One of the many things evolutionists avoid to respond

quote:

---

Originally posted by Delshad:
Youre absolutely right, the fish could have thinner membrane because that variation is within limits of its genome, isnt it?

---

Yes. And that is the whole of the story. You never have variation 'outside' of a creature's genome. The genome itself changes very slowly generation to generation right along with the external features of the animal.

quote:

---

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.

---

What you describe isn't punctuated equilibria. First, there are always minor mutations. Everytime an animal reproduces it creates a slightly inaccurate version of itself. This doesn't require any 'mutation replacement on a grand scale.' Natural selection is constantly filtering these minor mutations. Secondly, puncuated equilibria is the idea that there are periods of relative stability of a species and periods of relatively rapid speciation. The key is the word 'relatively' In the fast mode you are talking about tens of hundreds of thousand years instead of millions.

quote:

---

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?

---

You are talking about guiding evolution. No one alive today has that kind of knowledge.

quote:

---

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.

---

I don't expect you to walk out convinced. I expect you to understand why you can't get the answer you want. You're argument is that if evolution were true then we should see pattern-x in the fossil record. Well, my point is that whether evolution is true or not you are not going to see pattern-x in the fossil record. The fossil record does not contain that information. Since evolutiontrue== no pattern-x and evolutionfalse== no pattern-x the fact that there is no pattern-x is not a valid argument against evolution.

quote:

---

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.

---

Sure. There can be thousands of other possibilities. I could sit here and invent hundreds of possibilities. But which of those best explains the observations we actually do have? IMO, that is evolution.

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?

---

This doesn't make sense to me. Can you explain better?

quote:

---

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?

---

Yes, sort-of. There is no purpose involved. Developing wing-like things-- yes. But not developing towards wings. At every stage along the way the wing-precursor (or whatever organ you may consider) will have a function for which it is selected or at least, be such that it is not selected against.Think about several terrestrial animals covered with down-like feathers. They fall off of a cliff or out of a tree. Those with down which provide a little more air resistance will have a better chance of survival. Over enough time you get creatures that can glide a little bit, then glide a lot. The creatures depend on the ability more and more. Stronger muscles make a better glider. Lighter bones make a better glider. Eventually you have a true flying creature.

Mark24, Here in Sweden there is a very similar word to the english word flood, (flod=river), so in my haste I made the conclusion that the underlying question was ,where and when was the bulk of the geological column made.
So of course, i replied that I believed that fossils were best preserved under water and that between the Cambrian period and the crataecious (because of the quantity of the animal fauna during that time).
However I was soon to realise(because of Andya`s reply) that you are refering to the biblical flood were there was a global flood covering most of the area of the world.
The answer is , no I dont believe in a global flood.
The flood was local and was , i think, a result of the meltdown of ice mass during the Iceage were large amounts of water crosses gibralter and has a devastaing effect on the coastals of the mediterranian.

That put a crimp in an otherwise damn fine plan....... Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

I had a feeling that you were up to something

John said:
"Think about several terrestrial animals covered with down-like feathers. They fall off of a cliff or out of a tree. Those with down which provide a little more air resistance will have a better chance of survival. Over enough time you get creatures that can glide a little bit, then glide a lot. The creatures depend on the ability more and more. Stronger muscles make a better glider. Lighter bones make a better glider. Eventually you have a true flying creature."Hmm, isnt it so that animals have instincts?
So, it is a rare occasion that an animal would "fall", out of a cliff or a tree.
And if they would fall, then it is most certainly due to factors like, the wind pushing them or being chased down by a predator.
Keeping in mind the above said, such rare occasions to me isnt enough to by means of natural selection (in the course of a few million years), evolve a reptile into a bird.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is it so that the fossils never show us a find of a 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?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------This doesn't make sense to me. Can you explain better?What i meant was that why dont the fossils, or the animals alive today for that matter, show us that they have traits that doesnt have a function whatsoever (but have been in the past, or maybe (indirectly) is about to be used in the future).
So far, what i have seen, every organ has a function, and if we find a one that dont, then it is usually because of our lack of knowledge in that organ.That is why I used the example of the Compsognathus-Archaeopteryx, because in that case, and in other similar cases(such as the the evolutionary process of the bat), somewhere on the line, many generations not possessing the ability to fly yet but still developing wings (indirectly) for that purpose, are sure to have existed.
Why dont we see such kinds of fossils.Sicerely Delshad

