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
    

    
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have not seen the fossil record,


I have.  

but I have read on it. There is dispute as to how "sorted" it is.


Hmm... by whom?   Haldane's famous challenge to creationists to find a rabbit in Cambrian strata remains unanswered.

Even the geologic strata are very very complex, sometimes "upside down" in places.


Yep.   Like this:


Geologists are quite familiar with these, and how they fold.   You weren't told about that, um?

Supposed older fossils are found above supposed younger fossils.


And now you know why.

I take it by nucleic acids making proteins, you mean they are involved in making protein through transcription and translation.


I meant you were wrong when you said proteins make proteins.   They don't.

 
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 2:29 PM on August 8, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have not seen the fossil record, but I have read on it. There is dispute as to how "sorted" it is.

There is no dispute  by the experts.  From here:
Accuracy of Fossils

"Since 1859, paleontologists, or fossil experts, have searched the world for fossils. In the past 150 years they have not found any fossils that Darwin would not have expected. New discoveries have filled in the gaps, and shown us in unimaginable detail the shape of the great ‘tree of life’. Darwin and his contemporaries could never have imagined the improvements in resolution of stratigraphy that have come since 1859, nor guessed what fossils were to be found in the southern continents, nor predicted the huge increase in the number of amateur and professional paleontologists worldwide. All these labors have not led to a single unexpected finding such as a human fossil from the time of the dinosaurs, or a Jurassic dinosaur in the same rocks as Silurian trilobites."

the fossil record fully supports evolution and provides evidence against creationism.

Even the geologic strata are very very complex, sometimes "upside down" in places.  Supposed older fossils are found above supposed younger fossils.

Geologists know why this happns, still no out of place fossils found.  Can you show us any evidence of a problem with the fossil record?  Can you show us any fossils that were found where they weren't supposed to be?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:11 PM on August 8, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think there is alot of misunderstanding going on here.  First, where did Mr. Yehren see that I said proteins make proteins.  I said enzymes make proteins.  

Okay --the making of a protein without looking at a book.  So you guys will stop stereotyping me as ignorant--just because I believe in Biblical creation.

mRNA is  transcribed from DNA enzymatically.  mRNA is exported to ribosome to meet with individual tRNA, which have each  amino acid and correspond with the code in the mRNA (a three nucleic acid code for each amino acid).  This is translation.  

It is located at the ribosome which has rRNA, which is an enzyme--which acts as catalyst for the dehydration synthesis that takes place to bind the amino acids, making a polypeptide chain.

Enzymes are protein.  But it takes enzymes to make protein.  SO in context of abiogenesis and early life, even if you want to theorize that RNA was the precursor to DNA you still need enzymes to continue life.

The point I made was it would be a mega-grand coincidence that RNA was formed and the corresponding enzymes with it at one point in time and place so that it would survive.  

If you say that ribozymes (RNA enzyme) acted alone.  There is no example of this even in cyanobacteria (blue green algae) which are the "oldest" fossils  found.  They still exist today with DNA.

I will have to answer the geology at another time.  Time limited.

(Edited by AFJ 8/8/2009 at 4:15 PM).

(Edited by AFJ 8/8/2009 at 4:28 PM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 4:07 PM on August 8, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Enzymes are protein.  But it takes enzymes to make protein.  SO in context of abiogenesis and early life, even if you want to theorize that RNA was the precursor to DNA you still need enzymes to continue life.

No you don't because RNA acts as both genes and enzymes.  From here:
RNA World

"RNA has the ability to act as both genes and enzymes. This property could offer a way around the "chicken-and-egg" problem. (Genes require enzymes; enzymes require genes.) Furthermore, RNA can be transcribed into DNA, in reverse of the normal process of transcription. These facts are reasons to consider that the RNA world could be the original pathway to cells."

This shows your claim is wrong.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:28 PM on August 8, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I will read RNA world, but most likely the reverse transcription is done in the lab.  If it is done naturally in certain species it proves nothing about abiogenesis.  

rRNA in the ribosome are enzymes.  They say RNA is general.  Are they talking about mRNA and tRNA?

Bacteria have DNA.  Cyanobacteria are found precambrian--they are supposedly older than anything else found.  They have DNA, and so do plasmids.

Still somewhere demon you have to have the development of DNA and corresponding enzymes and they have to work together.  If it doesn't happen quickly together selection would snuff it out.  

Why can't you guys ever see this?

(Edited by AFJ 8/8/2009 at 4:54 PM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 4:36 PM on August 8, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I will read RNA world, but most likely the reverse transcription is done in the lab.  if it is done naturally in certain species it proves nothing about abiogenesis.

Typical creationist, your mind is made up even before you know what you're talking about.
It proves that DNA could have arisen from RNA and that RNA acts as an enzyme and a gene, disproving your claim:
"The point I made was it would be a mega-grand coincidence that RNA was formed and the corresponding enzymes with it at one point in time and place so that it would survive."  

Bacteria have DNA.  Cyanobacteria are found precambrian--they are supposedly older than anything else found.  They have DNA, and so do plasmids.

And the experts aren't saying they were the first life, but that they arose from simpler precursors based on RNA, where's teh problem?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:56 PM on August 8, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think there is alot of misunderstanding going on here.  First, where did Mr. Yehren see that I said proteins make proteins.  I said enzymes make proteins.


Enzymes are biomolecules that catalyze (i.e., increase the rates of) chemical reactions. Nearly all known enzymes are proteins. However, certain RNA molecules can be effective biocatalysts too.
Wikipedia

But enyzmes don't make proteins.   T-RNA makes proteins.

Okay --the making of a protein without looking at a book.  So you guys will stop stereotyping me as ignorant--just because I believe in Biblical creation.


If you're a YE creationist, you deny Biblical creation.   Genesis directly contradicts the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism.

The point I made was it would be a mega-grand coincidence that RNA was formed and the corresponding enzymes with it at one point in time and place so that it would survive.  

If you say that ribozymes (RNA enzyme) acted alone.  There is no example of this even in cyanobacteria (blue green algae) which are the "oldest" fossils  found.  They still exist today with DNA.


Interesting argument.   It means that there were never any trilobites, since they don't exist today.

You're trying to stuff God into a smaller and smaller gap.   And it's so unnecessary.   Just accept His creation as it is.

I will have to answer the geology at another time.  Time limited.


At your pleasure.


 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 5:48 PM on August 8, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yehren--" But enyzmes don't make proteins.   T-RNA makes proteins."

     Partially correct.  tRNA is responsible for bringing the proper amino acids to the ribosome which has interlocked with the mRNA, but they don't do it solely. Watch this  biovideo.

     You are incorrect about enzymes and protein.  Their role is to be catalysts in the bio-molecular bonding involved in protein formation.  First, in  transcription of  mRNA from the DNA.  Second, at the ribosome, rRNA enzymes catalyze dehydration synthesis that takes place to form the peptide bond between amino acids in the polypeptide chain of protein.

Yehren--"If you're a YE creationist, you deny Biblical creation.   Genesis directly contradicts the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism."

     (??)Could you site to back to this claim? Many creationists are Christians who believe in the authority of scripture.  The prohets and apostles were pressed by the Spirit to speak and write.  

     Jeremiah the prophet wrote:

     But His word was in my heart like a burning fire
     Shut up in my bones;

     I was weary of holding it back,
     And I could not."  Jer. 20:9

AFJ--"If you say that ribozymes (RNA enzyme) acted alone.  There is no example of this even in cyanobacteria (blue green algae) which are the "oldest" fossils  found.  They still exist today with DNA."

Yehren in response--"Interesting argument.   It means that there were never any trilobites, since they don't exist today."

     Not sure how you got that--please elaborate.  

     Advocates of the RNA world hypothesis say RNA acted as an enzyme independent of DNA at some point.  There are many cyanobacteria fossils aged at 3 plus billion years (radiometric) and they must have gone through this alleged situation.  But my point is that they are alive today with DNA.  If they didn't have DNA at one point they wouldn't be blue-green algae.   You understand what I'm trying to say?

 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 11:07 PM on August 8, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Advocates of the RNA world hypothesis say RNA acted as an enzyme independent of DNA at some point.  There are many cyanobacteria fossils aged at 3 plus billion years (radiometric) and they must have gone through this alleged situation.  But my point is that they are alive today with DNA.  If they didn't have DNA at one point they wouldn't be blue-green algae.   You understand what I'm trying to say?

Why must cyanobacteria have gone through this situation?  Something older than cyanobacteria used RNA.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:20 PM on August 8, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Barbarian observes:
But enyzmes don't make proteins.   T-RNA makes proteins."

Partially correct.


It's precisely correct.  

Learn about it here:
RNA Translation: RNA makes Protein
http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/2250_RNA_translation.html

Barbarian observes:
If you're a YE creationist, you deny Biblical creation.   Genesis directly contradicts the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism.

(??)Could you site to back to this claim?


Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

Life was not created ex nihilo, but was brought forth by the earth.   This is the first and greatest error of YE creationism.

Many creationists are Christians who believe in the authority of scripture.


There are varieties of creationism which do not contradict scripture.   But YE creationism is not one of those.

Barbarian chuckles:
Interesting argument.   It means that there were never any trilobites, since they don't exist today."

