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 ... 27 28 ... 29 30 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Orion I've never heard that there is a problem with fossils being out of order.


Of course not –OOPs don’t really exist –BUT where they do, they are called “downwashed” (through the solid rock into lower strata) or “reworked” (moved into a higher strata).

You see why evolution is so unfalsifiable? You just need to invent new names for your OOPses!



-------
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: 04:06 AM on January 10, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

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: 06:29 AM on January 10, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

porkchop
I won't change the subject
You mean, again?

Because you never ceased jumping from one subject to the next, always asking, never defining your own position.

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.


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 ?"


"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?
None whatsoever.

#1 Science doesn't deal with proof.
#2 Nobody said they weren't "born that way".

You keep showing a great deal of ignorance on the subject you're trying to discuss (INDIVIDUALS DON'T EVOLVE!!!), coupled with constant straw men.

This one wasn't dishonesty. Just ignorance and poor thinking (i prefer those over dishonesty).

But now that i've told you, the honest thing would be to correct yourself. You have the choice to stop being a fraud, and saying "My mistake."

you can say whatever you want and showboat it as proof
When discussing Science, NEVER.

As usual, you don't know what you're talking about. As usual, you won't take it back.

You're a dishonest ignorant fraud, porkchop. There's no way around this.

but you may only be fooling yourself.
Yeah, yeah, everything we know might be false. But you keep enjoying Science's discoveries and improvements, while stubbornly negating knowledge.
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.
#1 No. Not "just". Never "just".
2# That's the smart and educated conclusion. In general terms, living is good, dying is bad.

You know this as fact huh? Water DOES boil at 212 F, you said no?
I say that is not a fact. I say that water boils at different temperatures. I also say that you wouldn't recognize a fact if it hit you in the face.

porkchop
orion
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?
If you don't include any dishonest clauses ("What if someone moved a fossil? What if a dinosaur excavated an older fossil and then died next to the old fossil?"), yeah, i'm sure. As sure as one can be.
One of the problems with an evolutionary interpretation of the fishapods is that these creatures appear to be out of order.
To someone who can only think linearly, yeah, they might appear out of order.

The problem isn't ours.
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.
No.

If this is important to you, start a thread. This one is getting too heavy.

Older fishapods actually exhibit more advanced features than those of Ventastega.
That is not a problem, except, again, for those who can only think in one dimension.

Evolution is not a line. It's a branching tree.

Another fishapod, Panderichthys, causes the same problem.
As usual, the problem is you.

This is an argument by selective observation, but not even the observation of something real.

You put your focus on the line that survived and produced reptiles. The Theory of Evolution doesn't.

You can't put every fossil in a straight line. Really! There's no way!

porkchop
Apoapsis
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.
You'll have to think harder than that.

The fact that you have 100 mutations that your parents didn't doesn't mean that your entire generation GAINED 100 mutations that the previous generation didn't have.

You are NOT a generation. You're an individual.

On top of that, nobody said that your 100 mutations will make it to the next generation.

But we are still human after that fact.
As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.

Again, you wouldn't recognize a fact if it hit you in the face.

Is there any difference?
Between?



-------
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: 08:20 AM on January 10, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

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.
#1 No. Not "just". Never "just".
2# That's the smart and educated conclusion. In general terms, living is good, dying is bad.

So if they didn't  "just" start breathing, you explain how breathing started while they were living underwater. After all you and science have all the hard facts of exactly just what went on. So much that you call me ignorant. How did one fish decide to take it's first out of water breath.




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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 12:39 PM on January 10, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 12:39 PM on January 10, 2010 :
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.
#1 No. Not "just". Never "just".
2# That's the smart and educated conclusion. In general terms, living is good, dying is bad.

So if they didn't  "just" start breathing, you explain how breathing started while they were living underwater. After all you and science have all the hard facts of exactly just what went on. So much that you call me ignorant. How did one fish decide to take it's first out of water breath.


OK, here is a plausible scenario.  Some fish had a mutation that caused it to develop some blood vessels close to the surface where they could exchange oxygen.  Irrelevant mutation under water generally.  That fish had descendants that carried this mutation.  Some kind of heat or drying event caused low oxygen levels in the water, and fish without this "extra" boost in the ability to absorb oxygen died.



-------
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: 12:52 PM on January 10, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       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" ?



I really only needed on 'fact'.

My graduate research on primate evolution as inferred from DNA sequence data, the methodological foundation of which has been tested and shown to be accurate:

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice
WR Atchley and WM Fitch
Department of Genetics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh 27695.

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.






-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 1:46 PM on January 10, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So if they didn't  "just" start breathing, you explain how breathing started while they were living underwater.
You're amazingly shameless...

Why should i keep answering to your questions, when you don't return the courtesy?


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.
Start giving us some answers, or start packing.

At least an "I don't know", if you don't have the honesty to say "You're right" or "I was wrong".

After all you and science have all the hard facts of exactly just what went on. So much that you call me ignorant.
I also call you a dishonest fraud, which is more serious and just as true.
How did one fish decide to take it's first out of water breath.
See how you're ignorant?

