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 ... 26 27 ... 29 30 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 8:41 PM on January 5, 2010 :
What happens when your're fishing and one that you've caught jumps out of the pail? How long do you give it before it dies?



Q: How long can catfish live out of water?

A: Depends on the catfish, but most will live a few hours if kept wet or are lying on something damp. Certainly catfish, Clarias are good examples can go indefinately in moist conditions like wet grass for example.


Planet Catfish

Porkchop, why do you deny that catfish exist?


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

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 9:57 PM on January 5, 2010 | IP
Sippe

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In regards to how fish would evolve lungs I have this to say.

With the risk of saying something stupid, my understanding of how our lungs work is that we suck in "relatively" oxygen rich air in to our lungs and from there tiny bloodvessels called capillarys lie close to the lung membrane and allow our red bloodcells to bond the oxygen molecules while at the same time releasing carbon dioxide.

This is fundamentally the same way gills work, lots of small bloodvessels exist on the gills that allow the "relatively" oxygen poor water flows across allowing the red blood cells to bond the few oxygen molecules that exist in water.

Thus again it seems to me that it's not exactly a stretch of the imagination that some fish might be born with a mutation that allows them to bond oxygen from air slightly better than their relatives.

And again these fish would likely survive longer in a partially or even dried up pool like in my earlier example. These fish would then leave offspring with similar traits that make them as good at breathing air or better than their parents.

Eventually I would think it again quite likely that they would form organs that could process air much better than gills. And in the end we would have fish great great grandchildren with lungs or something similar.
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 9:59 PM on January 5, 2010 | IP
firechild

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 9:50 PM on January 5, 2010 :
otherside of the Pacific, as in Asia?

I believe Sippe's explaination is really a matter of  guesswork, wishful thinking, speculation.
Do you know that the Anabantoid actually evolved as you claim? Again, the "selective pressures caused by the environments they lived in"  is still pure speculation. Does all existence of mammals today hinge on this speculation?


No, as in Australia.

many of these Anabantoid fish still live in environments much like the ones that have been described in this thread. Most people are aware of Siamese fighting fish, a common aquarium fish that is found in small, shallow, murky ponds in Thailand. The water is often stagnant and other fish do not survive in these waters because of the low oxygen content. I am not going to detail the specifics of how the labyrinth evolved but there is plenty of information on how small mutations allowed this to occur. It is not a particularly complex change but it is just enough to allow these fish to make use of atmospheric air that other fish in the same conditions could not use. It is also an example of poor design on the part of any proclaimed intelligent designer. These small variations in structure are not an ideal structure, but simply are sufficient to get the job done, which suggests evolution is a better explanation. Evolution will favour a variation that gets the job done better (whether that means it is ideal or simply prevents the animal from dying before it is able to reproduce) where intelligent design would suggest structures are created for a specific purpose and should therefore be ideal, or at least very close to ideal.

(Edited by firechild 1/5/2010 at 10:10 PM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 10:09 PM on January 5, 2010 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

However you bring up up another dimension.. ability for fish to breathe air. Same scenario, diff problem, fish out of the pail flops & dies because it cannot breathe. Would this cause air breathing lungs to form?

How would dieing cause lungs to form????
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:24 PM on January 5, 2010 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Does all existence of mammals today hinge on this speculation?

No, mammal evolution from reptiles is pretty well supported.  The evidence is overwhelming and there really are no biologists who doubt it.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:38 PM on January 5, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Porkchop

I believe Sippe's explaination is really a matter of  guesswork, wishful thinking, speculation.
Do you know that the Anabantoid actually evolved as you claim? Again, the "selective pressures caused by the environments they lived in"  is still pure speculation. Does all existence of mammals today hinge on this speculation?


Since no one was there 375 million years ago, I would say certainly some speculation of the actual details of tetrapod evolution is required.  However, you seem to forget that we do have some evidence to direct that speculation.

The fossil record clearly show transitional species originating from lobe-finned fish with physiological traits that later became useful for adaptation to land - lungs, limb formation, more robust ribcage and shoulders, neck movement, etc.  Furthermore, the envionment that these fossils were found were originally freshwater.  

As pointed out numerous times previously, these traits did not arise because 'fish were trying to live on land'.  They were selected for because they gave these creatures an advantage in living in their environment
- lungs to obtain more air in oxygen poor water.
- weiight-bearing limbs to push themselves up a bit in shallow water and to help navigate through swampy vegetation.  These same weight-bearing limbs could also be useful in moving across bits of land to get from one pool of water to another, allow invasion of the water-bank to capture prey, maybe even to evade predators.
- a flatter head and body to accomodate shallow water.  
- selection for a thicker skin would follow, allowing for longer forays onto land.

But these traits just happened to be useful for the eventual transition to land.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:55 PM on January 5, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'll have to repeat this...
porkchop
Why are you asking me to answer your questions?
Because you make claims, and you don't support them (and yet, funny, you don't take them back when refuted).

You don't even answer what you mean. You ask for something, we ask you what would qualify, and you shut up. Then why ask in the first place?

You say "too many mutations for a fish to become a human". We ask how many, and why is that a problem to you, and you don't answer.

Then your claim was meaningless.
Is there any other way to see it?
An answer would be nice.

Also
I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT "INTERMEDIATE" species!~!!!
Did you or did you not understand that you WERE talking about something intermediate when mentioning a fish with better resistance to dryness? Not that i'm saying that it did happen.

You asked why a fish would mutate to produce something, and i told you that mutations happen but not "to" anything.
Did you understand this? Will you not ask this again?

Also, you asked for "good mutations". Apoapsis and i showed you some that seem clear to me. What about you? Are you satisfied? You suddenly shut up about it.

Also, you asked "
Why Did the fish mutate so that moisture was not an issue while in water?" You were assuming that somebody said it happened.
Will you back it up or take it back? Because that's the honest thing to do.

