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
     Evidence for Creation?
       Is there any?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok one last post before i go.

Maybe they work best...that's the best you can do.  Pathetic.  Well, you can't respond to the specific examples, so I'll tell you.  Making an air breathing animal spend it's entire life completely in the sea is stupid.  An all powerfull being couldn't figure some way to make it breath water?  so much for being all powerful.  This is just another way to say "Goddidit, I don't understand it, so that's it", a worthless answer.

Things like this happen because of man's rebellion against God. Before this there were no problems like this.

We have a complete sequence as seen in the animals kingdom from simple to complex, it's a progression.  Just as we see a progression of different hearts and we know how they could have evolved.  So evolution is the best explaination for them.

The tubes pose a different problem. Any change to the tubes would make them a disadvantage long before they would work properly.

But we see all the stages of circulatory systems, from simple to complex.  and we know some of the genes that mutated to cause them to become more complex.  From this source we see how a single chambered heart can become a 2 chambered heart:
Heart evolution
"When the scientists blocked Ets1/2 activity (either by inhibiting the Ets1/2 gene, itself, or its upstream modulators), Ciona heart specification was likewise blocked. Alternatively, the over-expression of Ets1/2 in caudal cells caused the cells to switch their fate from tail to heart.

The expanded cardiac field in Ets1/2-activated mutants results in a proportion of animals having a functional, two-chambered heart. "The conversion of a simple heart tube into a complex heart was discovered by chance, but has general implications for the evolutionary origins of animal diversity and complexity", says Mike Levine, a co-author of the paper."

A mutation changes the circulatory system, just what you say can't happen.


Once again you are giving evidence for the heart when i am arguing for the network of veins found in mammals.

Mutations and natural selection can and do bridge the gap, as shown above.

What series of mutations would change a body cavity into the mammalian circulatory system?

Monotremes are not directly ancestral to placental mammals, they are not intermediary, so there's no line of succession.  Geez, do some research!  And when are you going to explain why the platypus has both reptile and mammal characteristics or is your only answer "Goddidit"?

Same evidence holds true, placental animals should have the poison spur because it is advantageous and should have been passed on.

Modern monkeys evolved from ancestral monkeys, what are you talking about?

What was the species of ancestral monkeys that branched into current monkeys and humans?

I don't know offhand, but they do it today, we directl;y observe them doing it!  From here:
Ameoba

"Dictyostelium discoideum is a species of soil-living amoeba belonging to the phylum Mycetozoa. D. discoideum, commonly referred to as slime mold, is a primitive eukaryote that transitions from a collection of unicellular amoebae into a multicellular slug and then into a fruiting body within its life
time."

There uyou go from single celled to multicelled without the "logical" need to go through 2 celled anscesotrs.  Your point is disproven.


You have shown the amoeba has this ability but no way for the ability to evolve.

Nonsense, if it's arms were unable to function, it wouldn't have survived to become a flying squirrel!  Show us why it's arms would have been non functional to add the webbing it uses to glide.  I see no scenario that would mandiate this.

The arms in the first mutation to form webbing would not have been as functional as the normal arms, and they would not be able to glide. Webbing would require a series of mutations to form.

Not yet but we're getting there.  We can see the genes that caused fins to form and we can see much more.  Like I said, we can see the genetic origins of characteristics, we can actually see the mutations that caused them to form.  What your answer to that?

Seeing fins form and seeing fins turn into arms and legs is very different, and there is no evidence for this sequence of mutations.

these are just some of the transitional species in the fish to amphibian line.  Of course they're seperate species, that's how evolution works.  but they show evolving characteristics and are found in a strict chronological order that supports only evolution.  If they were magically created there's no reason they would be found in this order in the geologic column.

There is a reason why they would be found in this order. They are sorted according to density. During the flood, liquefaction sorted the layers of the earth along with the animals that became fossilezed.

Once again, the platypus is not ancestral to placental mammals, it is a sister group.  Placental mammals and monotremes evolved from a common reptilian ancestor, this is clearly shown by the platypus having both reptilian and mammalian characteristics.  So placental mammals wouldn't inherit the characteristics of the monotremes.

And once again no other placental animal has the poisonous spur.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 4:05 PM on July 28, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Things like this happen because of man's rebellion against God. Before this there were no problems like this.

In numerous other posts you daid that God knows what he's doing, that everything looks designed.  According to this post, the imperfection in nature is god's design.  that he purposely used poor design because man rebelled against him...so you agree that nature looks like an idiot designed it because that's what god intended.  Explain to me again why man's rebellion was taken out on innocent plants, animals and bacteria?

The tubes pose a different problem. Any change to the tubes would make them a disadvantage long before they would work properly.

Explain in detail because I don't see how that is true.  A closed body cavity becoming elongated and branching out capilaries doesn't seem to be a problem, that simple system becoming more elaborate as the heart became more sophisticated doesn't seem to be a problem.  And Since you keep ignoring the data on heart evolution, I guess you admit that a heart can evolve.  If the heart can evolve, why can't the circulatory system?

What series of mutations would change a body cavity into the mammalian circulatory system?

here's a site that talks about how the body cavity evolved into a circulatory system.  From here:
Body Cavities

Same evidence holds true, placental animals should have the poison spur because it is advantageous and should have been passed on.

Ridiculous!  Why should they have them?  Poison spurs aren't essential for survival.  Once again, you don't understand evolution.
Poison isn't essential for life to thrive, evolution doesn't give life the best adaptations, it's only about differetnial reproduction.  If you don't understand that, you don't understand evolution.

What was the species of ancestral monkeys that branched into current monkeys and humans?

Why don't you look it up.

You have shown the amoeba has this ability but no way for the ability to evolve.

No, I've shown that your claim that there had to be 2 celled organisms for evolution to be true is false.  Since you're trying to change the subject of your original post, I guess we can take this as an admission that you were wrong.

The arms in the first mutation to form webbing would not have been as functional as the normal arms, and they would not be able to glide.

Why not?  They didn't need to be able to glide, just giving them a longer jump is an advantage.  So no, I reject your claim that the flying squirrel's arms would have to be less functional.  All that had to appear was folds of skin under their arms, so their arms would still have their regular function and the extra skin would give them an intiial advantage of making longer jumps.

Seeing fins form and seeing fins turn into arms and legs is very different, and there is no evidence for this sequence of mutations.

How is it different.  Fins forming where there was none, an adition of information.  From here:
Molecular origin for limbs
""The emergence of paired appendages was a critical event in the evolution of vertebrates," Cohn said. "The fossil record provides clear evidence that the first fins evolved along the midline. The sequence of evolutionary events leading to the origin of limbs has been known for some time, but only now are we deciphering how these events occurred at a molecular genetic level."

Researchers isolated genes from the spotted catshark, a type of slow-moving shark from the eastern Atlantic Ocean. By studying the activity of a dozen genes in shark embryos, they determined shark median fin development is associated with the presence of genes such as HoxD, Fgf8 and Tbx18, which are vital in the development of human limbs."

There's your evidence, the very genes that caused paired fins to sprout from vertabrae and these are the same genes used in human limb developement.

There is a reason why they would be found in this order. They are sorted according to density.

