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
     Definitions, please -
       transitional, 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:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:01 AM on November 3, 2009 :
... So in other words, Pakicetus does not have the smaller semicircular canals of the cetaceans and was fully land dwelling and the whole scenario was pure imagination.

First, I would like to point out that there is a large difference between extrapolating from available evidence and "pure imagination."  Pure imagination informs the attempts to save the absurdity of the ark myth by positing pelletized food (no evidence), hibernating large animals (no evidence), training the animals to defecate in buckets (no evidence), etc.


Of course they still imagine the side branch status but bad ideas die hard and usually get exposed with time.

Like creationism.


That’s why I prefer the Bible, it doesn’t change. It tells the truth the first time and that holds.

It will never change, no matter what.  Never mind that there are a multitude of different versions of if floating about.  Never mind that there are many internal inconsistencies that prove that it cannot be 100% true and accurate.  Never mind that it contains absurdities and implausabilities that are handwaved away with 'God can do it all' ...

We know that kind gives rise to kind and no land mammal ever changed into a whale.

No, you assert this to prop up your bible beliefs and reject any evidence to the contrary.

In fact the whales were created with the sea creatures before the land mammals were created and evolution never happened.

So...
Why do whales have the physiology of and mammals?  Why not just make them actual fish?  
Why two contradictory orders of creation?

So tell me,when these land mammals developed their special whale-related ear, that would have had to be while they were swiftly running on the land? At what point did they decide that these ears would be better suited to an aquatic existence and then decide to go swimming? It seems they first changed their ears and then decided to take a long swim. Did they then ask Santa for fins and flippers and a blowhole and blubber and to take away their legs and their ears and to help them cope with the high pressure deep water diving and to grow them up from about 150 pounds to about 360 000 pounds. Do you think that all these co-ordinated necessities of the whale grew out of random mutations?

So many strawman and caricatures.  It is impossible to tell if you are ever actually being serious.  

But sinc eyou are an expert on mutations - please tell us all - if this evolution really happened, how many mutations would have been required?

Surely, you must have an idea, for just saying that mutations can't do it is just  abaseless assertion.


There must have been a lot of gradual in-the-wrong direction intermediate creatures that never made it.Where are they? Where are the ones with the fins but not the fluke? Where are the ones with the fluke and legs but not the blubber? Where are the ones that never had the ear mechanism for deep water diving and still had front legs instead of pectoral fins? Surely some of these monstrosities must have been fossilized to add to your picture?


Where are the wicked humans killed in  the flood all at once?  Where are the fossil graveyards containing discontemporaneous bones all mixed up, like humans mixed in with triceratopsians, or modern birds (hey, they cannot fly for a year!) ?


Like I’ve said before, your imagination is wonderful, but I think I’ll stick with common sense.


The common sense that tells you that Yahweh mooned Moses?  Or that unicorns really did exist?  Where are the fossils of them?


Exactly. So WE should see gaps, and YOU shouldn't.


No we should see gaps and you should have millions more convincing connections.


Why?

What is the 'intermediate' betweeen this fellow:

and this one:


Or were they created seperately?

If you want to claim they are different kinds, then you've just probably quintupled the number of groups of 7 beasts on your imaginary big wooden boat.  If they descended fron a single 'kind', you have to propose a MECHANISM by which this level of hyperevolution occurred to produce, for example, 900+ species of bat from the original bat kind in less than 2500 years with nobody taking note.

Otherwise, it is all just wishful thinking, imagination, and fairy tales.

Adaptation is the evolutionary process whereby a population becomes better suited to its habitat.


But it can’t possibly work that way. If a bear starts swimming a lot, do his reproductive cells sense the habitat and produce mutations in keeping with the environment? No, in fact his reproductive cells can’t respond to the environment at all.


If my take on evolution was premised on caruicatures and child-like distortions as your's is, I would have trouble accepting it, too.

Which is why I suppose you folks keep using such tactics, for to be honest, youwould have to be like Dr. Todd Wood or Dr. Kurt Wise, both of whom admit that there is evidence for evolution but remain creationists because of their Faith, which overrides their common sense....
Wrong. I do need evidence. And i have lots, besides the fossil record.

Like what?


Funny - we've been asking you to provide evidence FOR YECism, and the best you can come up with are supposed problems with evolution.  You simply reject evidence opresented to you out of hand, or engage in nitpicky distrations and employ doctored quotes to prop up your cause.

It’s incomprehensible to me that you can be so easily led by imagination without the requisite evidence.


Projection at its laughable best.
Not in the ToE. The ToE is an explanation. A model. It fits. It predicts.


The wishful thought is, unfortunately, mother to the invention.


And was the mother of the invention of the bible myths?  A desire to keep the orthodoxy in control?  To make sure men can treat women as proerty and own slaves?


Cut the drama. You know it's not. Stop being dishonest.


Give me a break oh Derwood’s friend.


Lots of people can see you at your sad game, Timmy's boyfriend.
The book is called “Evolution –The Grand Experiment” –by Dr Carl Werner –


Dr. as in creationist  medical doctor....  How could he possibly not be an expert on all things related to evolution?

'Dr.Werner seems as clueless as the average internet YEC:

" If jawless fish are the evolutionary predecessors of other fish, one would expect them to be extinct, according to the idea of survival of the fittest."

I wonder - did Werner's parents die the moment he was born?

Idiots.

I’ve also got his second book called ‘Living Fossils” –also great, very informative, you should get it and the movie with all the interviews.

Right - because we all know how honest creationsits are when it comes to interviewing people...
You’re right I like ‘unchange’, that’s what the truth is, it doesn’t change.

But what if what you claim is the truth turns out not to be?


, since convergent evolution does NOT lead to homology.


According to people who believe in convergent evolution, it does lead to homologous structures by pure chance mutations in different lines altogether.
Look at seals and sea lions –not even related –convergent evolution –but you can barely tell them apart.

Speak for yourself.

As I had to school you on what 'phenotype' actuallymeans, shall I also instruct you on what homology means?

As for seals and sea lions not being related, well, you're laughably wrong there, too...

(Edited by derwood 11/3/2009 at 2:24 PM).


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:37 PM on November 3, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
wisp
Lester
wisp
Lester
wisp
Lester
it’s an atheistic system,
Lester
The ToE, on the other hand assumes abiogenesis and no role for God, so it is an atheistic philosophy.
No more than the Theory of Gravity. And you don't fight it.
There’s nothing atheistic about the theory of gravity.
It doesn't contemplate any gods. Just like the ToE.
And it is just as much a product of God’s as is life.
I agree.
By your 'and' it looks like we've come to an agreement on this issue. Both theories are equally atheistic.
Neither is.
Exactly! Finally!

So, just to be clear (i really hope you don't back away from this realization), you do acknowledge that you were wrong when you wrote the first phrase, right? Or did you just lose track and didn't know what you were talking about?

True. Large semicircular canals would produce dizziness when turning rapidly. So a decrease in size would come in handy for a species that is adapting to an aquatic environment.
But pakicetus was a land mammal
Yes indeed.

You seem to think that that's a problem.
You must have not understood what i said.

If i had to guess i'd say that the pakicetus was already swimming often, but was a land mammal. I'd guess that based only on the thickness of its bones. If i'm wrong, so be it. Unlike you, i have no problems with being wrong.

“All the postcranial bones indicate that pakicetids were land mammals and indicate that the animals were runners, with only their feet touching the ground.”
That sounds smart, so i guess no creation 'scientist' said it. It must have been a real scientist.

Why would you quote a real scientist? Since when do you trust their judgment? You said we couldn't know stuff by looking at some dead animal's bones.

You keep contradicting yourself, Lester.
That’s why I prefer the Bible, it doesn’t change.
That's fine. Really! It is!

What's not fine is saying that you like science. Lying isn't fine.

You say that the ToE leaves the supernatural explanation (or lack thereof) out. Well, Lester, it's not just the ToE. It's Science. If you don't like that, you don't like Science.

If you don't like being wrong, you don't like Science.

If you don't like change, you don't like Science.

And that is a shame, but it's not that bad. Lots of people don't care much for science. But they don't go around saying that they know and understand it.

It tells the truth the first time and that holds.
OK. But Science says the literal interpretation of the Bible is wrong. If you have faith on the literal interpretation of the Bible, fine, then Science must be wrong. But don't try to bend Science towards the Bible. It doesn't work.
We know that kind gives rise to kind
You have been unable to define 'kind', so you don't know squat.

In the end all those evo plans will be exposed.
When will that be? Before or after the long awaited Apocalypse?

Give us some expiration date after which, if your prediction isn't fulfilled, you'll shut up for good.

It will be a constant ‘back to the drawing board’ nightmare for the wishful thinkers of the world.
That's fine. That's the way of Science, some times.

Again, if you don't like that, YOU DON'T LIKE SCIENCE.

So tell me,when these land mammals developed their special whale-related ear,
Er... When they were no longer land mammals, of course...
that would have had to be while they were swiftly running on the land?
Er... No...
At what point did they decide (...)
Animals don't decide. That's as true as the fact that you don't like Science.
It seems they first changed their ears and then decided to take a long swim.
For someone who doesn't know what he's talking about, yeah, it might.
Did they then ask Santa for fins and flippers and blah blah blah blah?
No. Science doesn't deal with religious myths.

You really shouldn't mock them though.

Do you think that all these co-ordinated necessities of the whale grew out of random mutations?
Mutations + natural selection, yeah. You know that. Stop wasting our time.
There must have been a lot of gradual in-the-wrong direction intermediate creatures that never made it.
What's a 'wrong direction'?

Some species reach an evolutionary dead end, that's true.
Where are they?
I'm not sure of what you mean by 'wrong direction', so...

I don't want to make this any longer by making hypotheses about what you could have meant, that you will promptly deny afterwards.

Where are the ones with the fins but not the fluke?
Even if they existed (i don't know why you think that they SHOULD, for nothing in the ToE says that) and were shown to you, you'd deny it because 'We can't know anything from dead bones'. So don't waste my time making answer these pointless rants.

Where are the ones with the fluke and legs but not the blubber? Where are the ones that never had the ear mechanism for deep water diving and still had front legs instead of pectoral fins?
Right next to the unicorns and giants, i'd say.
Like I’ve said before, your imagination is wonderful, but I think I’ll stick with common sense.
Exactly!

Those who say that don't like Science.

Albert Einstein
Common sense is nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down by the mind before you reach eighteen.
So very true...

It's fine, actually. Common sense often works.

But when doing science you need to kiss your common sense good bye.

You stick to your common sense, but don't try to make us believe that you like Science.

Keep appealing to common sense and the Bible (even if they contradict each other plenty of times), but leave Science alone.

In your imagination there is a line joining every living thing by a process called evolution so it’s to be expected.
Exactly. So WE should see gaps, and YOU shouldn't.
No we should see gaps and you should have millions more convincing connections.
Lester, relax, open your mind a little bit, and ask yourself this question:
How can someone see gaps if he doesn't see a line?


Besides, you already said:
Lester
There’s not a line or a gap


Adaptation is the evolutionary process whereby a population becomes better suited to its habitat.
But it can’t possibly work that way. If a bear starts swimming a lot, do his reproductive cells sense the habitat and produce mutations in keeping with the environment?

No, in fact his reproductive cells can’t respond to the environment at all.
You only know that because real scientists (those whom you don't trust) tell you that. And nobody says otherwise.
If you keep cutting off the tails of rats for many generations, will you eventually get a rat without a tail?

That’s Lamarckism, something that Darwin believed to his dying day
So what? I'm sure that was one of MANY mistakes Darwin made. The poor fellow didn't even know about the DNA! And even then he figured out Evolution by Natural Selection. Genius!

Oh, and so did Wallace. Two people with no connection reaching the same conclusions based upon observation of the natural world. That demonstrates that you're wrong saying that it's a religion.
but it’s been disproven and so many evolutionists keep talking as if it is still a viable theory.
Show me one.

You just demonstrate, once more, that you have no idea what you're talking about.

It's ok not to know. Lots of people don't. It's not ok to claim that you do.

Not only you don't know, but you don't learn either.