Fish deciding?

Bah... You never correct yourself anyway...



-------
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: 2:06 PM on January 10, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 04:06 AM on January 10, 2010 :
Orion I've never heard that there is a problem with fossils being out of order.


Of course not –OOPs don’t really exist –BUT where they do, they are called “downwashed” (through the solid rock into lower strata) or “reworked” (moved into a higher strata).

You see why evolution is so unfalsifiable? You just need to invent new names for your OOPses!


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 find it 'troubling' 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 not cover ALL animals, and did not inlcude data from the entire genome of each animal, so she saw no reason to be troubled.  IOW, she just rejected the very evidence she claimed she would accept in order to protect her religious views, and I see no indication 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 hero's book is here.

p. 112:

"... The theory of evolution says that a ground mammal changed into a bat by a series of mistaken mutations 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 not meet his idiosyncratic and vague definition for transitional, the guy who declares PhD level creationists who acknowledge that there are transitional fossils and evidence for 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: 2:06 PM on January 10, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 12:39 PM on January 10, 2010 :
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.
#1 No. Not "just". Never "just".
2# That's the smart and educated conclusion. In general terms, living is good, dying is bad.

So if they didn't  "just" start breathing, you explain how breathing started while they were living underwater. After all you and science have all the hard facts of exactly just what went on. So much that you call me ignorant. How did one fish decide to take it's first out of water breath.






When did YOU 'decide' to take your first breath?


If you do not answer to my personal satisfaction, I will have to conclude that YECism is false.




-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:14 PM on January 10, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I decided to take my 1st breath upon being born in the air filled room. Thank heavens the Dr did not submerge me in water else I would have drowned.


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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 4:33 PM on January 10, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp, stop with the confusing quotes upon quotes,quotes upon quotes,quotes upon quotes after a while folks stop paying attention because of the verbal calamity.

How did one fish decide to take it's first out of water breath.See how you're ignorant?

Fish deciding?
Bah... You never correct yourself anyway...

You know what I mean when I say a fish "decided" lets put it another way so you might accept the wording.
Why did the fish start breathing air while under water? why don't you trying breathing underwater?

Apoapsis stated his theory as in his words a " plausible scenario" about  a fish having a mutation that caused
it to develop some blood vessels etc etc. That's fine. But who is going to bet their life that this was a hard fact? And it should go in the textbooks as fact?  My point is that all mammalian existence hinges on this theory.


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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 4:39 PM on January 10, 2010 | IP
firechild

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This debate really seems to be going nowhere. We are trying to explain the details of evolution to someone who does not understand the basic concept of the science behind the temperature vs pressure relationship of boiling water. He as adamant that water always boils at 212 degrees F so surely he is unable to change his view on something as detailed as the ToE.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 5:11 PM on January 10, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I understand that water boils at 212 rm temp. I should have used another example such as:
Are you certain evolution is true the same way you are certain that you have 2 eyeballs in your head?

I am simply questioning your theory of how fish started breathing air. If in fact they did start breathing air from being totally unable to do so prior.




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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 5:22 PM on January 10, 2010 | IP
firechild

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But the problem is you are questioning and then ignoring the answers.

Besides room temperature has nothing to do with the temperature at which water boils. It is the pressure of the surrounding air.
As pressure decreases, so does the boiling point.

Geologists, physicists and chemists have shown the conditions of the earth at the point in time we are discussing. We know the history of the landforms and the types of environments. There are so many different and independent pieces of evidence that all opint in the same direction.

If you are unwilling to accept ANY evidence that supports evolution just say so, don't try to debate against it with "I just can't believe that those thousands of scientists are all right". It is simply a gut feeling and has absolutely no basis.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 5:38 PM on January 10, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Porkchop, let's back up for a minute.  Look at those fishapods.  Look at the pattern of the following fossil fishapods:

SECURITY ALERT: null

What do you see happening?  

 - The head is becoming flatter
 - The spicules (nostrils) are migrating from a side position to the top of the skull.
 - The ribcage and shoulders are becoming more robust to support weight.
 - And damn if those fins don't look like they're becoming more like wrists and fingers (digits).
 - the anterior end is also showing change, with an extension of the tail bone.

Forget about Creationism/Evolution for a minute.  Looking at that sequence of pictures, what do they suggest to you?
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 5:41 PM on January 10, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 4:33 PM on January 10, 2010 :
I decided to take my 1st breath upon being born in the air filled room. Thank heavens the Dr did not submerge me in water else I would have drowned.


Was that your decision or an automatic reflex?


(Edited by Apoapsis 1/10/2010 at 6:19 PM).


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

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 6:00 PM on January 10, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 5:41 PM on January 10, 2010 :
Porkchop, let's back up for a minute.  Look at those fishapods.  Look at the pattern of the following fossil fishapods:

SECURITY ALERT: null

What do you see happening?  

 - The head is becoming flatter
 - The spicules (nostrils) are migrating from a side position to the top of the skull.
 - The ribcage and shoulders are becoming more robust to support weight.
 - And damn if those fins don't look like they're becoming more like wrists and fingers (digits).
 - the anterior end is also showing change, with an extension of the tail bone.

