Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   TOE and the Reasons for Doubt
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 346 of 530 (529583)
10-09-2009 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 332 by Calypsis4
10-09-2009 5:54 PM


Re: Some facts that you may not be aware of
Calypsis4 writes:
So it is for you and your evolutionist comrades to figure out just how all those objects got encased so far below the surface of the earth when in fact it takes humans to produce human teeth, gold chains, hammers, etc.
Here' your "tooth":
If you had asked me instead of telling me what was in the picture, I would not have been able to tell the rock was coal, and I probably would not have thought the encased object was a tooth. So is the rock coal, is the "tooth" actually a tooth, is the "tooth" human, and how old is it? Whoever is in possession of this object need only have it analyzed, and until they do it is evidence of nothing. Where did you find the picture, maybe we can learn more about it.
People have been known to carry gold chains and hammers into coal mines, and they've been doing it for at least a couple hundred years. During that time many, many objects had to have been discarded or lost, and some undoubtedly ended up under enormous piles of coal under great pressure and were eventually uncovered.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by Calypsis4, posted 10-09-2009 5:54 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 347 of 530 (529585)
10-09-2009 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by Calypsis4
10-09-2009 6:12 PM


Re: Some facts that you may not be aware of
Calypsis4 writes:
Again, shallow thinking. The tooth was not in question by the scientists who examined it. It was human.
Who were the scientists? Where's the paper the scientists published about the tooth?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by Calypsis4, posted 10-09-2009 6:12 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 348 of 530 (529591)
10-09-2009 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 342 by Calypsis4
10-09-2009 6:13 PM


Re: Some facts that you may not be aware of
Calypsis4 writes:
bluejay writes:
Please read the following mock post by Bluejay
No.
Why? Because it shows that your posts don't provide evidence and the truth hurts?

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by Calypsis4, posted 10-09-2009 6:13 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by Calypsis4, posted 10-09-2009 8:20 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 349 of 530 (529598)
10-09-2009 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by Calypsis4
10-09-2009 6:12 PM


Re: Some facts that you may not be aware of
I was able to find some information about your tooth online. It was discovered by a mining company doctor, J. C. F. Siegfriedt, in November of 1926 at the Eagle Mutual Coal Mine of Bear Creek, Montana. He was unable to convince paleontologists that it was human, and in fact they thought they knew pretty well what it was and wrote technical articles about it and other subsequent fossil discoveries. This excerpt is from an issue of Creation/Evolution, see page 35:
Creation/Evolution quoting George Gaylord Simpson writes:
The discovery of this fauna and its prompt announcement are due to Dr. J. C. F. Siegfriedt of Bear Creek, Montana. The first mammal tooth found, said to be a molar of Tetradaenodon . . . received some attention in the press as it was at first believed to be a primate. [Simpson, G. G., 1928. "A New Mammalian Fauna from the Fort Union of Southern Montana." American Museum Novitates 297.]
His name goes largely unrecognized today, but Simpson was a famous paleontologist of the 20th century. He's the paleontologist who anticipated some of the ideas of Gould and Eldredge by decades with his book Tempo and Mode in Evolution.
So Siegfriedt was actually responsible for the discovery of a hitherto unknown extinct fauna, and paleontologists studied this and similar fossils and produced papers that were printed in the technical literature, but Siegfriedt apparently lived out his days still insisting the tooth was human.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by Calypsis4, posted 10-09-2009 6:12 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by Calypsis4, posted 10-09-2009 8:19 PM Percy has replied

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5214 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 350 of 530 (529600)
10-09-2009 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 349 by Percy
10-09-2009 8:14 PM


Re: Some facts that you may not be aware of
The first mammal tooth found, said to be a molar of Tetradaenodon
Even if that were true, it doesn't help you. What was a 65 million yr old dinosaur tooth doing encased in a 250 million yr old piece of coal?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by Percy, posted 10-09-2009 8:14 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 355 by Percy, posted 10-09-2009 10:09 PM Calypsis4 has replied

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5214 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 351 of 530 (529601)
10-09-2009 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 348 by bluescat48
10-09-2009 7:49 PM


Re: Some facts that you may not be aware of
Why? Because it shows that your posts don't provide evidence and the truth hurts?
Why should I dignify such things with an answer?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by bluescat48, posted 10-09-2009 7:49 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 352 of 530 (529602)
10-09-2009 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 332 by Calypsis4
10-09-2009 5:54 PM


Re: Some facts that you may not be aware of
So it is for you and your evolutionist comrades to figure out just how all those objects got encased so far below the surface of the earth when in fact it takes humans to produce human teeth, gold chains, hammers, etc.
No. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And when it comes to the type of nonsense you're peddlin' there is no credible evidence. If there was real evidence you wouldn't have just the creationist websites and literature pushing those claims. (Personally I think these are frauds planted by creationists for the purpose of advancing their religious beliefs, for which they can come up with no better evidence.)
Evolution is a sorry joke. I laugh at it.
For evolution there is evidence. For the type of nonsense you have been posting there is a sad lack of evidence.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by Calypsis4, posted 10-09-2009 5:54 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5214 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 353 of 530 (529618)
10-09-2009 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 340 by Perdition
10-09-2009 6:11 PM


