Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   One of the many things evolutionists avoid to respond
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 16 of 46 (19714)
10-12-2002 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Delshad
10-11-2002 2:40 PM


Before bothering to research the answer to your question, perhaps you'd care to respond to the answers to the OTHER questions you posed. For instance, this post and this one. You also seem to have completely abandoned this thread you started completely, although since I have no vested interest in it I personally don't really care.
I find it extremely interesting that an Islamic creationist uses exactly the same tactics and arguments as protestant fundamentalist ones from the other side of the planet. Is there some aspect of mainstream religion that I'm missing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Delshad, posted 10-11-2002 2:40 PM Delshad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Delshad, posted 10-12-2002 10:46 AM Quetzal has replied
 Message 23 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-12-2002 1:07 PM Quetzal has replied

  
Delshad
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 46 (19718)
10-12-2002 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Quetzal
10-12-2002 10:04 AM


Mainstream religion?
Look, Quetzal, Im 18 years old and Ive just recently developed an interest for this kind of issues.
Its unfair of you to suggest that my questions would represent Islamic viewpoints of the creation, Im only trying to learn.
And forget the idea that I jump from thread to thread, if you really were honest, then you would have included my second topic in your reply were it clearly states that the example of the human eyebrow was only to make a point, to tell a similarity.
You should have included this quote by Tranquility Base: "Statements of 'paraphylicity' or 'convergent evolution' or 'this fossil was folded in' are rarely facts They are suppositions consistent with the evolutionary framework and do not rule out alternative viewpoints. Within your framework they are highly logical observations and exceptions"
And who am I to know everything, this is a debate, right? So if I write a topic that isnt accurate in its information, then Im sorry.
But my idea of it was that when that happens, people who are more experienced than me would let me know that in a nice way.
Not throwing it on my face on another topic hoping to discredit me, if that was your goal then you have succeded, congrats!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Quetzal, posted 10-12-2002 10:04 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Joe Meert, posted 10-12-2002 11:03 AM Delshad has not replied
 Message 36 by Quetzal, posted 10-13-2002 8:49 AM Delshad has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 18 of 46 (19720)
10-12-2002 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Delshad
10-12-2002 7:18 AM


Soz, double post.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 10-12-2002]
[This message has been edited by mark24, 10-12-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Delshad, posted 10-12-2002 7:18 AM Delshad has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 19 of 46 (19721)
10-12-2002 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Delshad
10-12-2002 7:18 AM