Not sure how you got that--please elaborate.


If there are no organisms of a particular type alive today, that is not evidence that they never existed.


 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 12:55 AM on August 9, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Blue green algae are pretty early on the geologic scale, and there is nothing in the fossil record before them.  RNA world is hypothesis.  You want to borrow current rRNA  as evidence, and use in vitro genetic tampering as proof of something man wishes to be true.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 12:58 AM on August 9, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Blue green algae are pretty early on the geologic scale, and there is nothing in the fossil record before them.  RNA world is hypothesis.  You want to borrow current rRNA  as evidence, and use in vitro genetic tampering as proof of something man wishes to be true.

Nothing in the fossil record?  Are you sure?  And when did you accept the fossil record?
I don't want to borrow anything, I'm talking about current biochemical models.  The evidence is out there, how do you respond to it and what is your expertise to analyze these hypothesies?  From here:
RNA

"The central role for many proteins in a cell is to catalyze chemical reactions that are essential for the cell's survival.  These proteins are known as enzymes.  Until relatively recently, it was thought that proteins were the only biological molecules capable of catalysis.  In the early 1980s, however, research groups led by Sidney Altman and Thomas Cech independently found that RNAs can also act as catalysts for chemical reactions. This class of catalytic RNAs are known as ribozymes, and the finding earned Altman and Cech the 1989 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.
The discovery of ribozymes supported a hypothesis, known as the RNA World Hypothesis, that earlier forms of life may have relied solely on RNA to store genetic information and to catalyze chemical reactions.  This hypothesis was proposed independently by Carl Woese, Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel in the 1960s -- decades before the discovery of ribozymes -- and soon after the double-helical structure of DNA was determined. According to the RNA World Hypothesis, life later evolved to use DNA and proteins due to RNA's relative instability and poorer catalytic properties, and gradually, ribozymes became increasingly phased out.
Perhaps the strongest evidence for the RNA World Hypothesis is the fact that the ribosome, a large molecular complex that assembles proteins, is a ribozyme.  Although the ribosome is made up of both RNA and protein components, structural and biochemical analyses revealed that the mechanisms central for translation (the process of assembling a peptide chain based on a RNA sequence) is catalyzed by RNA, not protein. This suggests that the use of RNA by early lifeforms to carry out chemical reactions preceded the use of proteins."

And from here:
RNA2

"An elegant experiment has quashed a major objection to the theory that life on Earth originated with molecules of RNA.
John Sutherland and his colleagues from the University of Manchester, UK, created a ribonucleotide, a building block of RNA, from simple chemicals under conditions that might have existed on the early Earth.
The feat, never performed before, bolsters the 'RNA world' hypothesis, which suggests that life began when RNA, a polymer related to DNA that can duplicate itself and catalyse reactions, emerged from a prebiotic soup of chemicals.
"This is extremely strong evidence for the RNA world. We don't know if these chemical steps reflect what actually happened, but before this work there were large doubts that it could happen at all," says Donna Blackmond, a chemist at Imperial College London."

The evidence mounts for the RNA world theory, your arguments against it are pretty poor.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:15 AM on August 9, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon 38

"An elegant experiment has quashed a major objection to the theory that life on Earth originated with molecules of RNA.


There is no gradual change in the fossil record to support the premise of naturalism so elegant experiment or not, we have no reason to believe that life ever happened via naturalistic means, via RNA or any other way.
We need a source for the code of DNA.

But I like your optimism.



-------
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: 09:49 AM on August 9, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon wrote--"Nothing in the fossil record?  Are you sure?  And when did you accept the fossil record?
I don't want to borrow anything, I'm talking about current biochemical models.  The evidence is out there, how do you respond to it and what is your expertise to analyze these hypothesies?  From here:
RNA"

     Key in Geologic Timescale and find the Berkley site.  A very extensive timescale all the way back to Hadean with lots of links.

     I do not claim to be an expert.  Give me a break Demon.  If I experience power in my faith, then there is something to the Word that was written. Therefore it is confirmed to me personally to not be of natural origin or explanation--please don't give me capillary expansion hypothesis.

     This is my foundation.  

     Because many evolutionists give hypothetical scenarios of the past and use the real evidence of existing homology, they feel justified in their belief.  However at best these hypotheses are only inductive possibilities and not deduction.

     Because organisms and the material within them exist and are similar and there is variation and adaptation within all that suddenly makes evolution true?  This is a choice one makes?

     All this can be interpreted as a common design principle, if you have already experienced the Spirit of God on your heart, and seen His hand at work personally.  If you have not then evolution is good explanation.

     All the while one ignores the complexity of simultaneous evolution of many systems and/or phenotypes, and/or many absolutely necessary symbiotic relationships in ecosystems all eeking through against all odds. WHERE ARE ALL THE MUTATED FAILURES AND REJECTS WHO DIDN'T EEK BY?  THE EARTH SHOULD BE FULL OF THEM AFTER 3.5 BILLION YEARS OF LIFE?

     Sorry I got off the subject a bit, but you see I'm swimming against the current here.  You have a very well funded movement of scientists behind you--the voice of the media--a powerful science and education lobby.  

     Scientifically, I have thousands of high school science teachers who do write papers, over 100 PhDs who have put their carreers at risk and comeout of the closet, thousands of medical doctors, and other science people who are not missionaries for the National Science Foundation--who is funded by our tax dollars.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 09:50 AM on August 9, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry I got off the subject a bit, but you see I'm swimming against the current here.  You have a very well funded movement of scientists behind you--the voice of the media--a powerful science and education lobby.  


When schools have enough books for every student, and they have to hold a bake sale to buy a new bomber, you'll have an argument.  

Regrettably, science and education are not priorities in much of the United States.  And our lead over the rest of the world will suffer if we don't get back on track.




 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 10:57 AM on August 9, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And our lead over the rest of the world will suffer if we don't get back on track.


Your lead over the rest of the world is due to the Christian principles on which it was founded. Your failure to follow through with that base and your movement toward humanism with evolution as the new religion will sink you if anything will. Evolution is not science, it is religion in direct opposition to Christianity. It is a cosmogenic myth.




-------
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: 12:58 PM on August 9, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Your lead over the rest of the world is due to the Christian principles on which it was founded.


Eucilid, math and  codified geometry

Eratosthenes, measured the circumference of the Earth

Archimedes, engineer who worked out Archimedes principle and who organized the science of mechanics

Democritus, founder of atomic theory and one of the first to use the scientific method.

Hypatia of Alexandrai  mathematical work basic to algebra

Ahmad ibn Majid  The first scientific study of navigation

Al-Battani  founder of modern trigonometry, also the astronomer who first accurately measured the length of a solar year

Ibn al-Haytham founder of the science of optics

Al-Samawal  polynomial math and inductive reasoning, critical to modern science

Issac Newton

Which of these men worshiped Jesus as God?

Your failure to follow through with that base and your movement toward humanism with evolution as the new religion will sink you if anything will.


Sounds like you have a very active imagination.   But "humanism" was a Christian movement, which formed the intellectual and spiritual basis for the Protestant and Catholic Reformations.   Perhaps you mean "secular humanism", which is an oxymoron, like "jumbo shrimp."

"There can be no Humanism without the Gospels."
- Protestant theologian Karl Barth

Evolution is not science, it is religion in direct opposition to Christianity.


Here's a way to test your belief; ask a scientist why he accepts evolution.   If he says "because Darwin said so", it's a religion.  If he starts citing evidence, it's science.

It is a cosmogenic myth.


Nope.  It makes no claims about the way life started, and it certainly makes no claims about the way the universe started.   Darwin simply said that God created the first living things.

It's a truism that most people who think they hate science have no idea what it really is.


 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 1:34 PM on August 9, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Because many evolutionists give hypothetical scenarios of the past and use the real evidence of existing homology, they feel justified in their belief.


Also they cite the evidence of genetics, molecular biology, embryology, paleontology, chemistry, etc.

However at best these hypotheses are only inductive possibilities and not deduction.


Science is always inductive, drawing conclusions from evidence.   This might seem like a bad thing to you, but you should realize that nothing else we do is as effective in understanding the physical universe.

Because organisms and the material within them exist and are similar and there is variation and adaptation within all that suddenly makes evolution true?


That's only a small part of the evidence.

All this can be interpreted as a common design principle, if you have already experienced the Spirit of God on your heart, and seen His hand at work personally.


Those of us who have experienced the Spirit of God generally realize that design is not an attribute of an omnipotent being.  He is the creator, not some mere "designer."   Design is what inferior creatures do.

Phillip Johnson, the man who invented the religion of ID says he thinks the "designer" could be a "space alien."   Maybe for creationists, it could be.

All the while one ignores the complexity of simultaneous evolution of many systems and/or phenotypes, and/or many absolutely necessary symbiotic relationships in ecosystems all eeking through against all odds.


Sounds interesting.  Show us one of those.

WHERE ARE ALL THE MUTATED FAILURES AND REJECTS WHO DIDN'T EEK BY?


Dead.

THE EARTH SHOULD BE FULL OF THEM AFTER 3.5 BILLION YEARS OF LIFE?


Yep, it is.  Lots of failed populations in the fossil record.  We turn up many new ones on a regular basis.

