Could they at one stage interbreed? We need to know the answers to the questions to get anywhere on this.

Really?

So the ability to interbreed is your big criterion is it?

Tell me - with your vast knnowledge of reproductive physiology, what are the first few steps in fertilization in amniotes?

Hmmm?

Is it , maybe, the sperm binding to the zona pellucida?  
===
Anat Rec. 1977 Aug;188(4):477-87.

Sperm/egg interaction: the specificity of human spermatozoa.
Bedford JM.

Human spermatozoa display unusually limited affinities in their interaction with oocytes of other species. They adhered to and, when capacitated, penetrated the vestments of the oocyte of an ape--the gibbon, Hylobates lar--both in vivo and in vitro.
On the other hand, human spermatozoa would not even attach to the zona surface of sub-hominoid primate (baboon, rhesus monkey, squirrel monkey), nor to the non-primate eutherian oocytes tested. Among the apes the gibbon stands furthest from man. Thus, although the specificity of human spermatozoa is not confined to man alone, it probably is restricted to the Hominoidea. This study also suggests that the evolution of man and perhaps the other hominids has been accompanied by a restrictive change in the nature of the sperm surface which has limited and made more specific the complementary surface to which their spermatozoa may adhere. ===


There are many different groups of people as well and they used to be divided into different species

Who did this?


but they can interbreed so they all have the same origin. How about the bats?
I suppose you’ve noticed how rapidly different kinds of dogs are bred out –obviously it needed a bit of human interference or the intelligence factor but there is clearly a vast amount of variation present in the original ‘dog’ genome.

So where do you think all that variation comes from?  Was it all just always there?  If so, why did we never see a chihuahua giving birth on occasion to a mastiff?

Maybe the same is true of the bats, maybe they started with only two or maybe four –who knows –but they probably had a lot of built in variation and rapidly diversified.

Yeah, probably.  Anything beyond 'probably'?

If my take on evolution was premised on caricatures and child-like distortions as your's is, I would have trouble accepting it, too.


Well did the land mammal start swimming and adapt to its environment or not? Did it get in the water or adapt for the water first? How did these coordinated changes occur if the environment can’t be responded to? How do random mutations happen upon all the features required for swimming in one animal that lived on land and then went swimming. This is not child like, this is practical and not distorted at all. Please try to explain it to me so that I can cease to be childlike about it.


See what I mean?
No, Lester, such 'questions' are indeed child-like, especially coming from someone claiming advanced education on these very subjects.
The naivete just oozes from your every post, and you are too prideful and Dunning-Krugerized to get it.

Just because you can hand wave over it with “I know that it happened because I know’ does not mean that you know anything at all about how it could have/might have happened.

It is true that I personally do not have any idea what the steps were that lead to the production of whales.  But I need not know every step if I can see the evidence left behind showing that it happened.  
If I find an empty book of matches and an empty can of gasoline next to a burned down house, do I really need to know some arbitrary chain of events to conclude that the house was set on fire?
The morning after Halloween, my son had a fit because most of his candy was gone - his candy bag was on the floor, and there were torn up wrappers and half eaten candy bars strewn about, and there were slimy bite marks on nearly everything.  Did we really have to observe the dog biting into each and every candy bar to understand that the dog did it?
We can look at the record of unique shared mutations in the genomes of the creatures in question and see a record of mutational change.  Does that tell us exaclty what steps occurred getting a whale from a non-whale? Not at all, but it tells us that it did happen, and it is up to other researchers to try to fill in the voids with things like fossils (all of which you reject in favor of some uncorroborated tall tales, I know).


Which is why I suppose you folks keep using such tactics, for to be honest, youwould have to be like Dr. Todd Wood or Dr. Kurt Wise, both of whom admit that there is evidence for evolution but remain creationists because of their Faith, which overrides their common sense....


These are quite ridiculous people, excuse me for being rude, but if all the evidence for evolution was so clear, I’d be an evolutionist.


No, you wouldn't.  When I see a YEC making this claim, I know they are lying - they are lying to us, and to themselves.
Many years ago, YEC Helen Fryman declared that were she to see a 'smooth' gradation of genetic identity across phylogeny as indicated by evolution, she would finnd it 'trouubling' for her YEC beliefs.  So, I presented her with a data matrix of some 35 mammalian species showing just what she asked for.  Did she admit that she found it troubling for YEC?  Of course not - she just claimed that the matrix did nto cover ALL animals, and did nto inlcude data from the entire genome of each animal, so she saw no reason to be troubled.  IOW, she just rejected the ery evidence she claimed swhe wouild accept in order to protect her religious views, and I see no inndication that you would do anything different.


You have made it clear that you accept the bible in part because it never changes and never will change.  Many weak-willed people NEED such stability and see the tentative nature of all science as a threat to their emotional and psychological security.  

