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

    
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:



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.[/color]



I know full well what evolution means to you.
It means lucky random mutations that stick to the genome if natural selection finds a positive use for it. right?



(Edited by porkchop 1/12/2010 at 8:29 PM).


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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 8:27 PM on January 12, 2010 | IP
firechild

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 12:21 PM on January 13, 2010 :
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?


If being good at basketball made any difference to reproductive success and longer legs definitively made one better at playing basketball, then yes basketball players would most likely evolve longer legs. Actually more correctly, average leg length would increase. Those with longer legs would produce more offspring but unless mutations occurred to cause in increase in leg length, the leg length would be bound by heritable traits, i.e the leg length of the population would be bound by current genetics.

(Edited by firechild 1/12/2010 at 8:41 PM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 8:38 PM on January 12, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 8:27 PM on January 12, 2010 :

I know full well what evolution means to you.
It means lucky random mutations that stick to the genome if natural selection finds a positive use for it. right?



Not a bad explanation, not fully correct, but not bad.  

If you understand this, why all the questions?


(Edited by Apoapsis 1/12/2010 at 9:56 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: 9:52 PM on January 12, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

porkchop
orion
Porkchop, do you want a present day example of selection/evolution in action?  Here it is. (...)

Native U.S. Lizards Are Adapting To Escape Attacks By Fire Ants (...)
How come this is the first I've heard of this?
Maybe you stay away from reliable sources. That would be my guess.

Also, there are so many instances of observed evolution that this one might get lost in the sea of examples.
Would you say this is true, they have really developed longer legs?/
Do you think scientists could have just lied about that and gotten away with it, and nobody would check?
and in response to ants bothering them?
So to speak. They got SELECTED in response to ants bothering them LESS than they bothered their short-legged relatives.
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?
If you assume that basketball players are an isolated reproductive population, sure.

Be sure to include females too.


But their legs would not just get "longer and longer". Consider that people need to live their lives. Boobs did grow larger in some point in the human ancestry, but they didn't get "larger and larger".

The scientist concluded that the legs were growing longer, has this been peer reviewed?
I bet it was.
This article mentions the lizard dilemma.

http://neurodojo.blogspot.com/2009/09/fence-lizards-versus-fire-ants.html
From your article:
The authors suggest that the ant venom might have a “tipping point.” Less than a certain dose, and the lizard is fine. More than that dose, and you’ve got a scaly corpse. The range in between “fine” and “dead” could be minuscule, in which case, there may not be a lot of variation for natural selection to work on. Thus, if the lizards can keep the bites under the critical value, they suffer no fitness consequences.
In order to say that you'd have to assume that ALL of them do, which contradicts the first part of the article:
The ants (Solenopsis invicta) are nasty little buggers. A dozen will kill a fence lizard in less than a minute.
So i don't understand what he's talking about (Associate Professor in Biology or not).
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!
I've asked yes/no questions, so don't lie.

Like this: Were you satisfied with the examples of "good mutations" that Apoapsis and i presented to you?

You just need to type two or three letters in response to that.

Of course, if you say "no" i'll ask "why", but you can start from there.



-------
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: 02:11 AM on January 13, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

porkchop
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.
I know full well what evolution means to you.
I doubt that.
It means lucky random mutations that stick to the genome if natural selection finds a positive use for it. right?
Not "full well", but close enough. Congratulations.

So you could stop asking about animals deciding or trying to evolve. Yes?

Still, 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.

And yet, i take it back. You're not completely clueless, and i congratulate you sincerely.

Now, you assumed that we said that evolution caused for moisture not to be an issue while fish were under water. Yes?

Can you please back it up or take it back?

Pleeeeaaase? ^____^



-------
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: 02:17 AM on January 13, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Firechild If being good at basketball made any difference to reproductive success and longer legs definitively made one better at playing basketball, then yes basketball players would most likely evolve longer legs.


How long do you think they could get? Are there limits? Can you get a pig as big as Texas? Why are there limits? What sets the limits?
Could those legs turn into fins by random mutations? Why doesn’t that happen? Initial fins could be followed by more fins in all the right places? We could make those children enter swimming competitions instead.

Wisp 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


Behaviours and longer legs (they already had legs) –why not fins and flippers –that way they can take to the water? Why not wings so they can take off and escape?

So you could stop asking about animals deciding or trying to evolve. Yes?


Porkchop’s probably just reacting to the frequent statements by evolutionists that make it sound as if a living creature can directly adapt to the environment. They sure can make it sound like Lamarckism.

Wisp to Porkchop Still, 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.


Oh my, not another person that’s not nearly as clever as Wisp!! Would it be appropriate to classify you as a narcissist do you think Wisp? Oh no, you’re just a stupendously clever and utterly honest person, isn’t that right?

I’m as lost as Porkchop in this story about the why and the how of the fish leaving the water. You’re not explaining the why and the how of the transition very well at all.



-------
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: 07:33 AM on January 16, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester10
Firechild
If being good at basketball made any difference to reproductive success and longer legs definitively made one better at playing basketball, then yes basketball players would most likely evolve longer legs.
How long do you think they could get?
It depends on the environment and their necessities.
Are there limits?
Yes. Imposed by the environment and their necessities.
Can you get a pig as big as Texas?
No, but you can get them the size of a redneck.
Why are there limits?
Because of the environment and their necessities.
What sets the limits?
The environment and their necessities.
And the laws of physics, of course.
Could those legs turn into fins by random mutations?
If you leave Natural Selection out, no. D'oh.
Why doesn’t that happen?
Because no intelligence has ever guided any part of the evolutionary process. Thanks for demonstrating our point.
Initial fins could be followed by more fins in all the right places? We could make those children enter swimming competitions instead.
Doesn't deserve an answer.

Wisp
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
Behaviours and longer legs (they already had legs)
Yeah... We... We kinda know...
–why not fins and flippers –that way they can take to the water?
In 70 years?
Why not wings so they can take off and escape?
I would give you a good and neat explanation, if i thought you were able to learn. You just want to waste my time.