I've seen the list of "scientists who doubt Darwin."  From time to time, there's a minor scandal when a scientist blasts the DI for putting their name on it when they actually accept evolution.  

Trouble is, the vast majority of them are physicists, lawyers, "safety specialists", theologians and the like.   When their numbers are compared to Project Steve, we learn that about 0.3% of biologists doubt evolution.


 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 1:46 PM on August 9, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I do not claim to be an expert.  Give me a break Demon.  If I experience power in my faith, then there is something to the Word that was written. Therefore it is confirmed to me personally to not be of natural origin or explanation--please don't give me capillary expansion hypothesis.

So no matter what evidence you are shown, it doesn't matter, your primitive beliefs outway all modern scientific theories.  Very opened minded of you.  the ancient greeks experienced power in their faith when they believed that Apollo rode his sun chariot across the sky, the vikings experienced power in their beliefs when they believed Thor was causing lightning.  Attributing natural phenomenon to the gods has always been wrong, it's no different here.

Because many evolutionists give hypothetical scenarios of the past and use the real evidence of existing homology, they feel justified in their belief.

It's not a belief, it's a scientific theory accepted based on the evidence.  Homologies are bested explained by evolution.  

However at best these hypotheses are only inductive possibilities and not deduction.

they are not hypotheses, they are conclusions based on overwhelming evidence, evidence so overwheliming that the theory of evolution is considered a provisional fact.  99.9% of the world's biologist accept this fact.

Because organisms and the material within them exist and are similar and there is variation and adaptation within all that suddenly makes evolution true?

That and genetics shows us how they formed, when they formed.  That and a ton of other evidence that you and your creationist cohorts are forced to ignore.

All this can be interpreted as a common design principle, if you have already experienced the Spirit of God on your heart, and seen His hand at work personally.  If you have not then evolution is good
explanation.


Common design has been shown to be illogical.
And since the majority of the world's christians accept evolution, your claim that the spirit of god makes you reject evolution is false.

All the while one ignores the complexity of simultaneous evolution of many systems and/or phenotypes, and/or many absolutely necessary symbiotic relationships in ecosystems all eeking through against all odds.

You people always say "against the odds" but when pressed you can't show us those odds or how you calculate them.  It's false statement that creationists can't back up.

WHERE ARE ALL THE MUTATED FAILURES AND REJECTS WHO DIDN'T EEK BY?  THE EARTH SHOULD BE FULL OF THEM AFTER 3.5 BILLION YEARS OF LIFE?

Just goes to show you don't understand evolution.  Spare us your simplistic misunderstandings and do some real research.

Sorry I got off the subject a bit, but you see I'm swimming against the current here.  You have a very well funded movement of scientists behind you--the voice of the media--a powerful science and education lobby.

We have the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.

Scientifically, I have thousands of high school science teachers who do write papers, over 100 PhDs who have put their carreers at risk and comeout of the closet, thousands of medical doctors, and other science people who are not missionaries for the National Science Foundation--who is funded by our tax
dollars.


99.9 percent of the worlds biologists accept the theory of evolution.  95% of all scientists accept the theory of evolution.  What you have are the lunatic fringe who reject evolution not based on the evidence but their own religious superstitions.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:24 PM on August 9, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon--"So no matter what evidence you are shown, it doesn't matter, your primitive beliefs outway all modern scientific theories."

     I have the same evidence you have.  Are you talking about theories like  RNA world that ignore the fact that the oldest fossils found are alive and have DNA? Cyanobacteria are live evidence--your own say they are the most ancient we know of in the fossil record.  But you CHOOSE to believe a hypothesis without explaining the bluegreen algae.

Demon--"It's not a belief, it's a scientific theory accepted based on the evidence.

     Professional science people I know personally and interact with do not BELIEVE evolution.  They include a geologist, a retired M.D., a biology/chemistry teacher, and a chemical engineer.  But you do believe it Demon, because you never saw a monkey become a man.

Demon--"Homologies are bested explained by evolution. "

     You must mean homologies like eels and snakes--which are fish and reptiles--oh but we can't use that--I just don't understand evolution.  What about birds and bats, did bats evolve from birds--then rodents must have come from birds--oops I'm a dummy--must be my outdated superstition affecting my brain.  What about fish and whales and dolphins--so the back fin just turned horizontal--I mean they're similar--so why can't I say whales came from fish if I use homologies.

     The truth is that the same Creator who designed the wing of a bird designed a  different kind of wing on the bat. The dorsal fin on some fish and the dorsal fin on a whale are designed by a common Designer.

Demon--"You people always say "against the odds" but when pressed you can't show us those odds or how you calculate them.  It's false statement that creationists can't back up.

     Do I have to be a mathematician to know that a royal flush rarely comes.  And there comes a line of impossibility in probability.  Richard Dawkins wrote the book "Climbing Mount Improbable" a metaphor of something we can relate to--climbing--which takes INTENTIONAL WILL. Will is a principle involved in designing something.

Demon--"99.9 percent of the worlds biologists accept the theory of evolution.  95% of all scientists accept the theory of evolution."

What Bible believing Christian in their right mind would ever try to become a biologist--they would never get a grant.  Biology teacher but not biologist. That is a meaningless point.  Truth is not determined by the majority or the earth would be  the center of the universe.

     Here is a list of some scientists and graduate educated science people  who accept the Biblical creation account.
   *   Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
   * Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
   * Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
   * Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
   * Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
   * Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
   * Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
   * Dr. Don Batten, Plant Physiologist
   * Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
   * Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
   * Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
   * Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
   * Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
   * Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
   * Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
   * Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
   * Dr. Rob Carter, Marine Biology
   * Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiology
   * Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
   * Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
   * Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
   * Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
   * Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
   * Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
   * Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
   * Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
   * Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
   * Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
   * Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
   * Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
   * Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
   * Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
   * Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
   * Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
   * Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
   * Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
   * Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
   * Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
   * Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
   * Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
   * Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
   * Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
   * Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
   * Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
   * Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
   * Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
   * Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
   * Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
   * Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
   * Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
   * Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
   * Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
   * Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
   * Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
   * Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
   * Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
   * Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
   * Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
   * Dr. Stephen Grocott, Chemist
   * Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
   * Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
   * Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
   * Dr. John Hartnett, Physics
   * Dr. Mark Harwood, Engineering (satellite specialist)
   * Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
   * Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
   * Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
   * Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
   * Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
   * Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
   * Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
   * Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
   * Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
   * Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
   * Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
   * Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
   * Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
   * Dr. Russ Humphreys, Physics
   * Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
   * George T. Javor, Biochemistry
   * Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Molecular Biology
   * Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
   * Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
   * Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
   * Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
   * Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
   * Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
   * Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
   * Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
   * Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
   * Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
   * Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
   * Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
   * Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
   * Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
   * Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
   * Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
   * Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
   * Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
   * Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
   * Dr. Johan Kruger, Zoology
   * Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
   * Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
   * Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
   * Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
   * Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
   * Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
   * Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
   * Dr. Ronald C. Marks, Associate Professor of Chemistry
   * Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
   * Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
   * Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
   * Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
   * Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
   * Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
   * Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
   * Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
   * Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
   * Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician
   * Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
   * Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
   * Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
   * Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
   * Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
   * Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
   * Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
   * Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology
   * Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
   * Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
   * Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
   * Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
   * Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
   * Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
   * Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
   * Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
   * Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
   * Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
   * Prof. Richard Porter
   * Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
   * Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
   * Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
   * Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
   * Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
   * Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
   * Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
   * Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Physical Chemistry
   * Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
   * Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
   * Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
   * Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
   * Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
   * Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
   * Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geology
   * Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
   * Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
   * Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
   * Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
   * Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
   * Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
   * Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
   * Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
   * Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
   * Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
   * Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
   * Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
   * Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
   * Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
   * Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
   * Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
   * Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
   * Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
   * Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
   * Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
   * Dr. Tas Walker, Geology/Engineering
   * Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
   * Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
   * Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
   * Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
   * Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
   * Dr. Carl Wieland, Medicine/Surgery
   * Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
   * Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
   * Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
   * Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
   * Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
   * Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
   * Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
   * Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
   * Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
   * Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology



 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 8:13 PM on August 9, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do I have to be a mathematician to know that a royal flush rarely comes.  And there comes a line of impossibility in probability.  Richard Dawkins wrote the book "Climbing Mount Improbable" a metaphor of something we can relate to--climbing--which takes INTENTIONAL WILL. Will is a principle involved in designing something.


Would you like to see some examples of complexity increasing with no intentional will at all?

What Bible believing Christian in their right mind would ever try to become a biologist--they would never get a grant.


Stephen Gould himself accepted a YE creationist as a doctoral student, and nurtured him to graduation.   Your argument is just wrong.   Geologist John Baumgartner has gotten numerous grants.  

Here is a list of some scientists and graduate educated science people  who accept the Biblical creation account.


Steve Austin, at least, is not a Bible-Believing Christian.   He is a YE creationist.  Let's compare the list to that of Project Steve.    To be on the list, you have to have a doctorate in Biology or a related field, and you have to be named "Steve" or some variant.   I'll highlight the ones in your list that make it.

