|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3077 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Some Evidence Against Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
...when they are almost perfect duplicates and do it on two different continents
Once again there are two things to check here:1)How "identical" (or perfect duplicates) are the skulls? 2)How alike are the genomes? The evidence is NOT what Milton says. It is the skull similarities and the genome similarities. You haven't directly answered the question (sorry, but I'm used to a certain degree of slipperiness) but it seems you are saying both are "almost perfect duplicates". I suggest that, since the evolutionary pressures are the same in the case of the marsupial wolf and, say, a grey wolf the skulls will be similar but by no means "almost perfect duplicates". They will I would expect be obviously for the same niche at a quick glance but different enough that a layman like you or I could sort a pile of mixed skulls into the two species without a lot of difficulty once we had been told that there were two to be sorted out. I also suggest that the mutations will not be the same because the ancestors of the two split before the convergence took place. (unfortunately I doubt that we have a sequence for two comparable creatures form Milton's list yet) There are my predictions (and I'm not an expert in any of this). What are your's?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Have a look at
The Thylacine Museum - A Natural History of the Tasmanian Tiger to disabuse yourself as to the "virtual identity" of wolves and "marsupial wolves" = thylacines. They ain't...... and the site won't allow cut'n'paste.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Well, that is as I expected. They are, indeed, similar, they are also not identical even to an unexpert eye. On point one Milton is wrong.
I'm pretty sure point two will remain unknown. We need to consider another pair where the genomes may someday be available. Can you suggest such a pair, WillowTree? Or perhaps you would like to suggest another pair to compare at the skeletal level?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
from:http://23.1911encyclopedia.org/P/PH/PHALANGER.htm
quote: (bold added) I took the liberty of picking on Milton's second example. Wrong again!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Milton writes: The marsupial flying phalanger is practically identical to the placental flying squirrel, as are the marsupial jerboa and the placental jerboa. Well, it seems that the phalanger example is wrong. You might begin to understand that the statements Milton makes are not the evidence. They just point to what he considers to be evidence. We find that he is wrong on two out of three so far. I can't find anything that allows a check on the jerboa case. Can you find appropriate pictures or details analysis? That would be supplying real evidence to support the assertions that Milton is making.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
..., how can a piece of meat think ?
A very good question. There is, of course, a ton of research done on exactly that question. I don't think there is anything like a definitive answer yet. Is that supposed to be "evidence against evolution"? In what why is it such evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
I should have started off this series of posts with a note that what you have posted is at least starting to be a bit more like evidence. If the facts were as Milton suggests I think that it would be evidence that would have to be answered. I would have to be stubborn enough to suggest that it would have to be much augmented with more than one or two part way there examples considering the amount of support it has to overcome. But you are starting, finally, to get to evidence of a sort. Thank you and sorry for not noting that right off.
It is, however, unfortunate for your thesis that the facts are not as Milton is asserting. This is why it is so nice to work with evidence. It means we can stop going around in circles and look and resolve some issues. To make it clear, I say that a non-expert can sort work and thyacine skulls once they are told there are two species to sort. Which is in contraction to "When the skulls of the two wolves are placed side by side, it would take an experienced professional zoologist to tell them apart." I can tell them apart from pictures without even having the skulls in my hand. (at least from the samples given, maybe they are extreme individuals of the species or something) (maybe one of them had arthritis? )
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7042 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
Perhaps by "marsupial gerboa" he means the bettong.
Jerboa: http://96.1911encyclopedia.org/J/JE/JERBOA.htm Bettongs are structured like kangaroos, and not only share marsupial reproductive characteristics, but everything else, even at the most microscopic level, such as a complete absense of brown adipose tissue (it's much rarer in marsupials). The entire genetic structure, and consequently the proteins made, are marsupial - there's no controversy. Besides, they don't even look all that similar, so I'm not sure why Milton even bothered. ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3077 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Your first two paragraphs wonder aloud how does the exclusion of the supernatural not make sense ?