So you could stop asking about animals deciding or trying to evolve. Yes?
Porkchop’s probably just reacting to the frequent statements by evolutionists that make it sound as if a living creature can directly adapt to the environment.
I don't know what you mean by "directly". Perhaps you're writing without thinking.
They sure can make it sound like Lamarckism.
If you're clueless, perhaps it does. I can't know.

Wisp to Porkchop
Still, 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.
Oh my, not another person that’s not nearly as clever as Wisp!!
My intelligence is above average, so people who are less smart than myself are not hard to come by.

However, the subject wasn't "smartness" (which you would have figured if you were smart). It was knowledge.
And i wasn't comparing. Just pointing out that he didn't know what he was talking about.

Would it be appropriate to classify you as a narcissist do you think Wisp?
I don't know... Let me find out...

My dictionary says: Someone in love with themselves.

Someone in love with themselves? Hahaha! i'm so smart! xD

No, i'm not in love with myself.

Oh no, you’re just a stupendously clever and utterly honest person, isn’t that right?
You're just showing that your're very insecure.

I think i know most of my many (MANY) limitations, and i've made my peace with most of them. That would serve you well too.

Accept your limitations (and even fight them), instead of projecting them.

I’m as lost as Porkchop in this story about the why and the how of the fish leaving the water.
Well, google it, and come back when you're not that lost. Then we can debate.
You’re not explaining the why and the how of the transition very well at all.
I know. I never claimed i would. I was just pointing out inconsistencies and errors on porkchop's appreciations.

There's a limit on the amount of time i'm willing to dilapidate on you guys.

We should be debaters, and you try to force us to be your educators.
We have to be experts on everything, besides special education.

If you want links, i'll give you links (i'll have to google them myself, since you won't).



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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:29 AM on January 16, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I just googled "creationists are" to see what Google suggested.




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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:02 PM on January 16, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:33 AM on January 16, 2010 :
I’m as lost as Porkchop in this story about the why and the how of the fish leaving the water. You’re not explaining the why and the how of the transition very well at all.


Congratulations Lester, you are a perfect example of willful ignorance for the lurkers.

Given the mass of evidence presented, nothing else could explain your feigned bewilderment.



-------
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: 05:25 AM on January 17, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Homology:
In evolutionary biology, homology refers to any similarity between characteristics of organisms that is due to their shared ancestry.


Except when the same characteristics occur in organisms apparently unrelated, in which case it's just pure dumb mutational luck -for example the shark and the dolphin. Wow, it's amazing how this thing works!!

Unfortunately I can't concur with your google results Wisp, I'm more of the mindset that evolutionists are dumb retarded morons - oh, and they're wrong. It would be rude to spell it out though so I take that back.

Apoapsis Congratulations Lester, you are a perfect example of willful ignorance for the lurkers.

Given the mass of evidence presented, nothing else could explain your feigned bewilderment.


The wilful ignorance of intelligent plan is, of course, the domain of the evolutionist.

By the way, there has been no evidence presented, only a mass of speculative story-telling (misrepresented as 'evidence') -  and that's all you have.



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


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:11 AM on January 17, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester10
Homology:
In evolutionary biology, homology refers to any similarity between characteristics of organisms that is due to their shared ancestry.
Except when the same characteristics occur in organisms apparently unrelated, in which case it's just pure dumb mutational luck -for example the shark and the dolphin.
No. Except for nothing. You don't get to define anything to accommodate to your ignorance.
Wow, it's amazing how this thing works!!
Yeah, if you only knew...
Unfortunately I can't concur with your google results Wisp,
Of course, of course.
I'm more of the mindset that evolutionists are dumb retarded morons - oh, and they're wrong.
I believe you're lying. I believe you know that a statistical graphic would tell a different story.
It would be rude to spell it out though so I take that back.
No problem. I couldn't get offended by that. It wouldn't be your only uninformed opinion.
Apoapsis
Congratulations Lester, you are a perfect example of willful ignorance for the lurkers.

Given the mass of evidence presented, nothing else could explain your feigned bewilderment.
The wilful ignorance of intelligent plan is, of course, the domain of the evolutionist.
You always find time to write these things.
By the way, there has been no evidence presented, only a mass of speculative story-telling (misrepresented as 'evidence') -  and that's all you have.
Nono. Fossils are not story-telling. They are physical things.

Correlations in the DNA are quite objective too.

So are viral insertions.

Your willful ignorance is patent, as shown in my signature.

You have no escape, Lester.



-------
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: 09:25 AM on January 17, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hi Lester,

I see you are back.  You've been so busy I guess you keep missing this - I was hoping you could at least try to address some of it:

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: 12:26 PM on January 17, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 02:17 AM on January 13, 2010 :
porkchop
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.
I know full well what evolution means to you.
I doubt that.
It means lucky random mutations that stick to the genome if natural selection finds a positive use for it. right?
Not "full well", but close enough. Congratulations.

So you could stop asking about animals deciding or trying to evolve. Yes?

Still, 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.

And yet, i take it back. You're not completely clueless, and i congratulate you sincerely.

Now, you assumed that we said that evolution caused for moisture not to be an issue while fish were under water. Yes?
Can you please back it up or take it back?
Pleeeeaaase? ^____^



I assumed it was assumed logically that since fish could leave water, moisture was no longer a life and death issue. So while fish were living in water, mutations just happened by mistake which enabled this, no?




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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 8:23 PM on January 17, 2010 | IP
firechild

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Porkchop. I think we've been over this enough times, water was an issue after fish left the water so your point is moot. Fish's skin has a requirement to remain moist at all times as you point out. Amphibians must also keep their skin moist so this has no bearing whatsoever on the evolution of fish to amphibians. Once the evolutionary line had moved out of water as amphibians, they THEN evolved better methods of moisture retantion.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 8:28 PM on January 17, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It does have a bearing because at one time, fish could NOT leave water without drying up and dying, hence the lucky mistake mutation that allowed for all mammals to develop. right?



