http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/10/27/dwarf.cavewoman.ap/index.html

Here is something that could be a problem for creationists, a new human like species that really canot be passed off as a deformed human or a ape. The bones might even be new enough to get some DNA so there will be definitive proof that it is not some midget.

This could be a new non-human inteligent life form, for creationists I think this means that they are not decendants of Adam and Eve therefore did not inherit the original sin. So would you then have to concider them animals? Or you could choose to accept that speciation could take place as the result of evolution, that would mean that these "Hobbits" are realated to humans and have souls and such. Either way this is not something that can just be swept under the rug like past finds.

[This message has been edited by MasterPython (edited 10-29-2004).]

they were fully human, just slightly less than pygmy size.

Funny how the 'theory' of creation has been the same for 2000+ years, but evolution has to keep changing to conform to overwheming eveidence against it. Odd..

overwhelming evidence against it? there is conclusive evidence that we evolve over only about 1000 generations to change our skin color. We can track environmental changes, and match that up with fossil records that tell us organisms change with time to suit their habbitat.

Open your eyes, you arent anything more than an overglorified computer.

There is not a shred of evidence that affirms such a position. We can find similarities, but nothing that identifies one as the origin of the other.

quote:Originally posted by nioz:

Funny how the 'theory' of creation has been the same for 2000+ years, but evolution has to keep changing to conform to overwheming eveidence against it. Odd..

Perhaps it's because the "creationist theory" is a bunch of bullshit? It doesn't need to change, because it's bullshit from the beginning!

That's like me saying that the theory that Pink Unicorns live in Saturn has remained the same for ages... It MUST be true then, right?! http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)



--------------

Tyrant:

quote:

There is not a shred of evidence that affirms such a position. We can find similarities, but nothing that identifies one as the origin of the other.



What position? Evolution?

I saw that on the news, too.

Stuff like that never surprises me.

I wouldn't be surprised to find out wooly mammoths still live in Greenland and that there's a species of unicorns that lives in Antartica.

*shrug*

Cheers,

Lost

Yes but notice how much more complex evelutionism is? No offence, but "somebody else did it" isn't all that complex of an idea. And I don't think too much thought was put into it either.

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

they were fully human, just slightly less than pygmy size.

Some people think they might not even be in the genus Homo, so they were not fully human.

If they aren't homo, then they aren't homo sapiens, Which means they aren't intelligent beings in our current understanding of species clssification.

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

If they aren't homo, then they aren't homo sapiens, Which means they aren't intelligent beings in our current understanding of species clssification.

They had stone tools which means they were smarter than alot of people. They are not in our current clasification because they have just been discovered. Even if they do turn out to belong in the genus Homo creationists will either have to ask why God made a animal with human or near human inteligence or accept evolution. There is the ignorant option of denying the whole thing ever happened and convincing yourself that they are just midgets. By the way animals in the same genus can mate but unless they are the same species their offspring will be sterile like mules.

OK damn it i'm going to bite.

First of all. We don't know the whole story yet. This news is less than a week old.

Second, Evolution doesn't disprove Creation. Neither does Creation negate evolution. Any christian that considers evolution an affront to christianity has, in my opinion, a small view of christianity.

Look at the bible.

quote: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. And God said, Let earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Notice the order of creation: Fish, Birds, Mammals, Man. Same as Darwin's theory except for reptiles who fit between Fish and Birds.

So even if Evolution were proved 100% accurate, it stands to shed new light on the bible rather than disproving Christianity.

theBishop

The problem is, the bible claims a god created Birds, Mammals, Fish, etc. Evolution does not. Therefore evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive, that is, if you take the Bible literally. If you don't, then they aren't... but then why in the world would you even believe in a bible in the first place, when it would be completely subjective and open to any interpretation imaginable?

Evolution as a principle neither confirms nor denies the existence of a creator to instigate it all.

Rust, how are you going to pretend to know how god creates?

Where did I do that? The bible is doing that, not I. It is the bible who says he created X on Y day. Now, you may say that this is a metaphor or whatever... and that's when the rest of my post comes into play...

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

Evolution as a principle neither confirms nor denies the existence of a creator to instigate it all.

Correct, but it is mutually exclusive to that of the bible god, if once again, we take the bible literally.

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"

* Our image?

If you realy take the bible literaly you'll notice it's wrong. When has evolution even realy changed? there have been new insights in how it works... but when did it change?

And it was actualy "lets create god in our image" People won't admit that.

[This message has been edited by jm5k (edited 10-30-2004).]

I've been asking about that verse since long before i believed. Some people have told me its god talking to his court of angels. Other's say it's God speaking to the rest of the trinity.

jm5k, i don't believe you're correct about that. Do you want to show any sources/proof?

Digital if you can answer this question, i would be in your debt.

I think he's being facetious... you know, sort of like what Voltaire said: "If God did not exist it would be necessary for us to invent Him".

I think they've found a human at the time when they were evolving, to become like we are today.

Well this does support Darwins theory it is said to branch of the Humanerectus, but there was already neanderthal, and the cromagnum. If it were to branch off how would it get to that island? Either the Neaderthals built boats or another theroy takes place like earth plates moving it. I am not really religious, but if neanderthals were first then why do we look so diffrent from them then what god sopposidly made us, and these guys are way different too. This is going to be intresting to see what happens if more things are discoverd, i read an article were they "myths" say they still exist so i belive they are going to have a party go search more places or something.

Also i think this has relations to the chupacabra no joke, ive seen one eating a goat when i lived in El Paso, Texas.

http://www.parascope.com/en/cryptozoo/predators01.htm

[This message has been edited by Napalm2004 (edited 10-30-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

Some people think they might not even be in the genus Homo, so they were not fully human.

sorry, i actually took the time to read the article, before all i had seen was a quick video on msnbc.com, and as it said 12,000 yr old bones, i just ignorantly assumed... but WOW! that's wicked cool, little hobbit types were running around at one point.

this would be a nail in the coffin for creationists if they actually craved truth... but i'm sure many will probably just brush it off as a 'trick' test from god.

quote:Originally posted by nioz:

Funny how the 'theory' of creation has been the same for 2000+ years, but evolution has to keep changing to conform to overwheming eveidence against it. Odd..

You should hear what creationist's said about fosils a few hundred years ago, something to the affect of they are a testament to God's glory, not that they were remain of animals. Some did not even belive that there were animals that existed in the past that did not exist now. So both sides have had to adapt to keep up with curent developments.

[This message has been edited by MasterPython (edited 10-31-2004).]

The next person that laughs at me for believing in dwarves is getting an ass-full of that article.

Creationism is bullshit. Those "hobbit" men throw a wrench in the Christian belief that says man is a special being apart from animals---those creatures where clearly not homo sapiens yet they made stone tools, used fire, and hunted 2,000 pound elephants even though they were the size of 3 year olds! Creationists will really have to stretch their minds to fit this discovery into the bible. But their inane primitive theory has managed to exist 'til now despite the whale born with a leg, distant starlight (many believe the earth is 10,000 yrs old! lol), and the dinosaur/bird transitional fossils in china...

quote:Originally posted by nioz:

Funny how the 'theory' of creation has been the same for 2000+ years, but evolution has to keep changing to conform to overwheming eveidence against it. Odd..

ummm...no. Within Judeo-Christian thought, ideas about origins have been far more fluid in the past. The current explosion of fundamentalist literalism is only fairly recent in xian history, and is also pretty much centered entirely in the US of A. Unfortuentaly this heresey is getting exported elsewhere.

http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/origins.htm

quote:The problem is, the bible claims a god created Birds, Mammals, Fish, etc. Evolution does not. Therefore evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive, that is, if you take the Bible literally.

No, evolution, as a scientific theory seeks to explain some of our ontology. On the issue of Theism, it really has very little to say, unless, the existence of your god is dependent upon a non-evolutionary theory of origins.

Atheistic evolution says that the evolutionary process occured with the complete absense of any Theistic diety. Theistic evolution claims that the process is in some way, connected to a God.

quote:If you don't, then they aren't... but then why in the world would you even believe in a bible in the first place, when it would be completely subjective and open to any interpretation imaginable?

Because a hermenutical approach to the bible, or any text for that matter, does not render any interpretation valid, and it certainly doesn't make any text worthless.

quote:And it was actualy "lets create god in our image" People won't admit that

This is a trend seen in a lot of cultures.... we often end up creating gods in our image.

While im at it: http://www.ship-of-fools.com/Caption/index.html

Double post

[This message has been edited by inquisitor_11 (edited 10-31-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

No, evolution, as a scientific theory seeks to explain some of our ontology. On the issue of Theism, it really has very little to say, unless, the existence of your god is dependent upon a non-evolutionary theory of origins.

Atheistic evolution says that the evolutionary process occured with the complete absense of any Theistic diety. Theistic evolution claims that the process is in some way, connected to a God.

Yes, it has little to say of the existence of a deity. But, it has much to say on the appearance of species. The theory of evolution does not say that a deity/god created species/animals, but that they evolved from simpler organisms. This is completely contrary to the story of the bible and thus the bible god, that is, if you take the bible literally.

quote:Because a hermenutical approach to the bible, or any text for that matter, does not render any interpretation valid, and it certainly doesn't make any text worthless.

Well, this is a matter of opinion. I myself do not give any credibility to the bible, let alone when, if you consider it as open to interpretation, it could mean anything you want to! A bible, open to interpretation, could be interpreted to mean that it was merely a book of fantasy. Hence, I would be justified in not believing in the bible, since that's the interpretation that I decided to take.

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/10/27/dwarf.cavewoman.ap/index.html

Here is something that could be a problem for creationists, a new human like species that really canot be passed off as a deformed human or a ape. The bones might even be new enough to get some DNA so there will be definitive proof that it is not some midget.

This could be a new non-human inteligent life form, for creationists I think this means that they are not decendants of Adam and Eve therefore did not inherit the original sin. So would you then have to concider them animals? Or you could choose to accept that speciation could take place as the result of evolution, that would mean that these "Hobbits" are realated to humans and have souls and such. Either way this is not something that can just be swept under the rug like past finds.

[This message has been edited by MasterPython (edited 10-29-2004).]



First of all, i want to point out that the article says, "Researchers from Australia and Indonesia found the partial skeleton 13 months ago".

Secondly, "To others, the specimen's baffling combination of slight dimensions and coarse features bears almost no meaningful resemblance either to modern humans or to our large, archaic cousins.

They suggest that Flores Man doesn't belong in the genus Homo at all, even if it was a recent contemporary."

The article also mentions that their fate was sealed by volcanic eruption, but also states that, along with the hobbits, charred bones of fish, birds, and rodents indicating that they may have been cooked. My question is: were they cooked by the hobbits or from the volcano.

13 months is not a very long time. keep this info in the back of your mind and see if the scientist hold to their "story" in coming years. Dont jump to conclusions.

QUOTE Originally posted by MasterPython:

They had stone tools which means they were smarter than alot of people.

the article says,"Excavations are continuing. In 1998, stone tools and other evidence were found on Flores suggested the presence 900,000 years ago of another early human, Homo erectus. The tools were found a century after the celebrated discovery in the 1890s of big-boned H. erectus fossils in eastern Java.".

this makes me wonder, did they make these tools themselves? if they were "just an advanced form of "monkey", did they steal them from non-hobbits? If they stole them, did they use the tools as the tool is intended?

Even if they do turn out to belong in the genus Homo creationists will either have to ask why God made a animal with human or near human inteligence or accept evolution. There is the ignorant option of denying the whole thing ever happened and convincing yourself that they are just midgets.

Or, maybe they are midgets. Like i said, 13 months is a pretty short time. The scientists arent even sure what they have found, and may find more info that might shed more light on the matter. Also, keep in mind that scientist are people too, and the possibilty of hoax hasnt been ruled out.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by theBishop:

Second, Evolution doesn't disprove Creation. Neither does Creation negate evolution. Any christian that considers evolution an affront to christianity has, in my opinion, a small view of christianity.

Creation and Evolution are in complete disageement with each other. One does negate the other.

Look at the bible.

Notice the order of creation: Fish, Birds, Mammals, Man. Same as Darwin's theory except for reptiles who fit between Fish and Birds.

I'm going to quote from The Lie:Evolution ken hamm... appendix 1 number 14.

"For those who try to harmonize evolution with Genesis, the order of evolution must compare with the order of the events in Genisis. There are a number of problems here. The basic tenents of evolution totally conflict with the order in Genesis. For instance, Genesis teaches that God created fruit trees before fish--plants on day 3, fish on day 5. Evolution teaches that 1st life began in the sea, and after millions of years life was established on the land. The Bible teaches that the earth was 1st created covered with water: evolutionary teaching is that the earth first began as a hot molten blob. There is no way that the order of events according to evolution and Genesis can be reconciled."

Appendix 1 of this book is titled "Twenty Reasons why Genesis and Evolution do not Mix". The first paragraph of this appendix says, "Many people believe that they can add evolution to the Bible. They think that by doing this they can explain life coming about as a result of God's use of evolutionary processes. This position is known as "theistic evolution." However, this is totally inconsistent with Scripture."

This chapter is geared toward Christians who believe that God used evolution as His means to Create. The whole book is geared to pointing out why evolution is a lie, and why Christians need to start understanding the Bible as literal.

IMO, it is a very good book for both Christians and non-christians alike. Raises alot of questions and gives good answers and reasons. He has more books that build off of this foundation (which i bought, but havent read yet-- just finishing this book).

So even if Evolution were proved 100% accurate, it stands to shed new light on the bible rather than disproving Christianity.

theBishop /QUOTE

See if you can get a copy of this book. It will seriously challenge your view of fitting the Bible to conform to evolution.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

The problem is, the bible claims a god created Birds, Mammals, Fish, etc. Evolution does not. Therefore evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive, that is, if you take the Bible literally. If you don't, then they aren't... but then why in the world would you even believe in a bible in the first place, when it would be completely subjective and open to any interpretation imaginable?



Wow!! what is this... the 2nd time that i agree with Rust 100%? Scary...it must be halloween

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

Some people have told me its god talking to his court of angels. Other's say it's God speaking to the rest of the trinity.

Digital if you can answer this question, i would be in your debt.

Even though this was directed to Digital, and even though no-one is in my debt... maybe this can shed some light on the subject.

the KJV {Let us make}--Strong's Ref. # 6213

Romanized `asah

Pronounced aw-saw'

a primitive root; to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application (as follows):

KJV--accomplish, advance, appoint, apt, be at, become, bear, bestow, bring forth, bruise, be busy, X certainly, have the charge of, commit, deal (with), deck, + displease, do, (ready) dress(-ed), (put in) execute(-ion), exercise, fashion, + feast, [fight-]ing man, + finish, fit, fly, follow, fulfill, furnish, gather, get, go about, govern, grant, great, + hinder, hold ([a feast]), X indeed, + be industrious, + journey, keep, labour, maintain, make, be meet, observe, be occupied, offer, + officer, pare, bring (come) to pass, perform, pracise, prepare, procure, provide, put, requite, X sacrifice, serve, set, shew, X sin, spend, X surely, take, X thoroughly, trim, X very, + vex, be [warr-]ior, work(-man), yield, use.

in the Literal, "Let us make" (`asah) is preceded by {elohiym}--God --

Strong's Ref. # 430

Romanized 'elohiym

Pronounced el-o-heem'

plural of HSN0433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:

KJV--angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.

I highly doubt that God was saying this to the angels, but rather to Himself- as the Triune(plural). And this statement, i believe, is a way to (1) indicate to the reader that God has choice (2) indicate to the reader that God (singular) is God (plural--triune) .. i think it is a way of establishing (to the reader) something that God will show later in His Word, about Himself.

I think that the passage is somewhat similar to modern thinking-- when the queen of England refers to herself as "we", she is meaning herself and all England... God is refering to Himself (singular) and Himself(plural- Triune). And since the word Elohiym is plural, so should the word asah. Grammatically correctness??

This is just how i look at it, i have never looked at a biblical scholarly commentary on the passage.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

this makes me wonder, did they make these tools themselves? if they were "just an advanced form of "monkey", did they steal them from non-hobbits? If they stole them, did they use the tools as the tool is intended?

Or, maybe they are midgets. Like i said, 13 months is a pretty short time. The scientists arent even sure what they have found, and may find more info that might shed more light on the matter.

Stone tools are hard to make, unless there was a Hobbit worshiping cult It is doubtfull men would make tiny tools for them.

What I think will happen is even if these Hobbits turned out to have the wrong number of cromasomes or something that proved beyond a doubt that they were not human people would still say that they were midgets just like they say neaderthals are just people with arthritis.

quote:Originally posted by nioz:

Funny how the 'theory' of creation has been the same for 2000+ years, but evolution has to keep changing to conform to overwheming eveidence against it. Odd..

its funny how your mom can swallow 12 inches of cock and still hold a conversation with the guy fucking her ass AND the girl licking her pussy. Odd..

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

Stone tools are hard to make, unless there was a Hobbit worshiping cult It is doubtfull men would make tiny tools for them.

Sorry, i dont see in the article about the size of the tools. Whic is why i mentioned the question about the leprachans stealing them. The article did mention that h.erectus bones were found nearby. Also, (my speculation) is it possible that h.erectus were eating hobbits, fish, birds etc., and that the cave that the hobbit bones were found, could have been cave of h.erectus.

All that i am saying, is that the only thing any of us know about this, is from what we read and the article leaves lots of questions. Maybe they have determined the size of tools were comparable to hobbit hands. Maybe they have ruled out that the charred bones were not from the volcano but more than likely from cultivated fire in the cave taht was used for cooking.

The article does not cover these questions. the article does not say awhole lot of anything... which is generally true of news coverage.

quote:Originally posted by ftwltmdi420:

its funny how your mom can swallow 12 inches of cock and still hold a conversation with the guy fucking her ass AND the girl licking her pussy. Odd..



funny how you thought it was nioz's mom. You didnt even recognize your own mother. funny how you thought that your 1 point 2 inch penis should keep your own mother from speaking.

By the way... you forgot to put a dot between the 1 and the 2.... but we are not spelling police in TOTSE LOL

Weeeee! Brotherly love!

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Weeeee! Brotherly love!



exactly. lol

and for the record, how many times have you noticed me resorting to this kind of behavior.

the intention was to shut the young guy up, and get him to either stay on topic or keep mouth shut... but i know that it could back fire. my smart ass skills have gotten quite rusty lol

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Sorry, i dont see in the article about the size of the tools. Whic is why i mentioned the question about the leprachans stealing them. The article did mention that h.erectus bones were found nearby.

The article in my local paper said that the tools were "toy sized". Be carful, by acknowledging that Homo Erectus exists you are contradicting the Bible, because like these Hobbits Homo Erectus is a non-human inteligent life form.

Quote from posted article:

quote:"This is the first time that the evolution of dwarfism has been recorded in a human relative, said the study's lead author, Peter Brown of the University of New England in Australia.

Scientists are still struggling to identify it's jumbled features.

Many say that its face and skull features show sufficient traits to be included in the Homo family that includes modern humans. It would be the eighth species in the Homo category.

George Washington's Wood, for example, finds it "convincing."

Others aren't sure.

For example, they say the skull is wide like H. erectus. But the sides are rounder and the crown traces an arc from ear to ear. The skull of H. erectus has steeper sides and a pointed crown, they said.

The lower jaw contains large, blunt teeth and roots like Australopithecus, a prehuman ancestor in Africa more than 3 million years ago. The front teeth are smaller than modern human teeth.

The eye sockets are big and round, but they don't carry a prominent browline.

The tibia in the leg shares similarities with apes."

I would venture to say that this discovery appears to provide strong evidence to support evolutionary theory.I'm very curious as to the results of the DNA testing.

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

The article in my local paper said that the tools were "toy sized". Be carful, by acknowledging that Homo Erectus exists you are contradicting the Bible, because like these Hobbits Homo Erectus is a non-human inteligent life form.

I am just using the same terms as you and the article are using. Not agreeing with it or denying it (by what i wrote). I disagree with billions of years and all that, just giving my two cents about the article.

No harm, no foul.

I met siamese twins once.

May be there was an island off the coast somewhere where everyone was a siamese twin?

It could happen.

In any case, what's the point of arguing creationism and evolution when they're both proven to be flawed theories to begin with?

Cheers,

Lost

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

In any case, what's the point of arguing creationism and evolution when they're both proven to be flawed theories to begin with?



Evolution, flawed? Blasphemy!

Evolution has been proven false?

Yeah i heard about this too.. what really is the Amazing part about it is the fact that these hobits lived when we were the only ones alive (austrolophies or however you spell it was too (i think))...

Anyways they had half the brains as us and still had the exact same types of tools as we had...

Meaning that in a way they were using their brains more efficintly then us.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Well, this is a matter of opinion. I myself do not give any credibility to the bible, let alone when, if you consider it as open to interpretation, it could mean anything you want to! A bible, open to interpretation, could be interpreted to mean that it was merely a book of fantasy. Hence, I would be justified in not believing in the bible, since that's the interpretation that I decided to take.



It is an inescapable reality that whatever text you approach you interpret. This is due to the nature of the cognitive process. No one "just reads" anything, including the bible. This goes for those who claim to take the bible "literally" (which in itself is stupid word to use in its context).

Again, as I said before, yes there is a large number of different possible interpretations, however this does not make every interpretation valid- whether the text in question be the bible or playboy.

quote:A key concept to hermeneutics is the hermeneutic circle. This concept is both a frame and in some cases a problem to be addressed within hermeneutics. The concept has to do with the epistemological question of the method for arriving at truth in hermeneutics. Does "truth" (and the search for it) necessitate a pre-existing context and route to reaching particular truths? In other words does the project of interpretation in some ways assume the consequent, and prejudice its outcome. Another more critical version of the concept runs as follows: if the goal of interpretation is to clarify texts and reach truth, it is flawed, because there is no guarantee that any particular interpretation will be any clearer or more true than another, and may in turn require interpretation, and so on.