Re: Coal Mine Artifacts
Please read the following mock post by Bluejay
You're just giving opinions. So what?
Let me give you a few things that are NOT opinions:
[thumb=300]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/1SANDLE-PRINT.jpg[/thumb=300]
The evolutionist attempt to refute this one is pitiful. It was found near the 9,500 ft elevation in western Utah.
[thumb=300]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/Jun14156.jpg[/thumb=300]
The Ica pottery of South America. How did the ancients even know what such dinosaurs looked like unless they had seen them?
[thumb=300]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/Jun14158.jpg[/thumb=300]
Then this: thats me examining what appears to be a human footprint stepping inside a dinosaur footprint in northern Arizona.
[thumb=300]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/100_2920-1.jpg[/thumb=300]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by Perdition, posted 10-09-2009 6:11 PM Perdition has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by hooah212002, posted 10-09-2009 9:44 PM Calypsis4 has not replied
 Message 357 by bluescat48, posted 10-09-2009 11:23 PM Calypsis4 has not replied
 Message 358 by Izanagi, posted 10-09-2009 11:54 PM Calypsis4 has not replied
 Message 361 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-10-2009 6:51 AM Calypsis4 has replied
 Message 362 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-10-2009 6:56 AM Calypsis4 has not replied
 Message 363 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-10-2009 7:01 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 354 of 530 (529622)
10-09-2009 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 353 by Calypsis4
10-09-2009 9:21 PM


Re: Coal Mine Artifacts
The FSM-did-it.
{Suspension time - Adminnemooseus}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note: 24 hour suspension for this message and other past transgressions

This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by Calypsis4, posted 10-09-2009 9:21 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by CreationismRules!, posted 10-09-2009 10:35 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 355 of 530 (529630)
10-09-2009 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 350 by Calypsis4
10-09-2009 8:19 PM


Re: Some facts that you may not be aware of
Calypsis4 writes:
Even if that were true, it doesn't help you. What was a 65 million yr old dinosaur tooth doing encased in a 250 million yr old piece of coal?
First, as the excerpt I included in Message 349 explained, Tetraclaenodon is a mammal, not a dinosaur.
Second, the layers were around 60 million years old, not 250 million.
Third, the fossils were not discovered in coal layers.
Here's a link to the 1928 paper by George Gaylord Simpson:
Some relevant excerpts:
George Gaylord Simpson writes:
The discovery of a new mammalian fauna in the Paleocene [66 to 55 mya] is of considerable interest and importance.
...
The discovery of this fauna and its prompt announcement are due to Dr. J. C. F. Siegfriedt of Bear Creek, Montana. The first mammal tooth found, said to be a molar of Tetraclaenodon, was found by Dr. Siegfriedt Nov. 5, 1927, and received some attention in the press as it was at first believed to be a primate. On May 10, 1927, Dr. Siegfriedt wrote to Professor Henry Fairfield Osborn regarding his discovery and he later sent his own collection, much enlarged since the first discovery, to this museum where it was cleaned from the stubborn matrix, cast, and photographed. From September 10th to 16th, 1927, Barnum Brown visited this locality and with Dr. Siegfriedt's cobperation examined the occurrence and made a characteristic collection of mammal jaws and teeth. He also shipped to New York a quantity of matrix from which an even larger number of specimens has since been recovered. It is hoped to continue work in this field on a more intensive scale during 1928.
The fossils come from the "bone " layer, so called because of its
argillaceous nature [argillaceous means "resembling clay"]...The deposit is just above coal vein No. 3 of the local field. ["just above" the coal vein, not in the coal vein]...
...
In age the fauna is clearly Paleocene and post-Puerco. [again, 66-55 mya]
So we now have the following facts:
  1. The fossil layer was clay-like, not coal.
  2. The layer was around 66-55 million years old.
  3. The tooth belonged to a Tetraclaenodon, not a human being.
  4. A number of extinct mammal species were discovered in this fossil layer, described in detail in the paper.
Apparently nothing you said about the photograph was accurate.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by Calypsis4, posted 10-09-2009 8:19 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by Calypsis4, posted 10-10-2009 10:21 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
CreationismRules!
Junior Member (Idle past 5283 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 10-09-2009


Message 356 of 530 (529636)
10-09-2009 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 354 by hooah212002
10-09-2009 9:44 PM


Re: Coal Mine Artifacts
{Content hidden - Adminnemooseus}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Content hidden, note added.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by hooah212002, posted 10-09-2009 9:44 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 357 of 530 (529643)
10-09-2009 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 353 by Calypsis4
10-09-2009 9:21 PM


Re: Coal Mine Artifacts
So might I ask What are you trying to say? Just pictures give us your idea of what they represent & why? To me the second one looks more like a Rhino than a triceritops. And what is your problem with a trilobite at 9500 ft? Ever hear of uplift or plate techtonics?
Edited by bluescat48, : sp

