Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New Origin Views Comparison Chart - Is it Accurate/Complete or Not?...
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 5 of 70 (403207)
06-01-2007 10:58 AM


* The "law of biogenesis" is known to be false.
* The second law of thermodynamics doesn't say anything like you think it does.
* Transitional forms are abundant in the fossil record, and new ones are being discovered at an ever-increasing rate.
* The theory of evolution says nothing about the origin of life, the universe, or so-called "fine tuning". Not all science is the theory of evolution.
* The inability to explain absolutely everything is not a flaw in the body of knowledge we do have.
* The evolution of "irreducibly complex" structures can be seen both in the fossil record and in computer simulations and genetic algorithms.
This leaves your total number of valid "major problems" as ... oh ... zero.
Thanks for playing, and next time you want to write about a subject of which you are ignorant, could I suggest that you try learning something about it first?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 6 of 70 (403209)
06-01-2007 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mpb1
05-31-2007 6:50 PM


Since "You don't know what you don't know" ...
Yes you do.
You must be aware, for example, that you have never studied thermodynamics.
But you wrote about it anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mpb1, posted 05-31-2007 6:50 PM mpb1 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 10 of 70 (403268)
06-01-2007 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by mpb1
06-01-2007 2:43 PM


Re: replies...
As far as the other 'major problems' with the chart ” biogenesis, thermodynamics, and transitional fossils ” I really do want to find out if I'm wrong ...
If someone can provide links to show how evolution truly does not violate those two laws, and especially if someone can e-mail links to any reputable claims as to a 'large number' of transitional fossils, I am all ears!
* The "law of biogenesis" is simply false. It's not that evolution violates it, it's that observation and experiment violate it. This is an ex-law. It has ceased to be.
* The Second Law of Thermodynamics just doesn't say what you think it does. Here is an article explaining what it actually is, and here is an expert in thermodynamics debunking the creationist nonsense on this subject.
* Reputable claims as to a "large number" of transitional fossils? Is the National Academy of Sciences reputable enough for you?
"So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species." --- (National Academy of Sciences: Science and Creationism, page 21. National Academy Press, 1999)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by mpb1, posted 06-01-2007 2:43 PM mpb1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by mpb1, posted 06-01-2007 4:23 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 21 of 70 (403307)
06-01-2007 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by mpb1
06-01-2007 4:23 PM


Re: replies...
But about the fossils, there should be a list somewhere...
Why?
There are lists, but I doubt anyone's compiled a complete list, because there's loads of the things, as the National Academy of Sciences points out.
I keep 'hearing' very low numbers (like under a couple dozen) for the 'real' number of transitional fossils found.
I'm sure you do keep hearing that. This is because creationists tell lies. You won't hear it from any scientist, 'cos it's crazy rubbish that creationist liars made up to dupe people.
Here's a guy who lists three dozen mammal-reptile intermediates. That's just one transition, and he does not claim that the list is complete.
Face it, the National Academy of Sciences know what they're talking about.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by mpb1, posted 06-01-2007 4:23 PM mpb1 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 23 of 70 (403309)
06-01-2007 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by mpb1
06-01-2007 6:44 PM


Re: Missing Links
This mainstream evolutionary biologists essentially admits there are no 'missing links' and says change happened suddenly...
From your article:
"Dr. Schwartz thinks there are a couple reasons why he and other contrarian evolutionary thinkers have not reached the public consciousness ... Dr. Schwartz said he doesn't know whether his evolutionary ideas will ever become part of the mainstream, but he nevertheless thinks they are good for science."
Please note also that he is only talking about intermediate forms between species: there is nothing in his ideas which says that there shouldn't be, or aren't, transitional forms between higher taxa.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by mpb1, posted 06-01-2007 6:44 PM mpb1 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 28 of 70 (403318)
06-01-2007 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by mpb1
06-01-2007 8:24 PM


Re: "Huge number of missing transitional fossils... were never there in the first pla
I just have to believe that if the TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL EVIDENCE were extremely compelling, it would be all over the Internet. And it isn't!
Yes it is. Didn't you see the links?
Whatever they have must be pretty flimsy, or you and I both know the creation/evolution debate would have been over a long time ago.
Don't be silly. That would require stupid ignorant religious fanatics to be swayed by evidence.
Yeah, like that happens.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by mpb1, posted 06-01-2007 8:24 PM mpb1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by mpb1, posted 06-01-2007 9:01 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 46 of 70 (403373)
06-02-2007 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by mpb1
06-01-2007 9:01 PM


