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: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Darwinism is wrong
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 271 of 305 (227440)
07-29-2005 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by randman
07-29-2005 2:45 PM


Re: Oh, this is going to be fun.
randman,
Uh huh? Sorry, but all that is just one big rant with no substance.
Annoying, isn't it?
I have shown you an example with the 3 mammal ear bones. Since they arose independently, the idea that lesser similarities indicate a developmental pathway is highly dubious.
Could you pls re-post the link?
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 2:45 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 3:09 PM mark24 has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 272 of 305 (227443)
07-29-2005 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Chiroptera
07-29-2005 2:56 PM


Re: Oh, this is going to be fun.
Are you being honest here chiropetra?
quote:
You are making claims that similarities discovered are the result of common ancestry, no?
No.
You are making that claim. You are claiming that reptile jaws evolved into mammal jaws, are you not?
quote:
I have shown you an example with the 3 mammal ear bones.
If you are referring to what I think you are, that paper is fairly recent, and the conclusions still need to be scrutinized.
It really does not matter since the assumption that it is possible is not in question. So assuming that because 2 species share a similar trait, that they inherited that trait from a common ancestor is a wrong assumption in this discussion. You claim that the data indicates changes in some reptile species towards structures more similar to mammals and thus were precursors to mammals.
But it could well be that there is some sort of predisposition or environmental factor causing that similarity to arise independently, or alternatively it could be the result of special creation.
But either way, the assumption that these represent an evolutionary path is a wholly unproven assumption, and this data does not show that.
It may be congruent with that, but no more than other alternative explanations, such as convergency moving forms for jaws into greater similarity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Chiroptera, posted 07-29-2005 2:56 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Chiroptera, posted 07-29-2005 3:30 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 273 of 305 (227447)
07-29-2005 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by mark24
07-29-2005 2:58 PM


Re: Oh, this is going to be fun.
It was discussed in depth on several other threads recently. I will do a google and post one of the first references to it, but I think you should do more research and look into the references a little more on your own, and I think that is a reasonable request on my part.
[following theory was rocked] As mammalian jaws evolved to be simplermammals now have only one jawbone, the dentarythe three accessory jawbones eventually shifted to the ear to become the malleus, which fuses two bones, and the eardrum. The mammalian auditory system is a complex chain of bones from the eardrum to the inner ear. Because of this, scientists believed that this adaptation occurred in one single ancestor, who passed it on to humans and other mammals.
This theory was rocked when Hopson, on a trip to Australia in 2002, was presented with fossilized jaw of an early monotreme found in an earlier dig on the coast Melbourne by a team of researchers, including Hopson’s colleague, Thomas Rich of Museum Victoria in Melbourne. The specimen, Teinlophos trusleri, interested Hopson because the primitive mammal’s jaw had a large groove, or trough, which suggested that the smaller jaw bones had not developed into the ear.
I was just amazed when I recognized the significance of this trough, Hopson said. Only this specimenhas the trough, which indicates that these bones were still attached to the jaw in this specimen.
In Hopson’s paper, co-written by Rich and the other Australian researchers for the February 11 issue of Science, the two most detailed specimens were adult or adolescent, with most of their teeth and jawbones fully developed. While the nature of all the bones in the Teinolophos are not known, the structure of the mandibular trough suggests that it housed a rod of accessory jaw bones similar to the angular, articular and prearticular group found in the mammal-like reptiles.
If this is true, it would mean that the two branches of mammalsthe group that gave rise to placentals and marsupials and the precursor group to monotremesevolved their acute hearing systems independently of one another, an example of convergent evolution in the development of mammals.
http://maroon.uchicago.edu/...02/22/professor_makes_ears.php

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by mark24, posted 07-29-2005 2:58 PM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Jazzns, posted 07-29-2005 5:01 PM randman has replied

deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 274 of 305 (227450)
07-29-2005 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by randman
07-29-2005 2:07 PM


Re: you are right on no transitions in the fossil record
Actually convergent characters are predicted by (and therefore a strength of) evolutionary theory and is a big problem for special creation. (Why use several ways to solve the same "problem" when one way is probably superior?) It is the some of the Rube Goldberg like results of evolution that is the best evidence for it. One would expect a designer to design the perfect structure for each function and then simply repeat it over and over. But that is not what we find. Nature is full of ad hoc solutions to life's requirements. The panda "thumb" is just one example.
http://www.athro.com/evo/pthumb.html
This message has been edited by deerbreh, 07-29-2005 03:18 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 2:07 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 3:30 PM deerbreh has replied
 Message 277 by Chiroptera, posted 07-29-2005 3:35 PM deerbreh has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 275 of 305 (227456)
07-29-2005 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by randman
07-29-2005 3:04 PM