These 'ridiculous' people as you call them are, unlike you, highly educated and trained individuals with graduate degrees from accredited well-known legitimate institutions - Wise received his PhD in paleontology from Harvard University, for example, and actually studied fossils.  He KNOWS that there is evidence for evolution, that there ARE transitonals.  He simply rejects the scientific, rational interpretation of them due to his Faith and has said so.
You?  
Aside from some vague allusions to having had a few science classes in your graduate education, you've not said what your area of specialization is.  What do YOU know that a Harvard-trainined paleontologist does not such that you can call him 'ridiculous'?



But it is so ridiculous and imaginary and non-
existant that I just can’t. Mr Todd Wood and Mr Kurt Wise are probably undercover evolutionists -they are certainly not practical people or they would not say such silly things. I’d love them to show me their evidence. I’ll bet it as good as yours.


I do enjoy seeing YECs attack each other with logical fallacies.  It shows how weak their position actually is.


Wrong. I do need evidence. And i have lots, besides the fossil record.
Like what?
Funny - we've been asking you to provide evidence FOR YECism, and the best you can come up with are supposed problems with evolution.  You simply reject evidence presented to you out of hand, or engage in nitpicky distrations and employ doctored quotes to prop up your cause.


Ahem… where is the other evidence…apart from a fossil record that supports creation?

The fossil record supports creation?  Is that an assertion?  
Right - I forgot how we find dinosaur fossils in the same strata as modern birds, and how we find human fossils in the same strata as saddle-wearing stegasaurs...

Molecular phylogenetics supports evolution quite nicely.  Comparative embryology.  Physiology.  Anatomy. Etc...


Nitpicky distractions huh???


Yes indeed.  Like how when I started a thread for you  to explain how 'genetics' does not support evolution - your claim -  the first - and only - thing you did was prattle on about whale fossils.
You seem quite incapable of discussing even issues YOU bring up beyond a few throw away assertions and strawmen.


It’s incomprehensible to me that you can be so easily led by imagination without the requisite evidence.
Projection at its laughable best.


You obviously haven’t looked very closely at what you believe, have you?

Yes - I've actually done original research on what I 'believe'. Have you actually looked at YOUR beliefs skeptically?  

To make sure men can treat women as property and own slaves?


You make it sound as if God condoned slavery and wife abuse –obviously you haven’t actually read the Bible.

Right....  And here you are doctoring my words.  I said nothing of wife abuse, I said treating them as property, and the owning of slaves is a given in the  bible.  Or haven't YOU read your precious fairy tales?

Exodus 21

2If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.


4If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.


7And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.


Slavery treated as an everyday thing, AND women as property, in just one chapter.

It is quite easy to find many verses in the bible both condoning slavery and treating women as property.  Surely, you know and have been programmed to gloss over this?


Lots of people can see you at your sad game, Timmy's boyfriend.


Who the hell is Timmy?


Yeah, exactly.


Dr. as in creationist  medical doctor....  How could he possibly not be an expert on all things related to evolution?


By studying it for the last 30 years as his major hobby ever since 2nd year medical school and by visiting all the major fossil museums in the world and interviewing all the experts on the various major fossil evidences for evolution. By listening to both sides take on the evidence.

Oh - a HOBBY! Well, of course.

I've commented before that it is almost more instructive to see what people like you do NOT respond to as to what you do - for your new hero to have studied evolution for 30 years - albeit as a hobby - and to write things like what you decided not to respond to:

" If jawless fish are the evolutionary predecessors of other fish, one would expect them to be extinct, according to the idea of survival of the fittest."

then he did not actually learn much in all that time.

You see, when I see someone write something as ignorant as that, and this someone has claimed to have studied evolution for decades (I see this quite a bit, actually), we can conclude a couple of things:


The person is just plain lying to prop up his faith.

The person really did study for decades, but only studied YEC propaganda.

Combinations of both of the above.

The saddest part is, such folk really impress people like Lester, who, if he is actually telling the truth about his doctorate, should be able to see how naive and plain silly such claims are.


we all know how honest creationists are when it comes to interviewing people.


Well the sad thing is that we all know how honest evolutionists can be when being interviewed by creationists. For instance when Carl Werner wanted to find living fossils in dinosaur-age rock, he started by asking “Have you found any fossils of modern animal or plant species at this dinosaur dig site?” Evolutionists don’t like that sort of question –they freeze up because they know what the implications are. So after a slow start he asked the question differently:
“At this site where you are working have you found any animals that survived the dinosaur extinction event –any modern appearing animals that are alive today?”
This they found less challenging and it loosened them up to tell the truth. Well then he found loads of ‘modern appearing’ plants and animals to add to his list because the question didn’t specifically challenge evolution but rather focused on dinosaur extinction.


And by 'modern appearing' - let me guess, the YEC medical doctor then wildly extrapolated that to mean ACTUAL modern living things, right?


As for seals and sea lions not being related, well you’re laughably wrong there too….


Well so you say, but Australian scientists have a display at Kangaroo island that shows that a dog or dog-like animal evolved into a sea lion while scientists at Howard university in Washington DC think that a bear evolved into a sea lion.


And here you are again with your museum displays as "evidence".