Perhaps if you start being honest i can stop pointing out what a fraud you are.

Also, you asked why would fish "
say goodbye to egg laying". Someone told you why. You shut up. Does that mean you're satisfied with the answer?
Besides i showed you 64 species that "said goodbye to egg laying". I can also show you the step in between.

Do you admit defeat on this subject? Because that's the honest thing to do.

Perhaps if you start being honest i can stop pointing out what a fraud you are.

You asked what the rate of good mutations to bad ones. You have your answer. Are you satisfied?

Please. Start answering. These questions are very relevant.

And if you don't care about our answers, STOP ASKING. And if, on top of that, you have nothing to say, GO AWAY.

well for one thing, natural selection allowed for moisture to not be a life or death factor for a fish WHILE STILL UNDER WATER.
Is that so? How do you know? Can you cite your source?

In any case, you shifted the goalpost. First you assumed someone said it "
ceased to be an issue" while under water, and asked why. Now you assume someone says "it's not a life or death factor" while under water, and asked why.

Be that as it may, moisture isn't the main issue (a life or death factor) for a fish. Just like temperature isn't usually a life or death factor for us when we're under water. WE CAN'T FUCKING BREATHE! That usually kills you faster. Same with the fish.

(keeping my posts short&simple and easy to answer)
Nah. That's just running away from the answers that effectively shut you up.

Why would natural selection select for this?
Woah!!! You did learn something!!! Your previous approach to this question was asking "
Why would the fish mutate for this?" or something like that.

Well done. Keep learning. While you're at it, gather some honesty.

What advantage did this provide for a fish while still living underwater?
None i can think of.

Why? Whoever said that's how it happened? Can you give us a quote, a link, or something?

Otherwise, take that back. Because that's the honest thing to do.

Perhaps if you start being honest i can stop pointing out what a fraud you are.


If I did not ask, then there would be no debate right?
Debate: A discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal.

As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.

Don't you feel a little bit embarrassed at least?

However you bring up up another dimension.. ability for fish to breathe air. Same scenario, diff problem,
Man, stop saying things like that. The problem is you. Be aware of your ignorance, and you'll realize you're not qualified to judge when there's a "
problem".

This is why embarrassment could be good for you.
We evolved the emotion of embarrassment because it was useful. It's something you can learn from.
fish out of the pail flops & dies because it cannot breathe. Would this cause air breathing lungs to form?
WHAT????

You mean returning from death as a lunged zombie fish?

Here. Click on the image. It's a link to download the actual book.



The book could do lots for you. Doesn't seem a heavy reading.

In fact, next time you ask how is "X" possible, first be sure that someone in the world claims that it is.

I believe Sippe's explaination is really a matter of  guesswork, wishful thinking, speculation.
Hahaha! You anti-science people...

That's kinda right. A very educated (and smart) guess. Speculation, yes.
Speculation = an educated guess based upon incomplete evidence.

That means we DO have evidence.

Speculation is an essential part of Science (creationist don't speculate because they have NO evidence whatsoever).

Come up with an alternate explanation that's better supported by the facts, and we'll probably change our minds.

But... Wishful thinking? As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.

This is wishful thinking:
Global warming can't be true because if it is my house on the beach would perish.

Unlike you, we don't need emotional reasons to believe in Evolution. Only evidence.

And, by the way, the word is "explanation", not "
explaination".

derwood
porkchop
So basic...
Yes, so why don't YOU know the answer, if it is so basic?
Man, those questions are embarrassing. The answer is so very simple... Moisture WAS an issue to the intermediate species (just like it still is to amphibian species).
'Moisture' is an issue to us today, which is why we have to drink water.
Hahaha! Derwood, porkchop isn't good at quoting. It was me who said those things. =D

Of course, moisture is still an issue to us today. But that claim required more detailed explanation and examples. Pointing out that nobody says that moisture ceased to be an issue while we were fish seemed to be enough.

Sippe: Welcome! Good posts!



-------
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: 02:34 AM on January 6, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 5:21 PM on January 5, 2010 :
QUEST: Why Did the fish mutate so that moisture was not such a life or death issue while in water?
ANS:  Why not?
ANS 2: Stop thinking that each and every alteration of phenotype was a pre-planned or otherwise necessary event. Stop looking at an end product and trying to 'calculate' the odds of the series of events leading to the end product.

Why not? well for one thing, natural selection allowed for moisture to not be a life or death factor for a fish WHILE STILL UNDER WATER.

ONE, you are wrong, 'moisture' is still a life or death issue.

TWO- Not everything is the product of selection.

THREE -
SO WHAT?


Why would natural selection select for this?
Why wouldn't it?  How do you know that the decreasing reliance upon moist skin (or whatever it is you think went on) was not part of a suite of effects caused by a single mutation, the other effects of which were beneficial?

What advantage did this provide for a fish while still living underwater?


I hate to tell you, but fish control their 'moisture' via their urinary system, not their skin.



(keeping my posts short&simple and easy to answer)

PORKCHOP WROTE:


That sounds like alot of mutations to have to occur to effect that. And these were all mistakes?






I ASKED:

How many does it sound like?

And is that number some sort of problem?

And if so, how so?



Still no answers....


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:14 AM on January 6, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 8:41 PM on January 5, 2010 :
What happens when your're fishing and one that you've caught jumps out of the pail? How long do you give it before it dies?



Please tell us you think it dies from lack of moisture....




-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:42 AM on January 6, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 9:27 PM on January 5, 2010 :
I appreciate your marine biology expertise. Are you affiliated with Woods Hole?
I even love lobsters. ;-)

However you bring up up another dimension.. ability for fish to breathe air. Same scenario, diff problem, fish out of the pail flops & dies because it cannot breathe. Would this cause air breathing lungs to form?



There are fish that have lungs.

Not being able to extract oxygen from water with gills would not be an impetus for lung formation, no.