  *   Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
  * Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
  * Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
  * Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
  * Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
  * Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
  * Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
  * Dr. Don Batten, Plant Physiologist
  * Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
  * Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
  * Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
  * Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
  * Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
  * Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
  * Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
  * Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
  * Dr. Rob Carter, Marine Biology
  * Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiology
  * Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
  * Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
  * Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
  * Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
  * Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
  * Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
  * Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
  * Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist  
(Harold Coffin testified in the Louisana creationism trial that if it were not for his beliefs about the Bible, the evidence would lead him to believe the Earth was extremely old)
  * Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
  * Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
  * Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
  * Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
  * Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
  * Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
  * Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
  * Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
  * Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
  * Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
  * Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
  * Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
  * Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
  * Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
  * Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
  * Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
  * Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
  * Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
  * Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
  * Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
  * Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
  * Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
  * Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
  * Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
  * Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
  * Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
  * Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
  * Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
  * Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
  * Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
  * Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
  * Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
  * Dr. Stephen Grocott, Chemist
  * Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
  * Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
  * Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
  * Dr. John Hartnett, Physics
  * Dr. Mark Harwood, Engineering (satellite specialist)
  * Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
  * Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
  * Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
  * Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
  * Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
  * Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
  * Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
  * Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
  * Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
  * Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
  * Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
  * Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
  * Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
  * Dr. Russ Humphreys, Physics
  * Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
  * George T. Javor, Biochemistry
  * Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Molecular Biology
  * Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
  * Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
  * Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
  * Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
  * Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
  * Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
  * Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
  * Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
  * Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
  * Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
  * Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
  * Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
  * Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
  * Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
  * Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
  * Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
  * Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
  * Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
  * Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
  * Dr. Johan Kruger, Zoology
  * Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
  * Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
  * Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
  * Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
  * Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
  * Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
  * Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
  * Dr. Ronald C. Marks, Associate Professor of Chemistry
  * Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
  * Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
  * Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
  * Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
  * Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
  * Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
  * Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
  * Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
  * Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
  * Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician
  * Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
  * Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
  * Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
  * Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
  * Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
  * Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
  * Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
  * Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology
  * Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
  * Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
  * Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
  * Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
  * Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
  * Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
  * Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
  * Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
  * Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
  * Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
  * Prof. Richard Porter
  * Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
  * Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
  * Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
  * Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
  * Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
  * Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
  * Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
  * Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Physical Chemistry
  * Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
  * Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
  * Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
  * Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
  * Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
  * Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
  * Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geology
  * Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
  * Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
  * Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
  * Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
  * Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
  * Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
  * Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
  * Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
  * Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
  * Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
  * Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
  * Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
  * Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
  * Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
  * Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
  * Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
  * Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
  * Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
  * Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
  * Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
  * Dr. Tas Walker, Geology/Engineering
  * Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
  * Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
  * Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
  * Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
  * Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
  * Dr. Carl Wieland, Medicine/Surgery
  * Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
  * Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
   (Kurt Wise is the man who got his PhD under Stephen Gould; something you told us was impossible)
  * Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
  * Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
  * Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
  * Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
  * Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
  * Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
  * Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
  * Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology

So we have um, two, if I relax the rules a bit for you.    Project Steve currently has um, .... 1099 Steves by the same criteria.    Of course, there are many thousands of Keiths and Michaels, and Vernas, and so on, who also accept evolution.   Steves are about one percent of the American population, so it's a good sample.   Last time I did a check with the Discovery Institute numbers, about 0.3% of scientists doubt Darwinian evolution.

I believe you also have to be alive to be on the Project Steve list, but I'm not sure about that.



And that's a pretty good thing to remember.

(Edited by Yehren 8/9/2009 at 9:33 PM).
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 9:31 PM on August 9, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You must mean homologies like eels and snakes--which are fish and reptiles--


What homologies are in eels and snakes that are not in all vertebrates?   Just because things look somewhat alike doesn't mean they are closely related.  

I just don't understand evolution.


What about birds and bats, did bats evolve from birds--then rodents must have come from birds


Bats are not rodents, and there are no homologies in birds and bats that are not present in all tetrapods.

oops I'm a dummy--must be my outdated superstition affecting my brain.


Mostly, I think, it's a lack of biological knowledge, compounded by a somewhat unorthodox set of beliefs.

What about fish and whales and dolphins--so the back fin just turned horizontal--I mean they're similar--so why can't I say whales came from fish if I use homologies.


Because they have no homologies not found in all vertebrates.

The truth is that the same Creator who designed the wing of a bird designed a  different kind of wing on the bat.


Why use arms on a bird, hands on bats, and fingers on pterosaurs?   Evolution can explain why this happened, but creationism just shrugs and says "Godmustadunnit."

And for most Christians, it's rather blasphemous to suggest that God must figure things out.


 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 9:41 PM on August 9, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have the same evidence you have.  Are you talking about theories like  RNA world that ignore the fact that the oldest fossils found are alive and have DNA? Cyanobacteria are live evidence--your own say they are the most ancient we know of in the fossil record.  But you CHOOSE to believe a hypothesis without explaining the bluegreen algae.

Oldest we've found so far.  And I see you've ignored all the molecular evidence presented to you that supports the RNA world.  Typical closed mind.  How much do you have to willfully ignore to keep your faith alive?
You've already admitted that evidence is secondary to your faith.  Yes, you have the same evidence as real scientists but you've already reached your conclusion before you even examine it.  And because of your fatih you're forced to ignore it or try to twist it to fit your superstitious views.  You nitpick facts that seem to support your claims until you look at them critically.  And when your mistakes are shown to you, you claim that Goddidit and nothing can trump your faith.  

Professional science people I know personally and interact with do not BELIEVE evolution.

Are they biologists?  Virtuially all modern biologists accept evolution, it is the corner stone of biology.

They include a geologist,

Oh really, did he ever work for an oil company?
Why does he reject evolution and what research has a geologist done in biology and why should we care what believes in?  

a retired M.D

Retired, so he hasn't been a part of the revolutionary field of Darwinian medecine, has he?  What research has he done and why should his opinion matter to us?

a biology/chemistry teacher

Again, what research has this teacher done, ,why should we care about his or her opinion?

a chemical engineer

Once again, who cares what a chemical engineer believes?  He's no expert on biology and you never mention what his reasons are for rejecting evolution.  You still don't get it, it doesn't matter what someone believes, it's the facts, the data, that counts and all available evidence supports the theory of evolution.

You must mean homologies like eels and snakes--which are fish and reptiles--oh but we can't use that--I just don't understand evolution.

You are correct here.  You can't use eels and snakes because homologies aren't just basic body design, they go much deeper than that.  You have to look at comparative anatomy to really understand how homologies work.  So yes, you don't understand evolution, as you demonstrate here.   What you can't explain is why a snake is much more similar to a turtle than it is to an eel.

What about birds and bats, did bats evolve from birds--then rodents must have come from birds--oops I'm a dummy--must be my outdated superstition affecting my brain.

Good choice, now why would a bats wing be more similar to a whales flipper or my arm than it is to a bird's wing.  I mean, some of them live in the same environment, some are the same size, they both fly...why would god give them 2 completely different wings?  And why is the bat's wing so similar to other animals forearms that are used for completely different purposes?  Evolution explains it, you can't.  I noticed AFJ, you run away from the tough questions you can't answer, what's your answer for the difference between a bats wing and a bird's wing...

What about fish and whales and dolphins--so the back fin just turned horizontal--I mean they're similar--so why can't I say whales came from fish if I use homologies.

Because you don't understand homologies.  You're not looking at the underlying structures.  Why in the world would god force whales, animals that live in the water, to breath air????  Why in the world would god make whales that have to dive thousands of feet get the bends?  And why in the world is the whale's flipper so much more similar to a bat's wing than it is a fish's fin?  If they both live in the water and swim, it's only logical that god would give them similar kinds of fins, why didn't he?

The truth is that the same Creator who designed the wing of a bird designed a  different kind of wing on the bat. The dorsal fin on some fish and the dorsal fin on a whale are designed by a common Designer.

Why?  Why give a bat a different kind of wing than a bird?  And why make that wing so similar to the flipper of a whale?  Evolution explains it, your only explaination is Goddidit.
Oh, do you believe bats and whales are related at all?  I don't think they are the same "kind" so according to you, they are not related at all.  

Do I have to be a mathematician to know that a royal flush rarely comes.

Rarely and never are 2 different things.

And there comes a line of impossibility in probability.

Too bad you and your creationist cohorts can't show us where that line is.  You make the claim but can't support it, ever.

Richard Dawkins wrote the book "Climbing Mount Improbable" a metaphor of something we can relate to--climbing--which takes INTENTIONAL WILL. Will is a principle involved in designing something.

Reduced to playing word games, a new low for you.  How much will does it take for a snow flake to form?  How much will does it take for a star to form?  How much will does it take for a cell to divide?  Looks like will isn't needed at all.  Your claims, like this one, are pathetic.

What Bible believing Christian in their right mind would ever try to become a biologist--they would never get a grant.

You seem to forget that most of the world's christians accept evolution.  And there are many christian biologists, they have no problem accepting evolution.  Creationists are the lunatic fringe.

Here is a list of some scientists and graduate educated science people  who accept the Biblical creation account.

Listing a few dozen superstitious creationists does nothing to support your case.  They can't support their claims with evidence.  but the experts, the ones who really study and experiment with evolution, all agree, the theory of evolution is valid.

Here's what some of your christian brothers have to say, from here:
Clergy Letters Project

"We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth."
This statement had 11,943 signatures, all of them christian clergy.  I didn't even have to mention the Catholic church, the biggest christian cenomination in the world, which accepts the theory of evolution.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:56 PM on August 9, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

YEHREN--"What homologies are in eels and snakes that are not in all vertebrates?   Just because things look somewhat alike doesn't mean they are closely related. "

     Thank you.  Because the head of an amphibian and a fish look alike does not mean they have a common ancestor.  You said it--closely related.  
     The isolated evidence of fins changing to legs shows tremendous jumps.  Similarity with difference can be just as much design as it can common ancestor if you put it on a totally objective isolated plane.  