Wrong. I do need evidence. And i have lots, besides the fossil record.
Like what?
Again, Lester?

phylogenetics, dendrochronology, fossil record, junk DNA, viral insertions, appendix, coccyx, darwin's spot, third eyelid, goose bumps, plantaris muscle, wisdom teeth, extra ear muscles, comparative embryology, races, artificial selection, radiometry, transitionals, vestigiality, speciation, races, venom toxicity, venom resistance, weapons, sexual selection, sperm competition, predation, parasitism, comparative anatomy, homologies, biogeography, mimicry, higher rate of change in isolated populations, differential parental investment, whales with legs, evolutionarily stable strategies (all over the Earth), and so much more!
You responded timidly to some of them, but you won't defend your responses (that have already been responded).

The problem with your images is that you think I can imagine the way you do about the images that you present, and you appear to think that because you can imagine something, that makes the thing you believe in, real.
Liar.
You ask
Unicellular organisms to multicellular invertebrates;
I give you this:

And you don't see it? You do see it, even if you don't want to.
And i have more:

It’s incomprehensible to me that you can be so easily led by imagination without the requisite evidence.
It's so easy to mock you that it's not even funny.

Pointing out that you believe in unicorns and giants and so many other silly things seems an obviousness...

These things are the reason why i tell you that you project and you copy our accusations.

Do you think that by calling us religious, by saying that we believe on faith, et cetera you'll avoid our pointing out that it's you who is and does all these things?

I mean... Unless you want for us to laugh at you, you must be serious...

I don't get it. I don't want to laugh at you anymore.

That's rude. Be a good Christian and stop lying.
You’re so very moral Wisp and I just keep letting you down, don’t I.
Well yeah... I keep hoping you'll stop being dishonest, and yes, you keep letting me down.

You choose what to respond to, so you MUST know that you're dodging, and playing dumb afterwards... It can't be distraction...

Pakicetus is a land mammal…… With an involucrus, like every cetacean, unlike any other land mammal……. I'm talking about the involucrum. Show me an involucrum in an unrelated mammal, and you have my word that i'll lower my head in shame….. It has heavier bones. But even if it stayed in land, IT HAS A FRIKIN' INVOLUCRUM!
It was a land mammal. So now would be a good time…
It's like talking to a wall...

I'm not saying it wasn't a land mammal. I'm telling you to present another animal with an involucrum. Stop playing around!

Anyway, speculation and imagination are important parts of the scientific process. Most breakthroughs go through that.[/color]
So do most cock and bull made up stories.
Nopes. Those don't have much speculation.

Is it speculation, or is it a made up story? You can't have it both ways.

About the term 'speculation' my dictionary says: A message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence.

Yeah, we do that some times, and we know it.

But if we have incomplete evidence then we have evidence. So it's not a made up story.

You’re right I like ‘unchange’, that’s what the truth is, it doesn’t change.
Exactly! And Science works theories. Not truths.

So again, Lester: you_don't_like_Science.

Of course if you like unchange and you believe a lie, that’s another matter altogether.
Yes. I believe in Science. I could be wrong. I've been wrong plenty of times. And yet Science improves, learns, gets more and more accurate, and produces useful things, like the computer in front of you.

since convergent evolution does NOT lead to homology.
According to people who believe in convergent evolution, it does lead to homologous structures by pure chance mutations in different lines altogether.
As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.

From Wiki:

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

Will you correct yourself? No, you won't.

So stubborn...

You said
Well when you consider how often homologous structures are apparently unrelated (as evidenced in so-called convergent evolution)
Convergent evolution is NOT evidence that homologous structures are unrelated.
You're saying that we can demonstrate that apples don't have seeds because balloons don't have them.

Look at seals and sea lions –not even related –convergent evolution –but you can barely tell them apart.
Not related? According to whom?


(Edited by wisp 11/8/2009 at 10:23 AM).


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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 1:49 PM on November 3, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer
Lester
Ask them what they think about your  fence-sitting position?  I'd be interested to hear their replies.
Sure, to any non-Christian out there; What do you think of my "fence-sitting position"?
I think it's very wrong. You're smart enough to realize that you don't have reasons to follow the Bible at ANY part, but instead of rejecting the whole thing you cherry pick from what seems nice to you, only because you're already nice.

You (regular Christians) try to rationalize your beliefs. You reject the ugly parts of the Bible, so you have no real commitment to it. You have no reasons to believe that Jesus was more than a cool guy, because the texts that validate him as a demi-god or whatever belong to a book that you don't follow in its entirety.
I am with Lester in this one. My opinion is politically incorrect, and i'm fully aware that it might drive fence-sitting Christians further away from Science, but i won't compromise my opinion just because of that.
Lester is correct: you can't have faith in the Bible and believe in Science (well, he limits it to Evolution, Abiogenesis, Geology, and Cosmology, i think).

You (Fencer) are more than halfway there (to reason), but seem too timid to give the final step.

I think you're wrong, wrong, wrong. But in spite my repeatedly saying so, you hold your beliefs, and don't compromise your opinion just to try to please anyone. I respect that. Pleasing people is not the correct reason to mold your fundamental beliefs, and Lester is wrong if he thinks you have done such a thing.
And you don't resist my opinion out of arrogance and pride (like Lester). You are ready to admit your mistakes, and that's cool too.
Besides, Lester is one of the worst judges of character that i know of.

That's my opinion.


(Edited by wisp 11/4/2009 at 09:28 AM).


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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 6:39 PM on November 3, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm going to try summarize whatever definitions, partial/fragmented (most likely) or complete (dubious) we can get out of the YECs (well, from Lester, seemingly).

This is as preliminary as the average creo's thought, so i'm open to corrections, suggestions and additions. Hopefully this will be edited often. I'll put it in my first post of this thread so it will be easily accessible.


DEFINITIONS




EVOLUTION:
A completely imaginary and atheist religious and philosophic process, which is not atheist after all, that presupposes Lamarckism, unfalsifiable but false, based on pure speculation and no evidence, that starts at the Big Bang, causes molecules giving rise to humans by producing life from lifeless chemicals, and  that must entail grad-u-a-lism (which allows for a gradual mutation of the information for scales into information for feathers) producing no big jumps in the fossil record, that predicts the finding of many transitional forms and dogs giving birth to cats, and that should give the foundation for intelligence and natural laws.


From here:
Evolution most obviously must entail grad-u-a-lism
And here:
That’s Lamarckism, something that Darwin believed to his dying day
And here:
Let’s face it, we need to first establish that DNA can mutate the information for scales into the DNA information for feathers or there is no reason to carry on believing in the big jump at all in any part of the fossil 'record'.
And here:
What would I expect? Why Derwood, many transitional forms of course
And here:
Evolution gives us no foundation for intelligence nor for natural laws.
Unfalsifiable (from the thread Unorganized Chemicals):
Evolution  is non-falsifiable.
Atheist and not atheist:
Lester
wisp
Lester
wisp
Lester
wisp
The TOE requires life to come from non-living chemicals, it’s an atheistic system
The ToE, on the other hand assumes abiogenesis and no role for God, so it is an atheistic philosophy.
No more than the Theory of Gravity. And you don't fight it.
There’s nothing atheistic about the theory of gravity.
It doesn't contemplate any gods. Just like the ToE.
And it is just as much a product of God’s as is life.
I agree.
By your 'and' it looks like we've come to an agreement on this issue. Both theories are equally atheistic.
Neither is.


Why this definition is no good: It includes two subjective parameters ("big" and "many"). It includes two unclear terms ("gradualism" and "information"). It confuses the Theory of Evolution with the fact of Evolution. It makes incongruent demands (for it to give the foundation of natural laws). It contains several strawmen (cats to dogs, scales to feathers). It's self contradictory (it's unfalsifiable but false, it's atheist but not). It seems to take a definition of speculation that is essentially different from the one that the rest of the world knows (an opinion based on incomplete evidence). It seems to do the same with the term "transitional".
At least the ToE does explain intelligence.


THEISTIC EVOLUTION:
A process that doesn't require that proteins can be formed naturally, but only that they are here, like life itself.
(If it sounds like a reasonable depiction of regular Evolution it's because it is.)

From here:
Lester
derwood
Evolution doesn't require that proteins can be formed naturally, only that they are here, like life itself.
That is the theistic evolution position.

Why this definition is no good: There's nothing theistic about it, and it's the same as the good old regular Evolution.


ABIOGENESIS (A.K.A. Spontaneous generation):
Life from lifeless chemicals. An essential part of Evolution, along with the Big Bang.


From here:
Lester
Fencer
Abiogenesis isn't about spontaneous generation,
It is life from lifeless chemicals –precisely the same


Why this definition is no good: It seems to take a definition of abiogenesis that is essentially different from the one that the smart and knowledgeable people use:
<--- This one.


SPONTANEOUS GENERATION (A.K.A. Abiogenesis):
Life from lifeless chemicals. An essential part of Evolution, along with the Big Bang.


From here:
Lester
Fencer
Abiogenesis isn't about spontaneous generation,
It is life from lifeless chemicals –precisely the same


Why this definition is no good: It seems to take a definition of "spontaneous generation" which is fundamentally different from what pretty much everyone knows:



GAP:
The existing distance between 'this' and 'that', which doesn't exist.


From here:
You say that there's no such a line between the Pakicetus and modern whales. So there should be NO gaps in your view.
There’s not a line or a gap
And here:
The fossil record has big gaps all over where there should be gradualism



TRANSITIONALS:
Something of which there are too few existing examples, that don't exist anyway, that must clearly lie between 'this' and 'that', with no big jump or producing a big gap (no matter how far they are in time), that must present the most obvious altered features like scales turning into feathers.


From here:
Well Derwood, I think we would all agree
xDDDD
that a transitional fossil is one which clearly lies between ‘this’ and ‘that’ –this being, for instance an ‘invertebrate’ and ‘that’ being, for instance a  ‘fish’.
And here:
then provide an EXPLICIT, SPECIFIC example as to what you would expect to see in, say, a dinosaur-to-bird transitional.
Semi-scale, semi-feather or semi leg,semi-wing since one obviously has to change into the other and cannot be done in one big jump.
And here:
Something like archaeopteryx doesn’t qualify as a transitional between bird and dinosaur (except in some imaginations)since one doesn’t see the most obvious ‘altered’ features like the leg turning into the wing or the scales turning into the feathers.
From here we know that they exist but they are too few:
I don’t think anyone doubts that evos flash this transitional and that at us periodically but they really are few


Why this definition is no good: It includes three subjective parameters (clarity, bigness and obviousness). It doesn't state what qualifies as 'this' and 'that', making it subjective (for some reason the supercat doesn't qualify as 'this' nor the house cat qualifies as 'that'). It contains one clear strawman (scales to feathers). It exists and doesn't exist at the same time.

Since Lester won't do us the favor of designing some trial test for clarity and obviousness (i asked), we can never be sure that something will fit his definition.


MICROEVOLUTION:
A process tha is different from "gradual change".


From here:
Gradual change = microevolution? Yes or no?
Not microevolution no.

Why this definition is no good: It doesn't clarify the difference with "gradual change", nor with "macroevolution".

Complete definition: Pending.


MACROEVOLUTION:
Molecules to humans.


From many posts.

Why this definition is no good: It's incomplete. It's a strawman (the ToE doesn't contemplate what came before life). It doesn't clarify the difference with "microevolution".

Complete definition: Pending.


GRAD-U-A-LISM (A.K.A. "gradualism"):
Slow and gradual something (probably a process, but sometimes equated to an array of fossils) capable of persuading YECs about the factuality of Evolution, as benefits a process of random genetic mutation, devoid of particular direction, and different from microevolution (somehow), with a rate of change that doesn't have to be constant, but is limited by the genetic capabilities of an animal.


From here (the persuasion part):
BUT I’d be happy to concede defeat if there was a general picture of gradualism in the fossil record.
And here:
Evolution most obviously must entail grad-u-a-lism meaning slow and gradual as befits a process of random genetic mutation with no particular direction. Thus we should expect to see a general picture of gradualism.
And here:
Gradual change = microevolution? Yes or no?
Not microevolution no.
And here:
Does your definition of 'gradualism' imply that the rate of change is constant or not?
Rate of change does not have to be constant but is limited by the genetic capabilities of an animal.


Why this definition is no good: It includes a subjective parameter (slow). It contains a self reference (gradual). It seems to be referring to a process but, judging from different posts, that seems unclear yet. It's also unclear what a "particular direction" is, and if that requisite is violated by convergent evolution. The difference between gradualism and microevolution is also unclear, and when i asked about the difference i got no reply. If the rate of change doesn't have to be constant the slowness parameter seems weak. It mentions "the genetic capabilities of an animal", which not only is unclear but it seems to imply that animals (and not species) evolve (aided by the unclear genetic capabilities, which sounds a lot like X-Men).

