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
     Genetics and evolution
       For LEster

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

    
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In another thread, Lester writes:

"Molecular genetics does not support evolution."

This thread is for Lester to support this charge.

I challenge Lester to support this charge using his own words - i.e., without relying on quotes or vanity press books which he accepts at face value. Timbrx can help, if he has the guts and knkowledge.
Let's see if Lester understands the field well enough to be able to tell whether or not the things his creationist handlers tell him are correct.

In my experience, this is not usually the case - creationists just trust fellow creationists so much that they would not dream of doubtinng what they claim, as long as it props up their pre-conceived notions.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 6:53 PM on July 22, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Molecular genetics does not support evolution."


Ok Derwood - so can we start with an example that has been mentioned before. The hippo is genetically closer to the whale than is the hyena-like whale ancestor or the cat-like whale ancestor previously imagined to be the whale ancestor on the basis of dental morphology. Do we go with the morphology or the genetics and why are they contradictory?

I'd really appreciate it if we could have a conversation without the drama of the "Expose of the demented and the deluded. "

I have my reasons for not believing that macroevolution is a fact; you have yours for believing it is a fact; lets just stick with the facts rather than the overt egotism, the 'you're stupid, I'm clever'. I am interested in what you have to say. Thanks  


-------
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: 02:25 AM on July 23, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The hippo is genetically closer to the whale than is the hyena-like whale ancestor or the cat-like whale ancestor previously imagined to be the whale ancestor on the basis of dental morphology. Do we go with the morphology or the genetics and why are they
contradictory?


The latest data places hippos as the whales closet living relative.  So of course they are going to be closely related gentically.
From here:
Whale/Hippo

"A group of four-footed mammals that flourished worldwide for 40 million years and then died out in the ice ages is the missing link between the whale and its not-so-obvious nearest relative, the hippopotamus."

From the same article:

"All this was thrown into disarray in 1985 when UC Berkeley's Vincent Sarich, a pioneer of the field of molecular evolution and now a professor emeritus of anthropology, analyzed blood proteins and saw a close relationship between hippos and whales. A subsequent analysis of mitochondrial, nuclear and ribosomal DNA only solidified this relationship.
The conclusion by University of California, Berkeley, post-doctoral fellow Jean-Renaud Boisserie and his French colleagues finally puts to rest the long-standing notion that the hippo is actually related to the pig or to its close relative, the South American peccary. In doing so, the finding reconciles the fossil record with the 20-year-old claim that molecular evidence points to the whale as the closest relative of the hippo."

From the same article:

"All this was thrown into disarray in 1985 when UC Berkeley's Vincent Sarich, a pioneer of the field of molecular evolution and now a professor emeritus of anthropology, analyzed blood proteins and saw a close relationship between hippos and whales. A subsequent analysis of mitochondrial, nuclear and ribosomal DNA only solidified this relationship."

So the whales closest living relative is the hippo.  As to dental morphology, again, it is covered in the same article:

"The origin of hippos has been debated vociferously for nearly 200 years, ever since the animals were rediscovered by pioneering French paleontologist Georges Cuvier and others. Their conclusion that hippos are closely related to pigs and peccaries was based primarily on their interpretation of the ridges on the molars of these species, Boisserie said.
"In this particular case, you can't really rely on the dentition, however," Boisserie said. "Teeth are the best preserved and most numerous fossils, and analysis of teeth is very important in paleontology, but they are subject to lots of environmental processes and can quickly adapt to the outside world. So, most characteristics are not dependable indications of relationships between major groups of mammals. Teeth are not as reliable as people thought." "

As new data emerges, science becomes more precise.  We see why genetics and dental morphology is confusing, but as the article says:

"This new analysis finally brings the fossil evidence into accord with the molecular data, showing that whales and hippos indeed are one another's closest relatives."

Read the whole article and see if it answers your questions.  














 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:30 AM on July 23, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The latest data places hippos as the whales closet living relative.  So of course they are going to be closely related gentically.


So does the blood proteins data line up with genetic data generally?

In doing so, the finding reconciles the fossil record with the 20-year-old claim that molecular evidence points to the whale as the closest relative of the hippo."


How does this reconcile the fossil record with the molecular evidence? I thought the fossil evidence was supposed to put the hyena or cat-like ancestor closer to the whale? Aren't they contradicting one another right there?
Is morphological data worth anything or has that all been scrapped? Is conflicting molecular data poised to replace morphological data? My point was that they are conflicting so how can we know which is true.
The point made on this forum is that morphological and molecular data is not in conflict -but it is.

Read the whole article and see if it answers your questions.


It doesn't -sorry.





-------
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: 06:41 AM on July 23, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester

Genetics probably will dominate future classification criteria. There is nothing unusual about that. As technology improves we get more (often better) information and naturally that leads to revision of previous theories.

The whale-hippo puzzle is an example of science challenging its own hypotheses with new information. Thats how science works. We dont 'believe in our hypothese' we challenge them and allow them to be challenged and when the evidence justifies it we scrap old hypotheses and formulate new ones based on the best evidence available.

The best explanation for the evidence will be the simplest. In this case the simplest explanation, according to the article, is that the genetic evidence be preferred to the morphological evidence and that phenotypic convergence could explain the morphological similarities between whales and the hyena/cat-like possible ancestors.

But the point of this thread is that you were challenged to provide evidence FOR CREATION. No amount of refuting evolutionary-based classification even begins to 'prove' creation. What evidence do you have that points specifically at creation?




-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 07:58 AM on July 23, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:41 AM on July 23, 2009 :
How does this reconcile the fossil record with the molecular evidence? I thought the fossil evidence was supposed to put the hyena or cat-like ancestor closer to the whale? Aren't they contradicting one another right there?


Closest living relative does not equate to ancestry.  You are descended from your great-great-great-great-grandfather, not your fifth cousin.

The whale and hippo both share the hyena-like ancestor.




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

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:20 AM on July 23, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Waterboy

Genetics probably will dominate future classification criteria. There is nothing unusual about that. As technology improves we get more (often better) information and naturally that leads to revision of previous theories.


That’s fine Waterboy, I’m just checking what the latest story is. You see morphology used to be a major evidence for evolution. Now it appears that that evidence was not evidence after all. Even when it was considered to be evidence, it really wasn’t evidence for common ancestry because there was nothing stopping it from being evidence for a common designer.
So evolutionists said it was evidence for evolution.
We said it was evidence for a common designer.
Now evolutionists say molecules are evidence for evolution.
We say they are evidence for a common designer.
The cause for their relatedness is not necessarily ancestry.
There is also no evidence for common ancestry because there’s no evidence that macro-evolution is even possible. Were it possible and assuming it could be demonstrated that it was possible, then we could start to see eye to eye. It is the assumption of macro-evolution in the absence of evidence that is retarding the conversation at this point.

We have another problem however and that is that in the fossil record hippos have not been found to have lived before whales. That would be like my great great grandfather being buried millions of years after I was born…

phenotypic convergence could explain the morphological similarities between whales and the hyena/cat-like possible ancestors.


Of course, the theory is terribly plastic after all.

But the point of this thread is that you were challenged to provide evidence FOR CREATION.

Actually this thread is all about genetics and evolution so you are in the wrong place.
I’ve told you (ie. evolutionists) where to find the evidence for creation –just look at all the evidence of life and there it is, you just interpret it differently. Every piece of evidence that exists, you have to interpret according to your worldview. So do we. It’s the anomalies that I find to be the most interesting pieces of evidence.

No amount of refuting evolutionary-based classification even begins to 'prove' creation.


Well it does show how today’s facts are invariably tomorrow’s mistakes and you wonder why we don’t believe you.




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


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:58 AM on July 23, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:58 AM on July 23, 2009 :
We have another problem however and that is that in the fossil record hippos have not been found to have lived before whales. That would be like my great great grandfather being buried millions of years after I was born…

Quote from Apoapsis at 08:20 AM on July 23, 2009 :
Quote from Lester10 at 06:41 AM on July 23, 2009 :
How does this reconcile the fossil record with the molecular evidence? I thought the fossil evidence was supposed to put the hyena or cat-like ancestor closer to the whale? Aren't they contradicting one another right there?


Closest living relative does not equate to ancestry.  You are descended from your great-great-great-great-grandfather, not your fifth cousin.

The whale and hippo both share the hyena-like ancestor.








(Edited by Apoapsis 7/23/2009 at 09:53 AM).


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

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:52 AM on July 23, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And your point is...


-------
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: 11:22 AM on July 23, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Nobody but you is saying that a hippo is ancestral to a whale.


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

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 1:29 PM on July 23, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So does the blood proteins data line up with genetic data generally?

Yes.

How does this reconcile the fossil record with the molecular evidence?

I don't see what molecular evidence you're talking about...But new fossils have been key to reconciling the fossil record with currnet molecular evidence of how hippos and whales are related.  From the article:
Whale/Hippo

"New whale fossils discovered in Pakistan in 2001, some of which have limb characteristics similar to artiodactyls, drew a more certain link between whales and artiodactyls. Boisserie and his colleagues conducted a phylogenetic analysis of new and previous hippo, whale and anthracothere fossils and were able to argue persuasively that anthracotheres are the missing link between hippos and cetaceans."

So the new fossil evidence reconciles the connection between whales and hippos.  I thought you said you read the article...

I thought the fossil evidence was supposed to put the hyena or cat-like ancestor closer to the whale?

Closer than what?  The Mesonychia were what split off into whales and hippos.  I don't think you understand what is being said.

Aren't they contradicting one another right there?

Not at all, no contradiction at all.