YEHREN--"Bats are not rodents, and there are no homologies in birds and bats that are not present in all tetrapods.

     Yes, I let you keep getting me on taxonomy.  Are you a zoologist?  Need to check it first.  They are in the order of chiroptera.  Mice are in rodentia.  I won't let that happen again.
     I know there are no homologies in birds and bats--except they both know how to fly.  So with the flying reptiles you're saying evolution did it three times without any guidance except a molecular code in DNA.  Okay--that really makes sense.

YEHREN--"Mostly, I think, it's a lack of biological knowledge, compounded by a somewhat unorthodox set of beliefs."

     I'm a student/enthusiast--that doesn't mean I won't get better.  Thanks for acknowledging that I am not stupid though.  What would be unorthodox beliefs to you Yehren?

YEHREN--"Evolution can explain why this happened, but creationism just shrugs and says "Godmustadunnit."

     Evolution has a hypothesis--not observation of the past.  
     Always easy to see one's own point of view as objective and true, and the other point of view as unbalanced and unreasonable.

      A TRUE scientist thirst for knowledge and truth whether he is creationist or evolutionist.

YEHREN--"And for most Christians, it's rather blasphemous to suggest that God must figure things out."

     Not blasphemous, mostly done because people who think that way are using their own means of achieving knowledge.  Naturalistic thinking.  

     The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, because they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned.  1 Corinthians 2:14

     Christians and unbelievers are tuned into different channels.  That's why intelligence doesn't have that much to do with it.



(Edited by AFJ 8/9/2009 at 10:45 PM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 10:42 PM on August 9, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Barbarian observes:
What homologies are in eels and snakes that are not in all vertebrates?   Just because things look somewhat alike doesn't mean they are closely related.

Thank you.  Because the head of an amphibian and a fish look alike does not mean they have a common ancestor.


All living things on Earth have a common ancestor.  But it's not because they vaguely look alike.   So the heads of certain kinds of fish and primitive amphibians not only look alike, but share the same bones, articulations and functions.   It is these apomorphies (homologies limited to the fish/amphibian clade) that matter in understanding their relationship.

The isolated evidence of fins changing to legs shows tremendous jumps.


At one time, it did.  But as we get more and more examples, the "jumps" are getting smaller and smaller.

Barbarian observes:
Bats are not rodents, and there are no homologies in birds and bats that are not present in all amniotes. (edit)

Yes, I let you keep getting me on taxonomy.  Are you a zoologist?


No.   But I have done some work in zoology.

I know there are no homologies in birds and bats--except they both know how to fly.


Most do.   But remember, homologies depend on defining the outgroup.   As amniotes, they have many homologies.

So with the flying reptiles you're saying evolution did it three times without any guidance except a molecular code in DNA.


No.  Natural selection.

Barbarian observes:
Mostly, I think, it's a lack of biological knowledge, compounded by a somewhat unorthodox set of beliefs."

I'm a student/enthusiast--that doesn't mean I won't get better.


Most of us do.

What would be unorthodox beliefs to you Yehren?


Those not held by most Christians, particularly those (Like YE) that are contradicted by scripture.

Barbarian observes:
Evolution can explain why this happened, but creationism just shrugs and says "Godmustadunnit."

Evolution has a hypothesis--


Had a hypothesis.   Then all that evidence came into play.

not observation of the past.


So, if we don't actually observe something, we cannot know what happened, even if there is evidence for it?    Wouldn't that mean that things like fire investigation and forensics are impossible?

Always easy to see one's own point of view as objective and true, and the other point of view as unbalanced and unreasonable.


There are people who are right, and people who are wrong.   I'm not a relativist.

A TRUE scientist thirst for knowledge and truth whether he is creationist or evolutionist.


And there are such creationists.   Kurt Wise and Harold Coffin come to mind.

Barbarian, regarding the idea of God as a mere "designer":
And for most Christians, it's rather blasphemous to suggest that God must figure things out."

Not blasphemous


It is blasphemous to attribute imperfection to God.

mostly done because people who think that way are using their own means of achieving knowledge.  Naturalistic thinking.  


Intelligent design people, in other words.

Christians and unbelievers are tuned into different channels.  That's why intelligence doesn't have that much to do with it.


Probably why one IDer suggested that the designer was a "space alien."   "God the designer" is not a Christian idea.

 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 04:20 AM on August 10, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 4:07 PM on August 8, 2009 :
I think there is alot of misunderstanding going on here.  First, where did Mr. Yehren see that I said proteins make proteins.  I said enzymes make proteins.  


And enzymes are...?


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:29 PM on August 10, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:49 AM on August 9, 2009 :
Demon 38

"An elegant experiment has quashed a major objection to the theory that life on Earth originated with molecules of RNA.


There is no gradual change in the fossil record to support the premise of naturalism so elegant experiment or not, we have no reason to believe that life ever happened via naturalistic means, via RNA or any other way.
We need a source for the code of DNA.

But I like your optimism.




There is no sudden appearance of all animals in a single contemporaneous stratum and no evidence of dirt being formed into a human by space magic.




-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:31 PM on August 10, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 12:58 PM on August 9, 2009 :
And our lead over the rest of the world will suffer if we don't get back on track.


Your lead over the rest of the world is due to the Christian principles on which it was founded.


You're the gullible type, aren't you?

OK - so show me where in the constitution or the bill of rights christian principles are evident.

I dare you.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:33 PM on August 10, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 7:13 PM on August 9, 2009 :
     Here is a list of some scientists and graduate educated science people  who accept the Biblical creation account.
   *   Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
   * Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist...



You have a short list complied over decades of mostly folks who aren't educated in a field directly related to evolution.  Gee, how impressive. Meanwhile, every year thousands of research articles are published that show evidence for evolution.  Great comparison, but not in the manner I suspect you intended.



(Edited by Mustrum 8/10/2009 at 6:12 PM).


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 6:10 PM on August 10, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is no sudden appearance of all animals in a single contemporaneous stratum


No but when you do find anything at all, it appears suddenly and fully formed with no signs of anything leading up to it and a lot of those invertebrates that still exist have barely changed to this day (strangely). Neither can you find anything notably transitional between any of  the well-defined invertebrate kinds that are found in the Cambrian.
This is not a question, this is a fact.

no evidence of dirt being formed into a human by space magic.


Well they did appear as suddenly as everything else so you can imagine that apes slowly changed into humans but you can just as easily imagine that dirt formed into a human by space magic, as you so eloquently put it. It's your choice and both choices are history.

OK - so show me where in the constitution or the bill of rights christian principles are evident.


Why don't you just read it, that'll help - and tell me don't you have "In God we trust" on all your coins? What about inalienable rights? That comes from being created by God not from being evolved from monkeys.






-------
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: 07:54 AM on August 11, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:54 AM on August 11, 2009 :
There is no sudden appearance of all animals in a single contemporaneous stratum


No but when you do find anything at all, it appears suddenly and fully formed with no signs of anything leading up to it and a lot of those invertebrates that still exist have barely changed to this day (strangely). Neither can you find anything notably transitional between any of  the well-defined invertebrate kinds that are found in the Cambrian.
This is not a question, this is a fact.


First, as I'm sure has been mentioned before, each organism is fully form.  Why would anyone expect something different?  That's certainly not a prediction from evolutionary theory.

As for the assertion that there were not any life forms found that offer a reasonable step towards the Cambrian creatures, that is not accurate.  While, obviously, we won't find as many fossils for soft bodied organisms, we do find them in Precambrian strata.  For instance, check out the cool guys from the Vendian period here: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vendian/critters.html.



-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 11:46 AM on August 11, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:54 AM on August 11, 2009 :
no evidence of dirt being formed into a human by space magic.


Well they did appear as suddenly as everything else so you can imagine that apes slowly changed into humans but you can just as easily imagine that dirt formed into a human by space magic, as you so eloquently put it. It's your choice and both choices are history.


Once again you are incorrect.  We actually know of a number of hominids that evolved before modern humans.  I'll let you look that one up instead of doing for you.





-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 11:49 AM on August 11, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:54 AM on August 11, 2009 :
OK - so show me where in the constitution or the bill of rights christian principles are evident.


Why don't you just read it, that'll help - and tell me don't you have "In God we trust" on all your coins? What about inalienable rights? That comes from being created by God not from being evolved from monkeys.



I have read the US Constitution, thank you.  I suspect you have not.  The word "Christian" or the word "God" for example are not to be found in said document.  Falling back on a motto added to our coins at a much later date is a weak argument.  Also, your lack of historical knowledge concerning Jefferson's use of phases associated with the Enlightenment is showing.

Edited to add:  Of course I know Jefferson didn't write the Constitution, but the use of the words "inalienable rights" is associated with the Declaration of Independence.  Hence my comment concerning Enlightenment ideas and Jefferson.

(Edited by Mustrum 8/11/2009 at 12:08 PM).


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 11:54 AM on August 11, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First, as I'm sure has been mentioned before, each organism is fully form.


But never with the transitional wing or the transitional leg -those are always conveniently missing no matter how many fossils are found.

Why would anyone expect something different?  That's certainly not a prediction from evolutionary theory.