Are you going to just keep asking these sorts of questions every time another one is answered?

That is the tactic of one who is not actually seeking answers.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:48 AM on January 6, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood

TWO- Not everything is the product of selection.


Besides selection there is genetic drift and polyploidism - yes?  What other things are you aware of that can drive diversity/evolution?
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:31 AM on January 6, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 10:24 PM on January 5, 2010 :
However you bring up up another dimension.. ability for fish to breathe air. Same scenario, diff problem, fish out of the pail flops & dies because it cannot breathe. Would this cause air breathing lungs to form?

How would dieing cause lungs to form????


Because of what Sippe said having to do with tolerance

"tolerate the lack of moisture and/or oxygen in these pools better than others..."

"These fish that were more tolerant would then be more likely to survive the drying out of the pools during a hypothetical "dry season". Making them much more likely to pass on their genes to the next generation."




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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 6:19 PM on January 6, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 10:38 PM on January 5, 2010 :
Does all existence of mammals today hinge on this speculation?

No, mammal evolution from reptiles is pretty well supported.  The evidence is overwhelming and there really are no biologists who doubt it.  


But before there were reptiles, there were fish from which reptiles came from. So all mammalian existence hinges on your assumption of fish being able to breathe air by speculating the scenarios you offer. If you believe these scenarios, then you have no problem believing that fish became mammals.



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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 6:26 PM on January 6, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 02:34 AM on January 6, 2010 :
I'll have to repeat this...

Also, you asked "[/color]Why Did the fish mutate so that moisture was not an issue while in water?[color=teal]" You were assuming that somebody said it happened.
Will you back it up or take it back? Because that's the honest thing to do.


So a fish did not undergo a mutation which natural selection selected for that allowed the fish to tolerate dryness WHILE UNDERWATER? No, then wisp, what happened then, did it select for it while OUT OF WATER?
Do not call me dishonest you righteous know-it-all. At least the others in this forum are civil.




(Edited by porkchop 1/6/2010 at 6:39 PM).

(Edited by porkchop 1/6/2010 at 6:40 PM).


-------
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 January 6, 2010 | IP
firechild

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Porkchop, that is exactly what we are saying. You may have missed my earlier explanation of this:

It will suffocate before it dies from desiccation. This means that could it breathe air it would live for longer. Possibly long enough to take short forays to the shore to hunt. This would be a huge advantage. So basically, no change to the skin would need to take effect for this advantage to appear, simply a change in the ability to breathe air. Later changes to the skin would be beneficial in allowing the fish to take even longer trips to the shore but these are not required for the initial short term exit from the aquatic environment.


The structural changes to the limbs and the changes to the skin came much later. It was the initial ability to take atmospheric oxygen that was selected for, this then enabled other structural changes to become beneficial. The changes to the skin do not come until much later and as earlier mentioned, amphibians STILL have this requirement to remain wet so it was in fact the LAST of the changes which enabled the move entirely out of water.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 7:21 PM on January 6, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ok, the breathing/lungs selection came first is what you're hinting. So this brings us back to the point about the lungs being selected for. And it all hinges on speculation of what the conditions might have been that brought about the selected mutation such as shallow unoxygenated water etc. And my point is that it is simply speculation, not a clear-cut all-confident case. This is how we got mammals?





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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 8:07 PM on January 6, 2010 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But before there were reptiles, there were fish from which reptiles came from.

yes.

So all mammalian existence hinges on your assumption of fish being able to breathe air by speculating the scenarios you offer.

What assumptions, what speculation?  We are looking at the evidence and drawing conclusions.  That fish evolved into land tetrapods has been established by the evidence.  We keep presenting this evidence to you and you keep ignoring it or calling it "speculation".  Your claim is so weak that you must dodge all the information we present to you.   So either stop ignoring the evidence and address it or admit defeat.

If you believe these scenarios, then you have no problem believing that fish became mammals.

It's a conclusion overwhelmingly supported by the evidence and all biologists accept it.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:26 PM on January 6, 2010 | IP
firechild

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 12:07 PM on January 7, 2010 :
ok, the breathing/lungs selection came first is what you're hinting.


I wouldn't call it hinting, I'd say more stating as accepted fact. Fossil evidence as well as study of extant species gives us a pretty clear picture of what happened and how it proceeded.

So this brings us back to the point about the lungs being selected for. And it all hinges on speculation of what the conditions might have been that brought about the selected mutation such as shallow unoxygenated water etc.


I think you are getting too caught up with the word "speculation". This is part of a theory that is built on a huge amount of evidence, backed by thousands of scientists who directly study the evidence and try to find flaws in the conclusions of others. To date, noone has been able to draw any alternate conclusions based on the evidence that has been found.

And my point is that it is simply speculation, not a clear-cut all-confident case. This is how we got mammals?


It is actually very clear-cut for those who do not have a dogmatic ideal to protect by ignoring the truth.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 8:45 PM on January 6, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ok, the breathing/lungs selection came first is what you're hinting.
Hinting?

How could it be otherwise?

Oh, right... You won't answer...

Of course breathing comes first! Doesn't it seem more urgent than moisture?

So this brings us back to the point about the lungs being selected for.
It brings YOU back there. We're all already past it.

And it all hinges on speculation of what the conditions might have been that brought about the selected mutation such as shallow unoxygenated water etc.
And the fossil record.

More like "speculation" it's a "conclusion", but feel free to object to it by starting a thread.

And my point is that it is simply speculation,
Speculation? Maybe. Simply? Never!

Speculation is much, MUCH more than what YOU have.

not a clear-cut all-confident case.
It's quite clear-cut.

You mean "final"?

We're talking about Science, not dogma. We accept facts and reach conclusion based on evidence. We change our minds when new contradictory evidence is available. So feel free to present any piece of evidence you have, or any alternate explanations.
And yes, we also speculate, which is much more than you can do.