Ricoeur claims to avoid this problems by pointing out that "if it is true that there is always more than one way of construing a text, it is not true that all interpretations are equal." (p.79) By arbitrating between possible interpretations through the proper methods of hermeneutics, one can eventually in theory, validate or invalidate the particular interpretation.

from here http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~mhalber/Research/Guides/ric-interp.html

quote:Yes, it has little to say of the existence of a deity. But, it has much to say on the appearance of species. The theory of evolution does not say that a deity/god created species/animals, but that they evolved from simpler organisms.

and I agree entirely



quote:This is completely contrary to the story of the bible and thus the bible god, that is, if you take the bible literally.

"the story of the bible" is not the story of special creation (in the creation science sense). The entire concept of being able to "take the bible literally" is a misnomer, and is entirely the wrong question to be asking.

The creation account in the bible has rarely been understood as a scientific account of the origins of the earth. Why? because people have traditionally understood that the content of Genesis is not concerened with the "How" question, but the questions of the "Who" and "Why".

Further, the limited similarities between the Hebrew account and those of the Babylonian accounts strongly sugget that the start of Genesis was written with the purpose of being something of a polemic. i.e. Appropriating an existing story to say:

"No, the world was not created from a war between dieties, but rather by One God. No, we are not merely the chopped bits of a dead god, and pawns in their conflict- but rather that we are the height of a benevolent God's creative purpose."

quote:Originally posted by Durell:

Evolution has been proven false?

Evolution has some flaws, and some theory... but no more flaws or theory, than that of Gravity and Electricity...

I assume you believe those to be true... Or else, I see no hope...

[This message has been edited by Axiom (edited 11-01-2004).]

^^^ I don't know many science professors who would agree with that.

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

It is an inescapable reality that whatever text you approach you interpret. This is due to the nature of the cognitive process. No one "just reads" anything, including the bible. This goes for those who claim to take the bible "literally" (which in itself is stupid word to use in its context).

What I'm saying is, there are those who read the accounts, and interpret it to mean exactly what it says. No metaphors, smilies, hyperbole. No figures of speech. Nothing.

quote:

Again, as I said before, yes there is a large number of different possible interpretations, however this does not make every interpretation valid- whether the text in question be the bible or playboy.

I'd say it makes no interpretation valid.

quote:

"the story of the bible" is not the story of special creation (in the creation science sense). The entire concept of being able to "take the bible literally" is a misnomer, and is entirely the wrong question to be asking.

The creation account in the bible has rarely been understood as a scientific account of the origins of the earth. Why? because people have traditionally understood that the content of Genesis is not concerened with the "How" question, but the questions of the "Who" and "Why".

Further, the limited similarities between the Hebrew account and those of the Babylonian accounts strongly sugget that the start of Genesis was written with the purpose of being something of a polemic. i.e. Appropriating an existing story to say:

"No, the world was not created from a war between dieties, but rather by One God. No, we are not merely the chopped bits of a dead god, and pawns in their conflict- but rather that we are the height of a benevolent God's creative purpose."



There are those who take it literally. Whether we agree that those people are wrong, or stupid, they do exist. They literally believe that god created the world, as it is said in the bible. I am referring to those people, when saying "if you take the bible account literally".

Evolution cannot be reconciled with that interpretation.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 11-01-2004).]

Saying creationism is "disproved" by the Bible is like saying Hobbits are proven to exist by The Lord the Rings...

over and over and over again i have asked... and none of you creationists answered... i last asked Digital_Savior about a week ago and i haven't heard of her since... so i ask again:

xtreem5150ahm (or any other 'creationist')

- why do dolphins have fingers in their flippers?

- explain the archaeopteryx!

- why is maximum absorption of our eye in the green region of the visible spectrum of light?

why don't you guys ever answer? is it so difficult? is it under your niveau?

as for creation:

'God said...

rot(E) = -dB/dt

rot(H) = J + dD/dt

div(D) = rho

div(B) = 0

...and there was light!

very curious

Cougar

EDIT: typo

[This message has been edited by Cougar (edited 11-01-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

why don't you guys ever answer? is it so difficult? is it under your niveau?

Both can co-exist...

quote:Originally posted by The Crusader:

Both can co-exist...

evolution and creationism?

Cougar

quote:Originally posted by The Crusader:

Saying creationism is "disproved" by the Bible is like saying Hobbits are proven to exist by The Lord the Rings...



Just curious... who's arguing that?

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



There are those who take it literally. Whether we agree that those people are wrong, or stupid, they do exist. They literally believe that god created the world, as it is said in the bible. I am referring to those people, when saying "if you take the bible account literally".

Evolution cannot be reconciled with that interpretation.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 11-01-2004).]

Cool banannas... and i agree.

quote:I'd say it makes no interpretation valid

You do realise that your contention completely undermines your reasons for trashing creationism?

You claim that atheistic evolution is the most valid explanation for what exists today. To come to that conclusion you have need to have taken various ontological facts and weld them into an epistemological framework. This in itself, is an interpretation.

To follow your line of reasoning then, it makes a creationist interpretation of those same ontological facts (despite their a priori assumptions), equally valid to your own version. Thus, atheistic evolution is a no more valid explanation for existence than a creationists, or a pink unicorn theorists for that matter.

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

You do realise that your contention completely undermines your reasons for trashing creationism?

You claim that atheistic evolution is the most valid explanation for what exists today. To come to that conclusion you have need to have taken various ontological facts and weld them into an epistemological framework. This in itself, is an interpretation.

To follow your line of reasoning then, it makes a creationist interpretation of those same ontological facts (despite their a priori assumptions), equally valid to your own version. Thus, atheistic evolution is a no more valid explanation for existence than a creationists, or a pink unicorn theorists for that matter.



The key difference is that we are speaking of facts. When speaking of a completely subjective book, open for interpretation, then there is no boundary to what is acceptable.

When speaking of facts, then the boundary of what interpretations are acceptable, is set by the evidence itself. For example, if I have evidence that you are 6 feet tall, then the interpretation cannot deviate from that. You cannot interpret that evidence (i.e. that you're 6ft tall) to mean that you're 5 feet tall.

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

over and over and over again i have asked... and none of you creationists answered... i last asked Digital_Savior about a week ago and i haven't heard of her since... so i ask again:

xtreem5150ahm (or any other 'creationist')

- why do dolphins have fingers in their flippers?

- explain the archaeopteryx!

- why is maximum absorption of our eye in the green region of the visible spectrum of light?

why don't you guys ever answer? is it so difficult? is it under your niveau?

as for creation:

'God said...

rot(E) = -dB/dt

rot(H) = J + dD/dt

div(D) = rho

div(B) = 0

...and there was light!

very curious

Cougar

EDIT: typo

[This message has been edited by Cougar (edited 11-01-2004).]



sorry, i have seen this and intended on replying but i did put it off because of time constraints... partly my procrastination and partly because my father-in-law has been sick, now i will continue to put it off because he passed away this weekend and the funeral is tomorrow.

I am not very adept at arguing evolution, so i am not the best to ask these questions.

I have several books that might help me answer a few of them but this will take some time to wade through (time constraints + procrastination = please be patient)

Would you be kind enough to explain what you mean by:

as for creation:

'God said...

rot(E) = -dB/dt

rot(H) = J + dD/dt

div(D) = rho

div(B) = 0

...and there was light!



BTW Digital did have some surgery and she said (posted) that she had a big work load at her job, so remind her when you see her postings, and i'm sure she will try to explain anything she knows about your questions.

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

evolution and creationism?

Cougar

They can if you believe God just kick started life and let it evolve pretty much on it's own. There is no proof that God does not exist so it is very hard to rule out that posibility until we see how life can be made from inanimate mater. The creationism that does not fit with evolution is the idea that God created life in it's present form, and the young earth stuff. For that to work you need to accept that God went to alot of trouble to make the universe look old and organisms resemble eachother for some reason.

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

- explain the archaeopteryx!



Just so you dont think i'm misrepresenting myself, i got this off of a creationist web site. I did find basically the same stuff in one of my books but this was quicker.

If this is incomplete with what you are asking, let me know. I will try to find suitable info for you.

Evolutionists claim:

Archaeopteryx. It’s a fossil that has feathers like a bird but the skeleton of a small dinosaur.

Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at UNC in Chapel Hill (who is an evolutionist) disagrees. He says ‘Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird.’

Archaeopteryx has teeth

A number of extinct birds had teeth, and many reptiles do not.

Also:

Archaeopteryx had fully formed flying feathers, the classical elliptical wings of modern woodland birds, a large wishbone for attachment of muscles responsible for the downstroke of the wings.

Its brain was essentially that of a flying bird (large cerebellum and visual cortex).

Like other birds, its upper jaw and lower jaw moved. In most vertebrates (including reptiles) only the mandible moves.

I also found this on the same web site. I honestly do not know if it is correct (or the first post). Nor do i know if any evolutionist has refuted this.

Archaeopteryx

The skeletons had pneumatized vertebrae and pelvis. This indicates the presence of both a cervical and abdominal air sac, i.e. at least two of the five sacs present in modern birds. This in turn indicates that the unique avian lung design was already present in what most evolutionists claim is the earliest bird. An evolutionist trying to forge a dinosaur with feathers would not have thought to pneumatize allegedly reptilian bones. Rather, the evidence supports the creationist view that birds have always been birds.



Analysis of the skull with computer tomography (CT) scanning shows that Archaeopteryx had a brain like a modern bird’s, three times the size of that of a dinosaur of equivalent size (although smaller than that of living birds). Archaeopteryx even had large optic lobes to process the visual input needed for flying. Furthermore, even the inner ear had a cochlea length and semicircular canal propoprtions were in the range of a modern flying bird’s. This implies that Archaeopteryx could hear in a similar way, and also had the sense of balance required for coordinating flight. Pterosaurs likewise had similar brain structures for flight — the large optic lobes, semicircular canals for balance, and huge floccular lobes, probably for coordination of the head, eye and neck allowing gaze-stabilization while flying. Once more, a forger adding feathers to a dino would not have thought to make an avian braincase, while it is yet another problem for evolutionists.

On archaeopteryx:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/challenge.html

Missing Link:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/07/0703_020703_TVtetrapod.html

Horse evolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/

I wonder if the hobbits worshipped a god? or neanderthals? Or that inteligent species of dinosaur that built a huge pangea wide civilization 100million years ago (no evidence remains).

I believe the creation of a God figure is only natural in the development of intelligence and conciousness in any form. when primitive man looked around and saw the glory of the natural world it was only natural for him to suppose that something created it. Afterall years of evolution had created a system that worked so well in an incredibly complex way. The term 'Yahweh' is thought to have originaly been translated as meaning "that which is". In other words 'that which exists'. over the years this vastness of creation was humanized and we arrived at the image of a wise old man with a big beard sitting on a cloud somewhere, or on top of some really tall mountain. This has been further corrupted over the years with more human attributes being attached to 'him'. The idea of a heirachy of angels and a devil just to name the most obvious. Then we make the BIG jump. A guy comes along and claims to be the son of GOD (the son of creation). and suddenly we have people worshipping a MAN.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

On archaeopteryx:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/challenge.html



Not to split hairs, and i know i didnt include any dates for my reference (in fact, i didnt say what my reference was, other than a creationist web site)

these are the references that my reference refered to:

# Hoyle, F. and Wickramasinghe, C., Archaeopteryx, the primordial bird: a case of fossil forgery, Christopher Davies, London, 1986. Return to text.

# Feduccia, A.; cited in V. Morell, ‘Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms’, Science 259(5096):764–65, 5 February, 1993. Return to text.

# Feduccia, A., The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Yale University Press, 2nd Ed., p. 39, 1999. Return to text.

# Christiansen, P. and Bonde, N., Axial and appendicular pneumaticity in Archaeopteryx, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B. 267:2501–2505, 2000. Return to text.

# Alonso, P.D., Milner, A.C., Ketcham, R.A., Cokson, M.J and Rowe, T.B., The avian nature of the brain and inner ear of Archaeopteryx, Nature 430(7000):666–669, 5 August 2004; Witmer, L.M, Inside the oldest bird brain, perspective, same issue, pp. 619–620. Return to text.

# Witmer, L.M., Chatterjee, S., Franzosa, J. and Rowe, T., Nature 425(6961):950–953, 30 October 2003; Unwin, D.M., Smart-winged pterosaurs, perspective, same issue, pp. 910–911.

and granted, feduccia published his books in 1993 and 1999.

I did only check out part of the link that you supplied. But i didnt find anything that was dated past 1996 with the exception of "[References Edited: June 17, 2002]" at the top of the page

This is one reason that i have generally tried to stay out of arguing against evolution from a design POV, since Eil and i "drew a truce". It is so hard to keep up with evolutionist says this, creationists say that. Let alone when all these things were said.

It is no secret that i do not believe in evolution over millions/billions of years, and i see much evidence against it.

All i was doing was trying to give an answer to a question that was pointed to me.

Dont get me wrong, i did not look at your post as an attack against me, i am just explaining my position for this post and the reference to "archi".

But on a (slightly) childish sidenote.. you're still wrong about the freewill vs. omniscience topic LOL http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif) smile Rust http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

xtreem5150ahm

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



sorry, i have seen this and intended on replying but i did put it off because of time constraints... partly my procrastination and partly because my father-in-law has been sick, now i will continue to put it off because he passed away this weekend and the funeral is tomorrow.

I am not very adept at arguing evolution, so i am not the best to ask these questions.

I have several books that might help me answer a few of them but this will take some time to wade through (time constraints + procrastination = please be patient)

Would you be kind enough to explain what you mean by:

as for creation:

'God said...

rot(E) = -dB/dt

rot(H) = J + dD/dt

div(D) = rho

div(B) = 0

...and there was light!



BTW Digital did have some surgery and she said (posted) that she had a big work load at her job, so remind her when you see her postings, and i'm sure she will try to explain anything she knows about your questions.

my condolences... http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

what i meant by 'God said... etc?

you see, creationists often take science when they wish to explain something, yet they don't understand/know basic scientific laws. (those i posted were the maxwell equations. i admit they have little to nothing to do with dinosaurs. it was more of a 'trap'... i hope you're not too angry.)

dammit Rust, you were faster than me... good reply though.

i have one in more general terms:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution.htm

i think talkorigins explains it quite well. you just have to read i thoroughly.

care to answer the other questions? (the one with the eye even has (remotely) something to do with maxwell. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif) )

Digital had surgery AGAIN?! won't that stop ever?

Cougar

First, my condolences for your loss.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Not to split hairs, and i know i didnt include any dates for my reference (in fact, i didnt say what my reference was, other than a creationist web site)

these are the references that my reference refered to:

# Hoyle, F. and Wickramasinghe, C., Archaeopteryx, the primordial bird: a case of fossil forgery, Christopher Davies, London, 1986. Return to text.

# Feduccia, A.; cited in V. Morell, ‘Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms’, Science 259(5096):764–65, 5 February, 1993. Return to text.

# Feduccia, A., The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Yale University Press, 2nd Ed., p. 39, 1999. Return to text.

# Christiansen, P. and Bonde, N., Axial and appendicular pneumaticity in Archaeopteryx, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B. 267:2501–2505, 2000. Return to text.

# Alonso, P.D., Milner, A.C., Ketcham, R.A., Cokson, M.J and Rowe, T.B., The avian nature of the brain and inner ear of Archaeopteryx, Nature 430(7000):666–669, 5 August 2004; Witmer, L.M, Inside the oldest bird brain, perspective, same issue, pp. 619–620. Return to text.

# Witmer, L.M., Chatterjee, S., Franzosa, J. and Rowe, T., Nature 425(6961):950–953, 30 October 2003; Unwin, D.M., Smart-winged pterosaurs, perspective, same issue, pp. 910–911.

and granted, feduccia published his books in 1993 and 1999.

I did only check out part of the link that you supplied. But i didnt find anything that was dated past 1996 with the exception of "[References Edited: June 17, 2002]" at the top of the page

The dates of references is less relevant than what they are used for. I know what article you're reading... http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:

The skeletons had pneumatized vertebrae and pelvis. This indicates the presence of both a cervical and abdominal air sac, i.e. at least two of the five sacs present in modern birds. This in turn indicates that the unique avian lung design was already present in what most evolutionists claim is the earliest bird. An evolutionist trying to forge a dinosaur with feathers would not have thought to pneumatize allegedly reptilian bones. Rather, the evidence supports the creationist view that birds have always been birds.

The presence of the avian lung design supports both theories equally since evolutionists believe Archaeopteryx is a transition form, and thus would have characteristics of both bird and reptile, and would also have "in-between" characteristics.



quote:

Analysis of the skull with computer tomography (CT) scanning shows that Archaeopteryx had a brain like a modern bird’s, three times the size of that of a dinosaur of equivalent size (although smaller than that of living birds). Archaeopteryx even had large optic lobes to process the visual input needed for flying. Furthermore, even the inner ear had a cochlea length and semicircular canal propoprtions were in the range of a modern flying bird’s. This implies that Archaeopteryx could hear in a similar way, and also had the sense of balance required for coordinating flight. Pterosaurs likewise had similar brain structures for flight — the large optic lobes, semicircular canals for balance, and huge floccular lobes, probably for coordination of the head, eye and neck allowing gaze-stabilization while flying. Once more, a forger adding feathers to a dino would not have thought to make an avian braincase, while it is yet another problem for evolutionists.

From the site I posted:

"However, an enlarged cranidium is not unique to birds. Several dinosaurs also have enlarged craniums, including Sauronrnithoides (Hopson 1980), Stenonychosaurus (Currie 1985) and Troodon (Currie & Zhao 1993). In some cases the dinosaur cranium is more bird-like than the cranium of Archaeopteryx."



quote:

But on a (slightly) childish sidenote.. you're still wrong about the freewill vs. omniscience topic LOL http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif) smile Rust



Too bad you couldn't show that... http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

i just came across this:

http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/03/pr0351.htm

digital evolution! very interesting...

Cougar

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

evolution and creationism?

Yes.

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

explain the archaeopteryx!

There's been countless studies demonstrating that the bones that make up the wings and feet of birds and the theropod dinosaurs (bird like dinosaurs) are not derived from the same digits...

Birds have no diaphragm and there is no separation of the thoracic and abdominal cavities. They breathe through contraction of the muscles of the rib cage and pelvis.

The pelvic structure of the theropod dinosaurs is completely different to modern birds and the Archaeopteryx, it's more like that of crocodiles – reptiles. And reptiles breathe through a contraction of the diaphragmatic muscles.

It is virtually impossible for an animal that breathes by means of a diaphragm to evolve into an animal which breathes the way modern birds do, because the hypothetical intermediate (midway through the evolution) creature would be severely hampered in its ability to breathe.

Since there are no intermediate theropods' which possesses a pelvic structure similar to Archaeopteryx, it seems unlikely that they could have given rise (pardon the pun) to Archaeopteryx.

Plus the fossil evidence clearly demonstrates that the theropod dinosaurs lack the avian jointed or hinged ribs and expansive sternum - all of which are necessary to maintain air flow in the avian lung. Therefore, it seems unlikely that the theropod dinosaurs could have ever given rise to modern birds either...

quote:Originally posted by The Crusader:

There's been countless studies demonstrating that the bones that make up the wings and feet of birds and the theropod dinosaurs (bird like dinosaurs) are not derived from the same digits...

"Countless" is a gross exaggeration. Moreover, it is important to note the originator of that theory, was an evolutionist!

In any case, see:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB731.html



quote:Plus the fossil evidence clearly demonstrates that the theropod dinosaurs lack the avian jointed or hinged ribs and expansive sternum - all of which are necessary to maintain air flow in the avian lung. Therefore, it seems unlikely that the theropod dinosaurs could have ever given rise to modern birds either...

That is because theropods are not the intermediate specimens. Hence, the lack of many avian characteristics means nothing.



P.S. Plagiarize much? I mean, you did changed some words but... common... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 11-03-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

i just came across this:

http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/03/pr0351.htm

digital evolution! very interesting...

Cougar



If you find that interesting download this

www.ventrella.com/Darwin/darwin.html (http://www.ventrella.com/Darwin/darwin.html)

quote:Originally posted by nioz:

Funny how the 'theory' of creation has been the same for 2000+ years, but evolution has to keep changing to conform to overwheming eveidence against it. Odd..

Umm, no. The creationist model keeps having to change with new scientific discoveries.

Young-Earth Creationism is a recent phenomena, developed in teh early 1800's.

quote:Originally posted by Nescio:



If you find that interesting download this

www.ventrella.com/Darwin/darwin.html (http://www.ventrella.com/Darwin/darwin.html)



great find! thanks!

quote:Originally posted by The Crusader:

There's been countless studies demonstrating that the bones that make up the wings and feet of birds and the theropod dinosaurs (bird like dinosaurs) are not derived from the same digits...

Birds have no diaphragm and there is no separation of the thoracic and abdominal cavities. They breathe through contraction of the muscles of the rib cage and pelvis.

The pelvic structure of the theropod dinosaurs is completely different to modern birds and the Archaeopteryx, it's more like that of crocodiles – reptiles. And reptiles breathe through a contraction of the diaphragmatic muscles.



snakes are reptiles and snakes DO NOT have a diaphragm. http://science.howstuffworks.com/snake1.htm

quote:

It is virtually impossible for an animal that breathes by means of a diaphragm to evolve into an animal which breathes the way modern birds do, because the hypothetical intermediate (midway through the evolution) creature would be severely hampered in its ability to breathe.



why would that creature be severly hampered? there are fish which have both lungs and gills and get along quite remarkably...

please elaborate.

quote:

Since there are no intermediate theropods' which possesses a pelvic structure similar to Archaeopteryx, it seems unlikely that they could have given rise (pardon the pun) to Archaeopteryx.



now you're asking for something in between theropods and the archaeopteryx? and when such a fossil was found you would be asking for another, and another, and...?

hold on to the nyquist-theorem: (it's technical originally but can be applied here too.)