And we don't find these transitional species sorted by their density.  we find them sorted by their evolutionary place.  We don't see the bigger, heavier acanthostega lower in the column than the smaller, lighter Osteolepis.  And what an amazing coincidence, Acanthostega has more amphibious characteritstics than Osteolepis.  So I defy you to show us a sequence of fossils that actually look like they were hydrologically sorted.  You can say anything you want, but the facts prove you wrong.

And once again no other placental animal has the poisonous spur.

And evolution doesn't predict that they should.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:52 PM on July 28, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from jango at 4:05 PM on July 28, 2009 :
Ok one last post before i go.

Maybe they work best...that's the best you can do.  Pathetic.  Well, you can't respond to the specific examples, so I'll tell you.  Making an air breathing animal spend it's entire life completely in the sea is stupid.  An all powerfull being couldn't figure some way to make it breath water?  so much for being all powerful.  This is just another way to say "Goddidit, I don't understand it, so that's it", a worthless answer.

Things like this happen because of man's rebellion against God. Before this there were no problems like this.


So....

There were no whales before God got mad at some of his other creations?

How petty and thuggish...


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 7:42 PM on July 28, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from jango at 1:19 PM on July 28, 2009 :
Ah, mechanical engineer Walt Brown, I thought some of the arguments seemed familiar...

His biology related material is a hoot.


Even if this were true the evidence in the link was not biological, it was against subduction.

It is true, I would be glad to discuss it.

And I know what the link was, I followed it to see what thew source was, and it is mechanical engineer creationist Walt Brown.  I've seen his geology-related claims debunked by actual geologists on many occasions.  I kno wthat his biology claims are garbage, so I have little reason to believe that his geology-related claims are any better.

Tell me - what is YOUR geology background such that you know Brown's claims have merit?




-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 7:44 PM on July 28, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It is true, I would be glad to discuss it.

And I know what the link was, I followed it to see what thew source was, and it is mechanical engineer creationist Walt Brown.  I've seen his geology-related claims debunked by actual geologists on many occasions.  I kno wthat his biology claims are garbage, so I have little reason to believe that his geology-related claims are any better.

Tell me - what is YOUR geology background such that you know Brown's claims have merit?


Many of the claims he makes require only common sense to understand. Simply the fact that subduction can only occur on a straight line shows that subduction cannot occur. The boundarys where subduction is said to be occuring are curved arcs. The plate would be pulled apart if subduction is occuring.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 10:25 PM on July 30, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In numerous other posts you daid that God knows what he's doing, that everything looks designed.  According to this post, the imperfection in nature is god's design.  that he purposely used poor design because man rebelled against him...so you agree that nature looks like an idiot designed it because that's what god intended.  Explain to me again why man's rebellion was taken out on innocent plants, animals and bacteria?

This is more a theological discussion than a biological discussion, but i will give you a rough outline. When man rebelled against God, we in essence chose, Lucifer and his lies over God. He was given control of the world for the time being. This allowed him to wreak some havok on animals and such. This was not God's design that is bad, but Satan's mutilation of God's design.

Explain in detail because I don't see how that is true.  A closed body cavity becoming elongated and branching out capilaries doesn't seem to be a problem, that simple system becoming more elaborate as the heart became more sophisticated doesn't seem to be a problem.  And Since you keep ignoring the data on heart evolution, I guess you admit that a heart can evolve.  If the heart can evolve, why can't the circulatory system?

The first mutation that would have to take place for a branch in the tube would just make a tube that would have a dead end. This would not be beneficial, so it would be eliminated. What uses does a tube with a dead end have? This would be a negative element for the organism.

here's a site that talks about how the body cavity evolved into a circulatory system.  From here:
Body Cavities


I looked at the link but it jsut talked about different body cavities. I didnt see where it talked about how the body cavity evolves into a circulatory system. Could you point that out? Thanks.

Ridiculous!  Why should they have them?  Poison spurs aren't essential for survival.  Once again, you don't understand evolution.
Poison isn't essential for life to thrive, evolution doesn't give life the best adaptations, it's only about differetnial reproduction.  If you don't understand that, you don't understand evolution.


Since this adaptation was already in place, survival of the fittest would mean it should not be eliminated from the gene pool. The fittest organism would have this spur as protection. Why would it be eliminated if only the fittest survive?

Why don't you look it up.

Your supporting evolution so thats your job. There are also different views on which monkey it was so id like to know your view.

No, I've shown that your claim that there had to be 2 celled organisms for evolution to be true is false.  Since you're trying to change the subject of your original post, I guess we can take this as an admission that you were wrong.

You have not shown that claim to be false. You have shown no logical series of mutations that would cause the amoebas to work together. You have shown no mechanism that will evolve unicellular life into multicellular life.

Why not?  They didn't need to be able to glide, just giving them a longer jump is an advantage.  So no, I reject your claim that the flying squirrel's arms would have to be less functional.  All that had to appear was folds of skin under their arms, so their arms would still have their regular function and the extra skin would give them an intiial advantage of making longer jumps.

Let me pose the question a different way. Why would folds of skin be advantageous? In its earliest form, it would not give the squirrel any longer of a jump. If you had a flap of skin hanging off your arm could you jump farther? No. This flap of skin would get caught on things and not be beneficial in any way, so it would be eliminated.

Seeing fins form and seeing fins turn into arms and legs is very different, and there is no evidence for this sequence of mutations.

How is it different.  Fins forming where there was none, an adition of information.  From here:
Molecular origin for limbs
""The emergence of paired appendages was a critical event in the evolution of vertebrates," Cohn said. "The fossil record provides clear evidence that the first fins evolved along the midline. The sequence of evolutionary events leading to the origin of limbs has been known for some time, but only now are we deciphering how these events occurred at a molecular genetic level."

Researchers isolated genes from the spotted catshark, a type of slow-moving shark from the eastern Atlantic Ocean. By studying the activity of a dozen genes in shark embryos, they determined shark median fin development is associated with the presence of genes such as HoxD, Fgf8 and Tbx18, which are vital in the development of human limbs."

There's your evidence, the very genes that caused paired fins to sprout from vertabrae and these are the same genes used in human limb developement.


Once again, this is evidence for efficient design. You have not shown me a sequence of changes from fin to limb that would result from a single mutation, while also maintaining a functional appendage that was more beneficial than its previous form.

And we don't find these transitional species sorted by their density.  we find them sorted by their evolutionary place.  We don't see the bigger, heavier acanthostega lower in the column than the smaller, lighter Osteolepis.  And what an amazing coincidence, Acanthostega has more amphibious characteritstics than Osteolepis.  So I defy you to show us a sequence of fossils that actually look like they were hydrologically sorted.  You can say anything you want, but the facts prove you wrong.

I would like proof of the density of osteolepis and acanthostega, and also proof of their place in the strata of the earth. How do you explain the even layers in the earth? Why are they so perfectly aligned? shouldnt erosion have caused some parts to be thinner, while others are thicker? Why is this not seen?

And evolution doesn't predict that they should.

Survival of the fittest. It does predict this.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 10:54 PM on July 30, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh and by the way have you given up on the human egg cell? Do you admit it could not evolve? Or what about the deuterium concentrations in comets?
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 10:55 PM on July 30, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

jango
Derwood
Tell me - what is YOUR geology background such that you know Brown's claims have merit?