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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 8:40 PM on January 17, 2010 | IP
firechild

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Again, I will throw out the example of the mudskipper. Still a fish, no question. But it does have the ability to leave the water with no difference to the skin that you are suggesting. You are knowlingly claiming things to happen out of order in order to claim it is not possible.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 8:46 PM on January 17, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 8:23 PM on January 17, 2010 :
I assumed it was assumed logically that since fish could leave water, moisture was no longer a life and death issue.


Moisture is still a life or death issue, even for us.

So while fish were living in water, mutations just happened by mistake which enabled this, no?


I think I would say yes to this.



-------
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 17, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Porkchop
So while fish were living in water, mutations just happened by mistake which enabled this, no?
Apoapsis
I think I would say yes to this.


So are we to believe that following on this fortuitous mutation, random fortuitous mutations just happened to produce one leg after the other, a respiratory system for landdwelling creatures, skin to prevent the loss of water and all the other requirements for land living?

If so where are the thousands of failed mutational experiments that were of the wrong sort to survive on land? Where are the ones that started to produce wings or hooves or different fins by accident instead of what we eventually ended up with?
Remember Lamarckism can't work. An organism cannot respond to its environment directly so it is as likely to mutate all the wrong parts as it is to mutate the advantageous parts. Lots of these not so efficient flops would surely survive long enough to show us convincing transitional forms? After all, a leg would have to mutate piecemeal not in one functional well put together whole?
Each intermediate had to last for a long time and be a better survivor than the one before so where are they all?

Slow and visible or fast and impossible -which one shall we choose?



-------
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: 05:41 AM on January 18, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

porkchop
Now, you assumed that we said that evolution caused for moisture not to be an issue while fish were under water. Yes?
Can you please back it up or take it back?
Pleeeeaaase? ^____^
I assumed it was assumed logically that since fish could leave water, moisture was no longer a life and death issue.
Ok. You assumed that we claimed that, and you assumed wrong. No problem. Just take it back and all is fine.
So while fish were living in water, mutations just happened by mistake which enabled this, no?
As we've told you (MANY times already), no.

And you assumed we claimed this. So take it back and all is fine.


It does have a bearing because at one time, fish could NOT leave water without drying up and dying, hence the lucky mistake mutation that allowed for all mammals to develop. right?
Wrong.
It's not like this:

Dry up ----> die.
It was like this:
Die ----> dry up.

Just like today.

So, in that respect, moisture is NOT an issue of life and death even in regular fish. They asphyxiate before noticing the weather.

In other sense, moisture is a life and death issue even in regular mammals.

So you have no point whatsoever.

In any case, you assumed we made that weird and uninformed claim (that seems logical to you). We didn't. So please, take it back.



Lester10
So are we to believe that following on this fortuitous mutation, random fortuitous mutations just happened to produce one leg after the other, a respiratory system for landdwelling creatures, skin to prevent the loss of water and all the other requirements for land living?
No.

You're forgetting Natural Selection, again.

You're dishonest, Lester.

If so where are the thousands of failed mutational experiments that were of the wrong sort to survive on land?
Dead.

D'oh!

I see your thousands and i raise to millions.

Where are the ones that started to produce wings or hooves or different fins by accident instead of what we eventually ended up with?
In your uneducated imagination.

Remember Lamarckism can't work.
D'oh.

An organism cannot respond to its environment directly so it is as likely to mutate all the wrong parts as it is to mutate the advantageous parts.
Uh huh. And you're forgetting about Natural Selection.

Mutations don't direct Evolution.

You're dishonest, Lester.

Lots of these not so efficient flops would surely survive long enough to show us convincing transitional forms?
Nothing will convince you, even though EVERY fossil ever found fits in the phylogenetic tree of life.

In any case, we're lucky to have fossils at all. But the Theory of Evolution doesn't need them. They are just an awesome demonstration.

After all, a leg would have to mutate piecemeal not in one functional well put together whole?
Like this:


Each intermediate had to last for a long time and be a better survivor than the one before so where are they all?
Ashes to ashes, dust to dust.

According to your Bible we should find no fossils.

Will you play the metaphor card?

Slow and visible or fast and impossible -which one shall we choose?
Tell us how much you understand of geology and fossilization. Enlighten us.

What were the conditions back then, according to the experts?

What were the chances of fossilization of such organisms?

If you demonstrate that the conditions were set so that we should have lots of fossils, and yet we don't, then we'll talk.



-------
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: 09:32 AM on January 18, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 09:32 AM on January 18, 2010 :
porkchop
[color=teal]



If so where are the thousands of failed mutational experiments that were of the wrong sort to survive on land?
Dead.

D'oh!

I see your thousands and i raise to millions.

Yes, Wisp, we know they are dead but where are all the fossils?
As for that last photo you submitted, the fishy thing had short stubby legs and HAD TOES. Now did the toes form at the same time the leg was growing and/or do we have fossils showing the legs without toes? Or was it just an artists rendition?




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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 1:10 PM on January 18, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So while fish were living in water, mutations just happened by mistake which enabled this, no?

"As we've told you (MANY times already), no."

Then I am confused, you said mutations were mistakes.



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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 1:16 PM on January 18, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Porkchop... How many times will i have to ask you?

Will you just keep playing dumb?

You assumed (for some weird reason that looked like "logic" to you) that we claimed that some mutation made the skin of some fish transform while it was under water.

We've told you lots of times that we don't claim that.

So it was a clear strawman.

TAKE IT BACK!

Stop being dishonest.

porkchop
wisp
Lester
If so where are the thousands of failed mutational experiments that were of the wrong sort to survive on land?
Dead.
Yes, Wisp, we know they are dead but where are all the fossils?
Of what?

Do you even know what you're asking of me? I bet you don't.

Do you even understand what Lester said by "thousands of failed mutational experiments"? I bet not even he does.

What would a "failed mutational experiment" look like to you?

What makes you think we should find that?