You know, at the creation museum, they show a Triceratops with a saddle on it.
I guess that means that some 'scientists' think that ceratopsians were domesticated.  Funny how no mention of any such creature is found anywherere, not even in scripture....

But you know - you inadvertendly made a fool of yourself yet again - apparently you are unaware that dogs and bears are actually very closely related...



I know you cannot decipher those sciencey- things, but if you look closely, you can see a group called the Caniformia (dog-like), and the OTUs have names like Ursus and Canis...

What is the evidence for this evolution?Is it possible that they evolved from neither? Could they both be wrong?

Sure.  Real science is tentative.  Real science, unlike YEC pseudoscience, does not start with the conclusion then try to force obeservations to fit the pre-determined outcome.  
But nitpicking over museum displays that on the one hand show a dog-like forerunner and on the other show a bear-like one only shows how little you truly understand.  Perhaps it is you, not Drs Wood and Wise, that is the 'ridiculous' person?

Dr Irina Koretsky from the Smithsonian who specializes in seal and sea lion evolution believes that eared seals come from bear-like animals but she has no idea which bear-like animal as they have no intermediates (ie. they are guessing).


Right, just guessing.  So, you got that from your YEC medical doctor's book, right (I can google, too)?  

Looking though Google books, Werner's book
comes across as no better than any of jailbird Kent fake-PhD Hovind's nonsese.

Lester's new hereo's book is here.

p. 112:

"... The theory of evolution says that a ground mammal changed into a bat by a series of mistaken m utations in the DNA of the reproductive cells.  For this to occur, thousands of letters of DNA would have had to change by accident, in the proper location, and in the proper order."

If Werner believes that, he is a class A moron.  Then, he is a YEC with an agenda to push, so we should not expect any sort of rational treatment of the material.


Dr Berta of San Diego State University (who specializes in aquatic mammal evolution) says that “the earliest animal that they’ve recognized has the name Pithanotaria. It’s very similar in terms of body size and morphology to the modern sea lions.” In code this means we have only found sea lions but no intermediates so we don’t actually know what animal they evolved from.

Thousands of sea lions have been found dated 0-24 MYA but no direct ancestors.

Seals, say Dr Berta, are allied to a completely group of carnivores, the skunks and the otters.


So, you've just admitted that neither you nor your YEC medical doctor hero understand what 'allied' means - hilarious!

When asked which Mustelid evolved into a seal, Dr Koretsky said “I don’t have any evidence or material yet.” (This means they think so but have no evidence.)


I'd say what we have here is just another example of a sleazy YEC propagandist butchering and manipulating honest people's words.

Why would a mustelid have evolved into a seal when that is not what is proposed or indicated by the evidence?



5000 fossil seals have been found but no direct ancestors. So did none of them fossilize? That’s amazing!!

At this point, I have little reason to believe that your YEC doctor hero is a reliable source.


Please explain how I am laughably wrong.  

On this or in general?

Well, let's see... There was the PhD in science who didn't know what phenotype mean, the guy who employs logical fallacies as evidence, the guy who wonders why there is no evidence for an evolutionary sequence that is not proposed, the guy who declares that museum displays are at odds because one shows a dog-like animal and the other a bear-like one,  the guy who seems to think that all transitionals should have both fossilized and been discovered yet who reserves the right to dismiss anything presented as a transitional if he can conjure up some structure that he can claim does nto meet his idiosyncratic and vague definition for transitional, the guy who declares PhD level creationists who acknowledge that there are transitional fossils and evidence fo revolution are 'ridiculous people' and likley closet evolutionists because they are honest and he is not, etc.

Shall I go on?



-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:14 AM on January 1, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:12 AM on January 1, 2010 :

Did the genes sense a plan and mutate just the right things or were they lucky to produce lungs with attendant blood supply and all the correct biochemical changes required to carry and process oxygen in this new way?


The ones that worked better lived longer.


Where are all the flops? Where are all the strange things that couldn’t work? The mutations are random after all, even if natural selection apparently selects out the best errors with no future plan.


They were more likely to die before the ones with beneficial mutations.  Is there a problem with this concept?



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

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:26 AM on January 1, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

LesterWhere are all the flops? Where are all the strange things that couldn’t work? The mutations are random after all, even if natural selection apparently selects out the best errors with no future plan.
Apoapsis They were more likely to die before the ones with beneficial mutations.  Is there a problem with this concept?


Yes. Where are they all? Where is this mass of mutant mess? Did none of them fossilize?

LesterWell isn’t it lucky then that the whale happened to develop fin after fin after fin and all those things needed for water rather than some wings or some more legs or eyes that didn’t like water or something. I wonder where all the billions of duds are that weren’t good mutations for survival in water?

Did the genes know anything about sound waves before accidentally mutating the parts of the ear needed to convert sound waves from air to mechanical to nervous and then to integrate those nervous impulses into something we could understand and act on?

Did the voice box know anything about the ear?

Did the eye know anything about colour before it just happened to arrange itself into something that worked so miraculously with electromagnetic radiation? Where are all the billions of duds?