Many of the claims he makes require only common sense to understand. Simply the fact that subduction can only occur on a straight line shows that subduction cannot occur. The boundarys where subduction is said to be occuring are curved arcs. The plate would be pulled apart if subduction is occuring.


Let me ask you something Jango.  If you didn't know better, would you believe the earth was stationary, and that the sun revolved around the earth?  I know I would.

Nature will often stand 'common sense' of humans on its head.  Look at the theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics in Physics.  Strange stuff - but experimental observations have showed these to be strong theories that explain accurately phenonmena in our world and in the universe.  

The writers of the Bible used common sense too.  There are numerous references in the Bible alluding to a stationary and geocentric earth.  That seems to be sort of an embarassment to a lot of Creationists.  After all, their basic premise is that everything in the Good Book is true, and really did happen.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 01:35 AM on July 31, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let me ask you something Jango.  If you didn't know better, would you believe the earth was stationary, and that the sun revolved around the earth?  I know I would.

Nature will often stand 'common sense' of humans on its head.  Look at the theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics in Physics.  Strange stuff - but experimental observations have showed these to be strong theories that explain accurately phenonmena in our world and in the universe.  

The writers of the Bible used common sense too.  There are numerous references in the Bible alluding to a stationary and geocentric earth.  That seems to be sort of an embarassment to a lot of Creationists.  After all, their basic premise is that everything in the Good Book is true, and really did happen.


References for these verses? And this is not quantum physics we're discussing but the movements of plates, which abide by basic physical laws, and there is no reason use of common sense and observation would not apply.



 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 02:07 AM on July 31, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from jango at 9:25 PM on July 30, 2009 :Simply the fact that subduction can only occur on a straight line shows that subduction cannot occur.


Of course you can reference the scientific studies that show this is the case, right?  While you're at it, perhaps you can also explain why the denser and colder leading edge of plates can't sink below the hotter and lighter edge of the other contiguous plate.




-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 07:52 AM on July 31, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from jango at 9:55 PM on July 30, 2009 :
Oh and by the way have you given up on the human egg cell? Do you admit it could not evolve?


He's actually answered this a couple of times if I remember correctly.  Since eggs and sperm co-evolved over the the years your issue is a non-problem.

That you evidently refuse to accept that long periods of time are involved is your problem, not one for science or eggs or sperm.

Luckily for you.



-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 07:58 AM on July 31, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This is more a theological discussion than a biological discussion, but i will give you a rough outline. When man rebelled against God, we in essence chose, Lucifer and his lies over God. He was given control of the world for the time being. This allowed him to wreak some havok on animals and such. This was not God's design that is bad, but Satan's mutilation of God's design.

Well, now you're contracicting yourself.  In numerous other posts you claimed that nature was intelligently designed.  Now your saying it was corrupted by the devil.  It can't be both.  How do you tell where the design was good and how do you tell where the devil corrupted it?  Before the devil corrupted nature, did whales breath water?  And where is the evidence for the superior design before the devil corrupted things?  

The first mutation that would have to take place for a branch in the tube would just make a tube that would have a dead end.

Aren't all closed circulatory systems just dead ends?  As to the importance of a tube within a tube body plan, guess you didn't really read the site I posted, from the same site:
Body Cavities
"The evolution of the coelom was a crucial step in the history of the Animalia. The presence of a secondary body cavity, and the acquisition of the tube-within-a-tube body plan, was critical for the evolution of increasing size and complexity within the animal kingdom.

One major disadvantage of having only a single body cavity is that muscle contractions, such as those necessary for locomotion, cause the gastrovascular cavity to become squeezed and distorted. This not only restricts the flow of nutrients and other materials but also makes the evolution of an effective circulatory system impossible. As a result, acoelomate taxa must rely either on diffusion or on muscle contractions for the transport of nutrients, respiratory gases, and waste products around the body. Both these transport strategies are considerably less efficient than those permitted by the evolution of a coelom.

Consequently, the body sizes, shapes, and complexities that can be supported are severely constrained. Many acoelomate groups are small in size and characterized by a flattened, elongated morphology, or shape, one that is suited to diffusion as a transport mechanism, and that makes a complex circulatory system unnecessary. Not surprisingly, the result is that acoelomate phyla all have comparatively simple body plans. Even the pseudo-coelomates are generally fairly small in size and lack circulatory systems. They have only simple locomotory behaviors, which in addition to motion, help to circulate nutrients in the pseudocoelom.

With the evolution of the coelom, the digestive and circulatory functions are separated, which allows for the possibility of separate specialization and improvement in efficiency. The evolution of the coelom permits the internal organs to grow, change shape, and shift in position. The coelom provides not only space but also protection for complex organ systems, because the fluid-filled environment helps to shield the internal organs from injury. The gastrovascular cavity becomes specialized for digestion alone, and the different portions of the digestive system can expand and contract during the processes of feeding and digestion. This increase in efficiency in both digestion and circulation allows for the support of larger body sizes and increased metabolic rates, both of which are prominent features in the evolution of the Animalia."

You really need to learn some biology.

This would not be beneficial, so it would be eliminated. What uses does a tube with a dead end have? This would be a negative element for the organism.

As shown above a tube within the body would be extremely beneficial.

Since this adaptation was already in place, survival of the fittest would mean it should not be eliminated from the gene pool.

You don't seem to understand evolution, "survival of the fittest" was just a sound bite that didn't really sum up what evolution is.  Beneficial adaptations depend on the environment the adaptation appears in.  there is no universal beneficial adaptation.  

The fittest organism would have this spur as protection. Why would it be eliminated if only the fittest survive?

The fittest organism in a particular environmanet, not every organism in every environment.  They give the platypus an advantage, that doesn't translate into giving other organisms an advantage.  In many cases poison spurs would be a disticnt disadvantage to many mammals.

Your supporting evolution so thats your job. There are also different views on which monkey it was so id like to know your view.

But doing your research isn't my job.  If you want to present a claim, at least have the intelectual integrity to get the specifics right.  Don't hand me this "some monkey did something and that disproves evolution" bullcrap.  

You have not shown that claim to be false. You have shown no logical series of mutations that would cause the amoebas to work together. You have shown no mechanism that will evolve unicellular life into multicellular
life.


but that wasn't your original argument, was it....  Let's see what you actually said

"Why is there no two celled life?"

"
There are many one celled organisms, and organisms with 6-20 cells are parasites which require a complex animal as a host, and cannot live without one. Where are the organisms with 2-5 cells?"

"These are surely necessary in the process of a one celled organism evolving into a multicellular organism."

by showing ameobas going from one cell to multicelled, I've disproven this argument, if evolution is true, you wouldn't expect to see 2,3,4,5 celled ingtermediates.  We all ready see single celled organisms going turning into multicelled organisms without those steps.  I don't have to show anything else to disprove your claim (which I have).

Let me pose the question a different way. Why would folds of skin be advantageous?

Because they would give the squirrel more lift when it was jumping from tree to tree.

In its earliest form, it would not give the squirrel any longer of a jump.

Yes it would.