If the rate of change doesn't have to be constant there's no reason why we shouldn't have gaps or jumps in the fossil record. In my opinion this line of the discussion is over, and Lester should concede defeat.


NON GRADUALISM:
A demonstration from the fossil record (apparently) that Evolution does not consist of mutation and natural selection.


From here:
No gradualism means no mutation and natural selection as the mechanism for evolution.

Why this definition is no good: It's incomplete and negative.


MISQUOTING:
Something you can apparently do without quoting, provided that it's done on purpose.


From here:
Lester
derwood
This despite the fact that the YEC poster A-E said that Archaeopteryx was a transitional
That was his potential opinion but only in the case that there were many more to confirm the principle -  so if I recall correctly, you are misquoting for the second time on purpose presumably to give the wrong impression of A-E’s position.


Why this definition is no good: It's unclear, but in any case it doesn't define anything remotely similar to what the rest of the world understand by "misquoting".


KINDS:
A group of individuals that can mate among themselves producing fertile offspring, except when they can't because of devolution.


From several posts.

Why this definition is no good: D'oh!


SPECULATION:
An important part of making up stories based on no evidence.


From here:
Anyway, speculation and imagination are important parts of the scientific process. Most breakthroughs go through that.
So do most cock and bull made up stories.
And from dozens of posts that say that we speculate and don't have evidence.

Why this definition is no good: It's unclear, but in any case it doesn't define anything like what people that know what they're talking about mean by "speculation" (which basically is an opinion based on incomplete evidence, not absent evidence).


EVO PLANS:
Something that will be exposed in the end.


From here:
In the end all those evo plans will be exposed.


Why this definition is no good: It implies that evos are plotting, so it's delusional conspiranoia based on nothing. It doesn't clarify what those plans are or when will be "the end", so it can't be put to the test (no expiration dates).



DESTROYING THE COMPETITION:
Not providing answers, and saying questionable things.


From here:
Quote from timbrx at 02:47 AM on November 15, 2009 in 'Origin of Life', page 1:
Lester has destroyed the competition in his last two posts. Derwood is busy nitpicking in order to maintain his delusion of flawless understanding and wisp is whining about not being satisfied with answers and demanding new threads for new rabbit trails so he can continue to obfuscate.


Why this definition is no good: It endorses weaseling and imprecisions.

(Edited by wisp 11/17/2009 at 2:04 PM).


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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 1:25 PM on November 4, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood

It will never change, no matter what.  Never mind that there are a multitude of different versions of if floating about.  Never mind that there are many internal inconsistencies that prove that it cannot be 100% true and accurate.  Never mind that it contains absurdities and implausabilities that are handwaved away with 'God can do it all' ...


Have you ever read it? This is all the usual tripe that people who have never read it come up with.

We know that kind gives rise to kind and no land mammal ever changed into a whale.


No, you assert this to prop up your bible beliefs and reject any evidence to the contrary.


If there was any evidence available to convince us, that would be great. Your wonderfully confused ‘scientific’ mind asserts that a land mammal’s ears randomly evolved; the ears then happened to suit the water as well as the fins and flippers and blubber and a blowhole, as it turns out, that it later acquired quite by accident. At what point did it decide to go swimming –before or after the blowhole arose by accident? Before or after the fins arose by accident? Did it have to kick its legs to begin with? And the oh so many other coordinated changes all occurred quite by accident? The best mistakes were slowly selected by natural selection and a whale was born. I’m sorry, that’s a fairy tale and I’m sad that you believe it, but unfortunately Santa is no longer part of my life and nor can the frog turn into a prince.(even over millions of years). A whale is a coordinated engineering masterpiece and if you can’t see that, it’s a pity.

The evidence is all in your imagination. You have to really want to believe it.

Why two contradictory orders of creation?


To play around with the god rejecters of our day who throw aside a common designer and insist on randomness and no plan instead? It certainly shows how evolutionists are not put off by pictures that contradict evolution –they make up fresh new stories instead, stories that make the non-believers mouths drop open in astonishment.

But sinc eyou are an expert on mutations - please tell us all - if this evolution really happened, how many mutations would have been required?


Well to be really kind, lets work on just one new protein per new structure and then work out the probability of all these things coming to pass shall we?

for just saying that mutations can't do it is just  abaseless assertion.


Surely since you can’t even show me one macro beneficial mutation, you are indulging in baseless assertion?

There must have been a lot of gradual in-the-wrong direction intermediate creatures that never made it. Where are they? Where are the ones with the fins but not the fluke? Where are the ones with the fluke and legs but not the blubber? Where are the ones that never had the ear mechanism for deep water diving and still had front legs instead of pectoral fins? Surely some of these monstrosities must have been fossilized to add to your picture?
Where are the wicked humans killed in  the flood all at once?  Where are the fossil graveyards containing discontemporaneous bones all mixed up, like humans mixed in with triceratopsians, or modern birds (hey, they cannot fly for a year!) ?


You appear to be changing the subject here – where are these intermediate whales? The clear examples of transitions should have legs mixed with fins, tail mixed with fluke, nose changing into blowhole, back legs disappearing? We’re talking about evolution. Does not believing in my story make yours sound better to you?

What is the 'intermediate' betweeen this fellow: ….and this one: Or were they created seperately?


I have no idea.

you have to propose a MECHANISM by which this level of hyperevolution occurred to produce, for example, 900+ species of bat from the original bat kind in less than 2500 years


Can these bats interbreed or not? Are they the same kind? Could they at one stage interbreed? We need to know the answers to the questions to get anywhere on this. There are many different groups of people as well and they used to be divided into different species but they can interbreed so they all have the same origin. How about the bats?
I suppose you’ve noticed how rapidly different kinds of dogs are bred out –obviously it needed a bit of human interference or the intelligence factor but there is clearly a vast amount of variation present in the original ‘dog’ genome.
Maybe the same is true of the bats, maybe they started with only two or maybe four –who knows –but they probably had a lot of built in variation and rapidly diversified.

If my take on evolution was premised on caruicatures and child-like distortions as your's is, I would have trouble accepting it, too.


Well did the land mammal start swimming and adapt to its environment or not? Did it get in the water or adapt for the water first? How did these coordinated changes occur if the environment can’t be responded to? How do random mutations happen upon all the features required for swimming in one animal that lived on land and then went swimming. This is not child like, this is practical and not distorted at all. Please try to explain it to me so that I can cease to be childlike about it. Just because you can hand wave over it with “I know that it happened because I know’ does not mean that you know anything at all about how it could have/might have happened.

Which is why I suppose you folks keep using such tactics, for to be honest, youwould have to be like Dr. Todd Wood or Dr. Kurt Wise, both of whom admit that there is evidence for evolution but remain creationists because of their Faith, which overrides their common sense....


These are quite ridiculous people, excuse me for being rude, but if all the evidence for evolution was so clear, I’d be an evolutionist. But it is so ridiculous and imaginary and non-existant that I just can’t. Mr Todd Wood and Mr Kurt Wise are probably undercover evolutionists -they are certainly not practical people or they would not say such silly things. I’d love them to show me their evidence. I’ll bet it as good as yours.

Wrong. I do need evidence. And i have lots, besides the fossil record.
Like what?
Funny - we've been asking you to provide evidence FOR YECism, and the best you can come up with are supposed problems with evolution.  You simply reject evidence opresented to you out of hand, or engage in nitpicky distrations and employ doctored quotes to prop up your cause.


Ahem… where is the other evidence…apart from a fossil record that supports creation? Nitpicky distractions huh???

It’s incomprehensible to me that you can be so easily led by imagination without the requisite evidence.
Projection at its laughable best.


You obviously haven’t looked very closely at what you believe, have you?

To make sure men can treat women as proerty and own slaves?


You make it sound as if God condoned slavery and wife abuse –obviously you haven’t actually read the Bible.

Lots of people can see you at your sad game, Timmy's boyfriend.


Who the hell is Timmy?

Dr. as in creationist  medical doctor....  How could he possibly not be an expert on all things related to evolution?


By studying it for the last 30 years as his major hobby ever since 2nd year medical school and by visiting all the major fossil museums in the world and interviewing all the experts on the various major fossil evidences for evolution. By listening to both sides take on the evidence.

we all know how honest creationists are when it comes to interviewing people.


Well the sad thing is that we all know how honest evolutionists can be when being interviewed by creationists. For instance when Carl Werner wanted to find living fossils in dinosaur-age rock, he started by asking “Have you found any fossils of modern animal or plant species at this dinosaur dig site?” Evolutionists don’t like that sort of question –they freeze up because they know what the implications are. So after a slow start he asked the question differently:
“At this site where you are working have you found any animals that survived the dinosaur extinction event –any modern appearing animals that are alive today?”
This they found less challenging and it loosened them up to tell the truth. Well then he found loads of ‘modern appearing’ plants and animals to add to his list because the question didn’t specifically challenge evolution but rather focused on dinosaur extinction.

As for seals and sea lions not being related, well you’re laughably wrong there too….


Well so you say, but Australian scientists have a display at Kangaroo island that shows that a dog or dog-like animal evolved into a sea lion while scientists at Howard university in Washington DC think that a bear evolved into a sea lion.
What is the evidence for this evolution?Is it possible that they evolved from neither? Could they both be wrong?

Dr Irina Koretsky from the Smithsonian who specializes in seal and sea lion evolution believes that eared seals come from bear-like animals but she has no idea which bear-like animal as they have no intermediates (ie. they are guessing).

Dr Berta of San Diego State University (who specializes in aquatic mammal evolution) says that “the earliest animal that they’ve recognized has the name Pithanotaria. It’s very similar in terms of body size and morphology to the modern sea lions.” In code this means we have only found sea lions but no intermediates so we don’t actually know what animal they evolved from.

Thousands of sea lions have been found dated 0-24 MYA but no direct ancestors.

Seals, say Dr Berta, are allied to a completely group of carnivores, the skunks and the otters.

When asked which Mustelid evolved into a seal, Dr Koretsky said “I don’t have any evidence or material yet.” (This means they think so but have no evidence.)

5000 fossil seals have been found but no direct ancestors. So did none of them fossilize? That’s amazing!!

Please explain how I am laughably wrong.  

 

















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


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 12:18 AM on November 8, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 12:18 AM on November 8, 2009 :

These are quite ridiculous people, excuse me for being rude, but if all the evidence for evolution was so clear, I’d be an evolutionist. But it is so ridiculous and imaginary and non-existant that I just can’t. Mr Todd Wood and Mr Kurt Wise are probably undercover evolutionists -they are certainly not practical people or they would not say such silly things. I’d love them to show me their evidence. I’ll bet it as good as yours.


That's Dr.Todd Wood and Dr.Kurt Wise.  Are they inconsequential because you disagree with them?



-------
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: 01:31 AM on November 8, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

LESTER'S DODGES:

(hominid classification)

Unicellular organisms to multicellular invertebrates;

Invertebrates to fish



If everything appears fully formed and functional with no evidence of how it got there –for example in the Cambrian and the Ordivician

By the way, it's called "Ordovician".


where the most evidence for gradualism should exist
Says who? Start a thread and elaborate on that, please. Unless you're just tossing empty claims, of course.


How many kinds of marsupials are there?

Define 'kind'.


How can we even trust our evolution produced minds if that is what they are?
We can't. So we have to test, check and double-check. And do double blind studies.
The fact that you don't trust my mind demonstrates that your position is clearly flawed.


Viral insertions are functional and thus not viral after all,
First of all, if that's your claim, open a thread (this one is for definitions) and let's discuss it. Otherwise, hush.

Second: You don't know what the subject is. I meant this:



If they're functional, why does Yahweh arrange them like that? It's like he wanted for us to think that species are related...


goose bumps -design
What for? We have them when we feel cold (as if we had fur), and when we're scared/angry (as if we had fur and wanted to appear bigger, just like any other animal with goose bumps).

If you're going to answer, start a thread.
If not, hush.


vestigiality -garbage,
Does Yahweh produce garbage?

Didn't you say that you had no problem with loss of function? That you were ok with the legless lizard's vestigiality?

Let's see...
Here:

Posted by Lester10, at 07:24 AM on April 5, 2009
How did i guess that the legless lizard would have vestigial legs when i was a teen and didn't know about legless lizards OR vestigial limbs? My correct guess made my trust in that consensus stronger.
Nobody has any problem with loss if information due to mutational corruption. The lizard's original information was corrupted.
You admitted that vestigiality was possible.

Gotcha! =D


comparative anatomy –common creator, homologies –common creator,
http://www.youdebate.com/cgi-bin/scarecrow/topic.cgi?forum=3&topic=55749

Let's discuss it there. And if you don't want to discuss it, don't mention it.

mimicry -design,
Start a thread and present your evidence, or don't mention it.



We've found all of those. Which ones are whales to you?


Remember the majority of scientists used to believe in spontaneous generation for over 2000 years but they were wrong.
Yes. Science demonstrated that they were wrong. Not religion.
Yes, well it was their problem since they made it up in the first place.
Who's 'they'?
Please, answer this one.
I said 'please'.
By the way, love the trilobites but what exactly is your point?
That you acknowledge that they are trilobites. Thank you!

So you admit that they are trilobites, and yet you don't see evidence of gradualism... Your definition of gradualism must be very strange.

Can you guess in what order they have been found in the geological strata? Yeah, you know you can. You know that, whether it is right or wrong, if you assume that the ToE is right you'll guess.


Doesn't creation predict (postdict, actually) that a couple of supercats can turn into lions, tigers, panthers, cheetahs and house cats, and all of that in 4k years?
That’s right. There’s vast ability to diversify built into each ‘kind’s’ genome and speciation appears to have occurred pretty rapidly.
How does it appear so?

I mean, what's your basis?

The fossil record? The Bible? What?


Besides:

You didn't tell me what goose bumps were designed for. You didn't start a thread about the comparative embryology fraud.

You didn't answer what the limitations are in artificial selection.

You negated vestigiality, and i presented an old quote where you had acknowledge it. And now you shut up.

You said "comparative anatomy –common creator" and "homologies –common creator", even though you dropped the subject in the thread i started specifically about that. I mention that you dropped the subject, and you shut up again...
Your dishonesty is tiresome, Lester.

You say you don't have time to answer to long posts. Well, then don't waste your precious time copypasting silly quotes! Don't waste it talking about how imaginative we are!

You said "mimicry -design". Will you defend that claim, or will it be another orphan?
Start a thread if you have any basis.
If you don't, admit it.

You said

No, you’ve forgotten about the gaps in the fossil record and the lack of evidence for macroevolution.

I asked for you to explain it, but you won't.

I've asked you to define 'micro' and 'macro' in such a way that nothing we see falls in between, but you won't.


Lester10
derwood
Consider the part I bolded - I suggest you take an undergraduate comparative vertebrate anatomy course and an actual evolution course.

I might just as well take a course in mythology.

Are you interested in mythology? If so, i don't see why not take a course.

And if you're NOT interested, why claim knowledge on the matter?


Lester
derwood
Another level is that the concept of gradualism does NOT preclude catastophes or relatively fast change
Show me your relatively fast change example of a beneficial mutation that allows survival.It’s no good just to have faith that such things happen.
Er... Aren't you contradicting yourself, Lester? Check this quote:
Doesn't creation predict (postdict, actually) that a couple of supercats can turn into lions, tigers, panthers, cheetahs and house cats, and all of that in 4k years?
That’s right. There’s vast ability to diversify built into each ‘kind’s’ genome and speciation appears to have occurred pretty rapidly.
Actually you believe in a much higher rate of change than we do (that apparently slowed down dramatically and leaving no signs that it was ever that high).


Sorry. You don't know what you're talking about. There's more to an ear than the semicircular canals.
I'm talking about this:

a) regular generalized land mammal
b) pakicetid
c) remingtonocetid/protocetid
d) a modern odontocete

a) and b) look very much alike.
There's a distinct feature present in pakicetids that are not present in any other land mammals though. Only whales have it nowadays. Take a close look.
The tympanic bone isn't connected to the periotic bone (Per), and it's actually thickened into a structure called the involucrum. Basically, the bony structure of the ear is less tightly attached to the skull, and is more free to vibrate in response to sound transmitted through the tissue of the head. The jaw will capture sound.

This is what has been found.

Besides, in c) the ear drum has dwindled, and the malleus is fused to the bone (which is a clear loss if the animal needs to capture sound waves in air).


Also it was a land mammal that walked on its legs. It didn’t swim.
How do you know that? It's you who keeps saying that we can't know anything about an animal by looking at its bones.
You're contradicting yourself.


Gradual change = microevolution? Yes or no?
Not microevolution no.
An answer!! Amazing!

So how is it different?


Doesn't creation predict (postdict, actually) that a couple of supercats can turn into lions, tigers, panthers, cheetahs and house cats, and all of that in 4k years?
That’s right. There’s vast ability to diversify built into each ‘kind’s’ genome and speciation appears to have occurred pretty rapidly.
How does it appear so?
They can reproduce so they are the same kind.
They can? Lions and house cats? Do you know this?


Do rats and rabbits belong in the same kind or not?
Can they produce fertile offspring?
No, but neither do cats and lions (not that i know of). The same goes with donkeys and horses, and you still say they belong to the same kind.


I don't need any fossils to know that.
We have lots, they fit perfectly, but they are not necessary for the ToE to make excellent predictions about traits of the living species.
You don’t have lots, the ones you have are made up. Invented.
You seem to be confused. We were talking about fossils, not about transitionals.


I’ve discussed Tiktaalik with you already.
Yeah, and you dropped the subject, as usual.
No I think you dropped the subject.
That doesn't sound like me at all. If i'm left with nothing to say, i say that i have nothing to say. I'll say 'You're right', or 'I don't know' (which seem to be absent from your vocabulary).
I remember discussing how little one can tell from fossilized bones
And i answered that its eyes were on top, so i know it didn't swim near the surface of deep waters. And that it had elbows that supported weight, so, well, it must have supported weight.

Besides you say that the pakicetus was a land mammal, contradicting your claim that we can't tell things from dead bones.
and how a mistake was made when coelocanth was predicted to be the fish amphibian link except when it was found, it turned out to be all fish after all.
I don't know about this. Can you show me your source?

From your story it appears that they named it before finding it (which seems kinda odd).


(...)since convergent evolution does NOT lead to homology.
According to people who believe in convergent evolution, it does lead to homologous structures by pure chance mutations in different lines altogether.
As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.

From Wiki:

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


Will you correct yourself? No, you won't.

So stubborn...

You said
Well when you consider how often homologous structures are apparently unrelated (as evidenced in so-called convergent evolution)
Convergent evolution is NOT evidence that homologous structures are unrelated.
You're saying that we can demonstrate that apples don't have seeds because balloons don't have them.
Look at seals and sea lions –not even related –convergent evolution –but you can barely tell them apart.
Not related? According to whom?


wisp
Lester
wisp
Lester
wisp
Lester
wisp
Lester
The TOE requires life to come from non-living chemicals, it’s an atheistic system
Lester
The ToE, on the other hand assumes abiogenesis and no role for God, so it is an atheistic philosophy.
No more than the Theory of Gravity. And you don't fight it.
There’s nothing atheistic about the theory of gravity.
It doesn't contemplate any gods. Just like the ToE.
And it is just as much a product of God’s as is life.
I agree.
By your 'and' it looks like we've come to an agreement on this issue. Both theories are equally atheistic.
Neither is.
Exactly! Finally!

So, just to be clear (i really hope you don't back away from this realization), you do acknowledge that you were wrong when you wrote the first phrase, right? Or did you just lose track and didn't know what you were talking about?


If feathers didn’t come from scales then scales just went away
Yeah, in many animals they did.

In others they didn't go away entirely.


Take a close look:

You tell us to look around, and that things look designed. You seem quite impressed by the way things look.
With a hand in your heart, tell me if those tails don't look reptilian.


(Edited by wisp 11/8/2009 at 5:18 PM).


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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:36 AM on November 8, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 12:18 AM on November 8, 2009 :
Derwood
It will never change, no matter what.  Never mind that there are a multitude of different versions of if floating about.  Never mind that there are many internal inconsistencies that prove that it cannot be 100% true and accurate.  Never mind that it contains absurdities and implausabilities that are handwaved away with 'God can do it all' ...


Have you ever read it? This is all the usual tripe that people who have never read it come up with.


Yes, I did read it.  Cover to cover.  And it was shortly after I did actually read it that I concluded that it was nonsense.
The usual tripe from bible worshippers is to claim that those who recognize the internal inconsistencies and nonsese just haven't read it.
In my exoperience, those who reject the bible are the ONLY ones who have read it in any detail.

We know that kind gives rise to kind and no land mammal ever changed into a whale.


No, you assert this to prop up your bible beliefs and reject any evidence to the contrary.


If there was any evidence available to convince us, that would be great.

The evidence is there, as a YEC cultist you are programmed to find any way possible to reject it.  We've all seen you in action on here doing just that.


Your wonderfully confused ‘scientific’ mind asserts that a land mammal’s ears randomly evolved; the ears then happened to suit the water as well as the fins and flippers and blubber and a blowhole, as it turns out, that it later acquired quite by accident. At what point did it decide to go swimming –before or after the blowhole arose by accident? Before or after the fins arose by accident? Did it have to kick its legs to begin with? And the oh so many other coordinated changes all occurred quite by accident? The best mistakes were slowly selected by natural selection and a whale was born. I’m sorry, that’s a fairy tale and I’m sad that you believe it, but unfortunately Santa is no longer part of my life and nor can the frog turn into a prince.(even over millions of years).

Santa is not a part of your life yet Yahweh, who demands foreskins of converts, who mooned Moses, who was one of many deities, who could conjure only a swarm of fleas that Pharoah's magicians couldn't match, who slaughtered untold millions of innocents for doing what he must have known they would do, who cursed us all to extinction, THAT disgusting thing is still part of your life, and belief in that mythical thug drives you to toss out caricatures and argument via personal incredulity to prop up said beliefs.

It is the best you can do, but you are really in no position to comment on my 'scientific mind', as we may recall that you, despite claiming to have a science-related doctorate, did not know what 'phenotype' means, among other things.



A whale is a coordinated engineering masterpiece and if you can’t see that, it’s a pity.


The argument from awe twisted up with the argument from ignorance - klassic Kreationist komedy...

The evidence is all in your imagination. You have to really want to believe it.


Living in so constant a state of denial will eventually take its toll.


Why two contradictory orders of creation?


To play around with the god rejecters of our day who throw aside a common designer and insist on randomness and no plan instead? It certainly shows how evolutionists are not put off by pictures that contradict evolution –they make up fresh new stories instead, stories that make the non-believers mouths drop open in astonishment.


So much nonsense, yet not even an attempt to address a major problem with taking Genesis literally.
That cognitive dissonance will catch up to you one day.

But since you are an expert on mutations - please tell us all - if this evolution really happened, how many mutations would have been required?


Well to be really kind, lets work on just one new protein per new structure and then work out the probability of all these things coming to pass shall we?

Well first, you will need to provide a rationale for why we actually need one new protein per new structure, then I would like to know just what counts as a 'new' structure - what does a whale have that, say, a hippo does not have that is not simply a rearangment of 'old' parts?
Then I wouuld have to know why you want to discuss probability, how you would apply it to this scenario, etc.


for just saying that mutations can't do it is just  abaseless assertion.


Surely since you can’t even show me one macro beneficial mutation, you are indulging in baseless assertion?

I don't know what a 'macro beneficial mutation' is, since you are so averse to actually explaining what you mean.

There must have been a lot of gradual in-the-wrong direction intermediate creatures that never made it. Where are they? Where are the ones with the fins but not the fluke? Where are the ones with the fluke and legs but not the blubber? ...?
Where are the wicked humans killed in  the flood all at once?  Where are the fossil graveyards containing discontemporaneous bones all mixed up, like humans mixed in with triceratopsians, or modern birds (hey, they cannot fly for a year!) ?


You appear to be changing the subject here –


No, I am just showing how naive - and idiotic - your demands are.

where are these intermediate whales?


Where are all the biblical patriarchs?  Where is the ark?  Where are all the intermediates between the original bat kind and the extant 900+ species?

The clear examples of transitions should have legs mixed with fins, tail mixed with fluke, nose changing into blowhole, back legs disappearing?

Legs mixed with fins?  What does that mean, precisely?  You expect it to have a fin on one side and a limb on the other?
As we have seen with Archaeopteryx, your criteria are set in jello and are applied inconsistently and arbitrarily for the sole purpose of never having to acknowledge what those with actual education, knowledge, and experience in the appropriate fields accept.  You never did, for example, try to discuss Archaeopteryx's actual anatomy (e.g., the sternum) despite claiming an understanding of anatomy.  It is almost as if you just claimed such knowledge to make others think you had actually thought this stuff through, yet when you get caught demonstrating that your knowledge of these issues is not what you tried to make it out to be, well, you come across like a TROOO Christian Creationist - you just avoid discussing it.


We’re talking about evolution. Does not believing in my story make yours sound better to you?

Not at all.  But throwing back absurd demands sometimes shows how absurd your own demands actually are.

Why would you expect there to be a fossil of every possible intermediate - and more precisely, every possible intermediate that happens to meet your ever changing, idiosyncratic criteria?



What is the 'intermediate' betweeen this fellow: ….and this one: Or were they created seperately?


I have no idea.


And yet you feel free to declare that Archaeopteryx is not an intermediate, and that whales and land mammals cannot possibly be related.

Something seems inconsistent.  Is it because you have not yet come across a creationist propaganda book dealing with guenons?

you have to propose a MECHANISM by which this level of hyperevolution occurred to produce, for example, 900+ species of bat from the original bat kind in less than 2500 years


Can these bats interbreed or not? Are they the same kind? Could they at one stage interbreed? We need to know the answers to the questions to get anywhere on this.

Really?

So the ability to interbreed is your big criterion is it?

Tell me - with your vast knnowledge of reproductive physiology, what are the first few steps in fertilization in amniotes?

Hmmm?

Is it , maybe, the sperm binding to the zona pellucida?  
===
Anat Rec. 1977 Aug;188(4):477-87.

Sperm/egg interaction: the specificity of human spermatozoa.
Bedford JM.

Human spermatozoa display unusually limited affinities in their interaction with oocytes of other species. They adhered to and, when capacitated, penetrated the vestments of the oocyte of an ape--the gibbon, Hylobates lar--both in vivo and in vitro.
On the other hand, human spermatozoa would not even attach to the zona surface of sub-hominoid primate (baboon, rhesus monkey, squirrel monkey), nor to the non-primate eutherian oocytes tested. Among the apes the gibbon stands furthest from man. Thus, although the specificity of human spermatozoa is not confined to man alone, it probably is restricted to the Hominoidea. This study also suggests that the evolution of man and perhaps the other hominids has been accompanied by a restrictive change in the nature of the sperm surface which has limited and made more specific the complementary surface to which their spermatozoa may adhere. ===


There are many different groups of people as well and they used to be divided into different species

Who did this?


but they can interbreed so they all have the same origin. How about the bats?
I suppose you’ve noticed how rapidly different kinds of dogs are bred out –obviously it needed a bit of human interference or the intelligence factor but there is clearly a vast amount of variation present in the original ‘dog’ genome.

So where do you think all that variation comes from?  Was it all just always there?  If so, why did we never see a chihuahua giving birth on occasion to a mastiff?

Maybe the same is true of the bats, maybe they started with only two or maybe four –who knows –but they probably had a lot of built in variation and rapidly diversified.

Yeah, probably.  Anything beyond 'probably'?

If my take on evolution was premised on caricatures and child-like distortions as your's is, I would have trouble accepting it, too.


Well did the land mammal start swimming and adapt to its environment or not? Did it get in the water or adapt for the water first? How did these coordinated changes occur if the environment can’t be responded to? How do random mutations happen upon all the features required for swimming in one animal that lived on land and then went swimming. This is not child like, this is practical and not distorted at all. Please try to explain it to me so that I can cease to be childlike about it.


See what I mean?
No, Lester, such 'questions' are indeed child-like, especially coming from someone claiming advanced education on these very subjects.
The naivete just oozes from your every post, and you are too prideful and Dunning-Krugerized to get it.

Just because you can hand wave over it with “I know that it happened because I know’ does not mean that you know anything at all about how it could have/might have happened.

It is true that I personally do not have any idea what the steps were that lead to the production of whales.  But I need not know every step if I can see the evidence left behind showing that it happened.  
If I find an empty book of matches and an empty can of gasoline next to a burned down house, do I really need to know some arbitrary chain of events to conclude that the house was set on fire?
The morning after Halloween, my son had a fit because most of his candy was gone - his candy bag was on the floor, and there were torn up wrappers and half eaten candy bars strewn about, and there were slimy bite marks on nearly everything.  Did we really have to observe the dog biting into each and every candy bar to understand that the dog did it?
We can look at the record of unique shared mutations in the genomes of the creatures in question and see a record of mutational change.  Does that tell us exaclty what steps occurred getting a whale from a non-whale? Not at all, but it tells us that it did happen, and it is up to other researchers to try to fill in the voids with things like fossils (all of which you reject in favor of some uncorroborated tall tales, I know).


Which is why I suppose you folks keep using such tactics, for to be honest, youwould have to be like Dr. Todd Wood or Dr. Kurt Wise, both of whom admit that there is evidence for evolution but remain creationists because of their Faith, which overrides their common sense....


These are quite ridiculous people, excuse me for being rude, but if all the evidence for evolution was so clear, I’d be an evolutionist.


No, you wouldn't.  When I see a YEC making this claim, I know they are lying - they are lying to us, and to themselves.
Many years ago, YEC Helen Fryman declared that were she to see a 'smooth' gradation of genetic identity across phylogeny as indicated by evolution, she would finnd it 'trouubling' for her YEC beliefs.  So, I presented her with a data matrix of some 35 mammalian species showing just what she asked for.  Did she admit that she found it troubling for YEC?  Of course not - she just claimed that the matrix did nto cover ALL animals, and did nto inlcude data from the entire genome of each animal, so she saw no reason to be troubled.  IOW, she just rejected the ery evidence she claimed swhe wouild accept in order to protect her religious views, and I see no inndication that you would do anything different.


You have made it clear that you accept the bible in part because it never changes and never will change.  Many weak-willed people NEED such stability and see the tentative nature of all science as a threat to their emotional and psychological security.  

These 'ridiculous' people as you call them are, unlike you, highly educated and trained individuals with graduate degrees from accredited well-known legitimate institutions - Wise received his PhD in paleontology from Harvard University, for example, and actually studied fossils.  He KNOWS that there is evidence for evolution, that there ARE transitonals.  He simply rejects the scientific, rational interpretation of them due to his Faith and has said so.
You?  
Aside from some vague allusions to having had a few science classes in your graduate education, you've not said what your area of specialization is.  What do YOU know that a Harvard-trainined paleontologist does not such that you can call him 'ridiculous'?



But it is so ridiculous and imaginary and non-
existant that I just can’t. Mr Todd Wood and Mr Kurt Wise are probably undercover evolutionists -they are certainly not practical people or they would not say such silly things. I’d love them to show me their evidence. I’ll bet it as good as yours.


I do enjoy seeing YECs attack each other with logical fallacies.  It shows how weak their position actually is.


Wrong. I do need evidence. And i have lots, besides the fossil record.
Like what?
Funny - we've been asking you to provide evidence FOR YECism, and the best you can come up with are supposed problems with evolution.  You simply reject evidence presented to you out of hand, or engage in nitpicky distrations and employ doctored quotes to prop up your cause.


Ahem… where is the other evidence…apart from a fossil record that supports creation?

The fossil record supports creation?  Is that an assertion?  
Right - I forgot how we find dinosaur fossils in the same strata as modern birds, and how we find human fossils in the same strata as saddle-wearing stegasaurs...

Molecular phylogenetics supports evolution quite nicely.  Comparative embryology.  Physiology.  Anatomy. Etc...


Nitpicky distractions huh???


Yes indeed.  Like how when I started a thread for you  to explain how 'genetics' does not support evolution - your claim -  the first - and only - thing you did was prattle on about whale fossils.
You seem quite incapable of discussing even issues YOU bring up beyond a few throw away assertions and strawmen.


It’s incomprehensible to me that you can be so easily led by imagination without the requisite evidence.
Projection at its laughable best.


You obviously haven’t looked very closely at what you believe, have you?

Yes - I've actually done original research on what I 'believe'. Have you actually looked at YOUR beliefs skeptically?  

To make sure men can treat women as property and own slaves?


You make it sound as if God condoned slavery and wife abuse –obviously you haven’t actually read the Bible.

Right....  And here you are doctoring my words.  I said nothing of wife abuse, I said treating them as property, and the owning of slaves is a given in the  bible.  Or haven't YOU read your precious fairy tales?

Exodus 21

2If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.


4If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.


7And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.


Slavery treated as an everyday thing, AND women as property, in just one chapter.

It is quite easy to find many verses in the bible both condoning slavery and treating women as property.  Surely, you know and have been programmed to gloss over this?


Lots of people can see you at your sad game, Timmy's boyfriend.


Who the hell is Timmy?


Yeah, exactly.


Dr. as in creationist  medical doctor....  How could he possibly not be an expert on all things related to evolution?


By studying it for the last 30 years as his major hobby ever since 2nd year medical school and by visiting all the major fossil museums in the world and interviewing all the experts on the various major fossil evidences for evolution. By listening to both sides take on the evidence.

Oh - a HOBBY! Well, of course.

I've commented before that it is almost more instructive to see what people like you do NOT respond to as to what you do - for your new hero to have studied evolution for 30 years - albeit as a hobby - and to write things like what you decided not to respond to:

" If jawless fish are the evolutionary predecessors of other fish, one would expect them to be extinct, according to the idea of survival of the fittest."

then he did not actually learn much in all that time.

You see, when I see someone write something as ignorant as that, and this someone has claimed to have studied evolution for decades (I see this quite a bit, actually), we can conclude a couple of things:


The person is just plain lying to prop up his faith.

The person really did study for decades, but only studied YEC propaganda.

Combinations of both of the above.

The saddest part is, such folk really impress people like Lester, who, if he is actually telling the truth about his doctorate, should be able to see how naive and plain silly such claims are.


we all know how honest creationists are when it comes to interviewing people.


Well the sad thing is that we all know how honest evolutionists can be when being interviewed by creationists. For instance when Carl Werner wanted to find living fossils in dinosaur-age rock, he started by asking “Have you found any fossils of modern animal or plant species at this dinosaur dig site?” Evolutionists don’t like that sort of question –they freeze up because they know what the implications are. So after a slow start he asked the question differently:
“At this site where you are working have you found any animals that survived the dinosaur extinction event –any modern appearing animals that are alive today?”
This they found less challenging and it loosened them up to tell the truth. Well then he found loads of ‘modern appearing’ plants and animals to add to his list because the question didn’t specifically challenge evolution but rather focused on dinosaur extinction.


And by 'modern appearing' - let me guess, the YEC medical doctor then wildly extrapolated that to mean ACTUAL modern living things, right?


As for seals and sea lions not being related, well you’re laughably wrong there too….


Well so you say, but Australian scientists have a display at Kangaroo island that shows that a dog or dog-like animal evolved into a sea lion while scientists at Howard university in Washington DC think that a bear evolved into a sea lion.


And here you are again with your museum displays as "evidence".

You know, at the creation museum, they show a Triceratops with a saddle on it.
I guess that means that some 'scientists' think that ceratopsians were domesticated.  Funny how no mention of any such creature is found anywherere, not even in scripture....

But you know - you inadvertendly made a fool of yourself yet again - apparently you are unaware that dogs and bears are actually very closely related...



I know you cannot decipher those sciencey- things, but if you look closely, you can see a group called the Caniformia (dog-like), and the OTUs have names like Ursus and Canis...

What is the evidence for this evolution?Is it possible that they evolved from neither? Could they both be wrong?

Sure.  Real science is tentative.  Real science, unlike YEC pseudoscience, does not start with the conclusion then try to force obeservations to fit the pre-determined outcome.  
But nitpicking over museum displays that on the one hand show a dog-like forerunner and on the other show a bear-like one only shows how little you truly understand.  Perhaps it is you, not Drs Wood and Wise, that is the 'ridiculous' person?

Dr Irina Koretsky from the Smithsonian who specializes in seal and sea lion evolution believes that eared seals come from bear-like animals but she has no idea which bear-like animal as they have no intermediates (ie. they are guessing).


Right, just guessing.  So, you got that from your YEC medical doctor's book, right (I can google, too)?  

Looking though Google books, Werner's book
comes across as no better than any of jailbird Kent fake-PhD Hovind's nonsese.

Lester's new hereo's book is here.

p. 112:

"... The theory of evolution says that a ground mammal changed into a bat by a series of mistaken m utations in the DNA of the reproductive cells.  For this to occur, thousands of letters of DNA would have had to change by accident, in the proper location, and in the proper order."