How did male and female reproductive systems develop separately without a common plan and then just happen to work together? How did the thus produced male and female find one another  - and know what to do? When they did what they did, how did things just happen to happen from there? Sounds much like a plan with a purpose to me but then I apparently lack imagination.


Thanks for trying so far.
Any chance of answering this too?






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


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 2:41 PM on January 1, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester, it seems that the evolutionists here have made up their minds. Evolution is taught and accepted in schools and now I find there is alot of doubt in the theory. ANTI-EVOLUTIONIST has point out there is much speculation in the words they used because the case is obviously not sealed and shut. God is not allowing himself to be totally revealed because it is faith that is the key. Otherwise he would have created robots instead of free willed humans. The fish to mammals story is highly doubtful in my view, I need more convincing evidence.


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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 3:05 PM on January 1, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 3:05 PM on January 1, 2010 :
Lester, it seems that the evolutionists here have made up their minds.


But you are open-minded and eagerly investigating evidence objectively, are you?

You've NOT made up your mind?


Evolution is taught and accepted in schools and now I find there is alot of doubt in the theory.



Tell us all about this doubt.
Who is doubting, and what is it that they are doubting, and why?

ANTI-EVOLUTIONIST has point out there is much speculation in the words they used because the case is obviously not sealed and shut.

Ok - well I KNOW without a shred of doubt that evolution is 100% absolutely true.


Satisfied?

The fish to mammals story is highly doubtful in my view, I need more convincing evidence.

Frankly, I do not think that you will accept any evidence that counters your pre-determined conclusion.

But now that nobody esle is 'harrassing' you, maybe you can finally answer one of the two  question I asked you:

pork wrote:
I have already stated the case. For a fish to become a land mammal would require countless beneficial mutations for no other reason then the fish no longer "wants" to live in water where they are best adapted for. Note the quotation marks.


I replied:


Note the bolded part.

How do you know this?  How many mutations would it take, and how did you figure this out?





-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:36 PM on January 1, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 08:45 AM on January 1, 2010 :
I hope you don't mind, but I took the liberty of shortening your post so that people could get the gist of what your saying without needing to read so much...

"the evolutionists explanation (as I see it) is this:
some poor animal (most likely a fish) had its genes mutated in some way so that it grew a facial tumour.

but this specific tumour was special.
it connected to some nerve endings (later to be called optic nerves) that lead to the brain.
it also had muscles attacked to it so that it could move.
and was covered by a strangely shaped layer of skin (the lens) that helped to filter light.

I'm sorry, I made a mistake. there where actually two identical tumours on either side of the face.

and..."



So why should anyone CARE what you think about evolution when you have engaged in such grotesque and ridiculous strawman caricatures of it in the past?



(Edited by derwood 1/1/2010 at 3:52 PM).


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:51 PM on January 1, 2010 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh, hey Derwood. long time to see
I know we have had our differences in the past. but I am pleased to inform you that since the I have ... I guess I could say I've grown up.

speaking about the past, I am very surprised to find you STILL harping on about that opening post of mine.
I think the best response I can give to your insistant view point would be this quote. and it just happens to be the first post I ever directed at you (funny about that)
Quote from anti-evolutionist at 7:14 PM on September 14, 2009 :
To Derwood
(...)
oh, and if you are going to now try and prove me wrong with facts and reasoning, don't bother about my interpretation of "the evolutionists explanation". that was not meant to be taken seriously. it was meant as a ploy to entice evolutionists to give their side of the story
and for Apoapsis and orion it worked
I hope this time you will listen.

it was good to hear from you again by the way


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 5:24 PM on January 1, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[b]
Ok - well I KNOW without a shred of doubt that evolution is 100% absolutely true.


Satisfied?



Note the bolded part.

How do you know this?  How many mutations would it take, and how did you figure this out?



So you are 100% sure that evolution is true? There is   quite a nbr of creationist biologists, chemists, geologists, biochemists,Microbiologists who disagree with evolution and you can be so sure? wow,!

So how do I know that it took countless mutations?
In fairness, I assumed this since the difference between a fish and a man seems "countless". If it tooks millions of years I would assume alot of mutations
I have also read that the rate of mutation would not be high enough to exact evolution from fish to man due to the number of beneficial mutation ratio/bad mutation given the age of the earth and number of generations. What do you think? here's a quote:

The calculation is done in the following way: Let us consider two randomly chosen human beings.   Assuming all human beings initially have identical mitochondrial DNA,  after 33 generations, two such random human families will probably differ by two mutations, since there will be two separate lines of inheritance and probably one mutation along each line. After 66 generations, two randomly chosen humans will differ by about four mutations. After 100 generations, they will differ by about six mutations. After 300 generations, they will differ by about 18 mutations, which is about the observed value.