Forget about Creationism/Evolution for a minute.  Looking at that sequence of pictures, what do they suggest to you?


Is it linear?





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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 6:57 PM on January 10, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 6:57 PM on January 10, 2010 :

Is it linear?


No, did anyone ever claim it was?



-------
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: 7:04 PM on January 10, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 6:00 PM on January 10, 2010 :
Quote from porkchop at 4:33 PM on January 10, 2010 :
I decided to take my 1st breath upon being born in the air filled room. Thank heavens the Dr did not submerge me in water else I would have drowned.


Was that your decision or an automatic reflex?


(Edited by Apoapsis 1/10/2010 at 6:19 PM).



Of course you know it was an automatic reflex.
But humans have been doing that for eons because they breathe air. The ones of us that breath air will survive.


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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 7:05 PM on January 10, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 7:04 PM on January 10, 2010 :
Quote from porkchop at 6:57 PM on January 10, 2010 :

Is it linear?


No, did anyone ever claim it was?



Are we assuming these fossils( is it an artist's rendition?) never existed simultaneously?



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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 7:24 PM on January 10, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As Apoapsis points out, no - not linear.  In other words, for these fishapods no one is claiming that any of them is a direct ancestor of the other.  We are looking at trends here.

Artist conception - certainly, based on the fossils found.  I believe we have nearly complete fossils of several of those fishapods.  Is the artist rendetion accurate?  I assume it is as accurate as we can get from looking at the bone structure of the fossils.  

That's actually a good question.  I would like Derwood to comment, since he has experience in anatomy.

Derwood - how accurate would you say that artists are in depicting the appearance of extinct animals given that we have fossils available?  I would assume the coloration of the outside hide would be a matter of some speculation, but what about the accuracy of the overall appearence?  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 8:20 PM on January 10, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 7:05 PM on January 10, 2010 :
Of course you know it was an automatic reflex.
But humans have been doing that for eons because they breathe air. The ones of us that breath air will survive.


So there is no decision involved, those who can survive, and those who can't die.  Same as with the first fish who could extract oxygen from air.



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

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 8:30 PM on January 10, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

porkchop
Wisp, stop with the confusing quotes upon quotes,quotes upon quotes,quotes upon quotes
Are you truly confused?

Why didn't you reply to them in the first place then?

Actually, it's your way of quoting what's really confusing. Derwood was confused and thought you were saying things that i said.

after a while folks stop paying attention because of the verbal calamity.
After a while?

So you're saying that you did pay attention, and purposely decided to dodge my simple questions?

The previous question wasn't a quote inside a quote inside a quote. So i guess you're paying attention. And yet i have this feeling that you won't reply to my simple question.

Or perhaps i say it as a self-defeating prophesy.

How did one fish decide to take it's first out of water breath.See how you're ignorant?

Fish deciding?
Bah... You never correct yourself anyway...

You know what I mean when I say a fish "decided" lets put it another way so you might accept the wording.
See what i mean? That's really bad quoting.

And of course i know what you mean. You mean to artificially ridicule a position that involves a huge body of knowledge, experimentation and expertise, by using intentionally loaded silly inaccurate words.

Why did the fish start breathing air while under water?
See? This is why i ask what YOUR position is. So i can reply better.

Because, if you believe that some god created life in its present form, i can ask you the same question.
Why would that god make a lung fish? Did he feel like having a laugh?

If you believe that your god only gives its creatures useful traits, then your question turns against you.

So, when trying to decide between Creationism and Evolution, your question is not significant.

why don't you trying breathing underwater?
Why would i?

Are you implying that we say that fish keep trying, until some of them succeed?

If so, that's a straw man.
If not, then it's a silly question.

Apoapsis stated his theory
I bet you mean "hypothesis".

You need to learn the very basics of Science. Or at least be more humble.

as in his words a " plausible scenario" about  a fish having a mutation that caused it to develop some blood vessels etc etc. That's fine.
Yeah, it seems fine. I can't think of a more plausible hypothesis.
But who is going to bet their life that this was a hard fact?
Bet their lives on a plausible scenario? Well it depends.

Against what?



And it should go in the textbooks as fact?
Does it?

My point is that all mammalian existence hinges on this theory.
Start using the word "hypothesis". It makes you look cool. ;)



-------
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: 01:36 AM on January 11, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

porkchop
I understand that water boils at 212 rm temp.
No, you don't.

Water boils anywhere within a range of temperatures, depending on the pressure. THIS is a fact. And if you can't correct yourself even on this simple, unequivocal and undisputed fact, what can we expect from you?

Evolution is a little bit more complex than boiling water.

Besides, we're able to see you have placed an emotional investment on your wrong belief that water boils at a constant temperature, and your eternal soul is not at stake. So imagine your emotional investment in Creationism.

I should have used another example such as:
Are you certain evolution is true the same way you are certain that you have 2 eyeballs in your head?
Ok. Yes.

I am simply questioning your theory of how fish started breathing air.
No. You don't even seem to know what it is.