Oh so legs turned into wings and legs turned into flippers but any one turning into the other slowly and gradually wouldn't be a prediction of evolutionary theory ? That's convenient, especially since you're never going to find any because it never happened.
Your predictions are better suited to creation than to evolution and all you're doing is suppressing the truth.Think about it.

While, obviously, we won't find as many fossils for soft bodied organisms, we do find them in Precambrian strata.  For instance, check out the cool guys from the Vendian period here


The vendian or edicarean fauna are complex but they are certainly and notably not ancestral to Cambrian invertebrates - how about you check it out. It's nice to imagine that they are ancestral but all you're doing is trying to fill the gap prior to the big biological bang inappropriately with misleading examples. We still need to find something between unicellular and edicarean by the way but I doubt you should waste your time - lots of people have, to no avail. The only reason they keep looking is because they're sure evolution must have happened. In the absence of evidence, faith still carries the evolutionist and keeps him positively asserting that "Evolution is a FACT".

Once again you are incorrect.  We actually know of a number of hominids that evolved before modern humans.


Sure you do -or at least you believe the people that say they have found such intermediates. Do you know how few hominid bones are even available? Do you know how subjective the field is? Do you know how many frauds have led people astray for decades before being exposed as wishful thinking and robust imagination? Did you ever see the peccary tooth man and his family? A whole convoluted story and wonderful artwork all based on one tooth believed by some wishful faithful evolutionist to be intermediate between ape and man. Then there was the 40 years of Piltdown fraud. That persuaded a lot of people and produced a lot of 'scientific' papers before it too hit the dirt. Do you know that Neanderthal man is a human with an average brain capacity larger than humans living today?
Do you know that Australopithecines are more likely some kind of ape than anything else you might wish for?

Lets face it, if there were any proper transitional forms, we should have found them in the invertebrates or fish section where so many billions of fossils still fail to produce these intermediate forms. Even Niles Eldredge, the invertebrate specialist says his best example of evolution is the evolution of the whale. Why hasn't he got something better in the richest portion of the fossil record in which he specializes? This human evolution from apes is pure speculation based on faith.

As for the historical stuff -i'll let you have that for the moment though we all know that Western nations are built on Christianity which is why they did so much better than the godless nations of communism. Your freedoms are based on a belief that you were created rather than evolved whether you know it or not.


-------
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: 02:41 AM on August 12, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 01:41 AM on August 12, 2009 :
First, as I'm sure has been mentioned before, each organism is fully form.


But never with the transitional wing or the transitional leg -those are always conveniently missing no matter how many fossils are found.


You seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying.  You seem to be looking for some sort of magical creature that has, let's say, half a wing or something.  All organisms have evolved to suit the environment in which they are situated.  If you want to start a new thread on something like the evolution of flight to go into more detail about how various sorts of wings evolved please go ahead.





-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 08:59 AM on August 12, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 01:41 AM on August 12, 2009 :

Why would anyone expect something different?  That's certainly not a prediction from evolutionary theory.


Oh so legs turned into wings and legs turned into flippers but any one turning into the other slowly and gradually wouldn't be a prediction of evolutionary theory ? That's convenient, especially since you're never going to find any because it never happened.
Your predictions are better suited to creation than to evolution and all you're doing is suppressing the truth.Think about it.


You stated earlier that all organisms appear "suddenly and fully formed" with no evidence of previous organisms that were ancestral.  Further, you stated, "this is a fact."  

It is not a fact, it is a misrepresentation of what we find in the fossil record.  There are so many fossils that show the evolution of various organism that it would take quite a few books to do any justice to the overwhelming evidence in support of evolution.  For starters, I would recommend Prothero's book "What The Fossils Say...".  It's a good read with a number of illustrations on "transitional" fossils.




-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 09:07 AM on August 12, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 01:41 AM on August 12, 2009 :
While, obviously, we won't find as many fossils for soft bodied organisms, we do find them in Precambrian strata.  For instance, check out the cool guys from the Vendian period here


The vendian or edicarean fauna are complex but they are certainly and notably not ancestral to Cambrian invertebrates - how about you check it out. It's nice to imagine that they are ancestral but all you're doing is trying to fill the gap prior to the big biological bang inappropriately with misleading examples. We still need to find something between unicellular and edicarean by the way but I doubt you should waste your time - lots of people have, to no avail. The only reason they keep looking is because they're sure evolution must have happened. In the absence of evidence, faith still carries the evolutionist and keeps him positively asserting that "Evolution is a FACT".


So you think that God created all the critters in the Vendian period and then "whoosh" got rid of all them and started over in the Cambrian? Then God did the same old magic trick over and over and over?  I'm not trying to fill any gap, I'm simply pointing out to you that there were many creatures with various body plans before the Cambrian.

Speaking of gaps, your basic argument rest on the fact that we humans don't have complete knowledge of the history of life on Earth.  So what you do is shotgun your arguments until you finally stumble upon some area where we don't have very good evidence.  Then you incorrectly over generalize that lack of knowledge to the whole theory of evolution while simultaneously ignoring the over a hundred years of well researched and solid evidence supporting evolution.

All this effort on the part of creationists is apparently spent in order to convince folks that a 5,000 year old mythology story is true.  


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 09:17 AM on August 12, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 01:41 AM on August 12, 2009 :

Once again you are incorrect.  We actually know of a number of hominids that evolved before modern humans.


Sure you do -or at least you believe the people that say they have found such intermediates. Do you know how few hominid bones are even available?...



Actually, I do.  If you want to go into more detail on this topic, then I'd be more than happy to do so in a separate thread.  There's a lot to go over and hence, the topic deserves it own thread.




-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 09:20 AM on August 12, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But never with the transitional wing or the transitional leg -those are always conveniently missing no matter how many fossils are found.


Acanthostega.  Almost fully-formed legs.   But they and their connection to the spine are too weak to have supported them on land.   These leg/fins allowed the fish to push itself about on the bottom of pools.

If that's not good enough I can go forward and back in the series.   Define for us what a partially-formed leg is, and we'll see.   BTW don't try the "Everything fully formed but the humerus missing" scam.   Each transitional we've found has been functional in its own right.

Oh so legs turned into wings and legs turned into flippers but any one turning into the other slowly and gradually wouldn't be a prediction of evolutionary theory ?


Um, what are you talking about?

The vendian or edicarean fauna are complex but they are certainly and notably not ancestral to Cambrian invertebrates


Paleontologists disagree with you, but feel free to show us your evidence.

We still need to find something between unicellular and edicarean by the way but I doubt you should waste your time


Slime molds.   They still exist among the living.    Remember that think about what you don't know?  

Sure you do -or at least you believe the people that say they have found such intermediates. Do you know how few hominid bones are even available?


Thousands.   Let's see...

Here's a list of the sixty-plus most important specimens.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

But there are many, many more.  Would you like to learn about them?

Do you know how subjective the field is?


Explain to me how gait analysis is "subjective."   How about functional analysis or reconstruction of muscle insertions?   How are these methods "subjective?"

Do you know how many frauds have led people astray for decades before being exposed as wishful thinking and robust imagination?


One led some people wrong.  Piltdown was kind of a problem, because it didn't fit the data; finally an evolutionist showed it was a fake.

Did you ever see the peccary tooth man and his family?


A London newspaper came up with a fanciful drawing.  But more importantly, when a paleontologist familiar with mammals examined it, he immediately recognized it was a javelina tooth, albeit worn down oddly so that it resembled that of a primate.

Do you know that Neanderthal man is a human with an average brain capacity larger than humans living today?


They have about the "right" amount of brain for their muscle mass and size.   Why not?  They and anatomically modern humans diverged from more primitive hominids and were contemporaries.

Do you know that Australopithecines are more likely some kind of ape than anything else you might wish for?


We are also some kind of ape.   We and Australopithecines differ from other apes by having a particular bipedal stance that allows efficient walking.

Lets face it, if there were any proper transitional forms, we should have found them in the invertebrates or fish section where so many billions of fossils still fail to produce these intermediate forms.


Let's test your belief.   Name me two major groups said to be evolutionarily linked, and I'll see if I can find you a transitional.   Good luck.  

Even Niles Eldredge, the invertebrate specialist says his best example of evolution is the evolution of the whale.


It's a pretty good one.  We now have a pretty good series from primitive ungulates to modern whales.   Would you like to learn about them?

As for the historical stuff -i'll let you have that for the moment though we all know that Western nations are built on Christianity which is why they did so much better than the godless nations of communism.


Communism was invented in the West, not the East.

Your freedoms are based on a belief that you were created rather than evolved whether you know it or not.


The Athenians did think that the gods created humans.  But not the God you're thinking about.


 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 8:45 PM on August 12, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We now have a pretty good series from primitive ungulates to modern whales.   Would you like to learn about them?

Step 1--hippo?

Yehren, what is there in ambulocetus fossils that convince paleontologists that it was mammalian?  They say it resembled a crocodile but had larger legs.  If it resembled a crocodile then why isn't it a species of crocodile? The tail has no whale like back fin.

Perhaps I'm wrong but isn't pakicetus the walking whale just a skull--have they found the rest?

Then there is basilosaurus.    I thought it funny that they say the back legs were useless, hence selection pressure.  Easy to think of a use such as reproductive mounting.  