Re: Oh, this is going to be fun.
quote:
quote:
You are making claims that similarities discovered are the result of common ancestry, no?
No.
You are making that claim. You are claiming that reptile jaws evolved into mammal jaws, are you not?
The two statements are different. If you want, I will explain to you the difference, although that should be obvious.
-
quote:
It really does not matter since the assumption that it is possible is not in question.
You are claiming that the results in the paper as evidence, so it's accuracy is definitely relevant. But it doesn't really matter, since even if the paper is accurate it isn't a blow against evolution.
-
quote:
It may be congruent with that....
Which is all science ever deals with -- evidence that is congruent to a theory. No theory has ever been proven -- all we can ever say is that the majority of the data is consistent with the theory. And I do mean majority of data -- for any theory in any field of science, there is always data that contradicts the theory. A large part of scientific work in any scientific field consists of figuring out how to explain anomalies. That's science for you.
-
quote:
So assuming that because 2 species share a similar trait, that they inherited that trait from a common ancestor is a wrong assumption in this discussion.
The argument is whether evolutionary change occurred at all. The hypothesis (evolutionary change) is made, observations are made (embryonic of reptile jaws vs. mammal ears). A prediction is made: there used to exist animals with these bones in intermediary states. The prediction does not have to be confirmed, and yet it was.
Let me tell you a true falsification of evolution: intermediaries between bats and bird. Direct intermediaries between whales and fish. Surely an god that can create reptile and mammal intermediaries could also create whale and fish intermediaries? Why would god create intermediaries between whales and artiodactyls and whales but leave out intermediaries between whales and fish? Why are all the intermediaries that have been found consistent with evolution?
At any rate, it is possible that the inner ear bones of mammals are an example of parallel evolution. However, this is reasonable in only a small number of lines -- without some sort of verifiable mechanism, it seems unreasonable to assume convergent evolution of inner ear bones in each mammal species separately.
Monotremes, marsupials, and therians share too many traits for them all to have evolved in separate lineages that have no relation to one another -- not unless one can propose some verifiable mechanism to account for this. These groups are included in the same class after all -- the assumption is that the nested hierarchical pattern in species classification must be indicative of some underlying order. Common descent is the current explanation for this. So far, no other verifiable explanation can do so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 3:04 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 3:43 PM Chiroptera has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 276 of 305 (227457)
07-29-2005 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by deerbreh
07-29-2005 3:18 PM


Re: you are right on no transitions in the fossil record
Actually convergent characters are predicted by (and therefore a strength of) evolutionary theory and is a big problem for special creation.
Not really. No one predicted convergent evolution would produce something like the 3 inner ear bones idependently. Furthermore, most evolutionists seem blissfully unaware that if convergent evolution can produce similarities, that always assuming similarities are via common ancestry unless strong evidence that could not be, means they are utilyzing a false assumption in their models and claims.
(Why use several ways to solve the same "problem" when one way is probably superior?) It is the some of the Rube Goldberg like results of evolution that is the best evidence for it. One would expect a designer to design the perfect structure for each function and then simply repeat it over and over.
Actually, one would expect an Intelligent Designer in which humans were made in the image of, to do the opposite. To use some common designs but to vary them, much like an artist would do.
If your claim was correct, we would expect homes to all be the same. Their great diversity in design, even when one owner has multiple homes and designs multiple homes, indicates that it is likely a designer would want variation in the design.
Your claim is just wrong here. Everything we know about creativity and design points in the opposite direction of your claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by deerbreh, posted 07-29-2005 3:18 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by deerbreh, posted 07-29-2005 4:16 PM randman has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 277 of 305 (227459)
07-29-2005 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by deerbreh
07-29-2005 3:18 PM


Re: you are right on no transitions in the fossil record
Actually, if you read what the scientists are saying about this, they are indicating surprise but I don't sense any great panic over it. More like, "Wow! This is totally surprising and unexpected! Hey, let's study it some more!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by deerbreh, posted 07-29-2005 3:18 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by deerbreh, posted 07-29-2005 3:48 PM Chiroptera has not replied
 Message 280 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 3:53 PM Chiroptera has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 278 of 305 (227464)
07-29-2005 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Chiroptera
07-29-2005 3:30 PM