You question fish deciding, and fish trying. So no, you're not questioning our HYPOTHESES.

If in fact they did start breathing air from being totally unable to do so prior.
If in fact?

Did anyone claim that?

Show me the quotes, or take it back.

Or dishonestly dodge it again, as usual.


(Edited by wisp 1/11/2010 at 03:46 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: 01:51 AM on January 11, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Is it linear?
Good question (well, your best so far). No, it's not.


Do you see the slanted line? Do you see that the fossils stem from it?

If it was a linear it would have looked like this:


Evolution is NOT linear.

Can we assume you learned this now?

Are we assuming these fossils( is it an artist's rendition?) never existed simultaneously?
I'm not sure (your question seems simple but has more than one interpretation, actually).

In any case, what are you driving at?

If you care about these things, why don't you go and study them?

If you're trying to question Evolution, i don't see how this is relevant.

So, when will you tell us what your convictions are?



-------
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: 02:06 AM on January 11, 2010 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think we should talk about how lungs evolved and the evidence to support it.  From here:
Lung Evolution

"The lungs of today's terrestrial vertebrates and the gas bladders of today's fish are believed to have evolved from simple sacs (outpocketings) of the esophagus that allowed early fish to gulp air under oxygen-poor conditions[7]. These outpocketings first arose in the bony fish; in some of the ray-finned fish the sacs evolved into gas bladders, while in other ray-finned fish (such as the gar, bichir and amia) as well as the lobe-finned fish they evolved into lungs[7]. The lobe-finned fish gave rise to the land-based tetrapods. Thus, the lungs of vertebrates are homologous to the gas bladders of fish (but not to their gills). This is reflected by the fact that the lungs of a fetus also develop from an outpocketing of the esophagus and in the case of gas bladders, this connection to the gut continues to exist as the pneumatic duct in more "primitive" teleosts, and is lost in the higher orders. (This is an instance of correlation between ontogeny and phylogeny.) No known animals have both a gas bladder and lungs"

So we see how lungs evolved.  What are the objections or evidence against the theory that outpocketings evovled in the esophagus.  And why do we see fetus' today develope lungs this way if it isn't an evolutionary trait?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:15 AM on January 11, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Our lungs are moist. I'm sure that's a necessity. Which comes to demonstrate that moisture is STILL an issue, in spite of what porkchop would think.

How much water do we lose just by breathing?



-------
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: 03:44 AM on January 11, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 5:22 PM on January 10, 2010 :
I understand that water boils at 212 rm temp.



I understand that in Denver it boils at 203F.

I also understand that it holds less dissolved oxygen at 35C (95F) than at 25C (77F).  Do you understand that?

And it has nothing to do with betting your life, it is chemistry and physics.


-------
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: 06:41 AM on January 11, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

He was talking about your "plausible scenario about  a fish having a mutation that caused it to develop some blood vessels etc etc.", not about 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: 07:26 AM on January 11, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp, stop with the confusing quotes
I'll have to repeat the question, in a way that won't confuse you...

You're very easily confused, but i'll give it a try.

You asked "
Why Did the fish mutate so that moisture was not an issue while in water?".

So far so good?

Ok, by asking that you were assuming that somebody said it happened. Yes?

Confusing so far?

Ok, this was an assumption. And i asked you (about 6 or 7 times) to back it up or take it back.

Let me explain the choice:

1) Back it up: Involves defending your assumption. In this case it would mean quoting someone who said what you assumed.

2) Take it back: Involves saying "Oh, i thought you believed that. My mistake. I take it back."

3) Being a dishonest fraud: Involves shutting up, dodging the question, hoping nobody will notice what a dishonest fraud you are.

Ok, i hope that wasn't confusing.



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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 07:37 AM on January 11, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38 "The lungs of today's terrestrial vertebrates and the gas bladders of today's fish are believed to have evolved from simple sacs (outpocketings) of the esophagus that allowed early fish to gulp air under oxygen-poor conditions[7]. These outpocketings first arose in the bony fish; in some of the ray-finned fish the sacs evolved into gas bladders, while in other ray-finned fish (such as the gar, bichir and amia) as well as the lobe-finned fish they evolved into lungs[7]. The lobe-finned fish gave rise to the land-based tetrapods. Thus, the lungs of vertebrates are homologous to the gas bladders of fish (but not to their gills). This is reflected by the fact that the lungs of a fetus also develop from an outpocketing of the esophagus and in the case of gas bladders, this connection to the gut continues to exist as the pneumatic duct in more "primitive" teleosts, and is lost in the higher orders. (This is an instance of correlation between ontogeny and phylogeny.) No known animals have both a gas bladder and lungs"


So my question is, do you recognize this for the story that it is?

Do you realize that you have to believe that naturalism accounts for life in order to believe that a fish turned into a terrestrial vertebrate and to believe that gas bladders accidentally changed into lungs via random mutations in the genome and natural selection selecting out the best mistakes while apparently losing all the many detrimental mutations that must have happened along the way.

If you believe it, then the story above is called a ‘likely story.’ I can line up a series of knives and explain how the one mutated into the other and so on ignoring completely the possibility that someone designed all of them.

