Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New abiogenesis news article 4/12/02
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 61 of 89 (29804)
01-21-2003 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by John
01-21-2003 6:23 PM


Dear John,
here is the refernce:
Rambaut et al in Nature 410, 1047 - 1048 (26 april 2001)
Best wishes,
Peter
"Viruses have their origin in the genome through NON-random mechanisms (=degeneration of the genome =GUTob! You better believe it)"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by John, posted 01-21-2003 6:23 PM John has not replied

Bart007
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 89 (29812)
01-21-2003 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by thousands_not_billions
01-20-2003 10:36 PM


Hello Thousand_not_Billions.
I have been reading your posts and you have conducted yourself excellently and have provided legitmate arguments on behalf of Creation.
As is customary in these debates, your evolutionists opponents have no science to offer on behalf of evolution, only ad hominem attacks on Creationists and fantastic stories to fill in what science fails to provide for them.
I encourage you to stand firm in your convictions because the sciences know nothing about evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-20-2003 10:36 PM thousands_not_billions has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-21-2003 8:32 PM Bart007 has not replied

thousands_not_billions
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 89 (29813)
01-21-2003 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Bart007
01-21-2003 8:28 PM


Thanks Bart. I'm standing firm on my Creationist convictions. Evolution is nothing but a metaphysical idea, not science, and it never will be science.
Cheers mate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Bart007, posted 01-21-2003 8:28 PM Bart007 has not replied

thousands_not_billions
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 89 (29823)
01-21-2003 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by John
01-21-2003 1:58 AM


============
Of things, in the Bible, that are "legendery, and not proven, but believed as fact?" Pretty much everything. Adam and Eve, The Flood, the captivity in Egypt, the cruxifiction story...
============
How can you disprove them? The captivity in Egypt has been proven, (Searching for Moses), evidence for the Flood abounds (despite what has been claimed), and the cruxifiction story was well documented by Josephus, Peter, Paul, Matthew, John, Mark, and Luke, and even Roman records.
===============
You may repeat yourself endlessly and it won't the assertions true. The evidence does not exist.
===============
Seems like the claim that evidence for Creation does not exist has become an infinate loop.
==============
So the evidence is there for evolution. Glad you are coming around.
==============
I'm not coming around at all. Sorry mate.
============
Yes. It is typical of creationists to repeat themselves endlessly.
============
To say nothing of evolutionists
==============
Then you should be Buddhist. It is an older religion. Or better still, Hindu, as it is even older. And both are still going strong.
==============
Buddism began long after the beginnings of the Bible, and the Hindu religion arose around about the same time as the Bible. But you missed the point. What has Hinduism and Buddism done for the world? The Bible has made America the greatest nation on earth. Where ever the Bible goes, it reforms and elevates mankind. Just look at the difference between say, PNG and Australia. Both right next to each other. But Australia was developed and thriving while PNG was still a third world nation, largely unexplored. What made the difference? The Bible.
================
In a word, yes. The Vedas have molded civilization and history and have done so for much longer than the Bible has. Your arrogance is staggering and your ignorance of history is blinding.
================
Many scholars have trouble dating the Vedas. The Bible began to be written with Moses, who was contempary to the ancient Hindus. Hinduism is not older. And as to shaping history, in what direction has the Vedas shaped history? It might have molded India and southeast Asia, but the Bible has influenced the whole world from Europe to Australia. And notice that I asked if the Vedas has brought everlasting good to mankind.
===========
A. Everything is transitional
===========
Darwin recognized the prob. of transitional fossils in his day. He bemoaned the fact that we do not find transitionals popping out of the fossil record everywhere. Today, evolutionists are still blaming the incompleteness of the fossil record. The handful of supposed transitional fossils that you claim we have (ie: birds, whales, horses, man etc) are highly debatable and provide no evidence at all for evolution. But, evolution needs, not one or two series of fossils, but hundreds of them! No complete series has been found yet.
==========
Mutation
==========
Mutations are not the driving force of evolution. It's basic biology. Mustations delete and scramble information and often render the organism less effective then before. Most mutations are not beneficial to the organism. No "information increasing" mutation has been observed yet.
============
Wanna pose a tougher question?
============
Where did all the genetic information come from to turn, say a reptile into a bird, or a fish into an amphibian?
===============
Maybe you could look at the nylon-eating bacteria. What you have here is a mutation which allow this bacteria to digest nylon, a substance that did not exist until 50(?) years ago. Sure seems like new info to me. And it sure makes no sense in the 'can only lose information' context.
===============
The mutation could have allowed the bacteria to digest nylon, but it resulted in a loss of information in the species as a whole.
let me quote from the article that you posted.
=========
Creationists often say that all mutations are harmful and deleterious, and degrade the genome.
=========
Creationists don't say this at all. Creationists say that mutations decrease information content in the organism. Notice I said that "Most" mutations are not beneficial to the organism. Mutations have sometimes confered an advantage to a species. ie: bacteria are resistant to drugs, beetles don't have wings to prevent them being blown into the sea. These may help the organism, but they all reduce information content.
============
My favorite example of a mutation producing new information involves a Japanese bacterium that suffered a frame shift mutation that just happened to allow it to metabolize nylon waste. The new enzymes are very inefficient (having only 2% of the efficiency of the regular enzymes), but do afford the bacteria a whole new ecological niche.
============
The mutation didn't increase information. It gave the bacteria an advantage in that it can now digest nylon
let me quote from AiG
================
Finally, Mr Cerutti is out of date about this new nylon digesting ability allegedly from a frame shift. New evidence shows that the ability was due to plasmids