If you had a flap of skin hanging off your arm could you jump farther? No.

but I'm not a tiny tree dwelling mammal that must evade predators by jumping from tree to tree.  You just don't seem to understand that organisms in different environments will have different survival characteristics.  what works for one species won't necessarily work for another.  

This flap of skin would get caught on things and not be beneficial in any way, so it would be eliminated.

I don't think so, does the fully developed flying squirrel's wings get caught in things?  No.  And even reduced size folds of skin would provide the squirrel with some lift, catch a little more air for a longer jump.  

Once again, this is evidence for efficient design.

Well it can't be an example of efficient design because you said the devil corrupted the design of nature!  

You have not shown me a sequence of changes from fin to limb that would result from a single mutation, while also maintaining a functional appendage that was more beneficial than its previous form.

what I've shown you are the genes that lead to fin developement where there were no fins before and the mechanism for them to arise.
We see where the fins come from, genes like HoxD, Fgf8 and Tbx18, and the mechanism of mutation to produce them.  Using molecular markers we can also see around when they arose.  Now why would an all powerful being need to use the same genes for fins and legs and if he did why would he make it look like they evolved?

I would like proof of the density of osteolepis and acanthostega, and also proof of their place in the strata of the earth.

From here:
osterolepis

"Osteolepis (mid-Devonian) -- One of the earliest crossopterygian lobe-finned fishes, still sharing some characters with the lungfish (the other lobe-finned fishes). Had paired fins with a leg-like arrangement of major limb bones, capable of flexing at the "elbow", and had an early-amphibian-like skull and teeth."

And here:
Osteolepis2

"Osteolepis was about 20 centimetres (7.9 in) long"

And from here:
Acanthostega

"Acanthostega is an extinct tetrapod genus, among the first vertebrate animals to have recognizable limbs. It appeared in the Upper Devonian (Famennian) about 365 million years ago, and was anatomically intermediate between lobe-finned fishes and the first tetrapods fully capable of coming onto land."

And here:
Acanthostega2

"Acanthostega was about 60 cm (2 ft) in length."

Acanthostega is younger and bigger than Osteolepis.  Hydro sorting of fossils disproven.
And you might want to look up Tiktaalik, another fish to amphibian transitional.  Based on evolutionary predictions, scientists found it right where they thougth it would be.  

How do you explain the even layers in the earth?

What even layers?

Why are they so perfectly aligned?

they're not.

shouldnt erosion have caused some parts to be thinner, while others are thicker? Why is this not seen?

It is seen.

Survival of the fittest. It does predict
this.


It's obvious you don't understand evolution (or biology), so no, evolution doesn't predict that every mammal would have poison spurs because the platypus has them.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 1:11 PM on July 31, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh and by the way have you given up on the human egg cell?

Not at all, you haven't been able to prove anything about the human egg cell that evolution can't explain.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 1:13 PM on July 31, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Or what about the deuterium concentrations in comets?

Deuterium in comets is still best explained by gravity clumping the primal matter of the early solar system, don't know why you claim this is false.  And I already disprovd your claim that comets came from the earth because I showed that beneath the earth's crust it's too hot for water due to radioactivity.  You have ignored this fact.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 1:15 PM on July 31, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, now you're contracicting yourself.  In numerous other posts you claimed that nature was intelligently designed.  Now your saying it was corrupted by the devil.  It can't be both.  How do you tell where the design was good and how do you tell where the devil corrupted it?  Before the devil corrupted nature, did whales breath water?  And where is the evidence for the superior design before the devil corrupted things?

Why cant nature be intelligently designed, and at a later point be corrupted by evil? This is not contradictory at all.

Aren't all closed circulatory systems just dead ends?  As to the importance of a tube within a tube body plan, guess you didn't really read the site I posted, from the same site:
Body Cavities
"The evolution of the coelom was a crucial step in the history of the Animalia. The presence of a secondary body cavity, and the acquisition of the tube-within-a-tube body plan, was critical for the evolution of increasing size and complexity within the animal kingdom.

One major disadvantage of having only a single body cavity is that muscle contractions, such as those necessary for locomotion, cause the gastrovascular cavity to become squeezed and distorted. This not only restricts the flow of nutrients and other materials but also makes the evolution of an effective circulatory system impossible. As a result, acoelomate taxa must rely either on diffusion or on muscle contractions for the transport of nutrients, respiratory gases, and waste products around the body. Both these transport strategies are considerably less efficient than those permitted by the evolution of a coelom.

Consequently, the body sizes, shapes, and complexities that can be supported are severely constrained. Many acoelomate groups are small in size and characterized by a flattened, elongated morphology, or shape, one that is suited to diffusion as a transport mechanism, and that makes a complex circulatory system unnecessary. Not surprisingly, the result is that acoelomate phyla all have comparatively simple body plans. Even the pseudo-coelomates are generally fairly small in size and lack circulatory systems. They have only simple locomotory behaviors, which in addition to motion, help to circulate nutrients in the pseudocoelom.

With the evolution of the coelom, the digestive and circulatory functions are separated, which allows for the possibility of separate specialization and improvement in efficiency. The evolution of the coelom permits the internal organs to grow, change shape, and shift in position. The coelom provides not only space but also protection for complex organ systems, because the fluid-filled environment helps to shield the internal organs from injury. The gastrovascular cavity becomes specialized for digestion alone, and the different portions of the digestive system can expand and contract during the processes of feeding and digestion. This increase in efficiency in both digestion and circulation allows for the support of larger body sizes and increased metabolic rates, both of which are prominent features in the evolution of the Animalia."


No all closed circulatory sytems are not dead ends they are complete circuits. This site does not say HOW it evolved just that it evolved at some point, which is not evidence.

You don't seem to understand evolution, "survival of the fittest" was just a sound bite that didn't really sum up what evolution is.  Beneficial adaptations depend on the environment the adaptation appears in.  there is no universal beneficial adaptation.

The fittest organism in a particular environmanet, not every organism in every environment.  They give the platypus an advantage, that doesn't translate into giving other organisms an advantage.  In many cases poison spurs would be a disticnt disadvantage to many mammals.


Why would poison spurs be a disadvantage to the platypuses descendants but not the platypus?

but that wasn't your original argument, was it....  Let's see what you actually said

"Why is there no two celled life?"

"
There are many one celled organisms, and organisms with 6-20 cells are parasites which require a complex animal as a host, and cannot live without one. Where are the organisms with 2-5 cells?"

"These are surely necessary in the process of a one celled organism evolving into a multicellular organism."

by showing ameobas going from one cell to multicelled, I've disproven this argument, if evolution is true, you wouldn't expect to see 2,3,4,5 celled ingtermediates.  We all ready see single celled organisms going turning into multicelled organisms without those steps.  I don't have to show anything else to disprove your claim (which I have).


I accept that if you can prove how amoebas can evolve to work together and form multicellular life, then there is no need for two celled organisms, even though this seems to be the logical progression. You have not shown how they evolve to gain this ability, but just that they have the ability now. The claim has evolved beyond my original claim.

Because they would give the squirrel more lift when it was jumping from tree to tree.

Single mutations can only produce small changes, and the flap of skin the first mutation would produce would not give the squirrel more lift.

but I'm not a tiny tree dwelling mammal that must evade predators by jumping from tree to tree.  You just don't seem to understand that organisms in different environments will have different survival characteristics.  what works for one species won't necessarily work for another.