Is morphological data worth anything or has that all been scrapped?

It's worth a great deal, and you haven't explained why we have a 90% match rate with genetic evidence SO FAR.  As with everything in science, we don't know everything right now.  As we come to understand the evidence better and better and as we gather more and more evidence, we can draw better and better conclusions.  

My point was that they are conflicting so how can we know which is true.
The point made on this forum is that morphological and molecular data is not in conflict -but it is.


But it's not, just our understanding of how some of this evidence is related.  Didn't you read the explaination of why the evidence from teeth has been overturned?
From here:
Teeth

"Their conclusion that hippos are closely related to pigs and peccaries was based primarily on their interpretation of the ridges on the molars of these species, Boisserie said.

"In this particular case, you can't really rely on the dentition, however," Boisserie said. "Teeth are the best preserved and most numerous fossils, and analysis of teeth is very important in paleontology, but they are subject to lots of environmental processes and can quickly adapt to the outside world. So, most characteristics are not dependable indications of relationships between major groups of mammals. Teeth are not as reliable as people thought." "

Since teeth can change greatly depending on the environment, they aren't the best structure to base relationships on.  Once again, as our knowledge improves, our conclusions improve.  And the claim still stands, morphology and genetics match up 90% of the time and that percentage is growing.  


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:25 PM on July 23, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Another thread dropped like a hot potato. . .


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

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:25 AM on July 24, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 02:25 AM on July 23, 2009 :
"Molecular genetics does not support evolution."


Ok Derwood - so can we start with an example that has been mentioned before. The hippo is genetically closer to the whale than is the hyena-like whale ancestor or the cat-like whale ancestor previously imagined to be the whale ancestor on the basis of dental morphology. Do we go with the morphology or the genetics and why are they contradictory?

I'd really appreciate it if we could have a conversation without the drama of the "Expose of the demented and the deluded. "


1. Dental morphology is but a small subset of overall morphology.
2. Small subsets of data do not trump larger sets of data.
3. Genes DICTATE (in part) morphology, dental or otherwise.
4. Analyses of patterns of shared unique mutations have been tested on knowns and shown to accurately (90+%) reconstruct their known relationships
5.You may want to check out this paper:


"Are the Dental Data really at odds with the Molecular Data? Morphological Evidence for Whale Phylogeny (Re)Reexamined."

6. In previous cases wherein morphological and genetuic data seemed to produce incongruencies in phylogenies, re-examinations produced data that had been overlooked or not considered relevant before.  See this paper:Catarrhine Phylogeny: Noncoding DNA Evidence for a Diphyletic
Origin of the Mangabeys and for a Human–Chimpanzee Clade

and more recent papers by Fleagle documenting this.

I have my reasons for not believing that macroevolution is a fact;

Yes, from what I have read they are purely religion-protection.

you have yours for believing it is a fact; lets just stick with the facts

That would be nice for a change.  But let us not forgot that ALL relevant facts should be considered, not just the cherry-picked few that one can find on creationist websites that seem to confirm one's pre-determined 'suspicions.'

rather than the overt egotism, the 'you're stupid, I'm clever'.


It is always somewhat amusing to see how this myth arises.

I've never written any such thing.  Correcting errors should not be considered 'overt egotism'.  But isn't it interesting that those who espouse erroneous information take such great offense at being corrected.  Seems a lack of humility is more a problem in these debates than is egotism.

I am interested in what you have to say. Thanks  

Considering the fact that you have a tendency to ignore substantive posts that I've made, I'm not so sure.


(Edited by derwood 7/24/2009 at 12:18 PM).


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:01 PM on July 24, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:41 AM on July 23, 2009 :
The latest data places hippos as the whales closet living relative.  So of course they are going to be closely related gentically.


So does the blood proteins data line up with genetic data generally?


1.  They should, but
2. How do you get blood proteins or DNA from something that has been extinct for millions of years?

This is the sort of thing that if I correct it, I am called an egotist/elitist.

In doing so, the finding reconciles the fossil record with the 20-year-old claim that molecular evidence points to the whale as the closest relative of the hippo."


How does this reconcile the fossil record with the molecular evidence? I thought the fossil evidence was supposed to put the hyena or cat-like ancestor closer to the whale?

You've been shown a graphic depiction of the phylogeny in question.  That addresses your question.  


Aren't they contradicting one another right there?


No. See:





Is morphological data worth anything or has that all been scrapped?


It is not an all-or-nothing gambit.  It is worth something when that is all you have, and when you have more, sometimes what you had before did not tell the whole story.

Is conflicting molecular data poised to replace morphological data? My point was that they are conflicting so how can we know which is true.

Your point appears to be moot.

Of course, a conflicting phylogenetic tree does not seem to have the impact that you seem to require it to - to "not support" evolution.

According to your logic, the fact that there are multiple interpretations of Scripture should negate Scripture's worth in toto, but I have a feeling that you would not accept such universal applications of standards.


The point made on this forum is that morphological and molecular data is not in conflict -but it is.

Sometimes, but as I have documented, further study tends to iron out the conflicts.  You are demanding universal knowledhge at this moment.  A truly fantastical and unrealistic demand.
Even is such conflict were never resolved, I do not see how this supports your statement:

"Molecular genetics does not support evolution."

Your perceived conflict on whale phylogney is truly irrelevant to your position.



Read the whole article and see if it answers your questions.


It doesn't -sorry.


Then I am at a loss to see how further discussion will inform you any better.

If you cannot understand what is fairly evident to those that read and understand this material, then you really have no business pontificating on it, plain and simple.

Creationists may want to take a dose of humility now and then.

But never mind me, I'm just an egotist elitist and condescending ass for correcting erroneous claims.



(Edited by derwood 7/24/2009 at 12:22 PM).


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:13 PM on July 24, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 08:25 AM on July 24, 2009 :
Another thread dropped like a hot potato. . .



Well, with all these folks that have taken the time to read and learn and understand what is being discussed - oops, I mean all these  egotists on here....


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:15 PM on July 24, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:58 AM on July 23, 2009 :
Well it does show how today’s facts are invariably tomorrow’s mistakes and you wonder why we don’t believe you.




"Invariably"?

Sure about that?

'You' don't believe us because you are required to reject anything that seems not to overtly prop up your preferred ancient mythology.

Plain and simple.





-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:20 PM on July 24, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We really seem to be missing one another in the dark here Derwood. You believe that a hippo –like ancestor turned into a whale over a long period of time and yet hippos only appear after the whales in the fossil record contradicting the entire story; much like the birds found millions of years before archeopteryx. Also what happens to ambulocetus natans, ‘the walking whale’ now that sinonyx is no longer the preferred ancestor? Was that then not an ancestor after all? Is it now considered to not be a whale of any description (wouldn’t surprise me, never did look anything like one). So that whole story was an invention, obviously but we must believe the new invention because genetics apparently supports it, which wasn’t noticed before (some things were overlooked).

Aside from that how did the hippo like ancestor start developing flippers and a whale’s tail?
Mutations don’t seem to be a good explanation for bringing forth something required for the deep water. Did this creature start developing the flippers and tale after venturing into the water or did they start developing before leading the hippo to the impression that it would be better off in the deep sea? If Lamarckism is dead, then how does this happen in your opinion? It’s one thing to believe it, it’s quite another to get a stupid person to believe it. Baffling with bullshit is not so effective as giving a good clear explanation for how this could have occurred. Do you have a good clear explanation, tables and diagrams aside?    



-------
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: 09:34 AM on July 25, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
You believe that a hippo –like ancestor turned into a whale over a long period of time and yet hippos only appear after the whales in the fossil record contradicting the entire story


You still don't understand what is going on here, Lester.  The evidence shows that whales and hippos both descended from a common ancestor, not that whales are descended from hippos.

Also, when we see fossils indicating evidence of a transition from land to water (or from water to land), that is strong evidence supporting evolution.  Whether any particular fossil species was itself a direct ancestor to a latter species alive today is not the point.  The point is that we see strong evidence that a transition took place.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:01 PM on July 25, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The evidence shows that whales and hippos both descended from a common ancestor, not that whales are descended from hippos.


Well that sure takes care of anything found in the wrong order. So have we found any ancestral hippos mutating in the direction of a whale? Can you show me any of those transitional forms or are we still looking?

Also, when we see fossils indicating evidence of a transition from land to water (or from water to land), that is strong evidence supporting evolution.


No it actually isn't strong evidence of anything turning into anything because you're looking at dead bones and making it all up. We have no reason to believe that any one kind of creature changed into any other kind since we don't see anything changing into anything else now and all we ever see is bacteria giving rise to bacteria and fruit fly giving rise to fruit fly and to say that long ago and far away these radical changes happened is just a fairy tale of abominable proportions.  



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


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 04:23 AM on July 26, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well that sure takes care of anything found in the wrong order.

What has been found in the wrong order?  The evidence is pretty clear, hippos and whales descended from a common ancestor, there's nothing in the wrong order.

No it actually isn't strong evidence of anything turning into anything because you're looking at dead bones and making it all up.

Nope, not making anything up, drawing conclusions from the available evidence.  You still don't understand how science works.

We have no reason to believe that any one kind of creature changed into any other kind since we don't see anything changing into anything else now and all we ever see is bacteria giving rise to bacteria and fruit fly giving rise to fruit fly and to say that long ago and far away these radical changes happened is just a fairy tale of abominable
proportions.


Keep telling yourself that, evolution is a fact, common descent is a fact.  What you believe is irrelevant to real knowledge.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:46 AM on July 26, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well am I going to see the hippo -whale common ancestor or not? Is it lost or have we not found it yet? Is it, for the moment, a figment of the imagination?

