Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution makes no sense
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 13 of 63 (13837)
07-19-2002 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Conspirator
07-18-2002 4:20 PM


Talk but no action.
You know, you should probably try to get that hatred out of your system. God doesn't like it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Conspirator, posted 07-18-2002 4:20 PM Conspirator has not replied

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


Message 22 of 63 (13947)
07-22-2002 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Conspirator
07-22-2002 5:23 PM


First of all I want to state that with your opening post I think we all are going to find it difficult to grant you much respect. I will try.
[QUOTE][b]The fossil record amply supplies us with representation of almost all species and plants, but none of the supposed links of plant to animal[/QUOTE]
[/b]
I'm concerned about your background in evolution, because there are no theories that posit that animals descended from plants. You cannot blame a theory for a missing transitional that the theory never actually claims should exist!
The missing transitional Creationist argument is old and should be laid to rest. I will give examples of transitionals and include the link to the source I got it from.
Hunt's FAQ on T.O.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#amph1
[QUOTE][b]fish to amphibian[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Osteolepis
Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion
Panderichthys, Elpistostege
Obruchevichthys
Hynerpeton, Acanthostega, and Ichthyostega
Labyrinthodonts
[QUOTE]Kathleen Hunt on TO: [b]"More info on those first known Late Devonian amphibians: Acanthostega gunnari was very fish-like, and recently Coates & Clack (1991) found that it still had internal gills! They said: "Acanthostega seems to have retained fish-like internal gills and an open opercular chamber for use in aquatic respiration, implying that the earliest tetrapods were not fully terrestrial....Retention of fish-like internal gills by a Devonian tetrapod blurs the traditional distinction between tetrapods and fishes...this adds further support to the suggestion that unique tetrapod characters such as limbs with digits evolved first for use in water rather than for walking on land." Ibid.
[QUOTE][B]amphibian to reptile[/QUOTE]
[/b]
"Proterogyrinus or another early anthracosaur (late Mississippian) -- Classic labyrinthodont-amphibian skull and teeth, but with reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, humerus, and digits. Still has fish skull hinge."
Ibid.
Also:
Limnoscelis, Tseajaia
Solenodonsaurus
Hylonomus, Paleothyris
[QUOTE][b]or reptile to birds and mammals are represented[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Reptile to Mammal:
Paleothyris
Protoclepsydrops haplous
Clepsydrops
Archaeothyris
Varanops
Haptodus
Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon
Biarmosuchia
Procynosuchus
Dvinia
Thrinaxodon
Cynognathus
Diademodon
Probelesodon
Probainognathus
Exaeretodon
Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium
Pachygenelus, Diarthrognathus
Adelobasileus cromptoni
Sinoconodon
Kuehneotherium
Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon
Peramus
Endotherium
Kielantherium, Aegialodon
Steropodon galmani
Vincelestes neuquenianus
Pariadens kirklandi
Kennalestes, Asioryctes
Cimolestes, Procerberus, Gypsonictops
(I'm tired of listing, so I'm going to use the Late Cretaceous as a stopping point)
By the way, who said birds are directly descended from reptiles?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Conspirator, posted 07-22-2002 5:23 PM Conspirator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by John, posted 07-22-2002 8:16 PM gene90 has not replied

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


Message 23 of 63 (13948)
07-22-2002 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Conspirator
07-22-2002 5:23 PM


[QUOTE][b]nor any transitional forms at all.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Every living thing is a transitional form.
[QUOTE][b]Furthermore, mutations are small, random, and harmful alterations to the genetic code. This also makes evolution from mutatiions impossible. For example, a working wristwatch does not improve, but is harmed when its inside parts are randomly altered.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
The Ames Test, in microbiology, is used to test the potency of mutagens. Bacteria carrying a defective gene are cultured on a plate rich in a substance the bacteria cannot metabolize. When the defective bacteria are exposed to a substance that causes them to mutate, a point mutation occurs in the defective gene, in which a new base is added. This restores the gene to full function allowing the mutant bacteria to thrive on the medium. Hence, by randomly rearranging pieces of DNA inside the bacterium, function is improved.
You are wrong on three counts: Mutations are not always small, they are not always random, and they are not always harmful.
[QUOTE][b]1. Although evolutionists say that organisms are suited for their environment because they evolved into it, being suited for the environment is much better explained by the fact that they were created for the environment rather than that they evolved into it.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Failure of Logic: begging the question. Statement is meaningless.
[QUOTE][b]2. The fact that living things have similar patterns and design points to a common designer better than to a common ancestor. [/QUOTE]
[/b]
Failure of Logic: begging the question. Statement is meaningless.
[QUOTE][b]In fact, such variety in the world could not have been produced if we all came from the same ancestor.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Failure of Logic: begging the question. Statement is meaningless.
[QUOTE][b]3. If we all come from the same ancestor, we would all be murderers and cannibals by the simple act of killing a cow.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Actually by eating meat we would be doing what our species is "designed" to do.
[QUOTE][b]4. While small and undeveloped things do become grown and developed such as a baby to its parent and a seed to it tree, the pattern of growth is circular, not simply crude to the developed as natural selection proposes.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Failure to make a clear point.
[QUOTE][b]5. Our needs exceed those of survival. Needs for love and friendship, for example, cannot be exaplined if all that do is for survival.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Social bonds facilitate survival amongst social/pack animals.
[QUOTE][b]Life coming from matter would violate the law of biogenesis [/QUOTE]
[B]
Biogenesis only covers rotting meat and chicken broth, not the early Earth. ToA is outside of its bounds. Cell principle: ditto.
[QUOTE][B]The supposed hominids bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of "finds" which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Strange, considering that some "thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent" finds are nearly complete skeletons. Perhaps they are unrevealing to you because you have not done an adequate journal search. Just a thought.
[QUOTE][b]Nine of the twelve supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/monkeys and not part human at all.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Hmmm bipedal hominids that are "apes" or "monkeys".
Tell me, do you know the difference between a monkey and an ape? Your statement above has me concerned.
[QUOTE][b]The final three hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part ape/monkey at all.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Bring me a live Neanderthal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Conspirator, posted 07-22-2002 5:23 PM Conspirator has not replied