We can do the same with reptiles and birds and with apes and humans.
The key is just to believe that it was possible and then accept that it must have happened.

So we see how lungs evolved.  What are the objections or evidence against the theory that outpocketings evovled in the esophagus.  And why do we see fetus' today develope lungs this way if it isn't an evolutionary trait?


Have you heard that Haeckel’s ontogenic recapitulation of phylogeny is fraudulent? What if each different type of creature has its own intelligently designed genomic programme which has built in variability within the various types of creature, but not a complete body plan change when there are random glitches (mutations) in the copying process.
Too many glitches leads to extinction not evolution –now that makes more sense!  



-------
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: 10:36 AM on January 11, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 4:33 PM on January 10, 2010 :
I decided to take my 1st breath upon being born in the air filled room. Thank heavens the Dr did not submerge me in water else I would have drowned.


Really?  You decided to breath?

At birth?

How did you accomplish that?



-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:34 PM on January 11, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 8:20 PM on January 10, 2010 :

Artist conception - certainly, based on the fossils found.  I believe we have nearly complete fossils of several of those fishapods.  Is the artist rendetion accurate?  I assume it is as accurate as we can get from looking at the bone structure of the fossils.  

That's actually a good question.  I would like Derwood to comment, since he has experience in anatomy.

Derwood - how accurate would you say that artists are in depicting the appearance of extinct animals given that we have fossils available?  I would assume the coloration of the outside hide would be a matter of some speculation, but what about the accuracy of the overall appearence?  



I think that is about right.

One of the most common fallacies employed by creationists is the implication that in order to know what an organism looked like, you would at least need a completely intact skeleton.

First, since vertebrates are bilaterally symmetrical, no, you only need half of a skeleton.  And in fact, you really need less - there are only so many ways that vertebrate skeletons can go together.  And with a little anatomical knowledge, one does not even need complete bones to infer things like length of the bone, how large the organism was (density of the cortical bone, for example, gives clues as to the mass of the organism), size and location of muscle attachment points can provide information on how large (and therefore, how much force they could produce) the muscles that attached to the bones were, this provides information on general size, etc., etc...

So, yes, I would say that general extinct organism body shape can certainly be fairly accurately onferred form scant fossil remains.  And yes, exact coloration will probably always be a bit of guess work, however I have read reports of some pigment molecules being found in mummified skin and even in fossilized skin.  So we even have a very basic idea as to coloration in manhy cases.

We are not quite as clueless as creationists would like their flocks to think we are.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:41 PM on January 11, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:36 AM on January 11, 2010 :

Do you realize that you have to believe that naturalism accounts for life in order to believe that a fish turned into a terrestrial vertebrate and to believe that gas bladders accidentally changed into lungs via random mutations in the genome and natural selection selecting out the best mistakes while apparently losing all the many detrimental mutations that must have happened along the way.


Science 19 October 2001:
Vol. 294. no. 5542, pp. 555 - 559

Sexual Recombination and the Power of Natural Selection
William R. Rice,* Adam K. Chippindale

Theory predicts that recombination will increase the effectiveness of natural selection. A Drosophila melanogaster model system was developed that increased experimental power with the use of high experimental replication, explicit tracking of individual genes, and high but natural levels of background selection. Each of 34 independent experiments traced the fate of a newly arisen mutation located within genome-wide, synthetic chromosomes that were propagated with or without recombination. An intrinsic advantage to recombination was demonstrated by the finding that the realized strength of selection on new mutations was markedly increased when recombination was present.

from the conclusion:
"The substantial costs associated with sexual
recombination are well established (1),
making its prevalence in nature an evolutionary
enigma. Our results experimentally verify
a counteracting advantage of recombining
compared to clonal lineages: reduced accumulation of harmful mutations and increased accumulation of beneficial mutations.
The magnitude of this benefit will accrue over geological time and promote the superior persistence of recombining lineages at both the level of species within communities (clonal versus sexual species) and genes within chromosomes (nonrecombining Y-linked versus recombining X-linked genes)."


I'm sure you will have some brilliant and insightful rebuttal to this...


We can do the same with reptiles and birds and with apes and humans.
The key is just to believe that it was possible and then accept that it must have happened.


Actually, the key is to accept what a reasonable interpretation of the available evidence indicates.
As it stands, the evidence indicates what evolutionists "believe", and there is none that support the tales in the bible.


So we see how lungs evolved.  What are the objections or evidence against the theory that outpocketings evovled in the esophagus.  And why do we see fetus' today develope lungs this way if it isn't an evolutionary trait?


Have you heard that Haeckel’s ontogenic recapitulation of phylogeny is fraudulent?

Had you heard that what was just described in not what Haeckel's claim was about?

I thought you studied evolution for decades, yet you do not eeven have a grasp of the actual controversies?


What if each different type of creature has its own intelligently designed genomic programme


What if?  Well, I would expect to see the genomes of whales to be more similar to those of fish, for starters.  Or actualy, I woul dnot expect to see ANY discernible pattern whatsoever, since an intelligent designer with the abvility to do what you claim would not be contrained by such simplistic mechanistic processes.


which has built in variability within the various types of creature, but not a complete body plan change when there are random glitches (mutations) in the copying process.