I respectfully say that the answer to this was the exact subject of my posts #112, 136, 237. As a creationist all I/we are saying is that God is the ultimate Creator - the Intelligent Designer and every scientist that concludes for whatever reason that He does not exist or did not create the universe is wrong, mistaken, confused, dishonest, or lying or a combination of any of these. To use scientific data as a proof and a basis to deny the existence of God is a leap of bias originating from one of their starting assumptions. Do all scientists do this ? Irrelevant, the issue and subject is the ones who do and the ones who do are the evolutionists of neo-Darwinism - this is why the "theory" exists - as an alternative explanation for the origin of life because the creationist account is deemed "irrational". You write, " might He not have worked through the natural laws and mechanisms He Himself set up ?" Yes !!! Of course, this is what we are saying that these natural laws and mechanisms that you brilliant scientists have discovered were designed and created by God. Things do not mutate by random chance - improvement by chance is not random or by chance it is God programmed or directed. This is what infuriates God, that Scientist credits a dunce called Random Chance instead of Him. God wants credit just like any scientist wants credit for his discoveries. Post #112, and 136 says this lack of credit triggers God to react a certain way which has already been covered by me in the aforementioned posts. The next segment of your reply quotes the Bible verse in question, then makes an illogical observation. Your point is to focus on to what you believe are "sadistic" or senseless abnormalities in nature, which is offered to say "If God is the creator and He is intelligent then why ...." are there cave dwelling rodents born with no eyes or this or that.....etc. etc. In other words just because you do not understand the reason why then we must conclude that an intelligent Creator would not do this , therefore this is evidence that He is not the Creator. You are placing God in a box that you constructed previously (it must make sense to me) or I will deduce what I already believed (that He does not exist or is not the Creator). There are an endless amount reasons as to why God might have purposely allowed the mechanisms that He designed to produce an eyeless rodent, perhaps to be defenseless prey as a food source to another animal ? I don't know and it is not the point. Now I quote you exactly " Please could you tell me on what grounds we should not make these deductions about this God of yours ?" The context of the above question was asked in lieu of the design "flaws" of nature which I have just answered. Question : IF you deduce that God does not exist or that creation was not intelligently designed from the so called flaws ( that was your point) then how come you cannot deduce the reverse from all that is not flawed ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
(sorry this was posted under the wrong name -- should be NosyNed)
I guess you'll get back to evidence later. That is, you'll comment on the errors in what Milton has to say. You can't seem to decide what you believe or at least I can't figure it out from your posts. Perhaps you can clarify it? First, what "evolution" is it you are arguing with? The fact that it occured over a 3 to 4 billion year period or the explanation of the mechanisms for how it happened?
You write, " might He not have worked through the natural laws and mechanisms He Himself set up ?" Yes !!! Of course, this is what we are saying that these natural laws and mechanisms that you brilliant scientists have discovered were designed and created by God. Ok, if this is what you accept then you are operating at the level of the majority of theists who accept the findings of science. God is the ultimate physicist I guess. But then you toss in:
Things do not mutate by random chance - improvement by chance is not random or by chance it is God programmed or directed. This is what infuriates God, that Scientist credits a dunce called Random Chance instead of Him. This is full of confusion. First, "improvement" is relative to the needs in a particular environmental context. The random mutations and recombinations produce change but that is not the whole of the ToE at all. You can't really do a good job of critising what you keep demonstrating you don't understand. Next, it has been demonstarted that the mutations are random. So you can argue all you want but you will have to offer evidence to the contrary. Then you are also suggesting that God is in direct control of the minute details which now requires some explanation of the how this is accomplished. (note, once again, if you invoke miracluous mechanisms you have stepped outside the bounds of creation science and are into the area covered by religion).
To use scientific data as a proof and a basis to deny the existence of God is a leap of bias originating from one of their starting assumptions. Do all scientists do this ? Irrelevant, the issue and subject is the ones who do and the ones who do are the evolutionists of neo-Darwinism - this is why the "theory" exists - as an alternative explanation for the origin of life because the creationist account is deemed "irrational".