That was just an illustration to show that th first mutation would not produce a beneficial characteristic.

I don't think so, does the fully developed flying squirrel's wings get caught in things?  No.  And even reduced size folds of skin would provide the squirrel with some lift, catch a little more air for a longer jump.

The differnce of a small flap of skin would give the squirrel more weight and negligible lift, so it would actually make the squirrel jump not as far.

Well it can't be an example of efficient design because you said the devil corrupted the design of nature!

I dont understand your logic here.

what I've shown you are the genes that lead to fin developement where there were no fins before and the mechanism for them to arise.
We see where the fins come from, genes like HoxD, Fgf8 and Tbx18, and the mechanism of mutation to produce them.  Using molecular markers we can also see around when they arose.  Now why would an all powerful being need to use the same genes for fins and legs and if he did why would he make it look like they evolved?


Why should he not use the same set of genes? And still no evidence for how small mutations will produce a limbe from a fin that remains beneficial at every mutation along the way.

From here:
osterolepis

"Osteolepis (mid-Devonian) -- One of the earliest crossopterygian lobe-finned fishes, still sharing some characters with the lungfish (the other lobe-finned fishes). Had paired fins with a leg-like arrangement of major limb bones, capable of flexing at the "elbow", and had an early-amphibian-like skull and teeth."

And here:
Osteolepis2

"Osteolepis was about 20 centimetres (7.9 in) long"

And from here:
Acanthostega

"Acanthostega is an extinct tetrapod genus, among the first vertebrate animals to have recognizable limbs. It appeared in the Upper Devonian (Famennian) about 365 million years ago, and was anatomically intermediate between lobe-finned fishes and the first tetrapods fully capable of coming onto land."

And here:
Acanthostega2

"Acanthostega was about 60 cm (2 ft) in length."

Acanthostega is younger and bigger than Osteolepis.  Hydro sorting of fossils disproven.
And you might want to look up Tiktaalik, another fish to amphibian transitional.  Based on evolutionary predictions, scientists found it right where they thougth it would be.


You seem to be confusing size with density. Density is the amount of mass for a given volume, size is just the volume.

What even layers?

How do you put pictures in? Ill show you a picture.

It's obvious you don't understand evolution (or biology), so no, evolution doesn't predict that every mammal would have poison spurs because the platypus has them.

Evolution predicts the platypuses descendants will have poisonous spurs because they are a beneficial trait that will increase the organisms chance of survival.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 2:01 PM on July 31, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Not at all, you haven't been able to prove anything about the human egg cell that evolution can't explain.

Yes i have! The coating on the egg could not have evolved no matter how long the time period, because it prevents fertilization.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 2:03 PM on July 31, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Deuterium in comets is still best explained by gravity clumping the primal matter of the early solar system, don't know why you claim this is false.  And I already disprovd your claim that comets came from the earth because I showed that beneath the earth's crust it's too hot for water due to radioactivity.  You have ignored this fact.

The problem is that the matter in the solar system does not have this concentration of deuterium.  The great pressure under the crust would keep the water as a superheated liquid, and the expulsion of this superheated liquid, and its subsequent conversion to steam helped to propel rocks into space.



 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 2:08 PM on July 31, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

He's actually answered this a couple of times if I remember correctly.  Since eggs and sperm co-evolved over the the years your issue is a non-problem.

That you evidently refuse to accept that long periods of time are involved is your problem, not one for science or eggs or sperm.

Luckily for you.


Long periods of time cannot make the impossible possible. The coating cannot have evolved because it prevents fertilization without the acrosome, no matter how long it has to evolve.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 2:09 PM on July 31, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from jango at 1:09 PM on July 31, 2009 :
He's actually answered this a couple of times if I remember correctly.  Since eggs and sperm co-evolved over the the years your issue is a non-problem.

That you evidently refuse to accept that long periods of time are involved is your problem, not one for science or eggs or sperm.

Luckily for you.


Long periods of time cannot make the impossible possible. The coating cannot have evolved because it prevents fertilization without the acrosome, no matter how long it has to evolve.


You are looking at the way a eggs and sperm interact today.  What you are not taking into account is that the two would co-evolve together. Initially, the coating on the egg would not be the same as it is today.  Both the coating and the mechanisms that sperm use to enter the egg would develop over time.  As has already been pointed out, if for some reason there was a genetic change that led to an impenetrable egg (by a sperm), then that mutation would not be passed on to later generations.  As I've stated, your example is a non-problem.



-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 2:18 PM on July 31, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You are looking at the way a eggs and sperm interact today.  What you are not taking into account is that the two would co-evolve together. Initially, the coating on the egg would not be the same as it is today.  Both the coating and the mechanisms that sperm use to enter the egg would develop over time.  As has already been pointed out, if for some reason there was a genetic change that led to an impenetrable egg (by a sperm), then that mutation would not be passed on to later generations.  As I've stated, your example is a non-problem.

Do we see any evidence for these previous configurations? What kind of coating would it have that the sperm could penetrate without the acrosome, and what purpose would this coating serve?
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 2:35 PM on July 31, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes i have! The coating on the egg could not have evolved no matter how long the time period, because it prevents fertilization.

So what, you're ignoring the fact that if it prevents all fertilization, that mutation would have died out.  It obviously doesn't prevent fertilization.  From sperm of the same species.  co evolution explains it nicely.  Your say-so doesn't count for anything.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:36 PM on July 31, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The problem is that the matter in the solar system does not have this concentration of deuterium.

But this 4.6 billion years after the comets formed.  So the matter in the solar system NOW doesn't count.  As I said, in the primal solar system, when all the matter that didn't coalesce into planets was drifting around, gravity is sufficient to explain why coments have a high concentration of deuterium.

The great pressure under the crust would keep the water as a superheated liquid

No it wouldn't.  No room under the crust for water, no chambers, no pillars, no water under the earth thousands of years ago.  
Comets also contain organic materials, superheated water would destroy organic material.  Once again, no matter how many times you change it, water from the earth did not form comets.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:41 PM on July 31, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So what, you're ignoring the fact that if it prevents all fertilization, that mutation would have died out.  It obviously doesn't prevent fertilization.  From sperm of the same species.  co evolution explains it nicely.  Your say-so doesn't count for anything.

Your arguments cannot assume evolution. You saying the mutation would have died out is saying evolution must be true, so this must not be a problem. I am showing you that it is a problem and this is why evolution is not true. The coating of the egg is relatively thick and there is no way the sperm could fertilize it without the acrosome.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 2:43 PM on July 31, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Heres a little something i found:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrosome_reaction#Mammals

"A sperm penetration assay includes an acrosome reaction test that assesses how well a sperm is able to perform during the fertilization process. Sperm that are unable to properly go through the acrosome reaction will not be able to fertilize an egg."
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 2:46 PM on July 31, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from jango at 2:08 PM on July 31, 2009 :
The great pressure under the crust would keep the water as a superheated liquid, and the expulsion of this superheated liquid, and its subsequent conversion to steam helped to propel rocks into space.