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by John, posted 01-21-2003 1:58 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-21-2003 11:03 PM thousands_not_billions has replied
 Message 69 by John, posted 01-22-2003 12:43 AM thousands_not_billions has replied

thousands_not_billions
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 89 (29824)
01-21-2003 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by thousands_not_billions
01-21-2003 11:02 PM


Cut off half the message.
================
Finally, Mr Cerutti is out of date about this new nylon digesting ability allegedly from a frame shift. New evidence shows that the ability was due to plasmids

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-21-2003 11:02 PM thousands_not_billions has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-21-2003 11:05 PM thousands_not_billions has not replied
 Message 68 by Bart007, posted 01-21-2003 11:10 PM thousands_not_billions has not replied
 Message 70 by John, posted 01-22-2003 12:46 AM thousands_not_billions has not replied

Bart007
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 89 (29825)
01-21-2003 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Quetzal
01-21-2003 6:39 AM


Evolutionist and Professor G.A. Kerkut stated in his book 'Implications of Evolution', concerning the horse series:
"The evolution of the horse provides one of the keystones in the teaching of evolutionary doctrine, though the actual story depends on who is telling it and when the story is being told. In fact, one could easily discuss the evolution of the story of the evolution of the horse."
Taking the entire skeleton into account, the Hyracotherium is a lot closer in appearance to the modern Hyrax than it is the the horse. Like Hyracotherium, the Hyrax has four toes on the two front feet and three on the hind legs. The two are about the same size in height and have the same number of ribs. Evolutionists like to show sketches of Hyrcotherium standing like a horse, but sketches could just aas well be drawn to show hyracotherium in the same posture as a modern day hyrax as the legs of both are very similar. It is possible that Hyracotherium is unrelated to the modern day Hyrax, but then, it would then be even more possible that it is not ancestral to the modern day horse. Especially since it coexist in the fossil record with a much more horse like creature that stood 3 to 4 feet high. I can't remind this horses name, but it is on display at AMNH where it is shown to be contemporary to hyracotherium.
You make the claim that we creationists have been gulled by the creationists websites. You might just as well claim that we have been gulled by evolutionists. Here are what leading evolutionists had to say about the Hyracotherium:
In the first place, it is not clear that Hyracotherium was the ancestral horse. G. A. Kerkut, Implications of evolution, 1960, pg 149.
"The first animal in the series, Hyracotherium (Eohippus) is so different from the modern horse and so different from the next one in the series that there is a big question concerning its right to a place in the series . . [It has] a slender face with the eyes midway along the side, the presence of canine teeth, and not much of a diastema (space between front teeth and back teeth), arched back and long tail."H.G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1969), pp. 194-195.
H. Nilsson maintains that while Hyracotherium does not resemble present-day horses in any way, they were remarkably similar to the present-day Hyrax.
Heribert Nilsson writes (Synthetische Artbildung):
"The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous ONLY IN THE TEXTBOOKS [Emphasis mine]. In the reality provided by the results of research it is put together in three parts, of which only the last can be described as including the horses. The forms of the first part are just as much little horses as the present day damans are horses. The construction of the whole Cenozoic family tree of the horse is therefore a very artificial one, since it is put together from non-equivalent parts, and cannot therefore be a continuous transformation series."
Gaylord Simpson was a popularizer of the horse series as an example of gradual phyletic evolution for many years, pushing it into high school textbooks and the AMNH. Yet even he was aware that claiming hyracotherium at the root of the equid group was suspect..
Matthew has shown and insisted that Hyracotherium (including Eohippus) is so primative that it is not much more definitely equid than tapir, rhinocerotid, etc, but it is customary to place it at the root of the equid group." G.G. Simpson, as quoted by Kerkut in Implications of evolution
In 1980, Colin Patterson had the horse series removed from display at the British Museum in London, and Dr. Raup had eohippus removed from the horse series display at the Field Museum in Chicago. Pressure from dogmatic evolutionists forced Dr. Patterson to reinstate the horse display.
But what about the rest of the horse evolution? Well, it is much ado about nothing. It is simply horses evolving into horses.
The alleged horse transition is simply variation around a mean. Evolutionists have never demonstrated that these horses can not interbreed (Darwins finches were said to be 13 species and 3 genus's until they were all found to interbreed.) Many of the horse types are known to overlap and coexist at the same time and this overlapping continues to grow as more fossils are found. The birth of Three toed horses still happens today. The variations can easily be accounted for per the creationists model as natural selections of existing traits plus information losses, per migration to diverse geological areas, isolation, and ecological changes over time.
Feeding habits, environmental changes and genetic limits, can account for all horse size variation. Variations in sizes of living horses today are compatible to those of all horses of the past. Long term trends in diet changes can also account for the tooth evolution observed in the fossil record. The presence of certain proteins can trigger the transformation of molars.
Here are some comments from evolutionists
"There was a time when the existing fossils of the horses seemed to indicate a straight-lined evolution from small to large, from dog-like to horse-like, from animals with simple grinding teeth to animals with complicated cusps of modern horses . . As more fossils were uncovered, the chain splayed out into the usual phylogenetic net, and it was all too apparent that evolution had not been in a straight line at all. Unfortunately, before the picture was completely clear, an exhibit of horses as an example . . had been set up at the American Museum of Natural History [in New York City], photographed, and much reproduced in elementary textbooks."*Garrett Hardin, Nature and Man’s Fate (1960), pp. 225-226. (Those pictures are still being used in those textbooks.)
THE HORSE "STORY", Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist British Museum of Natural History, "There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff." Harper's, p. 60, 1984.
"Marsh's 'Horse Evolution' is still presented as fact to students today! A fossil exhibition was staged at the American Museum of Natural History. "The exhibit is now hidden from public view as an outdated embarrassment. Almost a century later, palaeontologist George Gaylord Simpson re-examined horse evolution and concluded that generations of students had been misled." Encyclopedia of Evolution - Richard Milner
"...first we note a primary signal of branching, branching, and more branching. Where, in this forest, could anyone identify a main trunk? The bush has many tips, though all but one are extinct. Each tip can be connected to a last common ancestor by a labyrinthine route, but no paths are straight, and all lead back by sidestepping from one event of branching speciation to another, and not by descent down a ladder of continuous change." S. Gould, Full House, pg 67
Regarding the earlier portion of the fossil record:
Gaylord Simpson once claimed: "The line from Eohippus to Hypohippus exemplifies a fairly continuous phyletic evolution." G.G. Simpson, Horses, 1951, pg 215.
Gould Replies: "The enormous increase in fossil evidence since Simpson's time has allowed paleontologists .... to falsify this view. In other words, bushiness now pervades the entire phylogeny of horses." S. J. Gould, Full House 1997, pg 67-69.
"Throughout the history of horses, the species are well-marked and static over millions of years." S. Gould, Full House, p. 69.
"High schoool textbooks propose that, ..., the rabbit sized Eohippus commenced his move up through the evolutionary ranks, one incremental step after another. ... The high school progression is an artifact; .... The facts are discrete. There is no hint of gradual change, no hint either of selective advantages accumulating."
D. Berlinski, review of Full House, O&D 18(1), pg 30.
"The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today’s much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown."
B. Rensberger, Houston Chronicle, Nov 5, 1980, sec. 4 pg 15.
"Regarding transition in the structure of the toes: no intermediate structures: The evolution of the foot mechanisms proceeded by rapid and abrupt changes rather than gradual ones. The transition from the form of foot shown by miniature Eohippus to larger consistently three-toed Miohippus was so abrupt that it even left no record in the fossil deposits ... their foot structure changed very rapidly to a three-toed sprung foot in which the pad disappeared and the two side toes became essentially functionless. Finally, in the Pliocene the line leading to the modern one-toed grazer went through a rapid loss of the two side toes on each foot."
J. B. Birdsell, Human Evolution, pg 170. 1990
Even Gaylord Simpson came around to the truth:
"The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the heart of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature... The evolution of the horse family, Equidae, is now no better known than that of numerous other groups of organisms..." George Gaylord Simpson, Life of the Past, 1953
Quetzal, you have got to stop getting your information from those rag Talk Origin FAQS. They are leading you down blind paths. Maybe you, like Simpson did fifty years ago, accept the truth about the failure of the horse series to demonstrate any kind of Evolution other than Creation Model type adaptive change. Perhaps you too can join the forces of Goodness and Truth and help get this horse disinformation out of school textbooks. It would be the right thing to do.
[This message has been edited by Bart007, 01-21-2003]
[This message has been edited by Bart007, 01-21-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Quetzal, posted 01-21-2003 6:39 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Quetzal, posted 01-22-2003 3:57 AM Bart007 has replied