What you believe is irrelevant to real knowledge


I will have to say the same for you.


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


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 10:02 AM on July 26, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:02 AM on July 26, 2009 :
Well am I going to see the hippo -whale common ancestor or not? Is it lost or have we not found it yet? Is it, for the moment, a figment of the imagination?


Based on the genetic evidence, a common ancestor for the two would be an artiodactyl some 50 million years or more ago.





-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 3:49 PM on July 26, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well am I going to see the hippo -whale common ancestor or not?

Long before you ever see any evidence for creationism!


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:55 PM on July 26, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester -
Well am I going to see the hippo -whale common ancestor or not? Is it lost or have we not found it yet?


Funny you should ask - yes, just recently a common ancestor to hippos and whales have been discovered in the fossil record.

Anthracotheriidae is a family of extinct, hippopotamus-like artiodactyl ungulates related to hippopotamuses and whales.

Here is the article:
Missing link between whales and Hippos

This is an excellent example of how the new technology allowing the examinination of molecular genomes can help resolve questions relating to morphology - the field of phylogenetics.  

And sure enough, just as predicted by phylogenetics, we find a fossil that shows a link to the common ancestor between hippos and whales.

Now that is something that creationists could never have predicted, and didn't.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 01:00 AM on July 27, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 12:00 AM on July 27, 2009 :
Lester -
Well am I going to see the hippo -whale common ancestor or not? Is it lost or have we not found it yet?


Funny you should ask - yes, just recently a common ancestor to hippos and whales have been discovered in the fossil record.



That is cool, and is just as we would predict given the evolutionary model.



-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 10:35 AM on July 27, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:34 AM on July 25, 2009 :
We really seem to be missing one another in the dark here Derwood. You believe that a hippo –like ancestor turned into a whale over a long period of time and yet hippos only appear after the whales in the fossil record contradicting the entire story; much like the birds found millions of years before archeopteryx.

That you cannot interpret thew phylogenetic tree shown twice to you in this thread alone clearly indicates that you have no business pontificating on these matters.  Sorry - elitist and all that, I know, but that is the truth.  
As for the 'birds' found 'millions' of years before archaeopteryx, we again see that the significance of Archaeopteryx is lost on you.



Also what happens to ambulocetus natans, ‘the walking whale’ now that sinonyx is no longer the preferred ancestor? Was that then not an ancestor after all?


Do you consider a great-great-great-great-great grandfather's sister an 'ancestor'?
Or is she completely irrelevant to your family tree?
More specifically, I am not a cetacean phylogeny expert (are you?), this might be informative:
===
Morphologists have long thought that Sinonyx was the direct ancestor of Cetacea (whales and dolphins), but the discovery of well preserved hind limbs of archaic cetaceans as well as more recent DNA phylogenetic analyses[2][3][4] now indicates that cetaceans are more closely related to hippopotamids and other artiodactyls than they are to mesonychids, and this result is consistent with many molecular studies.[5] Even though some scientist do not think Sinonyx is an ancestor of Cetacea [3] the reasons for originally thinking that it was are the following:

Sinonyx's elongated muzzle and tooth shape are atypical compared to other mesonychids, but are features close to those of the cetaceans. Its elongated muzzle, teeth and skull features are common to the earliest primitive whales. The elongation of the muzzle is often associated with hunting fish and all fish-hunting whales and dolphins have elongated muzzles. These features suggest that Sinonyx was developing adaptations that could have later become the basis of the whales' specialized way of life. The triangular shaped teeth have a prominent middle cusp or point and two relatively equal sized cusps on each side that are also similar to cetaceans. Other similarities include a loss of a collarbone and specialized upper arm bones. Mesonychids are also the only 'carnivorous' ungulates, and although many cetaceans are filter feeders of tiny zooplankton, no cetacean is a plant eater. Other characters that Sinonyx has in common to the whales include an enlarged jugular foramen (a natural opening or perforation through a bone or a membranous structure) and a short basicranium (underside of the skull).[6] Furthermore, the ear structure of primitive placentals, including early ungulates, has a larely cartilaginous tympanic auditory bullae (bony capsules enclosing the middle and inner ear). with only a thin ring of bone, the tympanic, which supported the tympanum. But in Sinonyx, the entire bulla had become ossified, as it is in all whales. A thicker bulla and denser bone contribute in three ways to improved high-pitched hearing in cetaceans: "it strengthens the bulla to resist compression more effectively, insulates it acoustically from the rest of the skull better than ordinary bone, and raises the frequency of sound that can be detected."[7]

The transition from Mesonychid to cetacean was thought to be easy to follow from the fossil evidence. Mesonychids were often shore dwelling animals that hunted both on land and in the shallows, and it was not hard to imagine a shore dwelling creature becoming more specialized and eventually returning to the ocean. Intermediate forms such as Ambulocetus and Pakicetus especially closely resemble Mesonychids with their fully functioning legs and similar tooth morphology. Pakicetus has a similar body design, but a head more closely resembling archaic cetaceans. Ambulocetus is similar in design to Pakicetus, with the addition of flippered feet, and most likely moved better in the water than on land like a modern otter or seal. Beyond Ambulocetus, it is easy to trace the ancestry directly to modern cetaceans[8]: Sinonyx (land-dwelling) -> Pakicetus (swims occasionally) -> Ambulocetans natans (swims predominantly) -> Rodhocetus (paddling reduced hind legs) -> Basilosaurus (vestigial hind limbs) -> Dorudon.

===

Is it now considered to not be a whale of any description (wouldn’t surprise me, never did look anything like one).

And you conclude that based on your in-depth anatomical knowledge, correct?

So that whole story was an invention, obviously but we must believe the new invention because genetics apparently supports it, which wasn’t noticed before (some things were overlooked).

An "invention" based on existing evidence, which I know is anathema to the creationist, who prefer their stories to be made up by tweaking the myths of other civilizations which were in turn made up completely.


Aside from that how did the hippo like ancestor start developing flippers and a whale’s tail?
Mutations don’t seem to be a good explanation for bringing forth something required for the deep water.

Right, so because they do not seem 'good enough' to come internet creationist, clearly it must be incorrect.  
Have you ever heard of sirenomelia?




Did this creature start developing the flippers and tale after venturing into the water or did they start developing before leading the hippo to the impression that it would be better off in the deep sea?

I don't know.

Why did Yahweh 'create' all those extinct animals that show up in a sequential fashion in the fossil record and appear to those who know what they are looking at to be transitional forms?
Was Yahweh just practicing?


If Lamarckism is dead, then how does this happen in your opinion?


In my opinion, the mutation precedes the adaptation (in most cases) and, of course, it is environment dependant.


It’s one thing to believe it, it’s quite another to get a stupid person to believe it. Baffling with bullshit is not so effective as giving a good clear explanation for how this could have occurred. Do you have a good clear explanation, tables and diagrams aside?    

Unlike so many creationists lacking even basic biology backgrounds, I do not claim to be an expert on things I am not.  I do not know that mcuh about whale evolution, other than having read some of the related papers in the scientific literature.  
Of course, if tables and diagrams are too much for you to understand, I fail to see how an in-depth, detailed explanation would comfort you.



The fact of the matter is you have not supported your claim that I quoted in the OP.  
It was a blanket assertion almost certainly premised ont he misleading information/disinformation/half-truths/misinterpretations/outright lies you've read on creationist websites or in creationist books like Johnson's or Wells'.





-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:24 PM on July 27, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Mustrum at 10:35 AM on July 27, 2009 :
Quote from orion at 12:00 AM on July 27, 2009 :
Lester -
Well am I going to see the hippo -whale common ancestor or not? Is it lost or have we not found it yet?


Funny you should ask - yes, just recently a common ancestor to hippos and whales have been discovered in the fossil record.



That is cool, and is just as we would predict given the evolutionary model.



The YEC model dictates that ALL animals should be found in basically one stratum.

That there is a progression AT ALL destroys the YEC model.



-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:25 PM on July 27, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The YEC model dictates that ALL animals should be found in basically one stratum.

That there is a progression AT ALL destroys the YEC model.


Where did you suck these from?

That there are enormous jumps with no intermediates destroys evolution - even main evolutionists realize that this is the case with the fossil record. If you can't see the jumps then you don't want to.



-------
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: 07:35 AM on August 4, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:35 AM on August 4, 2009 :
The YEC model dictates that ALL animals should be found in basically one stratum.

That there is a progression AT ALL destroys the YEC model.


Where did you suck these from?

That there are enormous jumps with no intermediates destroys evolution - even main evolutionists realize that this is the case with the fossil record. If you can't see the jumps then you don't want to.



Whatever a "main evolutionist" is, no they don't, it's only creationists that say that there are enormous jumps with no intermediates. That, or they quote mine evolutionists :P

 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 12:21 PM on August 4, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Whatever a "main evolutionist" is, no they don't


So...does this mean you know what a main evolutionist is?

it's only creationists that say that there are enormous jumps with no intermediates


But it is also people with eyes to see that say there are no intermediates; though depending on what they believe, they say it in funny ways:

For example: (about the gap between  unicellular life and Cambrian invertebrates) Eldredge said: “Creationists have made much of this sudden development of a rich and varied fossil record, where, just before, there was none.”

GG Simpson calls it a ‘major mystery of the history of life’

Runneger states: “…the paleontologists have concentrated on the fossil record and have therefore provided a wealth of information on the early history of a great variety of invertebrate groups, but little insight into their origins.”

