Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Top questions I think evolutionists need to answer
Conspirator
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 21 (25450)
12-04-2002 1:52 PM


1. Name an intermediate fossil (preferably several), and give your evidence for claiming this alleged intermediate is between 2 other known species, and explain the nature of the major species "gap," this intermediate bridges. Try to avoid the temptation to quote what few fossil examples of population genetics exist, as proof of a major species transition. Also, please do not waste time quoting such debunked Icons of Evolution such as Archaeopteryx. And finally, check at least 90% of one skeleton has been uncovered for your species. Evolutionists have a disturbing tendency to find a few teeth, half a jawbone, and suddenly proclaim they have found a missing link (you think I'm making that up don't you?).
2 Outline how the dolphin's sonar system could (obviously I will not insist on experimental proof) in theory evolve bit by bit, with EVERY intermediate stage providing a survival advantage to the dolphin, culminating in a level of technological perfection mutlibillion dollar American military researchers are as yet unable to match.
3. Read Denton's book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis and write a rebuttal to his section on avian evolution. i.e. how birds evolved, including both a macro (wings etc) and micro-biological (lung design etc) explanation. Explain to me why this transition is not (as it appears to me) utterly impossible by any kind of stochastic process.
4 Outline how an irreducibly complex biochemical system evolved step by step with every step providing a small but clear survivial advantage, and submit your paper to the Journal of Molecular Evolution. Since nobody ever sends them articles on this subject, you should be assured of publication.
5. Explain how proteins evolved, in detail with all the intermediates (origins of first protein, not mutation of existing proteins).
6. Explain how life began, in detail, with all the intermediates. That is to say modern cells are admitted by everyone to be too complicated, so outline the nature of the early "intermediate," cells. Even if you can not prove how life began, a plausible theory would be acceptable. I am not demanding experimental replication - although that would be required for final proof. Just some reasonably plausible ideas as to how in principal it *might* have happened.
7. Provide the solution to Haldane's dilemma. I insist you take into account the stasis issue in your solution. i.e. there is no genetic change for, shall we say to be generous to help you, 70% (I could have chosen 90%) of the time species exist.
8. Explain why it is valid to say because the frequency of black moths has increased in a population proves man evolved from apes. This is one of the most common "evidences" provided for evolution. To me, it is just population genetics.
9. Explain why all heavily bred species eventually suffer a wide variety of genetic ailments, and finally go sterile. The cheetah is a good example of this process in thw wild. Explain to me exactly why the genetic example of the cheetah does not in itself disprove punk-eek. I think evolution breaks the second law of thermodynamics. Talkorigins.org says this is not true, because earth receives energy from the sun, and is consequently a not a closed system. This being so, cite a single experiment when information (as opposed to order ) was increased through the use of a clamp fixed blow torch and a test tube. If talkorgins.org is right, such an experiment must exist.
10. Explain why dolphins and men having the same DNA proves Darwin was right, as opposed to my view that it suggests common ancestry, while remaining mute on the mechanisms by which this might have occurred. This question address the fact that "convergent evolution," is now widely cited as among the best evidence for Darwinian macroevolution.
11. Give ONE example of a mutation which resulted in a significant increase in information. Since this must have happened thousands of times, I think asking for just one example is not unreasonable. Note, the current fixes for this issue seem to be to claim that mutations that disable genes, or copy existing genes, amount to 'new information,' being copied into the genome. Give me a break. The whole of evolution can not have occurred simply by disabling genes and copying existing genes.
12. Every textbook of evolution asserts that reptiles evolved from amphibia but none explains how the major distinguishing adaptation of the reptiles, the amniotic egg, came about gradually as a result of a successive accmulation of small changes.' I am not asking for experimental proof, a genetic account, or fossil evidence, simply give or reference a plausible theory of how the transition *could* have happened, with each and every step providing a small but clear survival advantage.
13. An average fly flutters its wings 500 times a second. Moreover, it moves both its wings simultaneously. The slightest dissonance in the vibration of wings would cause the fly lose its balance but this never happens. Explain why this happens.
14. Explain how the perfect house fly evolved bit by bit, with every adaptation giving a small but real survival advantage, culminating in a level of technological perfection, we have not yet come close to matching.
15. Explain why all computer attempts to simulate evolution have been total failures.
16. Just out of interest, cite me what you consider to be the strongest evidence available for Darwinian macroevolution. Naturally population genetics and other such debunked issues covered in Icons of Evolution and on my main page are not acceptable. This question may seem obvious, but at this time I am genuinely unaware of any direct evidence to suport this notion. I am fascinated to see what someone would chose to put forward.
17. Fred Hoyle in Mathematics of Evolution suggests all microevolution can do is find advantageous protein variants. Provide an analysis of Hoyle's work, and explain where he went wrong ( In Feb 2000 John Maynard Smith reviewed the book in Nature. Lets put it this way, his article was lame. Try and do better than poor old Mr Maynard.)
18. Explain to me why the fossil record faithfully records huge periods of species stasis, interrupted by very sudden and comparatively short periods of creation, when many different species come into existance all at once. If you cite punk-eek as the explanation, please state how the cheetah and Haldane's dilemma fit into punk-eek, as well as all the other problems with punk-eek.
19. Give a discussion of the transition form chimp to man over 10 million years, and describe the mutation rates necessary to do this. Explain to me how this transition could happen per Darwinian mechanisms in 10 million, as opposed to the 100 millions years I think are necessary. Again, Haldane's Dilemma would be useful to reference in any such discussion.
[This message has been edited by Conspirator, 12-04-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by gene90, posted 12-04-2002 6:24 PM Conspirator has not replied
 Message 3 by mark24, posted 12-04-2002 6:38 PM Conspirator has not replied
 Message 16 by Coragyps, posted 12-06-2002 3:19 PM Conspirator has not replied
 Message 20 by Quetzal, posted 12-09-2002 1:19 AM Conspirator has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 2 of 21 (25472)
12-04-2002 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Conspirator
12-04-2002 1:52 PM