Re: Oh, this is going to be fun.
Let me tell you a true falsification of evolution: intermediaries between bats and bird. Direct intermediaries between whales and fish.
That's just a lie on your part. If there were theorized intemediaries between whales and fish, all evolutionists would do is claim whales evolved from fish and then land mammals from whales or some such, and you would insist that if intermediaries showed otherwise it would falsify evolution, but that's be another bogus claim.
Evolution is pretty well-nigh falsifiable. All you have to do is change everything around. There is a great deal of evidence inconsistent with evolutionary theories, but evolutionists can just insist their are right, and no fact can falsify their claims because they essentially have never set up a falsifiable theory.
Let's say, we discover how to materialize things, to bring a design into direct creation, poof.
Would that falsify and prove creation? I think it would, but evolutionists would never accept that. They'd just move the goal-posts and even though you would have discovered a mechanism of direct creation, an evolutionist could just find some other excuse, some way to rewrite their myth and insist on it.
I mean just look at the nonsense you posted.
Why would god create intermediaries between whales and artiodactyls and whales but leave out intermediaries between whales and fish? Why are all the intermediaries that have been found consistent with evolution?
They are not necessarily intemediaries. You insist they are intermediaries and then demand why would God make them as evidence? Totally whacked logic on your part.
All of the theorized intermediaries are not consistent with evolution actually because they don't appear in the fossil record in the manner that evolution predicted. PE tries to solve some of that, but the bottom line is there is not the regular, gradual appearance of change in the fossil record.
As far as positing common descent as the means to which "order" appears, it's not a verifiable option either. You cannot verify common descent from a sinle ancestor.
It could well be a Common Designer, or a Common Designer and some evolution at work, and convergent evolution, common environment, DNA programmed to mutate according to certain predispositions, etc, etc,....
There are a number of commonalities that could be at work to produce similarities. There is no evidence that proves common descent should be the only commonality considered since there is significant evidence, namely the fossil record, that questions the exclusive role of common descent since there is a great lack of uniform changes, geologically speaking, exhibited, assuming evolutionist models of geology.
This message has been edited by randman, 07-29-2005 03:47 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Chiroptera, posted 07-29-2005 3:30 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Chiroptera, posted 07-29-2005 4:12 PM randman has replied

deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 279 of 305 (227468)
07-29-2005 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Chiroptera
07-29-2005 3:35 PM


Re: you are right on no transitions in the fossil record
I was referring to many examples of convergent evolution where there may be similar solutions to a particular problem, but in fact if you look carefully at the anatomy you will find that the "solution" was arrived at in very different way. The panda's "thumb" is a good example.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Chiroptera, posted 07-29-2005 3:35 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 3:55 PM deerbreh has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 280 of 305 (227470)
07-29-2005 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Chiroptera
07-29-2005 3:35 PM


Re: you are right on no transitions in the fossil record
So?
Did I say evolutionists were in mood to re-examine their fundamental assumptions? I said the opposite, but my point is the verified nonetheless. Convergent evolution was not thought to be able to produce something like this functional change that was non-surface, etc,...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Chiroptera, posted 07-29-2005 3:35 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Chiroptera, posted 07-29-2005 4:17 PM randman has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 281 of 305 (227474)
07-29-2005 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by deerbreh
07-29-2005 3:48 PM


Re: you are right on no transitions in the fossil record
First off, you assume convergent evolution. It's not a fact.
But my point is made by the fact that evolutionists only consider convergent evolution to be plausible, until recently, for the changes you refer to here, but now we see that in reality, convergent evolution, if evolution is true, can account for just about any similarity.
So calling similarities exclusive evidence for common ancestry has effectively been proven wrong. Maybe it's common ancestry or maybe some other commonality is at work.
This message has been edited by randman, 07-29-2005 03:56 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by deerbreh, posted 07-29-2005 3:48 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by deerbreh, posted 07-29-2005 4:44 PM randman has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 282 of 305 (227484)
07-29-2005 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by randman
07-29-2005 3:43 PM


