Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,204 Year: 5,461/9,624 Month: 486/323 Week: 126/204 Day: 0/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution Logic
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5961 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 61 of 302 (318551)
06-07-2006 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Someone who cares
06-07-2006 12:23 AM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 12:23 AM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by lfen, posted 06-07-2006 1:24 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 69 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 1:30 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 77 by crashfrog, posted 06-07-2006 8:39 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 79 by ramoss, posted 06-07-2006 8:52 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 82 by Wounded King, posted 06-07-2006 9:14 AM Rob has replied
 Message 93 by RAZD, posted 06-07-2006 9:51 PM Rob has not replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5863 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 62 of 302 (318555)
06-07-2006 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by arachnophilia
06-07-2006 12:31 AM


Re: Great example
you said that losing limbs was acceptable. and that must mean that a creature like pakicetus (the whale with legs) is still "just a whale." nevermind that he is an even-toed ungulate.
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!
i see at least one leg bone (maybe two), some rudimentary digits, and something like a lobed fin on the end. what's it look like to you?
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.
did you? seal flippers are limbs, with fully formed digits. above is one hindlimb of a seal.
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!
or, maybe they're more like the "limbs" of the coelacanth:
Maybe. But not fin-legs. So they shouldn't claim it to be that. They should call them flipper like limbs.
its skull makes it a fish, if that's what you're trying to say. the neck connection, however, is more amphibian. however, he doesn't have enough of a leg to be a land creature. we was clearly something that lived in the shallows, and used his rudimentary limbs to scoot around ponds (and maybe from pond to pond as lungfish and even catfish today do) to greater advantage that just the lobe-finned fish.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2006 12:31 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2006 1:16 AM Someone who cares has replied
 Message 96 by kuresu, posted 06-07-2006 11:38 PM Someone who cares has replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5863 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 63 of 302 (318556)
06-07-2006 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by arachnophilia
06-07-2006 12:36 AM


again, tell that to this reptile that has hair:
What is that? How can you be sure if it's a reptile, and how can you be sure that is hair?
no, not the same SUBSTANCE. the same GENE. one gene produces both. by default, it produces feathers. with modifaction (addition of one gene) they become scutes in certain places. without the gene, they are feathers.
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 Basics
See, 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2006 12:36 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2006 1:23 AM Someone who cares has replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5863 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 64 of 302 (318557)
06-07-2006 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by jar
06-07-2006 12:37 AM


Re: Yet another mistake
Yup, pretty clear you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
That's not a problem, we have all been in exactly that position.
When life started here, oh 3 or 4 billion years ago, it was single celled. At that stage there was no way to go except towards more complex. But over the years, things happened, and at times it was the less complex critters that were the winners in the survival game.
Remember, that humans are not a goal. We are just one of many of the critters, and it's way to early to tell if we are a successful one or not. It's absolutely certain that we are not going to be among the most successful designs, turtles and cockroaches got us beat hands down there.
Evolution is what works. If a creature that lost it's legs as it moved into a water environment had an advantage over the one with legs, and the legless wonder reproduced better than the legged one, eventually the population would be legless.
Evolution is just a history of what worked, what didn't.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 06-07-2006 12:37 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by jar, posted 06-07-2006 8:01 AM Someone who cares has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1456 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 65 of 302 (318558)
06-07-2006 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Someone who cares
06-07-2006 1:02 AM


Re: Great example
That is trying to tie Mesonychids with whales, but it's not true.
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.
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.
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.
Check out this site to see why. Fossils | Answers in Genesis
we have all seen aig, i promise. i find them particularly dishonest on biblical matter, btw.
A bunch of pieces of some kind of bones. We must see different, but those bones do not resemble a fin-leg to me.
we must have taken different anatomy and biology classes.
I don't see the ball and socket joint required for a leg, I don't see the knee joint required for a leg,
and you won't in amphibians, either. (because those are PECTORAL fins -- forelimbs. not hind legs)
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.
yes. it's oddly between the two, isn't it?
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!
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.
Maybe. But not fin-legs. So they shouldn't claim it to be that. They should call them flipper like limbs.
no, they are not homologous to flippers. they are extended lobed fins.
But it's not a fish with legs, as the original claim was.
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 the head doesn't make it a fish. Maybe the neck doesn't make it amphibian.
maybe you don't know anything about biology?
How can we be sure without the rear end? The part with much needed information.
i made no claims about the rear end.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 1:02 AM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 7:52 PM arachnophilia has replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5863 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 66 of 302 (318559)
06-07-2006 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by arachnophilia
06-07-2006 12:42 AM


