Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What i can't understand about evolution....
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 361 of 493 (493839)
01-11-2009 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 352 by Kapyong
01-10-2009 5:20 PM


Re: how do we measure 'inferiority'?
firstly, 'boys n girls' was not meant in a derogatory way in the slightest...i would include myself in that
and i did look at your links and i guess i'm hoping you dont rest your belief of a 'tree of life' on those links
this is what is said from the first link ....
quote:
Although the idea of a "tree of life" arose from ancient notions of a ladder-like progression from lower to higher forms of life (such as in the Great Chain of Being), Charles Darwin (1859) first illustrated and popularized the notion of an evolutionary "tree" in his seminal book The Origin of Species. Over a century later, evolutionary biologists still use tree diagrams to depict evolution because the floral analogy effectively conveys the concept that speciation occurs through the adaptive and random splitting of lineages.
and this is what they say about the 'tree' in the your 2nd link
quote:
The rooting of the Tree of Life, and the relationships of the major lineages, are controversial. The monophyly of Archaea is uncertain, and recent evidence for ancient lateral transfers of genes indicates that a highly complex model is needed to adequately represent the phylogenetic relationships among the major lineages of Life.
this does not inspire confidence unfortunately, but thank you for trying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by Kapyong, posted 01-10-2009 5:20 PM Kapyong has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by Kapyong, posted 01-11-2009 4:19 PM Peg has not replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 362 of 493 (493840)
01-11-2009 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 336 by Percy
01-10-2009 7:50 AM


Re: The theory of evolution contains no magic. That's the "other side's" theory.
percy writes:
True, but we cannot rule out aliens or magic, either. In science it is never a case of, "That which we cannot rule out must be true."
Science is about finding evidence for your hypotheses. Unfortunately for intelligent design, it has no scientific evidence.
you dont think its possible that evolutionary scientists, who are trying to prove their theory, could be interpreting the data to fit in with their preconceived ideas that life is a product of evolution and not creation?
there have been many scientific frauds in the recent past that show that some will go to extraordinary lengths for evolution

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by Percy, posted 01-10-2009 7:50 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 369 by Percy, posted 01-11-2009 7:13 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 373 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2009 8:56 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 377 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2009 2:30 PM Peg has not replied
 Message 379 by Kapyong, posted 01-11-2009 4:36 PM Peg has replied
 Message 388 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-15-2009 1:41 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 473 by RAZD, posted 01-17-2009 10:25 PM Peg has not replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 363 of 493 (493841)
01-11-2009 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 334 by bluescat48
01-10-2009 7:26 AM


Re: how do we measure 'inferiority'?
bluescat48 writes:
First Monkeys are not apes. 2nd Gorillas aren't earlier apes, they are modern apes. Humans, chimps, gorillas & gibbons are all "modern apes" to use your word. The "earlier" apes are all extinct, that being the common ancestors and any intermediate species between the common ancestors & the current species.
in the same way that i am the common ancestor of my great great great great great great great great great great great great grandparents?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by bluescat48, posted 01-10-2009 7:26 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 367 by DrJones*, posted 01-11-2009 5:23 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 371 by bluescat48, posted 01-11-2009 8:49 AM Peg has not replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 364 of 493 (493842)
01-11-2009 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 341 by Percy
01-10-2009 8:28 AM


Re: The theory of evolution contains no magic. That's the "other side's" theory.
im not sure that is a very good comparison Percy,
it is quite clear why bad things happen and why God allows it...if theologians havn't worked it out yet, then there is something wrong with their theology

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by Percy, posted 01-10-2009 8:28 AM Percy has not replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 365 of 493 (493843)
01-11-2009 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 340 by DevilsAdvocate
01-10-2009 8:23 AM


hi DevilsAdvocate,
i really want to see a 'tree' that shows the roots ...ie, where it all began
two were posted from wiki, but i dont want one that doubts its own accuracy... i want one that is accurate and precise and one that can provide evidence for where the roots began
perhaps i'm asking for something that does not exist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-10-2009 8:23 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by Huntard, posted 01-11-2009 5:05 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 372 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-11-2009 8:55 AM Peg has replied
 Message 380 by Blue Jay, posted 01-12-2009 1:48 AM Peg has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 366 of 493 (493844)
01-11-2009 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 365 by Peg
01-11-2009 4:56 AM