These experiments are quite concerning to evolutionists who previously calculated that the “mitochondrial eve” (who’s mitochondria is thought to be the ancestor mitochondria to all living humans) lived about 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa.1  The new calculations, based on the above experiments, would make her a relatively young ~6,500 years old.  Now, the previous notion that modern humans are up to 10,000 generations old has to be reevaluated or at least the mtDNA basis for that assumption has to be reevaluated - and it has been.2  




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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 7:09 PM on January 1, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 7:09 PM on January 1, 2010 :

So you are 100% sure that evolution is true? There is   quite a nbr of creationist biologists, chemists, geologists, biochemists,Microbiologists who disagree with evolution and you can be so sure? wow,!


Do you believe that for a sports tournament, the team with the longest odds will win?  Your "quite a nbr" is microscopic.

So how do I know that it took countless mutations?
In fairness, I assumed this since the difference between a fish and a man seems "countless". If it tooks millions of years I would assume alot of mutations
I have also read that the rate of mutation would not be high enough to exact evolution from fish to man due to the number of beneficial mutation ratio/bad mutation given the age of the earth and number of generations. What do you think? here's a quote:

From Dave Plaisted, did you check his math and references?


The calculation is done in the following way: Let us consider two randomly chosen human beings.   Assuming all human beings initially have identical mitochondrial DNA,  after 33 generations, two such random human families will probably differ by two mutations, since there will be two separate lines of inheritance and probably one mutation along each line. After 66 generations, two randomly chosen humans will differ by about four mutations. After 100 generations, they will differ by about six mutations. After 300 generations, they will differ by about 18 mutations, which is about the observed value.

These experiments are quite concerning to evolutionists who previously calculated that the “mitochondrial eve” (who’s mitochondria is thought to be the ancestor mitochondria to all living humans) lived about 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa.1  The new calculations, based on the above experiments, would make her a relatively young ~6,500 years old.  Now, the previous notion that modern humans are up to 10,000 generations old has to be reevaluated or at least the mtDNA basis for that assumption has to be reevaluated - and it has been.2  


OK, let's see what they REALLY say:


Mitochondrial Eve

Mitochondrial Eve is generally estimated to have lived around 200,000 years ago, most likely in East Africa. Mitochondrial Eve lived during a period of time when Homo sapiens sapiens were developing as a species separate from other human species.

Mitochondrial Eve lived much earlier than the out of Africa migration that is thought to have occurred between 95,000 to 45,000 BP.[1] The dating for 'Eve' was a blow to the multiregional hypothesis, and a boost to the hypothesis that modern humans originated relatively recently in Africa and spread from there, replacing more "archaic" human populations such as Neanderthals. As a result, the latter hypothesis is now the dominant one.

Study                   date, 000s
Gonder et al. (2007) 194.3 ± 32.55
Behar et al. (2008)        203 ± 12
Soares et al. (2009) 192 ± 41
Loogväli (2009)         186 ± 31
Endicott & Ho (2008) 108 ± 26

I don't see any dates around 6500


-------
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: 8:00 PM on January 1, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So who's correct?
You still 100% sure of evolution, on your family's life?
If you say 100% sure, you would answer YES.



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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 8:47 PM on January 1, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

YES, I'm 100% sure.

Show me some convincing evidence to the contrary and I'll change my mind.

(Edited by Apoapsis 1/1/2010 at 9:01 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: 8:51 PM on January 1, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 3:05 PM on January 1, 2010 :
Lester, it seems that the evolutionists here have made up their minds.


Interesting, I think you hit a key element in the whole debate. While that statement is most likely true, it is also true of almost everyone on any online forum that I've ever seen. If you notice, very few people, evo or creo, change their stance on this issue that actively participate in the debate.

Evolution is taught and accepted in schools and now I find there is alot of doubt in the theory.


If it makes you feel better false information tends to be weeded out over time in the public school system. For example, creationism cannot legally be taught in a science classroom as a scientific anything. Personally I think it is an excellent, real-world idea, that if talked about correctly would be an ideal specimen to show kids in the classroom what pseudo-science is and looks like and why it is pseudo science.

And yes, there is much doubt about the theory of evolution being valid. Yet, just about all of this doubting comes from people who know nothing about science in general (to an alarming degree). And know very little about evolution, usually coupled with misconceptions and misinformation about the most basic of scientific and evolutionary principles.

With in the scientific community, there is no debate on whether or not evolution happened(s), despite what the very vocal, very minority, of 'creation scientists' would like you to believe.

ANTI-EVOLUTIONIST has point out there is much speculation in the words they used because the case is obviously not sealed and shut.


This is quite simply another misconception about science in general. Science is a very hesitant methodology, and without understanding the culture and vernacular, everything seems tentative and not well-supported. While in fact, evolution is one of the most well supported scientific theories ever!

God is not allowing himself to be totally revealed because it is faith that is the key.


This may be the only thing I agree with.

The fish to mammals story is highly doubtful in my view, I need more convincing evidence.


Is your objection to fish-reptile-mammal evolution, or evolution in general?


-------
"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: 9:02 PM on January 1, 2010 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have an objection to reptile-bird evolution if your interested.
specificity the scales to feathers part of it.

and also nothing-single celled organisms XD

but does this mean the fish with 'legs' part of the debate is over? what was the conclusion?


