Some Evidence Against Evolution

Well, that is as I expected. They are, indeed, similar, they are also not identical even to an unexpert eye. On point one Milton is wrong.I'm pretty sure point two will remain unknown. We need to consider another pair where the genomes may someday be available.Can you suggest such a pair, WillowTree? Or perhaps you would like to suggest another pair to compare at the skeletal level?

from:http://23.1911encyclopedia.org/P/PH/PHALANGER.htm

quote:

---

Several possess flyingmembranes stretched between their fore and hind limbs, by the help of which they can make long and sustained leaps through the air, like flying-squirrels; but the possession of these flyingmembranes does not seem to be any indication of special affinity, the characters of the skull and teeth sharply dividing the flying forms and uniting them with other species of the non-flying groups.

---

(bold added)I took the liberty of picking on Milton's second example. Wrong again!

Well, it seems that the phalanger example is wrong. You might begin to understand that the statements Milton makes are not the evidence. They just point to what he considers to be evidence.We find that he is wrong on two out of three so far. I can't find anything that allows a check on the jerboa case. Can you find appropriate pictures or details analysis? That would be supplying real evidence to support the assertions that Milton is making.

A very good question. There is, of course, a ton of research done on exactly that question. I don't think there is anything like a definitive answer yet.Is that supposed to be "evidence against evolution"? In what why is it such evidence?

I should have started off this series of posts with a note that what you have posted is at least starting to be a bit more like evidence. If the facts were as Milton suggests I think that it would be evidence that would have to be answered. I would have to be stubborn enough to suggest that it would have to be much augmented with more than one or two part way there examples considering the amount of support it has to overcome. But you are starting, finally, to get to evidence of a sort. Thank you and sorry for not noting that right off.It is, however, unfortunate for your thesis that the facts are not as Milton is asserting. This is why it is so nice to work with evidence. It means we can stop going around in circles and look and resolve some issues.To make it clear, I say that a non-expert can sort work and thyacine skulls once they are told there are two species to sort. Which is in contraction to "When the skulls of the two wolves are placed side by side, it would take an experienced professional zoologist to tell them apart." I can tell them apart from pictures without even having the skulls in my hand. (at least from the samples given, maybe they are extreme individuals of the species or something) (maybe one of them had arthritis? )

But, WT, did you not look at the side-by-side comparison of the thyacine and the wolf? They are NOT, as Milton claims, so 'virtually identical' that only an expert can tell them apart. I can, with just pictures, see the differences. Milton's statment is wrong.The similarities are to be expected through "convergence". All that says is that with similar selective pressures there will be similar outcomes. Even though those outcomes are based on very different underpinnings. A very good example are the ocean going mammels and similar sized fish. There are superficial similarities. Even closer are the icthysaurs and dolphins. No, that is NOT the claim of creationism. Creationism (as it is mostly used here and being argued with) is a claim that not only did God design the program but that he explictly designed the outcome of the process. And you lottery picking program is a bad analogy. Much closer as an analogy is a genetic algorithm. God designed the program as human programmers do. God did not design the individual outcomes nor do the human programmers of genetic algorithms.

Ah, I see, that was a joke. Unfortunately, it has the affect of damaging your credibility right off the bat.Next I would like to ask about your "Do not expect answers." quote. Given the value of your comment on Patterson it is suspicious that it is so short. We have an assertion as to what it is about but it would be valuable to have it in context. When quotes are cut this short it is very suspicious indeed. Could you supply something more? Yes, it seems to be a favourite of creationists. If you go to TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy you will find some reasons why we might be suspicious of quote mining. In many cases these quotes are deliberately taken out of context and lied about as to their true meaning. And all of that is separate from the fact that quoted opinions are one thing while the evidence is another. The opinion of a knowledgable expert is of value but needs to be compared to others. If you use quotes carelessly you may find your creditibility further decayed.

Could you go to the thread discussing macro-evoluion and post what you would consider such evidence? We've had a lot of trouble geting clear what any given creationists considers it to be. So that would be useful too. Some think a new species is "macro", some a new genus and some a new family. Macro and Micro Evolution This one is closed because it got too big but it seems we need the sequel. You could read over some of that thread and then open Macro and Micro Evolution 2 to add your comments. Again can you go to the thread above and describe why they are not reconciled in a bit more detail. My guess is you don't have anything more than what is in the quote marks.

Hmmm darlostt, does it appear that one at a time your quotes are turning out to be poor? Is it possible that you have been mislead by your sources?Perhaps you can relist them and put some labels on them so we can keep track. (little names like "Forey-no answers" etc might do it) When a quote is "mined" it is, I think, appropriate to step back and give your concept of what exactly is meant. We can usually guess but that might be unfair to you.It seems that the meanings you might have attached to them are proving to be incorrect so far. If you disagree it would be interesting to see your interpretation of the quotes when they are taken in context. If you are like a lot of quote miners here I suspect that this will be the first time you've actually seen that. You just picked up the quote from some source that had already pulled it out of context.

Well, I think you are right there. But not for the reason you give. It seems to me that there are a whole bunch of different claims. Sometimes it is so bad you begin to think that no two claim the same thing. You are right. I sort of jsut chose to conclude that God didn't do it. It doesn't really matter enough for me to worry about. I certainly don't think there is any kind of "proof" that God didn't create the process. I just don't worry about it all the much. [qs]I only challenge natural selection if it is offered as evidence that God could not of created it.Tell me Ned, how does natural selection and chance mutation evidence the non-existence of an intelligent Creator ? The only answer you can offer is an answer based upon a previous belief of how God must be.I don't think I've said that, have I? What I do say is that if there is a God then it is the only apparent way He has chosen to create.

Huh, of all my posts??? What did I say to set you off with that one? I almost agreed with you throughout. (at least as much as it is possible )

Ah, has "virtually indentical" turned into "vastly similar" now? Since Milton said this: But when we looked at the pictures we can see that they are not identical at all. Now they are vastly similar. But similar is explained by convergent evolution as you were told.The so-called miracle would be based on the other claim implicit in Milton. That is, the genetics have to be based on identical mutations. You have been asked about that. You have yet to comment on it again. You have continued to confuse the skeletal similarity and the genetics.Could you clarify what you are trying to say? Milton suggests the unlikelyness based on duplicated mutations. But there is zero evidence for that.

Given your problem with what Milton was or was not saying. Perhaps you could lift some quotes from your sources so we could read for ourselves what they said?