I call that a major jump –most people, those not trying to be deceptive, admit that it is a gap that is inexplicable. Though many possible excuses have been offered, none of any value has really been advanced. Do you have any other way of describing it that fits with reality?

That, or they quote mine evolutionists


That is called obfuscation –whether they choose a portion of the quote or the whole quote (which takes up more space), it says the same thing. Trying to get the gap to go away by making an excuse about quote mining is disengenous at best.



-------
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: 06:59 AM on August 5, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That is called obfuscation

Yes! That is exactly what it is. Unfortunately, I think that you actually misunderstand the meaning of the word.
whether they choose a portion of the quote or the whole quote (which takes up more space), it says the same thing.
and that confirms it.


-------
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: 07:44 AM on August 5, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


So...does this mean you know what a main evolutionist is?

I should have been clear, what ever a main evolutionist means.
But real scientists don't.

For example: (about the gap between  unicellular life and Cambrian invertebrates) Eldredge said: “Creationists have made much of this sudden development of a rich and varied fossil record, where, just before, there was none.”


I can't find this specific quote really, even if I do a simple search on Google for it, could you give me the original source by any chance? Also, at the same time, I'd like to know if you read the original source or are just copying this form a another website.

But let me provide you with a different quote from Eldridge, that creationist sources often show off:

"There are all sorts of gaps: absence of gradationally intermediate 'transitional' forms between species, but also between larger groups - between, say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals. In fact, the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be." (Eldredge, Niles, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, p. 65)


And it will seem that Eldredge is not very positive about the fossil record and its transitionals.

But if we look at the original text from which the quote came, it says:

It is the gaps in the fossil record which, perhaps more than any other facet of the natural world, are dearly beloved by creationists. As we shall see when we take up the creationist position, there are all sorts of gaps: absence of graduationally intermediate "transitional" forms between species, but also between larger groups -- between say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals. In fact, the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there [p. 65 | pg 66 ] seem to be. For example, Peripatus a lobe-legged, wormlike creature that haunts rotting logs in the Southern-Hemisphere, appears intermediate in many respects between tow of the major phyla on earth today -- the segmented worms and the arthropods. But few other phyla have such intermediates with other phyla, and when we scan the fossil record for them we find some, but basically little, help. Extinction has surely weeded out of the intermediate species, but on the other hand, the fossil record is not exactly teeming with their remains.


And suddenly, you realize that he is talking "about creationists", not putting down that argument himself. This is the quote mine and he says that the fossil record is doing quote fine with its intermediates.

Creationist dishonesty at its best right there.

So yeah, gimme the source of your quote, I'll look it up personally, because I doubt that a person who wrote a book "against creationists" would actually agree with them, you have to admit that that isn't very logical.

GG Simpson calls it a ‘major mystery of the history of life’


You really need to put sources to your quotes, because in this case, the quote is tiny, I can find it, but apparently not the source of the quote, can you help me out here ?

Runneger states: “…the paleontologists have concentrated on the fossil record and have therefore provided a wealth of information on the early history of a great variety of invertebrate groups, but little insight into their origins.”


Now this is an interesting one, because I can actually find this quote here: quotefound

But if you look down at where the quote came from, it says:

Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!, Institute of Creation Research, California, 1985, p. 58.

So, where does the original quote come from? I mean, seriously, you have to provide the original sources.
I also doubt that you have read any of the original sources, otherwise you couldn't make a claim like:


That is called obfuscation –whether they choose a portion of the quote or the whole quote (which takes up more space), it says the same thing. Trying to get the gap to go away by making an excuse about quote mining is disengenous at best.


Is simply silly, but lets put that in perspective, I've found a quote from a post of yours on a forum, I have purposefully quote mined it, and took the parts that make it seem like you support something that you clearly don't.

BUT, the only way to know this, is to look at the full quote.

Here goes:

That's exactly what we've got -no intelligent rubbish.
Evolution is the obvious answer, less and less people would be bothered to argue. As it turns out, that is not what is happening.


So you support evolution and none of that "intelligent rubbish?"

I'm choosing portions of your quote here, these are even from the same post, and these tell a different story from what you are telling us, what is going on, are you changing your mind finally?
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 08:53 AM on August 5, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:35 AM on August 4, 2009 :
The YEC model dictates that ALL animals should be found in basically one stratum.

That there is a progression AT ALL destroys the YEC model.


Where did you suck these from?


From the only rational conclusion of YEC fantasy.

One big flood, covering the entire world, sediment will settle out uniformly, all dead animals with similar densities and drag coefficients shou8ld all settle out in roughly the same strata.

They did not.  Thus, no big flood.




That there are enormous jumps with no intermediates destroys evolution -


You are talking fossils, yes?

Tell me - is there an intermediate between a human of normal height and her offspring that happens to be a dwarf?



even main evolutionists realize that this is the case with the fossil record.


'Main' evolutionists?  Where did you suck that term from?


If you can't see the jumps then you don't want to.


I see the 'jumps', but unlike those who witness by claiming to have understood it all then converted to YECism, I actually have an understanding of why they appear to be there.





-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 1:35 PM on August 5, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You must have missed this one Lester - I know you wouldn't have just ignored it:


Quote from Lester10 at 09:34 AM on July 25, 2009 :
We really seem to be missing one another in the dark here Derwood. You believe that a hippo –like ancestor turned into a whale over a long period of time and yet hippos only appear after the whales in the fossil record contradicting the entire story; much like the birds found millions of years before archeopteryx.

That you cannot interpret the phylogenetic tree shown twice to you in this thread alone clearly indicates that you have no business pontificating on these matters.  Sorry - elitist and all that, I know, but that is the truth.  
As for the 'birds' found 'millions' of years before archaeopteryx, we again see that the significance of Archaeopteryx is lost on you.



Also what happens to ambulocetus natans, ‘the walking whale’ now that sinonyx is no longer the preferred ancestor? Was that then not an ancestor after all?


Do you consider a great-great-great-great-great grandfather's sister an 'ancestor'?
Or is she completely irrelevant to your family tree?
More specifically, I am not a cetacean phylogeny expert (are you?), this might be informative:
===
Morphologists have long thought that Sinonyx was the direct ancestor of Cetacea (whales and dolphins), but the discovery of well preserved hind limbs of archaic cetaceans as well as more recent DNA phylogenetic analyses[2][3][4] now indicates that cetaceans are more closely related to hippopotamids and other artiodactyls than they are to mesonychids, and this result is consistent with many molecular studies.[5] Even though some scientist do not think Sinonyx is an ancestor of Cetacea [3] the reasons for originally thinking that it was are the following:

Sinonyx's elongated muzzle and tooth shape are atypical compared to other mesonychids, but are features close to those of the cetaceans. Its elongated muzzle, teeth and skull features are common to the earliest primitive whales. The elongation of the muzzle is often associated with hunting fish and all fish-hunting whales and dolphins have elongated muzzles. These features suggest that Sinonyx was developing adaptations that could have later become the basis of the whales' specialized way of life. The triangular shaped teeth have a prominent middle cusp or point and two relatively equal sized cusps on each side that are also similar to cetaceans. Other similarities include a loss of a collarbone and specialized upper arm bones. Mesonychids are also the only 'carnivorous' ungulates, and although many cetaceans are filter feeders of tiny zooplankton, no cetacean is a plant eater. Other characters that Sinonyx has in common to the whales include an enlarged jugular foramen (a natural opening or perforation through a bone or a membranous structure) and a short basicranium (underside of the skull).[6] Furthermore, the ear structure of primitive placentals, including early ungulates, has a larely cartilaginous tympanic auditory bullae (bony capsules enclosing the middle and inner ear). with only a thin ring of bone, the tympanic, which supported the tympanum. But in Sinonyx, the entire bulla had become ossified, as it is in all whales. A thicker bulla and denser bone contribute in three ways to improved high-pitched hearing in cetaceans: "it strengthens the bulla to resist compression more effectively, insulates it acoustically from the rest of the skull better than ordinary bone, and raises the frequency of sound that can be detected."[7]

The transition from Mesonychid to cetacean was thought to be easy to follow from the fossil evidence. Mesonychids were often shore dwelling animals that hunted both on land and in the shallows, and it was not hard to imagine a shore dwelling creature becoming more specialized and eventually returning to the ocean. Intermediate forms such as Ambulocetus and Pakicetus especially closely resemble Mesonychids with their fully functioning legs and similar tooth morphology. Pakicetus has a similar body design, but a head more closely resembling archaic cetaceans. Ambulocetus is similar in design to Pakicetus, with the addition of flippered feet, and most likely moved better in the water than on land like a modern otter or seal. Beyond Ambulocetus, it is easy to trace the ancestry directly to modern cetaceans[8]: Sinonyx (land-dwelling) -> Pakicetus (swims occasionally) -> Ambulocetans natans (swims predominantly) -> Rodhocetus (paddling reduced hind legs) -> Basilosaurus (vestigial hind limbs) -> Dorudon.

===

Is it now considered to not be a whale of any description (wouldn’t surprise me, never did look anything like one).

And you conclude that based on your in-depth anatomical knowledge, correct?

So that whole story was an invention, obviously but we must believe the new invention because genetics apparently supports it, which wasn’t noticed before (some things were overlooked).

An "invention" based on existing evidence, which I know is anathema to the creationist, who prefer their stories to be made up by tweaking the myths of other civilizations which were in turn made up completely.


Aside from that how did the hippo like ancestor start developing flippers and a whale’s tail?
Mutations don’t seem to be a good explanation for bringing forth something required for the deep water.

Right, so because they do not seem 'good enough' to some internet creationist, clearly it must be incorrect.  
Have you ever heard of sirenomelia?