thousands_not_billions
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 89 (29826)
01-21-2003 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by thousands_not_billions
01-21-2003 11:03 PM


Good points Bart. I really liked those quotes. The horse series is not proved at all.
btw. Can anybody explain why my message was cut in half?
[This message has been edited by thousands_not_billions, 01-21-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-21-2003 11:03 PM thousands_not_billions has not replied

Bart007
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 89 (29827)
01-21-2003 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by thousands_not_billions
01-21-2003 11:03 PM


quote:
Originally posted by thousands_not_billions:
Cut off half the message.
================
Finally, Mr Cerutti is out of date about this new nylon digesting ability allegedly from a frame shift. New evidence shows that the ability was due to plasmids

Besides, is not nylon technology carbon based. Seems likely to be a good food source for living things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-21-2003 11:03 PM thousands_not_billions has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 89 (29829)
01-22-2003 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by thousands_not_billions
01-21-2003 11:02 PM


quote:
Originally posted by thousands_not_billions:
How can you disprove them?
Please note that the operative phrase is 'not proven' rather than 'disproven.' There is a difference. 'Not proven' is where you have not enough evidence to prove something true. Something that is 'not proven' may eventually be proven true or false. 'Disproven' is where some bit of evidence directly contradicts an assertion.
quote:
The captivity in Egypt has been proven, (Searching for Moses)
Sorry bud, more AIG fantasy.
quote:
evidence for the Flood abounds (despite what has been claimed)
Funny that only those who start out believing in the flood ever see the evidence for it.
quote:
and the cruxifiction story was well documented by Josephus
Josephus is not convincing. The language is vague except for the part that was inserted 400 years after the fact. How do I know this? Part of the passage concerning Jesus does not appear in the oldest copies of the relevant works.
quote:
Peter, Paul, Matthew, John, Mark, and Luke
None of whom ever knew Christ. They all wrote long after the fact.
quote:
and even Roman records.
Oh? Which ones?
quote:
Seems like the claim that evidence for Creation does not exist has become an infinate loop.
Ah, the creationist staple-- denial.
quote:
Buddism began long after the beginnings of the Bible
But more than 600 years before the advent of christianity... You are a christian right?
quote:
and the Hindu religion arose around about the same time as the Bible.
Got your facts wrong again. The oldest book of the Bible-- Job- dates to somewhere around 1500 BC. The rest of the Bible is much younger-- Genesis, as you know it, dating from about 1000 BC, for example. The Rig Vedas date from around the same time. That is, THE WHOLE THING dates from around 1500 BC, not just the oldest fragment of it.
quote:
But you missed the point.
Actually, I didn't.
quote:
What has Hinduism and Buddism done for the world?
Enormous amounts of mathematics and technology and science that you think are western were actually borrowed from Hindu and Buddhist traditions. In fact, parts of your Bible prolly came from them as well.
quote:
The Bible has made America the greatest nation on earth.
Seems like the exploitation of a continent did that.
quote:
Where ever the Bible goes, it reforms and elevates mankind.
Now you have opened the door for me to point out the atrocities done in Jesus' name. See, if you can use the 'good' the Bible has done and use prevailing social structures and climates as proof, then I can use the nasty bits as proof that the Bible causes hell on Earth. Will you accept that as fair play? I doubt it. I suspect that you'll tell me that I can't criticise the Bible for the actions of people. Well, that being so, you can't use the actions of people to prove the Bible to be good. Get it? Be careful of the doors you open.
quote:
What made the difference? The Bible.
Money.
quote:
Many scholars have trouble dating the Vedas.
Dating the Bible is no easy trick either, but most things that old are like that.
quote:
The Bible began to be written with Moses, who was contempary to the ancient Hindus.
Wow. You don't know you Bible history do you?
quote:
And as to shaping history, in what direction has the Vedas shaped history?
Try reading Lost Discoveries by Dick Teresi.
Lost Discoveries explores the mostly unheralded scientific breakthroughs from the ancient world - Babylonians, Egyptians, Indians, Africans, New World, and Oceanic tribes, among others, and from the non-European medieval world. By example, the Egyptians developed the concept of the lowest common denominator and the Indians developed the use of zero and negative numbers. The Chinese observed, reported, and dated eclipses between 1400 and 1200 B.C. The Chinese also set the stage for later Hindu scholars, who refined the concept of particles and the void. Five thousand years ago, Sumerians were able to assert that the earth was circular. Islamic scientists fixed problems in Ptolemy's geocentric cosmology. The Quechuan Indians of Peru were the first to vulcanize rubber.
quote:
It might have molded India and southeast Asia, but the Bible has influenced the whole world from Europe to Australia.
And we are the worse for it as well.
quote:
Darwin recognized the prob. of transitional fossils in his day.
LOL... yes, 150 years ago. Guess that is current for a creationist though.
quote:
Today, evolutionists are still blaming the incompleteness of the fossil record.
How many bones do you find as you walk around outside? Why is this? Could it be that most bones don't survive to be found? Gee....
quote:
The handful of supposed transitional fossils that you claim we have (ie: birds, whales, horses, man etc) are highly debatable and provide no evidence at all for evolution.
Of course, you don't even know how paleantologists piece together the evidence. There is a lot of measurement, and lot of math and not nearly as much guessing as you seem to believe. It is actually quite logical. You should try it, if only to avoid arguing about something you know nothing about.
quote:
But, evolution needs, not one or two series of fossils, but hundreds of them! No complete series has been found yet.
creationist staple!!!! What we've got ain't never good enough. LOL....
Sorry but we only have what we have.
quote:
Mutations are not the driving force of evolution. It's basic biology.
LOL......
quote:
Mustations delete and scramble information and often render the organism less effective then before. Most mutations are not beneficial to the organism.
Actually, most mutations are pretty much neutral as concerns an organisms chances of survival.
quote:
No "information increasing" mutation has been observed yet.
What is an "information increasing" mutation? Any copy error produces a gene that is DIFFERENT from the gene that was copied. Different information is new information.
quote:
Where did all the genetic information come from to turn, say a reptile into a bird, or a fish into an amphibian?
You know the answer. What I think you don't realize is just how little change is needed to cause huge changes of body type.
University of California, San Diego: External Relations: News & Information: News Releases : Science
quote:
The mutation could have allowed the bacteria to digest nylon, but it resulted in a loss of information in the species as a whole.
So what? There is no great chain of being. Evolution is change. It isn't a plodding increase in complexity.
quote:
These may help the organism, but they all reduce information content.
So mutations can lead to adaptive change. Wham! You are an evolutionist.
quote:
The mutation didn't increase information. It gave the bacteria an advantage in that it can now digest nylon
Wait. A bacterial population that couldn't digest nylon has developed the ability to digest nylon and this is not new to the bacteria?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-21-2003 11:02 PM thousands_not_billions has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-22-2003 9:13 PM John has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 89 (29830)
01-22-2003 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by thousands_not_billions
01-21-2003 11:03 PM


quote:
Originally posted by thousands_not_billions:
Finally, Mr Cerutti is out of date about this new nylon digesting ability allegedly from a frame shift. New evidence shows that the ability was due to plasmids
I hope you will eventually learn to cite sources.
Besides, AIG is wrong agian.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm#update
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-21-2003 11:03 PM thousands_not_billions has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 71 of 89 (29843)
01-22-2003 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Bart007
01-21-2003 11:04 PM