What is the complete body plan change between, say, a chimpanzee and human?

Too many glitches leads to extinction not evolution –now that makes more sense!  


Yes, which is what evolutionary genetics would seem to indicate.    Which is why the earth's crust is littered with extinct variants.  






-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:55 PM on January 11, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
Do you realize that you have to believe  that naturalism accounts for life in order to believe that a fish turned into a terrestrial vertebrate and to believe that gas bladders accidentally blah blah blah...
You lose, Lester. Either because of your dishonesty, lack of learning abilities, lack of intellect, or any combination of the above (in this case i bet it's dishonesty).

Your constant use of the adverb "accidentally" demonstrates that very clearly.




Edit:
and to believe that gas bladders accidentally changed into lungs via random mutations blah blah blah
Haha! I had not read that carefully (or the rest of your posts, for that matter).

No, man. It's the other way around. Lungs into gas bladders.

Pay attention.


(Edited by wisp 1/11/2010 at 1:24 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: 1:18 PM on January 11, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
Have you heard that Haeckel’s ontogenic recapitulation of phylogeny is fraudulent?
I didn't even know the guy.

Yeah, those drawings are a fraud. Shame on him, if he drew them. Let him burn.

So what?

The fraudulent drawings seemed to confirm Evolution, but real embryos do the same.


Edit: You said you wouldn't make a fresh start, you liar.


(Edited by wisp 1/11/2010 at 1:55 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: 1:53 PM on January 11, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 8:30 PM on January 10, 2010 :
Quote from porkchop at 7:05 PM on January 10, 2010 :
Of course you know it was an automatic reflex.
But humans have been doing that for eons because they breathe air. The ones of us that breath air will survive.


So there is no decision involved, those who can survive, and those who can't die.  Same as with the first fish who could extract oxygen from air.



But you are assuming that fish COULD extract oxygen from air. And the reason is that a lucky mutation occured because the swamps were shallow etc. Then the fish decided water was no longer for them and attempted to go on land. I wonder how many died before "deciding" (use of the term loosely) to forget land and stay in the water where they could prosper?




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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 7:55 PM on January 11, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 1:18 PM on January 11, 2010 :
Lester
Do you realize that you have to believe  that naturalism accounts for life in order to believe that a fish turned into a terrestrial vertebrate and to believe that gas bladders accidentally blah blah blah...
You lose, Lester. Either because of your dishonesty, lack of learning abilities, lack of intellect, or any combination of the above (in this case i bet it's dishonesty).

Your constant use of the adverb "accidentally" demonstrates that very clearly.




Edit:
and to believe that gas bladders accidentally changed into lungs via random mutations blah blah blah
Haha! I had not read that carefully (or the rest of your posts, for that matter).

No, man. It's the other way around. Lungs into gas bladders.

Pay attention.


(Edited by wisp 1/11/2010 at 1:24 PM).



Wisp, you want to invoke natural selection at this point along with "mistake mutations" right? About how many and how long of a time would this "hypothesis" take to change into lungs?


-------
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 11, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 7:55 PM on January 11, 2010 :
But you are assuming that fish COULD extract oxygen from air.


But we know that some fish today can, like the lungfish for example.

And the reason is that a lucky mutation occured because the swamps were shallow etc.


A lucky mutation indeed. But it wasn't because of the shallow swamps, it was simply a mistake when the genes were being copied. This mistake just so happened to be beneficial when the swamps did get shallow ect. Environments as a general rule don't create mutations, they just select the good ones and get rid of the bad ones.  

Then the fish decided water was no longer for them and attempted to go on land. I wonder how many died before "deciding" (use of the term loosely) to forget land and stay in the water where they could prosper?


Huh? Some fish had the mutation(s), other fish didn't. For those that did, when they had to forgo the water (or when land better suited them), they were able to survive and ultimately started land species. For those who didn't, they stayed in the water and became the fish we see today in the water.


-------
"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: 8:12 PM on January 11, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 01:36 AM on January 11, 2010 :nd of course i know what you mean. You mean to artificially ridicule a position that involves a huge body of knowledge, experimentation and expertise, by using intentionally loaded silly inaccurate words.)[/color]


Not trying to ridicule knowledge, but there are a great deal of creation scientists that have cast doubt on TOE. Why should not I investigate this?



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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 8:17 PM on January 11, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 7:55 PM on January 11, 2010 :
[b
Huh? Some fish had the mutation(s), other fish didn't. For those that did, when they had to forgo the water (or when land better suited them), they were able to survive and ultimately started land species. For those who didn't, they stayed in the water and became the fish we see today in the water.

How long of a time do you suppose it took for the fish make significant steps in becoming land species?
Could it have been a VERY long time that conditions could have changed back to make water life more conducive to these fish?