This is how we got mammals?
Click here. It's the first part of a series of videos about the history of life on Earth (with some touches of showy bullshit).

Watch it if you're interested. Don't believe a single word if you don't feel like it.

At least stop assuming things nobody said. It's tiresome.

First quote, and THEN criticize/question/object.

I'll have to repeat this...
Also, you asked "Why Did the fish mutate so that moisture was not an issue while in water?" You were assuming that somebody said it happened.
Will you back it up or take it back? Because that's the honest thing to do.


So a fish did not undergo a mutation which natural selection selected for that allowed the fish to tolerate dryness WHILE UNDERWATER? No, then wisp, what happened then, did it select for it while OUT OF WATER?
Do not call me dishonest you righteous know-it-all. At least the others in this forum are civil.
Nice rant. New questions. No answer.

I'll have to ask again:

You asked "
Why Did the fish mutate so that moisture was not an issue while in water?" You were assuming that somebody said it happened.
Will you back it up or take it back? Because that's the honest thing to do.

Also, we showed you some pretty clear "good mutations", as you requested. Now you shut up.

Does that mean you're satisfied? If so, say so. Be honest, for a change.



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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 8:54 PM on January 6, 2010 | IP
theAnimator

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

how about this:
the proteins synthesized in labs were done in controlled environments. in the natural environment UV rays would break up the newly formed protein. however in the presence of oxygen (as there would be in the case of an ozone layer to block the UV rays), proteins cannot form.
another problem is (using the eye again) multiple components are needed for the whole to be useful in anyway. if you have the optical nerve, you need the eye, if you have the eye, you need the optical nerve, they are not going to form in one generation.


 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 12:55 AM on January 7, 2010 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Posted in the wrong thread, but anyway:

how about this:
the proteins synthesized in labs were done in controlled environments. in the natural environment UV rays would break up the newly formed protein. however in the presence of oxygen (as there would be in the case of an ozone layer to block the UV rays), proteins cannot form.


Your claim is useless if these proteins formed underwater, say near a smoker.  UV rays can't touch them.

another problem is (using the eye again) multiple components are needed for the whole to be useful in anyway. if you have the optical nerve, you need the eye, if you have the eye, you need the optical nerve, they are not going to form in one generation.

Why can't they evolve at the same time?  Have you ever bothered to even look at eye evolution???
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:00 AM on January 7, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

theAnimator
how about this:
the proteins synthesized in labs were done in controlled environments. in the natural environment UV rays would break up the newly formed protein. however in the presence of oxygen (as there would be in the case of an ozone layer to block the UV rays), proteins cannot form.
This forum is about Creationism VS Evolution, not Creationism VS Abiogenesis.

Your dogma opposes many fields of Science, but that's not our fault.

In any case, the solution Demon mentioned is smart and educated. But it's not the only one.

I can give you a dumb and ignorant one: Some god created life, and let it evolve on its own.

Another one (not so dumb): Some aliens planted life and went away.

None of those would be a problem to Evolution.

another problem is (using the eye again) multiple components are needed for the whole to be useful in anyway.
Oh... And that's a problem?

Says who?

Are you saying that sight or eyes are irreducibly complex? Because i can show you clearly that it's not true.

if you have the optical nerve, you need the eye,
Me? Well, yeah. I need everything i have.
(Well, not everything... Actually there are some things i wouldn't miss... Like the third eyelid, or goose bumps...)

Why would an animal with no eyes have an optical nerve?
Well, i think only vestigiality could explain that.


It has no eyes. Are you sure this creature doesn't have an optic nerve?

I don't know...

Would you bet?

if you have the eye, you need the optical nerve,
The optic nerve is just a nerve. If what it connects to is light sensitive you can call it "optic nerve" if you want.

A simple patch of skin could evolve light sensitivity, and then an eye. And the nerve fibers would specialize. And you would call it "optic nerve".

If you want more details do some research on your own, or start a thread.

they are not going to form in one generation.
Yes. And your point is...?

In our evolutionary line the eye (and the optic nerve, i presume) were a specialization of a portion of the brain.

Eyes are so easy to evolve that complex, image-forming eyes evolved some 50 to 100 times (Haszprunar (1995). "The mollusca: Coelomate turbellarians or mesenchymate annelids?". in Taylor. Origin and evolutionary radiation of the Mollusca : centenary symposium of the Malacological Society of London. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. ISBN 0-19-854980-6).

Google "evolution of the eye", and tell us the things you don't understand. I'll try to explain.

While you're at it, tell us about what you believe. Will you? ^_^



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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 01:52 AM on January 7, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from theAnimator at 12:55 AM on January 7, 2010 :
how about this:
the proteins synthesized in labs were done in controlled environments.


How about this - if they were not, folks like you would be complaining that there was not enough conrol...
in the natural environment UV rays would break up the newly formed protein.

Even in deep water?
however in the presence of oxygen (as there would be in the case of an ozone layer to block the UV rays), proteins cannot form. [/qoute]
I think you've been reading too many creationist websites.
Do youu think you have oxygen in your cells?  Where do proteins get made in you?

another problem is (using the eye again) multiple components are needed for the whole to be useful in anyway. if you have the optical nerve, you need the eye, if you have the eye, you need the optical nerve, they are not going to form in one generation.

You seem to be under the impression that a structure like the eye is an assemblage of individual parts.

This is based on ignorance.  The optic (not optical) nerve is an extension of the brain, the retina is an expansion of the optic nerve.  The sclera, cornea and lens are all formed from the  ectoderm that overlies the forming retina.  Itg is a package deal, one that, like the pyramids, have a number of existing precursors that show how a mammalian or avian eye is a more adapted non-mammalian or avian eye.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:18 AM on January 7, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 11:31 AM on January 6, 2010 :
Derwood

TWO- Not everything is the product of selection.


Besides selection there is genetic drift and polyploidism - yes?  What other things are you aware of that can drive diversity/evolution?