If you mean deformed monstrosities, then, can you understand that those are not an important part of a population?

Can you understand that many of them don't even hatch?

If you mean "individuals with slight disadvantages", what makes you think that we DON'T find them? How do you know that's not the reason some of those animals died?

If you mean "failed populations", then we can SURELY show you lots of relevant fossils.

Most of the species that ever existed have died out.
Isn't that the best measure for failure?


You just don't think before you ask. If it makes the slightest resemblance of sense, you just go ahead and say it or ask it without a second thought.

As for that last photo you submitted, the fishy thing had short stubby legs and HAD TOES.
I care about facts, not semantics.
Now did the toes form at the same time the leg was growing and/or do we have fossils showing the legs without toes?
Again, i don't think you know what you're asking.

I sure don't.

Look:


Ask yourself: are those on the left "toes"?

Just answer to yourself (because i don't care).

You've been shown the transitions. The facts are there. So don't ask me. You call them what you want.

You people try to define reality away.

Light can't be dark.
Feathers are light.
Feathers can't be dark.

We say "genetic code".
Codes require intelligence.
The DNA requires intelligence.

By definition, God is perfect.
"Not existing" is a flaw.
Ergo, God exists.


I rather focus on the facts.

You live in a world of concepts. Well, have a good life there. But when you come asking questions, try to make them factual.


(Edited by wisp 1/18/2010 at 2:43 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: 2:28 PM on January 18, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

porkchop
I assumed it was assumed logically that since fish could leave water, moisture was no longer a life and death issue.

So while fish were living in water, mutations just happened by mistake which enabled this, no?
As we've told you (MANY times already), no.
Then I am confused, you said mutations were mistakes.
Yeah. So?

Can you follow a conversation?



-------
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: 2:41 PM on January 18, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So while fish were living in water, mutations just happened by mistake which enabled this, no?

As we've told you (MANY times already), no.
Then I am confused, you said mutations were mistake
"Yeah. So?"

You just contradicted yourself. Either they are mistakes or they were not, which is it?



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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 3:12 PM on January 18, 2010 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You just contradicted yourself. Either they are mistakes or they were not, which is it?

1. Where did anyone say that they were not mistakes?
2. Try not to mix tenses, it makes you look foolish.
To be grammatically correct, the statement should read either:
You just contradicted yourself. Either they are mistakes or they are not, which is it?

OR
You just contradicted yourself. Either they were mistakes or they were not, which is it?

To be correct, the statement should read
Ooops, sorry! I misunderstood what you said (again) silly me. I'll try harder to engage my brain in future (no really I will)



3. Please try to learn how to use quotations. It's quite simple:
You put a quote between 2 quote tags:
First type an open square bracket, then the word quote, then a close square bracket.
Then you put the text that you want to appear as quoted. Then you type an open square bracket, then a forward slash, then the word quote, then a close square bracket.
It would look like the following but without the spaces around the word quote:

[ quote ] text goes here [/ quote ]
Happy quoting (hopefully)


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

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

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 4:36 PM on January 18, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

porkchop
I assumed it was assumed logically that since fish could leave water, moisture was no longer a life and death issue.

So while fish were living in water, mutations just happened by mistake which enabled this, no?
As we've told you (MANY times already), no.
Then I am confused, you said mutations were mistake
Yeah.
So?
You just contradicted yourself.
Possible, but not likely.
Either they are mistakes or they were not,
Not necessarily. It could depend on your definition. But it doesn't matter anyway, because that's not the issue.
which is it?
They are mistakes. Copy mistakes. Errors.

No contradiction.

What you said is false, but not because of that. It's because of what i've been telling you all along.

* "This" never happened.
* Nobody says it did.
* You assumed we did.
* Take it back.

Did you mean something else by "this"?

If so, then what?


(Edited by wisp 1/18/2010 at 5:23 PM).


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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:08 PM on January 18, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


* "This" never happened.
* Nobody says it did.
* You assumed we did.
* Take it back.


So you are saying that fish never underwent a mutation that allowed for them to shed their dependence on having to have their skin always moist?





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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 9:16 PM on January 18, 2010 | IP
firechild

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That is completely correct. Their descendents, amphibians, still had the obligation to keep their skin moist. Like we have said many times, this was not one of the evolutionary traits that allowed fish to move onto land.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 9:50 PM on January 18, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 9:16 PM on January 18, 2010 :

* "This" never happened.
* Nobody says it did.
* You assumed we did.
* Take it back.


So you are saying that fish never underwent a mutation that allowed for them to shed their dependence on having to have their skin always moist?


We still have to have our skins wet, we call them lungs.

Remember this?

Quote from Apoapsis at 12:52 PM on January 10, 2010 :
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.


You thought it was reasonable a week ago.



(Edited by Apoapsis 1/19/2010 at 12:30 AM).


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

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:28 AM on January 19, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

porkchop
* "This" never happened.
* Nobody says it did.
* You assumed we did.
* Take it back.
So you are saying that fish never underwent a mutation that allowed for them to shed their dependence on having to have their skin always moist?
This has been answered to you sooo many times...

This is ridiculous.

I've listed some of the answers (not all of them for they are too many).

Quote from firechild at 11:45 PM on January 3, 2010 :
porkchop
But what about what I mentioned earlier, A fish needs moisture to live and leaving the water causes loss of moisture, so did the fish mutate so that moisture was not an issue while in water?
Amphibians are not immune to the effects of exposure, hence their semi-aquatic lifestyle. Most amphibians still live in or near water because their skin dries out very quickly. Those that do not must protect themselves in other ways such as burrowing to avoid the effects of exposure/dehydration. This suggests a stepping stone between fully aquatic (fish) and non-aquatic (reptiles) animals.


Quote from firechild at 8:55 PM on January 5, 2010 :
Quote from porkchop at 8:21 PM on January 5, 2010 :
well for one thing, natural selection allowed for moisture to not be a life or death factor for a fish WHILE STILL UNDER WATER. Why would natural selection select for this? What advantage did this provide for a fish while still living underwater?