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


Message 26 of 63 (14009)
07-23-2002 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Peter
07-23-2002 5:14 AM


[QUOTE][b]You are suggesting in one breath that order cannot come from
disorder, and then relying on it in the next.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Great observation!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Peter, posted 07-23-2002 5:14 AM Peter has not replied

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


Message 29 of 63 (14043)
07-24-2002 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Conspirator
07-23-2002 3:36 PM


[QUOTE][b]Could you show me this evidence?[/QUOTE]
[/b]
That populations change? Look around you.
Antibiotic resistance, Porto Santo rabbits, Kaibab squirrels, peppered moths. Dogs from wolves. Domesticated crops. A couple of weeks ago I read a news clipping in Science about gene flow between Galapagos finches.
[QUOTE][b]Like, a cat can never become anything like a dog that has cat's whisker's..[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Why not?
[QUOTE][b]How would it get altered in the first place? And how would it get altered at all?[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Exposure to nuclear or electromagnetic radiation, like UV light will do it. Certain chemicals will also. Since most cancers are caused by mutations in somatic cells you can use "anything that can cause cancer" as a basic rule of thumb to what will generate a mutation.
[QUOTE][b]Oh, and sorry for asking all the questions..[/QUOTE]
[/b]
That's fine, learning about the issues is really the whole point of the debate. I don't mind answering questions.
[QUOTE][b]Yeah.. But why wouldn't the mutations that supposedly evolved us from a common ancestor be harmful instead of helpful?[/QUOTE]
[/b]
For the record, most mutations are neither harmful nor helpful--they do nothing. But the ones that cause adaptations are, by definition, helpful. The reason good mutations always outnumber bad ones is natural selection. Bad mutations are usually not transmitted to offspring, but good ones almost always are. It's like being able to remove anything bad and deliberately spreading the good. That is why things can only go uphill even though some mutations are bad.
[QUOTE][b]I know...[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Then why did you even mention it if you know it is irrelevant?
[QUOTE][b]People want to crush the weak even today..[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Actually most of those people just want to advance themselves and end up crushing the "weak" in the process. That is simple irresponsibility or a lack of ethics. [/QUOTE]
[b]I see.. Um, could you explain to me how the eye is a product of evolution?[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Sure. They started out as the ability to detect light in microbial life. A byproduct of that was that they began to be able to detect motion. Motion detection was useful so it got better. Then as a byproduct of motion detection primitive images could be formed (this is about the level of squid). Images allow you to grab food so the images get sharper, and so on. First you have a pinhole camera type eye, then the covering membrane thickens in the middle to form a lens, muscles in the back strengthen so they eye can swivel, until you end up with primate eyes--which, interestingly, are not the best in the animal kingdom.
That is a few hundred million years of optical evolution condensed into a paragraph, a crude outline of how it could have happened.
[QUOTE][b]Are viruses dead? Do they not eat people's bodies? [/QUOTE]
[/b]
No, virii are just genetic material in protein envelopes. They are incapable of metabolism on their own. They hijack cells and use them to make more viruses. The only real 'life' involved is the infected cell. Viruses are really no more alive than a protein crystal or a piece of bare DNA.
[QUOTE][b]Based on the next to impossible chances of evolution ever having occured[/QUOTE]
[/b]
How do you figure that? Because it seems to me that it is impossible for it not to occur.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Conspirator, posted 07-23-2002 3:36 PM Conspirator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by gene90, posted 07-24-2002 12:55 AM gene90 has not replied

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


Message 30 of 63 (14044)
07-24-2002 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by gene90
07-24-2002 12:53 AM