Delshad,
You think the flood onset occurs with the beginning of the cambrian period, & ends at the K-T boundary.
In that case, why are there missing fossils for whales in post cretaceous deposits? They should appear IMMEDIATELY post flood, but, OMG, there are fossil gaps post flood too!!!!!
How do you explain the anomoly of missing fossils that occur after the flood?
Artifacts of preservation?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Delshad, posted 10-12-2002 7:18 AM Delshad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-12-2002 1:13 PM mark24 has replied
 Message 32 by Delshad, posted 10-12-2002 4:46 PM mark24 has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 20 of 46 (19722)
10-12-2002 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Delshad
10-12-2002 10:46 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Delshad:
Mainstream religion?
Look, Quetzal, Im 18 years old and Ive just recently developed an interest for this kind of issues.
Its unfair of you to suggest that my questions would represent Islamic viewpoints of the creation, Im only trying to learn.
And forget the idea that I jump from thread to thread, if you really were honest, then you would have included my second topic in your reply were it clearly states that the example of the human eyebrow was only to make a point, to tell a similarity.
You should have included this quote by Tranquility Base: "Statements of 'paraphylicity' or 'convergent evolution' or 'this fossil was folded in' are rarely facts They are suppositions consistent with the evolutionary framework and do not rule out alternative viewpoints. Within your framework they are highly logical observations and exceptions"
And who am I to know everything, this is a debate, right? So if I write a topic that isnt accurate in its information, then Im sorry.
But my idea of it was that when that happens, people who are more experienced than me would let me know that in a nice way.
Not throwing it on my face on another topic hoping to discredit me, if that was your goal then you have succeded, congrats!
JM: The problem is that you come on here challenging evolution as if you had some deep insight into the problems. When asked for details, you shrink away. If you want detailed discussion, then argue from knowledge rather than falling back on ignorance when challenged! You'll get plenty of discussion. For example, why did you not bother to read about Gould's explanations for the lack of transitionals? One idea is that evolution is not always gradual, but includes saltatory periods (punctuated equilibria). Anyway, if you are confrontational in your approach, don't be surprised if people respond in kind!
Cheers
Joe Meert
PS: Love Sweden. I lived in Norway for 13 months and spent a month teaching and doing research in Lund.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Delshad, posted 10-12-2002 10:46 AM Delshad has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 46 (19723)
10-12-2002 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Delshad
10-12-2002 7:18 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Delshad:
Dear John: However I find it quite amusing that the evolutionary process between Compsognathus-Archaeopteryx, that screams for an explanation, just cant be found.
It isn't even clear that archeaopteryx is an ancestor of Compsognathus.
You have to understand that we are dealing with a small fraction of the whole picture. There is nothing anyone can do about that. Asking questions for which we haven't adequate information isn't valid. For example, asking you to provide evidence that Moses existed is valid. Asking you to provide the day and time that Moses was born is not valid. The first question is answerable the second question isn't.
That said, I am not convinced of the nature of the relationship between the species you name, so I am not going to argue it. Perhaps someone else here will.
quote:
My point is that in some major "leaps" in the history of evolution, the first fish, the fish into an amphibian, or the amphibian into a reptile, such organs as lungs or a way of giving alive birth, are mainly made of soft tissues.
That these things are all soft tissue goes a long way toward explaining why we little evidence for their origin. Soft tissue does not preserve as well.
quote:
Lets stop at the secondary traits, why did the genome in the fish that already could breathe under water, "start" the developement
of an alternative way of staying alive above surface.

It didn't. The fish did not 'start' to develop organs for land dwelling. Through many generations a population of fish very slowly moved from one environment to the another. You are missing the obvious-- no two animals are the same. The differences aren't driven by by the will of one fish to do something. The differences are random. A fish that is slightly faster-- for no good reason-- than its friend will survive a little longer on average and make a few more babies. The next generation will have a higher percentage of genes from the faster fish than from the slower fish. It is the same for air breathing. Say two fish live in a pond that is drying out. Both fish end up flopping around in a few inches of water and as a result gulp air. There is no intent here. One fish has a slightly thinner menbrane in its gut than does the other fish. The fish with the thinner membrane survives the few extra hours until the next high tide or rainfall while the other fish dies. The next generation will have the genes of the survivor and the slightly thinner membrane. Add millions of years and similar pressures making air breathing advantageous and yuo have fully terrestrial critters.
quote:
Indeed, the construction of a wing is so fragile and delicate that even if you were to rip out only a few feathers from its wings, it wouldn`t be able to fly (I dont find it likely that the wings and the avial feathers would once have been used for anything else but for flying with).
Why not? The first feathers in the fossil record resemble down more than flight feathers. Down is useless for flight, but good for insulation.
quote:
I dont think Im asking too much when I only wish to see ONE fossil replica.
I grew up in a small country town. Countless tens or hundreds of thousands of animals lived within a few miles of my house. In seventeen years I found perhaps five or six bones. How many of those five or six do you think would survive 1 million years? How about 10 million? Or 100 million?
Also notice that you are not asking for ONE fossil. To see the chain of events you ask to see, you'd need thousands of fossils along the same lineage. It isn't going to happen.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Delshad, posted 10-12-2002 7:18 AM Delshad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Delshad, posted 10-12-2002 12:56 PM John has replied
 Message 28 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-12-2002 1:25 PM John has not replied

  
Delshad
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 46 (19733)
10-12-2002 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by John
10-12-2002 11:07 AM