(keeping my posts short&simple and easy to answer)
Moisture is still a life or death issue for fish, as it is for mammals, some of which do not spend any time in water at all. You fail to see that your arguements are redundant and make it clear that you lack the basic knowledge of both evolution and biology to understand these more complex steps. These animals still had a requirement to remain wet, just as amphibious fish (such as walking catfish and mudskippers) and amphibians (even terrestrial toads are subject to desiccation and remain in moist burrows in the heat of the day).


Quote from Demon38 at 11:34 PM on January 5, 2010 :
So you are saying the fish first started going out of the water then the "tolerance for dryness gene" kicked in?

Yes.  After all, no fish dies instantly when it's out of water.  What's the problem?


Quote from firechild at 12:12 AM on January 6, 2010 :
Posted by porkchop at Tue January 5, 2010 - 8:41 PM
What happens when your're fishing and one that you've caught jumps out of the pail? How long do you give it before it dies?
It will suffocate before it dies from desiccation. This means that could it breathe air it would live for longer. Possibly long enough to take short forays to the shore to hunt. This would be a huge advantage. So basically, no change to the skin would need to take effect for this advantage to appear, simply a change in the ability to breathe air.


Here you accepted this, and moved on:
Quote from porkchop at 12:27 AM on January 6, 2010 :
I appreciate your marine biology expertise. Are you affiliated with Woods Hole?
I even love lobsters. ;-)

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


And now here you are, asking again the same dumb question that has been answered to you again and again, and again.

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.
See the bold part?

You had already understood. And now you disunderstand.

How can you learn if you keep doing this?


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.




Now, you assumed that we said that evolution caused for moisture not to be an issue while fish were under water. Yes?
Can you please back it up or take it back?
Pleeeeaaase? ^____^



porkchop
It does have a bearing because at one time, fish could NOT leave water without drying up and dying, hence the lucky mistake mutation that allowed for all mammals to develop. right?
Wrong.
It's not like this:

Dry up ----> die.

It was like this:
Die ----> dry up.

Just like today.

So, in that respect, moisture is NOT an issue of life and death even in regular fish. They asphyxiate before noticing the weather.

In other sense, moisture is a life and death issue even in regular mammals.

So you have no point whatsoever.

In any case, you assumed we made that weird and uninformed claim (that seems logical to you). We didn't. So please, take it back.
You had been told this (that fish die before drying) before.

By firechild, on 12:12 AM on January 6, 2010.

Are you unable to learn?

How much of our answers do you actually read?



-------
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: 09:24 AM on January 19, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ok, trying to avoid word semantics...
The fish underwent a mutation that allowed them to tolerate some degree of dryness. Would this be correct?



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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 7:32 PM on January 19, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 7:32 PM on January 19, 2010 :
ok, trying to avoid word semantics...
The fish underwent a mutation that allowed them to tolerate some degree of dryness. Would this be correct?


What I said was that it underwent a mutation that increased its ability to absorb oxygen from air.

We still need a layer of moisture to extract oxygen from air.  That is how our lungs work.  If your lungs dry out, you will die.




-------
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: 7:52 PM on January 19, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First of all, and before you can move on to another similar question (i hope it's not the same question, but i'm not sure):

*You assumed we claimed that the fish evolved dryness resistance while living underwater.
*We did not.
*TAKE IT BACK!

Be serious, man. I've asked you no less than a dozen times.
You know we didn't say that. You know you were wrong. TAKE IT BACK!

It was a straw man.

When a straw man is pointed out, you acknowledge it, apologize, and take it back. Unless you're a dishonest fraud.

If that's the case, then go away.

porkchop
ok, trying to avoid word semantics...
The fish underwent a mutation that allowed them to tolerate some degree of dryness. Would this be correct?
The fish?

What's a "fish"?

You'll need to work harder if you want to avoid semantic problems.

If you still mean "while underwater", well... I don't know how else to explain to you that it's incorrect.

If you mean something else, then you'll have to explain.

In any case, this issue doesn't seem to deserve attention.
You only mentioned it because you thought you could catch us in some nonsensical claim (why would the fish evolve resistance to dryness while still underwater?). You couldn't. Game over.

What are you trying to do now? Just pretending to be interested in skin moisture during that evolutionary period? Because i'm sure there are some much more interesting issues.

For instance, the "good mutations" Apoapsis and i showed you. You're still silent. Why is that?

Did you like them or not?

Cat cut your tongue?
Or did the cat just twist it in a way that made it unable to talk about anything else than skin moisture?

There are more things you dishonestly dodged.

You said "
too many mutations for a fish to become a human". We ask how many, and why is that a problem to you, and you play dumb.

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

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


You said
And earth was getting warmer too? bold assumptions my friend.
Apoapsis showed you this:
You dropped the subject altogether.

Do you acknowledge that you were talking without knowledge on the matter?

Also this:
porkchop
If I did not ask, then there would be no debate right?
Debate: A discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal.
Do you understand that there's no debate going on?


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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:38 PM on January 19, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You expect me to answer all your tangent quests when it's like 5 to 1, thrown in with the next batch of questions. I am not getting paid to do this, so forgive me if a new tangent arises and I do not address all the old ones. Apoapsis keeps it simple

ok, trying to avoid word semantics...
The fish underwent a mutation that allowed them to tolerate some degree of dryness. Would this be correct?

What I said was that it underwent a mutation that increased its ability to absorb oxygen from air.

We still need a layer of moisture to extract oxygen from air.  That is how our lungs work.  If your lungs dry out, you will die.


Ok so whatever, it underwent a mutation that increased its ability to absorb oxygen from air. Fine. Is this an assumption or a positive non disputed fact?





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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 8:31 PM on January 20, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 8:31 PM on January 20, 2010 :
You expect me to answer all your tangent quests when it's like 5 to 1, thrown in with the next batch of questions. I am not getting paid to do this, so forgive me if a new tangent arises and I do not address all the old ones. Apoapsis keeps it simple

ok, trying to avoid word semantics...
The fish underwent a mutation that allowed them to tolerate some degree of dryness. Would this be correct?