Hey Conspirator, if you won't give the issue any thought, why should I? You nabbed your post without attribution.
http://www.geocities.com/.../Rampart/4871/gbookresponse.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Conspirator, posted 12-04-2002 1:52 PM Conspirator has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 3 of 21 (25473)
12-04-2002 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Conspirator
12-04-2002 1:52 PM


Are you trying to break the sound barrier with that Gishian gallop!?
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Conspirator, posted 12-04-2002 1:52 PM Conspirator has not replied

  
Conspirator
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 21 (25480)
12-04-2002 6:58 PM


Just answer the questions already.

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by mark24, posted 12-04-2002 7:11 PM Conspirator has not replied
 Message 6 by Admin, posted 12-04-2002 7:18 PM Conspirator has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 5 of 21 (25485)
12-04-2002 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Conspirator
12-04-2002 6:58 PM


Sorry, mate, I don't have time to write 19 essays.
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Conspirator, posted 12-04-2002 6:58 PM Conspirator has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 6 of 21 (25486)
12-04-2002 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Conspirator
12-04-2002 6:58 PM


Hi Conspirator!
You're in violation of rule 6 of the Forum Guidelines:
  1. Never include material not your own without attribution to the original source.
Multiple Creationists have suddenly decided the rules don't apply to them. Is there a full moon this week?
Nineteen questions is far too broad even for a thread in the Miscellaneous Topics forum. Please choose a single question or set of related questions to focus on. If you'd like to discuss more than one of the questions at the same time please open new threads.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Conspirator, posted 12-04-2002 6:58 PM Conspirator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Chara, posted 12-04-2002 8:13 PM Admin has not replied

  
Chara
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 21 (25495)
12-04-2002 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Admin
12-04-2002 7:18 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Admin:

Multiple Creationists have suddenly decided the rules don't apply to them. Is there a full moon this week?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Admin, posted 12-04-2002 7:18 PM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-04-2002 8:49 PM Chara has not replied

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 21 (25500)
12-04-2002 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Chara
12-04-2002 8:13 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Chara:
quote:
Originally posted by Admin:

Multiple Creationists have suddenly decided the rules don't apply to them. Is there a full moon this week?


I wonder if the full moon comment was a necessary one? especially coming from a moderator!
------------------
saved by grace

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Chara, posted 12-04-2002 8:13 PM Chara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by mark24, posted 12-05-2002 3:05 AM funkmasterfreaky has not replied
 Message 11 by Admin, posted 12-05-2002 10:14 AM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 9 of 21 (25524)
12-05-2002 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by funkmasterfreaky
12-04-2002 8:49 PM


quote:
I wonder if the full moon comment was a necessary one? especially coming from a moderator!
It was followed with a smiley indicating it was a joke.... Of course, you'll probably have to wait 24 hours for a response since Admin has banned himself.....
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-04-2002 8:49 PM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 10 of 21 (25563)
12-05-2002 9:50 AM


This is quite a coincidence. I have recently discovered Tim Harwood's site. It was fairly entertaining, to say the least - complete with claims of having produced a new theory (all 3 pages or whatever it was, withno references and no actual predictions or tests.. impressive), and the requisite "nobody has refuted the claims I make..." routine. Guess evolutionm us be all wrong.
I will not pretend to be able to address all of the plagiarized material, but I will address one aspect, Haldane's dilemma (which Harwood's page deals with in a most shallow and incorrect manner).
However, before I address this, I will need to know whether or not you will be able to understand my response.
You see, I have a hard time believing that anyone intelligent and educated enough to understand the myriad of scientific issues presented by Harwood and any number of similar creationists would actually think that such presentations have scientific merit.
So, in addition to hearing a bit about your scientific acumen, I should also like for you to outline your criteria for what a transitional is or would be.
In my experience, whenever someone actually addresses such 'challenges' without first establishing the criteria, the creationist can simply declare any evidence presented as insufficient.
Eagerly awaiting your reply..