[QUOTE][b]I don't know what you're saying here...[/QUOTE]
[/b]
He means that evolution can occur even without life as we know it. Even virii can (and do) evolve. All that is necessary is a molecule that can make copies of itself and evolution starts. I suspect that probably the first cells or protocells were several such molecules living together symbiotically.
[QUOTE][b]But natural selection requires an organism to begin as crude and making it have disorder, then making it into an orderly system.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
This goes back to only good mutations spreading in a population. Because increases in disorder will usually kill an organism, order tends to increase.
(An aside: order can decrease if it allows greater fitness for an organism. Evolution always works toward greater fitness, and sometimes toward greater order. Do not try to imagine evolution as always being an increase in order, that would be inaccurate.)
[QUOTE][b]How would one go about doing that? And I don't think anyone can do that today...[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Then why do you believe that Neanderthals are human? If they are, why can't you find one today?
[QUOTE][b]Whatever you say.. And what the heck does this mean?[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Begging the question -- use of the conclusion as a starting assumption.
[QUOTE][b]How?[/QUOTE]
[/b]
By detecting and exposing the fraud. No Creationist I am aware of has ever exposed a fraud in the scientific community, they just sit on the sidelines and then make up their own ideas.
[QUOTE][b]And that Creationist argument may be old, but it isn't as old as Evolutionists saying that some transitional forms are the missing links to evolution when they have already been proven that they aren't![/QUOTE]
[/b]
Who "proved" what and how?
[QUOTE][b]Not if they're dead...[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Then did Noah have an aquarium on the ark?
How did coral reefs survive? And how did you get one in New Mexico and another one in Texas?
[QUOTE][b]Ok. Natural selection is a disorderly system that supposedly evolved organisms into us which in turn are more orderly systems. How could natural selection have produced such variety[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Natural selection does not produce variety, it filters bad mutations from the gene pool. Mutations produce variety.
[QUOTE][b]Because simillar patterns in organisms resulted in an organism being created.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
What?
[QUOTE][b]The final three suppoed hominids of humans that were later revealed to be just humans and no part ape/money and human...[/QUOTE]
[/b]
And which hominids were these? I want to check you on this.
[QUOTE][b]But there have been floods in the past that have been big...[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Yeah, and they left evidence. This one is global. Difference between "big" and global. I've yet to see some river town covered with 22,000 ft of water but that is what it would take to cover Everest.
[QUOTE][b]Nearly complete does not mean complete...[/QUOTE]
[/b]
It does not have to be complete to show transitional features. You only need the skull to know what species it is and if it walked upright. I think you don't give paleoanthropology nearly enough credit.
[QUOTE][b]And I have done adequate journal searches...[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Then you should have shared your cites with us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by gene90, posted 07-24-2002 12:53 AM gene90 has not replied

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


Message 40 of 63 (14760)
08-02-2002 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Quetzal
08-01-2002 11:24 AM


[QUOTE][B]Did anyone else get the feeling that first lengthy post was a cut-and-paste?[/QUOTE]
[/B]
I've got much more than a "feeling".
From Top Evidences Against Evolution "Evidence #4"
[QUOTE][B]The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
From Conspirator's post 19 in this thread:
[QUOTE][B]The supposed hominids bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of "finds" which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They neither clear nor conclusive though evolutionists present them as if they were.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
From Conspirator's post:
[QUOTE][B]Nine of the twelve supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/monkeys and not part human at all.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
From "Top Evidences....Evidence #5"
[QUOTE][B]Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
The "Top Evidences" site is large and it will take a little time before I can find out what is Original Conspirator and what is not. I thought there was something wrong with his post and I ran phrases from it through Google, fishing for hits. I do this frequently, but this time it took several phrases. I also did this shortly after his message was posted but after the first two phrases returned nothing I was satisfied that it was his.
His bizarre Cow Cannibalism comments are here.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 08-02-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Quetzal, posted 08-01-2002 11:24 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Quetzal, posted 08-05-2002 5:10 AM gene90 has not replied

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


Message 48 of 63 (14919)
08-06-2002 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Conspirator
08-06-2002 2:57 PM


I want to see this plagiarism issue get settled first.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 08-06-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Conspirator, posted 08-06-2002 2:57 PM Conspirator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Admin, posted 08-08-2002 4:54 PM gene90 has replied

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


Message 51 of 63 (15037)
08-08-2002 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Admin
08-08-2002 4:54 PM


The Administrator's comment is adequate for me. I consider it settled, but I hope the worthy opposition will be able to take the time and answer our replies (which is a bigger investment in time than we evolutionists make because the opposition is outnumbered).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Admin, posted 08-08-2002 4:54 PM Admin has not replied

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


Message 54 of 63 (15095)
08-09-2002 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Philip
08-09-2002 4:41 AM


[QUOTE][B]To state that these could have even possibly evolved from OWM's etc. is bold (albeit metaphysically possible in theory only).[/QUOTE]
[/B]
"OWM"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Philip, posted 08-09-2002 4:41 AM Philip has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Quetzal, posted 08-09-2002 12:29 PM gene90 has not replied

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


Message 63 of 63 (16083)
08-26-2002 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by justdana
08-24-2002 3:33 PM


[QUOTE][B]You didn't see a thing, but you know matter didn't just explode on its own, right?[/QUOTE]
[/B]
I'm sure the people of Pompeii would be amused.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by justdana, posted 08-24-2002 3:33 PM justdana 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