How did the water get there in the first place? It goes against everything we know about planetary formation for water to be underneath the crust like that. In general the densest material is in the center and it gets less as you go out towards the edge. Water underneath the crust like that is a violation of this basic principle of planetary formation. Or is this a massive miracle not mentioned in the bible that you, or the lovely people from the institute of creation, just made up?

Secondly the force required to push rocks and water into space and far enough away with enough force to no longer orbit the Earth cannot be explained by simple pressure underneath the crust. If such an explosion happened it would have been massive, and I think there would be some record of this in the bible. Or perhaps Noah was on the other side of the world and didn't hear or see it?  Never mind an explosion like that would affect the global climate.


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


Posts: 551 | Posted: 2:56 PM on July 31, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from jango at 1:35 PM on July 31, 2009 :
You are looking at the way a eggs and sperm interact today.  What you are not taking into account is that the two would co-evolve together. Initially, the coating on the egg would not be the same as it is today.  Both the coating and the mechanisms that sperm use to enter the egg would develop over time.  As has already been pointed out, if for some reason there was a genetic change that led to an impenetrable egg (by a sperm), then that mutation would not be passed on to later generations.  As I've stated, your example is a non-problem.

Do we see any evidence for these previous configurations? What kind of coating would it have that the sperm could penetrate without the acrosome, and what purpose would this coating serve?


Here's an article on the coevolution of sperm and eggs: http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1000570

Essentially, they looked how changes in the alleles of sperm and eggs correlate. The evidence shows that there is an interaction between the genetic structure of the two as would be expected from an evolutionary perspective.

To summarize from the article:

"When a sperm meets an egg, it must display the correct recognition proteins to achieve fertilization. Given the importance of fertilization one would think these proteins are perfected and do not change over time; however, recent studies show that they do change and quite rapidly. Thus, the sperm and egg must change together in harmony, through a process called coevolution, so the species can successfully reproduce."



-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 3:00 PM on July 31, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Your arguments cannot assume evolution. You saying the mutation would have died out is saying evolution must be true, so this must not be a problem. I am showing you that it is a problem and this is why evolution is not true. The coating of the egg is relatively thick and there is no way the sperm could fertilize it without the acrosome.

right, I know what you're saying and it's wrong.  where did you show us that the zspern cell could not have already had the acrosome BEFORE the present egg coating evolved?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:00 PM on July 31, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Nice article Mustrum, thanks for the support.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:05 PM on July 31, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How did the water get there in the first place? It goes against everything we know about planetary formation for water to be underneath the crust like that. In general the densest material is in the center and it gets less as you go out towards the edge. Water underneath the crust like that is a violation of this basic principle of planetary formation. Or is this a massive miracle not mentioned in the bible that you, or the lovely people from the institute of creation, just made up?

The earth was created with this layer of water. This requires that the universe was created. And this is mentioned in the Bible.

Genesis 1:7

"God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below and the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse; and it was so."

Secondly the force required to push rocks and water into space and far enough away with enough force to no longer orbit the Earth cannot be explained by simple pressure underneath the crust. If such an explosion happened it would have been massive, and I think there would be some record of this in the bible. Or perhaps Noah was on the other side of the world and didn't hear or see it?  Never mind an explosion like that would affect the global climate.

It would affect the global climate but not in a way that would eliminate life. The conversion of the superheated water to steam also provided propulsion for the rocks. And there is record of this in the Bible.

Genesis 7:11b

"the fountains of the great deep burst open"
This is the beginning of the flood
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 4:24 PM on July 31, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 3:05 PM on July 31, 2009 :
Nice article Mustrum, thanks for the support.  



You're welcomed.  I was surprised that I was able to find something that appropriate to the current discussion in just 5 minutes of "googling."


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 5:32 PM on July 31, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from jango at 3:24 PM on July 31, 2009 :And there is record of this in the Bible.



Alas, there isn't any geological evidence for such ideas.




-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 5:34 PM on July 31, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Here's an article on the coevolution of sperm and eggs: http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1000570

Essentially, they looked how changes in the alleles of sperm and eggs correlate. The evidence shows that there is an interaction between the genetic structure of the two as would be expected from an evolutionary perspective.

To summarize from the article:

"When a sperm meets an egg, it must display the correct recognition proteins to achieve fertilization. Given the importance of fertilization one would think these proteins are perfected and do not change over time; however, recent studies show that they do change and quite rapidly. Thus, the sperm and egg must change together in harmony, through a process called coevolution, so the species can successfully reproduce."


This explains recognition proteins, but not the coating of the egg and the chemicals from the sperm that break it down. My argument was not against the formation of recognition proteins.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 6:05 PM on July 31, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from jango at 4:24 PM on July 31, 2009 :
The earth was created with this layer of water. This requires that the universe was created. And this is mentioned in the Bible.

Genesis 1:7

"God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below and the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse; and it was so."


I don't know about you, but it seems like Genesis 1:7 is talking about the sky and the sea.

It would affect the global climate but not in a way that would eliminate life. The conversion of the superheated water to steam also provided propulsion for the rocks.


Do you honestly think that steam just underneath the crust would have enough potential energy to propel rocks and water out of the crust itself, through the entire depth of the ocean, through the entire atmosphere far enough that not only would the pieces not fall back on Earth, but escape Earth's orbit as well and have an orbit around the sun?

Genesis 7:11b
"the fountains of the great deep burst open"
This is the beginning of the flood


That sounds a lot like what people would have said if the black sea was cut off by a natural dam of rock, and that dam broke and water rushed in. Most people think that is what Noah's flood, and or Gilgamesh as well, is about. There is geological evidence that such an event took place their, and the dating fits to when the flood story first started circulating.

(Edited by Fencer27 7/31/2009 at 6:08 PM).


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


Posts: 551 | Posted: 6:06 PM on July 31, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

right, I know what you're saying and it's wrong.  where did you show us that the zspern cell could not have already had the acrosome BEFORE the present egg coating evolved?

The chemicals that break down the coating in the acrosome have no other use. Why would they be present? If they were there before the coating, they would be useless, and you have said repeatedly that evolution does not predict useless characteristics like this one.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 6:08 PM on July 31, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't know about you, but it seems like Genesis 1:7 is talking about the sky and the sea.

Why would the sky be called the waters above?

Do you honestly think that steam just underneath the crust would have enough potential energy to propel rocks and water out of the crust itself, through the entire depth of the ocean, through the entire atmosphere far enough that not only would the pieces not fall back on Earth, but escape Earth's orbit as well and have an orbit around the sun?

The current oceans were not there at the time of the flood, but formed after, because of the erosion from the water and sliding of the hydroplates. First, the great pressure on the water from the crust, which was enough to compress the steam into liquid water, would squirt the water out at extremely high velocitys, propelling rocks along at similar speeds. Then some of the superheated water would explode into steam when the pressure was released, giving even more propulsion to the rocks, enough for them to attain escape velocity.

That sounds a lot like what people would have said if the black sea was cut off by a natural dam of rock, and that dam broke and water rushed in. Most people think that is what Noah's flood, and or Gilgamesh as well, is about. There is geological evidence that such an event took place their, and the dating fits to when the flood story first started circulating.

Why would it be called "fountains of the great deep"? great deep seems to imply an underground source.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 6:15 PM on July 31, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Alas, there isn't any geological evidence for such ideas.

