Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   evolution vs. creationism: evolution wins
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 765 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 143 of 310 (178188)
01-18-2005 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by xevolutionist
01-18-2005 11:13 AM


Re: Some concerns about proof
Hi, xevo! How's it going?
Ask any high school student you meet how it is being taught today.
My daughter, out here in the wilds of Texas, took Honors Biology in high school about four years ago. Campbell's excellent text was used. The teacher "taught" evolution by saying, "These chapters are about evolution. You may read them if you want to, but they won't be on the test."
On the subject of tetrapods, read Jennifer Clack's Gaining Ground. It will give you a headache from all the names of obscure bones, but it gives a very nice "warts and all" treatment of what was known about the transition from "fish" to tetrapod in the Devonian. (She and others have found more since, though....)
(edited 'cause I'm so spastic)
This message has been edited by Coragyps, 01-18-2005 13:03 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by xevolutionist, posted 01-18-2005 11:13 AM xevolutionist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by xevolutionist, posted 01-18-2005 9:34 PM Coragyps has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 765 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 163 of 310 (178337)
01-18-2005 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by xevolutionist
01-18-2005 8:39 PM


Re: Some concerns about proof
Which is why I'm reluctant to accept Clack's claims that the the tetrapods she discovered are unique.
I don't think that you'll find Clack making such a claim. She seems very cautious to state exactly what there is in the way of bones in each fossil, and then to carefully compare structures between them. I don't remember a single instance in her book where she claims "this is descended from that" - more like "notice how the supracleithrals and operculogulars are absent in the critters that have toes." (she states that a little more formally than I, though.)
Clack spends some time on coelacanths, other modern lobefins, and how they fit into the relationships among "fish" and tetrapods, too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by xevolutionist, posted 01-18-2005 8:39 PM xevolutionist has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 765 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 167 of 310 (178350)
01-18-2005 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by xevolutionist
01-18-2005 9:27 PM


Re: Some concerns about proof
What I suspected seems to be true, that there really are no transitional forms, just plaster of paris and imagination.
Read Dr Clack's book, then. Or look at Thewissen's whale website:
http://darla.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Thewissen/

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by xevolutionist, posted 01-18-2005 9:27 PM xevolutionist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by xevolutionist, posted 01-18-2005 10:57 PM Coragyps has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 765 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 200 of 310 (178677)
01-19-2005 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by xevolutionist
01-19-2005 4:53 PM


Re: Ear canals
the fact that there were no transitional forms between land and sea mammals and that they both emerged with their own particular features has not changed. There is no evolutionary link. Robert Carroll accepts this, albeit unwillingly and in evolutionist language: It is not possible to identify a sequence of mesonychids leading directly to whales.
I italicized a word or two for you there......
The fact that your presuppositions blind you to the amazingly well-recorded progression of fossils from landlubber to swimmer that have come out of Pakistan in the last decade doesn't mean it blinds others. Twenty years ago, before Gingerich and Thewissen dug all these pretty transitionals, whale evolution really was pretty opaque. It's clearer now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by xevolutionist, posted 01-19-2005 4:53 PM xevolutionist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by xevolutionist, posted 01-19-2005 5:49 PM Coragyps has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 765 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 309 of 310 (180621)
01-25-2005 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by xevolutionist
01-25-2005 7:31 PM


Re: define your limits - with references
No new information is gained by mutations, the information present is corrupted.
Weren't you in this discussion with me on another board, X? If so, HI!
Didn't I ask about hemoglobin C over there? The one that gives African kids 93% resistance to malaria with mild-to-no side effects?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by xevolutionist, posted 01-25-2005 7:31 PM xevolutionist has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024