Evolution Logic

This whole debate is quite testable. As you eluded to 'swc', if evolution is true, we need evidence of an increase in genetic information. We can test and find over and over in the lab that mutations cause a loss of information. But faith that they don't is rampant. The moral implications are too much for some. Even regular reproduction only causes a rearrangement of pre-existing genetic info. When the occasional accident or 'error' does occur, it almost exclusively results in death or an inability to procreate. Statistically irrelevant exceptions due occur.Can you imagine the problem (in evolutionary terms) for the first asexual creature that evolved into a heterosexual creature? The animal would have to find (even in the case of a hermaphrodite) the ability to find compatible sexual organs and an incubation method. All by chance and necessity?Darwin said, 'through slight modifications over long periods of time' (paraphrased) 'She can never take a sudden leap, but by advancing in slow sure steps.'Even assuming that is possible, I'm no geneticist, but the amount of genetic information needed to produce these organs is enormous (mind-bendingly so) over and above the original organisms simpler structures.My certainty is only proportionate to my capacity to 'reason' objectively.Hope that was intelligent if not useful. I have suggested a new topic and am waiting for approval on 'what is the definition of science?' It is almost certain the moderators will deny the thread from what I've seen here so far, so read it quick 'swc'...Dna is the most complex language in the known universe! So to imply it is alien in intelligent origin is based on what we know, not on blind faith and hopes of proving what we know false.Jesus said, you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.btw, that's a prophetic signature from 'someone who cares'.

---

Any biters in the stream?

Actually, I don't believe you should call that whale evolution, you fooled me for a while until I got out and actually did some research on this. That is misleading. That is not a whale losing legs. That is trying to tie Mesonychids with whales, but it's not true. The whale is the fully developed creature we know to be a whale now. The creatures above it are not whales, those are walking creatures that couldn't have evolved into whales. Check out this site to see why. Fossils | Answers in Genesis And, I did not classify the whale to be the same kind as a hippo! One common feature does not mean they are the same kind! A bunch of pieces of some kind of bones. We must see different, but those bones do not resemble a fin-leg to me. I don't see the ball and socket joint required for a leg, I don't see the knee joint required for a leg, I don't see a foot and the bones connecting it to the leg, and neither do I see fins, which would look like a bunch of small stick like bones close together, kind of branching out. So it's not a fin-leg! There! It's probably a flipper. Problem solved! So that whole find can be put down. It's not a fish with legs. It's probably some kind of creature like a seal! Maybe. But not fin-legs. So they shouldn't claim it to be that. They should call them flipper like limbs. But it's not a fish with legs, as the original claim was. Maybe this creature had flipper like limbs. Maybe the head doesn't make it a fish. Maybe the neck doesn't make it amphibian. How can we be sure without the rear end? The part with much needed information.

---

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

What is that? How can you be sure if it's a reptile, and how can you be sure that is hair? The same substance, as it was in the site: "Epidermis: characterized by complete covering of keratin (the same stuff that makes up mammalian hair and mammalian, avian, and reptilian nails/claws also makes up the plates we call "scales")." Reptile Skin BasicsSee, that site said the same "stuff", not gene. I was going off that site.

---

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

Ok, as I pointed out above, that wasn't true, that wasn't really a whale in evolution, check out that site I linked to. So the whole argument changes, that was not a whale losing legs, the first couple of creatures in the supposed "whale evolution" were not really whales, check out that site for details.

---

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

read more closely. mesonychus was the proposed ancestor to whales (differing very obviously in the teeth). pakicetus was the was find that overturned that hypothesis. have a look at the skulls again. pakicetus's skull is almost passable for a modern whale's skull, except for the location of the nostrils and eyes. we have all seen aig, i promise. i find them particularly dishonest on biblical matter, btw. we must have taken different anatomy and biology classes. and you won't in amphibians, either. (because those are PECTORAL fins -- forelimbs. not hind legs) yes. it's oddly between the two, isn't it? fish don't have flippers. they have fins. this one has exceptionally long lobed fins. that end in well definied digits.did you catch that? it has hands and fingers. no, they are not homologous to flippers. they are extended lobed fins. yes, it is. the distance between the "fin" and the body is two great to call it anything but a limb. it has a jointed apendage protruding from its torso, that ends in fingers. what would you call it?and it's not a flipper. maybe you don't know anything about biology? i made no claims about the rear end.

---

You forgot the possibility that God created those creatures, so no evolution was needed, and nothing needed to come first. Hey, that site said reptiles do not have hair follicles. So tell me, if that was a real reptile, how could it get hair without hair follicles. It could also be a fake... Like Archaeopteryx... But not completely. But what about the other differences between reptiles and birds? How could evolution do that? Check out this site for more on that: No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_02.html

---

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

it's an archosaur. it's a reptile. do you doubt that pterosaurs are reptiles? what does it look like to you? they are actually mistaken. the chemical makeup of reptilian scales and bird feathers differ. if you don't believe me, well, check any creationist site on the question. they like to herrald that piece of evidence as proving that bird feathers couldn't have come from reptilian scales. which actually proves very little. yes, and refer to scutes, it is the same gene. that's the point i was making -- not only are those chemical compositions the same, but so are the genes.