I was thinking of neutral variation (drift) as well.  Basically, we have two categories of change - those driven by selection, and those not driven by selection.  

For folks like PC to keep asking why such and such would have been selected indicates that they are unaware of the fact that not all evolution is driven by selection alone.




-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:34 AM on January 7, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 8:07 PM on January 6, 2010 :
ok, the breathing/lungs selection came first is what you're hinting. So this brings us back to the point about the lungs being selected for. And it all hinges on speculation of what the conditions might have been that brought about the selected mutation such as shallow unoxygenated water etc. And my point is that it is simply speculation, not a clear-cut all-confident case. This is how we got mammals?






Are we really to belive that you are here to "debate" or to learn when you seem content to merely ignore corrections of your erroneous suppositions?


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:55 AM on January 7, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Some fallacies:

Argument By Question:
   asking your opponent a question which does not have a snappy answer. (Or anyway, no snappy answer that the audience has the background to understand.) Your opponent has a choice: he can look weak or he can look long-winded. For example, "How can scientists expect us to believe that anything as complex as a single living cell could have arisen as a result of random natural processes ?"

   Actually, pretty well any question has this effect to some extent. It usually takes longer to answer a question than ask it.

   Variants are the rhetorical question, and the loaded question, such as "Have you stopped beating your wife ?"


Failure To State:
   if you make enough attacks, and ask enough questions, you may never have to actually define your own position on the topic.


Complex Question (Tying):

   unrelated points are treated as if they should be accepted or rejected together. In fact, each point should be accepted or rejected on its own merits.

   For example, "Do you support freedom and the right to bear arms ?"
This is what creationists intend to do when they try to disprove Evolution by attacking the Big Bang Theory, or Abiogenesis.


Moving The Goalposts (Raising The Bar, Argument By Demanding Impossible Perfection):

   if your opponent successfully addresses some point, then say he must also address some further point. If you can make these points more and more difficult (or diverse) then eventually your opponent must fail. If nothing else, you will eventually find a subject that your opponent isn't up on.

   This is related to Argument By Question. Asking questions is easy: it's answering them that's hard.

   If each new goal causes a new question, this may get to be Infinite Regression.

   It is also possible to lower the bar, reducing the burden on an argument. For example, a person who takes Vitamin C might claim that it prevents colds. When they do get a cold, then they move the goalposts, by saying that the cold would have been much worse if not for the Vitamin C.


Error Of Fact:
   for example, "No one knows how old the Pyramids of Egypt are." (Except, of course, for the historians who've read records and letters written by the ancient Egyptians themselves.)

This shows porkchop's dishonesty. When Apoapsis showed him a graphic of temperatures he didn't imply again that "nobody knows", but he didn't correct himself either.


Causal Reductionism (Complex Cause):
   trying to use one cause to explain something, when in fact it had several causes. For example, "The accident was caused by the taxi parking in the street." (But other drivers went around the taxi. Only the drunk driver hit the taxi.)
This is what porkchop implied by asking "
Again, the "selective pressures caused by the environments they lived in"  is still pure speculation. Does all existence of mammals today hinge on this speculation?".


False Compromise:
   if one does not understand a debate, it must be "fair" to split the difference, and agree on a compromise between the opinions. (But one side is very possibly wrong, and in any case one could simply suspend judgment.) Journalists often invoke this fallacy in the name of "balanced" coverage.

       "Some say the sun rises in the east, some say it rises in the west; the truth lies probably somewhere in between."

   Television reporters like balanced coverage so much that they may give half of their report to a view held by a small minority of the people in question. There are many possible reasons for this, some of them good. However, viewers need to be aware of this tendency.

This is what timbrx tries. He's smart enough to realize that Evolution does make sense, but chooses to think we can't be sure and, therefore, everything is belief based on faith. That we're all the same.

Perhaps anti-evolutionist (dumb nick, but he's smarter than porkchop or Lester) will follow his steps.


Argument By Pigheadedness (Doggedness):
   refusing to accept something after everyone else thinks it is well enough proved. For example, there are still Flat Earthers.

Well, this is what creationism is all about.


Excluded Middle (False Dichotomy, Faulty Dilemma, Bifurcation):
   assuming there are only two alternatives when in fact there are more. For example, assuming Atheism is the only alternative to Fundamentalism, or being a traitor is the only alternative to being a loud patriot.


Outdated Information:
   information is given, but it is not the latest information on the subject. For example, some creationist articles about the amount of dust on the moon quote a measurement made in the 1950's. But many much better measurements have been done since then.

This is what creationists do when they mention those fetuses drawings, as if the ToE depended on those old drawings by a guy whose name i can't remember right now...


Argument By Laziness (Argument By Uninformed Opinion):
   the arguer hasn't bothered to learn anything about the topic. He nevertheless has an opinion, and will be insulted if his opinion is not treated with respect.

Porkchop and theAnimator are clear examples.
Even Lester is better than them in that respect.


Appeal To Complexity:
   if the arguer doesn't understand the topic, he concludes that nobody understands it. So, his opinions are as good as anybody's.


Argument By Selective Observation:
   also called cherry picking, the enumeration of favorable circumstances, or as the philosopher Francis Bacon described it, counting the hits and forgetting the misses. For example, a state boasts of the Presidents it has produced, but is silent about its serial killers. Or, the claim "Technology brings happiness". (Now, there's something with hits and misses.)

   Casinos encourage this human tendency. There are bells and whistles to announce slot machine jackpots, but losing happens silently. This makes it much easier to think that the odds of winning are good.

This isn't an exhaustive list of creationist fallacies. Merely the ones we've seen recently (and some i felt like mentioning).
Perhaps the complete list of fallacies and the list of fallacies used by creationists are the same.

I couldn't find the one that consists of an exaggerated weak spot. Creationists think that, by making a question that we can't (yet) answer, or pointing out an apparent contradiction, then EVERYTHING falls down, and the theory is overthrown.