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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 8:22 PM on January 11, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And of course i know what you mean. You mean to artificially ridicule a position that involves a huge body of knowledge, experimentation and expertise, by using intentionally loaded silly inaccurate words.)
Not trying to ridicule knowledge, but there are a great deal of creation scientists that have cast doubt on TOE. Why should not I investigate this?
Nice dodge.

What does one thing have to do with the other?

Besides, you have not investigated anything, and it shows.

You don't even know what Evolution is. You don't know what a fact is. You don't know what a hypothesis is. You don't know what a theory is. You don't know how mutations appear. You think the environment produces them. You think individuals evolve. You think they TRY to evolve. You think they DECIDE to evolve.

You're completely clueless. Don't come saying that you have investigated.


porkchop
Apoapsis
porkchop
Of course you know it was an automatic reflex.
But humans have been doing that for eons because they breathe air. The ones of us that breath air will survive.
So there is no decision involved, those who can survive, and those who can't die.  Same as with the first fish who could extract oxygen from air.
But you are assuming that fish COULD extract oxygen from air.
We're assuming fish breathing air, just like we see today?

Is that supposed to be an objection?
And the reason is that a lucky mutation occured because the swamps were shallow etc.
No.

Seriously. Start reading. Mutations don't occur because they would be good in an environment. They get SELECTED because of that.

This is very basic. You can't keep asking these things.

Then the fish decided water was no longer for them and attempted to go on land. I wonder how many died before "deciding" (use of the term loosely)
I will use it to detect moronity.
to forget land and stay in the water where they could prosper?
I don't know how loosely we have to interpret your questions in order to extract some sense from them.

I'm sure the effort isn't worth the try.

Oh, and by the way:
wisp
Wisp, stop with the confusing quotes
I'll have to repeat the question, in a way that won't confuse you...

You're very easily confused, but i'll give it a try.

You asked "
Why Did the fish mutate so that moisture was not an issue while in water?".

So far so good?

Ok, by asking that you were assuming that somebody said it happened. Yes?

Confusing so far?

Ok, this was an assumption. And i asked you (about 6 or 7 times) to back it up or take it back.

Let me explain the choice:

1) Back it up: Involves defending your assumption. In this case it would mean quoting someone who said what you assumed.

2) Take it back: Involves saying "Oh, i thought you believed that. My mistake. I take it back."

3) Being a dishonest fraud: Involves shutting up, dodging the question, hoping nobody will notice what a dishonest fraud you are.

Ok, i hope that wasn't confusing.
I also asked you (lots of times already) about the "good mutations" we presented to you.

You requested them. We showed you.

Does your silence mean you're satisfied?



-------
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: 8:25 PM on January 11, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Porkchop, do you want a present day example of selection/evolution in action?  Here it is.  Now, I admit it's not as spectacular as fish to tetrapod evolution.  But I think its a nice illustration of Natural Selection.  

Native U.S. Lizards Are Adapting To Escape Attacks By Fire Ants

Penn State Assistant Professor of Biology Tracy Langkilde has shown that native fence lizards in the southeastern United States are adapting to potentially fatal invasive fire-ant attacks by developing behaviors that enable them to escape from the ants, as well as by developing longer hind legs, which can increase the effectiveness of this behavior.


Not only are we seeing physical change in the fence lizards (longer hind legs), but a change in behavior (more effective twitching).  This allows these lizards to adapt to a changing environment - the introduction of potentially lethal fire ants to their environment.

These changes have occurred in the last 70 years.  A very short time span.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 8:45 PM on January 11, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Porkchop

Not trying to ridicule knowledge, but there are a great deal of creation scientists that have cast doubt on TOE. Why should not I investigate this?


Creation Scientists?  You mean like Michael Behe and William Dembski?  David Menton and Jon Welles?  Who exactly have you been reading that casts so much serious doubt on ToE, and what evidence do they provide that disputes evolution?  Go ahead and put it all on the table.  It's time for you to ante up.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 8:55 PM on January 11, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 8:22 PM on January 11, 2010 :
How long of a time do you suppose it took for the fish make significant steps in becoming land species?


I don't know, maybe google does. All I know is that it is somewhere in the millions.

Could it have been a VERY long time that conditions could have changed back to make water life more conducive to these fish?


As far as I know it is theoretically possible, yes. Funny you brought this up, because whales actually descended from land mammals.


-------
"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: 8:59 PM on January 11, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 7:55 PM on January 11, 2010 :

But you are assuming that fish COULD extract oxygen from air.


Gills can extract oxygen from air, but not very well.

And the reason is that a lucky mutation occured because the swamps were shallow etc.


The mutation would occur whether the water was shallow or not.  Mutations are independent of environment.  Selection is not.

Then the fish decided water was no longer for them and attempted to go on land.


Stop using "decide", they didn't "decide" anything.  They lived or died depending on how well they could survive their environment.



(Edited by Apoapsis 1/11/2010 at 9:12 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: 9:11 PM on January 11, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 12:41 PM on January 11, 2010 :
Quote from orion at 8:20 PM on January 10, 2010 :

Artist conception - certainly, based on the fossils found.  I believe we have nearly complete fossils of several of those fishapods.  Is the artist rendetion accurate?  I assume it is as accurate as we can get from looking at the bone structure of the fossils.  