Design mentality always looks for purpose, and now we know the purpose for the appendix.

Quite large gaps but never any problem for evolution as it would never be possible it to be of design, so it is logically the only possibility.  Why debate then?
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 9:38 PM on August 14, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 9:38 PM on August 14, 2009 :

Perhaps I'm wrong but isn't pakicetus the walking whale just a skull--have they found the rest?


Yes, quite a few.




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

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 9:57 PM on August 14, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Barbarian asks:
We now have a pretty good series from primitive ungulates to modern whales.   Would you like to learn about them?

Step 1--hippo?


No, although hippos are the modern mammal closest to the line that gave rise to whales.   They are, of course, almost as highly evolved as whales in a different direction.  

Yehren, what is there in ambulocetus fossils that convince paleontologists that it was mammalian?


Single bone in the lower jaw, three in the middle ear.  (which is what divides mammals from reptiles)

Cervical ribs absent

Diaphragm

Protruding calcaneus (ankle bone) for leverage in running

Secondary palate

Differentiated mammalian teeth

Haversian canals

Hooves on each toe, rather than claws

That sort of thing.

They say it resembled a crocodile but had larger legs.  If it resembled a crocodile then why isn't it a species of crocodile? The tail has no whale like back fin.


Bats sort of resemble birds, but a closer look shows them to be mammals.    The lack of a fluke is an interesting thing; it shows us why whales have horizontal flukes rather than vertical ones like fish.

You see, the primitive mode of movement in vertebrates was a sinuous snakelike movement.   You see it in the way most fish swim, the way salamanders and many reptiles walk, and so on.   But really rapid movement for a quadruped requires a vertical, galloping gait.  Mammals have it, as do some advanced reptiles like crocodiles.  (Yep, they can gallop, if you scare them enough)

Many mammals such as seals and otters use that same movement to swim, utilizing hindlimbs as paddles.    Ambulocetus, with huge hind feet, clearly did that.    And so whales started that way.   Later, when they evolved flukes, they had to be horizontal.

Perhaps I'm wrong but isn't pakicetus the walking whale just a skull--have they found the rest?


Was originally.   They just assumed it had a whale-like body, because the head, although primitive, was clearly that of a whale.   Then they found the rest.  



Then there is basilosaurus.    I thought it funny that they say the back legs were useless, hence selection pressure.


Vestigial.   Vestigial organs do not have to be useless, just no longer able to do their former function.

Design mentality always looks for purpose, and now we know the purpose for the appendix.


Really?   What is that?   It does provide income to doctors, I suppose, and it blocks off what might otherwise be a hole in the digestive tract.  And it has a small amount of lymphoid tissue, but nothing compared to the Peyer's patches elsewhere in the large intestine.   It's vestigial because it no longer has a digestive function in humans as it does in many other animals.
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 10:35 PM on August 14, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We now have a pretty good series from primitive ungulates to modern whales.   Would you like to learn about them? Step 1--hippo?

I guess you missed all the posts where it was explained again and again to Lester that the hippo isn't ancestral to the whale.  Before you make stupid comments like this, you should go back and read them.

Yehren, what is there in ambulocetus fossils that convince paleontologists that it was mammalian?

All the characteristics that are common to mammals, like this, from here:
Mammal Skeleton

"Paleontologists use a distinguishing feature that is shared by all living mammals (including monotremes), but is not present in any of the early Triassic synapsids: mammals use two bones for hearing that were used for eating by their ancestors. The earliest synapsids had a jaw joint composed of the articular (a small bone at the back of the lower jaw) and the quadrate (a small bone at the back of the upper jaw). Most reptiles and non-mammalian synapsids use this system including lizards, crocodilians, dinosaurs (and their descendants the birds), and therapsids (mammal-like "reptiles"). Mammals have a different jaw joint, however, composed only of the dentary (the lower jaw bone which carries the teeth) and the squamosal (another small skull bone). In mammals the quadrate and articular bones have become the incus and malleus bones in the middle ear."

Very easy for the experts to tell the difference between fossilized mammals and everything else.

They say it resembled a crocodile but had larger legs.  If it resembled a crocodile then why isn't it a species of crocodile?

Because homologies go much deeper than what organisms "resemble", you keep ignoring comparative anatomy.  It isn't a species of crocodile because it has a mammalian skeleton, more specific, it has a whale's skeleton.

Perhaps I'm wrong but isn't pakicetus the walking whale just a skull--have they found the rest?

Yes they have, so you are wrong.  From here:
Pakicetus

"Complete fossil skeletons of Pakicetus have been found, so quite a lot is known about the animal. The reason it can be definitely identified as a cetacean, and not part of some other group, is that the skeleton's inner ear includes features which are characteristic of, and unique to, cetaceans."

Then there is basilosaurus.    I thought it funny that they say the back legs were useless, hence selection pressure.  Easy to think of a use such as reproductive
mounting.


Well, the experts said they were useless for locomotion, they weren't even attached to the pelvis.  They are obviously vestigial, using them for reproduction doesn't change that fact.

Design mentality always looks for purpose, and now we know the purpose for the appendix.

Yes in our herbivorous mammilian ancestors, it aided in digestion of plants.  It is vestigial in humans and whether it retains some minor function or not, does not change the fact that it is vestigial.

Quite large gaps but never any problem for evolution as it would never be possible it to be of design, so it is logically the only possibility.  Why debate then?

You're right, the evidence for evolution is pretty overwhelming, as the experts say it is intellectually perverse to deny it.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:01 PM on August 14, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just a few comments.

I was asking questions because I do not claim to know all in every subject.  This is how you learn.  Perhaps I will be like Demon one day and know all about all.

I am not ignoring homology Demon.  How deep does homology go?  It goes as deep as the experts say right?  Maybe if we break open a fossil we will find more homology.  We probably won't even need to use our eyes--just read what they say.

Demon you need to read wikipedia where it is suggested that whales came from relatives of the hippo.  But since you don't seem to know that living fossils exist, you call my comment stupid.

And no, I haven't been around.  I work alot--I don't sit on the computer all day ready to pounce on every word of those that disagree with my evolutionary dogmas.

By the way if is a whale skelton--it is a whale--perhaps exinct--but a whale.  If it has four working legs it is a land animal--which can't talk to tell us how it's kids turned into whales.  If it had small legs on the back--it did.  No one assumes the T-rex lost it's small fore legs and became a snake.  

The appendix has been compared to the tonsils, and has been found to serve an immunity purpose.  It is only when one assumes evolution, that a model is constructed for digression from a more complex or another organ.

Finally, I was being sarcastic when I said why debate evolution.  It is sort of funny--sorry.  You guys say a designer is irrelevant, so there's only one possibility left.  We win.  But in saying there's only one possibility left, you implie there are more.  

Like who wouldn't believe that something greater than our comprehension could be created by something we can't fully understand?--an atheist.

(Edited by AFJ 8/15/2009 at 12:11 AM).

(Edited by AFJ 8/15/2009 at 12:15 AM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 12:00 AM on August 15, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I was asking questions because I do not claim to know all in every subject.  This is how you learn.  Perhaps I will be like Demon one day and know all about all.

Learning is commendable, but there are many things you can look up instead of claiming ambulocetus was a crocodile because it kinda resembles one.  Doing your own research is a major part of learning.

I am not ignoring homology Demon.  How deep does homology go?

A lot deeper than superficial looks.  Comparative anatomy compares skeletal characteristics, organs, processes.  Then there's genetics.  And the funny thing is, when we compare anatomy to genetics, over 90% of the time the results match.  Why should they match if evolution is not true?

It goes as deep as the experts say right?

Well, they are the experts, they study this most of their lives.  And anyone is entitled to do the same research they do and refute their claims, if they can.  Creationists can't do this.

Maybe if we break open a fossil we will find more homology.

And that's just what happens!  From here:
T.Rex DNA

"New analyses of soft tissue from a T.rex leg bone re-confirm that birds are dinosaurs' closest living relatives.

"We determined that T. rex, in fact, grouped with birds — ostrich and chicken — better than any other organism that we studied," said researcher John Asara of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School. "We also show that it groups better with birds than [with] modern reptiles, such as alligators and green anole lizards." "

So yes, the deeper we go, the more homologies we find, which correspond to other homologies and the theory of evolution is further confirmed.

Demon you need to read wikipedia where it is suggested that whales came from relatives of the hippo.

And the relatives of the hippo are the relatives of the whale.  The whale did NOT descend from a hippo!  Still don't understand evolution.  So no, the whale did not evolve from a hippo, as you claimed.

But since you don't seem to know that living fossils exist, you call my comment
stupid.


Living fossils, the term is just a sound bite describing organisms that haven't changed much in a long period of time.  But there are no examples of organisms that have remained totally unchanged for millions of years.  In other words, living fossils don't disprove evolution but when you look at the details, support it.

By the way if is a whale skelton--it is a whale--perhaps exinct--but a whale.  If it has four working legs it is a land animal--which can't talk to tell us how it's kids turned into whales.

But the evidence tells us a great deal.  It's a continuum, we see whales becoming more and more aquatic as time goes on.  Why would a designer have to design them in this specific, chronological  pattern?  
And which ancient whale are we talking about here?  Which one are you claiming is NOT aquatic?