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 10:59 PM on January 1, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 10:59 PM on January 1, 2010 :
I have an objection to reptile-bird evolution if your interested.
specificity the scales to feathers part of it.


Do you also object to reptile-dinosaur evolution?  With the recent biochemical results, it looks like the dinosaur-bird link is solidly confirmed.

and also nothing-single celled organisms XD

but does this mean the fish with 'legs' part of the debate is over? what was the conclusion?


I saw evidence presented but no debate.



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

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:17 PM on January 1, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

anti-evolutionist
I hope you don't mind, but I took the liberty of shortening your post so that people could get the gist of what your saying without needing to read so much.
Well i do mind. Just because i don't get it.
wisp
i don't care (...) Creationists tend to (...) i don't know what you're talking about (...) Who knows (...) i don't know what it is (...) I don't know what you're talking about (...) That might be true. I don't know (...) I don't know what you're talking about (...) the very concept of HDLSS is quite new to me (...) Pardon me if i have my doubts (...) I can only guess, since i don't know (...) I don't know what you mean (...) I don't even know what you mean (...) I don't know what you're talking about (...)You people get lost in words (...) We're good with words AND facts (...) For i don't know what you're talking about (...) and i still don't know what you're talking about (...) For i don't know what you're talking about (...) I don't see why (...) am i wrong? (...) in any case, i still don't know what you're talking about (...) you people ...
perhaps I am being to harsh on you.
I don't see it.

I don't even know what you were trying to do.

Did you succeed?

you did compliment me on my use of colour codes after all =)
Yeah, that was cool.
although I will request you refrain from using hyperbolic statements about generic groups.
Oh... Nah, sorry. Generalizations work. They're useful.

Here's a generalization: Men are taller than women.

Any objections?

such as "Christians always..." or "evolutionists always..."
I don't recall having said anything like that.

You're being hyperbolic. The very thing you criticize.

(such as when you said "We're good with words AND facts". you should speak for your self (and even then don't be surprised if people disagree))
Sorry. Men are taller than women. If you have a problem with that... I don't know what to tell you. Sorry.

You didn't quote me saying "always". Smells a bit like dishonesty. Just one bit.

anyway... yes I did read the name in the link.
No problem with that. It was cool.

Smartness beats knowledge.
and I would wager that some of the evolutionists whould have needed to do so aswell,
Of course! I certainly would have had to.
I knew the creature a couple days ago.
even though you said "We know exactly what it is" (remember what I said about using hyperbolic statements about generic groups)
You're not getting it.

This is a demonstration of my point. You care about words. We care about facts.

The name of the creature isn't what it is. It's not a big fat tadpole (that's what its name means).

We know what it is: It's an aquatic tetrapod with vestigial former legs.

When we find its ancestors, probably all of them will have larger former legs. And if you go back enough time, ALL of them will.

and... yes. it appeared so to me.
if your second image is accurate (and I have no reason to believe otherwise) then the artist was right to do so.
yes, the image does seem objective enough.
Cool. You're not as stubborn as the others.

Is it hyperbolic if i say that you're more open-minded than the average creationist?

I won't say it, just in case. Haha!

"why did God create fish with NON-FUNCTIONAL legs?"
non-functional how?
Like "having no function".
non-functional in the sense that the legs wouldn't carry their weight out of water?
No. More like "having no function".

And i wasn't talking about the hinder legs. The small size of the former pair is a clear indication of vestigiality. I can't say the same thing about its hinder legs, and i didn't.
would it be wrong of me to suggest that this fish never left the water at all?
I would probably be with you on this one.

Why do you ask?

to suggest that the legs where ONLY used to propel the fish along the bottom of the pond (or where ever it lived)?
You're talking about the hinder legs. I'm talking about the non-functional ones. You know, those two legs near the head, that look like they can do nothing.
I will agree with you that the legs would not function (well enough to be of any benefit) for the purpose of propelling the fish on dry land.
I would agree with me too, if i ever said such a thing (i did not, but since you agree with it then it's not a strawman).
will you agree with me that the legs Would function for propelling the fish under water?
The hinder legs? The ones i wasn't talking about?
Yeah, i think i will, unless i see some evidence that they didn't.

sorry, my mistake. I should not have used the term "intent" in that sentence.
Oh... Ok. Thanks. I didn't understand your mistake though.
when you asked for a creationist-friendly explanation for its existence?, I reworded your question so as to clearly define what question I was answering.
I didn't get it. Sorry.
I tried.
and then instead of saying "assuming that this is the intent of your question", what I should of said
*should HAVE
was "assuming you have no major objections with the wording I used to clarify your question"
Ooooh...
I got it! Thanks for clarifying.

same with the double negative. my fault. sorry.
as you realised it should not have had the second 'not'
^_^