Re: "Huge number of missing transitional fossils... were never there in the first pla
Creationists have been screaming about the lack of transitional fossils for years and years and years...
Yes. They're wrong.
Don't you think evolutionists with solid 'missing links' would have been parading them around for all the world to see?
Yes. We do. Only of course we don't call them "missing links", because the ones we've found are not missing.
It defies logic not to believe that, and your links not withstanding, the evidence to support claims of transitional fossils is almost nowhere to be found online.
Not only does this "defy logic", but it's false, to boot.
The evidence is found online. We've given you some links. Did you not look at them?
Here's another: Intermediate Forms Between Classes
What the heck do you mean "your links not withstanding"? That's like saying: "The fact that 2+2=4 notwithstanding, 2+2=5."
Can you find me one single website which sets out the evidence for evolution and doesn't refer to intermediate forms?
Here's another question for you. All the lists we've given you were compiled by evolutionists, weren't they? If lists of intermediate forms would support creationism, why is there no list compiled by creationists? It is they who are frightened and embarrassed by the abundance of evidence.
You are spouting company policy because you want Darwinian evolution to be true. I think you care as much about the facts as YECs.
No. I am saying that there are intermediate forms because there are intermediate forms. I've done the research. They exist.
Please do not tell me silly fairy-stories about what I think and why I think it: it's not just offensive, it's also pointless, since this is a subject on which you have no earthly chance of deceiving me.
Fifty evolutionary anthropologists like Dr. Schwartz could tell you 'missing links' don't exist, or barely exist if at all, and you wouldn't buy it.
Well no, of course not. If fifty anthropologists told me I had a pair of silver wings, I wouldn't buy that either.
But in fact, Schwartz does not tell me that intermediate forms don't exist, and there are not fifty of him.
But fifty of them won't stand up and admit the truth ...
Because what you choose to call "admitting the truth" would actually be telling a ridiculous lie.
So evolutionists must continue holding the line, no matter what the evidence says.
So to prop up your fantasies about intermediate forms, you have to fantasise that scientists are lying to you.
Apparently when the National Academy of Sciences tells you that "So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species" they're lying.
All of them?
Didn't anyone resign from the NAS over that statement? No?
What else are scientists lying about? Is the atomic theory just a big hoax?
How 'bout some more honest evolutionists?
The way to tell whether someone is honest, or accurate, is not to see whether he agrees with your preconceptions, but whether he's supported by the evidence. If you are, in fact, wrong, as you were with your "two dozen" claim, then it would be dishonest for any competent scientist to agree with you.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by mpb1, posted 06-01-2007 9:01 PM mpb1 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 50 of 70 (403396)
06-02-2007 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by mpb1
06-01-2007 9:01 PM


"For All The World To See"?
Don't you think evolutionists with solid 'missing links' would have been parading them around for all the world to see?
We will continue to do so unless actively prevented.
"The world's most important collection of human fossils may soon be hidden from public view - if religious leaders get their way.
In a move that has stunned scientists, senior clergy have demanded that the bones and skulls currently exhibited in Nairobi's National Museum of Kenya be removed from display to prevent young Africans from being corrupted.
'It's creating a big weapon against Christians that's killing our faith,' said Bishop Boniface Adoyo, who is leading the hide-the-bones campaign. 'When children go to museums they'll start believing we evolved from these apes.'
Not surprisingly, the bishop's remarks have infuriated scientists who consider the museum's collection to be unrivalled anywhere else in the world. Its fossils include those of the 4 million-year-old apeman, Australopithecus anamensis, the 1.5 million-year-old remains of the Nariokotome boy, the most complete skeleton of an ancient human ever found, and a series of other bones that highlight crucial phases of our evolutionary past.
" --- The Observer, September 2006.
BY contrast, here's a little evolutionist parade:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by mpb1, posted 06-01-2007 9:01 PM mpb1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by ok boy, posted 07-26-2007 11:13 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 53 of 70 (403413)
06-02-2007 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by mpb1
06-02-2007 12:59 PM