No one assumes the T-rex lost it's small fore legs and became a snake.

No, but primitive snakes did have hips and hind legs, which they gradually lost through evolution.  Why would a designer give snakes hips????

The appendix has been compared to the tonsils, and has been found to serve an immunity purpose.

Which doesn't change the fact that it is a vestigial caecum inherited from herbivorous mammilian ancestors.  Why do you say the appendix's main function is for immunity???  Where's your evidence?

It is only when one assumes evolution, that a model is constructed for digression from a more complex or another organ.

No, evolution is an explaination for it.  If you look at it objectively, you see other mammals with this large organ that is used to digest cellulose.  Then look at the human digestive tract, we don't digest cellulose.  The organ that other mammals use to digest it is large, we have the same organ but it's small, shrivelled.  Why is that?  Evolution explains it.

Finally, I was being sarcastic when I said why debate evolution.  It is sort of funny--sorry.  You guys say a designer is irrelevant, so there's only one possibility left.  We win.

Sorry, don't understand your point here.

Like who wouldn't believe that something greater than our comprehension could be created by something we can't fully understand?--an atheist.

Again, i don't understand your point.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:29 AM on August 15, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Two major concepts of comparative anatomy are:

  1. Homologous structures - structures (body parts/anatomy) which are similar in different species because the species have common descent. They may or may not perform the same function. An example is the forelimb structure shared by cats and whales.
  2. Analogous structures - structures which are similar in different organisms because they evolved in a similar environment, rather than were inherited from a recent common ancestor. They usually serve the same or similar purposes. An example is the torpedo body shape of porpoises and sharks. It evolved in a water environment, but the animals have different ancestors.


So there you have it the very concepts are framed in an evolutionary context.  It goes straight to "because." It does not go into detail as to the techniques of observation, or how one observes homology but "because they have common descent." Or "because they evolved in a similar environment."

So homology is supposedly evidence of evolution but evolution qualifies homology.

So the point I'm getting at, is that evolution is never being put to the test.  Everything must fit the model.  Everything will be qualified by evolution and then will be used as support for it.   It is a very protected theory.

Let the circle be unbroken.  If you know what I mean.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 03:35 AM on August 15, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 09:35 AM on August 15, 2009 :
Two major concepts of comparative anatomy are:

  1. Homologous structures - structures (body parts/anatomy) which are similar in different species because the species have common descent. They may or may not perform the same function. An example is the forelimb structure shared by cats and whales.
  2. Analogous structures - structures which are similar in different organisms because they evolved in a similar environment, rather than were inherited from a recent common ancestor. They usually serve the same or similar purposes. An example is the torpedo body shape of porpoises and sharks. It evolved in a water environment, but the animals have different ancestors.



I assume that what you have written above is meant to be a quote from somewhere? Any chance you could point us towards where you lifted the text from?


-------
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: 04:17 AM on August 15, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So there you have it the very concepts are framed in an evolutionary context.  It goes straight to "because." It does not go into detail as to the techniques of observation, or how one observes homology but "because they have common descent." Or "because they evolved in a similar environment."

You could never explain why a bat's wing is more similar to a whale flipper than a bird's wing.  When we present you with concrete examples of how homologies work, you run away and play word games.  Evolution is the explaination for what we see, not the context we see it in.  Observations came first, evolution explains them.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:13 AM on August 15, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I guess you missed all the posts where it was explained again and again to Lester that the hippo isn't ancestral to the whale.  


I still want to see the common ancestor that you are sure existed according to the theory. Remember there were the other supposed ancestors based on similarity of teeth. Now genetic similarities place the hippo closer than anything else despite having flat grinding teeth and a vegetarian diet as opposed to the whale’s carnivorous diet. Amazing the differences that genetics has wrought! How can we be sure that the similarity based on that one molecule has anything to do with relatedness?

Dr Domning, Paleontologist and Professor of Anatomy at Howard University  who specializes in aquatic mammal evolution says about the whale hippo connection:

“To the paleontologist, this is nonsense because whales have been around in the fossil record about 5 times as long as the hippos have. Hippos were very late on the scene, at which stage whales had already been around for tens of millions of years… and to associate these two is really an absurdity to anyone who takes the fossil record seriously.”

Perhaps Demon should get hold of Dr Domning and explain that whales and hippos had a common ancestor and there is nothing to worry about. In fact shit on him and ask him if he is a moron or what. The supposed common ancestor is in fact just an excuse for the hippo appearing so long after the whales. It makes the genetic info look stupid but there’s always a way around for the evolutionist –that’s why evolution is really pseudo-science as it is impossible to falsify.
Not to worry AFJ, you’re not so stupid as Demon38 would have you believe!

They say it resembled a crocodile but had larger legs.  If it resembled a crocodile then why isn't it a species of crocodile?


Because homologies go much deeper than what organisms "resemble", you keep ignoring comparative anatomy.  It isn't a species of crocodile because it has a mammalian skeleton, more specific, it has a whale's skeleton.


Ambulocetus could both walk on land and swim and had whale-like teeth. We have seals and sea lions these days that can get up and maneouver on the land a bit, that is because they were made for that. There’s no whale’s skeleton here Demon and the only reason Ambulocetus is called a ‘walking whale’ is because it has been placed in the hypothetical line leading to whales.
AFJ’s question is a good one. “It had eyes raised up on top of it’s head in a very strange way and is unusually large for an early whale…..maybe it’s not on the main line (in whale evolution)” according to Dr Gingerich of the University of Michigan, one of the leading authorities on whale evolution. Don’t tell me I am misquoting Dr Gingerich either, that’s exactly what he said even though he’s a true evolution believer; he nonetheless is allowed to express his worries or doubts just like the rest of us.

Then there is basilosaurus.    I thought it funny that they say the back legs were useless, hence selection pressure.  Easy to think of a use such as reproductive
mounting.


Well, the experts said they were useless for locomotion, they weren't even attached to the pelvis.  They are obviously vestigial, using them for reproduction doesn't change that fact.


Some evolutionists say that Basilosaurus couldn’t have been a precursor to modern whales because this whale lived at the same time as the more modern forms and therefore could not be the precursor. Of course other evolutionists may have a more slippery excuse for that, like ‘just because you’re alive at the same time as your grandfather does not mean he was not your ancestor.’ I can just hear it.

As for the vestigial ‘legs’ –how do we know that they were not designed for reproduction by a creator? How do we know they are vestigial at all? I suspect we are in fact guessing again.

Nobody even mentioned Rodhocetus here –has it been duly removed from the line? I wouldn’t be surprised, they do come and go.

You're right, the evidence for evolution is pretty overwhelming, as the experts say it is intellectually perverse to deny it.


Actually you’re wrong, the evidence for creation is utterly overwhelming so it is intellectually perverse to deny it.

The story of whale evolution is nothing but a story, a story developed by scientists and artists anxious to prove evolution. There are large ancestral gaps in the fossil record indicating that animals did not evolve. If whale evolution is the ‘best example’ of evolution that people like Niles Eldredge are prepared to stand behind then the theory is, for all practical purposes, dead.

 



-------
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: 06:12 AM on August 15, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Two major concepts of comparative anatomy are:

 1. Homologous structures - structures (body parts/anatomy) which are similar in different species because the species have common descent. They may or may not perform the same function. An example is the forelimb structure shared by cats and whales.
 2. Analogous structures - structures which are similar in different organisms because they evolved in a similar environment, rather than were inherited from a recent common ancestor. They usually serve the same or similar purposes. An example is the torpedo body shape of porpoises and sharks. It evolved in a water environment, but the animals have different ancestors.


Yes.  How do we know this?   Well, it's more than just the details of anatomy.    Turns out genes show the same thing.   So whales for example, still have genes for hind limbs.   They are just normally inactivated.   (We have examples of those genes somehow being expressed, so we know they aren't just similar genes)

So there you have it the very concepts are framed in an evolutionary context.


And the very concepts of gravity are framed in a physics context.   Is there a point here?

It goes straight to "because." It does not go into detail as to the techniques of observation, or how one observes homology but "because they have common descent."


See above.   These were first predictions, hypotheses, if you will.   Then scientists went out to test them.   And in many, many ways, the hypotheses were validated.   Homology does indicate common descent.

Or "because they evolved in a similar environment."


That too, is testable, and has been verified by evidence.

So homology is supposedly evidence of evolution but evolution qualifies homology.


No.   The apparently purposeless use of the same structures for different functions was hypothesized to have happened because of common descent, which would limit the ways in which an organism could evolve.    Scientists then tested this hypothesis by gathering evidence.   And the evidence verified the hypothesis.   This is how science works.

So the point I'm getting at, is that evolution is never being put to the test.


See above.   It's not just living things.   Evolution made many predictions about transitionals which much have been alive at one time.    And paleontology has repeatedly verified those predictions.

Everything must fit the model.


Theory.    A model is something quite different.   And you have it backwards.    The theory must fit all the evidence, or the theory must be altered to fit or discarded.   This is the source of the creationist argument that science cheats by changing the theory whenever the evidence shows parts of it to be wrong.   But that's how it works.

 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 08:15 AM on August 15, 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.