What I said was that it underwent a mutation that increased its ability to absorb oxygen from air.

We still need a layer of moisture to extract oxygen from air.  That is how our lungs work.  If your lungs dry out, you will die.


Ok so whatever, it underwent a mutation that increased its ability to absorb oxygen from air. Fine. Is this an assumption or a positive non disputed fact?


It is a positive undisputed fact that your ability to live depends on keeping a thin layer of salty water between you and the atmosphere so that oxygen can diffuse through it into your blood stream.



-------
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: 9:05 PM on January 20, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

porkchop
You expect me to answer all your tangent quests when it's like 5 to 1, thrown in with the next batch of questions.
I've been asking you the same questions over and over again, and you've been playing dumb. Stop lying.

Tangent questions... All of those are subjects you brought up yourself. You're the tangent questioner.

Tell me which question was a tangent i brought up.

You_won't_answer.

I am not getting paid to do this, so forgive me if a new tangent arises and I do not address all the old ones.
Nobody gets paid.

And you people are the only ones who keep saying stuff like this.

Show me a tangent. Go ahead.

Apoapsis keeps it simple
I'm thorough. And i try not to forget. I've learned from you people. You always dodge. ALWAYS.

This is one of my (VERY SIMPLE) questions: You asked for "good mutations". Apoapsis and i showed you. You shut up.
Are you satisfied with those examples?

It's a yes/no question. Can it get any simpler?

You're a fraud.

Ok so whatever, it underwent a mutation that increased its ability to absorb oxygen from air. Fine.
Probably more than one, but yes. At some moment it was one, so yes.
Is this an assumption or a positive non disputed fact?
A tangent?

It's a fact.

Now what? Where does this tangent lead us?

Can you stop playing dumb for a second and answer some of the questions?

#1
Were you satisfied by the "good mutations" we showed you?

#2
Do you recognize that your doubt regarding fish saying goodbye to egg laying was irrelevant (not only because many fish have done so, but because nobody said such a thing happened in our evolutionary line)?

#3
Do you recognize that you didn't know what you were talking about when you said "Bold assumptions, my friend", regarding climate changes?

#4
You said "
too many mutations for a fish to become a human". We ask how many, and why is that a problem to you.


Because we have answered all of those questions you brought up (all of them were tangents you dishonestly created).

If you don't care about the answers, STOP ASKING QUESTIONS!



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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:16 AM on January 21, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 8:31 PM on January 20, 2010 :
You expect me to answer all your tangent quests when it's like 5 to 1, thrown in with the next batch of questions. I am not getting paid to do this, so forgive me if a new tangent arises and I do not address all the old ones.


It is interesting to note that it appears to be YOU that brings up the majority of tangents.


ok, trying to avoid word semantics...
The fish underwent a mutation that allowed them to tolerate some degree of dryness. Would this be correct?


Perhaps getting back to basics might help - in what system do you think the 'moisture' thing is an issue?  
Integumentary?  Respiratory?



What I said was that it underwent a mutation that increased its ability to absorb oxygen from air.

We still need a layer of moisture to extract oxygen from air.  That is how our lungs work.


Actually, no.  The 'layer of mousture' helps to keep the tissue lining the alveoli pliable, but in fact, too much mou=isture is a problem.

If one understands development, one would know that the lungs - specifically, the lining of the lungs - is derived from the same tissue that lines the digestive tract.  In fact, the respiratopry system starts as a bud off of the embryonic digestive tract.  That tisse, the endoderm, is essentially a mucous membrane, as are all tissues that line cavoties that lead out of the body.  

Thus, no specific mutation would have been require in the 'new' respiratory system regarding 'moisture.'


Ok so whatever, it underwent a mutation that increased its ability to absorb oxygen from air. Fine. Is this an assumption or a positive non disputed fact?


Oxygen can be absorbed across any muscous membrane to one extent or another.  Many fish actually 'gulp' air and swallow it when the water they are in is clogged with debris - they extract the oxygen across the mucous membranes of their gut.

What I see is the basic assumption that each and every particular chenge 'required' some specific mutation.

Thuis is neither necessary nor based on actual genetics/development.
 This is folk-genetics, and is one of the reasons why so many layfolk are suspicious of science - they believe that what little they think they know is accurate, because it 'seems' right, when it is not.



(Edited by derwood 1/21/2010 at 10:40 AM).

(Edited by derwood 1/21/2010 at 10:43 AM).


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:39 AM on January 21, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

derwood
porkchop
You expect me to answer all your tangent quests when it's like 5 to 1, thrown in with the next batch of questions. I am not getting paid to do this, so forgive me if a new tangent arises and I do not address all the old ones.
It is interesting to note that it appears to be YOU that brings up the majority of tangents.
All of them, i think.

ok, trying to avoid word semantics...
The fish underwent a mutation that allowed them to tolerate some degree of dryness. Would this be correct?
Perhaps getting back to basics might help - in what system do you think the 'moisture' thing is an issue?  
Integumentary?  Respiratory?
The skin. He's focused on the skin.

By the way, answering is not his forte.


Actually Apoapsis
What I said was that it underwent a mutation that increased its ability to absorb oxygen from air.

We still need a layer of moisture to extract oxygen from air.  That is how our lungs work.
Actually, no.  The 'layer of mousture' helps to keep the tissue lining the alveoli pliable, but in fact, too much moisture is a problem.
That phrase you quoted belongs to Apoapsis.

It seems to me that you didn't really refute what he said. Not clearly at least.

Apoapsis said that we need a layer of moisture to extract oxygen from air. You said it "
helps to keep the tissue lining the alveoli pliable". Don't we need that to extract oxygen from air?

The part about too much moisture is pretty clear, but doesn't seem to refute what Apoapsis said.

Did i get you wrong?

Apoapsis said two things:
1) Some mutation made it better at breathing air.
2) Our lungs need moisture.