"I don't even know what you mean by "designed". You mean "better"? Show us your designs and we'll check them. I don't know what you're talking about."
yes I did mean better in this sentence.
Excellent! A straightforward answer! Thank you!
the reason I made the word designed in Italics was to point out a pun. (it didn't work as well as I hoped)
Damn! Sorry, i didn't even realize... I'll try to pay more attention.
as for showing you my designs... if the appendage in question
The appendage in question, to me, is the pair of former apparently non-functional legs. Are we on the same page?
is to be designed to propel its owner across the bottom of a body of water with maximum efficiency. then one needs to weigh the energy costs to distance travelled.
Until you make it clear that you're speaking about the former legs too (the vestigial ones), i don't think i can answer. It could be a complete waste of time.
admittedly I haven't the faintest idea what the value of these variables are. But I will guess that there is more energy wasted from the use of fins over the use of legs due to the fact that when fins are in use the kinetic energy transferred from the fins is split between moving the fish forward AND moving the water back.
Yeah, and that could, in principle, be avoided with a good pair of hinder legs, if they could find something fixed to jump from.
where as with legs, no energy is wasted moving the ground back XD
Exactly.

So, apparently, you're talking about the hinder legs.

That being the case, we're not in the same page. We have no debate.

the next section of your response goes like this
Yeah. Your thinking. =D
first you compliment me on my good thinking.
as you should
Well, yeah! I didn't compliment on the whole of your thinking, nor i discredited it entirely!

You didn't see the covert strawman, even though i pointed it out. Then your thinking was amiss.

He did imply that we say its hands were like ours, and that it swam using them. Even if that was true, nobody said it (not that i recall)
then you attack Porkchop for the specific statement he (incorrectly) made.
I think you're biased.

His comment (that was completely out of place) was an attack. But you only use that word when the "attack" comes from me.

You could also have said that i attacked a strawman, in my opinion.
abd its implied meaning.
once again, as you should
Oh... But... Then are you saying that i did well "attacking" him? Or just the implied meaning?
Porkchop makes things up, and then proceeds to timidly "debunk" them by asking incongruent rhetorical questions, as if he knew what he's talking about
then you continue to attack Porkchop. making hyperbolic statements that imply he always acts (responds) in a certain way.
Nah. Not necessarily. It's just a generalization.

I think unscientific minds have more problems with generalizations (which are vital to Science).

NOT as you should (I know it is a thin line. but using words like "tends to" and "usually" will help you to stay on the right side)
Point taken. I was very aware of that when i wrote it (just like when i wrote my phrase about unscientific minds).

I didn't feel like adding a "tends" or "usually". A little bit more accurate, but more tiresome.

You people get lost in words instead of looking at reality. You love words (even though you're not too good with them) because they're all you have
then you go into attacking ALL creationists.
No. That was it. That phrase ended there.
making totally outrageous statements (I felt the word hyperbolic was becoming a little Cliché).
Saying "totally outrageous" seems quite hyperbolic to me.

Not only i don't see anything outrageous. I don't think you can reasonably say TOTALLY outrageous.

Defiantly NOT as you should have done!
That's your unsupported opinion.

I mean, you didn't even TRY to support it...

By the way, the word is "definitely", not "defiantly" (i don't think you were talking about defiance, and the phrase wouldn't make grammatical sense even if you were).

Hum... "defiantly" sounds like a computer correcting your spelling. Is that it?

We're good with words AND facts
same here. this is an outrageous statement.
No. ^_^
the 'facts' are what is in debate.
Haha! Not in the scientific community!

ALL creationists are either:
a) Idiotic.
b) Ignorant.
c) Dishonest.
d) Any combination of the former.

No hyperbole there. There's no way around this. b) is the most flattering option, in my opinion.

I've read that there are four times more scientists that believe the Holocaust never happened than creationists. Can't remember the source... I think Aron Ra said it.

and as for your use of words... I personally don't think your skill with them tends to one extreme or the other.
I agree. I would be better if i spoke English, i think.

In any case, i think i'm better than you with words. If we're both right, then you do show some tendency (towards the unflattering extreme).

In any case, i was generalizing again, AND it was a comparison.

[color=teal]Assume what you will, but before defining or accurately depicting HDLSS, you still have nothing, and i still don't know what you're talking about.
in case you misunderstood, the three statements I was assuming where true where
1) Demon38 - hand like fins where an advantage in the water
2) Porkchop - [implied] human hands as fins are ineffective
3) wisp - the hand like fins of the fish in question are not too similar to human hands
so I was assuming that none of these people lied. sounds fair to me.
Oh... Yes, indeed. I did misunderstand it. I found your phrasing obscure. But perhaps it's my not-so-good English.

I read the phrase several times, and i couldn't get that you meant that. :S

and when you said "before defining or accurately depicting HDLSS, you still have nothing". well I DID define HDLSS
highly developed land skeletal structure = skeletal structure is highly developed for use on land
perhaps I should have elaborated.
Exactly. That's why i added "or accurately depicting".
a 'skeletal structure' that is 'highly developed for use on land' would have characteristics / design elements that are highly useful for fulfilling the specific function of propulsion across dry 'land'.
Oh... How useful? Highly...