Did this creature start developing the flippers and tale after venturing into the water or did they start developing before leading the hippo to the impression that it would be better off in the deep sea?

I don't know.

Why did Yahweh 'create' all those extinct animals that show up in a sequential fashion in the fossil record and appear to those who know what they are looking at to be transitional forms?
Was Yahweh just practicing?


If Lamarckism is dead, then how does this happen in your opinion?


In my opinion, the mutation precedes the adaptation (in most cases) and, of course, it is environment dependant.


It’s one thing to believe it, it’s quite another to get a stupid person to believe it. Baffling with bullshit is not so effective as giving a good clear explanation for how this could have occurred. Do you have a good clear explanation, tables and diagrams aside?    

Unlike so many creationists lacking even basic biology backgrounds, I do not claim to be an expert on things I am not.  I do not know that much about whale evolution, other than having read some of the related papers in the scientific literature.  
Of course, if tables and diagrams are too much for you to understand, I fail to see how an in-depth, detailed explanation would comfort you.



The fact of the matter is you have not supported your claim that I quoted in the OP.  
It was a blanket assertion almost certainly premised on the misleading information/disinformation/half-truths/misinterpretations/outright lies you've read on creationist websites or in creationist books like Johnson's or Wells'.




-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 1:39 PM on August 5, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Zucadragon

I should have been clear, what ever a main evolutionist means.
But real scientists don't.


Main evolutionist would mean those evolutionists that speak for the believers as authorities in the field of fairytale and myth.

You're right they're not the same thing as real scientists.

For example: (about the gap between  unicellular life and Cambrian invertebrates) Eldredge said: “Creationists have made much of this sudden development of a rich and varied fossil record, where, just before, there was none.”
could you give me the original source by any chance?


Niles Eldredge "The Monkey Business" p44

And suddenly, you realize that he is talking "about creationists", not putting down that argument himself. This is the quote mine and he says that the fossil record is doing quote fine with its intermediates.


The problem is that you are missing the point. He is admitting to the problems and giving them an excuse at the same time turning them into a supposed non-problem. When creationists quote evolutionists about things like this, they are not in the least implying that the evolutionist is in doubt about his position as regards evolution. What they are saying is the words that the evolutionists use are indicative of a problem even if they have a variety of excuses all lined up to follow.

What do you think Eldredge is implying when he finishes that quote by saying "Extinction has surely weeded out the intermediate species, but on the other hand, the fossil record is not exactly teeming with their remains."

GG Simpson calls it a ‘major mystery of the history of life’
You really need to put sources to your quotes


GGSimpson “The meaning of evolution.” Yale University Press

Runneger states: “…the paleontologists have concentrated on the fossil record and have therefore provided a wealth of information on the early history of a great variety of invertebrate groups, but little insight into their origins.”
But if you look down at where the quote came from, it says:

Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!, Institute of Creation Research, California, 1985, p. 58.


Actually it comes from B Runneger, J.Paleon.’ 55:1138 where he wrote a review about a book on invertebrates called “The Origin of Major Invertebrate Groups”.






Creationist dishonesty at its best right there.


Not so. For reasons as discussed above.

I doubt that a person who wrote a book "against creationists" would actually agree with them, you have to admit that that isn't very logical.


Neither do I think that it would be logical but like I said that's not what's being said here. The gaps are real -whether it's a problem or not depends on how many 'scientific excuses you have lined up to deal with it.

I'm choosing portions of your quote here, these are even from the same post, and these tell a different story from what you are telling us


Well like I've said, the difference between your quote mining and the sorts of creationist quotes you're talking about is that the evolutionists really say these things but they don't mean it as support for creation which is, of course, anathema to them, but it is nonetheless revealing what they do say in their more honest moments (which are getting fewer now that they know they may be quoted.)


















-------
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: 11:37 AM on August 7, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually it comes from B Runneger, J.Paleon.’ 55:1138 where he wrote a review about a book on invertebrates called “The Origin of Major Invertebrate Groups”.


From 1981.   Twenty-eight years ago.  One of the hazards of cutting and pasting from the quote-miners, is that you often embarrass yourself with misleading quotes from old material.

The evidence for arthropod evolution from onychophorans is now compelling:

Arthropod-like Expression Patterns of engrailed and wingless in the Annelid Platynereis dumerilii Suggest a Role in Segment Formation
Current Biology, Volume 13, Issue 21, Pages 1876-1881
B. Prud'homme, R. de Rosa, D. Arendt, J. Julien, R. Pajaziti, A. Dorresteijn, A. Adoutte, J. Wittbrodt, G. Balavoine[b]

The same genes mediate biramous lobopods on onychophorans that mediate biramous appendages on primitive arthropods.

There's some anatomical evidence for this, too...


 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 12:35 PM on August 7, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

One of the hazards of cutting and pasting from the quote-miners, is that you often embarrass yourself with misleading quotes from old material.


The problem is getting worse not better so you should appreciate a little bit of age.

The evidence for arthropod evolution from onychophorans is now compelling:


Compelling to whom? Who drew those wonderful drawings? Which ones are real and which ones come from the imagination? The one inbetween probably.

Arthropod-like Expression Patterns of engrailed and wingless in the Annelid Platynereis dumerilii Suggest a Role in Segment Formation


I'm pleased to see them admitting that it is a suggestion.

The same genes mediate biramous lobopods on onychophorans that mediate biramous appendages on primitive arthropods.


So where's your evidence that these genes evolved? How do you know they weren't created? You may think you've found one possible link between 2 different invertebrates but it's tenuous at best, you still don't know that either of those evolved in the first place because the evidence for that is missing.

So many billions of invertebrates, so little sign of where they came from so suddenly.









-------
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: 02:26 AM on August 8, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Barbarian observes:
One of the hazards of cutting and pasting from the quote-miners, is that you often embarrass yourself with misleading quotes from old material.

The problem is getting worse not better so you should appreciate a little bit of age.


See above.   As you just learned, what science didn't have thirty years ago is a very dangerous thing on which to base an argument.   Remember that.

Barbarian observes:
The evidence for arthropod evolution from onychophorans is now compelling:

Compelling to whom?


Anyone who knows about it.

Who drew those wonderful drawings?


The originals are by God.  Some sufficiently intelligent humans just copied down the data.

Which ones are real and which ones come from the imagination?


They all still exist in various living things.

The one inbetween probably.


Remember when I told you that not knowing what you were talking about could bite you?   It just did.

Arthropod-like Expression Patterns of engrailed and wingless in the Annelid Platynereis dumerilii Suggest a Role in Segment Formation

I'm pleased to see them admitting that it is a suggestion.


That's scientist talk used in literature.  Be assured that they are quite certain it's true.    

And it's mostly an English-speaking thing:

By a complex and little understood mechanism, segment polarity genes control patterning in each segment of the Drosophila embryo. During this process, cell to cell communication plays a pivotal role and is under direct control of the products of segment polarity genes. Many of the cloned segment polarity genes have been found to be highly conserved in evolution, providing a model system for cellular interactions in other organisms. In Drosophila, two of these genes, engrailed and wingless, are expressed on either side of the parasegment border. wingless encodes a secreted molecule and engrailed a nuclear protein with a homeobox. Maintenance of engrailed expression is dependent on wingless and vice versa
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=4099708

Barbarian observes:
The same genes mediate biramous lobopods on onychophorans that mediate biramous appendages on primitive arthropods.

So where's your evidence that these genes evolved?


Here, among others:
Molecular Evolution of the Wingless Gene and Its Implications for the Phylogenetic Placement of the Butterfly Family Riodinidae (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea)
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/17/5/684

How do you know they weren't created?


They were.   You just don't approve of the way He did it.

You may think you've found one possible link between 2 different invertebrates


No question about it.

but it's tenuous at best,


Nonsense.   Confirmation of a theory by several independent sources of evidence is compelling.   Be honest with yourself.

So many billions of invertebrates, so little sign of where they came from so suddenly.


You've been misled on that, too.    A gradual increase in numbers and complexity of organisms is apparent in the Precambrian, followed by an explosion of forms made possible by full exoskeletons.



(Edited by Yehren 8/8/2009 at 10:17 AM).
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 10:03 AM on August 8, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The evidence for arthropod evolution from onychophorans is now compelling:
Compelling to whom?
Anyone who knows about it.


But I know about it now and it hasn’t helped. Maybe it’s because this misleading little example is hiding a bigger problem –notably the origin of all invertebrates from nothing. Don’t tell me it’s going to be much better in 30 more years, the fossil record is great in numbers and very representative of the true situation and it still looks very bad for evolution.

The originals are by God.  Some sufficiently intelligent humans just copied down the data.


So are you saying that you are a theistic evolutionist and that God made the original whats? At which point did evolution take over according to you?

They all still exist in various living things.


But if they’re all living then how are they transitional? Are you saying they are pretty much unchanged after 600 million years – how? Were they happy in their environment?

Remember when I told you that not knowing what you were talking about could bite you?   It just did.


I’m sorry, I’m too stupid, I didn’t notice, I’m still struggling to work out what bit me and if indeed it even happened.

That's scientist talk used in literature.  Be assured that they are quite certain it's true.    


Of course, just like they are quite certain that evolution happened no matter how badly the evidence of the big picture weighs against them. They are always quite certain where evolution is concerned and yet they have to continually rewrite their books deleting the previously accepted erroneous stories. Quite certain can nevertheless be quite wrong.

By a complex and little understood mechanism


Meaning ‘we have no idea how this happened’.

You just don't approve of the way He did it.