In this quote are you saying that all biologists are atheists? It seems to imply that? It is a rare individual scientist who attempts to use the process of science to prove the non-existance of God. I can't see it being a productive thing to do and not likely to be successful. It is you who seems bent on doing that. You seem to insist that if evolutionary theory is correct (and maybe even if evolution has actually happened) then God is disproved in some way. That is NOT what the biologists are trying to do. Some just want to know how things have and are happening and don't care much about God at all, others want to know how God has chosen to allow the life on earth to unfold. Neither group is talking about the existance of God. You keep asserting otherwise without any support for it. I don't believe in a God but I don't think that biology has anything to do with the existance or non-existance of God. All I knew about "evolution" when I was 10 and under was that there were really cool beasts called dinosaurs once. I didn't believe in God then and it never occured to me to connect dinosaurs and God in anyway at all. [This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 12-13-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
This topic has been moving too fast for me to even want to try following it. My impression is that it is a mish-mash of random thoughts, generally having little to nothing to do with the theme of the topic title.
I'll leave it open, but I'm filling it under "not worth being concerned about". Have fun,Adminnemooseus ------------------Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to Change in Moderation? or too fast closure of threads |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4873 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
I thought this was relevant:
quote:-from Freethought Debater – Naturalism, Critical Thinking, and Atheology I don't see why you would think that an intelligent designer would produce two creatures that are "virtually identical" on two different continents. Can you explain why? Why wouldn't he just use the same creature on both? Why would he use the same wolf "design" in the rest of the world, but not in Australia? I'm afraid if you can't answer these questions, as well as the other ones raised in the excerpt, you simply have a "God of the Gaps" theory, such as: ID-"Evolution can't explain it, but God can"Evo-"How?" ID-"He made it that way for some reason" Evo-"Brilliant!" [This message has been edited by JustinCy, 12-13-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3077 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Post #249 answers your question.
Variety is the spice of life, you place God on trial with your standard of what makes sense, which said standard is erected to have only one concluson - that God must neatly fit into your previously decided subjective dogma. How could God and His status as Creator (if true) depend on creationalways making sense to you ? You wrote this comprehensive post that ended with a ridiculous question. What difference does it make as to why there are so many varieties and why does variety or how does variety disprove God ? Maybe I am confused about your final point or question, but the main body of science that you posted is obviously quality stuff.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6041 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
Willowtree
I've opened a topic called "Quote mining? The Pilbeam quote..."http://EvC Forum: Quote mining? The Pilbeam quote... -->EvC Forum: Quote mining? The Pilbeam quote... [This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 12-13-2003] I just moved it to the "Human Origins" forum. It's now at http://EvC Forum: Quote mining? The Pilbeam quote... -->EvC Forum: Quote mining? The Pilbeam quote... - Adminnemooseus [This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-13-2003] D'oh - Zhimbo caught the move, making my above edit unneeded - AM [This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-13-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3077 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
I cannot keep up with your replies and I will get back to Milton. There are no errors, if you claim there are then that is your assertion. I believe you are intentionally dodging the simple mystery posed by Milton.
If mutation is by random chance then it would be almost miraculous that by chance so many virtually identical creatures could evolve on two different continents. You did mention convergence but failed to prove what that is and how exactly it solves the "mystery". Regarding mutation by random chance : Ok it is random and by chance because that is the way you observe it. Creationism simply says that this process that you call "mutation by random chance" was created and designed by God. What don't you understand ? We have been going around and around on this. I have said it time and time again over and over that I believe that what is made was created by God. Why is it that you associate the process of mutation and its random factor with God not being the Creator of that process ? Like a computer program that decides a winner by random chance - who designed the program ? In this example : God, this is the claim of creationism. For the record the post you replied to was directed at another member. And the quote you quoted was not me but that other member. I simply answered his question with "Yes, of course...."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024