Re: Oh, this is going to be fun.
quote:
If there were theorized intemediaries between whales and fish, all evolutionists would do is claim whales evolved from fish and then land mammals from whales or some such, and you would insist that if intermediaries showed otherwise it would falsify evolution, but that's be another bogus claim.
Now you are making a bogus claim. Basically, you are arguing in a circle. You claim that evolution cannot be falsified because you claim that any data can be made to fit evolution. Why do you claim that any data can be made to fit into evolution? Because you claim it cannot be falsified.
I explained one way to falsify evolution. That you cannot accept it tells more about you than the theory of evolution.
-
quote:
Let's say, we discover how to materialize things, to bring a design into direct creation, poof.
Would that falsify and prove creation?
Why would it prove creation? No one is saying that it is impossible that an omniscient, transcendent being created the universe only 6000 years ago. What scientists are saying is that the actual data at hand indicates that the earth is several billion years old, and that life has had an interesting history during that time. This is about data, not possibilities.
-
quote:
All of the theorized intermediaries are not consistent with evolution actually because they don't appear in the fossil record in the manner that evolution predicted.
Oh? What inconsistencies are these? Please describe what the theory of evolution predicts, show how evolution does make those predictions, and then what evidence falsifies those predictions.
-
quote:
You cannot verify common descent from a sinle ancestor.
Common descent is attested to in the hierarchical organization in species classification.
-
quote:
It could well be a Common Designer...
A common designer could have designed in any pattern whatsoever -- why a nested hierarchy?
quote:
...a Common Designer and some evolution at work...
Why postulate an extra entity like a common designer if it doesn't explain anything than evolution by itself would?
quote:
...convergent evolution, common environment, DNA programmed to mutate according to certain predispositions...
Are you saying that it is possible that every one of the millions of species known has an independent, separate lineage, and that somehow "convergent evolution" has worked on these millions of lineages over millions of years to produce a hierarchical classification? All these lineages shared the same initial genome, and that over millions of years, say, the lineages which led to chimps and humans had exactly the same mutations leading to a less than 5% difference in their genomes? I'm sorry, I don't feel that I understand what you are saying here.
-
quote:
There is no evidence that proves common descent should be the only commonality considered since there is significant evidence, namely the fossil record, that questions the exclusive role of common descent since there is a great lack of uniform changes, geologically speaking, exhibited, assuming evolutionist models of geology.
You keep saying this, but you haven't yet provided evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 3:43 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 4:48 PM Chiroptera has replied

deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 283 of 305 (227488)
07-29-2005 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by randman
07-29-2005 3:30 PM


Re: you are right on no transitions in the fossil record
Well, first of all, most houses are pretty similar in design (in spite of having many designers). They are mostly variations of a rectangular box (or boxes) with a pitched roof. Now you are claiming one designer. What happens when we have a single designer of houses? Have you ever heard of Levittown? Or just driven through an older development? The main reason there is variety in house designs is that a variety of people with different needs, available resources and tastes are building or buying them. If evolution had designed houses I would expect a lot more variety and hey, when buildings that were not intended to be residences in the first place are then turned into residences (such as old warehouses in Boston), we do get more variety. Fancy that.
A little exercise for you. Feel your gums above your canine teeth. Why do you suppose you need such a massive bone structure to support those little canine teeth? Doesn't this "design" seem just a little ad hoc y?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 3:30 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 4:38 PM deerbreh has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 284 of 305 (227489)
07-29-2005 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by randman
07-29-2005 3:53 PM


Re: you are right on no transitions in the fossil record
quote:
Convergent evolution was not thought to be able to produce something like this functional change that was non-surface....
That wasn't in the blurb to which I linked. Was it in the original research paper?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 3:53 PM randman has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 285 of 305 (227508)
07-29-2005 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by deerbreh
07-29-2005 4:16 PM


Re: you are right on no transitions in the fossil record
Well, first of all, most houses are pretty similar in design (in spite of having many designers). They are mostly variations of a rectangular box (or boxes) with a pitched roof.
In other words, designed systems such as the housing system for humans appear to be very much like biological systems (life), with certain basic similarities and many differences within those.
Biology reflects what we know and is fully congruent with what we know of design, and thus all the evidence supports the theory of Intelligent Design. There is no fact that disagrees with Intelligent Design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by deerbreh, posted 07-29-2005 4:16 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by robinrohan, posted 07-29-2005 4:48 PM randman has not replied
 Message 289 by deerbreh, posted 07-29-2005 4:53 PM randman 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