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 11 of 21 (25571)
12-05-2002 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by funkmasterfreaky
12-04-2002 8:49 PM


funkmasterfreaky writes:
I wonder if the full moon comment was a necessary one? especially coming from a moderator!
Smiley or not, you're quite right. I apologize. I'll endeavor to be more neutral in the future.
But I wonder if I would have made the same comment about evolutionists if it had instead been 3 evolutionists with serious guideline violations within 24 hours. I haven't been shy in the past in holding evolutionists to the guidelines, and I like to think I would...
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-04-2002 8:49 PM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Quetzal, posted 12-05-2002 11:04 AM Admin has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 12 of 21 (25583)
12-05-2002 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Admin
12-05-2002 10:14 AM


quote:
But I wonder if I would have made the same comment about evolutionists if it had instead been 3 evolutionists with serious guideline violations within 24 hours.
I propose a scientific experiment. Mammuthus, mark and I will open up two or three threads each (or resurrect a couple of old ones), fill it full of insulting comments about the intellectual acumen, putative ancestry and logical shortcomings of other posters, cast aspersions and make wild attacks on theism in general and Christianity in particular, and cut-and-paste a bunch of unattributed material culled from some virulently anti-religious website (there's bound to be one or two out there), argue with the Admins about any forthcoming admonitions, and see what comments you make. (I'd say SLPx would be a logical candidate, but that would be toooo easy...)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Admin, posted 12-05-2002 10:14 AM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by joz, posted 12-05-2002 12:11 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 21 (25590)
12-05-2002 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Quetzal
12-05-2002 11:04 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
I propose a scientific experiment. Mammuthus, mark and I will open up two or three threads...
If you want to expand your sample population I don`t mind taking one for the team......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Quetzal, posted 12-05-2002 11:04 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Conspirator
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 21 (25758)
12-06-2002 12:41 PM


I understand Haldane's Dilemma, so go ahead and post it. I'll understand what you're saying.
And as for what I think a transitional would look like... This is taken from Denton's book which is also from Harwood's site. http://www.geocities.com/...Rampart/4871/eintermediates.html
"Firstly, light feathers are totally different from down feathers or feathers used for insulation; they involve an exquisite system of cross-latched barbules and shapes which are totally different from those of down feathers. Moreover, a flight feather would be totally useless for anything other than flight, and so the odds would be massively weighed against a creature which did not have them to begin with ever developing them. There would be no reason for it. The odds of it happening would be an infinitessimal, basically one divided by some gigatic number. Likewise with the development of arms into wings; that would actually be disfunctional prior to the day the creature flew and, again, the odds against such a development for no particular reason are astronomical. We DO have several kinds of birds such as ostriches with vestigian wings, but again these are descended from birds which flew and are not in some process evolving INTO flying birds. They are developing OUT of being flying birds. Flying birds likewise require highly specialized bone structures, tails, hearts, lungs, and general balance parameters, all of which are totally different from those other creatures, any of which would be antifunctional prior to flight. Developing any one of these things prior to being flight-capable would require overcoming gigantic odds. The odds of ALL of these things developing from scratch thus, which is required by the notions of evolution of flying birds, thus amount to several infinitessimals MULTIPLIED TOGETHER. The entire age of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen. In fact, assuming one such feature had developed by chance, by the time the next one did, the first would, in all likelihood, still having been antifunctional during the time that the the next was evolving, have de-evolved. The only other possibility from the point of view of evolution would be to have all necessary functionality for flying birds arise via mutation on the same day, whch is a miracle whether God did it, Ra did it, or (as an evolutionist claim for such a thing would have to amount to) Loki (luck) did it."

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by gene90, posted 12-06-2002 2:06 PM Conspirator has not replied
 Message 18 by Percy, posted 12-06-2002 3:55 PM Conspirator has not replied
 Message 19 by derwood, posted 12-07-2002 4:24 PM Conspirator has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 15 of 21 (25759)
12-06-2002 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Conspirator
12-06-2002 12:41 PM


quote:
a flight feather would be totally useless for anything other than flight
Incorrect. It could help aerodyanimcs and also assist in gliding.
quote:
Flying birds likewise require highly specialized bone structures, tails, hearts, lungs, and general balance parameters, all of which are totally different from those other creatures
All of these would assist in high-speed running.
quote:
any of which would be antifunctional prior to flight.
Incorrect. They could assist in running or gliding.
quote:
We DO have several kinds of birds such as ostriches with vestigian wings, but again these are descended from birds which flew and are not in some process evolving INTO flying birds.
We do, however, have several types of small animals that are gliders and could gradually evolve powered flight.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Conspirator, posted 12-06-2002 12:41 PM Conspirator 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