an outside possibility, since one of the two features had to have developed first.
You forgot the possibility that God created those creatures, so no evolution was needed, and nothing needed to come first.
and it has hair, or at least something very, very similar to it.
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...
we can be nearly certain.
But not completely.
no, see, that's the part i just went over. not all dinosaurs did, and the smaller theropods certainly did not. for instance, all deinonychosaurs (dromaeosaurs [velociraptor], troodons, archaeopteryx, and all modern birds) have hollow bones.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2006 12:42 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2006 1:52 AM Someone who cares has replied
 Message 80 by ramoss, posted 06-07-2006 8:55 AM Someone who cares has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1456 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 67 of 302 (318560)
06-07-2006 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Someone who cares
06-07-2006 1:09 AM


What is that? How can you be sure if it's a reptile
it's an archosaur. it's a reptile. do you doubt that pterosaurs are reptiles?
and how can you be sure that is hair?
what does it look like to you?
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 Basics
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.
See, that site said the same "stuff", not gene. I was going off that site.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 1:09 AM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 8:07 PM arachnophilia has replied

lfen
Member (Idle past 4790 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 68 of 302 (318561)
06-07-2006 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Rob
06-07-2006 12:54 AM


Dna is the most complex language in the known universe!
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Rob, posted 06-07-2006 12:54 AM Rob has not replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5863 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 69 of 302 (318562)
06-07-2006 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Rob
06-07-2006 12:54 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Rob, posted 06-07-2006 12:54 AM Rob has not replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5863 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 70 of 302 (318563)
06-07-2006 1:31 AM


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Rob, posted 06-07-2006 2:33 AM Someone who cares has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1456 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 71 of 302 (318567)
06-07-2006 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Someone who cares
06-07-2006 1:21 AM


You forgot the possibility that God created those creatures, so no evolution was needed, and nothing needed to come first.
if god created creatures, he did so in such a way that would change over time. that much, we have evidence for.
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.
by evolving follicles.
It could also be a fake... Like Archaeopteryx...
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.
we can be nearly certain.
But not completely.
only in the regard that new evidence is always being introduced, and that science doesn't actually PROVE anything.
But what about the other differences between reptiles and birds? How could evolution do that? Check out this site for more on that: http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_02.html
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 1:21 AM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 8:36 PM arachnophilia has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5961 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 72 of 302 (318581)
06-07-2006 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Someone who cares
06-07-2006 1:31 AM


DNA can be a very long double helix molecule. How do you see that molecule being a language?
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.
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.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 1:31 AM Someone who cares has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2006 2:42 AM Rob has replied
 Message 76 by nwr, posted 06-07-2006 8:05 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 85 by Percy, posted 06-07-2006 9:25 AM Rob has replied
 Message 92 by Parasomnium, posted 06-07-2006 4:54 PM Rob has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1456 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 73 of 302 (318584)
06-07-2006 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Rob
06-07-2006 2:33 AM


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,
actually, that's dna's primary function. replication. it's one of the few things that DOES make itself.
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)."
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Rob, posted 06-07-2006 2:33 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Rob, posted 06-07-2006 9:18 AM arachnophilia has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1517 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 74 of 302 (318623)
06-07-2006 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Someone who cares
06-06-2006 10:06 PM


Well, macroevolution is when one kind of an organism supposedly evolves into another one.
Not really, that is what "micro"evolution covers - speciation, of which we have many many examples.
Like if you saw macroevolution in action.
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.
Or if you found that genetics would permit it.
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.
Or if you found a REAL fossil of a scale evolving into a feather.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Someone who cares, posted 06-06-2006 10:06 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 8:50 PM RAZD has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 75 of 302 (318627)
06-07-2006 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Someone who cares
06-07-2006 1:12 AM


Re: Yet another mistake
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:
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 1:12 AM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 8:54 PM jar 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