And yet another lengthy quote mine from ol' bart. When are you going to learn that "argument by spurious quotation" and "appeal to authority" doesn't cut it? You been reading the infamous "Quote Book" again?
Moving on to the only substantive remarks you've made:
quote:
Taking the entire skeleton into account, the Hyracotherium is a lot closer in appearance to the modern Hyrax than it is the the horse. Like Hyracotherium, the Hyrax has four toes on the two front feet and three on the hind legs. The two are about the same size in height and have the same number of ribs. Evolutionists like to show sketches of Hyrcotherium standing like a horse, but sketches could just aas well be drawn to show hyracotherium in the same posture as a modern day hyrax as the legs of both are very similar.
Really? I'm impressed by your knowledge of comparative anatomy. Let's take a close look, shall we?
Dentition:
Hyracotherium
3.1.4.3/3.1.4.3
Equus (modern horse, male)
3.1.3-4.3/3.1.3.3
Hyrax
1.0.4.3/2.0.4.3
Guess which one's more similar?
On toes: As far as it goes, you are correct. Both hyrax and hyracotherium have four toes on the front foot, and three on the back. However, from the actual arrangement of the bones, Hyracotherium was digitigrade (as are modern horses). The location of the pads are at the end of the toes. The hyrax is plantigrade (flat-footed), with a noticeable heel (absent in Hyracotherium). There is an excellent fossil series - a perfect "gradualism" example, btw - showing the change in numbers of toes in the Equus lineage over time. Here's a rough graphic:
Please bear in mind that Hyracotherium IS NOT A HORSE! Rather, it is a stem perissodactyl - fairly undifferentiated - whose sister lineages included rhinos and tapirs.
The legs of Hyracotherium and the hyrax are nowhere near similar. Details of the hind leg/pelvis show that Hyracotherium's femur, for example, is proportionally significantly longer than that of the hyrax. The hyrax resembles a large guinea pig, hyracotherium resembles a small dog.
quote:
It is possible that Hyracotherium is unrelated to the modern day Hyrax, but then, it would then be even more possible that it is not ancestral to the modern day horse. Especially since it coexist in the fossil record with a much more horse like creature that stood 3 to 4 feet high. I can't remind this horses name, but it is on display at AMNH where it is shown to be contemporary to hyracotherium.
Possible? You mean you don't know? Since you're unable to offer any evidence that some other "more horselike animal" lived contemporaneously with Hyracotherium, not even a name, I find your assertion to be (as usual) baseless.
Oh, and as to your quotations... Anyone interested can read this essay debunking at least the Gaylord Simpson quote mine. Another example of AiG's stellar intellectual honesty.
As to your quibble that I get my info from talkorigins - that's fundamentally incorrect. Only when I need info on debunking specific creationist claims is it even necessary to go to that site. Here's where I got my horse lineage: Groves CP, Ryder OA 2000 Systematics and Phylogeny of the Horse, for example. It often helps to actually look at the evidence rather than relying on long-refuted, spurious claims. It is especially galling when you're dealing with lineages, like the various equiids, which have such GOOD transitionals.
Edited to fix what must have been a Freudian slip: "cretinist" instead of "creationist".
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 01-22-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Bart007, posted 01-21-2003 11:04 PM Bart007 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Bart007, posted 01-28-2003 7:22 PM Quetzal has not replied
 Message 88 by Bart007, posted 01-28-2003 11:59 PM Quetzal has not replied

thousands_not_billions
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 89 (29956)
01-22-2003 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by John
01-22-2003 12:43 AM