Hello again Peg.
Peg writes:
perhaps i'm asking for something that does not exist?
Yes. We don't know every single organism that ever lived, and the farther back you go, the harder it is to get the organisms. Especially when there aren't any "hard" parts to fosilize. So, when we get to single cell life, that will probbaly never be found. I of course mean the ancestral single cell life, I know there are "modern" single cell organisms, but they are probably very different from those earliest lifeforms.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by Peg, posted 01-11-2009 4:56 AM Peg has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 367 of 493 (493846)
01-11-2009 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 363 by Peg
01-11-2009 4:45 AM


Re: how do we measure 'inferiority'?
in the same way that i am the common ancestor of my great great great great great great great great great great great great grandparents?
No you're a descendant of your multi-great grandparent. Your parents are a common ancestor of you and your siblings. Your grand-parents are common ancestors of you and your siblings and your parents (or more accurately 1 set of grandparents are the common ancestors of you, your siblings and 1 parent) etc.
Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Peg, posted 01-11-2009 4:45 AM Peg has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 368 of 493 (493849)
01-11-2009 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 360 by RAZD
01-11-2009 1:08 AM


Re: how do we measure 'inferiority'?
RAZD writes:
some creatures have not evolved such as crocodiles
They have not changed significantly, but they are different. So are sharks and coelacanths.
This is more accurate than what Huntard posted when he implied some creatures haven't evolved, but saying that these creatures haven't changed significantly leaves it unclear about how much these creatures have actually evolved. None of the living species of crocodiles, sharks and coelacanths are the same as the fossil species from millions of years ago. These are family- and order-level classifications, and while I haven't researched this I doubt if any of the species or genera from millions of years ago have survived until today.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2009 1:08 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 370 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2009 8:38 AM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 369 of 493 (493851)
01-11-2009 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 362 by Peg
01-11-2009 4:35 AM


Re: The theory of evolution contains no magic. That's the "other side's" theory.
Peg writes:
you dont think its possible that evolutionary scientists, who are trying to prove their theory, could be interpreting the data to fit in with their preconceived ideas that life is a product of evolution and not creation?
You used just this sort of thing to drive Modulous over the edge, so let me reply in kind, pardon me if I use capitalization and punctuation.
You don't think it's possible that conservative Christians, who are trying desperately to hold onto the illusion that their religious beliefs are not contradicted by all evidence, could be ignoring and misrepresenting the data to fit their Biblically based ideas about creation, including falsely maligning scientists and their work?
If you want to believe in a world-wide mass delusion then go ahead, but the rest of us live in reality and would like to focus on the evidence.
there have been many scientific frauds in the recent past that show that some will go to extraordinary lengths for evolution
Tell you what, why don't you propose a thread to enumerate frauds, misrepresentations and significant mistakes for evolution versus those for creation, and we'll keep a count of each. In fact, if someone proposes such a thread I'll promote it as quickly as I can, I think it would be illuminating.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by Peg, posted 01-11-2009 4:35 AM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2009 9:16 AM Percy has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 370 of 493 (493859)
01-11-2009 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 368 by Percy
01-11-2009 7:01 AM


new species old orders
Just a quick check
Coelacanths:
Order: Coelacanthiformes
quote:
Fossil range: Devonian-Cretaceous (but extant)
Families See text.
Class Sarcopterygii
Subclass Coelacanthimorpha
* Order COELACANTHIFORMES
o Family Coelacanthidae (extinct)
+ Axelia (extinct)
+ Coelacanthus (extinct)
+ Ticinepomis (extinct)
+ Wimania (extinct)
o Family Diplocercidae (extinct)
+ Diplocercides (extinct)
o Family Hadronectoridae (extinct)
+ Allenypterus (extinct)
+ Hadronector (extinct)
+ Polyosteorhynchus (extinct)
o Family Mawsoniidae (extinct)
+ Alcoveria (extinct)
+ Axelrodichthys (extinct)
+ Chinlea (extinct)
+ Diplurus (extinct)
+ Mawsonia (extinct)
o Family Miguashaiidae (extinct)
+ Miguashaia (extinct)
o Family Latimeriidae
+ Holophagus (extinct)
+ Libys (extinct)
+ Macropoma (extinct)
+ Macropomoides (extinct)
+ Megacoelacanthus (extinct)
+ Latimeria (James Leonard Brierley Smith, 1939)
# L. chalumnae (Comorese coelacanth)
(James Leonard Brierley Smith, 1939)
# L. menadoensis (Indonesian coelacanth)
(Pouyaud, Wirjoatmodjo, Rachmatika,
Tjakrawidjaja, et al., 1999)
+ Undina (extinct)
o Family Laugiidae (extinct)
+ Coccoderma (extinct)
+ Laugia (extinct)
o Family Rhabdodermatidae (extinct)
+ Caridosuctor (extinct)
+ Rhabdoderma (extinct)
o Family Whiteiidae (extinct)
+ Whiteia (extinct)