You asked for where it said this in the Bible, not geological evidence.


 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 6:16 PM on July 31, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from jango at 6:08 PM on July 31, 2009 :
The chemicals that break down the coating in the acrosome have no other use. Why would they be present? If they were there before the coating, they would be useless, and you have said repeatedly that evolution does not predict useless characteristics like this one.


The mutation to provide acrosome to the sperm cell would have been a neutral mutation before the egg was coated as well, and neutral mutations still spread through out the population. Plus I think you think that the coating of the egg, according to evolutionary thinking, was not there than poof, one mutation later it was all there. While I haven't studied the evolutionary development of the human reproductive system, in all likely hood the thickness of the egg coating probably started off much less robust and slowly became more so.


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


Posts: 551 | Posted: 6:16 PM on July 31, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The mutation to provide acrosome to the sperm cell would have been a neutral mutation before the egg was coated as well, and neutral mutations still spread through out the population. Plus I think you think that the coating of the egg, according to evolutionary thinking, was not there than poof, one mutation later it was all there. While I haven't studied the evolutionary development of the human reproductive system, in all likely hood the thickness of the egg coating probably started off much less robust and slowly became more so.

Why do we see no examples of cells carrying uncessary chemicals like many of the chemicals in the acrosome would be before the coating of the egg evolved? If there are please show me.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 6:26 PM on July 31, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from jango at 5:26 PM on July 31, 2009 :
The mutation to provide acrosome to the sperm cell would have been a neutral mutation before the egg was coated as well, and neutral mutations still spread through out the population. Plus I think you think that the coating of the egg, according to evolutionary thinking, was not there than poof, one mutation later it was all there. While I haven't studied the evolutionary development of the human reproductive system, in all likely hood the thickness of the egg coating probably started off much less robust and slowly became more so.

Why do we see no examples of cells carrying uncessary chemicals like many of the chemicals in the acrosome would be before the coating of the egg evolved? If there are please show me.


The acrosome releases various enzymes.  These chemicals play a variety of important biological roles.


(Edited by Mustrum 7/31/2009 at 6:51 PM).


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 6:50 PM on July 31, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The acrosome releases various enzymes.  These chemicals play a variety of important biological roles.

I believe the enzyme acrosin has no other function but to break down the coating of the egg.

Also another enzyme that breaks down the coating of the egg, hyaluronidase, seems to have no other functions in humans. It actually is in venom to break down tissue. There seems to be no reason why this enzyme would be in the acrosome besides for the break down of the egg coating, and it would have negative effects if the egg coating were not its target.




(Edited by jango 7/31/2009 at 7:18 PM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 7:04 PM on July 31, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why would the sky be called the waters above?

Because the bible uses the summerian myth of the earth as a flat disc with the sky a beaten bowl covering it.  surrounding this disc and bowl is water.  When it rains, according to the bible, doors in the sky open and allow this water to pour in.  The bible presents nothing more than a primitive myth.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:04 PM on July 31, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Because the bible uses the summerian myth of the earth as a flat disc with the sky a beaten bowl covering it.  surrounding this disc and bowl is water.  When it rains, according to the bible, doors in the sky open and allow this water to pour in.  The bible presents nothing more than a primitive myth.

This is not true at all i dont know where you got your information.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 9:11 PM on July 31, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from jango at 9:11 PM on July 31, 2009 :
Because the bible uses the summerian myth of the earth as a flat disc with the sky a beaten bowl covering it.  surrounding this disc and bowl is water.  When it rains, according to the bible, doors in the sky open and allow this water to pour in.  The bible presents nothing more than a primitive myth.

This is not true at all i dont know where you got your information.



It most certainly is true.  It is well known among scholars that the writers of the Bible borrowed heavily from the earlier Babylonian and Sumerian cultures.  For an example, one of the earliest know literary writings is the Sumerian myth - the Epic of Gilgamesh.  It includes a tale of a Flood, and Gilgamesh's quest for immortality.  

Tales of floods were quite common among ancient civilizations, as these early cultures were centered around the great rivers of the world - the Euphrates/Tigis, the Nile, the Yanteze, the Ganges, etc.  Rivers have a tendancy to flood from time to time.  Tales of especially noteworthy river floods get passed down from generation to generation.  It is not uncommon for these stores to be exaggerated in the telling.  Some may even reach epic proportions over time.  The Bible is full of these sort of exaggerated tales.

One has only to look at the exaggerated tales that we have today regarding UFO's, Sasquach, the Loch Ness monster, etc, to see that people still have a desire to believe in extraordinary tales.  To believe in myths.


(Edited by orion 7/31/2009 at 9:57 PM).
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 9:54 PM on July 31, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This is not true at all i dont know where you got your information.

No, it is true, from here:
Vault of Heaven

"The Order of Creation

The Genesis creation story provides the first key to the Hebrew cosmology. The order of creation makes no sense from a conventional perspective but is perfectly logical from a flat-earth viewpoint. The earth was created on the first day, and it was “without form and void (Genesis 1:2).” On the second day, a vault the “firmament” of the King James version was created to divide the waters, some being above and some below the vault. Only on the fourth day were the sun, moon, and stars created, and they were placed “in” (not “above”) the vault.

The Vault of Heaven

The vault of heaven is a crucial concept. The word “firmament” appears in the King James version of the Old Testament 17 times, and in each case it is translated from the Hebrew word raqiya, which meant the visible vault of the sky. The word raqiya comes from riqqua, meaning “beaten out.” In ancient times, brass objects were either cast in the form required or beaten into shape on an anvil. A good craftsman could beat a lump of cast brass into a thin bowl. Thus, Elihu asks Job, “Can you beat out [raqa] the vault of the skies, as he does, hard as a mirror of cast metal (Job 37:18)?”

Elihu's question shows that the Hebrews considered the vault of heaven a solid, physical object. Such a large dome would be a tremendous feat of engineering. The Hebrews (and supposedly Yahweh Himself) considered it exactly that, and this point is hammered home by five scriptures:


Job 9:8, “...who by himself spread out the heavens [shamayim]...”

Psalm 19:1, “The heavens [shamayim] tell out the glory of God, the vault of heaven [raqiya] reveals his handiwork.”

Psalm 102:25, “...the heavens [shamayim] were thy handiwork.”

Isaiah 45:12, “I, with my own hands, stretched out the heavens [shamayim] and caused all their host to shine...”

Isaiah 48:13, “...with my right hand I formed the expanse of the sky [shamayim]...”
If these verses are about a mere illusion of a vault, they are surely much ado about nothing. Shamayim comes from shameh, a root meaning to be lofty. It literally means the sky. Other passages complete the picture of the sky as a lofty, physical dome. God “sits throned on the vaulted roof of earth [chuwg], whose inhabitants are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the skies [shamayim] like a curtain, he spreads them out like a tent to live in...[Isaiah 40:22].” Chuwg literally means “circle” or “encompassed.” By extension, it can mean roundness, as in a rounded dome or vault. Job 22:14 says God “walks to and fro on the vault of heaven [chuwg].” In both verses, the use of chuwg implies a physical object, on which one can sit and walk. Likewise, the context in both cases requires elevation. In Isaiah, the elevation causes the people below to look small as grasshoppers. In Job, God's eyes must penetrate the clouds to view the doings of humans below. Elevation is also implied by Job 22:12: “Surely God is at the zenith of the heavens [shamayim] and looks down on all the stars, high as they are.”