=========
Sorry bud, more AIG fantasy.
=========
Hmm. You won't listen to the truth will you.
============
Funny that only those who start out believing in the flood ever see the evidence for it.
============
Funny that evolutionists close their eyes to the evidence for the Flood.
The Flood | Answers in Genesis
==========
None of whom ever knew Christ. They all wrote long after the fact.
==========
Oh come on! Peter, Luke, and Matthew knew Christ really well. They were three of his disciples. Paul and Mark were well acquainted with Christ, and Paul saw Him in vision
===========
But more than 600 years before the advent of christianity... You are a christian right?
===========
I am. But the foundations of Christianity were laid down before Buddism, with the 10 Commandments and Genesis.
==========
Got your facts wrong again. The oldest book of the Bible-- Job- dates to somewhere around 1500 BC. The rest of the Bible is much younger-- Genesis, as you know it, dating from about 1000 BC, for example. The Rig Vedas date from around the same time. That is, THE WHOLE THING dates from around 1500 BC, not just the oldest fragment of it.
==========
Actually, I didn't get my facts wrong again. Moses wrote the books of Job, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and half of Deuteronomy. That's quite a few.
============
Enormous amounts of mathematics and technology and science that you think are western were actually borrowed from Hindu and Buddhist traditions. In fact, parts of your Bible prolly came from them as well.
============
The west took these ideas and shaped them and built on them to create the Algebra and mathematics we know today. So it was a joint effort. And the Bible is not borrowed from the Hindu religion. In fact, overwelming evidence that Buddism and Hinduism borrowed from the Bible has been found. (Truth Triumphant) B.G. Wilkinson.
==========
Seems like the exploitation of a continent did that.
==========
Exploitation is not the best word to use. America's greatness came from it's Biblical ethics and Bible believing people.
==========
Now you have opened the door for me to point out the atrocities done in Jesus' name. See, if you can use the 'good' the Bible has done and use prevailing social structures and climates as proof, then I can use the nasty bits as proof that the Bible causes hell on Earth. Will you accept that as fair play? I doubt it. I suspect that you'll tell me that I can't criticise the Bible for the actions of people. Well, that being so, you can't use the actions of people to prove the Bible to be good. Get it? Be careful of the doors you open.
==========
True, much has been done in the name of Jesus that has been evil. But neither He, nor the Bible can be blamed for this. Those who have done this things were not following what the Bible says, and so were not Christians. What you call yourself and what you are are two different things. But the Bible has awakened many minds to search for truth, and in their search for truth, they have been uplifted. Also, the Bible provided a basis for the wonderful advances in technology, and science that have come about. Many early scientists were Christians, and believed in the Bible fully. God's blessing attended them, and He allowed them to unlock the mysteries of His creation.
========
Money.
========
What caused the economy of these countries like Australia to boom? God's blessing on the country for one.
=====
And we are the worse for it as well.
=====
Exactlly in what way?
======
Of course, you don't even know how paleantologists piece together the evidence. There is a lot of measurement, and lot of math and not nearly as much guessing as you seem to believe. It is actually quite logical. You should try it, if only to avoid arguing about something you know nothing about.
=======
Do you know? And there seems to be tons of guessing. Just look at Nebraska Man. Evolutionists guessed that he was an ancestor of homo sapians, but he turned out to be an extinct pig.
404 Not Found Here's a humorous look at Nebraska man. Quite funny actually. Lord Zuckerman, an evolutionist, says that in regards to the search for fossil man "we then move right of the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory preception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful anything is possible--and where the ardent believe is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time." (S. Zuckerman, Beyond the Ivory Tower. p. 19) Notice he used the words "faithful" and "believer" in regards to evolutionists. lol.
===========
creationist staple!!!! What we've got ain't never good enough. LOL....
Sorry but we only have what we have.
===========
You miss my arguement. What evolution predicts is millions of transitional fossils, but only a handful of specimans, which are extremely debatable, have been found. The handful of specimans however, are most certainly not true transitional fossils.
===========
Actually, most mutations are pretty much neutral as concerns an organisms chances of survival.
===========
Really? Why don't you tell this to someone suffering from Cystic Fibrosis. They might appreciate this. Actually, mutations almost always have a harmful affect on a species, and they always scramble information.
quote from a biology book written by Gregory Parker and Brian Ashbaugh,
"Mutations are almost always harmful to an organism. When mutations damage the genes that control certain aspects of cell reproduction, tumors, often leading to cancer, may result..."
===========
What is an "information increasing" mutation? Any copy error produces a gene that is DIFFERENT from the gene that was copied. Different information is new information.
===========
If I have a printing press that deletes each tenth letter in a book, is new information being produced? The book is different from the origional, but no new information is formed. In fact, information is lost.
==========
You know the answer. What I think you don't realize is just how little change is needed to cause huge changes of body type.
==========
ho hum. Not the hox genes again. The hox genes control where body segments are grown. Mutations can shift them around. But this adds no new information to the organism, it only forms the ordinary structures in a different area of the body.
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
=========
So mutations can lead to adaptive change. Wham! You are an evolutionist.
=========
Do we really have to go through this again mate? Rarely, mutations can create seeming advantages for an organism, like bacteria that are unaffected by drugs, and beetles that cannot be blown into the sea, as they do not have wings. This is not evolution, as no new information is added, but is rather deleted.
Are There Beneficial Mutations? | Answers in Genesis
============
Wait. A bacterial population that couldn't digest nylon has developed the ability to digest nylon and this is not new to the bacteria?
============
A mutation can sometimes give a seeming advantage to an organism. However, again, information is deleted.
------------------
Now Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by John, posted 01-22-2003 12:43 AM John has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by TrueCreation, posted 01-22-2003 10:23 PM thousands_not_billions has not replied

thousands_not_billions
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 89 (29957)
01-22-2003 9:19 PM