If Werner believes that, he is a class A moron.  Then, he is a YEC with an agenda to push, so we should not expect any sort of rational treatment of the material.


Dr Berta of San Diego State University (who specializes in aquatic mammal evolution) says that “the earliest animal that they’ve recognized has the name Pithanotaria. It’s very similar in terms of body size and morphology to the modern sea lions.” In code this means we have only found sea lions but no intermediates so we don’t actually know what animal they evolved from.

Thousands of sea lions have been found dated 0-24 MYA but no direct ancestors.

Seals, say Dr Berta, are allied to a completely group of carnivores, the skunks and the otters.


So, you've just admitted that neither you nor your YEC medical doctor hero understand what 'allied' means - hilarious!

When asked which Mustelid evolved into a seal, Dr Koretsky said “I don’t have any evidence or material yet.” (This means they think so but have no evidence.)


I'd say what we have here is just another example of a sleazy YEC propagandist butchering and manipulating honest people's words.

Why would a mustelid have evolved into a seal when that is not what is proposed or indicated by the evidence?



5000 fossil seals have been found but no direct ancestors. So did none of them fossilize? That’s amazing!!

At this point, I have little reason to believe that your YEC doctor hero is a reliable source.


Please explain how I am laughably wrong.  

On this or in general?

Well, let's see... There was the PhD in science who didn't know what phenotype mean, the guy who employs logical fallacies as evidence, the guy who wonders why there is no evidence for an evolutionary sequence that is not proposed, the guy who declares that museum displays are at odds because one shows a dog-like animal and the other a bear-like one,  the guy who seems to think that all transitionals should have both fossilized and been discovered yet who reserves the right to dismiss anything presented as a transitional if he can conjure up some structure that he can claim does nto meet his idiosyncratic and vague definition for transitional, the guy who declares PhD level creationists who acknowledge that there are transitional fossils and evidence fo revolution are 'ridiculous people' and likley closet evolutionists because they are honest and he is not, etc.

Shall I go on?







(Edited by derwood 11/8/2009 at 5:56 PM).


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 1:10 PM on November 8, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dr Carl Werne
According to the theory of evolution, jawless fish are the oldest type of fish and they theoretically evolved into cartilaginous sharks and rays which then evolved into bony fish. If jawless fish are the evolutionary predecessors of other fish, one would expect them to be extinct, according to the idea of survival of the fittest.


JESUS CHRIST!

30 years studying the ToE you say?

In 30 years he couldn't come up with or stumble upon this?!


It's so damn easy!! What kind of freak is he??

Lester
Well so you say, but Australian scientists have a display at Kangaroo island that shows that a dog or dog-like animal evolved into a sea lion while scientists at Howard university in Washington DC think that a bear evolved into a sea lion.
Ah, Lester, Lester... You see much difference?

Here, let me show you:



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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:09 PM on November 8, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 5:09 PM on November 8, 2009 :
Dr Carl Werne
According to the theory of evolution, jawless fish are the oldest type of fish and they theoretically evolved into cartilaginous sharks and rays which then evolved into bony fish. If jawless fish are the evolutionary predecessors of other fish, one would expect them to be extinct, according to the idea of survival of the fittest.

JESUS CHRIST!

30 years studying the ToE you say?


Isn't it amazing?

Many YECs spew this nonsense about how long they've "studied" evolution, as if that is supposed to make everyone quake in awe at their every utterance.

I have run into a couple of YECs on the CARM board who made very similar claims - one claimed to have been studying evolution for 30 years (maybve it was werner!), another one for 23 years.  In both cases, this was mentioned as a means of minimizing criticism of their claims - the old "I've been studying this for 30 yuears, I KNOW what I am talking about", followed by claims like 'Neanderthals were all just old people with arthritis!'  and 'Information cannot increase naturally!  I can't define information or discuss this, but I can link toa YEC website that says so, and I've been studying this for 23 years!'

I must add that both of those claims above were actually stated to me on that other forum (I've paraphrased, but the take home message is the same).
It is really incredible, the Dunning-Krugerism so many internet YEC-types exhibit.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:21 AM on November 11, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood
The evidence is there, as a YEC cultist you are programmed to find any way possible to reject it.  We've all seen you in action on here doing just that.


As an evolutionism cultist, you are programmed to imagine land mammals turning into whales via unplanned multiple mutations. Since bad and neutral mutations by far outnumber any imaginary beneficial mutations (I’m still waiting for one unambiguous example of a beneficial mutation affecting morphology), how does this work? If you can imagine it, is that good enough? I’ve asked you to explain it in a way that I can understand or else at least imagine it too but you don’t –why not?

How did the legs turn into pectoral fins; skin with fur get replaced by blubber; tail turn into a cartilaginous fluke; teeth turn into a huge baleen filter? How did it just happen to develop a dorsal fin by accidental mutations to accidentally complement all the other accidental water requirements? How did the nostrils move to the top of the head from the end of the nose, disconnect from the mouth passage and form a coincidental muscular flap to close the blowhole? How did the external ears disappear and then develop via lucky accidental mutations to compensate for high pressure diving to below a thousand feet under water? Isn’t it lucky that the back legs just disappeared? And what about all those lucky internal changes that needed to happen for all of this to work?

Why don’t we have any intermediates that show some of these parts changing?

Why no fossils with legs and fins? Fur and flippers? Tail and flippers? Do you think flippers just popped up fully functional with nerves and muscles all co-ordinated and functional? Even if that were possible, you can’t imagine the pectoral and dorsal fins and fluke all appeared in one manoevre or mutation surely? Such co-ordination just by chance, random mutations? Natural selection is nice but it only selects things out, it makes nothing. So how does it work? You may say this is childish but that's just mere handwaving over a very big problem. I’m sure you want me to understand so that I can also be an evolutionist and explain it to others, so please try to be a bit more helpful.    




-------
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: 09:28 AM on November 11, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
derwood
The evidence is there, as a YEC cultist you are programmed to find any way possible to reject it.  We've all seen you in action on here doing just that.
As an evolutionism cultist, you are programmed to imagine land mammals turning into whales via unplanned multiple mutations.
Sigh... Derwood wastes his time saying that only after addressing everything you could come up with.

It's your turn to answer something.

Since bad and neutral mutations by far outnumber any imaginary beneficial mutations (I’m still waiting for one unambiguous example of a beneficial mutation affecting morphology),
Pfff. Piece of cake. "Beneficial" is anything that gives you more success in an environment.

Example: shortness in dogs that hunt in burrows.


Your turn now. Address your dodges.

how does this work?
A mutation appears, the owner gets an advantage, the owner fucks a lot, the advantage gets passed.

Your turn now. Address your dodges.

If you can imagine it, is that good enough?
No.

Your turn now. Address your dodges.

I’ve asked you to explain it in a way that I can understand or else at least imagine it too but you don’t –why not?
Because, if you don't want to understand, there's no way.

Your turn now. Address your dodges.

How did the legs turn into pectoral fins;
Little by little normally. Nothing special.

Download an image morphing software and check it out.

Your turn now. Address your dodges.

skin with fur get replaced by blubber;
What about humans?

tail turn into a cartilaginous fluke; teeth turn into a huge baleen filter? How did it just happen to develop a dorsal fin by accidental mutations to accidentally complement all the other accidental water requirements?
There's no problem. Piece of cake. Those who weren't fit, died without reproducing. Those who were fitter reproduced more.

Your turn now. Address your dodges.

How did the nostrils move to the top of the head from the end of the nose?
In evolutionary time? Like this:

In embryologic developmental time? Like this:





Your turn now. Address your dodges.

How did the external ears disappear and then develop via lucky accidental mutations to compensate for high pressure diving to below a thousand feet under water?


Your turn now. Address your dodges.

Isn’t it lucky that the back legs just disappeared?
No.

Your turn now. Address your dodges.

And what about all those lucky internal changes that needed to happen for all of this to work?
If you want specific info, start threads.

Your turn now. Address your dodges.

Why don’t we have any intermediates that show some of these parts changing?
Show your interest by starting a thread.

Now address your dodges.

Why no fossils with legs and fins? Fur and flippers? Tail and flippers?
If you think that Evolution should produce every frikin combination you can think of, start a thread and defend it. Otherwise, hush.

Do you think flippers just popped up fully functional with nerves and muscles all co-ordinated and functional?
No.

But you do, incidentally.

Even if that were possible,
It's not.
you can’t imagine the pectoral and dorsal fins and fluke all appeared in one manoevre or mutation surely?
No.
Such co-ordination just by chance, random mutations?
No.

Natural selection is nice but it only selects things out, it makes nothing.
We know.

So how does it work?
By selecting for useful things.

You may say this is childish but that's just mere handwaving over a very big problem.
Start a thread and explain why, or shut up.

I’m sure you want me to understand so that I can also be an evolutionist and explain it to others, so please try to be a bit more helpful.


Stop dodging.

Here, start here:


If feathers didn’t come from scales then scales just went away
Yeah, in many animals they did.

In others they didn't go away entirely.


Take a close look:


You tell us to look around, and that things look designed. You seem quite impressed by the way things look.
With a hand in your heart, tell me if those tails don't look reptilian.


(Edited by wisp 11/11/2009 at 12:45 PM).


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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:46 AM on November 11, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 10:46 AM on November 11, 2009 :
Pfff. Piece of cake. "Beneficial" is anything that gives you more success in an environment.

Example: shortness in dogs that hunt in burrows.


Your turn now. Address your dodges.


Wisp, you know there are no dodges from the YEC camp. Despite this over-gross error you've displayed, no doubt in part to your total lack of understanding on the subject at hand, there have never been any "dodges" from the YECs. Only your preconceived notions and being so willfully ignorant you have blinded yourself to the truth and what the evidence really says.

Because your religious fairytale says hyenas evolved into whales, you must now make everything fit into this false paradigm and everything is now 'evidence' for this, no mater what hoops you have to jump through.

This is not evolution, as the evolutionists so proudly parade up and down the street with. This is simply adaptation, micro-evolution, which cannot be extrapolated to macro-evolution. You have been deceived evilutionists! But there is hope yet, the Bible! Believe and you will see the truth; no longer will you grasp at nothing trying to fill in the gaps of the transitions. Embrace the power (of the ring) of YEC, which is supported by all evidence. There is hope, open your eyes and see that which is plainly in front of you.

Romans 1:18-22
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.

Don't stay fools evolutionists, believe in the truth, or rot in the Lake of Fire in Hell for all eternity. It is your choice, make the right one.  


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


Posts: 551 | Posted: 9:39 PM on November 11, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester

Why no fossils with legs and fins?


Boy, you're sure stuck on whale evolution, aren't you Lester.  

Ever hear of the gene called 'Sonic Hedgehog'?  Embryonic and genetic studies show how whales and dolphins lost their legs as evolutionary change progressed over time.  These studies compliment very nicely the sequence that we see in the fossil record for whale evolution.

From here:
Unraveling Whale Evolution

The Sonic Hedgehog gene is responsible for limb development in vertebrates beyond the knee and elbow joints.  

In the case of whales, the limbs of whale ancestors became smaller over time.  Eventually the Sonic Hedgehog gene became inactive, causing the final loss of useless whale legs.  However, as noted elsewhere, modern whales still show vestigial pelvis and hind limb bones.

Now I ask you, if whales and dolphins did not evolve from terrestrial ancestors, why do they even have the Sonic Hedgehog gene?

Clearly, embryonic and genetic evidence neatly tie in the fossil evidence that we see in the instance of whale evolution.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:46 AM on November 12, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Woah! Good one, orion!

Fencer, you scare me.
Lester said he didn't dodge. It's just that he has little time (that prefers to spend repeating refuted arguments over and over instead of replying), and he magnanimously grants us the last word we like so much (at least temporarily, until that unfinished topic comes up again, forgetting about everything that has already been said about it).



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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 06:10 AM on November 12, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You have been deceived evilutionists! But there is hope yet, the Bible! Believe and you will see the truth; no longer will you grasp at nothing trying to fill in the gaps of the transitions.


Gosh Fencer, is that you?!
You're beginning to see like me or else your creationist twin is using your computer!?
You're scaring Wisp as well -we don't want to scare Wisp! I thought you were on your way to becoming an atheist....
What is going on with you????

As for you Wisp, I don't need to dodge but sometimes I get tired of repeating myself to the deaf and blind.