---

DNA can be a very long double helix molecule. How do you see that molecule being a language?Do you know what DNA does? How cells use it? Doesn't seem like a language to me at all but rather a template mechanism for assembling proteins.lfen

Thanks Rob, for helping out a little here. It's quite like 1 (me) against the rest. Glad someone is out there to stand up for TRUTH. Yes, the truth will set you free. I'm free, so good to be free. I wish this for those who have not yet found the truth. Keep searching. I'll be praying for you guys.P.S. I read your proposed topic, I made it in time. It's good, I think we could have a nice debate there about science and truth and propaganda (evolution). Hope they would allow it.

---

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

Have to go. Be back later. May God bless you all richly!

---

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

if god created creatures, he did so in such a way that would change over time. that much, we have evidence for. by evolving follicles. i'm not sure i should even entertain this. it was a ridiculous idea when it was proposed in the 1850's, and it's even more ridiculous today. to fake all 7 specimens the same way, so that they all produce perfect replicas of perfectly aerodynamic feathers would literally require the hand of god. we are finding more and more features in archaeopteryx even today that they had no idea about in the 1850's -- and all new specimens match the first one. read all about it, here. only in the regard that new evidence is always being introduced, and that science doesn't actually PROVE anything. yeah, let's look at those.

quote:

---

These so-called differences exist between dinosaurs classified as Saurischian (reptile-like, hip-girdled species) and Ornithischian (bird-like, hip-girdled species). This concept of dinosaurs having hip girdles similar to those of birds is now and then taken as evidence for the alleged dinosaur-bird link. However, the difference in hip girdles is no evidence at all for the claim that birds evolved from dinosaurs. That is because Ornithischian dinosaurs do not resemble birds with respect to other anatomical features. For instance, Ankylosaurus is a dinosaur classified as Ornithischian, with short legs, a giant body, and skin covered with scales resembling armor. On the other hand, Struthiomimus, which resembles birds in some of its anatomical features (long legs, short forelegs, and thin structure), is actually a Saurischian.110

---

huge fallacy. this is going to sound weird, but guess which kind of hip bones modern birds have? if you guessed "ornithstician" you just lost. the ornithstician dinosaurs were so named because the people who first found them thought the hips looked like those of birds. in fact, modern birds are actually saurischian dinosaurs.in ornithsticians, the pubis has a forward projection. saurischians (including birds) lack this projection. the original distinction was made based on whether the pubis was parallel or perpendicular to the ischum. in reptiles, it is perpendicular. in birds, it is parallel. the problem is that we have many "lizard-hipped" dinosaurs with pubi in various stages of turning backwards. that velociraptor i keep mentioning is a good example. not suprisingly, so is archaeopteryx.this page has some nice illustrations for you.

quote:

---

Dinosaur bones are thick and solid because of their massive structure, whereas the bones of living and extinct birds are hollow, and thus very light.

---

as previously mentioned, many non-avian dinosaurs have hollow bones.

quote:

---

Another difference between reptiles and birds is their metabolic structure. Reptiles have the slowest metabolic structure in the animal kingdom. (The claim that dinosaurs had a warm-blooded fast metabolism remains a speculation.)

---

it's not speculation. it's reasonable inference. name me a cold-blooded animal that walks on two legs? i bet you can't do it. in fact, name me a cold blooded animal that walks on four legs, but with its legs fully underneath its body. there's a REASON you can't do it: none exist, because none CAN exist. cold-blooded animals have to stick close to the ground for warmth.any animal that walks upright has to be warm-blooded, otherwise it dies of heat loss.

quote:

---

One of the best-known ornithologists in the world, Alan Feduccia from the University of North Carolina, opposes the theory that birds are related to dinosaurs, despite the fact that he is an evolutionist himself.