Dear John,
Here is the rest of my article that didn't get posted.
==============
There is no evidence of this mythical large genetic pool
==============
No evidence against it either.
============
First, you really must stop relying on not-science for your information.
============
How is it "not science"? Seems more scientific to me then NCSE.
===========
Now, I am quite happy with considering the insect a new species. The problem for you is that it is an insect and insects adapt rapidly. No secret there. Fifty years is a long time when you have a life cycle lasting three months. That one species of mosquito can make a minor change to adapt to the 'Tube' in a fifty years does not imply that 'the bear population, for example, gave rise to polar bears, grizzlies, giant pandas and more' in a few centuries as your AIG article states. Lets see, at four generations per year you have 200 generations is fifty years at millions of individuals each generation and you come up with slight changes. With grizzly bears the female reaches maturity at four to seven years old, this means that on average in 200 years a grizzly populations goes through about 37 generations at a few hunded per generation. Comparing the two is silly and by extension, comparing any large animal with insect reproductive rates is silly.
=============
Since we're so interested about bears at the moment,
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
=============
You are over simplifying the problem. You need for things to evolve from what is on the arc. Since the arc won't hold very many animals-- a few thousand tops-- you have a lot more change that you imagine.
=============
Evolve is not the correct wording. New characteristics can rise quickly. If a species is isolated from the parent stock, then changes can occur more quickly. This is not evolution. This is just genetics. The large gene pool after the flood gave the organisms lots of variety which could be used.
Caring for the Animals on the Ark | Answers in Genesis
Answers | Answers in Genesis
=========
You seem to be confusing Genus and species. First you make the point that the are in the Genus Cannis, then go on to define Kind as scientist define species. Which is it?
==========
quoted from AiG
===================
What is a ‘kind’? God created a number of different types of animals with much capacity for variation within limits.4 The descendants of each of these different kinds, apart from humans, would today mostly be represented by a larger grouping than what is called a species. In most cases, those species descended from a particular original kind would be grouped today within what modern taxonomists (biologists who classify living things) call a genus (plural genera).
One common definition of a species is a group of organisms which can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, and cannot mate with other species. However, most of the so-called species (obviously all the extinct ones) have not been tested to see what they can or cannot mate with. In fact, not only are there known crosses between so-called species, but there are many instances of trans-generic matings, so the ‘kind’ may in some cases be as high as the family. Identifying the ‘kind’ with the genus is also consistent with Scripture, which spoke of kinds in a way that the Israelites could easily recognize without the need for tests of reproductive isolation.
For example, horses, zebras and donkeys are probably descended from an equine (horse-like) kind, since they can interbreed, although the offspring are sterile. Dogs, wolves, coyotes and jackals are probably from a canine (dog-like) kind. All different types of domestic cattle (which are clean animals) are descended from the Aurochs, so there were probably at most seven (or fourteen) domestic cattle aboard. The Aurochs itself may have been descended from a cattle kind including bisons and water buffaloes. We know that tigers and lions can produce hybrids called tigons and ligers, so it is likely that they are descended from the same original kind.
==============
oh, does it really? How long?
=============
Helium in the Earth’s Atmosphere | Answers in Genesis
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
btw. Only 1/2000 of the expected amount of helium that would be expected to be in the atmosphere if the earth was thousands of years old is found.
===========
Don't be an idiot. This has been explained to you.
===========
Oh has it?
=============
Want to show me a whole tree or animal stretched out over many layers? And don't cite AIG. Actually, large parts of tree wouldn't be too odd. Trees petrify and after that they are pretty durable. I can even see bone being exposed and recovered. And lets think about gophers. Burrowing animals traverse many layers as they dig. Should one die in its hole it could leave a fossil across several layers. But what I want to see is something significant.
=============
The thing about the burrowing animals is illogical. Just think about it. An animal dies underground. There are bacteria and other organisms that quickly eat it up. It doesn't sit there forever. For a fossil to form, it has to be burried quickly. And why not AiG? Truth is truth no matter who says it.
==========
LOL..... that is funny. How is it that you know? You just like this one? Ok. Now, prove it.
==========
No, the first one was the one AiG put out. Word for word. It just shows that you don't have to have millions of years to form coal.
==============
You have got to be joking.
==============
Dead serious. And what's wrong with Creation magazine? All articles are reviewed by professional scientists for ages before they are published. It's a scientific magazine.
=========
So you can't prove what you say then? There isn't any real science to it?
=========
What can't I prove. If you like, I can scan the photo in and stick it up for the whole world to see if you want me to.
==========
The ONLY thing I could find about this was that Cram's opals aren't quite right. Nonetheless, the real point is that what we can do in the lab does not mean it could be done the same way outside the lab. We can make diamonds with a big hydraulic press, but is that how diamonds are made in the earth? Nope.
===========
The thing this proves is that it does not need millions of years to make opals. Bacteria can even form opals.
quote How Old Does the Earth Look? | Answers in Genesis
===============
Despite the common teaching that it takes millions of years to form opal, Australian researcher Len Cram has long been growing opal in his backyard laboratory. His opal (photo right, by Dr Cram) is indistinguishable, under the electron microscope, from that mined in the field. He was awarded an honorary doctorate (by a secular university) for this research. All he does is mix together the right common chemicals no heat, no pressure, and definitely no millions of years.
===============
===========
Look. Support this crap or shut up. You are just making thing up to buttress your myth. I am very close to deciding not to bother with you.
==========
All right. I will. Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
========
LOL.....
========
LOL. Your faith isn't blind? Oh come on!
===========
You cannot have looked and remain so ignorant about so many relevant fields.
===========