Delshad:It was neither my intent nor in my interest to "discredit you". Please re-read my post to which you responded. I was pointing out that starting multiple threads "challenging evolution" requiring detailed, substantive responses - then dropping them/failing to respond in any fashion other than to start a new thread with some new "challenge" doesn't indicate that you are interested in either "learning about the issues" or in actual debate. This is the exact same tactic used by the majority of protestant creationists - even the young ones. It's known as the "post and run" tactic. If you ARE sincerely interested, please respond to the two posts I listed in my message. If you aren't, then feel free to continue opening new threads without responding to old topics.As to the "Islamic creationist" comment: Of course you don't "speak" for the Islamic viewpoint on creation, any more than TB "speaks" for the protestant creationist viewpoint. However, consider the following points:1. You are without question an adherent of Islam.2. You have read enough of the creationist position - notably the writings of Harun Yahya, who DOES claim to "speak" for the Islamic position - to utilize the exact same "challenges" as Yahya and the other Islamic creationists do. Logically, therefore, you are representing (albeit second-hand) the Islamic creationist position.This isn't a problem - I was merely pointing out that the "challenges" you post (with the exception of the eyebrow bit - I honestly hadn't seen that one before) are identical to those posed by the average Christian fundamentalist using the standard "arguments from profound ignorance" to think they can overturn 150 years of biological research. So I stand by my comment.

quote:

---

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.

---

What do you call it then, when I provide you a substantive reply (the two posts cited) to a question which you posed, you utterly ignore them (even to simply say "You're wrong"), and then all of a sudden open a new thread on a completely new spurious challenge? I never evern responded to your eyebrow thread, and stated in my post I couldn't care less whether you responded on that thread or not. However, I submit it IS indicative of the trend.

quote:

---

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"

---

Why would I include a quote from TB - on a subject I didn't even address - when I was responding to you? If TB's point had had some bearing on what I posted, I probably WOULD have responded to him.

quote:

---

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.

---

Yep, that's the way it's supposed to work. However, that presupposes some honesty on your part as well - at least an acknowledgement that someone responded to you. If you don't agree with the response, then research and post a rebuttal. If you agree, or even if you don't agree but it made you think, then you need to say so. Discussions are a two-way street. If you're really here to learn (something that has yet to be shown on your part), then I say GREAT! I would be delighted to try and answer your questions.Let me give you an example of what I am talking about: re-read the thread on fish/lung evolution Hanno started. Hanno posted a question/challenge. It was answered. Hanno asked good follow-up questions. Those were answered. He then changed the subject a couple of times, but still indicated he had read the responses, and his question (at least as posed), had been answered. I am morally certain he remains unconvinced, but he was honest enough to acknowledge that his challenge had been answered. THAT's the kind of discussion I am more than willing to spend time on. And believe me, these "challenges" DO require significantly more time to answer than to pose. So if you're interested in discussion, take a page from Hanno's book and try it.

quote:

---

Not throwing it on my face on another topic hoping to discredit me, if that was your goal then you have succeded, congrats!

---

Again, there was no attempt to discredit you. Playing the martyr doesn't fly well with me. Answer the posts noted, and you'd never have gotten my initial response as you did. I would be interested in discussing the evolution of flight. I have some fairly decent references, and even some friends who have a great deal of knowledge on the subject. However, you have set up a situation where all I can assume is that any effort on my part would be completely wasted - all you'll do (based on your history here) will be to ignore the evidence presented and open yet another thread with yet another "challenge".Prove me wrong.

Andya,I regret you find my posts offensive in some way. As I noted to Delshad above, it is HIS tactic that is offensive to ME. If you are so concerned, please email your "brother" and advise him as to the most effective way to learn/discuss on a board like this one. He has given, thus far, no indication he is here to "learn" anything - merely spout anti-evolutionary rhetoric which we have all heard hundreds of times before. I am open to a different interpretation.

quote:

---

What i meant was that why dont the fossils, or the animals alive today for that matter, show us that they have traits that doesnt have a function whatsoever (but have been in the past, or maybe (indirectly) is about to be used in the future).
So far, what i have seen, every organ has a function, and if we find a one that dont, then it is usually because of our lack of knowledge in that organ.