Well, as i've said before, design a test for highness. For i don't know what you're talking about.

You're just embellishing a general imprecise statement. "Highly developed" just means "good", which is, of course, a mere subjective opinion. I rather talk about Science.

such characteristics can be tailored for specific circumstances. eg: the feet of a rock wallaby are corrugated for extra grip and the legs designed for superior jumping capabilities. the feet of elephants have a large footprint (pun) to help support the elephants weight.
Exactly. So you just meant "good for land".
using this definition we can then say that the axolotl (and other such legged fish) do not have HIGHLY developed land skeletal structures. for the skeletal structure of the fins are not developed enough for use effective use on land at all.
Fine by me. It was never us who made any claims about the HDLSS. Not that i noticed, at least.

You claimed that WE claimed something about them, and i'm hoping you'll quote it or take it back.

Porkchop said that we claimed that it was necessary for a fish to come out of the water.

What i claim is that it is a lie, and that "HDLSS" is a silly concept.
I'm not entirely sure about the last one, but i can find no good use for it.
Perhaps others can. If i'm shown, i'll take that claim back.

Porkchop asked why would they develop a HDLSS before leaving the water. So i guess he thinks some aquatic creature has one of those. Now you are concluding that he was wrong.
yes I am concluding that aquatic creatures do not have HDLSS.
I would prefer a much clearer "Yes, i'm concluding that he was wrong."

The whole issue with the HDLSS is a part of a bigger (correct but) dumb claim: "Organisms are how they are in order to be where they are and do what they do, which is good."

Well d'oh!

simply by definition. because these are not "hands" or "feet" that the fish have. these are fins (of sorts)
You care too much for words. Reality doesn't.
that preform the same stepping motion as legs, and thus it is really no big deal that they resemble the legs of land creatures.
They "resemble" them?
They are homologous structures.

These "resemblances" have this weird tendency to happen along the lines of the phylogenetic tree of life.

When they happen between branches whose joining point didn't have the trait, we talk about "convergent evolution". But that's not just begging the question: We can find evidence that they're not homologous (genetic, for example).

I'm sure scientists can demonstrate that the platypus bill isn't a duck bill.

they do basicly the exact same function.
That is true also about the bat wing and the bird wing. And yet they're not homologous. They have evolved separately. And we can demonstrate that they're not homologous.

The bat could use hollow bones, but apparently your god chose not to give them that advantage.

Ostriches (who don't fly) could use solid bones. But apparently your god chose not to give them that advantage.

The same goes for our eyes. We could use a moving lens (instead of this stupid bending one). And a rightly placed retina too.

Sigh... If only we had a loving caring intelligent designer...

I am also in agreeable with Porkchop, why would fish develop HDLSS before leaving the water?
I don't know. Why would they?

Whoever said they did?

Only porkchop implied that it would be necessary. I don't even know what a HDLSS is (beyond "stuff that are good for land").

I know given the nature of chance mutations they don't exactly have a choice in the matter, but if you give a fish legs (real, capable of carrying it out of the water legs) it will still act like a fish. it will eat the same food its siblings eat, it will make a nest in the same environment as its siblings will. and chances are it will mate with one of its siblings (although its kids will have a higher chance of being a retarded like him)
Sorry. I don't know what that was all about.

and finally...
you may (or may not have) noticed that on the way down your response I skipped the bit where you claim my post as being "anti-Science" and a "giant shrugging of shoulders"
I did.

You also ignored this:
the evolutionists argue that:
- HDLSS are a stepping stone between fish and land animals
No paraphrasing. Quote that. I don't know what you're talking about.
You made a hyperbolic statement. One of those you hate. Haven't you?

It's not only that not all of us say that. I haven't seen ANY of us talking in such (apparently vacuous) terms.

Quote it, clarify it, or take it back, please.

you said this because twice in my last post I stated that the reason God created fish with legs was because he had a sense of humour. this being a major cop-out from answering the question.
BUT maybe you should pay closer attention to what I also said at the same time
as to why? maybe legs are beneficial, maybe God just has a sense of humour[/b]"maybe legs are beneficial"!
But i did read it. And i paid close attention to it.

I don't even know why you say otherwise.

Perhaps A, or perhaps B. My attack on B doesn't mean i didn't read A.

Why would it?

I then also briefly go into How legs can be beneficial
Which wasn't even addressing the real matter (those vestigial former limbs).

I'm more than ready to concede your pointless point. If you're wrong about the hinder legs then i'm wrong too.

Can we leave them aside till they are relevant?

and later I also specificity said that the skeletal structure of the fishes fins/legs are
highly developed for the use of propelling ones self along the bottom of a pond
And i told you to test for "highness". And you didn't respond.
and in this post I elaborated even more on how legs are more efficient than fins for propelling its owner across the bottom of a body of water with maximum efficiency.
I'm getting bored with the subject you apparently thought i brought up...

Oh, and... Lester... Sorry, but i didn't find your post worthy of a reply.



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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:25 PM on January 1, 2010 | 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 ... 24 25 ... 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.