I might not know everything, but the science I have looked at all supports Creation.
==========
hell.
===========
hell nothing. Evolutionists cannot explain the Cambian explosion. They have several theorys but none explains the mysterious absence of transitional forms leading up to the explosion of life.
"The complex of historical events encompassing the origin and early evolution of Metazoa is at once the salient feature and the most unresolved bio-historical phenomenon in the history of life. It has been the single most perplexing issue since paleontology emerged as a scientific discipline...Many of paleontology's heroic figures...have offered hypotheses or scenarios to explain or account for events of this critical juncture in the history of life. To date, none of these ideas are widely accepted." J.H. Lipps and P.W. Signor Origin and Early Evolution of the Metazoa" page 3-23.
Geoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that...
==============
So you are quite happy selectively using your brain rather than using it all the time?
==============
Look. We can see evidence for atoms. We can measure their width. We can tell how many are in a sample of a substance. We can conduct tests that show how atoms react. We can split the atom and destroy a city. Atoms have evidence for their existance. Evolution does not.
==========
No one was there to see God write the Book. There is no reason to believe that he did. So why should I care? It is myth.
==========
God didn't write the Bible Himself. He inspired men to write it for him. Man was there to see it written.
==============
So you don't know what the scientists are doing? Maybe you should find out?
Astronomy is based on exactly the same type of evidence as evolution-- observation and inference. Please make up you mind about what constitutes evidence.
===============
What do scientists do? Easy. Scientists labour to discover truth about our universe.
Astronomy is based on evidence. Evidence exists for black holes, and quasers, and galaxies. Evidence does not exist for the Big Bang or evolution.
==========
Which is why overwhelming numbers of scientists consider evolution to be the best theory we have? You can't be serious.
==========
I am serious. I wouldn't write that if I wasn't serious. If I wasn't, I would indicate it. Many scientists are "willingly ignorant" or the evidence, or refuse to look at any evidence that contridicts their theory.
============
Of course you haven't bothered to look, and likely don't even know what to look for. This means you are blindly spouting nonsense. Assertions don't make a thing true.
===========
Look at some of the quotes by evolutionists themselves. Many are doubting evolution. Assertions don't make a thing true. You can assert for all eternity that evolution occured, and that will not make evolution occur.
============
No one will tell you that there are not canyons in the MSH ash, but pyroclastic mudflows do not look like sedimentary rock and metamorphic rock. The MSH analogy is moronic.
============
Have you been there? Have you seen the area? Where's the evidence for that statement?
============
You did make it up. See, if you had a leg to stand on you would have given me a reference to a ice age climatic model, but you don't bother with details like evidence eh?
============
It's simple. The cold ice sheets created a colder climate in summer, thereby creating an overall cool climate with lots of H2O
===========
This doesn't even address the point I made.
===========
No? Well, here's another one. Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research
==========
Make your own arguments.
==========
lol. And when I do you accuse me of thinking that up myself. Come on. Be consistent.
===========
ummmm... it has.
===========
Not in the last biology textbook I looked through
============
Yup, and when you date something that is 250 million years old it hardly matters.
============
Oh? And it isn't just thousands of years off either.
a. C-14 is present in every sample of coal that has ever been checked. This is embarrasing, as the youngest coal is dated at "millions of years". The half life of C-14 is only 5,730 years. That means that in 11,460 years, all C-14 should be gone. Well, how is C-14 found in "millions of years old" coal?
b. Wood from the Tertiary basalt was buried in a lava flow that clearly covered it, as the wood was charred. The wood was dated by C-14 to be 45,000 years old and the basalt was, well, 45,000,000 years old. Um, something's wrong here.
c. Lava flows at the top of the Grand Canyon are dated to be older then lava flows imbedded in the bottom layers. What? Did the canyon form upside down?
Just some of the errors with modern dating methods.
==========
In what universe?
==========
Say some light material were laid down by flood waters and then a submarine landslide of denser material covered it.
============
Yes, in the right time frame!!!! Why didn't they notice the flood?
============
The Sumerians sprang up right after the flood.
===============
If, as you say, you are here to learn then start backing up what you say with hard evidence. AIG doesn't count. Look, for every one AIG 'researcher' there are thousands-- probably ten of thousand-- of scientists in the various related fields who will tell you that the stuff at AIG is crap. AIG is so flawed its silly. It is the Monty Python's Flying Circus of Science, but not nearly so clever.
===============
What have I been doing? AiG has hard evidence. The reason evolutionists don't like them is because they can't refute their evidence.
============
You mean your 'kind' definition that places kinds at the species level? Creationists don't typically do that because then you are forced into accepting that hundreds of millions of animals were on a boat just larger than the biggest of the old sailing ships.
============
Listen to Safarti's arguement that I posted above about kinds.
===============
Why? The emergence of a new species does not mean the parent species dies out. You can have branching.
===============
What determines which stay as a simplier species and which evolve? You would expect that an isolated group of organisms, if evolution occured, would soon breed out the traits of the parent stock and become overwelmingly different. Also, supposed descendants of earlier members of the horse series have been found below their supposed ancestors in the strata. Hmm. If strata is layed down over millions of years, what evolved from what?
======
What?
=====
Mash. The guy who "constructed" the horse series. He recognized wild mustangs in the southwest with three toes living then.
==========
And seventy years ago it didn't exist. It was a virus called SIV.
==========
SIV might have mutated to form HIV. No new information was added and no evolution is proved.
[This message has been edited by thousands_not_billions, 01-22-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by TrueCreation, posted 01-22-2003 10:28 PM thousands_not_billions has not replied
 Message 77 by John, posted 01-23-2003 2:46 AM thousands_not_billions has replied
 Message 78 by Andya Primanda, posted 01-23-2003 3:13 AM thousands_not_billions has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 89 (29962)
01-22-2003 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by thousands_not_billions
01-22-2003 9:13 PM