-> the sampling 'frequency' has to be at least double the highest ocurring 'signal frequency' in order to reproduce the original signal without 'aliasing'.

(the 'signal' here is evolution therefore a non infinite number of transient fossils is enough to reconstruct the whole line of ancestry.)

quote:

Plus the fossil evidence clearly demonstrates that the theropod dinosaurs lack the avian jointed or hinged ribs and expansive sternum - all of which are necessary to maintain air flow in the avian lung. Therefore, it seems unlikely that the theropod dinosaurs could have ever given rise to modern birds either...

it's called evolution because the optimum solution wasn't there from the beginning but had to e v o l v e. at the beginning things work but are not overly efficient. in time legs become faster, wings create lift in a more efficient way, and lungs become more complex.

another example of flying not too efficiently are bats. one of the reasons they hang upside down on the ceiling is because they can't get airborne from the ground like birds. they have to let themselves fall and while falling begin to spread their wings and fly.

Cougar

please don't think i'm spamming but while searching through a site with a lot of info about AI, i stumbled over:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/09/040903091444.htm

so life from 'non-life' seems to be possible.

Cougar

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

I wouldn't be surprised to find out wooly mammoths still live in Greenland and that there's a species of unicorns that lives in Antartica.

Unicorns don't live in Antarctica, LostCause, they are not adapted to the local climate. They live in mythical forests and have a special bond with fair maidens.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

That is because theropods are not the intermediate specimens.

Would you like to explain just what is the intermediary species? A flying brontosaurus perhaps? ...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

P.S. Plagiarize much? I mean, you did changed some words but... common..

What the fuck have I plagiarised from??

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

snakes are reptiles and snakes DO NOT have a diaphragm.

Snakes do not breathe the way birds do. They have a primitive three-chambered heart, the blood is pumped into one top chamber then the oxygen rich blood from the lungs gets pumped into the other top chamber. They all get emptied into the lower one and then circulated throughout the body. This is an inefficient method of distributing oxygen, even the most active snakes tire easily and have to rest for periods of time...as opposed to the four-chambered heart of birds and mammals with a high rate of oxygen-rich blood flow through the body, enabling the species to maintain high activity levels.

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

why would that creature be severly hampered? there are fish which have both lungs and gills and get along quite remarkably...

Fish don't have lungs. Why would they need them when they never go up to the surface and surely they wouldn't be able to hold their breath for so long?

They use gills to receive oxygen with a simple closed-circle circulatory system...

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

now you're asking for something in between theropods and the archaeopteryx?

Well quite frankly yes...

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

the sampling 'frequency' has to be at least double the highest ocurring 'signal frequency' in order to reproduce the original signal without 'aliasing'.

(the 'signal' here is evolution therefore a non infinite number of transient fossils is enough to reconstruct the whole line of ancestry.)

This is a law? Perhaps you could expand upon this...

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

it's called evolution because the optimum solution wasn't there from the beginning but had to e v o l v e. at the beginning things work but are not overly efficient. in time legs become faster, wings create lift in a more efficient way, and lungs become more complex.

Are you saying that the theropod dinosaur could fly..a bit? Wouldn't this perhaps necessitate a danger once levitating at a high enough distance for it to fall and kill itself?

Never mind the theropd lacking in the necessary attributes required to 'fly' without breaking the laws of physics...

quote:Originally posted by The Crusader:

Would you like to explain just what is the intermediary species? A flying brontosaurus perhaps? ...

Archaeopteryx.

quote:What the fuck have I plagiarised from??

You said:

"Plus the fossil evidence clearly demonstrates that the theropod dinosaurs lack the avian jointed or hinged ribs and expansive sternum - all of which are necessary to maintain air flow in the avian lung."



Now here's the original piece:

"In addition, the fossil evidence clearly demonstrates that the theropod dinosaurs lack the avian jointed or hinged ribs and expansive sternum - all of which are necessary to maintain air flow in the avian lung."

Taken from this article:

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/dinobird.html

Moreover, the arguments you gave are exactly the same arguments given in that article, and in the same order as well! What a coincidence!

i didn't say snakes breathe like birds. i simply stated that not all reptiles have a diaphragm.

as for the lung + fish...

http://www.lungfishbreeders.com/lungfish.html

you tell it that it has no lung, i can't... (it would be like telling a kid, santa doesn't exist...)

even more, it is a living transient form...

oh, those theropods... my bad... no, t-rex & co certainly could not fly... (though i could have found a way... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif) )

clear case of misunderstanding...

(don't get used to it, i tend to learn http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif) )

however you can't refute that the archaeopteryx has features of both reptiles and birds: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html

the nyquist-theorem (mathematicians call it a theorem, engineers call it a rule. choose one.) is being utilized by about every product having an analog to digital interface. (e.g. your cd-player...) it applies to this debate as well...

i mentioned it because the average creationist tends to ask for another transient fossil from evolutionists as soon as they can no longer deny the existence and validity of the current fossil. and then another and so on. this could go ad infinitum BUT, as said above, a non-infinite number of transient fossils is sufficient to reconstruct the evolutionary process as a whole without loss of information. this means that with a sufficient number of fossils the demand of more fossils is not necessary anymore.

Cougar

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Archaeopteryx.

It is a bird, a perching bird consisting of feathers and an avian lung. (Unique to birds.)

There's also been 3D reconstructions of the fossilised brain, with the results showing a complete bird like brain with all the structures that allow birds to fly.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Plagiarize much?

The use of mere facts, rather than works of creative expression, does not constitute plagiarism...

You're whinging because I didn't reference to a site which is constantly used and shoved in front of our eys on this very forum...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Moreover, the arguments you gave are exactly the same arguments given in that article,

Of course I was already fully aware of the fallacious excuse against Creationism attributed to the ArchaeopteryX, but they are the exact same arguments everywhere. Initially I was unsatisfied with the explanation so I looked else where, everything else was similar with a few quotes I didn't bother submitting so I took the general premise and applied it in a manner consistent to this thread. I.e. not waffle. OK?

What am I supposed to do? Reinvent the words?

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

and in the same order as well! What a coincidence!

Lol, yes I made the msitake of not referncing the order of my two points. Lol...

quote:Originally posted by The Crusader:

It is a bird, a perching bird consisting of feathers and an avian lung. (Unique to birds.)

There's also been 3D reconstructions of the fossilised brain, with the results showing a complete bird like brain with all the structures that allow birds to fly.

And that refutes my assertion how? An intermediate specimen has both bird qualities and reptile qualities.

Here's a list of its reptile features:

"

5) Premaxilla and maxilla are not horn-covered.

This is posh talk for "does not have a bill." The premaxilla does not have a keratinized covering, so Archaeopteryx has no bill. The bill is produced via the process of 'cornification' which involves the mucus layer of the epidermis (Romanoff 1960) and thus its formation is independant of jaw bone formation.

6) Trunk region vertebra are free.

In birds the trunk vertebrae are always fused.

7) Bones are pneumatic.

I.e. they appear to have air-sacs, as they do in birds and in some dinosaurs (e.g. Witmer 1990, Brooks 1993). It should be pointed out that previous claims suggesting the bones of Archae were not pneumatic (Lambrecht 1933; de Beer 1954), was based on negative evidence, i.e. that the bones do not exhibit pneumatic pores (through which the air sacs enter the bones) and the bones show none of the plumpness and bulges which characterise the pneumatic bones of modern birds. Britt et al. (1998) found evidence for the presence of pnematic bones in Archaeopteryx:

"Here we re-examine two specimens of _Archaeopteryx_. These specimens show evidence of vertebral pneumaticity in the cervical and anterior thorasic vertebrae, thus confirming the phylogenetic continuity between the pneumatic systems of non-avialan theropods and living birds" (Britt et al. 1998, p. 374)

8) Pubic shafts with a plate-like, and slightly angled transverse cross-section

A Character shared with dromaeosaurs but not with other dinosaurs or birds

9) Cerebral hemispheres elongate, slender and cerebellum is situated behind the mid-brain and doesn't overlap it from behind or press down on it.

This again is a reptilian feature. In birds the cerebral hemispheres are stout, cerebellum is so much enlarged that it spreads forwards over the mid-brain and compresses it downwards. Thus the shape of the brain is not like that of modern birds, but rather an intermediate stage between dinosaurs and birds (e.g. Alexander 1990).

10) Neck attaches to skull from the rear as in dinosaurs not from below as in modern birds.

The site of neck attachement (from below) is characteristic in birds, _Archaeopteryx_ does not have this character, but is the same as theropod dinosaurs:

"Notice that this coelurosaurian-like neck extended back from the rear of the skull in _Archaeopteryx_ - as it does in coelurosaurs [theropod dinosaurs], rather than from beneath as in later birds." (Ostrom 1976, p. 137).

Skull and brain of Archae is basically reptilian and is not "totally birdlike" (contrary to a certain creationist's claim).

11) Center of cervical vertebrae have simple concave articular facets.

This is the same as the archosaur pattern. In birds the vertebrae are different, they have a saddle-shaped surface:

"The most striking feature of the vertebrae is the simple disk-like facets of their centra, without any sign of the saddle-shaped articulations found in other birds" (de Beer 1954, p. 17).

12) Long bony tail with many free vertebrae up to tip (no pygostyle).

Birds have a short tail and the caudal vertebrae are fused to give the pygostyle.

13) Premaxilla and maxilla bones bear teeth.

No modern bird possess teeth (e.g. Romanoff 1960; Orr 1966, p. 113). Bird embryos form tooth buds, but do not actually produce teeth. Some birds subsequently produce ridges in the bill, but there is no connection between them and the embryonic tooth buds, since the ridges also form in other areas of the bill where no tooth buds have previouslu formed. Some birds produce hook-like structures which are papillae, and appear to be related to the process of keratinization of the beak (Romanoff 1960), and have nothing to do with teeth. They do not possess blood vessel or nerve connections, nor do they produce dentine.

The expression of tooth buds in the bird embryo has a simple evolutionary explanation, since it suggests that the ancestors of modern birds possessed teeth and that this character has been supressed in modern birds. The presence of tooth buds in the embryos of organisms which do not possess teeth in the adult is a difficulty for anti-evolutionists, since why should a character be expressed that is never used in the organism? Some fossil birds exhibit a reduction in the number of bones which have teeth. Both Hesperornis and Baptornis lack teeth on the premaxilla (Archaeopteryx and theropod dinosaurs have teeth on both the maxilla and premaxilla). Not only that, Hesperornis has a beak, but on the upper jaw only (Gingerich 1975). It therefore has half a beak and teeth. A good example of a morphologicaly intermediate structure between toothed birds which lack a beak, and beaked, toothless birds.

14) Ribs slender, without joints or uncinate processes and do not articulate with the sternum.

Birds have stout ribs with uncinate processes (braces between them) and articulate with the sternum.

15) Pelvic girdle and femur joint is archosaurian rather than avian (except for the backward pointing pubis as mentioned above).

Here Archae really shows its transitional nature. Whilst the pelvic girdle as a whole is basically free and similar to archosaur girdles, the pubis points backward - a character shared with birds and some other bird-like theropod dinosaurs.

What is interesting is that with the bird pelvis:

"The ischium lies beneath the posterior part of the ilium and beneath this again is the pubis, which is directed backwards (i.e. like this: =). Embryological studies show that the peculiar position of these bones is the result of secondary rotation and that the pectineal process, in front of the ascetabulum, is not the true pubis as some workers have maintained." (Bellairs & Jenkin 1960, p. 258).

In other words, the embyonic pelvis of the bird, when first formed, looks, in shape and angle between the ilium and the pubis (45 degrees), very similar to the "A"-frame pelvis of Archaeopteryx (i.e. like this: < ) (e.g. Romanoff 1960). The fully formed pelvis with all bones lying parallel is the result of secondary rotation of the pubis from "<" to "=". This supports the view that birds had an ancester with a saurischian pelvis such as the type possessed by Archaeopteryx and other theropod dinosaurs. (see also A tale of two pelvises below)

16) The Sacrum (the vertebrae developed for the attachment of pelvic girdle) occupies 6 vertebra.

This is the same as in reptiles and especially ornithipod dinosaurs. The bird sacrum covers between 11-23 vertebrae! So, while the variation seen in modern birds is large, it is nowhere near the number found in Archaeopteryx

17) Metacarpals (hand) free (except 3rd metacarpal), wrist hand joint flexible.

This is as in reptiles. In birds the metacarpals are fused together with the distal carpals in the carpo-metacarpus, wrist /hand fused. All modern birds have a carpo-metacarpus, all fossil birds have a carpo-metacarpus - except one (guess!) :-). However, the carpals of several coelurosaur dinosaur groups show a trend towards fusion, and in the Late Cretaceous form Avimimus, a true carpo- metacarpus is formed.

It has been suggested that the ostrich and/or other Ratites also possess unfused wrist/hand bones. This is not correct:

"The ostrich, emus, rheas, cassowaries and kiwis are often referred to together as the Ratites, though they may not be closely related to each other. They have tiny wings and cannot fly, but the bones of their hands are fused together in the same peculiar way as in flying birds, which suggest that they evolved from flying birds." (Alexander 1990, p. 435).

Some similarity between the hand of the ostrich and some of the more derived theropod dinosaurs was once used to suggest that the Ratites were 'primitive' and evolved before the advent of flight in birds. However Tucker (1938b) showed that such similarities are entirely superficial.

"He has directed attention to the bird-like characters of the hand of the dinosaur Ornitholestes as evidence that a bird-like hand can be developed independantly of flight, but the writer has pointed out in the communication mentioned above [Tucker 1938b] that the resemblance is utterly superficial and that the peculiar bowing and terminal fusion of metacarpals 2 and 3 which charcaterise both the Carnate and the Ratite hand are in no wise [sic?] reproduced in the dinosaur." (Tucker 1938a, p. 334).

"Reverting now to the reasons on which have sought to base the view that the Ratites were primitive birds whose ancesters had never flown, one: the similarity between the hand of the ostrich and that of the dinosaur, has been dismissed as invalid. Tucker (1938b) has shown that such resemblances as there are between them are only superficial and without significance." (de Beer 1956, p. 65).

18) Nasal opening far forward, separated from the eye by a large preorbital fenestra (hole).

This is typical of reptiles, but not of birds. Where a fenestra is present in birds, it is always greatly reduced, and is involved in prokinesis (movement of the beak)

19) Deltoid ridge of the humerus faces anteriorly as do the radial and ulnar condyles.

Typical of reptiles but not found in birds

20) Claws on 3 unfused digits.

No modern adult bird has 3 claws, nor do they have unfused digits. The juvenile hoatzin and Touracos do have 2 claws but loose them as they grow, the ostrich appears to retain its 2 claws into adulthood, due to the early termination of development (see section on Ratites). In the case of the hoatzin it is thought that these claws allow the juvenile to climb. It had been claimed that since these birds do have claws, even in the juvenile stage, then the presence of claws cannot be used as a reptilian character. This is not so, however. In fact almost all birds exhibit claws, but in the embryonic stage and they are lost by the time the bird leaves the egg. In the case of the few which do retain claws into the juvenile stage, this is merely the extension of the condition into the post-embryonic stage. As McGowan (1984, p 123) says:

"In retaining a primitive reptilian feature which other birds lose just before leaving the egg [the hoatzin] is showing us its reptilian pedigree. Far from being evidence to the contrary, the hoatzin is additional evidence for the reptilian ancestry of birds."

21) The fibula is equal in length to the tibia in the leg.

This again is a typical character of reptiles. In birds the fibula is shortened and reduced.

22) Metatarsals (foot bones) free.

In birds these are fused to form the tarsometatarsus. However, in modern bird embryos, the foot bones are initially separate as in the adult Archaeopteryx and is another character supporting a reptilian ancestry for birds. After all, why bother producing separate bones in the embryo and then fuse them? Why not produce a fused mass to start with? No adult modern bird has separate metatarsals, but they are separated, initially, in the embryo. This can be explained in terms of evolution - birds evolved from a group which had unfused metatarsals.

Ceratosaurians, Avimimus, and Elmisauridae all show true tarso-metatarsi. Archae itself only shows the beginning of this structure.

23) Gastralia present.

Gastralia are "ventral ribs," elements of dermal bone in the ventral wall of the abdomen. Typical of reptiles, they are absent in birds, e.g.:

"In addition to the true ribs the British Museum specimen shows a large number of so-called ventral ribs or gastralia, elements of dermal bone lying in the ventral wall of the abdomen." (de Beer 1954, p. 18)

"The gastralia of the Berlin specimen are identical with those of the British Museum specimen, but more have been preserved." (de Beer 1954, p. 19)

"The "new" specimen was found 8 September 1970 on display in the Teyler Museum, Haarlem, Netherlands. It consists of two small slabs (specimens 6928 & 6929), part and counterpart which contain impressions or parts of the left manus and forearm, pelvis, both legs and feet, and some gastralia." (Ostrom 1970, p. 538)

"Also present are numerous fragments of gastralia, faint impressions of three or four dorsal vertebrae, . . " (Ostrom 1972, p. 291).

"The counterpart slab (No. 6929) contains additional gastralia, phalanges, .." (Ostrom 1972, p. 291)

"Gastralia, or dermal abdominal ribs are present in all five skeletal specimens of _Archaeopteryx_" (Ostrom 1976, p. 139-140).

Gastralia are present on the Eichstatt specimen (See Wellnhofer 1974, fig. 7C)"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#reptile-features

quote:The use of mere facts, rather than works of creative expression, does not constitute plagiarism...

You're whinging because I didn't reference to a site which is constantly used and shoved in front of our eys on this very forum...

Seeing as you didn't do that, but actually copied a pasted their words, then that IS plagiarism.

quote:Of course I was already fully aware of the fallacious excuse against Creationism attributed to the ArchaeopteryX, but they are the exact same arguments everywhere. Initially I was unsatisfied with the explanation so I looked else where, everything else was similar with a few quotes I didn't bother submitting so I took the general premise and applied it in a manner consistent to this thread. I.e. not waffle. OK?

What am I supposed to do? Reinvent the words?

No. Just don't COPY and PASTE their words.



quote:

Lol, yes I made the msitake of not referncing the order of my two points. Lol...

OMGZ!1!1!! LOLOLOL!! http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Yes. You did make that mistake. A mistake that would be easily excusable if you didn't hold that pretentious tone as if:

1. You knew the material.

2. You hadn't plagiarized it.

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

I've been asking about that verse since long before i believed. Some people have told me its god talking to his court of angels. Other's say it's God speaking to the rest of the trinity.

jm5k, i don't believe you're correct about that. Do you want to show any sources/proof?

Digital if you can answer this question, i would be in your debt.



God was speaking to the rest of the Trinity.

*smiles*

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

over and over and over again i have asked... and none of you creationists answered... i last asked Digital_Savior about a week ago and i haven't heard of her since... so i ask again:

xtreem5150ahm (or any other 'creationist')

- why do dolphins have fingers in their flippers?

- explain the archaeopteryx!

- why is maximum absorption of our eye in the green region of the visible spectrum of light?

why don't you guys ever answer? is it so difficult? is it under your niveau?

as for creation:

'God said...

rot(E) = -dB/dt

rot(H) = J + dD/dt

div(D) = rho

div(B) = 0

...and there was light!

very curious

Cougar

EDIT: typo

[This message has been edited by Cougar (edited 11-01-2004).]

I'll answer...when I have some time !

This week has sucked hard core.

Been working nights all week...now I'm sick. *blec*

Sorry for my absence...I promise I will get back to you.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

My prayers go out to you and your family, Xtreem.

I hope your father-in-law has found himself in a better place.

God bless.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

And that refutes my assertion how? An intermediate specimen has both bird qualities and reptile qualities.

It is clearly a fully pledged bird. Not some half and half mutant.

Sharing characters does not prove evolution. Despite having features in common with some dinosaurs, the evidence of the feathers and opposable hallux indicates that Archaeopteryx was an unusual bird (in the same way that the platypus is an unusual mammal).

The fact that it had some features in common with reptiles means simply that it had some features in common with reptiles -- not that it evolved. The evidence certainly isn't strong enough to conclude that Archaeopteryx was a "missing link" or part of a series of creatures that evolved from dinosaurs into birds (intermediary.)

Hell thousands of pro evolutionists and the International Archaeopteryx Conference have all declared the Archaeopteryx to be a "bird" and not a reptile or both.

Anti-Creationists tend to pin all their 'hopes' on the Archaeopteryx to actively refute those who even acknowledge evolution to exist (an animal will change according to habitat etc.) Yet the proof is so incredibly lacking, the whole sentiment reminds me vividly of evangelical nutters preaching irrationalities and expecting us all to follow in their wake...

Anyways, I'll just submit this instead of putting my own slant on the matter. This answers your queries;

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/20hist08.htm

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Seeing as you didn't do that, but actually copied a pasted their words, then that IS plagiarism.

I don't do that, what the hell would be the point if it negates one's own perspective. If you look at what I put I made efforts to change the style to suit the thread.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

OMGZ!1!1!! LOLOLOL!!

Epileptic seizure on the keyboard?

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Yes. You did make that mistake. A mistake that would be easily excusable if you didn't hold that pretentious tone as if:

Pretentious? Moi??

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

1. You knew the material.

I know the premise. But I am unqualified in all the scientifical terms. I am not a palaeontologist.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

2. You hadn't plagiarized it.

I didn't. I was submitting facts, not poetry.

hi Digital, good to have you back. get well soon so you're fit for the 'fight' http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:

Sharing characters does not prove evolution. Despite having features in common with some dinosaurs, the evidence of the feathers and opposable hallux indicates that Archaeopteryx was an unusual bird (in the same way that the platypus is an unusual mammal).