One genus in one family has two living species, neither of which are represented in the fossil record. They disappeared from the fossil record at the end of the Cretaceous, and have only been found recently since then (no intermediates).
Also see http://www.dinofish.com/
esp DINOFISH.COM - Weird Bodies Frozen in Time
Sharks:
Superorder: Selachimorpha
quote:
Sharks (superorder Selachimorpha) are a type of fish with a full cartilaginous skeleton and a highly streamlined body. They respire with the use of five to seven gill slits. Sharks have a covering of dermal denticles that protect their skin from damage and parasites and improve fluid dynamics. They have several sets of replaceable teeth.[1]
Fossil range: Ordovician to recent
Orders
Carcharhiniformes
Heterodontiformes
Hexanchiformes
Lamniformes
Orectolobiformes
Pristiophoriformes
Squaliformes
Squatiniformes
” Symmoriida
” Cladoselachiformes
” Xenacanthida (Xenacantiformes)
” Iniopterygia
” Eugeneodontida
” Hybodontiformes
I believe that "”" marks extinct orders. They have no gaps in the fossil record from the Ordovician to the last fossils and to living specimens. I would have to look further to see how old the current living species are, but I don't think they extend to the fossil record.
Crocodiles
Family: Crocodylidae
quote:
A crocodile is any species belonging to the family Crocodylidae (sometimes classified instead as the subfamily Crocodylinae). The term can also be used more loosely to include all members of the order Crocodilia: i.e. the true crocodiles, the alligators and caimans (family Alligatoridae) and the gharials (family Gavialidae), or even the Crocodylomorpha which includes prehistoric crocodile relatives and ancestors.
Fossil range: Late Cretaceous - Recent
Genera
* Crocodylus
* Osteolaemus
See full taxonomy.
Most species are grouped into the genus Crocodylus. The other
extant genus, Osteolaemus, is monotypic (as is Mecistops, if
recognized).
* Family Crocodylidae
o Subfamily ”Mekosuchinae (extinct)
o Subfamily Crocodylinae
+ Genus Crocodylus
# Crocodylus acutus, American Crocodile
# Crocodylus cataphractus, Slender-snouted
Crocodile (studies in DNA and morphology
suggest that this species may be more basal
than Crocodylus, and therefore belongs in
its own genus, Mecistops)[17]
# Crocodylus intermedius, Orinoco Crocodile
# Crocodylus johnsoni, Freshwater Crocodile
# Crocodylus mindorensis, Philippine Crocodile
# Crocodylus moreletii, Morelet's Crocodile
or Mexican Crocodile
# Crocodylus niloticus, Nile Crocodile or
African Crocodile (the subspecies found in
Madagascar is sometimes called the Black
Crocodile)
# Crocodylus novaeguineae, New Guinea Crocodile
# Crocodylus palustris, Mugger Crocodile, Marsh
Crocodile, or Indian Crocodile
# Crocodylus porosus, Saltwater Crocodile or
Estuarine Crocodile
# Crocodylus rhombifer, Cuban Crocodile
# Crocodylus siamensis, Siamese Crocodile
+ Genus Osteolaemus
# Osteolaemus tetraspis, Dwarf Crocodile
(there has been controversy whether or not
this is actually two species; current
thinking is that there is one species with
2 subspecies: O. tetraspis tetraspis &
O. t. osborni)
+ Genus ”Euthecodon
+ Genus ”Rimasuchus (formerly Crocodylus lloydi)
+ Genus ”Asiatosuchus
Some of the extinct relatives of true crocodiles, members of the
larger group Crocodylomorpha, were herbivorous.
Crocodiles are among the more biologically complex reptiles despite their prehistoric look. Unlike other reptiles, they incorporate muscles used for aquatic locomotion into respiration (e.g. M. diaphragmaticus), giving them the functional equivalent of a diaphragm;[2] a cerebral cortex; and a four-chambered heart. Their external morphology on the other hand is a sign of their aquatic and predatory lifestyle.
The four chamber heart is unusual, and there is some evidence that crocs "devolved" from a warm-blooded ancestor, adapting the heart for diving and staying underwater while becoming coldblooded again (another example of the lack of direction in evolution).
See Adelaidean -- Crocodile evolution no heart-warmer
quote:
Their little hearts start out with the potential ability to separate blood flow to the lungs and body, but much later develop the curious features of the adult crocodile. Adult hearts are extremely complicated, as unlike birds and mammals which have one aorta, the crocodile has two, and they are twisted so that the left aorta attaches to the right ventricle and the right aorta attaches to the left ventricle. They also have a unique "cog-tooth" valve and a hole between the aortas.
"It turns out that all of these advanced cardiovascular features are valuable for today's crocodiles, enabling them to bypass the lungs and hold their breath for longer periods," Professor Seymour said. "Crocodiles typically remain hidden under water until their prey comes near, then they lunge and often drown their victims. Warm-bloodedness is not suited for this type of sit-and-wait hunting, because of a high metabolic rate and a need to breathe often.
"When I looked at the palaeontology of crocodiles, a consistent picture appeared-the earliest ancestors of crocodiles were definitely not sit-and-wait predators. Instead, many had long legs and some ran around on only two legs. These were obviously highly active, terrestrial predators which would have been well served by warm-bloodedness and a four chambered heart.
"Between 200 and 65 million years ago, the crocodilian lineage diversified into more than 150 genera in all kinds of habitats from land-based to fresh water and the ocean," he said.
"Only one relatively small group that were aquatic and sat and waited for food to come to them managed to survive until today. All the rest became extinct about 65 million years ago with the big extinction when most of the dinosaurs died out," he said. "The cold-bloodedness that this group evolved may have been a factor that saved it."
Again, I would have to look further to see how old the current living species are, but I don't think they extend to the fossil record.
Enjoy.
ps - this could be a good place to ask about sharks:
http://www.brighthub.com/science/medical/articles/7196.aspx
Edited by RAZD, : added ps