Or you don’t, depending on how he actually did it.
The god of evolution is not the same as the God of the Bible. The two stories contradict each other at practically every point.

Nonsense.   Confirmation of a theory by several independent sources of evidence is compelling.   Be honest with yourself.


Several independent sources? Are you joking? Where are the other evos that completely disagree? There usually are some out there and they’re the best ones to get the contradictory details out of. When you make up stories based on a faulty premise of naturalism, you are going to conflict with some other expert’s learned imagination.

So many billions of invertebrates, so little sign of where they came from so suddenly.
You've been misled on that, too.    A gradual increase in numbers and complexity of organisms is apparent in the Precambrian, followed by an explosion of forms made possible by full exoskeletons.


No, I’m afraid you have been misled on that too. There’s no gradual anything in the fossil record. That’s what you’re looking for and not finding. There’s no gradual increase in complexity in the pre-Cambrian, only unicellular and edicarean, neither showing any link in any way to the Cambrian invertebrates.Approximately 300 major body plans and subplans including at least 50 phyla – all from nowhere. That’s evidence for creation, not evolution.





-------
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: 09:34 AM on August 9, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

(Barbarian shows that if one knows about the evolution of invertebrates, one no longer has to imagine magical origins for them)

But I know about it now


No, you haven't yet begun to learn about it.

Maybe it’s because this misleading little example is hiding a bigger problem –notably the origin of all invertebrates from nothing.


Invertebrates evolved from primitive eukaryotes.  Would you like to learn about that?

Don’t tell me it’s going to be much better in 30 more years, the fossil record is great in numbers and very representative of the true situation


We find important new ones monthly.   We are far, far from seeing all the fossils that exist.   In the past 30 years, we've found transitionals:

between whales and ungulates
between frogs and primitive amphibians
between turtles and primitive reptiles
between mammals and reptiles
between birds and dinosaurs
between humans and Austraolopithecines

To name just a few.  

and it still looks very bad for evolution


Evolutionary theory predicted all of these before they were found.  Evidence like that is compelling.

Barbarian on transitions from primitive to advanced arthropods:
The originals are by God.  Some sufficiently intelligent humans just copied down the data.

So are you saying that you are a theistic evolutionist


I'm a Bible-believing Christian, which means that YE creationism contradicts my faith in God, as well as being scientifically insupportable.  It is also contrary to God's word in Genesis.

and that God made the original whats?


That's what Darwin said.  All we know as Christians is that the earth brought forth the first living things.

At which point did evolution take over according to you?


Evolution is about the way living things change over time.   So you need life first.

Barbarian on transitionals:
They all still exist in various living things.

But if they’re all living then how are they transitional?


You're asking "If I'm alive, how come my uncle isn't dead?"

Are you saying they are pretty much unchanged after 600 million years


No, they just retain primitive characteristics in the parts we are discussing.

how?


They serve them well in their envirionment.

Barbarian observes:
Remember when I told you that not knowing what you were talking about could bite you?   It just did.

I’m sorry, I’m too stupid, I didn’t notice, I’m still struggling to work out what bit me and if indeed it even happened.


It's OK.  You're seeing a lot of stuff for the first time.

Of course, just like they are quite certain that evolution happened no matter how badly the evidence of the big picture weighs against them.


As you see, that's wrong.   The evidence is overwhelming.

They are always quite certain where evolution is concerned and yet they have to continually rewrite their books deleting the previously accepted erroneous stories.


Science continuously revises old theories.   Check out the history of atomic theory or chemical bonding theories.   While it's been revised numerous times, no one who knows about it, doubts the existence of atoms or bonding.  Evolution is like that.

Quite certain can nevertheless be quite wrong.


Comes down to evidence.  Science has it.  You don't.

By a complex and little understood mechanism

Meaning ‘we have no idea how this happened’.


In English, it means "we know a little about it."

Barbarian on creation:
You just don't approve of the way He did it.

Or you don’t, depending on how he actually did it.


That comes down to evidence.  And you don't have any for your ideas.   And as you learned, the Bible is opposed to Young Earth creationism.

The god of evolution is not the same as the God of the Bible.


It's a common heresy to suppose that the "real" God is not the creator.   This is called "gnosticism."   The real God is Creator of Heaven and Earth, and of all things.   He happens to use nature for almost everything in this world.  You, for example, are a creature of God, but He used natural means to make your body.

The two stories contradict each other at practically every point.


Sounds like a testable claim.  Show us.

Barbarian observes:
Nonsense.   Confirmation of a theory by several independent sources of evidence is compelling.   Be honest with yourself.

Several independent sources?


Yep.  Paleontology, anatomy, genetics, molecular biology, for example.  All support the evolution of insect wings from tagmosis in evolution.

Are you joking?


Would you like to see some more evidence for it?

Where are the other evos that completely disagree?


I guess, if you know of some, now would be the time to bring them out.  Be careful.  Presenting a "quote" from material you haven't actually read will be treated as dishonesty.

So many billions of invertebrates, so little sign of where they came from so suddenly.


Barbarian observes:
You've been misled on that, too.    A gradual increase in numbers and complexity of organisms is apparent in the Precambrian, followed by an explosion of forms made possible by full exoskeletons.

No, I’m afraid you have been misled on that too.


We can, for example, note the gradual evolution of trilobites in the fossil record, as far back as the Precambrian.   Would you like to see it?

There’s no gradual anything in the fossil record.


Let's test your belief on that.   If I can show you a long series of mammals, from simple to complex, with each one in the series no different from the adjacent ones by more than you can find within a species today, would you acknowledge that we do have gradual change in the fossil record?

That’s what you’re looking for and not finding.


Let me know if you have enough faith in your belief to test that.

There’s no gradual increase in complexity in the pre-Cambrian, only unicellular and edicarean, neither showing any link in any way to the Cambrian invertebrates.


Let's take a look...
---

A primitive trilobite-like arthropod, late Precambrian or early Cambrian
___

Primitive true trilobite

---

Advanced trilobite

Approximately 300 major body plans and subplans including at least 50 phyla – all from nowhere.


Surprise.

That’s evidence for creation, not evolution.


You seem to disagree with both creation and evolution.  You're wrong on both counts.








(Edited by Yehren 8/9/2009 at 1:54 PM).
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 10:27 AM on August 9, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 11:37 AM on August 7, 2009 :

Niles Eldredge "The Monkey Business" p44

GGSimpson “The meaning of evolution.” Yale University PressDuane T. Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!, Institute of Creation Research, California, 1985, p. 58

Actually it comes from B Runneger, J.Paleon.’ 55:1138 where he wrote a review about a book on invertebrates called “The Origin of Major Invertebrate Groups”.




Besides Gish, my money is on you having not read any of the original source material.

Gish was a biochemist, by the way.  Weren't you the one whining about evos talking about things outside of their areas?

Bullfrog...


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:11 PM on August 10, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Easy to continue to think you are right about everything when you just ignore exposure of your ignorance, aye Les?


Quote from Lester10 at 09:34 AM on July 25, 2009 :
We really seem to be missing one another in the dark here Derwood. You believe that a hippo –like ancestor turned into a whale over a long period of time and yet hippos only appear after the whales in the fossil record contradicting the entire story; much like the birds found millions of years before archeopteryx.

That you cannot interpret the phylogenetic tree shown twice to you in this thread alone clearly indicates that you have no business pontificating on these matters.  Sorry - elitist and all that, I know, but that is the truth.  
As for the 'birds' found 'millions' of years before archaeopteryx, we again see that the significance of Archaeopteryx is lost on you.



Also what happens to ambulocetus natans, ‘the walking whale’ now that sinonyx is no longer the preferred ancestor? Was that then not an ancestor after all?


Do you consider a great-great-great-great-great grandfather's sister an 'ancestor'?
Or is she completely irrelevant to your family tree?
More specifically, I am not a cetacean phylogeny expert (are you?), this might be informative:
===
Morphologists have long thought that Sinonyx was the direct ancestor of Cetacea (whales and dolphins), but the discovery of well preserved hind limbs of archaic cetaceans as well as more recent DNA phylogenetic analyses[2][3][4] now indicates that cetaceans are more closely related to hippopotamids and other artiodactyls than they are to mesonychids, and this result is consistent with many molecular studies.[5] Even though some scientist do not think Sinonyx is an ancestor of Cetacea [3] the reasons for originally thinking that it was are the following:

Sinonyx's elongated muzzle and tooth shape are atypical compared to other mesonychids, but are features close to those of the cetaceans. Its elongated muzzle, teeth and skull features are common to the earliest primitive whales. The elongation of the muzzle is often associated with hunting fish and all fish-hunting whales and dolphins have elongated muzzles. These features suggest that Sinonyx was developing adaptations that could have later become the basis of the whales' specialized way of life. The triangular shaped teeth have a prominent middle cusp or point and two relatively equal sized cusps on each side that are also similar to cetaceans. Other similarities include a loss of a collarbone and specialized upper arm bones. Mesonychids are also the only 'carnivorous' ungulates, and although many cetaceans are filter feeders of tiny zooplankton, no cetacean is a plant eater. Other characters that Sinonyx has in common to the whales include an enlarged jugular foramen (a natural opening or perforation through a bone or a membranous structure) and a short basicranium (underside of the skull).[6] Furthermore, the ear structure of primitive placentals, including early ungulates, has a larely cartilaginous tympanic auditory bullae (bony capsules enclosing the middle and inner ear). with only a thin ring of bone, the tympanic, which supported the tympanum. But in Sinonyx, the entire bulla had become ossified, as it is in all whales. A thicker bulla and denser bone contribute in three ways to improved high-pitched hearing in cetaceans: "it strengthens the bulla to resist compression more effectively, insulates it acoustically from the rest of the skull better than ordinary bone, and raises the frequency of sound that can be detected."[7]

The transition from Mesonychid to cetacean was thought to be easy to follow from the fossil evidence. Mesonychids were often shore dwelling animals that hunted both on land and in the shallows, and it was not hard to imagine a shore dwelling creature becoming more specialized and eventually returning to the ocean. Intermediate forms such as Ambulocetus and Pakicetus especially closely resemble Mesonychids with their fully functioning legs and similar tooth morphology. Pakicetus has a similar body design, but a head more closely resembling archaic cetaceans. Ambulocetus is similar in design to Pakicetus, with the addition of flippered feet, and most likely moved better in the water than on land like a modern otter or seal. Beyond Ambulocetus, it is easy to trace the ancestry directly to modern cetaceans[8]: Sinonyx (land-dwelling) -> Pakicetus (swims occasionally) -> Ambulocetans natans (swims predominantly) -> Rodhocetus (paddling reduced hind legs) -> Basilosaurus (vestigial hind limbs) -> Dorudon.