I think you got those two mixed up (because of porkchop's inability to quote), and that mixture sounded wrong to you.

If one understands development, one would know that the lungs - specifically, the lining of the lungs - is derived from the same tissue that lines the digestive tract.  In fact, the respiratopry system starts as a bud off of the embryonic digestive tract.
Woah!! That's amazing!!!

That tisse, the endoderm, is essentially a mucous membrane, as are all tissues that line cavoties that lead out of the body.  

Thus, no specific mutation would have been require in the 'new' respiratory system regarding 'moisture.'
Apoapsis didn't say that. The mutation he mentioned was about extracting more oxygen from air. Nothing to do with moisture, i think.

porkchop
Ok so whatever, it underwent a mutation that increased its ability to absorb oxygen from air. Fine. Is this an assumption or a positive non disputed fact?
Oxygen can be absorbed across any muscous membrane to one extent or another.  Many fish actually 'gulp' air and swallow it when the water they are in is clogged with debris - they extract the oxygen across the mucous membranes of their gut.
Very interesting!

But you still didn't refute that claim.

What I see is the basic assumption that each and every particular chenge 'required' some specific mutation.
I'd like to know more about it.

My partially educated guess is that it would take at least some mutations to produce our current ability to breathe air.

I love standing corrected though.

Thuis is neither necessary nor based on actual genetics/development.
 This is folk-genetics, and is one of the reasons why so many layfolk are suspicious of science - they believe that what little they think they know is accurate, because it 'seems' right, when it is not.



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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:09 AM on January 21, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 10:39 AM on January 21, 2010 :
Quote from porkchop at 8:31 PM on January 20, 2010 :
You expect me to answer all your tangent quests when it's like 5 to 1, thrown in with the next batch of questions. I am not getting paid to do this, so forgive me if a new tangent arises and I do not address all the old ones.


It is interesting to note that it appears to be YOU that brings up the majority of tangents.


ok, trying to avoid word semantics...
The fish underwent a mutation that allowed them to tolerate some degree of dryness. Would this be correct?


Perhaps getting back to basics might help - in what system do you think the 'moisture' thing is an issue?  
Integumentary?  Respiratory?



What I said was that it underwent a mutation that increased its ability to absorb oxygen from air.

We still need a layer of moisture to extract oxygen from air.  That is how our lungs work.


Actually, no.  The 'layer of mousture' helps to keep the tissue lining the alveoli pliable, but in fact, too much mou=isture is a problem.

If one understands development, one would know that the lungs - specifically, the lining of the lungs - is derived from the same tissue that lines the digestive tract.  In fact, the respiratopry system starts as a bud off of the embryonic digestive tract.  That tisse, the endoderm, is essentially a mucous membrane, as are all tissues that line cavoties that lead out of the body.  

Thus, no specific mutation would have been require in the 'new' respiratory system regarding 'moisture.'


Ok so whatever, it underwent a mutation that increased its ability to absorb oxygen from air. Fine. Is this an assumption or a positive non disputed fact?


Oxygen can be absorbed across any muscous membrane to one extent or another.  Many fish actually 'gulp' air and swallow it when the water they are in is clogged with debris - they extract the oxygen across the mucous membranes of their gut.

What I see is the basic assumption that each and every particular chenge 'required' some specific mutation.

Thuis is neither necessary nor based on actual genetics/development.
 This is folk-genetics, and is one of the reasons why so many layfolk are suspicious of science - they believe that what little they think they know is accurate, because it 'seems' right, when it is not.



(Edited by derwood 1/21/2010 at 10:40 AM).

(Edited by derwood 1/21/2010 at 10:43 AM).



Derwood - very good post, very informative.  Your last point about having an incomplete understanding of something that can lead to a false/incorrect notion sounds very familar to me - I've fallen into that trap myself!




 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:57 PM on January 21, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 12:57 PM on January 21, 2010 :

Derwood - very good post, very informative.  

Thanks!  Wow - just noticed all the typos in it, though.  That is what happens when you try to finish up a post on your way out the door!



Your last point about having an incomplete understanding of something that can lead to a false/incorrect notion sounds very familar to me - I've fallen into that trap myself!


Haven't we all.





-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:12 PM on January 21, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood, my last post was addressed to yours. ^_^


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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:21 PM on January 21, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 11:09 AM on January 21, 2010 :
derwood
porkchop
You expect me to answer all your tangent quests when it's like 5 to 1, thrown in with the next batch of questions. I am not getting paid to do this, so forgive me if a new tangent arises and I do not address all the old ones.
It is interesting to note that it appears to be YOU that brings up the majority of tangents.
All of them, i think.

ok, trying to avoid word semantics...
The fish underwent a mutation that allowed them to tolerate some degree of dryness. Would this be correct?
Perhaps getting back to basics might help - in what system do you think the 'moisture' thing is an issue?  
Integumentary?  Respiratory?
The skin. He's focused on the skin.

By the way, answering is not his forte.


Actually Apoapsis
What I said was that it underwent a mutation that increased its ability to absorb oxygen from air.

We still need a layer of moisture to extract oxygen from air.  That is how our lungs work.
Actually, no.  The 'layer of mousture' helps to keep the tissue lining the alveoli pliable, but in fact, too much moisture is a problem.
That phrase you quoted belongs to Apoapsis.

It seems to me that you didn't really refute what he said. Not clearly at least.

Apoapsis said that we need a layer of moisture to extract oxygen from air. You said it "
helps to keep the tissue lining the alveoli pliable". Don't we need that to extract oxygen from air?

The part about too much moisture is pretty clear, but doesn't seem to refute what Apoapsis said.

Did i get you wrong?

Apoapsis said two things:
1) Some mutation made it better at breathing air.
2) Our lungs need moisture.

I think you got those two mixed up (because of porkchop's inability to quote), and that mixture sounded wrong to you.