---

Humans have "goose bumps", which try to fluff up our hair so we can stay warmer...except that we don't have hair all over our bodies anymore.The goose bump response to feeling chilled is a useless, left over response from our primate past.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Humans have "goose bumps", which try to fluff up our hair so we can stay warmer...except that we don't have hair all over our bodies anymore.

​

The goose bump response to feeling chilled is a useless, left over response from our primate past.

​

---

Actually we still have hair all over our bodies, it is just that it is much finer then it had once been. BTW, some of us (me) are still quite hairy. I guess that I'm a throwback.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Delshad:
Hmm, isnt it so that animals have instincts?

---

Sure, animals have what we call instincts though its a fuzzy term-- being some combination of inherited and learned behavior. But I don't see the relevance. Animals screw up just like people do.

quote:

---

So, it is a rare occasion that an animal would "fall", out of a cliff or a tree.

---

I don't think you can support this. Nature is pretty vicious. A lot depends on where the creature lives as well. If you live in a tree, you will fall sometimes. And all you need is a fall of ten or twenty feet.

quote:

---

And if they would fall, then it is most certainly due to factors like, the wind pushing them or being chased down by a predator.

---

There would be an awful lot of just this sort of thing. And don't forget about hunting. Perhaps the animal in questions hunts in trees. There are a lot of bugs there. Perhaps the animal jumps on purpose to avoid predators? A fifty percent chance of death in a fall is better than 100% if the predator catches you. Perhaps the animal leaps to catch prey. A slight advantage in reach could make all the difference. A longer jump might also make the critter more prone to falling.Just keep in mind that there are numerous things that could account for the evolution of flight. My examples are not the only ones.

quote:

---

What i meant was that why dont the fossils, or the animals alive today for that matter, show us that they have traits that doesnt have a function whatsoever (but have been in the past, or maybe (indirectly) is about to be used in the future).

---

First, who know what is 'about to be used in the future'. There is no way to know.Some snakes have leg bones tucked away inside their bodies. Cave animals have non-functional eyes.

quote:

---

So far, what i have seen, every organ has a function, and if we find a one that dont, then it is usually because of our lack of knowledge in that organ.

---

Sure organs get co-opted for other purposes. It is important to realize note that it is often possible to determine what an organ used to be used for.

quote:

---

That is why I used the example of the Compsognathus-Archaeopteryx, because in that case, and in other similar cases(such as the the evolutionary process of the bat), somewhere on the line, many generations not possessing the ability to fly yet but still developing wings (indirectly) for that purpose, are sure to have existed.
Why dont we see such kinds of fossils.

---

Delshad, you are essentially re-asking the question with which you started.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

AllThe primary unanswered point here, and near punctuated equilibrium, let alone evoltuion, killer, is that we can see beautiful gradual evolution in the fossil record up a geological column covering million of years in shell-fish paleontology for example. We can track the morphology change - the shape changes, the swirls increase in helicity.But when we want to see the origin of genuine novelty. Can we see that? No.We see microevolution in the fossil record over millions of years and hundreds of feet of strata. When we are after the introduction of genuine novelty its record is suspiciously, completely systematically, absent and occurs in a split second of geological time.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-14-2002]

^ Bump

Dear TB,Yet another evolution killer?My comments:
ToE RIP!Best wishes,
Peter

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ Bump

---

*********************I have already shown mechanisms for generation of genetic novelty i.e. syncytin in our Kinds discussion. Now you are switching to morphological novelty. What is your defintion of "genuine novelty"? It would help in discussing your post..as to PB's TOE RIP comment...yet another unwarranted conclusion...especially since I falsified your morphogenetic creaton hypothesis

quote:

---

Question:Why do we dont see the a smooth graduate line in the fossil records , instead we see gaps,followed by another distinct specie.

---

Answer: Fossilisation has not captured ALL creatures that have
ever lived. One would tend to expect gaps in this record due to
the apparent rarity of fossilisation.I agree with you that simplicity is the best way to answer any
problem. So I have been simple.