The fact that it had some features in common with reptiles means simply that it had some features in common with reptiles -- not that it evolved. The evidence certainly isn't strong enough to conclude that Archaeopteryx was a "missing link" or part of a series of creatures that evolved from dinosaurs into birds (intermediary.)



beg your pardon?! what else would it prove? it's neither an optimally evolved ground creature nor a horrific flyer... so god 'created' a creature which was not perfect?! why would he do that?

the feathers are asymmetrical but not as much as in modern birds. one would call it 'primitive'... have you actually clicked any of the links Rust and i provided? i highly recommend you do...

i think it to be really poor of you to evade in such a way. disappointing, really. http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

besides that, you haven't yet commented on the lungfish... well?

quote:

...

Yet the proof is so incredibly lacking, the whole sentiment reminds me vividly of evangelical nutters preaching irrationalities and expecting us all to follow in their wake...



i wholeheartedly agree... which side were you on again?

and yes, you DID plagiarize. you could have quoted including the reference. instead you pretended it to be your work. next time give a link or a source.

anybody interested in the eye-question? or the dolphin?

Cougar

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

so god 'created' a creature which was not perfect?! why would he do that?

Why should he "create" it perfect? Is he perfect?

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

i think it to be really poor of you to evade in such a way. disappointing, really.

I provided a link dealing with the similarities...what more do you want from me?

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

besides that, you haven't yet commented on the lungfish... well?

Well like any other animal which requires it, Lungfish have a lung for their terra firma adventures. Strange yes, but no evidence of it ever not having a lung...

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

i wholeheartedly agree... which side were you on again?

Neither.

My would someone disbelieve the thoroughly tested and proven idea of evolution and choose instead to believe in a completely unprovable idea of a God?

Even if there is a God taking the bible literally is naive because it was written by men, not God. Therefore you can happily laugh at the bible (especially the old testament) and yet still believe in God and Jesus.

How were the men writing the bible any more informed of the existence of God than anyone else? The most they can do is guess....

quote:

Why should he "create" it perfect? Is he perfect?



okay, it.

but this still doesn't change the fact, that you didn't answer. you are, again, evasive...

quote:

I provided a link dealing with the similarities...what more do you want from me?



and exactly those similarities to both, reptiles and birds, are the point. they show the 'step' from walking to flying. (well, not exactly a step but more of a gradual process.)

quote:

Well like any other animal which requires it, Lungfish have a lung for their terra firma adventures. Strange yes, but no evidence of it ever not having a lung...



it is a fish. why would a fish need lungs other than to leave the water? other fish cope with gills alone so why does this particular one have a lung? because it is a remnant of those times when marine lifeforms left the water to search food on land. (including whales, which meanwhile returned to the sea again.)

are you forcibly ignoring the facts or can you simply not conceive them?

quote:Originally posted by Alf_MAn:



My would someone disbelieve the thoroughly tested and proven idea of evolution and choose instead to believe in a completely unprovable idea of a God?

Even if there is a God taking the bible literally is naive because it was written by men, not God. Therefore you can happily laugh at the bible (especially the old testament) and yet still believe in God and Jesus.

How were the men writing the bible any more informed of the existence of God than anyone else? The most they can do is guess....



A M E N to that (i couldn't resist http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif) )

well, almost... don't laugh at the bible since it does provide us with guidelines as how we should treat our fellow people. on the other hand there are many people whose moral principles are not based on the bible and they can be regarded as morally good people as well. (e.g. buddhists) my point is only that you shouldn't take it literally especially when science is involved.

Cougar

quote:Originally posted by The Crusader:

Sharing characters does not prove evolution.

Nor does it refute it. It does the contrary. It serves as evidence that it is an intermediate species.

quote:

Hell thousands of pro evolutionists and the International Archaeopteryx Conference have all declared the Archaeopteryx to be a "bird" and not a reptile or both.

Yeah, a conference held over two decades ago, when half of the evidence supporting it as an intermediate species hadn't even been found!

"

During the last eighty five years, mosaic forms intermediate between Archaeopteryx and birds, and between Archaeopteryx and reptiles have been found. For example, Mononychus (Altangerel et al. 1993), 'provides a character set of great importance to understanding primitive birds, this set can be interpreted unambiguously and it indicates a transitional position between Archaeopteryx and all other birds.' (Milner 1993, p. 589)"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/challenge.html

quote:Anti-Creationists tend to pin all their 'hopes' on the Archaeopteryx to actively refute those who even acknowledge evolution to exist (an animal will change according to habitat etc.) Yet the proof is so incredibly lacking, the whole sentiment reminds me vividly of evangelical nutters preaching irrationalities and expecting us all to follow in their wake...

No. Evolutionists are simply looking at the evidence and acknowledging that the possibility that it is an intermediate species exists. It is those who claim that the possibility doesn't exist, that mimic "evangelical nutters".

quote:

Anyways, I'll just submit this instead of putting my own slant on the matter. This answers your queries;

That article is pathetic. It actually lists bird features in hope to refute it being an intermediate species, ignoring that an intermediate species by definition must have bird-like qualities! It also provides an argument for it being a hoax, which has been refuted completely already.

quote:I don't do that, what the hell would be the point if it negates one's own perspective. If you look at what I put I made efforts to change the style to suit the thread.

The part which I quoted is word for word, (even the dash [ - ] for god's sake! http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif) ) the same as in the article. Save for the first words which you changed. That's plagiarism. Period.

quote:Epileptic seizure on the keyboard?

Exactly. The only difference I was mimicking you!

quote:I didn't. I was submitting facts, not poetry.

You can both submit facts and plagiarize, therefore your argument is moot. You did plagiarize.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 11-05-2004).]

Evolution of conversation.

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

but this still doesn't change the fact, that you didn't answer.

You mean this one;

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

beg your pardon?! what else would it prove? it's neither an optimally evolved ground creature nor a horrific flyer... so god 'created' a creature which was not perfect?! why would he do that?

Are you seriously suggesting that because the animal's skill level was imperfect, God therefore cannot exist?

Next you'll be quoting Descartes...

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

and exactly those similarities to both, reptiles and birds, are the point. they show the 'step' from walking to flying. (well, not exactly a step but more of a gradual process.)

Bullshit. An animal doesn't just sprout a lung for the sake of it, there has to be severe jeopardy to its survival and changes in habitat for there to even be a slight alteration to its biological makeup...

P.S. I share 98% DNA with a chimp and 90% with a rat. Similarities between animals and even species are in no way conclusive evidence for such metamorphosis.

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

it is a fish. why would a fish need lungs other than to leave the water? other fish cope with gills alone so why does this particular one have a lung? because it is a remnant of those times when marine lifeforms left the water to search food on land.

Marine life-forms left the water for food? This begs the answer of a few fundamental questions;

1) If food was so scarce (please provide evidence for this) that a fish decided it needed to up sticks and leave, how on earth could the transforming creature (which would surely last millennia) survive during the lengthy transition?

Perhaps the overwhelmingly intelligent mother fish foresaw a future of scarcity and decided to sprout legs, lungs etc thousands of years in advance?...

2) They simply reasoned that they had to develop stronger pectoral fins, turn them into rudimentary "legs" and walk overland to the next pond, even if it were miles away, then slither back into the water so they could survive. Meanwhile, of course, these same creatures figured out they had to develop lungs, because there wasn't any water coursing over their gills.

Just how long could a breathing creature survive when its breathing apparatus stops functioning? How would such a creature develop a sense of direction? How does a creature gradually develop lungs so it can breathe? How does a creature survive sunburn, drying, insect attacks, dust, rocks, predators and miles of sun baked travel?

3) And why didn't all fish leave the food-less seas so they could live of the food of the land that would most likely destroy their digestive system?

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

are you forcibly ignoring the facts or can you simply not conceive them?

Conceiving of a mindless evolution with all the elements of intelligence, order and what can only be described as divine intervention is akin to conceiving of the Bible God.

And there in lies the irony of it all...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Nor does it refute it. It does the contrary. It serves as evidence that it is an intermediate species.

Wrong. There is no evidence of intermediary species.

If such animals had really existed, there should be millions and even billions of them in number and variety. The remains of these strange creatures should be present in the fossil record.

If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently, evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains. – (The Origin of Species (Darwin)

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Yeah, a conference held over two decades ago, when half of the evidence supporting it as an intermediate species hadn't even been found!

Mononychus blah...

You've just gone from using the Archaeopteryx as your prime example, thus claiming birds to descend from reptiles, to now using the Mononychus to back this up!

If you had half a clue of the bile you regularly submit on this site you would know that Mononychus has more 'linkage' to moles than any dinosaur...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

No. Evolutionists are simply looking at the evidence and acknowledging that the possibility that it is an intermediate species exists. It is those who claim that the possibility doesn't exist, that mimic "evangelical nutters".

I'm claiming neither extreme. I'm simply playing devil's advocate with you.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

That article is pathetic. It actually lists bird features in hope to refute it being an intermediate species, ignoring that an intermediate species by definition must have bird-like qualities! It also provides an argument for it being a hoax, which has been refuted completely already.

If anything is "pathetic" it is you for being unable to refute the article. But that would be hard considering it was full of facts and not fanciful possibilities...

It should be mentioned that evolution still cant be reasonable in the light of the fact that

for proteins(the building blocks of life) alone to be formed by chance is very near impossible and that at least some form of intelligence is behind it's creation is the much more likely and RATIONAL explanation.

I should also add the example that alot of teachers use as a sign of evolution-the giraffe's long neck-is also not as rational as claimed when looked closely. In nutshell for the primate of the giraffe to have an extra-long neck it would take a relatively 'simple' mutation(as claimed by my biology teacher), but for this giraffe to survive with this new mutation it would a newly adapted heart strong enough to pump blood up to it's head.

Say by a coincendence it miracously got this extra long neck. Every time it reaches down to drink from a lake the blood pressure would kill it because of this newly aquired heart. However by a miracle giraffe's have special valves in their necks that work every time it bends down!

Obviously any open minded person has to consider this unlikely for this to happen

by chance- and there are many more examples.

quote:Originally posted by The Crusader:

Wrong. There is no evidence of intermediary species.

Of course there is. It having bird, reptile, and "in-between" qualities already serves as evidence.

quote:

If such animals had really existed, there should be millions and even billions of them in number and variety. The remains of these strange creatures should be present in the fossil record.

There are scarce amounts of fossils, of ANY dinasour (though admitably, some have much more than others). Does that mean they didn't exist? No. It mean that they either haven't been found or the fossils don't exist.

quote:You've just gone from using the Archaeopteryx as your prime example, thus claiming birds to descend from reptiles, to now using the Mononychus to back this up!

If you had half a clue of the bile you regularly submit on this site you would know that Mononychus has more 'linkage' to moles than any dinosaur...

1. It has links, which is completely the point.

2. If you had any decent reading skills you would see that was an example of other fossils found.

quote:I'm claiming neither extreme. I'm simply playing devil's advocate with you.



You claimed that evolutionsts are "Evangelical Nutters". I'm merely saying that if anything, those who refuse to acknowledge the possibility of Archaeopteryx being an intermediate species are the "Evangelical Nutters" not those who admit the possibility is there (i.e. evolutionists).

quote:If anything is "pathetic" it is you for being unable to refute the article. But that would be hard considering it was full of facts and not fanciful possibilities...

Err.. the article actually supports my possition by enumarating the number of bird like qualities it has! Why the fuck would I have to refute something I've been saying since the beginning? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



The key difference is that we are speaking of facts. When speaking of a completely subjective book, open for interpretation, then there is no boundary to what is acceptable.

Yeah there is a difference between the nature of subject matter, but that doesn't change the fact that a text is as much an ontological reality as the crude measurement between two arbitrary points.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



When speaking of facts, then the boundary of what interpretations are acceptable, is set by the evidence itself. For example, if I have evidence that you are 6 feet tall, then the interpretation cannot deviate from that. You cannot interpret that evidence (i.e. that you're 6ft tall) to mean that you're 5 feet tall.

That's right. The only issue is that those assumptions about the interpretation of evidence are a by-product of our scientific process. As such there is an epistemological framework that sets go's and no go's for interpretation of the evidence, even if it sounds simple to describe (as in your example). I think that you would agree that the conclusions reached through applying scientific method to a "fact" would be quantifibly (sp argh) different from those reached without.

The same occurs in hermenuetics, which seeks to bring some consistency and method for the evaluation and interpretation of a given text.

Edit:Ubb

[This message has been edited by inquisitor_11 (edited 11-06-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

My prayers go out to you and your family, Xtreem.

I hope your father-in-law has found himself in a better place.

God bless.

Thanks. I hope so too. He knew what i believed, and he told me that he believes in God but never was very interested in the topic. I was told that he was baptised and confirmed, but even his wife of 43 years didnt know if he believed on Jesus.

Anyway, thank you again.

Johnny

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

Yeah there is a difference between the nature of subject matter, but that doesn't change the fact that a text is as much an ontological reality as the crude measurement between two arbitrary points.

The difference being that you can reach an infinite amount of conclusiosn by reading that text.

quote:

The same occurs in hermenuetics, which seeks to bring some consistency and method for the evaluation and interpretation of a given text.

See above. Regardless of how you wish to analyze the text, it would still be subjective. There are a finite possibile results derived from the interpretation of the text.

This is not the case with a fact. From a fact, there are a finite amount of things you can conclude. So, how does me belieivng that having an infinite amount of possible conclusions (given the subjective nature of the bible) refute any "bashing" I can do to Creationism?

Of course Archaeopteryx had features of modern birds, it was an early bird. It is interesting how the creationist said many other extinct birds had claws and teeth. uhhhh yeah and the key word is EXTINCT!!! those were early, not as evolved forms also! Although the "how" of evolution is the creationists strongest argument due do our lack of knowlege of microbiology at the present, that attack is pretty much negated by the evidence evolution HAS happened, our little human minds just havent worked out all the details of how it happened yet.

The dinosaur/bird transitional fossils being discovered regulary in China are a good example. The religous fanatics said that dinosaurs with feathers would never be found, and they have, just as evolutionists predicted. Creationists, please try to account for the following:

Microraptor, a small dinosaur with four feathered wings.

The therapods with hairlike structures that can be seen progressing later into NON-aerodynamic feathers (that means the feathers were not evolved for flying yet).

The Sperm whale born with a small hind leg.

Flightless birds.

Creationists often pick scenarioes where they argue that certain soft tissue features in a MODERN animal could not have evolved into an ANCIENT, EXTINCT animals features, I saw this earlier in the thread but do not be fooled by it. The logical flaw apparent above is further compounded that since the fossils are pretty much all bone remnants, arguing about soft tissue features is almost irrelevant.

QUOTE Originally posted by bloody hands:

Creationists, please try to account for the following:

The Sperm whale born with a small hind leg.

i've read about this alittle, and didnt it turn out to be a little "nub" of bone that is thought to be "leg"? i read about it in some magazine, but i can remember which one.

Anyone else?

Flightless birds.

They are birds that are flightless. Do they have wings? Does the wings have muscles attach, that allow the wings to work? Could the wings be for other things besides flying?

Creationists often pick scenarioes where they argue that certain soft tissue features in a MODERN animal could not have evolved into an ANCIENT, EXTINCT animals features, I saw this earlier in the thread but do not be fooled by it. The logical flaw apparent above is further compounded that since the fossils are pretty much all bone remnants, arguing about soft tissue features is almost irrelevant. /QUOTE

Are the creationist the ones claiming the soft tissues? Or are they refering to studies that already claim things about soft tissues?

Edited to remove quote tags



[This message has been edited by xtreem5150ahm (edited 11-07-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

QUOTE Originally posted by bloody hands:

Creationists, please try to account for the following:

The Sperm whale born with a small hind leg.

i've read about this alittle, and didnt it turn out to be a little "nub" of bone that is thought to be "leg"? i read about it in some magazine, but i can remember which one.

Yes, AIG and Ken Ham did dismiss it as such, it was relatively small, 2 feet long, but it included a humerus, femur, ankle and toe bones inside.

Flightless birds.

They are birds that are flightless. Do they have wings? Does the wings have muscles attach, that allow the wings to work? Could the wings be for other things besides flying?

The point is when you have WINGS that are not used primarily for FLYING, it is doubtful they were created that way. another example is the weevil. This family of beetles has perfectly formed wings which are useless because the casing above is fused shut.

Creationists often pick scenarioes where they argue that certain soft tissue features in a MODERN animal could not have evolved into an ANCIENT, EXTINCT animals features, I saw this earlier in the thread but do not be fooled by it. The logical flaw apparent above is further compounded that since the fossils are pretty much all bone remnants, arguing about soft tissue features is almost irrelevant. /QUOTE

Are the creationist the ones claiming the soft tissues? Or are they refering to studies that already claim things about soft tissues?

Creationists say things like "theres no way a modern amphibian's skin could have evolved scales" Simplified, but thats the gist of it.

And why did you leave Microraptor out?

Edited to remove quote tags

[This message has been edited by xtreem5150ahm (edited 11-07-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by The Crusader:

Are you seriously suggesting that because the animal's skill level was imperfect, God therefore cannot exist?



i'm not discussing the existence of god but creation according to the bible. my point is, that god would have no reason to make a creature imperfect. it would inflict on the animals capabilities to live which would be cruel since that anmial has committed no sin.

quote:

Next you'll be quoting Descartes...



no i won't because i haven't read anything of or about him.

quote:

Bullshit. An animal doesn't just sprout a lung for the sake of it, there has to be severe jeopardy to its survival and changes in habitat for there to even be a slight alteration to its biological makeup...



exactly. evolution is not a delta- or heaviside-function but more of a polynomial function with only small slope. (sometimes it even changes it's direction. take for example marine mammals like whales or dolphins. their ancestors returned into the water after having left it.)

quote:

P.S. I share 98% DNA with a chimp and 90% with a rat. Similarities between animals and even species are in no way conclusive evidence for such metamorphosis.



it's not only the number and kind of genes but also the number of chromosomes. it's also important, which genes are active and which aren't.

quote:

Marine life-forms left the water for food? This begs the answer of a few fundamental questions;

1) If food was so scarce (please provide evidence for this) that a fish decided it needed to up sticks and leave, how on earth could the transforming creature (which would surely last millennia) survive during the lengthy transition?

Perhaps the overwhelmingly intelligent mother fish foresaw a future of scarcity and decided to sprout legs, lungs etc thousands of years in advance?...



the words i put in italics clearly show that you have no idea of evolution. evolution is NOT a cognitive process! it just happens and either it is beneficial or not. in the first case, the creature gains benefits for it's survival and therefore has better chance to find a mating partner and pass on the beneficial change. in the second case, the chances are minimized and therefore the probability for the harmful gene to be passed on is also reduced.

(about the source; i heard it on a bbc documentary about dinosaurs which was aired on german television. (pro7))

quote:

2) They simply reasoned that they had to develop stronger pectoral fins, turn them into rudimentary "legs" and walk overland to the next pond, even if it were miles away, then slither back into the water so they could survive. Meanwhile, of course, these same creatures figured out they had to develop lungs, because there wasn't any water coursing over their gills.

same as above. NO REASON, IT JUST HAPPENS!

quote:

Just how long could a breathing creature survive when its breathing apparatus stops functioning? How would such a creature develop a sense of direction? How does a creature gradually develop lungs so it can breathe? How does a creature survive sunburn, drying, insect attacks, dust, rocks, predators and miles of sun baked travel?

how long do you survive when your breathing apparatus stops functioning? the average is about 3 mins. those fish surviving long enough to reach water again pass on their genes. those who don't... been nice knowin' ya...

direction? either it finds water again or it doesn't. guess which ones survive... (there are fish leaving the water when the pond dries out. after leaving they just go downhill because water also flows downhill. how do they know? they don't, those who went uphill simply found no water and died. no kiddies for them...)

those who move smartly (staying in the shade, moving under fallen leafs etc...) survive, others don't.

quote:

3) And why didn't all fish leave the food-less seas so they could live of the food of the land that would most likely destroy their digestive system?



because some fish found another way of getting food and other fish just died.

quote:

Conceiving of a mindless evolution with all the elements of intelligence, order and what can only be described as divine intervention is akin to conceiving of the Bible God.

And there in lies the irony of it all...



again you show your ignorance of facts. science clearly shows evidence and provides a theory of how we came about the way we are. the bible on the other hand does not. see the difference?

quote:Originally posted by ZEN OF AZRAEL:

It should be mentioned that evolution still cant be reasonable in the light of the fact that

for proteins(the building blocks of life) alone to be formed by chance is very near impossible and that at least some form of intelligence is behind it's creation is the much more likely and RATIONAL explanation.

fill a big jar with a MIX of sand and small stones and shake it. you should see a separation of sand and the stones. voilà: order out of disorder with nothing more than a little 'white noise'. now take some primitive organinc molecules and add sun + turbulence in the fluid + time => amino acids and then proteins.

quote:

I should also add the example that alot of teachers use as a sign of evolution-the giraffe's long neck-is also not as rational as claimed when looked closely. In nutshell for the primate of the giraffe to have an extra-long neck it would take a relatively 'simple' mutation(as claimed by my biology teacher), but for this giraffe to survive with this new mutation it would a newly adapted heart strong enough to pump blood up to it's head.

Say by a coincendence it miracously got this extra long neck. Every time it reaches down to drink from a lake the blood pressure would kill it because of this newly aquired heart. However by a miracle giraffe's have special valves in their necks that work every time it bends down!

Obviously any open minded person has to consider this unlikely for this to happen

by chance- and there are many more examples.

no. you too make the mistake of seeing evoloution as a heaviside-function and not as a gradual process. the long neck evolved and didn't pop up. otherwise it would be called the 'pop-up-theory' and not the 'evolution theory', wouldn't it?

Cougar

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Of course there is. It having bird, reptile, and "in-between" qualities already serves as evidence.

Your logic circuits have broken down. That is not conclusive evidence.

What unique reptile qualities does it actually possess?