This picture of the cosmos is reinforced by Ezekiel's vision. The Hebrew word raqiya appears five times in Ezekiel, four times in Ezekiel 1:22-26 and once in Ezekiel 10:1. In each case the context requires a literal vault or dome. The vault appears above the “living creatures” and glitters “like a sheet of ice.” Above the vault is a throne of sapphire (or lapis lazuli). Seated on the throne is “a form in human likeness,” which is radiant and “like the appearance of the glory of the Lord.” In short, Ezekiel saw a vision of God sitting throned on the vault of heaven, as described in Isaiah 40:22."

Like most of the myths of the Old testament, when science proves them completely outlandish, creationists are forced to change their tune and claim that these myths actually mean something else, just as jango is doing here.  But the cosmology of the universe as explained in the bible is nothing more than primitve myth.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:14 PM on July 31, 2009 | IP
Bluemage

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 9:54 PM on July 31, 2009 :
One has only to look at the exaggerated tales that we have today regarding UFO's, Sasquach, the Loch Ness monster, etc, to see that people still have a desire to believe in extraordinary tales.  To believe in myths.


Well you know people have  fun with thezz desires to belive in tales and that dose not mean you ruin it for other by saying its fals and plus its not like wvery body belevs in the UFO or the Loch Ness moster just somthing to have fun with... GOSHSSS!





-------
your best bud
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 10:38 PM on July 31, 2009 | IP
Bluemage

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I like the color Green its the color of science you know what i mean?? yes no maby so i think so cause when you think of science you think of a Vial filed with a green toxic thingy>_<


-------
your best bud
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 10:49 PM on July 31, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Bluemage at 10:38 PM on July 31, 2009 :
Well you know people have  fun with thezz desires to belive in tales and that dose not mean you ruin it for other by saying its fals and plus its not like wvery body belevs in the UFO or the Loch Ness moster just somthing to have fun with... GOSHSSS!


So you believe in UFO's, the Loch Ness monster and theory of Atlantis? America needs to get more edumacated. Although I can't help but be entertained by some of the media spin offs of things like this.


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


Posts: 551 | Posted: 11:08 PM on July 31, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from jango at 6:04 PM on July 31, 2009 :

I believe the enzyme acrosin has no other function but to break down the coating of the egg.

Also another enzyme that breaks down the coating of the egg, hyaluronidase, seems to have no other functions in humans. It actually is in venom to break down tissue. There seems to be no reason why this enzyme would be in the acrosome besides for the break down of the egg coating, and it would have negative effects if the egg coating were not its target.

(Edited by jango 7/31/2009 at 7:18 PM).



Both of these guys are proteins and related to other enzymes that function in the body.  I've linked an article for you that shows how egg and sperm have coevolved. Once again, this is a non-issue as far as being any sort of problem for the general notion of evolution.


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 12:25 AM on August 1, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Bluemage at 9:49 PM on July 31, 2009 :
I like the color Green its the color of science you know what i mean??



No I don't, and I suspect no one else does either.  


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 12:28 AM on August 1, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, it is true, from here:
Vault of Heaven

"The Order of Creation

The Genesis creation story provides the first key to the Hebrew cosmology. The order of creation makes no sense from a conventional perspective but is perfectly logical from a flat-earth viewpoint. The earth was created on the first day, and it was “without form and void (Genesis 1:2).” On the second day, a vault the “firmament” of the King James version was created to divide the waters, some being above and some below the vault. Only on the fourth day were the sun, moon, and stars created, and they were placed “in” (not “above”) the vault.

The Vault of Heaven

The vault of heaven is a crucial concept. The word “firmament” appears in the King James version of the Old Testament 17 times, and in each case it is translated from the Hebrew word raqiya, which meant the visible vault of the sky. The word raqiya comes from riqqua, meaning “beaten out.” In ancient times, brass objects were either cast in the form required or beaten into shape on an anvil. A good craftsman could beat a lump of cast brass into a thin bowl. Thus, Elihu asks Job, “Can you beat out [raqa] the vault of the skies, as he does, hard as a mirror of cast metal (Job 37:18)?”

Elihu's question shows that the Hebrews considered the vault of heaven a solid, physical object. Such a large dome would be a tremendous feat of engineering. The Hebrews (and supposedly Yahweh Himself) considered it exactly that, and this point is hammered home by five scriptures:


Job 9:8, “...who by himself spread out the heavens [shamayim]...”

Psalm 19:1, “The heavens [shamayim] tell out the glory of God, the vault of heaven [raqiya] reveals his handiwork.”

Psalm 102:25, “...the heavens [shamayim] were thy handiwork.”

Isaiah 45:12, “I, with my own hands, stretched out the heavens [shamayim] and caused all their host to shine...”

Isaiah 48:13, “...with my right hand I formed the expanse of the sky [shamayim]...”
If these verses are about a mere illusion of a vault, they are surely much ado about nothing. Shamayim comes from shameh, a root meaning to be lofty. It literally means the sky. Other passages complete the picture of the sky as a lofty, physical dome. God “sits throned on the vaulted roof of earth [chuwg], whose inhabitants are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the skies [shamayim] like a curtain, he spreads them out like a tent to live in...[Isaiah 40:22].” Chuwg literally means “circle” or “encompassed.” By extension, it can mean roundness, as in a rounded dome or vault. Job 22:14 says God “walks to and fro on the vault of heaven [chuwg].” In both verses, the use of chuwg implies a physical object, on which one can sit and walk. Likewise, the context in both cases requires elevation. In Isaiah, the elevation causes the people below to look small as grasshoppers. In Job, God's eyes must penetrate the clouds to view the doings of humans below. Elevation is also implied by Job 22:12: “Surely God is at the zenith of the heavens [shamayim] and looks down on all the stars, high as they are.”

This picture of the cosmos is reinforced by Ezekiel's vision. The Hebrew word raqiya appears five times in Ezekiel, four times in Ezekiel 1:22-26 and once in Ezekiel 10:1. In each case the context requires a literal vault or dome. The vault appears above the “living creatures” and glitters “like a sheet of ice.” Above the vault is a throne of sapphire (or lapis lazuli). Seated on the throne is “a form in human likeness,” which is radiant and “like the appearance of the glory of the Lord.” In short, Ezekiel saw a vision of God sitting throned on the vault of heaven, as described in Isaiah 40:22."

Like most of the myths of the Old testament, when science proves them completely outlandish, creationists are forced to change their tune and claim that these myths actually mean something else, just as jango is doing here.  But the cosmology of the universe as explained in the bible is nothing more than primitve myth.


This is a little thing i like to call figurative language. Your source severely mistranslates the Bible in an effort to prove it is wrong. The passages you have cited are not commonly translated like this. This just shows a misunderstanding of the Bible. Many of these words have multiple meanings and do not imply a flat earth. And in no place have i changed my tune to say they mean something else. This has been my stance from the beginning.

(Edited by jango 8/1/2009 at 12:40 AM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 12:31 AM on August 1, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ]
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.