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by Calypsis4, posted 10-09-2009 9:21 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 394 by SammyJean, posted 10-12-2009 3:58 PM bluescat48 has replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5217 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 358 of 530 (529651)
10-09-2009 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 353 by Calypsis4
10-09-2009 9:21 PM


Re: Coal Mine Artifacts
The Ica pottery of South America. How did the ancients even know what such dinosaurs looked like unless they had seen them?
It's quite possible to know about dinosaurs without ever seeing them. We do it all the time and it's because we can see the fossils.
The ancient Chinese used to find fossils all the time. They believed that the fossils were the remains of giant dragons, which is likely how the Chinese dragon developed.
It could be that some natural event uncovered an area with dinosaur fossils and the Incas saw the fossils. Since none of those creatures were alive at the time of their discovery, the Incas likely developed myths about those ancient creatures. And since, like you, they were unable to conceive of any length of time where humans did not exist, they just assumed that at some time people and dinosaurs coexisted and humanity was able to hunt the dinosaurs to extinction, which is why none exist today.
But just because they had stories that seemingly coincide with yours doesn't make it true. I'm positive if they know what we knew, they would've come to different conclusions. Additionally, saying that the Flintstones is history still doesn't negate evolution. Showing something tooth-like encased in coal doesn't negate evolution. You have to tell us why it negates evolution. Why does having dinosaurs and humanity live together negate evolution? Why can't dinosaurs and humans have evolved together? Tell us how evolution is negated by all your pretty pictures instead of showing more pretty pictures.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by Calypsis4, posted 10-09-2009 9:21 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 359 of 530 (529654)
10-10-2009 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 319 by Izanagi
10-09-2009 4:11 AM


Re: Selection Pressures
Why not? Considering that most of our genome contains material that isn't used, why can't 1667 mutations separate us from the human/chimp ancestor?
I think I'll leave this one to your colleages. I can feel them squirming.
But the fact is the environment is often quite stable. Under a stable environment, then you only need to replace 1 times the population size. The mathematical proof can be found here. But I'm sure you won't look at it.
Under what circumstances would a mutant replace a population of non-mutants if the latter did not suffer a survival disadvantage? The only one I can think of is if the mutant was more fertile than the non-mutants. Think about it. Your mathematician has simply changed a negative survival coefficient for the non-mutants into a positive one for the mutant. For substitution to occur there has to be a reproductive differential. If the non-mutants are not dying out, where does that differential come from?
You are also missing the point, but that's because you are not looking at Haldane's Dilemma from the viewpoint of a Creationist. Haldane (an evolutionist) was primarily concerned with the number of deaths required for substitution. No doubt that is problematic for evolution, but of far more interest to Creationists is how long it all takes. 3oo generations is an enormous amount of time for a single mutation to be fixed. It only allows human evoluition 1667 mutations in 10,000,000 years. We couldn't care less how many critters die out in the process (call us callous). It is TIME that is important from our perspective. Notice that your mathematician may have shown that the same result can be achieved without the enormous loss of life, but he can't make it happen any faster.
Once again, if there arises two beneficial alleles in two members of a population, it doesn't take twice as long for the beneficial alleles to spread. It's mathematics.
Multiple simultaneous mutations were addressed by Haldane himself, as per my quote. They do not accelerate the process.
Edited by Kaichos Man, : qualify

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by Izanagi, posted 10-09-2009 4:11 AM Izanagi has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by greyseal, posted 10-10-2009 4:23 AM Kaichos Man has not replied
 Message 364 by Percy, posted 10-10-2009 8:43 AM Kaichos Man has replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 360 of 530 (529675)
10-10-2009 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 359 by Kaichos Man
10-10-2009 12:14 AM


Re: Selection Pressures
Hi Kaichos, I'm glad you've read my posts enough to at least stop quote-mining (although others still haven't learnt and are happily posting mangled quotes from text hundreds of pages apart).
I'm assuming, of course, that you had the honesty to read them and think about them.
I'd like a good answer though about the argument from incredulity that creationists try to present about the mutations - so what if the number is 1667?
Either it's true, or it's not. If it's true, then I'm assuming there's proof. If there's not, it's not necessarily true.
If it's true, the fact that you find it too amazing to BE true is personal opinion. If it's not true, your personal opinion is proving nothing either.
Well done!
The fact you're still quoting haldane's dilemma is laughable - you don't seem to get it that a neutral mutation within a stable environment won't necessarily go very far. That's the point.
In a stable environment, neutral mutations provide no good and no bad effects.
Similarly, slightly good or slightly bad mutations also don't affect the population much.
When the going gets tough, that's when negative mutations mean a higher chance of death and positive mutations a higher chance of survival (circumstantially negative and positive, I hasten to add, although I'm not convinced you know the difference).
This is borne out by the ToE - not all animals mutate or change excessively - because there's no evolutionary pressure.
The pressure is called "natural selection" - sometimes it does a lot of selecting, sometimes it doesn't.
That you don't get this just means you're a creationist, not that haldane's dilemma is real and there's an issue.
I repeat - Haldane himself wasn't sure if his overly-simplified idea was valid, and later work proves quite nicely that it isn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-10-2009 12:14 AM Kaichos Man 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