A Nearly Empty Cup
Maybe this is a case of perspective... People like me with a Creationist bias want to see the cup (of transitional fossils) half empty. ...I happen to see the cup 99% empty.
People with an evolutionist perspective see the cup as full enough to support to the view.
So we argue back and forth, and get nowhere
I can't be convinced the cup isn't empty, and you can't be convinced the cup isn't full (full enough, at least).
* Estimates of the number of living species: "Estimates for the total number of species on the planet range from three million to 100 million, though most generally accepted estimates are between five and 20 million." *
Let's be conservative, and say three million.
* Estimates for proportion of species which are extinct: "Paleontologists estimate that as many as 99.9% of all species that ever lived are extinct (Raup, D. M. 1991. Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck?)" *
Let's be conservative, and say 90%. That would be equivalent to complete turnover (of species, remember) every 350,000,000 years*. If you can show me a species that's remained stable for that long, I will eat my hat. I therefore maintain that this is quite as conservative as I need to be, and more so.
I believe you about the 250,000 species in the fossil record. Then putting this together with the most conservative figures I can, the cup should be 99.17% empty.
I happen to see the cup 99% empty.
Lucky guess?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by mpb1, posted 06-02-2007 12:59 PM mpb1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by petrophysics1, posted 06-06-2007 5:23 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 55 of 70 (403434)
06-02-2007 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by mpb1
06-02-2007 2:41 AM


Souls
Purely naturalistic evolution MUST preclude the existence of a soul, if you define 'soul' in the biblical sense.
The Bible doesn't define soul. A lot of what people think about the soul is a result of the attempt to install Greek philosophy as an intellectual underpinning for Christianity. For example, the word "immaterial" just doesn't occur in the Bible.
The way most people in America, at least, would define soul (having to do with an ability to commune with God, and innate immortality [or conditional immortality, depending on one's religious view]).
I don't see how that would conflict with NE ... more later.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by mpb1, posted 06-02-2007 2:41 AM mpb1 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 56 of 70 (403436)
06-02-2007 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by bluegenes
06-02-2007 3:09 PM


Re: Transitional Fossils/percentages
I think your point could have been made more simply. If we're talking about the relative abundance of intermediate forms between whole vertebrate classes, then there aren't going to be that many, 'cos there are only five vertebrate classes (Or seven, depending on who you ask). So there are only going to be four transitions: fish-amphibian; amphibian-reptile; reptile-mammal; reptile-bird. Of course, they're going to branch a bit on the way.
Given that, we do have intermediate forms from all four series.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by bluegenes, posted 06-02-2007 3:09 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by bluegenes, posted 06-02-2007 7:21 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 60 of 70 (403456)
06-02-2007 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by mpb1
06-02-2007 8:32 PM


TE v. NC
Let's be precise about this.
It is in principle possible for something to be an objection to NE but not TE.
For example, suppose the stuff about the second law of thermodynamics had been true. Then that would be a powerful argument against NE --- but not against TE, 'cos an omnipotent God could do what he liked.
NB: I have to pick an example which is false, 'cos I can't think of one that's true. But it is clear in principle that there could be a difference between TE and NE scenarios.
---
By the way, I'd like to thank mpb1 for starting this thread, it's turned out very interesting.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by mpb1, posted 06-02-2007 8:32 PM mpb1 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 67 of 70 (404207)
06-07-2007 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by mpb1
06-06-2007 6:51 PM


Re: Any word yet?
Oh, good, you're still here.
Would you like to talk about irreducible complexity? This is one of the simpler ones.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by mpb1, posted 06-06-2007 6:51 PM mpb1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by mpb1, posted 06-07-2007 10:52 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 69 of 70 (404425)
06-08-2007 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by mpb1
06-07-2007 10:52 PM


Irreducible Complexity
I'm not exactly sure what you mean (since this issue wasn't really brought up in this thread as a problem in the chart ” at least I don't think it was).
I did mention it briedly.
A system is considered to be IC if the removal of any one part would make it nonfunctional.
This means, say the IDers, that an IC system cannot evolve.
WRONG.
What they need to say to be accurate is that it can't have evolved in such a way that the last step in its evolution was the wholesale addition of a part.
Well, right. No, it can't have.
As an example of something not evolving that way, consider the three little bones in the mammal ear which conduct sound.
(1: incus; 2: stapes; 3: malleus.)
Remove one from the chain, and the system can't conduct sound. This is an IC system. And we know how it evolved from parts of the reptile jaw. We can see this in the fossil record, we can see the bones migrate in mammalian embryos, and we understand the process: how fish used their jaws just as jaws, how reptiles use the vibrations of their jawbones to pick up ground vibrations, and how we use them exclusively as transmitters of vibrations and not as jawbones, with the mammal-like reptiles coming between the reptiles and us mammals.
Any questions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by mpb1, posted 06-07-2007 10:52 PM mpb1 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