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

There are scarce amounts of fossils, of ANY dinasour (though admitably, some have much more than others). Does that mean they didn't exist? No. It mean that they either haven't been found or the fossils don't exist.

How is anything proven to exist without evidence? How can a dinosaur be recorded if there is no physical evidence of any sort backing it up?

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You claimed that evolutionsts are "Evangelical Nutters". I'm merely saying that if anything, those who refuse to acknowledge the possibility of Archaeopteryx being an intermediate species are the "Evangelical Nutters" not those who admit the possibility is there (i.e. evolutionists).

Anything is possible.

Does that mean everything is probable and more to the point, accurate?

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Err.. the article actually supports my possition by enumarating the number of bird like qualities it has!

That's because it is a fucking B I R D.

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

i'm not discussing the existence of god but creation according to the bible.

I'm not here to advocate the bible.

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

no i won't because i haven't read anything of or about him.

Don't bother, its mad hatter logic;

http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum31/HTML/002150.html

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

it's not only the number and kind of genes but also the number of chromosomes. it's also important, which genes are active and which aren't.

(The following is cited fact)

For Macro-evolution to exist it would need to break the DNA code barrier. Mixing the available genetic code will produce variations in the trait (micro evolution) but will not change into a completely different feature.

People have several different colours of hair, eyes, and skin, but without a mutation, these traits will remain within its boundaries. There are mutations that can occur and mutations almost always cause diseases or defects. Even under mutation, skin will still be skin and eyes will still be eyes. Because of the code barrier, there are a limited number of variations in eye colour. Different genes can create distinct variations but there is a limit. There can be rapid changes but inevitably, there is a return to the norm.

A species cannot change species without new information being added to the DNA structure. And this cannot naturally occur.

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

the words i put in italics clearly show that you have no idea of evolution.

If you are so apt in the theory of evolution, perhaps you could directly answer my questions?

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

evolution is NOT a cognitive process! it just happens and either it is beneficial or not.

This seems to negate Darwin's Natural Selection...Its also ironic how evolutions spit pure venom at the lack of reason contained in the bible yet you submit this?

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

NO REASON, IT JUST HAPPENS!

Wrong. There is no proof of macro evolution.

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

how long do you survive when your breathing apparatus stops functioning? the average is about 3 mins. those fish surviving long enough to reach water again pass on their genes. those who don't... been nice knowin' ya...

direction? either it finds water again or it doesn't. guess which ones survive... (there are fish leaving the water when the pond dries out. after leaving they just go downhill because water also flows downhill. how do they know? they don't, those who went uphill simply found no water and died. no kiddies for them...)

those who move smartly (staying in the shade, moving under fallen leafs etc...) survive, others don't.

Irreducibly complex theory contradicts this ludicrous statement.

When a trait is critical for the survival of the species, it must be fully functional or the species will die off and any evolutionary progress would be lost. For example, a bat could not evolve from a rodent because it is completely dependent on its wings for survival. A half-evolved wing could not be used for walking because of its awkward length and shape and would not be functional for flying. The idea of a half-evolved bat is completely illogical.

But apparently you are happy with contradicting Darwin's theory of Natural selection?

So going back to my original questions, when the first mutant fish decides to leave its natural habitat (the water) with fully functional apparatus, (which over time, miraculously implanted itself into the fish) how in the hell is it going to find water within three minutes? The scene would be ludicrous, the fish would set off on its amazing adventure, run out of oxygen, return (if it's lucky) to the foodless seas. This would repeat itself over and over gain (if it has the perseverance) until it either dies of exhaustion or is killed by predators.

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

those who move smartly (staying in the shade, moving under fallen leafs etc...) survive, others don't.

I really can't help but laugh at this statement...

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

because some fish found another way of getting food and other fish just died.

"Found"?? What it just appeared? Kind of like divine intervention?...or perhaps it was a miracle?!

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

again you show your ignorance of facts. science clearly shows evidence and provides a theory of how we came about the way we are. the bible on the other hand does not. see the difference?

My ignorance? I am merely trying to find the logic behind your statements...

Science does not show clear evidence of macro evolution.

quote:Originally posted by The Crusader:

Your logic circuits have broken down. That is not conclusive evidence.

Nice try. I said EVIDENCE. Nothing else.

You're obviously grasping at straws.

quote:

What unique reptile qualities does it actually possess?

"Unique"? What do you mean by "unique"? As in, qualities no other species has? Then by definition they cannot be reptilian...

Furthermore, I've already listed the reptilian qualities it has, and also provided a link to the "in-between" charasteristics.

quote:How is anything proven to exist without evidence? How can a dinosaur be recorded if there is no physical evidence of any sort backing it up?

I never said it could! You're simply creating a strawman/putting words in my mouth.

You said that there should be thousands of these fossils, and I was merely explaining how that is not the cause with the vast majority of dinosours. Does that mean they didn't exist, just because their fossils are scarce? No.

quote:Does that mean everything is probable and more to the point, accurate?

1. Not everything is possible according to Creationists since they refuse to acknowledge the possibility of evolution.

2. To answer your question, no. So? The point was that if anyone is being an "evangelical nutter" it is those who refuse to acknowledge the possibility of it being an intermediate species, not those who acknowledge the possibility that it can be.

quote:That's because it is a fucking B I R D.

And? It's an intermediate specimen. Whether you classify it as "bird" or "reptile" is irrelevant.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 11-08-2004).]

quote:(The following is cited fact)



cited by whom?

quote:

For Macro-evolution to exist it would need to break the DNA code barrier. Mixing the available genetic code will produce variations in the trait (micro evolution) but will not change into a completely different feature.

People have several different colours of hair, eyes, and skin, but without a mutation, these traits will remain within its boundaries. There are mutations that can occur and mutations almost always cause diseases or defects. Even under mutation, skin will still be skin and eyes will still be eyes. Because of the code barrier, there are a limited number of variations in eye colour. Different genes can create distinct variations but there is a limit. There can be rapid changes but inevitably, there is a return to the norm.

A species cannot change species without new information being added to the DNA structure. And this cannot naturally occur.

and why can't this occur naturally?

quote:

This seems to negate Darwin's Natural Selection...Its also ironic how evolutions spit pure venom at the lack of reason contained in the bible yet you submit this?

if YOU select an item, it's a cognitive process. natural selection is just another term for survival of the fittest. how do these two contradict? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest



quote:

Wrong. There is no proof of macro evolution.



Conclusion

There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus (because, by definition, once organisms cannot interbreed, they are different species) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

quote:

Irreducibly complex theory contradicts this ludicrous statement.

this theory is just another term for 'i don't understand what happened and i don't want to know theory'.

quote:

When a trait is critical for the survival of the species, it must be fully functional or the species will die off and any evolutionary progress would be lost. For example, a bat could not evolve from a rodent because it is completely dependent on its wings for survival. A half-evolved wing could not be used for walking because of its awkward length and shape and would not be functional for flying. The idea of a half-evolved bat is completely illogical.

while the trait is evolving the species is not the end-species but transient! you're moving in circles and you don't even know...

quote:

But apparently you are happy with contradicting Darwin's theory of Natural selection?

click the link above. you really don't know what you're talking about.

quote:

So going back to my original questions, when the first mutant fish decides to leave its natural habitat (the water) with fully functional apparatus, (which over time, miraculously implanted itself into the fish) how in the hell is it going to find water within three minutes? The scene would be ludicrous, the fish would set off on its amazing adventure, run out of oxygen, return (if it's lucky) to the foodless seas. This would repeat itself over and over gain (if it has the perseverance) until it either dies of exhaustion or is killed by predators.

it does not miraculously implant itself into the fish but gradually develops! the lung actually would be the actual breathing apparatus in the end so the danger would be drying out or being eaten. again: either it survives or not. yes, it might die of exhaustion or by falling prey to a predator. tough shit. that's the way it goes.

quote:

I really can't help but laugh at this statement...

this only shows your lack of reasonable arguments.

quote:

"Found"?? What it just appeared? Kind of like divine intervention?...or perhaps it was a miracle?!

no, they 'found' means they changed their habits and had access to other sources of food. we're not talking miracles.

quote:

My ignorance? I am merely trying to find the logic behind your statements...

look harder, read the links Rust and i provide, and put the switch on your brain into 'on-position'.

quote:

Science does not show clear evidence of macro evolution.

already addressed above.

Cougar

QUOTE Originally posted by bloody hands:

Yes, AIG and Ken Ham did dismiss it as such, it was relatively small, 2 feet long, but it included a humerus, femur, ankle and toe bones inside.

maybe, but i'm sure that is not where i read this...doesnt matter, cant remember anyway

And why did you leave Microraptor out?

because of complete ignorance, i have no opinion or comment

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

QUOTE Originally posted by bloody hands:

Yes, AIG and Ken Ham did dismiss it as such, it was relatively small, 2 feet long, but it included a humerus, femur, ankle and toe bones inside.

maybe, but i'm sure that is not where i read this...doesnt matter, cant remember anyway

And why did you leave Microraptor out?

because of complete ignorance, i have no opinion or comment

Just fyi the science channel has a very intesting series on microraptor and the other dinosaur/bird transitional fossils. It turns out most raptor species of dinosaur were feathered. Since T. Rex has been recently shown to have evolved from raptors, it probably had some feather too (although most likely due to its large size not many).

If you pick up the latest National Geographic there is a great article that properly explains evolutionary theroy. The letters section should be interesting in the next few issues because the article say that 45% of American adults are young earth creationists.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

See above. Regardless of how you wish to analyze the text, it would still be subjective. There are a finite possibile results derived from the interpretation of the text.

This is not the case with a fact. From a fact, there are a finite amount of things you can conclude.

No, unfortuently not. From a fact there are any number of different conclusions you could make, and often are made, however there are only finite conclusions that would be valid. Those conclusions that are, as you mentioned before, are dictated by the evidence itself.

quote:So, how does me belieivng that having an infinite amount of possible conclusions (given the subjective nature of the bible) refute any "bashing" I can do to Creationism?

My intention was not to refute your "creationism bashing", because I believe that bad science and bad hermenuetics should be called for what it is.

You claimed that there would be no reason to use the bible if we didn't take it in a hyperliteral sense. I wanted to demonstrate that there is some ryhme and reason to understanding it without taking a hyperliteral reading. I also wanted to point out that there is an epistemological process that goes into our understanding of all knowledge, even science when approached with empirical rationality.



BTW i agree that there is a far greater degree of subjectivity in approaching something like the bible, buut I don't believe that it makes it a worthless or pointless pursuit.

Edit: UBB again

[This message has been edited by inquisitor_11 (edited 11-08-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

no. you too make the mistake of seeing evoloution as a heaviside-function and not as a gradual process. the long neck evolved and didn't pop up. otherwise it would be called the 'pop-up-theory' and not the 'evolution theory', wouldn't it?

Cougar

Firstly i do not believe that giraffe's necks simply popped-up, however for this 'proto-giraffe' to have an advatage over the others in its species its neck would need to be the same height as the average tree in its environment, so as it gradually it grows, until its neck has reached that specific height, it would be of no use to it. In fact it would be a great disadvantage as its mutated neck would indicate to the female 'proto-giraffes' its most likely to be an unhealthy specimen.

Secondly, for a the giraffe's heart to get stronger while the neck gradually gets longer and gradually grows valves is still too much of an illogical coincidence.

Thirdly, many evolutionists DO believe in a 'pop-up' theory, with the pretentious name of:

theory of punctuated equilibrium. This theory was never put forward as a consistent model, but rather used as an escape in cases that plainly did not fit the model of gradual evolution.



Lastly, the experiment you describe only produces amino acids(the building blocks of protein) and not protein itself.The simplest protein is composed of 50 amino acids; but there are some proteins that are composed of thousands of amino acids.If one amino acid(each with its own function) is removed the protein then becomes useless molecular heap.



There are 20 amino acids,if we consider that an average-sized protein molecule is composed of 288 amino acids, there are 10^300(10 to the power of 300 or 10 followed 300 zeroes) different combinations of amino acids. Of all of these possible sequences, only "one" forms the desired protein molecule. The other amino-acid chains are either completely useless or else potentially harmful to living things.

Another factor is that all the amino acids have to be left-handed amino acids (right-handed ones are just as common in nature and bond perfectly well with the left-handed amino acids) In the Britannica Science Encyclopaedia(an ardent defender of evolution)indicate that all living creatures are made up of only left-handed, adding that this is tantamount to tossing a coin a million times and always getting heads.

Also, for amino acids to form proteins they have to link with each other using peptide bonds.Research has shown that only 50 % or less of amino acids, combining at random, combine with peptide bond and that the rest combine with different bonds that are not present in proteins. There is and never was a control mechanism to select and leave out right-handed amino acids and make sure that each amino acid makes a peptide bond with the other.



The probability of an average protein composed of 500 right-amino acids in the right sequence are as follows:

(Logarithms have been used to convert the probabilities into powers of 10)

– The probability of being in the right sequence = 1/20^500 =1/10^650

– The probability of being left-handed = 1/2^500 =1/10^150

– The probability of combining using a "peptide bond" = 1/2^499 =1/10^150

TOTAL PROBABILITY = 1/10^950 that is, "1" probability in 10^950 (Ten followed 950 zeroes)

This is only a probability on paper. Practically, such a possibility has "0" chance of realisation. In mathematics, a probability smaller than 1 over 10^50 is statistically considered to have a "0" probability of realisation.



Thats just ONE PROTEIN!

Then there's DNA, a DNA gene that would have to control a protein of 300 amino needs to have around 1000 nucleotides in its chain. There are 4 kinds of nucleotide A,T,G and C.

A 1000 nucleotide gene can exist in 4^1000 forms-using logarithm 4^1000=10^600.

Each protein has its own specific DNA.

So this specific gene has a chance of 1 in 10^600 of occuring via a random process.

NOW, this gene has to be formed at the same specific time and place as the protein!

Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, one of the foremost authorities of evolutionist thought in Turkey, in his book 'Inheritance and Evolution', says this on the subject:

"In fact, the probability of the random formation of a protein and a nucleic acid (DNA-RNA) is inconceivably small. The chances against the emergence of even a particular protein chain are astronomic"

More specifically beyond the history/age of our universe (let alone our planet!)



So hearing this why do so many scientists and other Materialists are so adamant about their beloved (apart from simple arrogance).

Here's Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy discussing the probability of the accidental formation of Cytochrome-C, one of the essential enzymes for life:

"The probability of the formation of a Cytochrome-C sequence is as likely as zero. That is, if life requires a certain sequence, it can be said that this has a probability likely to be realised once in the whole universe. Otherwise, some metaphysical powers beyond our definition should have acted in its formation. To accept the latter is not appropriate to the goals of science. We therefore have to look into the first hypothesis"

There you have an evolutionist, not for the first time, admitting the only reason we should believe in the theory of evolution is simply because the other option(despite being the more probable) is another intelligent being beyond our time ie a Divine Being. This is simply Materialistic dogmatism.



(Another) last point about your experiment, the best known and most respected of experiments that had shown amino acids

could be formed by themselves was the 'Urey-Miller' experiment conducted by Stanley Miller in 1953.

This experiment only produced 3 of the 20 amino acids. And like your experiment it did not prove that proteins could be formed by chance but simply(some)amino acids. During the experiment Miller used cold-trapped to seclude the amino acids as the conditions they were made in would destroy the molecules immediately.

There other cases that refute this experiment but i'm too tired right now

(if only i could spend as much time and effort on my essays as i do here). If you would like me to tell you them I'd be happy to, i should point out that although his experiment is still the most respected of its kind even Miller himself(after staying silent for a long period) admitted that the experiment(specifically the atmosphere he used) was unrealistic.

quote:Originally posted by ZEN OF AZRAEL:

Firstly i do not believe that giraffe's necks simply popped-up, however for this 'proto-giraffe' to have an advatage over the others in its species its neck would need to be the same height as the average tree in its environment, so as it gradually it grows, until its neck has reached that specific height, it would be of no use to it. In fact it would be a great disadvantage as its mutated neck would indicate to the female 'proto-giraffes' its most likely to be an unhealthy specimen.

i can only speculate on the sexual preference of female giraffes... http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

the following link i found through a quick google search:

debate (http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum8/HTML/000026-2.html)

go to message 17 of 70. i think it explains this matter quite well.

quote:

Secondly, for a the giraffe's heart to get stronger while the neck gradually gets longer and gradually grows valves is still too much of an illogical coincidence.

not at all. the ones unable to sustain blood flow to the brain simply die. (evolution is not nice...)

quote:

Thirdly, many evolutionists DO believe in a 'pop-up' theory, with the pretentious name of:

theory of punctuated equilibrium. This theory was never put forward as a consistent model, but rather used as an escape in cases that plainly did not fit the model of gradual evolution.

if it wasn't put forward as a consistent model, where's the problem?

quote:

Lastly, the experiment you describe only produces amino acids(the building blocks of protein) and not protein itself.The simplest protein is composed of 50 amino acids; but there are some proteins that are composed of thousands of amino acids.If one amino acid(each with its own function) is removed the protein then becomes useless molecular heap.

well, to evolve proteins you would first need amino acids. that's the point of the experiment.

quote: There are 20 amino acids,if we consider that an average-sized protein molecule is composed of 288 amino acids, there are 10^300(10 to the power of 300 or 10 followed 300 zeroes) different combinations of amino acids. Of all of these possible sequences, only "one" forms the desired protein molecule. The other amino-acid chains are either completely useless or else potentially harmful to living things.

yes, to living things today! mind you, evolution could have taken an entirely different way and then proteins now deemed harmful might be essential to life!

quote:

Another factor is that all the amino acids have to be left-handed amino acids (right-handed ones are just as common in nature and bond perfectly well with the left-handed amino acids) In the Britannica Science Encyclopaedia(an ardent defender of evolution)indicate that all living creatures are made up of only left-handed, adding that this is tantamount to tossing a coin a million times and always getting heads.

no, the coin is a statistical experiment while amino acids can be their own catalysts.

article (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/07/040709084055.htm)



quote:

Also, for amino acids to form proteins they have to link with each other using peptide bonds.Research has shown that only 50 % or less of amino acids, combining at random, combine with peptide bond and that the rest combine with different bonds that are not present in proteins.

again we're talking about today's proteins.

quote:

There is and never was a control mechanism to select and leave out right-handed amino acids and make sure that each amino acid makes a peptide bond with the other.

again: click the article above. there is a selection process.

quote:

The probability of an average protein composed of 500 right-amino acids in the right sequence are as follows:

(Logarithms have been used to convert the probabilities into powers of 10)

– The probability of being in the right sequence = 1/20^500 =1/10^650

– The probability of being left-handed = 1/2^500 =1/10^150

– The probability of combining using a "peptide bond" = 1/2^499 =1/10^150

TOTAL PROBABILITY = 1/10^950 that is, "1" probability in 10^950 (Ten followed 950 zeroes)

This is only a probability on paper. Practically, such a possibility has "0" chance of realisation. In mathematics, a probability smaller than 1 over 10^50 is statistically considered to have a "0" probability of realisation.



Thats just ONE PROTEIN!

again: you're looking at it the wrong way. it was never intended to be especially these proteins. it just turned out to be them. it could have been others and we might have blue skin, have gills, ten arms... well, anything...

quote:

Then there's DNA, a DNA gene that would have to control a protein of 300 amino needs to have around 1000 nucleotides in its chain. There are 4 kinds of nucleotide A,T,G and C.

A 1000 nucleotide gene can exist in 4^1000 forms-using logarithm 4^1000=10^600.

Each protein has its own specific DNA.

So this specific gene has a chance of 1 in 10^600 of occuring via a random process.

NOW, this gene has to be formed at the same specific time and place as the protein!

again, it is just chance that we are the way we are... that's the whole point. chance, randomness, luck...

quote:

Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, one of the foremost authorities of evolutionist thought in Turkey, in his book 'Inheritance and Evolution', says this on the subject:

"In fact, the probability of the random formation of a protein and a nucleic acid (DNA-RNA) is inconceivably small. The chances against the emergence of even a particular protein chain are astronomic"

More specifically beyond the history/age of our universe (let alone our planet!)



So hearing this why do so many scientists and other Materialists are so adamant about their beloved (apart from simple arrogance).

Here's Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy discussing the probability of the accidental formation of Cytochrome-C, one of the essential enzymes for life:

"The probability of the formation of a Cytochrome-C sequence is as likely as zero. That is, if life requires a certain sequence, it can be said that this has a probability likely to be realised once in the whole universe. Otherwise, some metaphysical powers beyond our definition should have acted in its formation. To accept the latter is not appropriate to the goals of science. We therefore have to look into the first hypothesis"

again he looks at proteins which make up life today. as you stated above there are so many possibilities of combining them. if they were different, we would look different. in the second part he takes the stance of 'irreducibly complex theory'. in the eye of the most educated in medieval times, a modern computer would be 'irreducibly complex'. but not to us anymore. knowledge grows with time. i can accept a 'i don't understand' but i can't accept a 'it is too complex to understand ever'. in addition to that the word 'complex' is very subjective and we're talking science. physics, chemistry, biology, etc. don't 'care' whether you think it's too complex. it still happens. if you don't understand makes no difference.

quote:

There you have an evolutionist, not for the first time, admitting the only reason we should believe in the theory of evolution is simply because the other option(despite being the more probable) is another intelligent being beyond our time ie a Divine Being. This is simply Materialistic dogmatism.

from this part i didn't get which option you see to be more probable. and evolution can show evidence, can make predictions, etc. like any scientific theory while creation states that it must be so. just because. no reason. no evidence.

quote:

(Another) last point about your experiment, the best known and most respected of experiments that had shown amino acids

could be formed by themselves was the 'Urey-Miller' experiment conducted by Stanley Miller in 1953.