Youre absolutely right, the fish could have thinner membrane because that variation is within limits of its genome, isnt it?
But something that is outside , something that would require a new organ or a different metabolism , that could be done only by a punctuated equilibrium (a mutation replacemt in a grand scale) giving just the convienent necessities for natural selection to build upon.
Ive read that since the early fifties, experiments have been made on a certain type of fly to see if by random mutation or punctuated equilibrium, a new organ would appear.
The results so far is at its peak, hazardous or non effective, not an increase of genetic information has been achieved, only loss or replacemt of previously available.
I know that in nature, we are talking about millions of years, but still, wouldnt the fact that these experiments were made in an enviroment where the chances of it are very high(and the speed of that flies re- production rate) somehow balance the chances in a way?
John wrote: "You have to understand that we are dealing with a small fraction of the whole picture. There is nothing anyone can do about that. Asking questions for which we haven't adequate information isn't valid. For example, asking you to provide evidence that Moses existed is valid. Asking you to provide the day and time that Moses was born is not valid. The first question is answerable the second question isn't."
If you believe that by not getting an answer to a question I can walk out of here convinsed that evolution is wrong, you have misunderstood me.
But by asking questions that no one has a proper answer to, i believe it is safe to accept that there can be other possibilities explaining the diversity of life.
Why is it so that the fossils never show us a find of specie possesing organs or traits that have been used or will used in the future, punctuated equilibrium can`t be credited alone to have made the transformation of Compsognathus-Archaeopteryx in an instance, right?
Even if one where to happen, inorder to fill the missing links , many are sured to have occured,and plenty of time would have passed, thus many generations not possessing the ability to fly yet but still developing wings (indirectly) for that purpose, and not , just as you mentioned, down , but avial feathers, right?
Delshad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by John, posted 10-12-2002 11:07 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by mark24, posted 10-12-2002 1:17 PM Delshad has not replied
 Message 26 by Brad McFall, posted 10-12-2002 1:19 PM Delshad has not replied
 Message 31 by John, posted 10-12-2002 2:26 PM Delshad has replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 46 (19734)
10-12-2002 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Quetzal
10-12-2002 10:04 AM


quote:
I find it extremely interesting that an Islamic creationist uses exactly the same tactics and arguments as protestant fundamentalist ones from the other side of the planet. Is there some aspect of mainstream religion that I'm missing?
Quetzal (and others), I have a personal request to you all. Please don't be too hard on my brother Delshad. He's here to learn and I think that he can evaluate the available evidence to decide what he should accept. I know that you guys are able to crack the likes of Wordswordman and Peter Borger, but Delshad's not like them. Given enough discussions, maybe you can come to good terms with Delshad as you do to Tranquility Base & TrueCreation.
To Delshad: I know that you might be bored with the other topics, but please make some comments on them. We are waiting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Quetzal, posted 10-12-2002 10:04 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Quetzal, posted 10-13-2002 8:56 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 46 (19735)
10-12-2002 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by mark24
10-12-2002 11:02 AM


Mark, maybe you're attacking a strawman. While YEC freaks entertain the idea of a global Noachian flood, Muslims have different opinions about that. I adhere to the view that it was local; don't know about Delshad but I think he can state clearly what he thinks about that matter. Also, if he happens to entertain Harun Yahya's creationism version, I can be 80% sure that he would say anything about flood geology nonsense. Harun Yahya is an ID supporter; probably closer to Philip Johnson & such, not ICR.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by mark24, posted 10-12-2002 11:02 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by mark24, posted 10-12-2002 1:21 PM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 25 of 46 (19736)
10-12-2002 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Delshad
10-12-2002 12:56 PM


Delshad,
quote:
Why is it so that the fossils never show us a find of specie possesing organs or traits that have been used or will used in the future, punctuated equilibrium can`t be credited alone to have made the transformation of Compsognathus-Archaeopteryx in an instance, right?
You're just plain wrong here. There have been more fossils discovered in china that place several organisms between compsognathus & Archeopteryx. Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx, Protoarcheopteryx to name but 3. And Confuciornis slots in after Archeopteryx, as a more modern bird. Interestingly, the first three are covered with "downy, feather like fibres". Caudipteryx has a stiff "true" feathered tail & hands. None (other than the post archaeopterix) can fly, showing feathers evolved before flight, probably first for insulation, then to attract a mate.
Also, message 19, please.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Delshad, posted 10-12-2002 12:56 PM Delshad has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 26 of 46 (19737)
10-12-2002 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Delshad
10-12-2002 12:56 PM