-------
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: 12:28 PM on January 7, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 08:55 AM on January 7, 2010 :
Quote from porkchop at 8:07 PM on January 6, 2010 :
ok, the breathing/lungs selection came first is what you're hinting. So this brings us back to the point about the lungs being selected for. And it all hinges on speculation of what the conditions might have been that brought about the selected mutation such as shallow unoxygenated water etc. And my point is that it is simply speculation, not a clear-cut all-confident case. This is how we got mammals?






Are we really to belive that you are here to "debate" or to learn when you seem content to merely ignore corrections of your erroneous suppositions?


I am sure that whatever I say, there will be "debate" material to follow.
But from previous post in response to my "speculation"
point, you guys are saying that it is not speculation but rather accepted fact, built on a huge amount of evidence, backed by thousands of scientists.
But someone already admitted that the shallow pond, less oxygen in the water theory was just that a theory, no one was there to verify it so how can you claim a closed case 100% factual case? Doesn't science demand that you need to be able to reproduce and observe phenomena?

Even saying that it is science.



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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 5:41 PM on January 7, 2010 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But someone already admitted that the shallow pond, less oxygen in the water theory was just that a theory, no one was there to verify it so how can you claim a closed case 100% factual case? Doesn't science demand that you need to be able to reproduce and observe phenomena?

A theory in science is a well supported explaination of a number of related facts.  It is also never 100%, it can always be changed or overturned by new evidence.  Eyewitness observation is really the poorest form of evidence, so science doesn't demand someone being there and watching it happen.
What we do know is what the environment was like, shallow,swampy, low oxygen levels, based on the evidence.  And we know fish changed inot tetrapods during this time while living in this environment.  So yes, it's a theory that fish changed into tetrapods due to living in this environment and it's a theory that could be modified if new evidence is found.  But what isn't in doubt is that fish evolved lungs and more leg like limbs and came up on land during this time, that is a fact.  What are you claiming is speculation and what are you claiming never happened?  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 6:04 PM on January 7, 2010 | IP
firechild

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But someone already admitted that the shallow pond, less oxygen in the water theory was just that a theory, no one was there to verify it so how can you claim a closed case 100% factual case? Doesn't science demand that you need to be able to reproduce and observe phenomena?


Science does not necessarily need direct observation. It requires observation of evidence. Forensic scientists would have a very tough job if they had to directly observe every murder. Instead they observe the evidence after the fact and make logical conclusions based on the evidence. If science had to directly observe repeatable evidence to accept it was true, scienctific progression would move very slowly.

You are again misunderstanding the word "theory" as pertaining to science. The "theory" you mention is not what science considers to be a theory, it is more correctly a conclusion based on large amounts of evidence.

Like most creationists you will wholeheartedly back any scientific evidence to that supports the idea of creation/intelligent design but dispute any evidence that supports the theory of evolution that also contradicts the idea of intelligent design. Carbon dating is allowed if it supports the idea that a document is 2000 years old and was supposedly written by a biblical character but if it suggests that evolution may be correct then is must be stricken from the records.

(Edited by firechild 1/7/2010 at 6:22 PM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 6:10 PM on January 7, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am actually not accepting evolution as absolute fact, as I would that water boils @ 212 degrees. It's that way with me.
"And we know fish changed into tetrapods during this time while living in this environment. "

Actually you do not know for sure, there are alot of factors that could/would negate this. And if you're wrong, theory of mammals gets turned on it's head.



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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 6:45 PM on January 7, 2010 | IP
firechild

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If noone gave you evidence that water boils at 212 degrees then you should have no reason to accept it. But when there is huge amounts of evidence to suggest evolution has been occuring for a few billion years you should not be so quick to dismiss it without evidence to the contrary. In fact I can give you evidence that water does not always boil at 212 degrees (highly repeatable experimental data) but noone can give you any evidence that evolution cannot be true.

The fact is, all these factors that could negate the theory of evolution are yet to be shown. Noone has come up with any substantial evidence that discredits the theory. Stubborn dissmission of evidence and the lack of intellect and training (I'm not calling you stupid but will grant that those of us debating the topic are far less versed in the fields than the experts that are conducting the research) to accept the evidence is not sufficient enough to disprove anything.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 6:54 PM on January 7, 2010 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am actually not accepting evolution as absolute fact, as I would that water boils @ 212 degrees. It's that way with me.

Well that's your problem, evolution is an absolute fact, there is no doubt about it.  Virtually all biologists agree, evolution happens.  We don't understand it completely, but we know it's valid, that all life changes and all life on earth is related.

Actually you do not know for sure, there are alot of factors that could/would negate this. And if you're wrong, theory of mammals gets turned on it's head.

Actually, we are sure.  You have not been able to show us any factors that put fish to tetrapod evolution in question.  Your lack of knowledge on the subject is not evidence that it did not happen.  Once again, we don't know all the details, but the fact that fish evovled into tetrapods is a fact.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 6:59 PM on January 7, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Whats the old saying about not being able to prove a negative?





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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 8:11 PM on January 7, 2010 | IP
firechild

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is no proving of a negative. This is disproving a positive. We have given evidence to support a theory. You now need to show why this evidence does not, as a whole, support the theory.

The reason we cannot do the same with your idea is that there is not evidence to support your idea (hence calling it an "idea" as opposed to a "theory") that we can disprove.

If you had no idea what temperature water boiled at and I gave you evidence including scientific processes I used to show that water boiled at 170 degrees F you would have no reason to disagree right? However, if you could then give me counter evidence to show that at normal pressure (1 atmosphere) the correct temperature was 212 degrees F then you would have scientifically disproven my theory. You are unable to do this with evolution, you need evidence to counter evidence.