This experiment only produced 3 of the 20 amino acids. And like your experiment it did not prove that proteins could be formed by chance but simply(some)amino acids. During the experiment Miller used cold-trapped to seclude the amino acids as the conditions they were made in would destroy the molecules immediately.

the experiment is 50 years old and was at that time to the best of their knowledge. (like astronomers long time ago 'knowing' that the sun revolves around the earth.)

new experiment (http://astrobiology.philipholtom.co.uk/ureymiller.htm)

quote:

There other cases that refute this experiment but i'm too tired right now

(if only i could spend as much time and effort on my essays as i do here). If you would like me to tell you them I'd be happy to, i should point out that although his experiment is still the most respected of its kind even Miller himself(after staying silent for a long period) admitted that the experiment(specifically the atmosphere he used) was unrealistic.



now that's what i call a debate. i would much appreciate it, if you could provide further information.

Cougar

EDIT: fixed the 'article' link. (bad copy paste was the source of error...)

the rest i'll answer tomorrow, it's getting late.

[This message has been edited by Cougar (edited 11-09-2004).]

Here the points made against the Miller experiment(they include the ones i already mentioned):

*Miller isolated the amino acids from the environment as soon as they were formed, by using a mechanism called a "cold trap". Had he not done so, the conditions of the environment in which the amino acids formed would immediately have destroyed the molecules.

It is quite meaningless to suppose that some conscious mechanism of this sort was integral to earth's primordial conditions, which involved ultraviolet radiation, thunderbolts, various chemicals, and a high percentage of free oxygen. Without such a mechanism, any amino acid that did manage to form would immediately have been destroyed.



*The primordial atmospheric environment that Miller attempted to simulate in his experiment was not realistic. Nitrogen and carbon dioxide would have been constituents of the primordial atmosphere, but Miller disregarded this and used methane and ammonia instead.

Why? Why were evolutionists insistent on the point that the primitive atmosphere contained high amounts of methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), and water vapour (H2O)? The answer is simple: without ammonia, it is impossible to synthesise an amino acid. Kevin McKean talks about this in an article published in Discover magazine:

Miller and Urey imitated the ancient atmosphere of earth with a mixture of methane and ammonia. According to them, the earth was a true homogeneous mixture of metal, rock and ice. However in the latest studies, it is understood that the earth was very hot at those times and that it was composed of melted nickel and iron. Therefore, the chemical atmosphere of that time should have been formed mostly of nitrogen (N2), carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapour (H2O). However these are not as appropriate as methane and ammonia for the production of organic molecules.14

After a long period of silence, Miller himself also confessed that the atmospheric environment he used in his experiment was not realistic.

*Another important point invalidating Miller's experiment is that there was enough oxygen to destroy all the amino acids in the atmosphere at the time when evolutionists thought that amino acids formed. This oxygen concentration would definitely have hindered the formation of amino acids. This situation completely negates Miller's experiment, in which he totally neglected oxygen. If he had used oxygen in the experiment, methane would have decomposed into carbon dioxide and water, and ammonia would have decomposed into nitrogen and water.

On the other hand, since no ozone layer yet existed, no organic molecule could possibly have lived on earth because it was entirely unprotected against intense ultraviolet rays.



*In addition to a few amino acids essential for life, Miller's experiment also produced many organic acids with characteristics that are quite detrimental to the structures and functions of living things. If he had not isolated the amino acids and had left them in the same environment with these chemicals, their destruction or transformation into different compounds through chemical reactions would have been unavoidable. Moreover, a large number of right-handed amino acids also formed. The existence of these amino acids alone refuted the theory, even within its own reasoning, because right-handed amino acids are unable to function in the composition of living organisms and render proteins useless when they are involved in their composition.

To conclude, the circumstances in which amino acids formed in Miller's experiment were not suitable for life forms to come into being. The medium in which they formed was an acidic mixture that destroyed and oxidised any useful molecules that might have been obtained

(NB.When click on the link you provide i keep getting an error).when go to website of these UCL Astrobiology students i can't find the results to their experiments.

Reading their about their experiment they have considered only one of the points against the experiment,the one referring to the atmosphere. All the other faults are ignored.

To my knowledge the 50 year old Urey-Miller experiment and the new version are still considered as the best evidence of amino acids forming by chance.

Regarding what you said about the proteins nowadays being different, can you provide more information on this as i can't find any scientific theories regarding what sort of proteins and life that did first evolve.

The 'debate' link doesnt explain how it was possible for giraffes to develope valves to stop them from dying from extremely high blood pressure.Valves unlike camouflage or stronger legs can only become advantageous at a certain stage, and not gradually.

NB.I am very interested in the 'article' link but when clicking on it it sends me back to 'giraffe debate' site.

So fix it! I'm hungry for knowledge..

Another point is how did these simple-protein based creatures develope into modern-protein based creatures. Where is the evidence for these simple-protein based creatures. Make them up in our mind is the same as christian blind faith.

About your comment on what the evolutionist said about DNA/RNA,saying thats its just chance that the way we are we are is same as saying thats 'just the way things are and it beats me why they are like that'. Evolution is popular among scientists because it gives them and us a reason why we are the way we are.

-Unless proven otherwise,we will have to assume that DNA is the only molecular-structure that is able to pass genetic information.



Also you said something about not caring if i think something is too complex. I dont remember if i did say that something was simply too complex, but if i did then apologies as your right it is too subjective.

But as there are things that seemed irreducably complex, eg the PC to victorians or whoever, point is there was an intelligent being behind the computer who could never(unless given a time longer than the existence of the universe) produce something so 'complex' through simply trial and error. Humans had the key ingredient of imagination and lateral thinking-not simple forward,short term logic of nature. As the guy said in the giraffe debate evolution simply has no foresight.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Nice try. I said EVIDENCE. Nothing else.

You're obviously grasping at straws.

Lol why would I have to grasp at straws? You are the one who is having to prove something that you simply can not.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You said that there should be thousands of these fossils, and I was merely explaining how that is not the cause with the vast majority of dinosours. Does that mean they didn't exist, just because their fossils are scarce? No.

I never said thousands of one creature. But in stark contrast to this, there is not one fossil of any intermediary creature.

How the hell do we find multiple fossils of numerous dinosaurs but no fossil of any of the intermediary (of which there were surely millions?) creatures existing in any point of time?

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

1. Not everything is possible according to Creationists since they refuse to acknowledge the possibility of evolution.

They allow for variations within species. But yes, they do find it hard to accept a species metamorphosing into whole new species. It would require something (new DNA material/traits) from nothing. It would require input from a certain source.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

2. To answer your question, no. So? The point was that if anyone is being an "evangelical nutter" it is those who refuse to acknowledge the possibility of it being an intermediate species, not those who acknowledge the possibility that it can be.

So now it's merely a "possibility"? I'm not going to argue possibilities with you.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

And?

By definition, a bird is a specific species.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Whether you classify it as "bird" or "reptile" is irrelevant.

That is one of the most idiotic things I have heard all week.

It is also feeble. If the subject is so "irrelevant" why on earth do evolutionists approach it with such pathological zeal in the name of evolution and in the attempt of bringing down Creationist theory??



[This message has been edited by The Crusader (edited 11-09-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

and why can't this occur naturally?

I find this question coming from such a 'savvy evolutionist' like yourself staggering.

The genes and chromosomes, which determine inheritance, are in the DNA within each cell, and each species has its own unique DNA material. Potential variations based on the DNA material are already there, but the DNA cannot generate new structures.

Its called Mendelian laws of heredity.

You cannot select what is not there. If the trait is not already in the genes it cannot be selected for use or adaptation. Selecting which trait will be used (which is natural selection) is not evolution, for the trait was already at hand.

Have you not heard of the DNA code barrier? Genetic scientists tell us that all variation occurs in living things only within each type; and never from one type to another. This is impossible.

Genuine evolution requires new genes into the gene-pool of a species. A re-assortment of what is already there is not evolution.

To better make my point I'll use the famous eye analogy.

Consider the eye 'with all its inimitable contrivances,' as Darwin called them, which can admit different amounts of light, focus at different distances, and correct spherical and chromatic aberration. Consider the retina, consisting of 150 million correctly made and positioned specialized cells. These are the rods [to view black and white] and the cones [to view color]. Consider the nature of light-sensitive retinal. Combined with a protein (opsin), retinal becomes a chemical switch. Triggered by light, this switch can generate a nerve impulse. . Each switch-containing rod and cone is correctly wired to the brain so that the electrical storm (an estimated 1000 million impulses per second) is continuously monitored and translated, by a step which is a total mystery, into a mental picture. - Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution

Close study has found many different types of eye in the animal kingdom. How could even one eye make itself, much less hundreds or thousands?

Darwin famously said just thinking about the eye and how it could possibly have been produced by natural selection, was enough to make him ill.

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. — Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

Even your own fabled cheerleader recognizes the absurdity of natural selection.

Fight numerical insanity and read this site;

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/08dna04.htm

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

natural selection is just another term for survival of the fittest. how do these two contradict?

Here you show your ignorance of blindly accepting terms without looking into the real connotations.

Natural Selection is probably the most oxymoronic term ever to have graced the earth.

Random Variation would be far more apt to describe the actual process. It is only composed of simple variations, or gene reshuffling, within an existing species.

"Selection" requires a thinking mind, and evolutionists tell us no thinking mind is involved in these random changes within species. Mindless activity results in variations; it is only purposive activity by an intelligent agent that selects.

Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but secretly worshipped. - Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms

As for survival of the fittest it presents some form of purpose, albeit from a source of circular reasoning. (Why does the fittest survive? Because its the fittest.)

Yet the term actually works against evolution.

Survival of the fittest illustrates that organisms damaged by mutations or otherwise tend to be culled out. Evolutionists call that culling out process "survival of the fittest." But all that actually occurred was that misfits produced by mutations or accidents are eliminated, thus returning the species closer to its pure pattern.

"Survival of the fittest" accomplishes the opposite of evolution! The hardships of life cull out the weakened forms of each species, and thus keep each species very stable. There is nothing in this process that has anything to do with evolution, which is evolving from one species to another.

Evolution would be far more convincing had it incorporated an intelligent Deity into its framework...

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine.

In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenesis, not nowadays generally used). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, is also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to the origin of those higher taxa.

Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species.

Was this not the general premise of my previous statements?

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

this theory is just another term for 'i don't understand what happened and i don't want to know theory'.

And you are just another moron with the all too familiar impediment of answers without evidence, theories without reason, and arguments without substance.

How you have the audacity to bash creationism with the rationale it requires through your sporadic insanities is beyond me...

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

while the trait is evolving the species is not the end-species but transient! you're moving in circles and you don't even know...

I'm what? I can see what you write, but I just find it ludicrous, that's all.

I have already stated how in-species variation is possible (to an extent.)

You on the other hand have small understanding of the meanings of words. These traits may adapt but the traits had to be there to start with. Adapting traits is not evolution, certainly in the sense of species evolving into new species.

Perhaps you could respond to the following;

Examples of acquired traits which were never passed on to offspring:

(1) Hebrews circumcised their boys for thousands of years, but never have boys been born automatically circumcised as a result.

(2) Chinese women bound the feet of their infant girls for several thousand years, yet the feet of Chinese women today are normal in size.

(3) the Flathead Indians of Northwest United States bound the heads of their children to give them unusual shapes. After hundreds of years of this practice, their babies continued to be born with normal-shaped heads.

How could the existence of a distinct species be justified by a theory [evolution] that proclaimed ceaseless change as the most fundamental fact of nature? - Stephen Gould, in Natural History

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

it does not miraculously implant itself into the fish but gradually develops! the lung actually would be the actual breathing apparatus in the end so the danger would be drying out or being eaten.

Of course it miraculously implanted itself, otherwise it would be the work of purpose, design, intent. Or are you implying natural selection retains all the qualities of a Creator?

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

again: either it survives or not. yes, it might die of exhaustion or by falling prey to a predator. tough shit. that's the way it goes.

What I am saying here Mr simpleton, is that the likelihood of a sufficient number surviving for the species to not fall into extinction, is slim to say the veryleast.

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

this only shows your lack of reasonable arguments.

The irony exuberating from your lying sperm bank of a mouth is truly breathtaking...

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

no, they 'found' means they changed their habits and had access to other sources of food. we're not talking miracles.

That they changed their 'habits' is credible. That they invent themselves new DNA codes to stimulate features that were never there is however, absurd.

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

put the switch on your brain into 'on-position'.

Maybe you wouldn't come across as such a jellyfish-sucking mental midget if you weren't intellectually outclassed by dead sheep.

Do yourself and everyone else a favour: disconnect your computer from the Internet.

quote:Originally posted by The Crusader:

Lol why would I have to grasp at straws? You are the one who is having to prove something that you simply can not.

There you go again. I never said I could prove it, nor did I ever say it was "conclusive evidence". You're simply putting words in my mouth.

quote:I never said thousands of one creature. But in stark contrast to this, there is not one fossil of any intermediary creature.

Pathetic circular logic. You're saying that Archaeopteryx is not an intermediate species, which is what we're debating!

quote:

How the hell do we find multiple fossils of numerous dinosaurs but no fossil of any of the intermediary (of which there were surely millions?) creatures existing in any point of time?



There ARE fossils of intermediate species.

quote:They allow for variations within species. But yes, they do find it hard to accept a species metamorphosing into whole new species. It would require something (new DNA material/traits) from nothing. It would require input from a certain source.

It most certainly would not require "something from nothing". In any case, I was correct in what I was stating, right?

quote:So now it's merely a "possibility"? I'm not going to argue possibilities with you.

It was ALWAYS a possibility. Who the fuck even uttered the word "fact"?

quote:By definition, a bird is a specific species.

No. "BIRD" is a CLASS (otherwise known as "Aves"). It is NOT a species.

Should I bash my skull with a brick in order to make this debate fair? Obviously you're at a mental disadvantage.

quote:That is one of the most idiotic things I have heard all week.

It is also feeble. If the subject is so "irrelevant" why on earth do evolutionists approach it with such pathological zeal in the name of evolution and in the attempt of bringing down Creationist theory??

It's irrelevant in that it being cataloged as "Bird" or "Reptile" does not refute it being an intermediate species! Therefore, your reply... "That's because it is a fucking B I R D." means jack-shit. It being cataloged as a bird does not refute that it DOES have reptilian qualities and "in-between" qualities, which are what show that it is an intermediate species.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 11-10-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by The Crusader:



Examples of acquired traits which were never passed on to offspring:

(1) Hebrews circumcised their boys for thousands of years, but never have boys been born automatically circumcised as a result.

(2) Chinese women bound the feet of their infant girls for several thousand years, yet the feet of Chinese women today are normal in size.

(3) the Flathead Indians of Northwest United States bound the heads of their children to give them unusual shapes. After hundreds of years of this practice, their babies continued to be born with normal-shaped heads.



Because knives and bandages don't alter DNA. Are you trying to make a point or do you just have no idea what you are talking about?

quote:Originally posted by The Crusader:

Originally posted by Cougar:

it's not only the number and kind of genes but also the number of chromosomes. it's also important, which genes are active and which aren't.

(The following is cited fact)

For Macro-evolution to exist it would need to break the DNA code barrier. Mixing the available genetic code will produce variations in the trait (micro evolution) but will not change into a completely different feature.

People have several different colours of hair, eyes, and skin, but without a mutation, these traits will remain within its boundaries. There are mutations that can occur and mutations almost always cause diseases or defects. Even under mutation, skin will still be skin and eyes will still be eyes. Because of the code barrier, there are a limited number of variations in eye colour. Different genes can create distinct variations but there is a limit. There can be rapid changes but inevitably, there is a return to the norm.

A species cannot change species without new information being added to the DNA structure. And this cannot naturally occur.

So, Crusader, what you are saying is mutations probably do not ADD information, but SUBTRACT unneeded info, right?

Yes that is what he is saying. But it's not a matter of more or less information, just different information. Humans do not have the most information in their genes than any other living creature, the genes just spell different instructions, despite us being the pinnacle of evolution to date. The recent underwelming count of the human genome proves this.

quote:Originally posted by bloody hands:

Yes that is what he is saying. But it's not a matter of more or less information, just different information. Humans do not have the most information in their genes than any other living creature, the genes just spell different instructions, despite us being the pinnacle of evolution to date. The recent underwelming count of the human genome proves this.

if your statement of "despite us being the pinnacle of evolution to date." were true, wouldnt it make sense that we would have the most information in our genes than any other living creature(to date), which you said we do not.

Creationists, keep in mind that humans are still a ways from knowing everything there is to know about genetics and heredity. Unicellular bacteria have been shown to acquire new dna just by touching each other, and some recent research has shown inexplicably that an animals diet can be a contributing factor to what genes it passes along. The point we need to keep in mind is there is overwelming evidence that evolution has occured, even though the mechanics of it MAY still be not completely determined ( although many creationists statistical claims have been disproven, and and i still do not see much of a problem with the current explanation for evolutionary mechanics )

For example, when an animal posseses a "throwback" feature, it is always in line with evolutionary theory. For example, why was a sperm whale born with a leg instead of a wing? And how can chickens be genetically coaxed into growing teeth and significant scaling, but not fur? These sorts of events happen 100% within the known evolutionary history.

Another example is the intact fossil record. A dolphin has NEVER been found in the same rock layer as an icthyasaur, or a wolf in the same layer as a raptor.

Despite claims to the contrary, there are more than enough transitional fossils already:

The well known horse series of fossils.

Brown bear to Polar bear evolution.

Tree-dwelling Raptor to bird. (any creationist rebuttal to this example must address the feathered, four-winged, flying microraptor)

Transitional forms in our own evolution.

The transition of the reptilian ear to the mammalian ear.

My point is you do not even have to know how evolution happened to know that it did happen. Not to mention the fact that any alternative theory has far, far more holes in it (i.e. the "water canopy model for the flood, lol, they just pull shit out the ass) than evolution. I mean really, you can poke holes in all the princibles of science to date, such as the laws of relativity, but they so far have been shown to be pretty accurate. Remember there is a reason that practically all ACREDITED, REPUTABLE scientists believe in evolution. Other than being brainwashed into religion from a very young age i can not see a good reason why anyone would not believe in evolution!

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

if your statement of "despite us being the pinnacle of evolution to date." were true, wouldnt it make sense that we would have the most information in our genes than any other living creature(to date), which you said we do not.

But being the pinnacle has nothing to do with more or less (quantity) of information, just the information required to to give us the tools to master our environment! Domestic carrots have more information in their genes than we do (really, they beat us like 40,000 to 25,000 i believe), but it doesn't happen to equip them to master the world, just fill their ecologicle niche.

QUOTE Originally posted by bloody hands:

And how can chickens be genetically coaxed into growing teeth and significant scaling, but not fur?

is this evidence of macro evolution? or genitic manipulation? maybe they just havent found the "fur" gene. lol

These sorts of events happen 100% within the known evolutionary history.

There have been scaley chickens with teeth in "evolutionary" history?

Another example is the intact fossil record. A dolphin has NEVER been found in the same rock layer as an icthyasaur, or a wolf in the same layer as a raptor.

didnt someone in this thread (arguing against creation), say something to the effect that transitionals just havent been found yet.

As far as wolf/raptor, did they live in the same type of climate and elevation (if that is the right term).

Despite claims to the contrary, there are more than enough transitional fossils already:

The well known horse series of fossils.

Brown bear to Polar bear evolution.

yep...horse to horse, bear to bear...i see this evolution now, boy was i blind

Tree-dwelling Raptor to bird. (any creationist rebuttal to this example must address the feathered, four-winged, flying microraptor)

isnt that what you guys were arguing... whether archaeopteryx was transitional, whether it was a fulfledged bird or a raptor, or somewhere inbetween?

(i.e. the "water canopy model for the flood, lol, they just pull shit out the ass)

actually, i was just reading about a theory about the global flood of Noah's day that refutes water canopy, but answers(peer reveiwed) more questions about the geologic structure than any other current theory and also explains what was thought of as the water canopy... i havent finished the article, and plan on reading references of the reviews)

Remember there is a reason that practically all ACREDITED, REPUTABLE scientists believe in evolution.

more than one, anyway... the fact that they need funding, could sway their belief, or that they would have to realize that they are answerable to God, oh wait, maybe they were brainwashed to believe in billions of years from a young age http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)



Other than being brainwashed into religion from a very young age i can not see a good reason why anyone would not believe in evolution!

let me just say... pigs tooth, part of an ape's skull, Lucy the chimp.

Let me ask, which one(s) were deliberate hoax's... and peer reviewed?

quote:Originally posted by The Crusader:

I find this question coming from such a 'savvy evolutionist' like yourself staggering.

you simply try to make fun of me instead of answering a direct question. it was a rhethoric question which you failed to answer.

speciation (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html)



quote:

The genes and chromosomes, which determine inheritance, are in the DNA within each cell, and each species has its own unique DNA material. Potential variations based on the DNA material are already there, but the DNA cannot generate new structures.

Its called Mendelian laws of heredity.

chromosomes are not in genes but the other way round... please read up on basic genetics and biology before posting.

quote:

You cannot select what is not there. If the trait is not already in the genes it cannot be selected for use or adaptation. Selecting which trait will be used (which is natural selection) is not evolution, for the trait was already at hand.

Have you not heard of the DNA code barrier? Genetic scientists tell us that all variation occurs in living things only within each type; and never from one type to another. This is impossible.

Genuine evolution requires new genes into the gene-pool of a species. A re-assortment of what is already there is not evolution.

this is also addressed in the link above. speciation occurs.

quote:

To better make my point I'll use the famous eye analogy.