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by Percy, posted 01-11-2009 7:01 AM Percy has not replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 371 of 493 (493861)
01-11-2009 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 363 by Peg
01-11-2009 4:45 AM


Re: how do we measure 'inferiority'?
Not ancestor but decendant. Your 10th great grandparent would be a common ancestor of you and, an example, your 20th cousin.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Peg, posted 01-11-2009 4:45 AM Peg has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 372 of 493 (493862)
01-11-2009 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 365 by Peg
01-11-2009 4:56 AM


hi DevilsAdvocate,
i really want to see a 'tree' that shows the roots ...ie, where it all began
two were posted from wiki, but i dont want one that doubts its own accuracy... i want one that is accurate and precise and one that can provide evidence for where the roots began
perhaps i'm asking for something that does not exist?
Nice one Peg,
You pulled a fast one on me. The old bait and switch or moving the goal posts argument. I actually thought you were being sincere. But now I know you are just another Creationist who could care less about the evidence and just want to randomly throw stones at an natural phenomena accepted by 99.9% of the scientific community, because you think it undermines your religious beliefs. I take time out of my day to peruse the internet to look for some ape/human evolutionary trees and you pull this crap about wanting seeing the 'roots of the tree' on me. Thanks for wasting my time.
#1 Like I said previously the study of human/ape paleontology is a relatively new scientific endeavor that has only 60 or so years of serious scientific inquiry behind it (Louis and Mary Leakey being some of the early founders of this scientific field) as compared to other fields such as physics with literally hundred if not thousands of years of scientific discoveries. Therefore there is still much we are still speculating, filling the holes in, and modifying our understanding of as I spoke about here: Message 342.
#2 How far back do you want to see? We were talking about human/ape evolution not the origination of all life. So how far back are you asking?
As pointed out by others a theory of abiogenesis is not a prerequisite for to acknowledge the reality that biological evolution occurs. Some people think that some supernatural deity may have planted the blueprints of life on Earth and then kicked started the mechanism of evolution to create the diversity of life we see around us, others believe in panspermia (though this just delays the origination of life to some other location in our universe), and some (like myself) believe that abiogenesis as well as biological evolution are natural processes that don't need an initial supernatural designer. All three agree that the preponderance of evidence shows that biological evolution has and continues to occur; and all three are "unproven" hypothesis. We don't have to know exactly how life originated on this planet to know that life diversifies and biologically evolves driven by the processes of natural selective and genetic drift.
Here is a great dynamic site that Kapyong originally gave and which is overseen by professional biologists, that lets you visualize the evolutionary tree/branches/roots/whatever of just about every type of organism on the planet: Tree of Life web project.
If you have specific problems with a specific i.e. line of descent (branch) I would bring it up with them or we can discuss it here. If you want to discuss the evidence behind abiogenesis we probably will have to open up a new thread to discuss this, as this is a whole new and complex ball of wax.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by Peg, posted 01-11-2009 4:56 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 389 by Peg, posted 01-15-2009 6:27 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 373 of 493 (493863)
01-11-2009 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 362 by Peg
01-11-2009 4:35 AM