(Edited by firechild 1/7/2010 at 8:27 PM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 8:18 PM on January 7, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 6:45 PM on January 7, 2010 :
I am actually not accepting evolution as absolute fact, as I would that water boils @ 212 degrees. It's that way with me.
"And we know fish changed into tetrapods during this time while living in this environment. "

Actually you do not know for sure, there are alot of factors that could/would negate this. And if you're wrong, theory of mammals gets turned on it's head.



Do you accept that dissolved oxygen content is a function of temperature?  Ignoring that is the same as denying that water boils at 212F.

Question - Why does cold water contain more dissolved oxygen than warmer water?
---
If one looks at the solubility curve for oxygen gas, plotted as milligrams of oxygen dissolved per 1000 g of water, the solubility of oxygen at 0 degrees C is about twice its solubility at 30 degrees C. As the temperature of the water goes up, the lower the concentration of dissolved oxygen gas.  Simply stated, the water  temperature helps determine the maximum amount of oxygen gas that water can dissolve.  This dissolved oxygen concentration, in turn, helps determine water's ability to support oxygen-consuming creatures.  Water temperature also effects the amount of oxygen actually needed by aquatic organisms.  A 10 degree temperature rise roughly doubles the rate or speeds of many chemical reactions in the water environment.  Cooling a system down by 10 degrees slows down the rates of such reactions by a similar factor.
During warm summer months, competition among water inhabitants for dissolved oxygen can become quite severe.  With rising water temperatures, bacteria and fish require more oxygen.  But warmer water is unable to dissolve as much oxygen gas.   After a long stretch of hot summer days, some streams experience large fish kills, in which many fish suffocate.

I hope that this helps.

Sincerely,

Bob Trach

Dissolved Oxygen and Temperature


(Edited by Apoapsis 1/7/2010 at 9:21 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: 8:28 PM on January 7, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So what are the top three "facts" that prove evolution for you, that "sealed the deal" ?



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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 8:54 PM on January 7, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 8:54 PM on January 7, 2010 :
So what are the top three "facts" that prove evolution for you, that "sealed the deal" ?




Why are you changing the subject?


-------
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: 8:56 PM on January 7, 2010 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So what are the top three "facts" that prove evolution for you, that "sealed the deal" ?

How about it's an observed process.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:57 PM on January 7, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 8:57 PM on January 7, 2010 :
So what are the top three "facts" that prove evolution for you, that "sealed the deal" ?

How about it's an observed process.


How about the fact that no out-of-place / out-of-sequence fossils have ever been discovered.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:25 AM on January 8, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Failure To State:
  if you make enough attacks, and ask enough questions, you may never have to actually define your own position on the topic.

Apoapsis
porkchop
So what are the top three "facts" that prove evolution for you, that "sealed the deal" ?
Why are you changing the subject?
Yes, porkchop. Why?



porkchop
derwood
Are we really to belive that you are here to "debate" or to learn when you seem content to merely ignore corrections of your erroneous suppositions?
I am sure that whatever I say, there will be "debate" material to follow.
But no debate.

I'll have to give you the definition AGAIN.
Debate: A discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal.

But from previous post in response to my "speculation" point, you guys are saying that it is not speculation but rather accepted fact, built on a huge amount of evidence, backed by thousands of scientists.
But someone already admitted that the shallow pond, less oxygen in the water theory was just that a theory, no one was there to verify it so how can you claim a closed case 100% factual case?
"Just" a theory?

As usual, you don't know what you're talking about. As usual, no hint of shame.

You're a dishonest shameless fraud.

Doesn't science demand that you need to be able to reproduce and observe phenomena?
Hahaha!

No.

Go and reproduce a heliocentric system.

Even saying that it is science.
You're a donkey.

I am actually not accepting evolution as absolute fact, as I would that water boils @ 212 degrees.
Haha! That's not a fact. Water boils at different temperatures.
It's that way with me.
Luckily, Science doesn't involve you.
"And we know fish changed into tetrapods during this time while living in this environment. "

Actually you do not know for sure, there are alot of factors that could/would negate this.
Actually? ACTUALLY?

You're like Lester... You say "actually" or "in fact", and then proceed to make a dumb claim you'll never support.

Why don't you give us these "facts"?

By the way, "a lot" are two words.

And if you're wrong, theory of mammals gets turned on it's head.
Yeah, but here's the thing: we're not.

Whats the old saying about not being able to prove a negative?
As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.

First, that is relative. Every proposition can be expressed as a negative, and vice versa. For instance: all crows are black.

It's hard to demonstrate, because it's more of a negative (crows do not come in colors other than black).

Second, NO! You don't have to prove a negative. You have to disprove a positive! That should be quite easy.

If we say "The Sun is green" you can easily demonstrate that it's not true.

If we say "We evolved from reptiles, which evolved from amphibians, which evolved from fish" you can't.




-------
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: 12:48 AM on January 8, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I won't change the subject


"And we know fish changed into tetrapods during this time while living in this environment. "

Actually you do not know for sure, there are alot of factors that could/would negate this.
Actually? ACTUALLY?

You're like Lester... You say "actually" or "in fact", and then proceed to make a dumb claim you'll never support.

What hard "facts" do you have that proved fish evolved legs, lungs and a whole host of other factors that allowed them to be land dwelling and that they were not born that way? you can say whatever you want and showboat it as proof but you may only be fooling yourself. And you are going to tell me it's a fact that fish just started breathing while under water due to conditions of the swamps that YOU KNOW were unchanging. You know this as fact huh? Water DOES boil at 212 F, you said no?






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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 10:35 AM on January 9, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 12:25 AM on January 8, 2010 :
Quote from Demon38 at 8:57 PM on January 7, 2010 :
So what are the top three "facts" that prove evolution for you, that "sealed the deal" ?

How about it's an observed process.


How about the fact that no out-of-place / out-of-sequence fossils have ever been discovered.






As for fossils not being out of order? You sure?