Consider the eye 'with all its inimitable contrivances,' as Darwin called them, which can admit different amounts of light, focus at different distances, and correct spherical and chromatic aberration. Consider the retina, consisting of 150 million correctly made and positioned specialized cells. These are the rods [to view black and white] and the cones [to view color]. Consider the nature of light-sensitive retinal. Combined with a protein (opsin), retinal becomes a chemical switch. Triggered by light, this switch can generate a nerve impulse. . Each switch-containing rod and cone is correctly wired to the brain so that the electrical storm (an estimated 1000 million impulses per second) is continuously monitored and translated, by a step which is a total mystery, into a mental picture. - Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution

if the eye was 'designed/created' and did not evolve, why is the peak of sensitivity in color seeing not evenly distributed among red, blue, and green? did god have a preference for a special color?

peak (http://www.cox-internet.com/ast305/color.html)

why is it not red? red light has photons with the lowest energy of the three colors, so it would be only logical to assume that in order to see properly, the overall sensitivity should be in the red part of the spectrum.

i'll tell you why it is green and not another color: the sun's peak of emission is at the same wavelength as the maximum absorption of the eye. strange coincidence?

sun (http://acept.la.asu.edu/PiN/rdg/color/source.shtml)

quote:

Close study has found many different types of eye in the animal kingdom. How could even one eye make itself, much less hundreds or thousands?

like any complex multicellular organism evolved: specialization of individual cells. of course at the beginning (roughly 3 to 4 billion years ago) these organisms were fairly simple. with time, these cells became more and more specialized but, as a trade off, can't survive on their own.

specialization of cells is shown in embrionic stem cells turning into other cells like muscle-, nerve-, or skin-cells.

quote:

Darwin famously said just thinking about the eye and how it could possibly have been produced by natural selection, was enough to make him ill.

just because something is very impressive or complex doesn't mean it can't be explained in a scientific theory. his saying so would also rather show his respect for the power of the evolutionary process.

quote:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. — Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

Even your own fabled cheerleader recognizes the absurdity of natural selection.

my fabled cheerleader? http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif)

quote:

Fight numerical insanity and read this site; http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/08dna04.htm



i did read it. the conclusion is, that this once again is a statement of 'too complex to understand'.

quote:

Here you show your ignorance of blindly accepting terms without looking into the real connotations.

Natural Selection is probably the most oxymoronic term ever to have graced the earth.

Random Variation would be far more apt to describe the actual process. It is only composed of simple variations, or gene reshuffling, within an existing species.

"Selection" requires a thinking mind, and evolutionists tell us no thinking mind is involved in these random changes within species. Mindless activity results in variations; it is only purposive activity by an intelligent agent that selects.

'natural selection' is a term which is established and does NOT infer a cognitive process. it's like the term 'quantum well'. you can't lower a bucket into a quantum well and get water out of it. simply picking on single words is not the right way. an 'electric field' has nothing to do with a 'corn field'. get the picture?

selection (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=selection)

quote:

Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but secretly worshipped. - Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms

i don't 'worship' chance. i don't even like it because it's a bitch to 'predict'. but in science you're not asked: 'do you like the theory?' but more: 'does the theory fit the facts?' liking a theory or not has no value at all. it's accepted when it fits the facts.

quote:

As for survival of the fittest it presents some form of purpose, albeit from a source of circular reasoning. (Why does the fittest survive? Because its the fittest.)

no, there's no 'purpose' behind it. if an organism is fit enough, it survives. if it isn't, it dies. no organism is purpose 'built'. the requirements of it's surroundings direct the way the organism changes.

quote:

Yet the term actually works against evolution.

Survival of the fittest illustrates that organisms damaged by mutations or otherwise tend to be culled out. Evolutionists call that culling out process "survival of the fittest." But all that actually occurred was that misfits produced by mutations or accidents are eliminated, thus returning the species closer to its pure pattern.

"Survival of the fittest" accomplishes the opposite of evolution! The hardships of life cull out the weakened forms of each species, and thus keep each species very stable. There is nothing in this process that has anything to do with evolution, which is evolving from one species to another.

99% (http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/9h.html) of all species ever have died out.

sorting out the weak makes the population stronger thus being better able to survive. the individual doesn't count.

also there is no 'goal' to be achieved. if it fits, it survives.

quote:

Evolution would be far more convincing had it incorporated an intelligent Deity into its framework...

on the contrary. it is very convincing as it is. but if one doesn't accept FACTS, one can't understand.

quote:

In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenesis, not nowadays generally used). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, is also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to the origin of those higher taxa.

Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species.

Was this not the general premise of my previous statements?

your quote says the same as my quote ecxept that yours uses more words to describe the same thing.

quote:

And you are just another moron with the all too familiar impediment of answers without evidence, theories without reason, and arguments without substance.

How you have the audacity to bash creationism with the rationale it requires through your sporadic insanities is beyond me...

contrary to creationism, evolution theory can provide FACTS. (transitional fossils, proof for speciation etc.)

quote:

I'm what? I can see what you write, but I just find it ludicrous, that's all.

I have already stated how in-species variation is possible (to an extent.)

You on the other hand have small understanding of the meanings of words. These traits may adapt but the traits had to be there to start with. Adapting traits is not evolution, certainly in the sense of species evolving into new species.

the link above shows evidence of speciation happening.

quote:

Perhaps you could respond to the following;

Examples of acquired traits which were never passed on to offspring:

(1) Hebrews circumcised their boys for thousands of years, but never have boys been born automatically circumcised as a result.

(2) Chinese women bound the feet of their infant girls for several thousand years, yet the feet of Chinese women today are normal in size.

(3) the Flathead Indians of Northwest United States bound the heads of their children to give them unusual shapes. After hundreds of years of this practice, their babies continued to be born with normal-shaped heads.

all of your three questions are examples of lamarckism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism), which doesn't work.

quote:

How could the existence of a distinct species be justified by a theory [evolution] that proclaimed ceaseless change as the most fundamental fact of nature? - Stephen Gould, in Natural History

what we see today is only a momentary picture. organisms around us still are subject to natural selection and if a human were to live long enough (say... 500'000 years) he/she would see organisms evolved out of today's fauna and flora.

quote:

Of course it miraculously implanted itself, otherwise it would be the work of purpose, design, intent. Or are you implying natural selection retains all the qualities of a Creator?

no miracles. the lung is an improvement in life so fish with a lung have better chances of surviving.

quote:

What I am saying here Mr simpleton, is that the likelihood of a sufficient number surviving for the species to not fall into extinction, is slim to say the veryleast.

it isn't easy, true. that's why so many species up to date have gone extinct. this special example shows that the concept worked.

quote:

The irony exuberating from your lying sperm bank of a mouth is truly breathtaking...

Originally posted by Cougar:

no, they 'found' means they changed their habits and had access to other sources of food. we're not talking miracles.

That they changed their 'habits' is credible. That they invent themselves new DNA codes to stimulate features that were never there is however, absurd.

no organism 'invents' its DNA. it's called random mutation.

quote:

Originally posted by Cougar:

put the switch on your brain into 'on-position'.

Maybe you wouldn't come across as such a jellyfish-sucking mental midget if you weren't intellectually outclassed by dead sheep.

Do yourself and everyone else a favour: disconnect your computer from the Internet.

your use of insults has a negative impact on your credibility.

Cougar

quote:Originally posted by ZEN OF AZRAEL:

Here the points made against the Miller experiment(they include the ones i already mentioned):

*Miller isolated the amino acids from the environment as soon as they were formed, by using a mechanism called a "cold trap".

...

abbriviated for the sake of keeping it short.

...

The medium in which they formed was an acidic mixture that destroyed and oxidised any useful molecules that might have been obtained

i agree, miller's experiment was conducted in a way which contradicts current theory of evolution: he himself acted as god/creator/intelligent designer. also he himself admits that he used the wrong composition of gases, which speaks rather for him. (admitting a mistake)

in conclusion: it shows only very little if anything and we should conduct more research.

quote:

(NB.When click on the link you provide i keep getting an error).

the one about the experiment? when editing the post it looks normal to me. but: http://astrobiology.philipholtom.co.uk/ureymiller.htm

quote:

when go to website of these UCL Astrobiology students i can't find the results to their experiments.

Reading their about their experiment they have considered only one of the points against the experiment,the one referring to the atmosphere. All the other faults are ignored.

if you look at the homepage, you can see that the page is still under construction and that the guy maintaining the site is working on his PhD. maybe we should be a little patient...

quote:

To my knowledge the 50 year old Urey-Miller experiment and the new version are still considered as the best evidence of amino acids forming by chance.

maybe the best STILL. but since it doesn't answer all questions, research should be carried on.

quote:

Regarding what you said about the proteins nowadays being different, can you provide more information on this as i can't find any scientific theories regarding what sort of proteins and life that did first evolve.

i didn't mean they were once different but that they could have evolved in a different way, because, as you pointed out, there are numerous possibilities of combining the individual amino acids. if that were the case, life might look different or not be possible at all. (in the latter case, this debate wouldn't occur. well, atleast not here...)

quote:

The 'debate' link doesnt explain how it was possible for giraffes to develope valves to stop them from dying from extremely high blood pressure.Valves unlike camouflage or stronger legs can only become advantageous at a certain stage, and not gradually.

as we both agree, that the long neck didn't just pop up, it must have evolved. as you point out that, as long as there is no system of valves, the giraffe a) can't drink, or b) dies trying. but lets look at it in a different way: we have a short-necked ancestor of today's giraffes. now, if this certain individual had a neck just an inch longer, it would cause no need for a special valve system. but if the neck grew longer and longer, it would be necessary. the first 'modifications' wouldn't need a highly sophisticated system, since the head wouldn't be much higher. again natural selection kicks in: if the (still primitive) valves can do the job, the individual can pass on both 'long-neck-gene' and 'stronger-valve-gene'. if the valves don't do their job, both genes are removed from the gene pool, because the creature couldn't survive long enough.

quote:

NB.I am very interested in the 'article' link but when clicking on it it sends me back to 'giraffe debate' site.

So fix it! I'm hungry for knowledge..

it should work now.

quote:

Another point is how did these simple-protein based creatures develope into modern-protein based creatures. Where is the evidence for these simple-protein based creatures. Make them up in our mind is the same as christian blind faith.

another article (http://www.twow.net/ObjText/OtkCbGeRRS01A.htm) i found. it has some good theories about the first 'creatures'. (if one wants to call them alive is another question.)

quote:

About your comment on what the evolutionist said about DNA/RNA,saying thats its just chance that the way we are we are is same as saying thats 'just the way things are and it beats me why they are like that'. Evolution is popular among scientists because it gives them and us a reason why we are the way we are.

-Unless proven otherwise,we will have to assume that DNA is the only molecular-structure that is able to pass genetic information.

to the first part about chance: it doesn't beat me. chance and randomness are two of the key factors of evolution. now i mention the coin: it doesn't really beat you why it lands on one side instead of the other. actually, you expect not to know in advance. you just know that out of 1'000 times it should be about 500 times for each side. (plus variation to either side)

you can not predict randomness. otherwise it wouldn't be random but only pseudorandom.

quote:

Also you said something about not caring if i think something is too complex. I dont remember if i did say that something was simply too complex, but if i did then apologies as your right it is too subjective.

i should have used 'one' instead of 'you'. i didn't mean you in person but the general 'you'. my apologies.

quote:

But as there are things that seemed irreducably complex, eg the PC to victorians or whoever, point is there was an intelligent being behind the computer who could never(unless given a time longer than the existence of the universe) produce something so 'complex' through simply trial and error. Humans had the key ingredient of imagination and lateral thinking-not simple forward,short term logic of nature. As the guy said in the giraffe debate evolution simply has no foresight.

ok, the computer was a bad example. replace it with 'the energy generating mechanism of the sun', or 'thunder and lightning' longer ago.

about not being able to produce something so complex through siply trial and error: you mean a computer 'evolving' out of sand, plastic, various metals, etc. by chance? that's not the same thing as an organism because organisms procreate. our modern computers can't do that. would you accept a theory about electric 'cells' flocking together, specializing more and more and gradually developing into a machine organism? (life on the basis of silicon rather than carbon? a sentient 'machine'?)

it has been shown however, that hardware in a FPGA (field programmable gate array) CAN evolve to fit 'surviving criteria'. it was an experiment carried out by a Adrian Thompson, university of sussex.

experiment (http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/adrianth/ascot/paper/paper.html)

that's the area i would like to work on someday.

Cougar

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Pathetic circular logic. You're saying that Archaeopteryx is not an intermediate species, which is what we're debating!

There is nothing circular about it you moron. I was responding directly to a post,...your post.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

There ARE fossils of intermediate species.

Like...?

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

It most certainly would not require "something from nothing".

Then just where would the new information come from???

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

It was ALWAYS a possibility. Who the fuck even uttered the word "fact"?

The way the connotations of the Archaeopteryx were being thrown around this thread was to be interpreted as fact, something beyond mere "possibility" and more into the realm of irrevocable damage to creationist theory;

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

Over and over and over again i have asked... and none of you creationists answered...

xtreem5150ahm (or any other 'creationist')

Explain the archaeopteryx!

Why don't you guys ever answer? is it so difficult? is it under your niveau?



quote:Originally posted by The Crusader:

By definition, a bird is a specific species.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

No. "BIRD" is a CLASS (otherwise known as "Aves"). It is NOT a species.

A bird is a specific species! Of which there are thousands. But all birds are classified as birds within the animal kingdom which includes – mammals, Amphibians, reptiles, fish and insects. Surprised?

It is embarrassing that I have to state this in order to deal with your fastidious nature.

Stupidly stating its Genus as if this somehow illuminates yourself with an air of shrewd knowing is so far withdrawn from the original statement and the original topic that you risk looking a tad foolish and perhaps retarded.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Should I bash my skull with a brick in order to make this debate fair? Obviously you're at a mental disadvantage.

Sure, but you'll still have to come back and submit the same dribble as before, that is fervently asserting and defending the possibility of evolution...as if anybody cared about such futile ad nauseam...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

It's irrelevant in that it being cataloged as "Bird" or "Reptile" does not refute it being an intermediate species!

Have you contemplated why it is catalogued as a bird?

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

It being cataloged as a bird does not refute that it DOES have reptilian qualities and "in-between" qualities, which are what show that it is an intermediate species.

Name the "qualities".

And please start to READ and inform yourself lest I lose a few brain cells conversing with such ignorance;

http://answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i4/birds.asp

Feathers are unique to birds, and no known structure intermediate between scales and feathers has been identified - Dr Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds, University of North Carolina

Archaeopteryx is a "mosaic" of useful and functioning structures found also in other creatures, not a "transition" between them. A true transitional structure would be, say, a "sceather"— that is, a half-scale, half-feather—or a "ling"—half-leg, half-wing—or, perhaps a half-evolved heart or liver or eye. Such transitional structures, however, would not survive in any struggle for existence.

The skeletons had pneumatized vertebrae and pelvis. This indicates the presence of both a cervical and abdominal air sac, i.e. at least two of the five sacs present in modern birds. This in turn indicates that the unique avian lung design was already present in what most evolutionists claim is the earliest bird. (Avian lungs are very complex and could not have evolved from theropod dinosaur lungs.)

Analysis of the skull with computer tomography (CT) scanning shows that Archaeopteryx had a brain like a modern bird's, three times the size of that of a dinosaur of equivalent size (although smaller than that of living birds). Archaeopteryx even had large optic lobes to process the visual input needed for flying. Furthermore, even the inner ear had a cochlea length and semicircular canal proportions were in the range of a modern flying bird's. This implies that Archaeopteryx could hear in a similar way, and also had the sense of balance required for coordinating flight.

quote:Originally posted by The Crusader:



A bird is a specific species! Of which there are thousands. But all birds are classified as birds within the animal kingdom which includes – mammals, Amphibians, reptiles, fish and insects. Surprised?



So "bird" is not a specific species, it can decribe many diferent animals. Species refers to one kind of animal. You are arguing because of grammer mistakes.

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

speciation

That site is completely erroneous. From what I can see there are major problems stated in each of those 'test' cases that actively oppose "survival of the fittest";

(Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original stock.)

(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)

Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.

(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)

These new species barely deserve commenting on. Dobshansky's "speciation" were still Drosophila, still fruit flies. They started out as fruit flies and they ended up as fruit flies and were sterile, thus having little or no value in evolutionary reproductive terms.

These "new species" are merely variations within species, or hybrids of the type similar to when horses and donkeys mate to produce mules. No new genetic information is created.

"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."

No new information was created.

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/deception.html

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

chromosomes are not in genes but the other way round... please read up on basic genetics and biology before posting.

Chromosomes are merely long strands of DNA...so why the pedantics? Why don't you try referring to the actual post? The Mendelian laws of heredity etc...

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

this is also addressed in the link above. speciation occurs.

Would you like to explain how? Particularly how so called "speciation" occurs naturally?

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

why is it not red? red light has photons with the lowest energy of the three colors, so it would be only logical to assume that in order to see properly, the overall sensitivity should be in the red part of the spectrum.

i'll tell you why it is green and not another color: the sun's peak of emission is at the same wavelength as the maximum absorption of the eye. strange coincidence?

Then it is well designed?

A partially completed eye would have been useless. It had to suddenly all be there, complete in all its parts. And yet every possible type of eye is to be found in nature; Single lens systems, double lens systems, monocular, binocular, tandem eyes, lens bounce systems, tube light systems, multi-thousand eye systems.

And each system is fully self-contained, works fine, and there is no evidence of any rudimentary systems leading up to it.

From the first day, each optical system was fully functioning.

No human intelligence is equal to the task of making a living eye. Neither did the body make its eyes by some miraculous chance.

So what did? Mindless, chaotic, random, mutated nature I suppose?

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

like any complex multicellular organism evolved: specialization of individual cells. of course at the beginning (roughly 3 to 4 billion years ago) these organisms were fairly simple. with time, these cells became more and more specialized

Unbelievable. By the use of the word time you lay claim to huge events that you are yet to prove. This explains sweet FA. How does a quarter-formed eye work? Of what survival value is a lens, forming an image, if not intimately linked to a nervous system which will translate that image into electrical form? Or a nerve without a brain to interpret the data? How could a visual nervous system have evolved before there was an eye to give it information? How could the wide variety of eye structures, appearing in a wide variety of creatures, evolved from common ancestors?

You'll find evolutionists asserting that the whale (a mammal) was once a fish that crawled out of the water and became an amphibian, which changed into a reptile, which became a mammal, which then crawled back into the water and became a whale!

How could the perfectly adapted eye of the whale come from an ancestor which lived on land?

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

just because something is very impressive or complex doesn't mean it can't be explained in a scientific theory.

No this is about likelihood's, logic and reason...and prove if you've got any...

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

i did read it. the conclusion is, that this once again is a statement of 'too complex to understand'.

The sums have been calculated and thus understood. (Like to comment on the astronomical odds?) It's not the complexity, it's the origin, the mechanics, the intricacy without intent that creationists pick up on. Are they not legitimate queries? They are looking for answers...

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

get the picture?

The word is at odds with reality. That's the picture. And I never claimed it to be unique in terms of oxymoronic words.

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

i don't 'worship' chance. i don't even like it because it's a bitch to 'predict'. but in science you're not asked: 'do you like the theory?' but more: 'does the theory fit the facts?' liking a theory or not has no value at all. it's accepted when it fits the facts.

But Creationism fits the "facts" logically. Albeit without the scientific nomenclature jargon...

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

99% of all species ever have died out.

sorting out the weak makes the population stronger thus being better able to survive. the individual doesn't count.

also there is no 'goal' to be achieved. if it fits, it survives.

Buts it's meaningless! Put eight dogs on a desert island with only a little food. Which dog will survive the longest? The fittest. Which one was that? The one that survived the longest. We have here circular reasoning. And that last dog; what about him? He was still a dog to his dying day; he did not change into a goat, or a cat, or a lion. The phrase, "survival of the fittest," says nothing about the evolutionary process, much less proving it.

It leads to the justifiable criticism that the concept of natural selection is scientifically superficial. T.H. Morgan, famous American geneticist, said that the idea of natural selection is a tautology, a case of circular reasoning. It goes something like this: If something cannot succeed, it will not succeed. Or, to put it another way, those things which have succeeded were able to succeed. - Lester J. McCann, Blowing the Whistle on Darwinism

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

contrary to creationism, evolution theory can provide FACTS. (transitional fossils, proof for speciation etc.)

Where is the proof for speciation? Transitional fossils are as rare as flying pigs (bizarrely) and hold no validity, no prove other than optimistic conjecture.

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

the link above shows evidence of speciation happening.

They were all artificially induced resulting in sterile young which actively works against the "survival of the fittest" theorem. Nor was any new DNA information added.

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

all of your three questions are examples of lamarckism, which doesn't work.

I know it is now a discredited theory, yet couldn't the failure of Lamarckism (the inheritance of acquired characteristics) reflect upon the failure of natural selection?

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

what we see today is only a momentary picture. organisms around us still are subject to natural selection and if a human were to live long enough (say... 500'000 years) he/she would see organisms evolved out of today's fauna and flora.

That's mere speculation. Why do we only see a "momentary" picture when apparently, so many modern day species have undergone "natural selection", "speciation" etcetera? And yet no real evidence??

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

no miracles. the lung is an improvement in life so fish with a lung have better chances of surviving.

You've simply speculated on the "need" for a fish to develop a lung, without explaining how a lung fish with only half a lung would survive on terra firma, or did they just wait all that time in the foodless seas until it was time? How did any survive the transitionary period? Or were they sometimes covering land with only a fifth of a lung? Or perhaps even an eighth of a lung??

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

it isn't easy, true. that's why so many species up to date have gone extinct. this special example shows that the concept worked.

The example of the lung fish?? I don't think so. The scenario is ludicrous. Their transition would have to be just right in terms of time left before the seas were completely empty (of food) and impossible for survival. Yet by that time so many would have died already, and how did they know when to leave the seas? And how did they find new seas? And why didn't everything in the foodless seas develop a lung to survive?

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

no organism 'invents' its DNA. it's called random mutation.

You can't use this for creditable argumentation. Random mutations are incredibly harmful and contradictory to the "survival of the fittest" thesis.

Nearly all mutations are harmful. In most instances, mutations weaken or damage the organism in some way so that it (or its offspring if it is able to have any) will not long survive.