Re: The theory of evolution contains no magic. That's the "other side's" theory.
Peg, Peg, Peg.
there have been many scientific frauds in the recent past that show that some will go to extraordinary lengths for evolution
No No No. There have been many frauds in the past by unscrupulous PEOPLE. ALL of them have been exposed by scientists looking for the truth. Stop reading those creationist sites that are frauds and hoaxes.
Not one fraud\hoax has been exposed by creationists. Not one.
Meanwhile many creationist sites continue to show stuff like man-dino footprints and other hogwash that are frauds\hoaxes, and they continue to do so after the fact they are FAKE has been demonstrated.
Do you want to go down the list?
Nebraska Man - all newspaper hype, the original scientist determined it was a pig.
Piltdown Man - hoax perpetuated ON science, exposed by science.
Glen Rose Man - fraud perpetuated by Carl Baugh, exposed by science. Baugh (a creationist) continues to present it in his "museum" perpetuating his hoax to gullible people.
China bird ancestor "fossils" - perpetuated by people looking to make money, exposed by science.
Not ONE of these is necessary in ANY WAY for evolution.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by Peg, posted 01-11-2009 4:35 AM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 381 by fallacycop, posted 01-12-2009 2:12 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 374 of 493 (493865)
01-11-2009 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 369 by Percy
01-11-2009 7:13 AM


Scientific Frauds and Hoaxes
Tell you what, why don't you propose a thread to enumerate frauds, misrepresentations and significant mistakes for evolution versus those for creation, and we'll keep a count of each. In fact, if someone proposes such a thread I'll promote it as quickly as I can, I think it would be illuminating.
We'd have to list almost every existing YEC creationist website. (I say "almost" for scientific tentativity, as I am not aware of any that stick to the truth, but it is possible ...)
Certainly Carl Baugh (his degree is a hoax, it doesn't exist) and Kent Hovind (convicted of fraud, his degree is a fraud from a paper mill) and the "creation museum" (showing adam and eve and a vegetarian TRex)
Then there is Harun Yahah (a muslim creationist, who also happens to be a convicted extortionist and anal rapist of underage women) - he puts Hovind to shame.
Is this a good start?
Message 1
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added new post link
Edited by RAZD, : .
Edited by AdminNosy, : update the link to the new topic

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by Percy, posted 01-11-2009 7:13 AM Percy has not replied

helper
Junior Member (Idle past 5550 days)
Posts: 3
Joined: 01-01-2009


Message 375 of 493 (493871)
01-11-2009 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 358 by Peg
01-11-2009 12:58 AM


Re: how do we measure 'inferiority'?
Thanks Peg. I can see you've got a lot of replies so I'll just try to explain this.
Peg writes:
it was said earlier that some creatures have not evolved such as crocodiles...apparently they are the same and havnt changed in hundreds of thousands of years.
It is incorrect to say they have not evolved. Crocodiles have remained similar phenotypically (in terms of appearance and features) for millions of years. There are phenotypic differences among modern and ancestral species just as there are differences among modern day species today.
Peg writes:
So, what does this imply? Does it mean that the crocodile is perfectly adapted to its environment and therefore has not had need to evolve?
The crocodile is well adapated but not perfectly so. I pointed out earlier that nothing is perfectly adapated. Evolution has occured as the modern day crocodile species differ both in their phenotype and genotype to ancient crocodile species. In general however crocodiles show stabalising selection whereby the constant enviroment causes selection for individuals that generally maintain the already well adapted features.
Peg writes:
Or Does it mean that evolution is not random but rather directed somehow?
Evolution is not random. It has no ultimate goal but natural selection gives a short term direction to the process. In the case of the crocodile as I mentioned stabilising selection has caused relative similarity for millions of years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by Peg, posted 01-11-2009 12:58 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 390 by Peg, posted 01-15-2009 6:41 AM helper has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024