|
Author
|
Topic: Evolution Logic
|
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5769 days) Posts: 192 Joined: 06-06-2006
|
it's an archosaur. it's a reptile. do you doubt that pterosaurs are reptiles? Hey, guess what. I did a google define search for the word archosaur, and here is one of the definitions: archosaur: "Ruling Reptile'. The group of animals that included dinosaurs, crocodiles, birds, and pterosaurs" define:archosaur - Google Search Notice that "birds" was included in the definition. That's what we have here with your creature, a bird.
what does it look like to you? Some lines sticking out from the creature. You know, they could have been faked, it's a possibility. It's not that hard to carve out some lines in a fossil. I mean, how would hair fossilize? Have you ever thought of that? Inner organs don't fossilize too well, how would hair have fossilized? It's so thin and soft...
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. If it's a mistake, why don't you tell them about it, so they can fix it? Even so, how would you know if the feathers and scales came from the same gene? Can you prove it?
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. Scutes? Scutes are scales, not anything to do with feathers! Wait, you just said it was a mistake, they aren't of the same composition, now you say there are? Which is it?
"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
|
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5769 days) Posts: 192 Joined: 06-06-2006
|
if god created creatures, he did so in such a way that would change over time. that much, we have evidence for. Creature can change, but only within limits, within thier own kind, for that, we do have evidence. But for macroevolution, we do not.
by evolving follicles. But it already had scale follicles, why would it also evolve hair follicles? So those creatures would have had hairy scales? Is that what you're saying? Or were they losing scales follicles and evolving hair follicles instead, being bare for some time?
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. I think some of the specimens were faked. But either way you look at it, archaeopteryx has no link coming to it and leaving from it, so it's not a valid transitional fossil anyway. It doesn't show scales evolving into feathers, it shows fully developed feathers.
as previously mentioned, many non-avian dinosaurs have hollow bones. That doesn't prove they had air sacs or something.
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. But then again, dinosaurs were reptiles, reptiles are cold blooded. I don't think we can reach a real conclusion. We weren't there to witness it, so we can't be sure of much.
"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
|
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5769 days) Posts: 192 Joined: 06-06-2006
|
|
Message 108 of 302 (319283)
06-08-2006 8:50 PM
|
Reply to: Message 74 by RAZD
06-07-2006 7:54 AM
|
|
Not really, that is what "micro"evolution covers - speciation, of which we have many many examples. Yes, microevolution, we do have examples of that. But NOT macroevolution. There is a big difference between the two.
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. Macroevolution is not a combination of microevolution. Microevolution is the variations within a kind, we see that happen all the time. Macroevolution is changing the kinds, that cannot happen, never has, never will, and has NEVER been observed. It's not possible, there are limits to the variation.
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. Genetics don't permit it. They have limits, that evolution would need to cross, but this cannot happen. Mutations? They can't make evolution 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 cannot picture a scale-feather. That is what makes evolution so ridiculous. I am not saying that the change has to happen in one generation. I'll let you use millions of generations, as your theory proposes. But you will not find a scale evolving into a feather. So, what is the hopeful monster theory? Finding that a scale slowly evolved into a feather, and seeking the transitional forms? Or, instead, finding that scales SUDDENLY evolved into feathers, without leaving any transitional forms?
"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 74 by RAZD, posted 06-07-2006 7:54 AM | | RAZD has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 119 by RAZD, posted 06-08-2006 9:26 PM | | Someone who cares has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1424 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
bump for SWC
http:// EvC Forum: Evolution Logic --> EvC Forum: Evolution Logic Still looking for your definition of "macro"evolution.
|
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5769 days) Posts: 192 Joined: 06-06-2006
|
|
|
Message 110 of 302 (319285)
06-08-2006 8:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 75 by jar
06-07-2006 8:01 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. I could say the same about Talk Origins or any other sources you guys use.
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. No, they do not prove macroevolution, and neither do I. Because we do not claim that those creatures ever evolved into whales. They didn't! They were seperate creatures created by GOD. So we did not prove macroevolution. Because we did not tie those creatures together with whales.
"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 75 by jar, posted 06-07-2006 8:01 AM | | jar has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 112 by Coragyps, posted 06-08-2006 8:59 PM | | Someone who cares has replied | | | Message 116 by NosyNed, posted 06-08-2006 9:20 PM | | Someone who cares has replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 753 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
Re: Great example
Because Gingerich constructed a picture of the skull and Pakicetus with just 2 skull fragments! Untrue. You can see the initial 1983 paper yourself, pdf over there.
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 753 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
Re: Yet another mistake
They were seperate creatures created by GOD. Before he did whales? Like trilobites were created and then died out utterly before the first modern ray-finned fish was created? That doesn't sound like "six days."
|
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5769 days) Posts: 192 Joined: 06-06-2006
|
|
|
Message 113 of 302 (319291)
06-08-2006 9:02 PM
|
Reply to: Message 109 by RAZD
06-08-2006 8:50 PM
|
|
Re: bump for SWC
Still looking for your definition of "macro"evolution. I would say macroevolution would have to be the evolution of big changes between family taxons or higher taxons.
"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 109 by RAZD, posted 06-08-2006 8:50 PM | | RAZD has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 117 by Coragyps, posted 06-08-2006 9:22 PM | | Someone who cares has replied | | | Message 121 by RAZD, posted 06-08-2006 9:30 PM | | Someone who cares has replied | | | Message 260 by RAZD, posted 06-11-2006 10:53 AM | | Someone who cares has not replied | | | Message 261 by Percy, posted 06-11-2006 11:57 AM | | Someone who cares has not replied |
|
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5769 days) Posts: 192 Joined: 06-06-2006
|
|
|
Message 114 of 302 (319293)
06-08-2006 9:05 PM
|
Reply to: Message 80 by ramoss
06-07-2006 8:55 AM
|
|
Other than the claims of some old old books, there is no evidence of that. Supernaturla explainations are irrelavent to science. The evidence also shows that evolution has occured. That is a fact. The model on how and why evolution occurs is the theory. Really? You have evidence of evolution, macroevolution? Let me at it. The evidence does NOT show evolution to occur, it shows the opposite.
"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 80 by ramoss, posted 06-07-2006 8:55 AM | | ramoss has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 264 by Percy, posted 06-11-2006 12:04 PM | | Someone who cares has not replied |
|
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5769 days) Posts: 192 Joined: 06-06-2006
|
|
|
Message 115 of 302 (319297)
06-08-2006 9:16 PM
|
Reply to: Message 94 by RAZD
06-07-2006 10:16 PM
|
|
Re: Can you define "MACRO"evolution?
And what kind of time scale will you consider? Anything you could show me. But this has to be a change between kinds of animals or plants, not species.
Just to repeat some things that have been said on this issue: evolution is change is species over time. Any change in any direction is evolution - even those that cause death. Sometimes features are discarded when they are no longer useful - because they waste energy and resources to produce that could be better 'spent' on other newer features. Hind legs on whales fits that picture, eyes on animals in caves also fits that picture. That does not prevent some features from developing in new directions to become new kinds of limbs. Ok, so maybe that would show evolution, but it wouldn't help the evolution theory that a single cell evolved into a human. It may have happened, you can believe it is part of evolution, but in order for the progressive evolution from a cell to a human to be real, we would need many advances and growth. But decreases and loss may happen sometime in there, but that's nothing that would convince me of evolution.
"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 94 by RAZD, posted 06-07-2006 10:16 PM | | RAZD has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 123 by RAZD, posted 06-08-2006 9:50 PM | | Someone who cares has replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
AIG vs TO
I could say the same about Talk Origins or any other sources you guys use. You could say it. Want to open a thread on a comparison of the two? We can take turns picking an item from one then the other. Offer evidence to support what we say. Saying is cheap. Backing it up is where the meat lies.
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 753 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
Re: bump for SWC
I would say macroevolution would have to be the evolution of big changes between family taxons or higher taxons. I would say something similar, I think. To use a well-worn analogy, 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 really does equal fourteen. Those little changes add up. That's why humans don't look so much like colugos: our ancestors have been undergoing tiny changes down through the several million generations since we shared a mama. And neither of us look like her, either.
|
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5769 days) Posts: 192 Joined: 06-06-2006
|
|
|
Message 118 of 302 (319302)
06-08-2006 9:23 PM
|
Reply to: Message 95 by kuresu
06-07-2006 11:24 PM
|
|
I guess someone's already asked it by now, but what do you mean by kind? I cannot say for sure, but it would most likely be somewhere around the family taxon. Can you define species for me?
However, if kind is at the kindom level, we have that. The oldest fossils are of bacteria about 3.8 bya. If single-celled organisms that old can be preserved, and we haven't found any multicelled that old, well, its fairly safe to say they were here first. Then all of a sudden, the Protists arrive on the scene, and that is explained by the endosymbiosis theory. Then the protists developed animal like and plant like characteristics (generally both aren't present in the same species (I don't know of any, so . . . )). These are the ancestors of multicelled animals and plants. Fungi are either descendents of animals or split with the animals from the protists, and they are more related to us than they are plants. The 3.8 bya thing is not true. This earth is only about 6,000 years old.
"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 95 by kuresu, posted 06-07-2006 11:24 PM | | kuresu has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 124 by RAZD, posted 06-08-2006 9:57 PM | | Someone who cares has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1424 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Yes, microevolution, we do have examples of that. But NOT macroevolution. There is a big difference between the two. So you keep saying, yet you have not layed out what those major differences are and how they act in different ways. Restating that you think there are big differences is not substantiation of your argument, its just a boring argument from incredulity and ignorance.
Macroevolution is not a combination of microevolution. Microevolution is the variations within a kind, we see that happen all the time. Macroevolution is changing the kinds, that cannot happen, never has, never will, and has NEVER been observed. It's not possible, there are limits to the variation. You keep saying it is different but you have not defined HOW it is different. You keep saying that it cannot happen but you don't SHOW how it cannot happen. You keep making the same boring argument from incredulity and ignorance. Again. So far your only working definition of "macro"evolution is that you don't think it can happen, therefore you don't think it can happen. Not much use eh?
Genetics don't permit it. They have limits, that evolution would need to cross, but this cannot happen. Mutations? They can't make evolution happen. Once again, this is only a repeated statement based on an argument from incredulity and ignorance, and NOT a substantiation of your position with evidence. There is no limit to genetics that has yet been found, no barrier to mutations happening in any position or causeing any specific change or other. To say genetics does not permit it you have to show evidence of a mechanism that prevents it, not just make unsubstantiated assertions based on incredulity and ignorance. Mutation do, have and will cause evolution to proceed. On this point you are absolutely wrong. Evolution is change in species through time. Mutations are the mechanism for changes to the genetics of a species. Natural selection is the mechanism where non-disadvantageous mutations are not eliminated from the gene pool.
I cannot picture a scale-feather. Therefore it can't happen? Just, and only, because YOU can't picture it? Don't you see how invalid this argument from incredulity and ignorance is? YOUR failure of imagination has no effect on the continued evolution of all life on earth. Or on anything in the universe.
That is what makes evolution so ridiculous. I am not saying that the change has to happen in one generation. I'll let you use millions of generations, as your theory proposes. But you will not find a scale evolving into a feather. So, what is the hopeful monster theory? Finding that a scale slowly evolved into a feather, and seeking the transitional forms? What is ridiculous is the continued blind denial of the evidence that has been presented on the gradual evolution of the feather over substantial time and the evolution of numerous species along the way. Does a feather need to evolve from a scale? Nope, so this is a strawman in your argument (another logical fallacy btw). It can have evolved from any type of {skin\surface} feature. If it evolved from any soft tissue feature then the chances of fossil preservation are limited (but not eliminated -- as we see with more and more fossils that show developments of feathers on dinosaurs) You can't use denial of evidence as a substantiation of your argument.
Or, instead, finding that scales SUDDENLY evolved into feathers, without leaving any transitional forms? Can I take it from this that your definition of "macro"evolution does NOT include the "hopeful monster" concept? If we can agree on this, then how do you define "macro"evolution without having it encompass the accumulation over time of many intermediate evolutionary steps, each one on the level of "micro"evolution as it is passed from species to species by descent of selected features (natural selection of non-disadvantageous mutations over time ... evolution). Bottom line: how do you define "macro"evolution? 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.
|
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5769 days) Posts: 192 Joined: 06-06-2006
|
|
|
Message 120 of 302 (319305)
06-08-2006 9:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 96 by kuresu
06-07-2006 11:38 PM
|
|
Re: Great example
Tell that to Linnaeus, the father of the modern taxonomic system. All living organisms share a few basic features, like cell membranes, DNA, ribosomes, ability to procreate without a host (unless biologists have changed that recently) and a few others. It is the fact that a vertebrate has a backbone that all backbones creates are in the phylum Vertebrate. Well, actually, there are couple of more features invovled that have to deal with the backbone (notochord being one of them), but that's a single feature common to all vertebrates. And voila, one common feature, they are the same kind.
Also, why not? You cannot say a certain animal is the same kind like another animal ONLY because of one similar feature. It takes more similarities than just one. Besides, I could say, the cell of plant has a nucleus, the cell of a human also has a nucleus, so they must be the same kind. See? That would make a lame argument. And you wouldn't take that. Those creatures could not have evolved into whales because there are limits in variation, which would not permit this type of change.
"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 96 by kuresu, posted 06-07-2006 11:38 PM | | kuresu has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 122 by crashfrog, posted 06-08-2006 9:41 PM | | Someone who cares has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2