It is true that we are dealing with only a :fraction: of the whole picture and this is really GOULD's point against simple minded creationists but that does not seem to be the creationism that is being represented on this board that seems indeed able to get beyond Sagan's call back to his molecules that I heard out of his mouth not on the TV and this is part the reason I am not more readable is that this fraction could in whatever the numerator be NOT THE LEAST common becasue of math of Cantor inifinity could if for instance the difference of cardinal and ordinal is only in spirit existing while in empiric science something completely answering the non-chaotic nature of Wolfram's brand of science as a branch at least of baraminiology. But I do not know this and hence the sentnece seems in finite minds "unreadable". I wrote the fraction so some breach is not.
Creation/Evolution would advance if infinite comparisons were more common disseminated in teachings of any science. Even the denumerable difference does not seem this common.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Delshad, posted 10-12-2002 12:56 PM Delshad has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 27 of 46 (19739)
10-12-2002 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Andya Primanda
10-12-2002 1:13 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
Mark, maybe you're attacking a strawman. While YEC freaks entertain the idea of a global Noachian flood, Muslims have different opinions about that. I adhere to the view that it was local; don't know about Delshad but I think he can state clearly what he thinks about that matter. Also, if he happens to entertain Harun Yahya's creationism version, I can be 80% sure that he would say anything about flood geology nonsense. Harun Yahya is an ID supporter; probably closer to Philip Johnson & such, not ICR.
Delshad already HAS entertained the idea of a flood, he has told me when it starts & stops.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-12-2002 1:13 PM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 46 (19740)
10-12-2002 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by John
10-12-2002 11:07 AM


Say, John, care to discuss more about the evolution of flight and feathers? I don't find the dinosaur-to-bird theory plausible; I prefer Feduccia & Mayr's view (stem reptiles-to-birds). Flight can only evolve top-down, not bottom-up: Darwin chose a really smart model in flying squirrels, so my speculation is that Archaeopteryx's predecessors were arboreal reptiles which evolved something like a gliding membrane. Try Svend Palm's opinion about this
http://home13.inet.tele.dk/palm/origbird.htm
As for feathers, maybe they're still useful as cannon fodder for creationists. I cannot find any info about how they might have evolved... Does the protein that builds feathers have any affinition to reptile-scale proteins?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by John, posted 10-12-2002 11:07 AM John has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 29 of 46 (19741)
10-12-2002 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Delshad
10-11-2002 2:40 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Delshad:
Question:Why do we dont see the a smooth graduate line in the fossil records , instead we see gaps, followed by another distinct specie.
This is an interesting question, but before going any further, could you please tell us why therer should be a gradual line of fossils, and if any evolutionist has ever told you that there should be one? I think that when you answer this question it might become clearer to you that: a) this argument might be a straw man, and b) that you might have been deceived by whatever literature you have read on this subject.
quote:
And remember, similarities between species in your evolutionary tree is not an evidence to prove anything, if you believe in Allah,for instance, then you interpret the same similarities as signs of Him guiding evolution into what he wants.
Its only a question of perspective.
Once again, you miss the point that there is more than just similarity to suggest transitional fossils.
quote:
And if you wish to skip the fact that fossils are missing, then I dont regard you as scientists,...
This is an interesting (perhaps I could also use the word 'arrogant') statement coming from an 18-year old who has little training in science. Where did you ever get this notion? Who has been guiding you in this area? Are you willing to learn or are you simply here to create a confrontation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Delshad, posted 10-11-2002 2:40 PM Delshad has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 30 of 46 (19742)
10-12-2002 1:44 PM


So far, the answers have been related to why not all former living creatures have been preserved in the fossil record. This indeed is a very real situation.
But, another aspect is the situation of punctuated equilibria. "Punk Eek" has its own topic at http://EvC Forum: Punctuated Equilibria -->EvC Forum: Punctuated Equilibria .
Of course, the preservation of a fossil record of "punk eek" is also a problem.
Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83; Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U; Old Earth evolution - Yes; Godly creation - Maybe
My big page of Creation/Evolution Links

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024