===

Is it now considered to not be a whale of any description (wouldn’t surprise me, never did look anything like one).

And you conclude that based on your in-depth anatomical knowledge, correct?

So that whole story was an invention, obviously but we must believe the new invention because genetics apparently supports it, which wasn’t noticed before (some things were overlooked).

An "invention" based on existing evidence, which I know is anathema to the creationist, who prefer their stories to be made up by tweaking the myths of other civilizations which were in turn made up completely.


Aside from that how did the hippo like ancestor start developing flippers and a whale’s tail?
Mutations don’t seem to be a good explanation for bringing forth something required for the deep water.

Right, so because they do not seem 'good enough' to some internet creationist, clearly it must be incorrect.  
Have you ever heard of sirenomelia?




Did this creature start developing the flippers and tale after venturing into the water or did they start developing before leading the hippo to the impression that it would be better off in the deep sea?

I don't know.

Why did Yahweh 'create' all those extinct animals that show up in a sequential fashion in the fossil record and appear to those who know what they are looking at to be transitional forms?
Was Yahweh just practicing?


If Lamarckism is dead, then how does this happen in your opinion?


In my opinion, the mutation precedes the adaptation (in most cases) and, of course, it is environment dependant.


It’s one thing to believe it, it’s quite another to get a stupid person to believe it. Baffling with bullshit is not so effective as giving a good clear explanation for how this could have occurred. Do you have a good clear explanation, tables and diagrams aside?    

Unlike so many creationists lacking even basic biology backgrounds, I do not claim to be an expert on things I am not.  I do not know that much about whale evolution, other than having read some of the related papers in the scientific literature.  
Of course, if tables and diagrams are too much for you to understand, I fail to see how an in-depth, detailed explanation would comfort you.



The fact of the matter is you have not supported your claim that I quoted in the OP.  
It was a blanket assertion almost certainly premised on the misleading information/disinformation/half-truths/misinterpretations/outright lies you've read on creationist websites or in creationist books like Johnson's or Wells'.








-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:12 PM on August 10, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As for the 'birds' found 'millions' of years before archaeopteryx, we again see that the significance of Archaeopteryx is lost on you.


So if it is lost on me, why don't you try clarifying the matter - in your own words.

And you conclude that based on your in-depth anatomical knowledge, correct?


I think it is my lack of imagination. It is imagination that makes the evolutionist's beliefs so plastic - I think what I need is a bit more than a wishful story.

An "invention" based on existing evidence


Or existing suppositions about, or interpretations of, said evidence.

which I know is anathema to the creationist, who prefer their stories to be made up by tweaking the myths of other civilizations which were in turn made up completely.


Actually other civilizations tweak Biblical stories in order to make up their myths. As for evolutionists, they like to make up their own completely original stories.

Have you ever heard of sirenomelia?


And you think that that is on it's way to being something of a flipper-type arrangement?
Actually in sirenomelia, some thing mutated ie. went wrong -there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that flippers arose via a series of mutations. They appear suddenly fully formed and fully functional in the fossil record. I'd like to see some of your semi-flippered fossils before I agree that flippers could ever have originated via mistakes in the genome. This example is what I call 'deception' or self-delusion on the part of the true evolution believer.

In my opinion, the mutation precedes the adaptation (in most cases) and, of course, it is environment dependant.


And in your opinion, would this child further develop her flipper via a series of random future mutations and then just happen to develop a respiratory system to cope with the watery environment she is now expected to prefer on her way to becoming a water based mammal? She'll have to convert her fat to blubber miraculously and change her epidermis to cope with the watery environment all via coincidental mutational changes. How long will she be treading water do you think before the other mutations come along? Will her children be more aquatically developed do you think? Will she be able to have children considering the considerable anatomical problem she now has? Do you think she or any animal developing flippers thus, will be capable of surviving in the wild compared to the original two-legged variety?

Do you really believe what you say you believe? Please. just think about it...

I do not know that much about whale evolution, other than having read some of the related papers in the scientific literature.


Well that may be your problem. Now start imagining the changes that needed to occur in order to convert a land mammal such as a hippo or a hyena into a water based mammal such as a whale - but be logical , no miraclous jumps allowed, just gradual change.  



-------
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: 09:36 AM on August 11, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 3:36 PM on August 11, 2009 :
Well that may be your problem. Now start imagining the changes that needed to occur in order to convert a land mammal such as a hippo or a hyena into a water based mammal such as a whale - but be logical , no miraclous jumps allowed, just gradual change.  



Seriously, how many times are you going to have to be told that hippos did not turn into whales? That I have noticed, you have been explicitly told this twice already.
Hippos did not eveolve into whales. Hippos and hwales have a common ancestor. Not the same thing
There, now it's at least 3 times.



-------
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: 5:16 PM on August 11, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hippos and hwales have a common ancestor.


Well, like I say, that solves the problem of the hippos appearing after the whales. You would be talking about the hypothetical common ancestor that existed if evolution is true, wouldn't you? Have they found this common ancestor? Do they know what it would look like? It's existence depends on the theory of evolution you know, which means it probably never existed. I'll bet the whale and the hippo were created pretty much as they are now -that's all that the fossil record shows so what you believe, is despite the evidence, not because of it.


-------
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: 01:34 AM on August 12, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:34 AM on August 12, 2009 :
Well, like I say, that solves the problem of the hippos appearing after the whales.

Yes

You would be talking about the hypothetical common ancestor that existed if evolution is true, wouldn't you?

Yes.
Have they found this common ancestor? Do they know what it would look like?
Nope, and I have no idea if they have predicted its appearance (I'll guess that they have made some approximations
It's existence depends on the theory of evolution you know,
Yes.
which means it probably never existed.
Ye.... oh dang, you sure near caught me with your clever little trap. This kind of drivel irritates me. It is utterly dishonest.
Let me do the same to you. (and remember, answer with Yes or no)
The bible is a book isn't it?
it is full of stories isn't it?
Do you think that we should follow every law stated in the bible to the letter?
Many of the stories that you have heard in your life were fictional weren't they?
Then the bible is a work of fiction and therefore everything about it is false and therefore evolution is a fact isn't it.
There, I'll sit all smug now. I too, can ask a series of questions and then throw out a 'conclusion', implying that the obvious answers to the previous questions make the conclusion a fact.
I thought that dishonesty was frowned upon by your god?

I'll bet the whale and the hippo were created pretty much as they are now
You would need to be more specific on exactly what you mean by 'pretty much as they are now'
-that's all that the fossil record shows
Can you back that up with evidence. Go on, show us your so called 'micro-evolution' of the hippo, in images from the fossil record, that will back up your claim, as others on this forum are glad to show.





-------
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: 04:06 AM on August 12, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 01:34 AM on August 12, 2009 :
Hippos and whales have a common ancestor.


Well, like I say, that solves the problem of the hippos appearing after the whales. You would be talking about the hypothetical common ancestor that existed if evolution is true, wouldn't you? Have they found this common ancestor? Do they know what it would look like? It's existence depends on the theory of evolution you know, which means it probably never existed. I'll bet the whale and the hippo were created pretty much as they are now -that's all that the fossil record shows so what you believe, is despite the evidence, not because of it.


I always enjoy watching these YECs respond to posts - they typically ignore 75% of what was written, hone in on a couple of points that they really, really, think they are right on, and simply refuse to acknowledge their own ignorance or error.

But, as we do not have some specific fossil that Lester demands we have (not that it would change his mind if we did have it - YECs always find a reason to reject evidence they don't like). let's see if HIS 'beliefs' can pass the same level of scrutiny he demands of evolution.



Tell us all, Lester, what color was Jehovah's hair?


Why did Jehovah have an obsession with foreskins?  

Where are the bones of all the biblical patriarchs?

Why was the Son of God ignored after his birth?


Tackle those for now, if you can.





-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:39 PM on September 2, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:36 AM on August 11, 2009 :
As for the 'birds' found 'millions' of years before archaeopteryx, we again see that the significance of Archaeopteryx is lost on you.


So if it is lost on me, why don't you try clarifying the matter - in your own words.


In my own words?  Cute.  



And you conclude that based on your in-depth anatomical knowledge, correct?


I think it is my lack of imagination.


So you admit that you are essentially ignorant of anatomy, yet possess the pseudocertainty and arrogance to, nevertheless, make pronouncements.


Typical religionist.


An "invention" based on existing evidence


Or existing suppositions about, or interpretations of, said evidence.