That's actually a good question.  I would like Derwood to comment, since he has experience in anatomy.

Derwood - how accurate would you say that artists are in depicting the appearance of extinct animals given that we have fossils available?  I would assume the coloration of the outside hide would be a matter of some speculation, but what about the accuracy of the overall appearence?  



I think that is about right.

One of the most common fallacies employed by creationists is the implication that in order to know what an organism looked like, you would at least need a completely intact skeleton.

First, since vertebrates are bilaterally symmetrical, no, you only need half of a skeleton.  And in fact, you really need less - there are only so many ways that vertebrate skeletons can go together.  And with a little anatomical knowledge, one does not even need complete bones to infer things like length of the bone, how large the organism was (density of the cortical bone, for example, gives clues as to the mass of the organism), size and location of muscle attachment points can provide information on how large (and therefore, how much force they could produce) the muscles that attached to the bones were, this provides information on general size, etc., etc...

So, yes, I would say that general extinct organism body shape can certainly be fairly accurately onferred form scant fossil remains.  And yes, exact coloration will probably always be a bit of guess work, however I have read reports of some pigment molecules being found in mummified skin and even in fossilized skin.  So we even have a very basic idea as to coloration in manhy cases.

We are not quite as clueless as creationists would like their flocks to think we are.



Derwood, thanks for the reply.  Makes a lot of sense to me.

(Edited by orion 1/11/2010 at 11:51 PM).

(Edited by orion 1/11/2010 at 11:53 PM).
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:49 PM on January 11, 2010 | IP
firechild

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 12:22 PM on January 12, 2010 :
Could it have been a VERY long time that conditions could have changed back to make water life more conducive to these fish?


A multitude of species went back to full or almost full aquatic lifestyles after their ancestors had evolved into more terriestrial species. Axolotyls, sea snakes, aquatic snakes, turtles, pinnipeds, cetaceans, sirenians, penguins to name just a few.

I think you are still trying to jump from aquatic (fish) to terrestrial (reptilian/mammalian) far too quickly. Fishapods and then amphibians were around for some 50 million years before the first reptiles evolved and mammals didn't evolve until a further 100 million years later. What we are talking about here is not an animal whose parents lived in water, never venturing out, that moves to a fully terrestrial life. We are talking about a fish-like animal that can venture to the sandy/muddy shoreline to prey on insects or insect larvae that other fish cannot get to. Basically like a mudskipper, still predominantly fish-like but able to move out of water.

Note that the mudskipper is a member of the Gobiidae family whose ancestors are marine. These fish have evolved this amphibious behaviour independently of the fishapods of the late Devonian.


(Edited by firechild 1/11/2010 at 11:58 PM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 11:54 PM on January 11, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 8:17 PM on January 11, 2010 :
Quote from wisp at 01:36 AM on January 11, 2010 :nd of course i know what you mean. You mean to artificially ridicule a position that involves a huge body of knowledge, experimentation and expertise, by using intentionally loaded silly inaccurate words.)[/color]


Not trying to ridicule knowledge, but there are a great deal of creation scientists that have cast doubt on TOE. Why should not I investigate this?



What are your credentials such that you will be able to judge the merits of their claims?

Sure, creationists with degrees have been writing books against evolution for decades.  If the things they claim are so true, why don't you investigate the veracity of THEIR claims?

You can start with Duane Gish's claim that some protein sequece studies indicated that bullfrogs are more closely related to humans than chimps are.

Then you can look into geologist Steve Austin's claim that he was 'converted' to YECism after studying at Mt.St.Helens after the 1980 eruption.





-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:38 AM on January 12, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 8:45 PM on January 11, 2010 :
Porkchop, do you want a present day example of selection/evolution in action?  Here it is.  Now, I admit it's not as spectacular as fish to tetrapod evolution.  But I think its a nice illustration of Natural Selection.  

Native U.S. Lizards Are Adapting To Escape Attacks By Fire Ants

Penn State Assistant Professor of Biology Tracy Langkilde has shown that native fence lizards in the southeastern United States are adapting to potentially fatal invasive fire-ant attacks by developing behaviors that enable them to escape from the ants, as well as by developing longer hind legs, which can increase the effectiveness of this behavior.


Not only are we seeing physical change in the fence lizards (longer hind legs), but a change in behavior (more effective twitching).  This allows these lizards to adapt to a changing environment - the introduction of potentially lethal fire ants to their environment.

These changes have occurred in the last 70 years.  A very short time span.



How come this is the first I've heard of this? Would you say this is true, they have really developed longer legs?/ and in response to ants bothering them? Could we assume that basketball players legs will get longer and longer in 70 years from now so as to perform better on the court? The scientist concluded that the legs were growing longer, has this been peer reviewed?

This article mentions the lizard dilemma.

http://neurodojo.blogspot.com/2009/09/fence-lizards-versus-fire-ants.html

by the way, it is like 5-1 ratio here for me to spend all day and respond to each debater. I know, I'm dodging!





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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 8:21 PM on January 12, 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 ... 27 28 ... 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.