"Funny that evolutionists close their eyes to the evidence for the Flood.
The Flood | Answers in Genesis "
--I have studied The Geodynamics of Flood Geology to a significant degree in the past while and will say that evolutionists arent necessarely 'closing their eyes to the evidence'. True, some of them are out there just parroting their favorite evo on the subject, though the ones which have done the work can point out abundant inconsistencies within the framework. While in my studies I've found quite a lot which is in favour of the floods occurrence, with it come those abundant inconsistencies, they do exist.
"Exploitation is not the best word to use. America's greatness came from it's Biblical ethics and Bible believing people."
--I've read some literature regarding this and it wasn't founded on Christianity. They did, however, did so on 'Godly' principles.
"If I have a printing press that deletes each tenth letter in a book, is new information being produced? The book is different from the origional, but no new information is formed. In fact, information is lost. "
--Your analogy doesn't apply to genetic mutations, it isn't that simple. You may soon forfeit the 'new information' argument as I have, if you open your mind that is. Seems like you sure read alot of that AIG material, I went through that phase too.
"Do we really have to go through this again mate? Rarely, mutations can create seeming advantages for an organism, like bacteria that are unaffected by drugs, and beetles that cannot be blown into the sea, as they do not have wings. This is not evolution, as no new information is added, but is rather deleted.
Are There Beneficial Mutations? | Answers in Genesis "
--Whether information(bases) is added or subtracted from the genome makes no difference, it is still an evolutionary characteristic. Evolution in this sense is a change in allelomorphic frequencies over time, any alteration qualifies.
--Evolution occurs, its just a matter of how long it has occurred for is my position.
A fellow YEC,
--TC
-------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-22-2003 9:13 PM thousands_not_billions has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 89 (29963)
01-22-2003 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by thousands_not_billions
01-22-2003 9:19 PM


"I might not know everything, but the science I have looked at all supports Creation."
--Have you ever considered the possibility that this just might be because AIG is all you read (with a little bit of ICR et al. in there as well)?
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-22-2003 9:19 PM thousands_not_billions 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