No, on the existing evidence.  Denying it exits does not make it go away.



which I know is anathema to the creationist, who prefer their stories to be made up by tweaking the myths of other civilizations which were in turn made up completely.


Actually other civilizations tweak Biblical stories in order to make up their myths.


Really?  Even the myths that pre-dated the bible lore?  How did that happen?


As for evolutionists, they like to make up their own completely original stories.


Wow, what a zinger....


Have you ever heard of sirenomelia?


And you think that that is on it's way to being something of a flipper-type arrangement?


No, I thik it shows how simple it is to get flippers from limbs.



Actually in sirenomelia, some thing mutated ie. went wrong -there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that flippers arose via a series of mutations.


Jesus you are dense.  Are you this way for rewal, or is it Witnessing?




They appear suddenly fully formed and fully functional in the fossil record.


What came between the 'normal' mother and the infant with sirenomelia?

What came between the 'normal' parents and the achondroplastic dwarf?

How do you know that they were fully functional?  Are you doing what you accuse evolutionists of doing?



I'd like to see some of your semi-flippered fossils before I agree that flippers could ever have originated via mistakes in the genome. This example is what I call 'deception' or self-delusion on the part of the true evolution believer.


Thanks for pointing out:

Your ignorance of genetics

Yor ignorance of the fossil record

Your inabilioty to acknowledge your ignorance

All very common YEC traits.


In my opinion, the mutation precedes the adaptation (in most cases) and, of course, it is environment dependant.


And in your opinion, would this child further develop her flipper via a series of random future mutations and then just happen to develop a respiratory system to cope with the watery environment she is now expected to prefer on her way to becoming a water based mammal? She'll have to convert her fat to blubber miraculously and change her epidermis to cope with the watery environment all via coincidental mutational changes. How long will she be treading water do you think before the other mutations come along? Will her children be more aquatically developed do you think? Will she be able to have children considering the considerable anatomical problem she now has? Do you think she or any animal developing flippers thus, will be capable of surviving in the wild compared to the original two-legged variety?



How predictable.

Why is it that YECs can never take an example for what it was presented for?  

It is al part of the big lie technique, I suppose.


If I had presented sirenomelia as an example of evolution in action, of a human on the way to becoming a new kind of whale, you'd have a point.  But since that is not why I presented it, you are just doing what creationists do.

Making strawman arguments.




Do you really believe what you say you believe? Please. just think about it...

I do not know that much about whale evolution, other than having read some of the related papers in the scientific literature.


Well that may be your problem. Now start imagining the changes that needed to occur in order to convert a land mammal such as a hippo or a hyena into a water based mammal such as a whale - but be logical , no miraclous jumps allowed, just gradual change.  



It is pretty simple, really.  There would be far, far, far fewer than that moron Berlinski's '50,000 changes'.  

If you have even a basic understanding of development - which you clearly do not - such questions would seem trite.




-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:50 PM on September 2, 2009 | IP
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 12:20 PM on July 24, 2009 :
Quote from Lester10 at 08:58 AM on July 23, 2009 :
Well it does show how today’s facts are invariably tomorrow’s mistakes and you wonder why we don’t believe you.




"Invariably"?

Sure about that?

'You' don't believe us because you are required to reject anything that seems not to overtly prop up your preferred ancient mythology.

Plain and simple.





Just to say,Jesus Christ is not a myth,There was a person (i believe more than a person)that walked the earth.Established fact, Historical evidence. yours sincerely creationist

 

 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 7:11 PM on September 27, 2009 | IP
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 2:24 PM on July 27, 2009 :
Quote from Lester10 at 09:34 AM on July 25, 2009 :
We really seem to be missing one another in the dark here Derwood. You believe that a hippo –like ancestor turned into a whale over a long period of time and yet hippos only appear after the whales in the fossil record contradicting the entire story; much like the birds found millions of years before archeopteryx.

That you cannot interpret thew phylogenetic tree shown twice to you in this thread alone clearly indicates that you have no business pontificating on these matters.  Sorry - elitist and all that, I know, but that is the truth.  
As for the 'birds' found 'millions' of years before archaeopteryx, we again see that the significance of Archaeopteryx is lost on you.



Also what happens to ambulocetus natans, ‘the walking whale’ now that sinonyx is no longer the preferred ancestor? Was that then not an ancestor after all?


Do you consider a great-great-great-great-great grandfather's sister an 'ancestor'?
Or is she completely irrelevant to your family tree?
More specifically, I am not a cetacean phylogeny expert (are you?), this might be informative:
===
Morphologists have long thought that Sinonyx was the direct ancestor of Cetacea (whales and dolphins), but the discovery of well preserved hind limbs of archaic cetaceans as well as more recent DNA phylogenetic analyses[2][3][4] now indicates that cetaceans are more closely related to hippopotamids and other artiodactyls than they are to mesonychids, and this result is consistent with many molecular studies.[5] Even though some scientist do not think Sinonyx is an ancestor of Cetacea [3] the reasons for originally thinking that it was are the following:

Sinonyx's elongated muzzle and tooth shape are atypical compared to other mesonychids, but are features close to those of the cetaceans. Its elongated muzzle, teeth and skull features are common to the earliest primitive whales. The elongation of the muzzle is often associated with hunting fish and all fish-hunting whales and dolphins have elongated muzzles. These features suggest that Sinonyx was developing adaptations that could have later become the basis of the whales' specialized way of life. The triangular shaped teeth have a prominent middle cusp or point and two relatively equal sized cusps on each side that are also similar to cetaceans. Other similarities include a loss of a collarbone and specialized upper arm bones. Mesonychids are also the only 'carnivorous' ungulates, and although many cetaceans are filter feeders of tiny zooplankton, no cetacean is a plant eater. Other characters that Sinonyx has in common to the whales include an enlarged jugular foramen (a natural opening or perforation through a bone or a membranous structure) and a short basicranium (underside of the skull).[6] Furthermore, the ear structure of primitive placentals, including early ungulates, has a larely cartilaginous tympanic auditory bullae (bony capsules enclosing the middle and inner ear). with only a thin ring of bone, the tympanic, which supported the tympanum. But in Sinonyx, the entire bulla had become ossified, as it is in all whales. A thicker bulla and denser bone contribute in three ways to improved high-pitched hearing in cetaceans: "it strengthens the bulla to resist compression more effectively, insulates it acoustically from the rest of the skull better than ordinary bone, and raises the frequency of sound that can be detected."[7]

The transition from Mesonychid to cetacean was thought to be easy to follow from the fossil evidence. Mesonychids were often shore dwelling animals that hunted both on land and in the shallows, and it was not hard to imagine a shore dwelling creature becoming more specialized and eventually returning to the ocean. Intermediate forms such as Ambulocetus and Pakicetus especially closely resemble Mesonychids with their fully functioning legs and similar tooth morphology. Pakicetus has a similar body design, but a head more closely resembling archaic cetaceans. Ambulocetus is similar in design to Pakicetus, with the addition of flippered feet, and most likely moved better in the water than on land like a modern otter or seal. Beyond Ambulocetus, it is easy to trace the ancestry directly to modern cetaceans[8]: Sinonyx (land-dwelling) -> Pakicetus (swims occasionally) -> Ambulocetans natans (swims predominantly) -> Rodhocetus (paddling reduced hind legs) -> Basilosaurus (vestigial hind limbs) -> Dorudon.

===

Is it now considered to not be a whale of any description (wouldn’t surprise me, never did look anything like one).

And you conclude that based on your in-depth anatomical knowledge, correct?

So that whole story was an invention, obviously but we must believe the new invention because genetics apparently supports it, which wasn’t noticed before (some things were overlooked).

An "invention" based on existing evidence, which I know is anathema to the creationist, who prefer their stories to be made up by tweaking the myths of other civilizations which were in turn made up completely.


Aside from that how did the hippo like ancestor start developing flippers and a whale’s tail?
Mutations don’t seem to be a good explanation for bringing forth something required for the deep water.

Right, so because they do not seem 'good enough' to come internet creationist, clearly it must be incorrect.  
Have you ever heard of sirenomelia?




Did this creature start developing the flippers and tale after venturing into the water or did they start developing before leading the hippo to the impression that it would be better off in the deep sea?

I don't know.

Why did Yahweh 'create' all those extinct animals that show up in a sequential fashion in the fossil record and appear to those who know what they are looking at to be transitional forms?
Was Yahweh just practicing?


If Lamarckism is dead, then how does this happen in your opinion?


In my opinion, the mutation precedes the adaptation (in most cases) and, of course, it is environment dependant.


It’s one thing to believe it, it’s quite another to get a stupid person to believe it. Baffling with bullshit is not so effective as giving a good clear explanation for how this could have occurred. Do you have a good clear explanation, tables and diagrams aside?    

Unlike so many creationists lacking even basic biology backgrounds, I do not claim to be an expert on things I am not.  I do not know that mcuh about whale evolution, other than having read some of the related papers in the scientific literature.  
Of course, if tables and diagrams are too much for you to understand, I fail to see how an in-depth, detailed explanation would comfort you.



The fact of the matter is you have not supported your claim that I quoted in the OP.  
It was a blanket assertion almost certainly premised ont he misleading information/disinformation/half-truths/misinterpretations/outright lies you've read on creationist websites or in creationist books like Johnson's or Wells'.





Do you have any photo evidence of an advantageous mutation in any animal/insect even?.seen as it an ongoing process, ceaseless. I've seen a photo of the loch ness monster,Looks like a dinosaur.Yours sincerely Creationist


 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 7:21 PM on September 27, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
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.