-------
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: 06:37 AM on November 12, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

LOL, I did a parody of the standard YEC with a little bit of Lester's style. I thought it was obvious, especially after "embrace the power of the ring" from Lord of the Rings movies. Hope this isn't a violation of forum rules come think of it? I've always wanted to try my hand at YEC, so I thought I'd give it a go.

Nice post Orion, I must say it is another piece of evidence for ToE that creationism can't explain.

Don't worry Lester, I'm not on my way to becoming an atheist yet. However, I think I would make an excellent atheist if I ever decide to become one. And from what I gather, I think I would be an excellent YEC as well. At least for now I am a TE, and I have no intention of changing.

Didn't mean to scare ya there Wisp. Hope I didn't make the blood flow spike up that much.


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


Posts: 551 | Posted: 08:36 AM on November 12, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Haha! I love Poe's law.

Lester
As for you Wisp, I don't need to dodge but sometimes I get tired of repeating myself to the deaf and blind.
You DON'T get tired of repeating yourself. You do it quite a lot, instead of replying to things you NEVER answered.

Like this one:
If feathers didn’t come from scales then scales just went away
Yeah, in many animals they did.

In others they didn't go away entirely.


Take a close look:


You tell us to look around, and that things look designed. You seem quite impressed by the way things look.
With a hand in your heart, tell me if those tails don't look reptilian.



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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 09:02 AM on November 12, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ken Ham, from Answersingenesis
Evolution: Life, the universe and everything creating itself out of nothing without God.

Seamus, eblogger from Bedford, Texas
Macroevolution: One kind of creature giving birth to a completely different kind of creature.

Don McLeroy of the Texas Board of Education (OMFG)
Theory: Non factual opinion.

Ray "Banana Man" Comfort, of Way of the Master

Transitional species: A lizard that produced a bird, or a dog that produced kittens, or a sheep that produced a chicken.

Frank Sherwin of the I.C.R.
Science: The search for Jesus.

Humpty Dumpty
When i use a word, it means just what i choose it to mean. Neither more nor less.



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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:33 PM on November 16, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh boy, we can follow those guys back to the Dark Ages of superstition, mysticism, prejudice, ignorance, and suffering.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:54 PM on November 16, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

DESTROYING THE COMPETITION:
Not providing answers, and saying questionable things.


From here:
Quote from timbrx at 02:47 AM on November 15, 2009 in 'Origin of Life', page 1:
Lester has destroyed the competition in his last two posts. Derwood is busy nitpicking in order to maintain his delusion of flawless understanding and wisp is whining about not being satisfied with answers and demanding new threads for new rabbit trails so he can continue to obfuscate.


Why this definition is no good: It endorses weaseling and imprecisions.


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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 2:02 PM on November 17, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 2:02 PM on November 17, 2009 :
DESTROYING THE COMPETITION:
Not providing answers, and saying questionable things.


From here:
Quote from timbrx at 02:47 AM on November 15, 2009 in 'Origin of Life', page 1:
Lester has destroyed the competition in his last two posts. Derwood is busy nitpicking in order to maintain his delusion of flawless understanding and wisp is whining about not being satisfied with answers and demanding new threads for new rabbit trails so he can continue to obfuscate.


Why this definition is no good: It endorses weaseling and imprecisions.



Note also that superchristian Timbrx projects his own character trait onto me - I have never claimed flawless knowledge on anything.  Pointing out the errors that he and LEster and gluteus regurgitated on a post-by-post basis is not condescension or arrogance or an attempted demonstration of flawelss knowledge.

I realize that all are not perfect, but Timmy and Lessie could use a lesson in humility from YEC Jerry Bergman:

The Problem of Expertise

A key to success is knowing what one can speak authoritatively about and knowing where one's limits of knowledge and expertise are. All of us have opinions which lie outside of our area of expertise. Most intelligent people are cognizant of this fact and therefore usually avoid pontificating on areas they know little about.


So, what is your actual area of expertise Timbrx?  Lester?  Why won't you ever tellus?



-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:27 PM on November 17, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Or at least tell us why you don't tell us.

And, while you're at it, address your many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many dodges, please.

Thanks in advance.



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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:29 PM on December 23, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I see... Lester is destroying the competition again.


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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:32 AM on December 24, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 11:32 AM on December 24, 2009 :
I see... Lester is destroying the competition again.



Delusion is as delusion does.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:19 AM on December 26, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The guy shows no mercy...


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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 4:32 PM on December 26, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

For Lester the science doctorate-earning creationist to address...


Quote from Lester10 at 12:18 AM on November 8, 2009 :
Derwood
It will never change, no matter what.  Never mind that there are a multitude of different versions of if floating about.  Never mind that there are many internal inconsistencies that prove that it cannot be 100% true and accurate.  Never mind that it contains absurdities and implausabilities that are handwaved away with 'God can do it all' ...


Have you ever read it? This is all the usual tripe that people who have never read it come up with.


Yes, I did read it.  Cover to cover.  And it was shortly after I did actually read it that I concluded that it was nonsense.
The usual tripe from bible worshippers is to claim that those who recognize the internal inconsistencies and nonsese just haven't read it.
In my exoperience, those who reject the bible are the ONLY ones who have read it in any detail.

We know that kind gives rise to kind and no land mammal ever changed into a whale.


No, you assert this to prop up your bible beliefs and reject any evidence to the contrary.


If there was any evidence available to convince us, that would be great.

The evidence is there, as a YEC cultist you are programmed to find any way possible to reject it.  We've all seen you in action on here doing just that.


Your wonderfully confused ‘scientific’ mind asserts that a land mammal’s ears randomly evolved; the ears then happened to suit the water as well as the fins and flippers and blubber and a blowhole, as it turns out, that it later acquired quite by accident. At what point did it decide to go swimming –before or after the blowhole arose by accident? Before or after the fins arose by accident? Did it have to kick its legs to begin with? And the oh so many other coordinated changes all occurred quite by accident? The best mistakes were slowly selected by natural selection and a whale was born. I’m sorry, that’s a fairy tale and I’m sad that you believe it, but unfortunately Santa is no longer part of my life and nor can the frog turn into a prince.(even over millions of years).

Santa is not a part of your life yet Yahweh, who demands foreskins of converts, who mooned Moses, who was one of many deities, who could conjure only a swarm of fleas that Pharoah's magicians couldn't match, who slaughtered untold millions of innocents for doing what he must have known they would do, who cursed us all to extinction, THAT disgusting thing is still part of your life, and belief in that mythical thug drives you to toss out caricatures and argument via personal incredulity to prop up said beliefs.

It is the best you can do, but you are really in no position to comment on my 'scientific mind', as we may recall that you, despite claiming to have a science-related doctorate, did not know what 'phenotype' means, among other things.



A whale is a coordinated engineering masterpiece and if you can’t see that, it’s a pity.


The argument from awe twisted up with the argument from ignorance - klassic Kreationist komedy...

The evidence is all in your imagination. You have to really want to believe it.


Living in so constant a state of denial will eventually take its toll.


Why two contradictory orders of creation?


To play around with the god rejecters of our day who throw aside a common designer and insist on randomness and no plan instead? It certainly shows how evolutionists are not put off by pictures that contradict evolution –they make up fresh new stories instead, stories that make the non-believers mouths drop open in astonishment.


So much nonsense, yet not even an attempt to address a major problem with taking Genesis literally.
That cognitive dissonance will catch up to you one day.

But since you are an expert on mutations - please tell us all - if this evolution really happened, how many mutations would have been required?


Well to be really kind, lets work on just one new protein per new structure and then work out the probability of all these things coming to pass shall we?

Well first, you will need to provide a rationale for why we actually need one new protein per new structure, then I would like to know just what counts as a 'new' structure - what does a whale have that, say, a hippo does not have that is not simply a rearangment of 'old' parts?
Then I wouuld have to know why you want to discuss probability, how you would apply it to this scenario, etc.


for just saying that mutations can't do it is just  abaseless assertion.


Surely since you can’t even show me one macro beneficial mutation, you are indulging in baseless assertion?

I don't know what a 'macro beneficial mutation' is, since you are so averse to actually explaining what you mean.

There must have been a lot of gradual in-the-wrong direction intermediate creatures that never made it. Where are they? Where are the ones with the fins but not the fluke? Where are the ones with the fluke and legs but not the blubber? ...?
Where are the wicked humans killed in  the flood all at once?  Where are the fossil graveyards containing discontemporaneous bones all mixed up, like humans mixed in with triceratopsians, or modern birds (hey, they cannot fly for a year!) ?


You appear to be changing the subject here –


No, I am just showing how naive - and idiotic - your demands are.

where are these intermediate whales?


Where are all the biblical patriarchs?  Where is the ark?  Where are all the intermediates between the original bat kind and the extant 900+ species?

The clear examples of transitions should have legs mixed with fins, tail mixed with fluke, nose changing into blowhole, back legs disappearing?

Legs mixed with fins?  What does that mean, precisely?  You expect it to have a fin on one side and a limb on the other?
As we have seen with Archaeopteryx, your criteria are set in jello and are applied inconsistently and arbitrarily for the sole purpose of never having to acknowledge what those with actual education, knowledge, and experience in the appropriate fields accept.  You never did, for example, try to discuss Archaeopteryx's actual anatomy (e.g., the sternum) despite claiming an understanding of anatomy.  It is almost as if you just claimed such knowledge to make others think you had actually thought this stuff through, yet when you get caught demonstrating that your knowledge of these issues is not what you tried to make it out to be, well, you come across like a TROOO Christian Creationist - you just avoid discussing it.


We’re talking about evolution. Does not believing in my story make yours sound better to you?

Not at all.  But throwing back absurd demands sometimes shows how absurd your own demands actually are.

Why would you expect there to be a fossil of every possible intermediate - and more precisely, every possible intermediate that happens to meet your ever changing, idiosyncratic criteria?



What is the 'intermediate' betweeen this fellow: ….and this one: Or were they created seperately?


I have no idea.


And yet you feel free to declare that Archaeopteryx is not an intermediate, and that whales and land mammals cannot possibly be related.

Something seems inconsistent.  Is it because you have not yet come across a creationist propaganda book dealing with guenons?

you have to propose a MECHANISM by which this level of hyperevolution occurred to produce, for example, 900+ species of bat from the original bat kind in less than 2500 years


Can these bats interbreed or not? Are they the same kind? Could they at one stage interbreed? We need to know the answers to the questions to get anywhere on this.

Really?

So the ability to interbreed is your big criterion is it?

Tell me - with your vast knnowledge of reproductive physiology, what are the first few steps in fertilization in amniotes?

Hmmm?

Is it , maybe, the sperm binding to the zona pellucida?  
===
Anat Rec. 1977 Aug;188(4):477-87.

Sperm/egg interaction: the specificity of human spermatozoa.
Bedford JM.

Human spermatozoa display unusually limited affinities in their interaction with oocytes of other species. They adhered to and, when capacitated, penetrated the vestments of the oocyte of an ape--the gibbon, Hylobates lar--both in vivo and in vitro.
On the other hand, human spermatozoa would not even attach to the zona surface of sub-hominoid primate (baboon, rhesus monkey, squirrel monkey), nor to the non-primate eutherian oocytes tested. Among the apes the gibbon stands furthest from man. Thus, although the specificity of human spermatozoa is not confined to man alone, it probably is restricted to the Hominoidea. This study also suggests that the evolution of man and perhaps the other hominids has been accompanied by a restrictive change in the nature of the sperm surface which has limited and made more specific the complementary surface to which their spermatozoa may adhere. ===


There are many different groups of people as well and they used to be divided into different species

Who did this?


but they can interbreed so they all have the same origin. How about the bats?
I suppose you’ve noticed how rapidly different kinds of dogs are bred out –obviously it needed a bit of human interference or the intelligence factor but there is clearly a vast amount of variation present in the original ‘dog’ genome.

So where do you think all that variation comes from?  Was it all just always there?  If so, why did we never see a chihuahua giving birth on occasion to a mastiff?

Maybe the same is true of the bats, maybe they started with only two or maybe four –who knows –but they probably had a lot of built in variation and rapidly diversified.

Yeah, probably.  Anything beyond 'probably'?

If my take on evolution was premised on caricatures and child-like distortions as your's is, I would have trouble accepting it, too.


Well did the land mammal start swimming and adapt to its environment or not? Did it get in the water or adapt for the water first? How did these coordinated changes occur if the environment can’t be responded to? How do random mutations happen upon all the features required for swimming in one animal that lived on land and then went swimming. This is not child like, this is practical and not distorted at all. Please try to explain it to me so that I can cease to be childlike about it.