Has there ever been a truly beneficial mutation (one which is a known mutation, and not merely a reshuffling of latent characteristics in the genes) that was a permanent one, passing on from one generation to another?

Misfits produced by mutations or accidents are eliminated, thus returning the species closer to its pure pattern. There is nothing in this process that has anything to do with evolution, which is evolving from one species to another.

Mutations are simply too rare to have produced all the necessary traits of even one life form, much less all the creatures that swarm the earth.

And even assuming that all mutations were beneficial - in order for evolution to begin to occur in even a small way, it would be necessary to have a series of closely related and interlocking mutations, not just one - all occurring at the same time In the same organism. The odds of getting two mutations that are in some slight manner related to one another and is the product of two separate mutations is a truly ridiculous figure.

Four mutations that were simultaneous or sequentially related, would be 1 with 28 zeros after it (1 x 1028). But all the earth could not hold enough organisms to make that possibility come true. And four mutations together does not even begin to produce real evolution. Millions upon millions harmonious, beneficial characteristics would be needed to transform one species into another.

And what can two mutations accomplish? Perhaps a honey bee with a wavy edge on a bent wing. But he is still a honey bee; he has not changed from one species to another.

We could still be sure on theoretical grounds that mutants would usually be detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly-functioning body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is certain to impair just as a random interchange of connections [wires] in a television set is not likely to improve the picture. - J. F. Crow, Genetic Effects of Radiation

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut02.htm

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut05.htm

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

your use of insults has a negative impact on your credibility.

Yes and I'd love a debate without the "put the switch on your brain into 'on-position" stupidity...

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

So, Crusader, what you are saying is mutations probably do not ADD information, but SUBTRACT unneeded info, right?

No they cause existing genetic information to be randomly reshuffled. In other words, no new genetic information is introduced by mutations. Mutations do not add any information, they just cause existing information to be mis-directed. I.e. to produce a fruit-fly leg on the fruit-fly head instead of on the correct body segment - a mutation will not put a lion's mane and a birds beak onto the fruit fly's anatomy as that would require new information being added.

Mutations are the biggest single threat to evolutionary logic. And yet evolutions love to cite "Random Mutations" as a means to speciation. I've gone into it with more detail above.

Mutations make gross changes in genes or chromosomes and alternate the DNA letter sequence in the genes. (That's why evolutionists use it as an example I suppose?)

Yet there a three huge problems with this hypothesis for it to apply to evolution/natural selection;

1) Mutations do not occur so frequently.

2) Mutations must be beneficial - and consistently so.

3) They must effect a dramatic enough change (involving, actually, millions of specific, purposive changes) so that one species will be transformed into another. Small changes will only damage or destroy the organism.

The random nature of mutations and their negative effects would destroy all life on earth, were it not for the fact that in nature they rarely occur.

Well, TheCrusader, your posts are incredibly long and misinformed (i.e. birds being a species. lol! oh and you didnt mention the certifiable DINOSAURS with pseudofeathers, then non-aerodynamic feathers, and then aerodynamic feathers found and documented in China). It is interesting that you quoted from the discredited AIG, who publishes material disproven 20 or more years ago through their Creation magazine tabloid. Examples: the basking shark carcass they claimed to be a dead pleisaur, the holes in a T. Rex leg bone they claimed to be blood cell remains,and the discredited Jehrico dig site article published in 1960 and refuted many times since, just to name a few. Let me guess, you believe in a earth under 10,000 yrs old, created by and all good God who lets evil run rampant, and who put all the animals in a wooden boat built by one family to survive a worldwide flood? Yeah, that is a whole lot more reasonable than evolution. But I do not want to set up a straw man argument, so please post your opinion on world origins, so everyone can see how enlightened you are and how stupid 10's of thousands of scientists are.

quote:Originally posted by bloody_hands:

Well, TheCrusader, your posts are incredibly long and misinformed .

I liked how he said if two animals are in the same genus they are the same species. I geuss thats how Noah fit all those animals on the ark, easyer when he could just take a donkeys which is the same thing as a zebras and horses.

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

I liked how he said if two animals are in the same genus they are the same species

Nice cock-and-bull fabrication.

quote:Originally posted by bloody_hands:

i.e. birds being a species. lol!

Yes? Is a bird a none species where you come from? The original statement;

quote:Originally posted by The Crusader:

By definition, a bird is a specific species.

A frontal lobotomy patient should be able to see the quote for what it is. A bird, by definition, is a specific species. But I've taken note of the literal minded and will redraft the statement;

quote:Originally posted by The Crusader:

By definition, a bird is a specific species (of which there are thousands) within the level of 'class' or 'order' (perching birds.)

quote:Originally posted by bloody_hands:

It is interesting that you quoted from the discredited AIG

As opposed to quoting from my arse like yourself?

quote:Originally posted by bloody_hands:

Let me guess, you believe in a earth under 10,000 yrs old, created by and all good God who lets evil run rampant, and who put all the animals in a wooden boat built by one family to survive a worldwide flood? Yeah, that is a whole lot more reasonable than evolution.

Nice rant with no substance. I've already stated to be playing devil's advocate. I'm merely wanting to find the answers whilst contrasting evolution and creation.

Now go and mutate or whatever the hell else you do to evolve into a semi-intelligent being.

quote:Originally posted by The Crusader:

There is nothing circular about it you moron. I was responding directly to a post,...your post.

It IS circular when you ask me to provide fossil evidence ... when that IS fossi evidence!

quote:Like...?

I already named one.

But, I'll give you another. Modern Ostriches have pelvises which are intermediate from that of Archaeopteryx and other modern birds.

quote:The way the connotations of the Archaeopteryx were being thrown around this thread was to be interpreted as fact, something beyond mere "possibility" and more into the realm of irrevocable damage to creationist theory;

Yet you cant quote not a single person saying it is fact? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Why? Because no credible scientist would hold it as a fact, since it hasn't been proven, and moreover, it can't!

quote:A bird is a specific species! Of which there are thousands. But all birds are classified as birds within the animal kingdom which includes – mammals, Amphibians, reptiles, fish and insects. Surprised?

It is embarrassing that I have to state this in order to deal with your fastidious nature.

Stupidly stating its Genus as if this somehow illuminates yourself with an air of shrewd knowing is so far withdrawn from the original statement and the original topic that you risk looking a tad foolish and perhaps retarded.

1. You and I know that was not what you meant. You're now in a pathetic attempt at saving your ignorant butt.

2. Even then, what the fuck does that have to do with anything? What does Archaeopteryx being a specific species... have to do with anything? Obviously nothing. It was YOU making a mistake and claiming Birds are species, which they are not.

So please, answer this. How was that relevant? I'd like to see you squirm out of that one.

quote:Have you contemplated why it is catalogued as a bird?

Yes. Have you?

quote:Name the "qualities".

I already provided the link. Or do you want me to READ them for you? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:

And please start to READ and inform yourself lest I lose a few brain cells conversing with such ignorance;

What the hell does that prove? Nothing. There are more charasteristics you know...

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 11-13-2004).]

Alright dudes, the crusader is just fucked up. I mean, from a competely neutral party who's been following Rust and Crusader's discussion, Crusader just straight out ignores facts and tries to dance around every question. And if he's trying to find the answers, why won't he look right in front of him? Man, he is fucked.

quote:originaly posted by The Crusader

Dobshansky's "speciation" were still Drosophila, still fruit flies. They started out as fruit flies and they ended up as fruit flies and were sterile,

Nice cock-and-bull fabrication.



They are a diferent species but the same genus, If they were not the same genuse they would not even be able to produce sterile offspring. You are neither a scientist nor God, what gives you the authority to re-define what a species is?

[This message has been edited by MasterPython (edited 11-13-2004).]

since when the frig did god ever define words?

Evolution is not cognitive! Species (which for the most part is a human construct, it’s a human way of thinking about different animals) do not as a whole evolve towards common goals, nor do species AS A WHOLE react and adjust to changing conditions. Evolution is the culmination of tiny beneficial changes in INDIVIDUAL animals brought about by random genetic mutation or favorable combinations of parental genes. Individual animals which are endowed with unfavorable characteristics such as blindness for example usually fail to reproduce. Animals however which generate or inherit positive or beneficial attributes have greater chances of collecting food and escaping predators therefore more likely to produce off spring.

Better hearing for example would allow a rat to escape a cat whereas a rat without the better hearing mutation would stand a higher chance of being eaten and therefore lower chance of having kids and passing on the poor hearing. In this way the rat with the better hearing will continue to eat and breed. Over many thousands of generations the greater hearing ability would have been bred into the whole rat population.

With your giraffes and their necks, imagine a baby is born with a slightly longer neck, it lives for a few days but one day it bends down to drink some water and bang its dead. Blood pressure or whatever. This is an evolutionary dead end (nipped in the bud). However its little brother is born with a special valve in its heart. This valve doesn’t do much, doesn’t much benefit him or hinder him, and so this guy survives and makes babies. 50 years later this guys descendent gives birth to a baby with a longer neck. This baby goes for a drink and boom, nothing happens. This random mutation in his heart valve counters or helps him with his long neck in some unforeseeable way (it may not be perfect but survival of the giraffe with the best configured heart valve would ensure that it would become effective quite quickly if it was beneficial)so he survives. When he grows up he has access to food which none of his fellow giraffes can reach. So he is never hungry and he has lots of babies. Slowly all giraffes in existence become his decedents. All the giraffes without long necks just couldn’t keep up. Many generations later his descendent gives birth to a baby with an even longer neck...

Do you see what I mean? think of it on an individual animal basis and you can see how progressive beneficial changes can lead to long necked giraffes (Elephants might have been born in the past with long necks but the failure of a random mutation in a heart valve might have quashed this path quickly. Who knows what might be today if that single animal had survived and produced viable offspring) and fish with lungs. Given 100 million years is it that surprising or unbelievable, that dinosaurs could become birds? Just think of the time span involved.

quote:Originally posted by The Crusader:That site is completely erroneous. From what I can see there are major problems stated in each of those 'test' cases that actively oppose "survival of the fittest";

(Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original stock.)

(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)

In this second instance you mention you must also see that this wasn't an experiment deliberately conducted but an observation made after 250 years have passed.

quote:

Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.

(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)

These new species barely deserve commenting on. Dobshansky's "speciation" were still Drosophila, still fruit flies. They started out as fruit flies and they ended up as fruit flies and were sterile, thus having little or no value in evolutionary reproductive terms.

In this point MasterPython came first...

quote:

These "new species" are merely variations within species, or hybrids of the type similar to when horses and donkeys mate to produce mules. No new genetic information is created.

"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."

No new information was created. http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/deception.html



Polyploidy is more information and additonal to that, the article doesn't show that it isn't a new species. You're evading and simply call something having 'no value' if you don't like it. Nothing proven wrong here.

quote:

Chromosomes are merely long strands of DNA...so why the pedantics? Why don't you try referring to the actual post? The Mendelian laws of heredity etc...

Because you are a pedantic yourself and because this is basic knowledge!

quote:

Would you like to explain how? Particularly how so called "speciation" occurs naturally?

As you have seen in the link, speciation occurs either through polydiploidy or gradual change in the genome of the organism.

quote:

Then it is well designed?

No, it has to many drawbacks to be called 'intelligent design'.

- bloodvessels running on the surface instead of underneath therefore increased possibility of bleeding thus impairing vision.

- Nightvision is quite bad. (Why did god make appr. 50% of the time night if we can't see well?)

- There is a blind spot on your retina for which the brain interpolates a picture. Why that blind spot?

evolution of the eye (http://www.betterhumans.com/News/news.aspx?articleID=2004-10-28-1)

quote:

A partially completed eye would have been useless. It had to suddenly all be there, complete in all its parts. And yet every possible type of eye is to be found in nature; Single lens systems, double lens systems, monocular, binocular, tandem eyes, lens bounce systems, tube light systems, multi-thousand eye systems.

And each system is fully self-contained, works fine, and there is no evidence of any rudimentary systems leading up to it.

From the first day, each optical system was fully functioning.

See the link above.

quote:

No human intelligence is equal to the task of making a living eye. Neither did the body make its eyes by some miraculous chance.

I don't care whether a scientist can make a living eye.

quote:

So what did? Mindless, chaotic, random, mutated nature I suppose?

Exactly.

quote:

Unbelievable. By the use of the word time you lay claim to huge events that you are yet to prove.

I don't need to prove this anymore because it has been proven a long time ago.

no young earth (http://www.gate.net/~rwms/AgeEarth.html)

quote:

This explains sweet FA. How does a quarter-formed eye work? Of what survival value is a lens, forming an image, if not intimately linked to a nervous system which will translate that image into electrical form? Or a nerve without a brain to interpret the data? How could a visual nervous system have evolved before there was an eye to give it information? How could the wide variety of eye structures, appearing in a wide variety of creatures, evolved from common ancestors?

This is also addressed in the link i gave you.

quote:

You'll find evolutionists asserting that the whale (a mammal) was once a fish that crawled out of the water and became an amphibian, which changed into a reptile, which became a mammal, which then crawled back into the water and became a whale!

How could the perfectly adapted eye of the whale come from an ancestor which lived on land?

Whales evolved from reptiles?! Would you care to show me?

quote:

No this is about likelihood's, logic and reason...and prove if you've got any...

I present proof the whole time. Do you read the links I give?

quote:

The sums have been calculated and thus understood. (Like to comment on the astronomical odds?) It's not the complexity, it's the origin, the mechanics, the intricacy without intent that creationists pick up on. Are they not legitimate queries? They are looking for answers...

It's not the complexity but the intricacy?! You do know that my dictionary gives complex as synonym to intricate?

Queries in science are needed, no doubt. But if someone repeatedly queries proven facts it's just stubborn ignorance.

quote:

The word is at odds with reality. That's the picture. And I never claimed it to be unique in terms of oxymoronic words.

I take this as your acceptance of the two terms we discussed being synonyms.

quote:

But Creationism fits the "facts" logically. Albeit without the scientific nomenclature jargon...

No, it doesn't. It begins with the age of the universe and our planet and ends with the origin of species.

quote:

Buts it's meaningless! Put eight dogs on a desert island with only a little food. Which dog will survive the longest? The fittest. Which one was that? The one that survived the longest. We have here circular reasoning.

No. Watch:

Prediction: The strongest/fittest will survive.

Observation: One dog survives.

Conclusion: That dog is the fittest.

End of story.

quote:

And that last dog; what about him? He was still a dog to his dying day; he did not change into a goat, or a cat, or a lion. The phrase, "survival of the fittest," says nothing about the evolutionary process, much less proving it.

Of course it was still a dog! It was born a dog and therefore had the genome of a dog. You show again that you don't understand evolution. Survival of the fittest is sort of a 'proving ground' for random mutations.

quote:

It leads to the justifiable criticism that the concept of natural selection is scientifically superficial. T.H. Morgan, famous American geneticist, said that the idea of natural selection is a tautology, a case of circular reasoning. It goes something like this: If something cannot succeed, it will not succeed. Or, to put it another way, those things which have succeeded were able to succeed. - Lester J. McCann, Blowing the Whistle on Darwinism

Originally posted by Cougar:

contrary to creationism, evolution theory can provide FACTS. (transitional fossils, proof for speciation etc.)

Where is the proof for speciation? Transitional fossils are as rare as flying pigs (bizarrely) and hold no validity, no prove other than optimistic conjecture.

Transitional fossils, enjoy. (http://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm#Transitionals)

Scroll down about half a page.

quote:

They were all artificially induced resulting in sterile young which actively works against the "survival of the fittest" theorem. Nor was any new DNA information added.

"Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago."

Artificially? 4'000 years ago?

quote:

I know it is now a discredited theory, yet couldn't the failure of Lamarckism (the inheritance of acquired characteristics) reflect upon the failure of natural selection?

If you knew it, why did you use it?

No, the failure of Lamarckism per se can't be used to demonstrate the 'failure of natural selection'. However, evolution theory isn't sacrosanct. It could be overthrown by evidence. But since that hasn't happened, it is still valid.

quote:

That's mere speculation. Why do we only see a "momentary" picture when apparently, so many modern day species have undergone "natural selection", "speciation" etcetera? And yet no real evidence??

Not speculation but a prediction. The momentary picture is because of the (usually) long timespan evolution takes. It's a relative term. (Compare the average life expectancy of your country with 500'000 years.)

quote:

You've simply speculated on the "need" for a fish to develop a lung, without explaining how a lung fish with only half a lung would survive on terra firma, or did they just wait all that time in the foodless seas until it was time? How did any survive the transitionary period? Or were they sometimes covering land with only a fifth of a lung? Or perhaps even an eighth of a lung??

If there's no food in the fridge, what do you do? Right, yo go to buy some food. Why? Because there's a need for you to eat.

And again you think that 'half a lung' would be the only thing the organism would have to acquire oxygen. It's additional to its gills.

quote:

The example of the lung fish?? I don't think so. The scenario is ludicrous. Their transition would have to be just right in terms of time left before the seas were completely empty (of food) and impossible for survival. Yet by that time so many would have died already, and how did they know when to leave the seas? And how did they find new seas? And why didn't everything in the foodless seas develop a lung to survive?

You look at it from the wrong side. (again...) It wasn't intended for the existing organisms to develop means to reach for alternate sources of food. They were capable of doing so, because mutations in some organisms allowed them better chances.

Why didn't all develop lungs? Because it's called random mutation. Also, what good would a lung be for a deep sea fish?

quote:

You can't use this for creditable argumentation. Random mutations are incredibly harmful and contradictory to the "survival of the fittest" thesis.

Nearly all mutations are harmful. In most instances, mutations weaken or damage the organism in some way so that it (or its offspring if it is able to have any) will not long survive.

Yes, almost all mutations are harmful. And when they are, the chances of producing offspring (or even surviving themselves) are diminished. They weren't fit.

quote:

Has there ever been a truly beneficial mutation (one which is a known mutation, and not merely a reshuffling of latent characteristics in the genes) that was a permanent one, passing on from one generation to another?

beneficial mutations (http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html)

quote:

Misfits produced by mutations or accidents are eliminated, thus returning the species closer to its pure pattern. There is nothing in this process that has anything to do with evolution, which is evolving from one species to another.

There is no such thing as a 'true pattern' necessary. Either an organism is suited for its environment or it is not.

quote:

Mutations are simply too rare to have produced all the necessary traits of even one life form, much less all the creatures that swarm the earth.

Mutations occur more often than you think.

quote:

And even assuming that all mutations were beneficial - in order for evolution to begin to occur in even a small way, it would be necessary to have a series of closely related and interlocking mutations, not just one - all occurring at the same time In the same organism. The odds of getting two mutations that are in some slight manner related to one another and is the product of two separate mutations is a truly ridiculous figure.

Four mutations that were simultaneous or sequentially related, would be 1 with 28 zeros after it (1 x 1028). But all the earth could not hold enough organisms to make that possibility come true. And four mutations together does not even begin to produce real evolution. Millions upon millions harmonious, beneficial characteristics would be needed to transform one species into another.

And what can two mutations accomplish? Perhaps a honey bee with a wavy edge on a bent wing. But he is still a honey bee; he has not changed from one species to another.

stop plagiarizing (http://evolution-facts.org/c10a.htm)

quote:

We could still be sure on theoretical grounds that mutants would usually be detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly-functioning body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is certain to impair just as a random interchange of connections [wires] in a television set is not likely to improve the picture. - J. F. Crow, Genetic Effects of Radiation http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut02.htm http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut05.htm



I have already said that random mutations are mostly harmful. But harmful mutations don't survive long.

quote:

Yes and I'd love a debate without the "put the switch on your brain into 'on-position" stupidity...

Comparing apples and oranges? Let's just both try not to insult each other.

Cougar

[This message has been edited by Cougar (edited 11-15-2004).]

By the way: Why do we have toenails? I for my part don't use them. So why do we have them?

Cougar

P.S.

pmuB http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Fingernails and toenails protect the nerve endings in the toe and fingertips. If you have on fall off you will know that stuff fairly normal stuff hurts alot more.

Couldn't god have made it so, that the nerves were buried deeper thus not needing nails?

It seems I'm lucky to still have all protection then. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

So this was a bad call... (See kids, this happens when an engineer tries to talk biology all by himself...)

But on another note:

Creationists shouldn't use:

- Darwin’s quote about the absurdity of eye evolution

- Natural selection as tautology

- There are no transitional forms

- There are no beneficial mutations

more "don'ts" (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp)

Cougar

quote:Originally posted by The Crusader:

Four mutations that were simultaneous or sequentially related, would be 1 with 28 zeros after it (1 x 1028). But all the earth could not hold enough organisms to make that possibility come true.

If you are playing the devil's (or, more appropriately, the god's) advocate, why do you use such flimsy reasoning? Are you puposefully giving us a test?

First of all, the numbers you provided were pulled out of the air.

Second, every time somebody gets cancer, a genetic mutation has occured that causes an otherwise dormant cell to reproduce. What are the odds that a mutagen could cause such a change to the specific part of a cell's DNA that controls its rate of reproduction? And what are the odds that such a disease could be the second leading cause of death in the US? Apparently, the odds are very good. This is mutation is detrimental to a human yes, but the fact of the matter is that the cell did not die because of the mutation - quite the opposite. In fact, most mutations in cells DON'T cause harm because the cell DIES before its DNA can spread. Cancer is simply the rare instance in which the mutation doesn't kill the cell. And yet this rarity happens all the time!

Third, the Earth holds more organisms than you claim. Estimates put the number of bacteria at 5 x 10^30 at any one time, with 3.9 x 10^23 bacteria living inside of humans alone!

http://whyfiles.org/shorties/count_bact.html

I hope I do not have to tell you how short the lives of bacteria are, and how often they reproduce. Needless to say, there has been enough bacteria on the Earth over just the past 10,000 years to have evolved quite a bit. Not that I would support such a number.