One of the problems with an evolutionary interpretation of the fishapods is that these creatures appear to be out of order. For example, Ventastega, an animal that lived about 365 million years ago, is thought to occupy a halfway point between Tiktaalik and amphibians. (Tiktaalik is thought to occupy the midpoint between lobe-finned fish and amphibians) Its skeletal features indicate that it's out of sequence. Older fishapods actually exhibit more advanced features than those of Ventastega.

Another fishapod, Panderichthys, causes the same problem. This creature existed about 385 million years ago and is considered to be much closer to a lobe-finned fish than an amphibian. Yet, it has digits at the end of its fins, whereas Tiktaalik, considered to be more advanced, doesn't. Again, the fossils are out of sequence.


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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 10:41 AM on January 9, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 10:35 AM on January 9, 2010 :
What hard "facts" do you have that proved fish evolved legs, lungs and a whole host of other factors that allowed them to be land dwelling and that they were not born that way? you can say whatever you want and showboat it as proof but you may only be fooling yourself. And you are going to tell me it's a fact that fish just started breathing while under water due to conditions of the swamps that YOU KNOW were unchanging. You know this as fact huh? Water DOES boil at 212 F, you said no?



Huh?


-------
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: 11:05 AM on January 9, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

out of sequence, re read.


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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 11:51 AM on January 9, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Porkchop

As for fossils not being out of order? You sure?

As far as I know.  I've never heard that there is a problem with fossils being out of order.


One of the problems with an evolutionary interpretation of the fishapods is that these creatures appear to be out of order. For example, Ventastega, an animal that lived about 365 million years ago, is thought to occupy a halfway point between Tiktaalik and amphibians. (Tiktaalik is thought to occupy the midpoint between lobe-finned fish and amphibians) Its skeletal features indicate that it's out of sequence. Older fishapods actually exhibit more advanced features than those of Ventastega.


No, this is not a problem for evolution.  It shows that you (and other Creationists) are misinterpeting what the fossil record is actually telling us.

The fishapod fossils that we are finding are telling us that during the late Devonian there was a transition occuring from water to land, and that this transition was occuring over a wide area.  The various fishapod transitional fossils we are finding are NOT necessarily direct relatives to one another!  In fact, that would be unlikely since they are found in different areas of the world (keeping in mind that the world 400 million years ago was one large super-continent - Pangea.)  In other words, there was a diversity of fishapods during this time-frame.  These fossils do not represent straight-line evolution.  Many species we will never find fossils of simply because fossilization is typically a rare event, and other fossils may be difficult (if not impossible) to reach - being buried in rock we cannot reach.  

It's like the hominid fossil record.  Modern Homo sapiens is not directly descended from every hominid fossil that we find.  The hominid fossil record does not represent straight-line eovlution.  Rather it represents a branch with many off-shoots, many of which left no descendents (they were dead-ends, so to speak).

Seeing overlap in features in these fossils is not surprising.  But the trend we see, the path evolution is taking during this time, is that a transition from water to land took place during this time - roughly 400 mya - 360 mya.

Vesastega
Ventastega: A Tetrapod Perched on a Different Branch



Another fishapod, Panderichthys, causes the same problem. This creature existed about 385 million years ago and is considered to be much closer to a lobe-finned fish than an amphibian. Yet, it has digits at the end of its fins, whereas Tiktaalik, considered to be more advanced, doesn't. Again, the fossils are out of sequence.


Same arguments as above.  



Actually, I'm surprised you didn't latch onto the recent announcement of discovery of tetrapod tracks found in Poland that date back to 395 mya.  Apparently the folks over at the Discovery Institute did.

PZ Myers discusses this:
Casey Luskin embarrasses himself again

As PZ Myers explains A fossil is representative of a range of individuals that existed over a window of time; a window that might be quite wide.

So no, contrary to what you say, the fossil record of fish-tetrapod evolution fits very nicely what ToE predicts.

(Edited by orion 1/9/2010 at 2:42 PM).

(Edited by orion 1/9/2010 at 2:49 PM).
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 2:38 PM on January 9, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 10:35 AM on January 9, 2010 :
What hard "facts" do you have that proved fish evolved legs, lungs and a whole host of other factors that allowed them to be land dwelling and that they were not born that way?


Of course they were born that way, that's what evolution is, the offspring have mutations that their parents did not have.  You have about 100 mutations that your parents did not have.  You are evolving as much as any individual fossil specimen that might be found.

you can say whatever you want and showboat it as proof but you may only be fooling yourself. And you are going to tell me it's a fact that fish just started breathing while under water due to conditions of the swamps that YOU KNOW were unchanging. You know this as fact huh? Water DOES boil at 212 F, you said no?


No, you seem to be denying that water holds less oxygen the warmer it is.



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

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 2:53 PM on January 9, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No I'm saying that water boils @ 212F.



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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 7:59 PM on January 9, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 2:53 PM on January 9, 2010 :
Quote from porkchop at 10:35 AM on January 9, 2010 :


Of course they were born that way, that's what evolution is, the offspring have mutations that their parents did not have.  You have about 100 mutations that your parents did not have.  You are evolving as much as any individual fossil specimen that might be found.




So if we go back many generations say 100, that would mean todays offspring have 10,000 mutations more. But we are still human after that fact. Is there any difference?




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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 8:26 PM on January 9, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 7:59 PM on January 9, 2010 :
No I'm saying that water boils @ 212F.



Water boils at 212F at sea level. When you go to higher altitudes water boils at a lower and lower temperature (because the atmospheric pressure is lower).

(Edited by Fencer27 1/9/2010 at 10:48 PM).


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


Posts: 551 | Posted: 10:47 PM on January 9, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 7:59 PM on January 9, 2010 :
No I'm saying that water boils @ 212F.



That's not the issue, can it retain more oxygen at 25C, or 35C?  That is the real question.


-------
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: 02:10 AM on January 10, 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 ... 26 27 ... 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.