See what I mean?
No, Lester, such 'questions' are indeed child-like, especially coming from someone claiming advanced education on these very subjects.
The naivete just oozes from your every post, and you are too prideful and Dunning-Krugerized to get it.

Just because you can hand wave over it with “I know that it happened because I know’ does not mean that you know anything at all about how it could have/might have happened.

It is true that I personally do not have any idea what the steps were that lead to the production of whales.  But I need not know every step if I can see the evidence left behind showing that it happened.  
If I find an empty book of matches and an empty can of gasoline next to a burned down house, do I really need to know some arbitrary chain of events to conclude that the house was set on fire?
The morning after Halloween, my son had a fit because most of his candy was gone - his candy bag was on the floor, and there were torn up wrappers and half eaten candy bars strewn about, and there were slimy bite marks on nearly everything.  Did we really have to observe the dog biting into each and every candy bar to understand that the dog did it?
We can look at the record of unique shared mutations in the genomes of the creatures in question and see a record of mutational change.  Does that tell us exaclty what steps occurred getting a whale from a non-whale? Not at all, but it tells us that it did happen, and it is up to other researchers to try to fill in the voids with things like fossils (all of which you reject in favor of some uncorroborated tall tales, I know).


Which is why I suppose you folks keep using such tactics, for to be honest, youwould have to be like Dr. Todd Wood or Dr. Kurt Wise, both of whom admit that there is evidence for evolution but remain creationists because of their Faith, which overrides their common sense....


These are quite ridiculous people, excuse me for being rude, but if all the evidence for evolution was so clear, I’d be an evolutionist.


No, you wouldn't.  When I see a YEC making this claim, I know they are lying - they are lying to us, and to themselves.
Many years ago, YEC Helen Fryman declared that were she to see a 'smooth' gradation of genetic identity across phylogeny as indicated by evolution, she would finnd it 'trouubling' for her YEC beliefs.  So, I presented her with a data matrix of some 35 mammalian species showing just what she asked for.  Did she admit that she found it troubling for YEC?  Of course not - she just claimed that the matrix did nto cover ALL animals, and did nto inlcude data from the entire genome of each animal, so she saw no reason to be troubled.  IOW, she just rejected the ery evidence she claimed swhe wouild accept in order to protect her religious views, and I see no inndication that you would do anything different.


You have made it clear that you accept the bible in part because it never changes and never will change.  Many weak-willed people NEED such stability and see the tentative nature of all science as a threat to their emotional and psychological security.  

These 'ridiculous' people as you call them are, unlike you, highly educated and trained individuals with graduate degrees from accredited well-known legitimate institutions - Wise received his PhD in paleontology from Harvard University, for example, and actually studied fossils.  He KNOWS that there is evidence for evolution, that there ARE transitonals.  He simply rejects the scientific, rational interpretation of them due to his Faith and has said so.
You?  
Aside from some vague allusions to having had a few science classes in your graduate education, you've not said what your area of specialization is.  What do YOU know that a Harvard-trainined paleontologist does not such that you can call him 'ridiculous'?



But it is so ridiculous and imaginary and non-
existant that I just can’t. Mr Todd Wood and Mr Kurt Wise are probably undercover evolutionists -they are certainly not practical people or they would not say such silly things. I’d love them to show me their evidence. I’ll bet it as good as yours.


I do enjoy seeing YECs attack each other with logical fallacies.  It shows how weak their position actually is.


Wrong. I do need evidence. And i have lots, besides the fossil record.
Like what?
Funny - we've been asking you to provide evidence FOR YECism, and the best you can come up with are supposed problems with evolution.  You simply reject evidence presented to you out of hand, or engage in nitpicky distrations and employ doctored quotes to prop up your cause.


Ahem… where is the other evidence…apart from a fossil record that supports creation?

The fossil record supports creation?  Is that an assertion?  
Right - I forgot how we find dinosaur fossils in the same strata as modern birds, and how we find human fossils in the same strata as saddle-wearing stegasaurs...

Molecular phylogenetics supports evolution quite nicely.  Comparative embryology.  Physiology.  Anatomy. Etc...


Nitpicky distractions huh???


Yes indeed.  Like how when I started a thread for you  to explain how 'genetics' does not support evolution - your claim -  the first - and only - thing you did was prattle on about whale fossils.
You seem quite incapable of discussing even issues YOU bring up beyond a few throw away assertions and strawmen.


It’s incomprehensible to me that you can be so easily led by imagination without the requisite evidence.
Projection at its laughable best.


You obviously haven’t looked very closely at what you believe, have you?

Yes - I've actually done original research on what I 'believe'. Have you actually looked at YOUR beliefs skeptically?  

To make sure men can treat women as property and own slaves?


You make it sound as if God condoned slavery and wife abuse –obviously you haven’t actually read the Bible.

Right....  And here you are doctoring my words.  I said nothing of wife abuse, I said treating them as property, and the owning of slaves is a given in the  bible.  Or haven't YOU read your precious fairy tales?

Exodus 21

2If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.


4If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.


7And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.


Slavery treated as an everyday thing, AND women as property, in just one chapter.

It is quite easy to find many verses in the bible both condoning slavery and treating women as property.  Surely, you know and have been programmed to gloss over this?


Lots of people can see you at your sad game, Timmy's boyfriend.


Who the hell is Timmy?


Yeah, exactly.


Dr. as in creationist  medical doctor....  How could he possibly not be an expert on all things related to evolution?


By studying it for the last 30 years as his major hobby ever since 2nd year medical school and by visiting all the major fossil museums in the world and interviewing all the experts on the various major fossil evidences for evolution. By listening to both sides take on the evidence.

Oh - a HOBBY! Well, of course.

I've commented before that it is almost more instructive to see what people like you do NOT respond to as to what you do - for your new hero to have studied evolution for 30 years - albeit as a hobby - and to write things like what you decided not to respond to:

" If jawless fish are the evolutionary predecessors of other fish, one would expect them to be extinct, according to the idea of survival of the fittest."

then he did not actually learn much in all that time.

You see, when I see someone write something as ignorant as that, and this someone has claimed to have studied evolution for decades (I see this quite a bit, actually), we can conclude a couple of things:


The person is just plain lying to prop up his faith.

The person really did study for decades, but only studied YEC propaganda.

Combinations of both of the above.

The saddest part is, such folk really impress people like Lester, who, if he is actually telling the truth about his doctorate, should be able to see how naive and plain silly such claims are.


we all know how honest creationists are when it comes to interviewing people.


Well the sad thing is that we all know how honest evolutionists can be when being interviewed by creationists. For instance when Carl Werner wanted to find living fossils in dinosaur-age rock, he started by asking “Have you found any fossils of modern animal or plant species at this dinosaur dig site?” Evolutionists don’t like that sort of question –they freeze up because they know what the implications are. So after a slow start he asked the question differently:
“At this site where you are working have you found any animals that survived the dinosaur extinction event –any modern appearing animals that are alive today?”
This they found less challenging and it loosened them up to tell the truth. Well then he found loads of ‘modern appearing’ plants and animals to add to his list because the question didn’t specifically challenge evolution but rather focused on dinosaur extinction.


And by 'modern appearing' - let me guess, the YEC medical doctor then wildly extrapolated that to mean ACTUAL modern living things, right?


As for seals and sea lions not being related, well you’re laughably wrong there too….


Well so you say, but Australian scientists have a display at Kangaroo island that shows that a dog or dog-like animal evolved into a sea lion while scientists at Howard university in Washington DC think that a bear evolved into a sea lion.


And here you are again with your museum displays as "evidence".

You know, at the creation museum, they show a Triceratops with a saddle on it.
I guess that means that some 'scientists' think that ceratopsians were domesticated.  Funny how no mention of any such creature is found anywherere, not even in scripture....

But you know - you inadvertendly made a fool of yourself yet again - apparently you are unaware that dogs and bears are actually very closely related...



I know you cannot decipher those sciencey- things, but if you look closely, you can see a group called the Caniformia (dog-like), and the OTUs have names like Ursus and Canis...

What is the evidence for this evolution?Is it possible that they evolved from neither? Could they both be wrong?

Sure.  Real science is tentative.  Real science, unlike YEC pseudoscience, does not start with the conclusion then try to force obeservations to fit the pre-determined outcome.  
But nitpicking over museum displays that on the one hand show a dog-like forerunner and on the other show a bear-like one only shows how little you truly understand.  Perhaps it is you, not Drs Wood and Wise, that is the 'ridiculous' person?

Dr Irina Koretsky from the Smithsonian who specializes in seal and sea lion evolution believes that eared seals come from bear-like animals but she has no idea which bear-like animal as they have no intermediates (ie. they are guessing).


Right, just guessing.  So, you got that from your YEC medical doctor's book, right (I can google, too)?  

Looking though Google books, Werner's book
comes across as no better than any of jailbird Kent fake-PhD Hovind's nonsese.

Lester's new hereo's book is here.

p. 112:

"... The theory of evolution says that a ground mammal changed into a bat by a series of mistaken m utations in the DNA of the reproductive cells.  For this to occur, thousands of letters of DNA would have had to change by accident, in the proper location, and in the proper order."

If Werner believes that, he is a class A moron.  Then, he is a YEC with an agenda to push, so we should not expect any sort of rational treatment of the material.


Dr Berta of San Diego State University (who specializes in aquatic mammal evolution) says that “the earliest animal that they’ve recognized has the name Pithanotaria. It’s very similar in terms of body size and morphology to the modern sea lions.” In code this means we have only found sea lions but no intermediates so we don’t actually know what animal they evolved from.

Thousands of sea lions have been found dated 0-24 MYA but no direct ancestors.

Seals, say Dr Berta, are allied to a completely group of carnivores, the skunks and the otters.


So, you've just admitted that neither you nor your YEC medical doctor hero understand what 'allied' means - hilarious!

When asked which Mustelid evolved into a seal, Dr Koretsky said “I don’t have any evidence or material yet.” (This means they think so but have no evidence.)


I'd say what we have here is just another example of a sleazy YEC propagandist butchering and manipulating honest people's words.

Why would a mustelid have evolved into a seal when that is not what is proposed or indicated by the evidence?



5000 fossil seals have been found but no direct ancestors. So did none of them fossilize? That’s amazing!!

At this point, I have little reason to believe that your YEC doctor hero is a reliable source.


Please explain how I am laughably wrong.  

On this or in general?

Well, let's see... There was the PhD in science who didn't know what phenotype mean, the guy who employs logical fallacies as evidence, the guy who wonders why there is no evidence for an evolutionary sequence that is not proposed, the guy who declares that museum displays are at odds because one shows a dog-like animal and the other a bear-like one,  the guy who seems to think that all transitionals should have both fossilized and been discovered yet who reserves the right to dismiss anything presented as a transitional if he can conjure up some structure that he can claim does nto meet his idiosyncratic and vague definition for transitional, the guy who declares PhD level creationists who acknowledge that there are transitional fossils and evidence fo revolution are 'ridiculous people' and likley closet evolutionists because they are honest and he is not, etc.

Shall I go on?









-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 5:54 PM on December 27, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

NATURALISTIC - NATURALISM:
The belief that everything came from nothing and that only natural laws have anything to do with anything that exists.


From here:
Lester, in the thread She's like, 'This is not true!'

‘Naturalistic’ means the belief that everything came from nothing and that only natural laws have anything to do with anything that exists. That’s what I mean.


Why this definition is no good: It's redundant (what does "natural laws" mean to Lester? Which ones are the unnatural ones?). It doesn't refer to anything relevant to the subject of the debate (it doesn't seem like you need to believe that everything came from nothing in order to accept Evolution).


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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:28 PM on March 8, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:



INFORMATION:
A sequence of characters or arrangements of something that produce a specific effect.


From here:
Lester
derwood
Please define "biological information" in a biologiclaly relevant, consistent way.
A sequence of characters or arrangements of something that produce a specific effect.


Why this definition is no good: Detection. They 'detect' it in non coding parts of the DNA, but they can't show us how.

Also, mutations have can have specific effects (which can include deleterious ones).
Also, Lester has admitted that mutations can have beneficial effects in certain environments. So if a population has a certain frequency of a certain mutated allele, that gives us information about the environment, and that information wasn't accounted for under their view.


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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 05:27 AM on March 9, 2010 | 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.