If one understands development, one would know that the lungs - specifically, the lining of the lungs - is derived from the same tissue that lines the digestive tract.  In fact, the respiratopry system starts as a bud off of the embryonic digestive tract.
Woah!! That's amazing!!!

That tisse, the endoderm, is essentially a mucous membrane, as are all tissues that line cavoties that lead out of the body.  

Thus, no specific mutation would have been require in the 'new' respiratory system regarding 'moisture.'
Apoapsis didn't say that. The mutation he mentioned was about extracting more oxygen from air. Nothing to do with moisture, i think.

porkchop
Ok so whatever, it underwent a mutation that increased its ability to absorb oxygen from air. Fine. Is this an assumption or a positive non disputed fact?
Oxygen can be absorbed across any muscous membrane to one extent or another.  Many fish actually 'gulp' air and swallow it when the water they are in is clogged with debris - they extract the oxygen across the mucous membranes of their gut.
Very interesting!

But you still didn't refute that claim.

What I see is the basic assumption that each and every particular chenge 'required' some specific mutation.
I'd like to know more about it.

My partially educated guess is that it would take at least some mutations to produce our current ability to breathe air.

I love standing corrected though.

Thuis is neither necessary nor based on actual genetics/development.
 This is folk-genetics, and is one of the reasons why so many layfolk are suspicious of science - they believe that what little they think they know is accurate, because it 'seems' right, when it is not.







-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 1:41 PM on January 24, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The skin. He's focused on the skin.


I was focusing on the skin, not talking about the lungs. All along I have wondered that not only did the mutations occur luckily to allow fish to breathe air outside water but in order to do that, nother mutations occurred to allow them to tolerate not having their skin dry up while gulping the air.



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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 10:30 AM on January 30, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Porkchop - it's not just mutations alone.  The real driving force is selection.  The transition to land (lobed-finned fish to tetrapod) happened in response to environmental changes.

Ask yourself this question:  What was happening during the Devonian that would cause selection to occur?  What opportunities were present at that time that favored tetrapod transition?
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:01 PM on January 30, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

From here:
Tiktaalik and the Evolution of Land-roaming Animals


The Tiktaalik fossils are a snapshot of a transition which took place over tens of millions of years. It wasn’t “bound to happen” that fish evolved into tetrapods, but it did occur—through a whole process of genetic mutation, natural selection, and other evolutionary processes.

The transition from water to land is almost certainly an example of “adaptive radiation.” This is a well-known process in evolution whereby creatures that evolve certain novel traits (such as primitive limbs to walk or ways to breathe air, arising from genetic transformations and mutations that are inheritable) are able to move into new habitats with new survival advantages (due to new food sources, less danger of predators, less competition with other species, etc).

Being able to live in previously unoccupied habitats, first in shallow waters and then on land, would likely have given a survival advantage to the creatures undergoing this change, and therefore a “reproductive advantage,” allowing the newly inherited features to be spread through the population. Under these conditions, arising species can relatively quickly (in some cases in a time span of only thousands of years) bud off other new species in the bush of life.

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:58 PM on January 30, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The transition to land (lobed-finned fish to tetrapod) happened in response to environmental changes.


That's if it happened at all of course. Take away your naturalistic bias on origins and maybe fish never walked out on the land at all. The fossils apparently demonstrating it sure are thin on the ground. If tiktaalik satisfies you, it's because you want to believe.

So much for Biblical myths and legends - you guys are better at inventing stories then the person who wrote about the frog that turned into a prince.  


-------
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: 1:37 PM on January 30, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 1:37 PM on January 30, 2010 :

That's if it happened at all of course. Take away your naturalistic bias on origins and maybe fish never walked out on the land at all. The fossils apparently demonstrating it sure are thin on the ground. If tiktaalik satisfies you, it's because you want to believe. 


They walk on land right now, are we to assume something impossible that takes place right now?


(Edited by Apoapsis 1/30/2010 at 2:13 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: 1:43 PM on January 30, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

They walk on land right now, are we to assume something impossible that takes place right now?


The problem is it's not going anywhere. This one looks washed up, not walking out - and since it is a fish, obviously different fish have different features, and the only way you have them ultimately leaving the water (in your imagination) is because you need to explain, with your naturalistic religion, how you got here.

See what I mean about myths?



-------
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: 12:34 AM on January 31, 2010 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The problem is it's not going anywhere. This one looks washed up, not walking out
How do you know? It's a photograph, no movement. How then can you tell that it isn't going anywhere? There is filmed evidence showing fish 'walking' on land here's one example are you going to cover your eyes and ears and go "LaLaLaLaLaLaLaLa" or are you going to accept that once again you are wrong?
and since it is a fish, obviously different fish have different features,
Yes they do, and one of thse features is that this fish can move across land.
and the only way you have them ultimately leaving the water (in your imagination)
Your willful blindness is starting to get ridiculous.
is because you need to explain, with your naturalistic religion, how you got here.
As said before, as soon as you bring your pathetic little "evolution is a religion" bullspit argument, it is automatically rejected. As soon as anything comes close to getting between you and your inane creation beliefs you automatically deny it, rather than truly looking at the evidence that is right there in fromt of you.
See what I mean about myths?
You are trying to say that it is a  myth that catfish can travel on land. It's not, there is proof. You are (as usual) wrong.


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

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

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 06:36 AM on January 31, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 12:34 AM on January 31, 2010 :
They walk on land right now, are we to assume something impossible that takes place right now?


The problem is it's not going anywhere. This one looks washed up, not walking out - and since it is a fish, obviously different fish have different features, and the only way you have them ultimately leaving the water (in your imagination) is because you need to explain, with your naturalistic religion, how you got here.

See what I mean about myths?




Sorry Lester, it is a FACT that these catfish originate in southeast Asia where their ability to extract oxygen from air allow them to survive hot stagnant water and move from one pool to another.

They are using this ability to invade southern Florida, moving on their own from pond to pond.

Yet you continue to deny that this can happen.  Who is clinging to myths?


-------
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: 08:03 AM on January 31, 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 ... 28 29 ... 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.