---

of all the names to drop, feduccia is the worst. in the paleontology community, people LAUGH at him. i'll look and see if i can find you an example of his proposed ancestor for birds -- but they look something like chameleons. he even alleges that archaeopteryx is a true bird, but not at all related to dinosaurs (even though it's skeleton is identical to every other maniraptoran dinosaurs in almost every way).added by edit: you might want to have a look at this thread on archaeopteryx and avian dinosaurs for more information.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

Good question! I concede the point. I was not specific enough. I need to say it in three parts. Then wrap it up...1. DNA is a language for life, as an operating system is a language for a computer. It doesn't make the hardware, or itself, but only has the means to regulate it. Even Bill Gates has compared DNA to software so it's not a new example or comparison.2. What I should have said, is that it is the most complex arrangement of instructions (contained in the information within the DNA molecule) in the known universe.3. As such it communicates to us in a different manner as oppossed to the meaning I gave in illustration in #1. Because we know that information is a massless quantity, that is, it is not reducible to matter or energy but in fact manipulates it, tells us that information originates from an intelligent agent (i.e. Mark twain, or egyption scribes). it gives one the sense that info is 'spiritual' in origin.If SETI reasearchers could find even a simple pattern of information coming from outer space they would jump for joy. But show them God's calling card (DNA) and as Francis Crick the nobel lauriate and geneticist said, "I can only conclude that it came in missile form from somewhere else (paraphrased)."In that case I ask, if the laws of nature and physics on earth cannot explain DNA's origin (natural laws don't produce info but instead break it down), then how can those same laws elsewhere in the universe (and they are the same, don't argue with me about it, argue with the physicists like Steven Hawking) explain it?We need totally different laws or 'means' to explain it coming from elsewhere be it parrallel universes, or God. That's why all the talk about an infinite number of other universes in some highly speculative physics circles. What I find shockingly compelling, is that whether you invoke God or string theory, you invoke a metaphysical argument to explain life's origin.So much wasted time to intellectually avoid the moral dillemma. You are spot on about the template... That's why The discovery Institute used an illustration about 'building plans' to show how DNA does it's nanowork. The difference is that in DNA, the plans are so sophisticated technologically, that it regulates organisms such as a humans that are self replicating machines organically, that have up to 100 trillion individual cells. And those cells in turn are each comprised of hundreds of smaller units called proteins. And all of those instructions are on the template DNA. All the sequencing of amino acids is found in the instructions. All the absolutely unique characteristics of the indivdual organism. Just plain everything.Even the simplest one-celled bacteria, is now known in the last decades to be a mystery in terms of what is yet to learn about them. And the mystery is getting deeper and more complex.The more complex the problem, the less likely it is that 'chance' has a probable means of solving it. You might get a set of die to land on snake eyes now and then. But getting the thousands of sub microscopic components together at the same time and place you need to create the simplest of life forms, is not at all a good bet given all eternity. Not when those components themselves are created within the cell. that means you need the cell to produce the cell units. Chicken / egg.And if that's not enough, DNA could not have evolved either, because in order to have a self replicating cycle, you need the DNA that stores the template for all of the highspeed processes that take place durring cell division (unimaginable sophistication). So as Steven Meyer of the Discovery institute has said, 'you can't use natural selection to explain the origin of DNA without assuming the existence of the very thing your trying to explain.'How is DNA a language???Because by it, God says...BOO!I hope that answered your excellent questions.

---

Any biters in the stream?

actually, that's dna's primary function. replication. it's one of the few things that DOES make itself. poor cyrptology. some combinatorists i know would be appalled. there is a difference between a string of data, and a message. now, if the human genome could be decoded into a message that contained all five books of the torah -- i'd jump right on the id bandwagon.

---

Not really, that is what "micro"evolution covers - speciation, of which we have many many examples. You never will. This is a strawman concept and not evolution. "Macro"evolution is the accumulation of microevolutionary changes until the divergence is sufficient that we humans say "wow, it's really different" -- it's really an artificial human intellectual construct.But you will only ever see "micro"evolution between species in many steps in between. Now if you are interested in exploring those many steps over long periods of time that show a sufficient divergence that we humans say "wow, it's really different" -- we can do that. Genetics does not prevent it, and thus it does permit it. There is no difference to genetics where or what any mutation is, they just happen. This is "hopeful monster" evolution and not real. You need to think this thru a little better than this.For instance, what do you think a "half feather - half scale" fossil would look like? and then consider whether you would accept it as such or only as one or the other?This is why I asked for your definitions here. You seem to expect "macro"evolution not just on the time scale of speciation but on a one generation change.Speciation takes several generations, and "macro"evolution takes several speciation events to accomplish -- generations of generations.I'll get through the rest of this topic tonight, but I expect a lot of flak to be generated.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

well, AnswersInGenesis is not much of a source, and we have all been there and seen what they have to say. In addition, the AIG article does not really offer any evfidence in support of their assertions, but only a series of arguments from incredulity. They really offer nothing to support their position except that they don't believe it.Bu that still has nothing to do with the point I was making in my post. This post too simply shows that yet again you don't understand what is happening.You say: What is so funny is that AIG actually ends up proving macroevolution even while claiming it does not. You message itself is proof of macroevolution.You say "... the first couple of creatures in the supposed "whale evolution" were not really whales,...". Of course not, they are the ancestors of the whales. That is why this is such a great example. Here is something that is clearly not a whale, and that overtime evolved into modern whales. The whales are almost as good an example of macroevolution as we are ourselves.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion