Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   NEWSFLASH: Schools In Georgia (US) Are Allowed To Teach About Creation
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 92 of 148 (22845)
11-15-2002 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Ahmad
11-14-2002 6:56 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Ahmad:
Imagine a swimming slug with five eyes on the top of its head and a single arm with its jaw on the end - this is the very peculiar creature known as Opabinia. It lived about 550 million years ago and its fossils have been found in western Canada and China. It is almost as if nature was experimenting with various designs for complex life forms to determine which would work best.
What do you mean 'as if?' Does that mean that you do not understand this creature?
quote:
Opabinia was a slow swimming, 3-inch-long (8 cm) hunter. Its excellent vision would have allowed it to easily spot its prey, but it would have only been able to catch those creatures too slow to escape.
How do you know what its vision was like?
quote:
This particular species has not been classified yet. Such a complex organism, the Opabinia is... nor its transition or its ancestor has been uncovered. Try linking this with evolutionary origins and see if you can do it!
Yep, all unknown. I guess we need a supernatural origin for it. This is the entire argument for ID.
quote:
Anomalocaris, Ottoia, Wiwaxia, Hallucigenia and so on and so forth are creatures that are soo complex,
Yes. Sooooo complex. Oooh, it must have been designed becasue we do not understand it. I'm going to look into this just as soon as I sacrifice a goat to the snow gods.
quote:
...that if evolution were true, then these creatures would have required twice the age of earth just to evolve!!
Please show your calculations on this.
quote:
Yet, here is the real puzzle of the Cambrian Explosion for the theory of evolution.
I'm glad you noticed this. I'll tell all my paleo friends that they've had a unsolved puzzle all this time and didn't know it.
quote:
All the known phyla, except one, along with the oddities, first appear in the Cambrian period.
What about the various orders and families then? Where do they show up? This is a 'specious' argument.
quote:
There are no ancestors.
You have been given several examples. Just because you do not accept them does not carry much weight.
quote:
There are no intermediates. Fossil experts used to think that the Cambrian lasted 75 million years. But even that seemed to be a pretty short time for all this evolutionary change.
Yeah. ONLY 75 million years! What a joke!
quote:
Eventually the Cambrian was shortened to only 30 million years. And if that wasn't bad enough, the time frame of the real work of bringing all these different creatures into existence was limited to the first five to ten million years of the Cambrian.
Then what about the last 50 million or so years of the ProteroZOIC?? Why do you ignore this minor segment of time?
quote:
This is extraordinarily fast! Harvard's Stephen Jay Gould says, "Fast is now a lot faster than we thought, and that is extraordinarily interesting." What an understatement! "Extraordinarily impossible" might be a better phrase!
I guess you would know. Now tell us why Gould remained an ardent evolutionist if he had such problems with the speed of evolution...
quote:
In the Time magazine ....
Oh, great, another peer-reviewed scientific journal...
[quote]...article (p. 70), paleontologist Samuel Bowring says, "We now know how fast fast is. And what I like to ask my biologist friends is, How fast can evolution get before you start feeling uncomfortable?"
And his own answer is? Why do you not give us all of the information here? I'm sure that Bowring had something to say about this. This is just more out of context quoting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Ahmad, posted 11-14-2002 6:56 PM Ahmad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Ahmad, posted 11-16-2002 3:55 PM edge has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 93 of 148 (22847)
11-15-2002 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Ahmad
11-13-2002 1:36 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ahmad:
quote:
Popular magazines are for-profit and publish articles which are directed at a general audience.
quote:
So that makes all their articles wrong?
*Sigh*
No, but it makes them much less reliable than professional journal articles. Which version of War and Peace would you use if you really wanted to know what it contained; the Reader's Digest version or the actual, unedited book?
quote:
Professional science journals are not for profit. They are the place where scientists publish their work. They are peer-reviewed, which means that a committee of experienced scientists in the field (Evolutionary Biologists would review Evolutionary Biology papers submitted to an Evolutionary Biology Journal, for example) reviews the work submitted by scientists for methodological soundness, to see if their statistical work is good, to make sure they took into account other explanations from past research that might apply to their work, etc. Usually a paper is not accepted for publication on first submission and it is sent back along with suggestions for how to improve it, what additional experiments might need to be conducted to get better data, etc. If the revisions are relatively minor then it will be resubmitted after these are completed and probably accepted for publication.
quote:
Thats when they go deep into explaining something, scientifically.
Exactly. This is why I ask for jounal citations when you make specific claims about something that is scientifically-supported. I want to see the actual science that supports it, and that would be found in a professional science jounal.
quote:
What I am asking is for example when Dawkins says that organism emerged as a result of the cambrian explosion were "placed there with no evolutionary history", is he wrong?
It is driving me nuts, but I can't find my copy of the Blind Watchmaker here at home so I can't look up the quote in context. I am 99% sure you are taking the quote out of context but I cannot look it up until I find the book.
quote:
As I know, scientists do write books in easier terms for the layman, but they elaborate their work in scinetific papers. Its not like Dawkins says something in his book but says something totally different peer-previewed papers.
As you have been told several times, you are taking that particular statment of Dawkins' out of context, and that if you have read more of Dawkins (like entire books instead of quotes) you would know that he does not literally mean that he believes what you wish him to believe.
quote:
It's not that they lie, it's just that they do not represent evidence from research in the same way as the professional literature does. It is not as reliable because it has been filtered through editors and writers.
quote:
So when Alex Oparin says in his book Origin of Life, "Unfortunately, the origin of the cell remains a question which is actually the darkest point of the complete evolution theory" (page 96), is he going to disprove himself by proving the oppsoite in science papers??
Huh?
quote:
I hate to break it to you, but since Creation science is based upon divine revelation rather than evidence, and since most Creationists spend their time trying to tear down Evolution rather than doing their OWN research, I doubt that any Creationist has even submitted for publication in the first place.
quote:
Oh they have. Natue just don't publish them.
Really? Which papers by what authors. Please provide evidnece for your claim.
quote:
And I believe there adequate evidence for Creationism to be qualified to be a "theory" just like the ToE.
No.
Scientific theories must be falsifiable, and Creationism isn't.
quote:
LOL! See above for what peer-review means.
quote:
Oh so the Discover mag publishes articles by anonymous, non-legible authors and they don't check their credentials?
For someone that accuses others of putting words in his mouth all the time, you certainly like to do it to others.
It is a question of reliability of evidence. Peer-reviewed articles are more reliable.
quote:
A "statement" is a commentary. The point remains that a statement is not evidence from a journal article.
quote:
If only you would have read, you will notice that the statement is a conlusion drawn from the research conducted by Lipson.
It is not a part of a journal article, so it is not peer-reviewed, and is therefore not as reliable as a journal article.
quote:
So? This refutes Evolution how?
quote:
So the simplest of the organisms would have had a ready made energy conversion mechanism? Are you implying that?
You have to show that the ability to do energy conversion is not evolutionarily possible.
quote:
Since, by definition, life arose with the ability to perform this conversion, what is your point?
quote:
In order for the energy to be functional, specific energy conversion mechanisms are needed.
Why do they have to be specific?
quote:
Do you agree that the first organism, most probably HAD ALL THE NECCESARY COMPONENTS FOR ITS ENERGY CONVERTING SYSTEM??
What do you consider "the first organism?"
That is like asking, "When does a child start to speak a language?"
There is no clearly-drawn "before" and "after".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Ahmad, posted 11-13-2002 1:36 PM Ahmad has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 94 of 148 (22848)
11-15-2002 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by nator
11-10-2002 10:11 AM


Ahmad, replies to messages 50, 58, and 59 would be much appreciated.
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-15-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by nator, posted 11-10-2002 10:11 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by nator, posted 11-17-2002 8:55 AM nator has not replied

Ahmad
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 148 (22936)
11-16-2002 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by mark24
11-14-2002 8:14 PM


quote:
Bang on the nose, my son! When I say IC, I mean a system that the removal of any one part renders the entire system useless. See your own cite for a possible explanation. Thornhill, R.H., Ussery, D.W. 2000. "A classification of possible routes of Darwinian evolution." J. Theor. Bio. 203: 111-116.
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mg1darwinianpathways.htm
quote:
Ahh, this is the real point of contention. An IC system is NOT implicitly created, it CAN potentially evolve. Creationists (even if Behe doesn’t) define IC as the above definition, with cannot possibly have evolved tagged on the end. My definition, & Ussery’s & Thornhill make no such claim. Why? Because no one has positive evidence that IC systems couldn’t evolve.
No one has positive empirical evidence that IC systems could have evolved. Note Behe's argument:
"To feel the full force of the conclusion that a system is irreducibly complex and therefore has no functional precursors, we need to distinguish between a physical precursor and a conceptual precursor. . . . Darwinian evolution requires physical precursors."
quote:
Remember, this is your cite, & it provides no less than four possible avenues for IC evolution. Namely:
2.1. SERIAL DIRECT DARWINIAN EVOLUTION complex
2.2. PARALLEL DIRECT DARWINIAN EVOLUTION
2.3. ELIMINATION OF FUNCTIONAL REDUNDANCY
2.4. ADOPTION FROM A DIFFERENT FUNCTION
If only you would have read the site... this is what it says:
For Serial Direct Darwinian Evolution
quote:
Ahmad: Here again we get to see the contribution of Behe as the authors then note, "Although it can generate complicated structures, it cannot generate irreducibly complex structures."
So we can see that IC helps to rule out certain evolutionary pathways. This is also very significant in that the most persuasive examples of random mutation and natural selection (RM&NS) entail serial direct Darwinian evolution. The traditional examples of Darwin's finches (and their beaks), giraffe necks, elephant trunks, darkening wings in moths are all examples of serial direct Darwinian evolution. Thus, this means that evidence for this type of evolution is not evidence that IC can/did evolve via the blind watchmaker mechanism (BWM).
For Parallel Direct darwinian evolution,
quote:
Ahmad: This means approximately synchronous changes in more than one component, so that modification to other components always occurs before the total modification to any one component has become significant.
They then cite some examples:
Most complex supramolecular biological structures have primarily this type of accessibility by Darwinian evolution, with examples being bat echolocation, spiders' web construction, honeybee waggle dances, and insect mimicry by orchids (Dawkins, 1986, 1995). Some complex (but not irreducibly complex) molecular systems, such as the globin proteins (Ptitsyn, 1999; Satoh, 1999), could also have evolved in this manner.
But they also write:
Parallel direct Darwinian evolution can generate irreducibly complex structures, but not irreducibly complex structures of functionally indivisible components, and this is the valid conclusion to draw from Behe's thesis. (emphasis mine)
Thus, once again, we can see that when we are dealing with IC molecular machines (which are composed of functionally indivisible parts), the various examples of Darwinian evolution cited by Dawkins et al. are irrelevant. None of it amounts to evidence that Behe's IC examples evolved by the BWM.
For Elimination of Fucntional Redundancy,
quote:
Ahmad: The interesting thing about this pathway is that it too robs the standard Darwinian explanation of its appeal. Richard Dawkins presents Darwinism in its most convincing form:
"We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully 'designed' to have come into existence by chance. How, then, did they come into existence? The answer, Darwin's answer, is by gradual, step- by-step transformations from simple beginnings, from primordial entities sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance."
Yet elimination of function redundancy is an explanation that does not begin with "simple beginnings," but instead begins with a state that is more complex than that which is observed. But if simple beginnings are needed to "come into existence by chance," the complicated beginning, assumed by this pathway, may be too complicated to "come into existence by chance."
I personally find this pathway of redundancy elimination to be very interesting, as it may suggest that some originally designed states were much more complex than seen today, such that evolution was essentially rigged to evolve in particular directions. In other words, this pathway does not eliminate the design inference behind IC, but instead, suggests that IC is an indirect indicator of an originally designed state.
Nevertheless, what we need is evidence that the initial state was more complicated than the IC state. For example, are we talking about flagellum that were originally composed of 60 parts? Where is the evidence for such a claim? It is an interesting thought, but without evidence, we can't take it beyond the realm of philosophy.
For Adoption from a different system,
quote:
Ahmad: Ironically, the main problem with this pathway was first highlighted by another Behe-critic, H. Allen Orr. In his critique from Boston Review, Orr writes:
"First it will do no good to suggest that all the required parts of some biochemical pathway popped up simultaneously by mutation. Although this "solution" yields a functioning system in one fell swoop, it's so hopelessly unlikely that no Darwinian takes it seriously. As Behe rightly says, we gain nothing by replacing a problem with a miracle. Second, we might think that some of the parts of an irreducibly complex system evolved step by step for some other purpose and were then recruited wholesale to a new function. But this is also unlikely. You may as well hope that half your car's transmission will suddenly help out in the airbag department. Such things might happen very, very rarely, but they surely do not offer a general solution to irreducible complexity."
Since an IC system is built from closely/well-matched parts, it is unlikely that a component shaped to fulfill another function can snuggly plug-in to generate the IC function. In fact, Behe anticipates this solution by writing:
"Even if a system is irreducibly complex (and thus cannot have been produced directly), however, one cannot definitively rule out the possibility of an indirect, circuitous route. As the complexity of the an interacting system increases, though, the likelihood of such an indirect route drops precipitously."
To illustrate this point, let's consider the bacterial flagellum (perhaps the most well known example of an IC system). A functioning flagellum requires about 30 gene products (components). So what does the co-option hypothesis predict? That prior to the existence of the flagellum, these 30 gene products (or their duplicates) all existed doing something else. Then, they just happened to all fit together by chance to create a flagellum. And afterwards, the other 30 or so hypothetical functions of these original gene products disappeared. Does this really sound like a general solution to IC?
The brilliance of Darwin was to minimize the role of chance in apparent design. But once we turn to the co-option explanation, we leave this explanatory appeal behind, as chance reasserts itself into a place of prominence. For it is chance that determines whether the 30-or-so gene products just happen to come together to form a functioning flagellum, as selection was pruning these gene products in accord with 30-or-so different functions. Thus, the co-option explanation is really a return to using chance as an explanation for apparent design, and just as it was not convincing in pre-Darwinian days, it is not convincing today.
I recommend you read that site first to see the flaws and invalid assumptions made by Thornhill and Ussery.
quote:
I read it when you first cited it. They conclude that Behe's definition has made it into the scientific literature in the conclusion. It hasn’t, they even go to the lengths of pointing out how Behes & T&U’s definitions differ. Remarkable. And even if it had, Behes definition doesn’t preclude IC evolution, it’s just that Behe claimed it couldn’t happen. He never provided positive evidence that it couldn’t, however.
Journal of Theoretical Biology 203: 111-116 is not scientific literature? The evidence lies in the irreducibly complex systems. From the site:
Nevertheless, what we need is evidence that the initial state was more complicated than the IC state. For example, are we talking about flagellum that were originally composed of 60 parts? Where is the evidence for such a claim? It is an interesting thought, but without evidence, we can't take it beyond the realm of philosophy.
So we need evidence that IC systems could indeed have been a product of evolution. Thats a positive claim not backed up by empirical evidence nor any viable examples.
quote:
T&U’s article has not been refuted with POSITIVE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. The best that can be said is that is has been replied to.
They have been rebutted. Also Behe has an interesting response for Ussery here >> http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_evolutionaryliterature.htm
quote:
You came here claiming IC couldn’t evolve, not me. The burden of evidence therefore falls squarely upon YOUR shoulders to back up YOUR claim. My position is that IC systems may possibly be able to evolve, I am making no such absolute statements as you are.
The very definition of IC, i.e, an irreducibly complex system is one that requires several closely matched parts in order to function and where removal of one of the components effectively causes the system to cease functioning, proves my point. If IC systems would have evolved, then they are not IC systems in the first place!! Some proponents of Behe introduced "Irreproducible Irreduciblity" ... I think by Keith Robison to which Behe has responded to often.
quote:
Note this suggests a relationship between chordates & echinoderms (there are many others). The problem I want to impress upon you is; how would we recognise an echinoderm/chordate transitional 750 mya? A starfish with a notochord? Early organisms are very amorphous. For example, what would an arthropod that never had an exoskeleton look like? Certainly, there are plenty of candidates, Spriggina for one, the SSF’s are another, but can we reduce the tentativity to an acceptable level?. Or a proto-arthropod that lacked jointed legs AND an exoskeleton? It would be almost impossible to reliably classify such a thing.
When we speak about transitional species, the similarities of the transition should not only be molecular but also morphological. I understand what you're trying to say. The fact is: hitherto, there are no echonoderm/chodate transitions nor evidence of the claim that echinoderm and chordata has common ancestors. Some propagate the Dipleuruloid theory which postulates an ancestral creature, known as the dipleurula, which gave rise to both the echinoderm and hemichordate lines. There is no empirical evidence for that however. We chordates don't have notochords but vertebral column. We don't have gill slits either.
quote:
This paper has some good information too. There are plenty of other papers that provide molecular evidence of a deep Precambrian divergence. Alas, as regards the fossil record, there are plenty of candidates for intermediates, but I couldn’t foist them upon you without noting the high tentativity involved.
Can you give me an HTML version of that paper? I don't have Acrobat reader. I would appreciate that.
quote:
Yes, but most of it molecular. The problem cladistics face is that organisms simpler than sponges & cnidarians possess no real apomorphies, by virtue of being gooey blobs (!!!!), so it becomes difficult to identify (certainly from fossil impressions) features that are common to phyla appearing in the CE. However:
The results of molecular comparisons do not work in favor of the theory of evolution at all. There are huge molecular differences between creatures that appear to be very similar and related. For instance, the structure of Cytochrome-C, one of the proteins vital to respiration, is incredibly different in living beings of the same class. According to research carried out on this matter, the difference between two different reptile species is greater than the difference between a bird and a fish or a fish and a mammal. Another study has shown that molecular differences between some birds are greater than the differences between those same birds and mammals. It has also been discovered that the molecular difference between bacteria that appear to be very similar is greater than the difference between mammals and amphibians or insects. Similar comparisons have been made in the cases of haemoglobin, myoglobin, hormones, and genes and similar conclusions are drawn.
I recommend W. R. Bird's, The Origin of Species Revisited which provides excellent information regarding molecular comparisons and phylogeny
quote:
See above. Best molecular estimate of the earliest multicellular animal? About 1 bn years ago, this is congruent with the trace fossil estimate.
Then why are trace fossils (fossil tracks, trails, and burrows) so rare before the base of the Cambrian, if these animals existed for that 1 billion years? One of the earliest metazoans in the Cambrian era, the trilobites are an enigma of complexity. How can evolution explain its sudden origin? If trilobites descended from spriggina, then are there any transitional links between them??
quote:
What? Walcott published his findings in the scientific community at the time. Perhaps you are referring to S.J. Goulds book, Wonderful Life, 1989? If you are, you will discover in its pages that Walcott published in his lifetime. You will also find some more evidence of Precambrian cladogenesis.
But were they told to the public at his time? It was kept unknown from the potential scientists. Yes, the fossils were made known by Gould's book who attributed tectonic plates as the cause without any empirical evidence.
quote:
Ye olde Evilutionist conspiracy. The Cambrian explosion was known in Darwins time, why would more fossils be a bad thing, to be covered up? Methinks you are judging people (erroneously) by your own standards. Walcotts first publication regarding the Burgess shale was in 1912, just 3 years after its discovery: 1912 field work in Alberta and British Columbia published Cambrian Brachiopoda (USGS Monograph 51)
Actually, Walcotts work was first published and made know to the general audience by Whittington in Rediscription of Marrella splendens, from the Burgess Shale in 1971
quote:
Er.. the trilobites have evolutionary origins, Spriggina, for one. The best evidence of Precambrian relationships is molecular, not morphological.
There is no know, valid ancestor of the trilobites. Only assumptions. Recent scientific findings even diminish the intermediate form hypothesis. An article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2000 reports that DNA analyses have displaced taxa that used to be considered "intermediate forms" in the past:
"DNA sequence analysis dictates new interpretation of phylogenic trees. Taxa that were once thought to represent successive grades of complexity at the base of the metazoan tree are being displaced to much higher positions inside the tree. This leaves no evolutionary ''intermediates'' and forces us to rethink the genesis of bilaterian complexity"
Link: Just a moment... d=1037466202973_1661&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&volume=97&fdate=12/1/1999&tdate=4/30/2000
quote:
POSSIBLY!!! As has been noted, there are a lot of soft bodied arthropod-a-like organisms in the Precambrian. Another hypothesis is that arthropods were descended from SSF’s. In fact there is debate as to whether the arthropods are a monophyletic clade or in fact polyphyletic.
Presence of "arthropod-a-like" organisms does not mean arthropods descended from organisms in the precambrian. Thats sheer observation not backed up by empirical evidence.
quote:
I’m glad you discovered this little prediction, which I don’t have a problem with I might add. But here lies the root of your inconsistency. Am I allowed to say that Precambrian transitionals just haven’t been found yet? No? So why are you allowed to say that Bryozoans just haven’t been found in the Cambrian yet? It’s PRECISELY what you’re doing. If Precambrian transitionals don’t exist (well, they do, but the conclusions are more tentative than vertebrate transitionals), then neither do Bryozoans. OK? Can’t have it both ways. So, by your own logic, major metazoan phyla appear in both the Precambrian, & the post-Cambrian.
It has been established that major metazoan phyla has appeared abruptly in the Cambrian era. Regarding logic, lets just wait and see who prediction comes true. I apologize for the inconsistency. I try to remain consistent but sometimes get carried away. Once again, my apologies.
quote:
I know, but what implications does the abrupt appearance of other major taxa of other kingdoms have on your creation myth/hypothesis?
Oh you mean the Plant Kingdom? I am quite weak in botany . I do know about the Carboniferous age (360-286 my) which has many fossils dating to it. There is no difference between species of plants from this period and plants living today. The diversity suddenly revealed in the fossil record put evolutionists into another difficulty. Because, all of a sudden, species of plants emerged, all of which possessed perfect systems. This is also something like the Cambrian explosion ... except that evolutionists call it the "Evolutionary Explosion."
quote:
Of course it doesn’t. I’m not refuting the Cambrian explosion. I AM pointing out to you that, if you remove your compartmentalised thinking head for one moment, the earliest fossils are single celled prokaryotes, then single celled eukaryotes, then multicellular organisms of-dubious-metazoa-ness, then true triploblastic metazoans.
So? Whats "compartmentalised" about that? Did I deny it? No! Did they evolve? No! Were they created? Yes!!
quote:
Furthermore, the phyla of the animal kingdom do not all appear at the same time.
All phyla of animal kingdom appearing "at once" refers to an extremely narrow window of geologic time (~5-10 million years) according to Richard Kerr.
quote:
In fact, & not to trivialise the Cambrian faunal diversity, there is nothing odd about the CE other than said rapid diversity. Other than the rapidity, everything is in it’s proper evolutionary order. What’s the problem?
The problem, you ask? Correct me if I am wrong but the most widely accepted idea among naturalistic biologists has been that chordates arose from echinoderms (sea stars, sand dollars, sea cucumbers, sea urchins, etc.) and that chordates in turn gave rise to vertebrates. Echinoderms are also believed to have spawned hemichordates as an evolutionary side branch. Remember the Dipleuruloid theory you have been reiterating?
This scenario predicts that echinoderms, hemichordates, chordates, and vertebrates will appear sequentially in the fossil recordand that the sequence will cover a long time span, given the extensive anatomical and physiological differences among these phyla. Naturalism or Evolution would not anticipate hemichordates, chordates, or vertebrates appearing together in the early Cambrian fauna. But in recent years, researchers have found hemichordates and chordates together in the Cambrian event!! These discoveries, in and of themselves, create an insurmountable problem for the naturalistic model of evolution.
Most recently, however, paleontologists have discovered craniate chordates (animals with a stiff rod-like structure along their back and a hardened or mineralized brain case) and vertebrates in early Cambrian layers. I would say this poses a lot of problems and raises arguments that questions the credibility of evolution in the light of modern scientific data.
quote:
You are criticising the fossil record for its alleged gaps, yet in the case of bryozoans you are appealing for gaps!!!! Ahmed, you can’t have it both ways!
you're right. Guess am gonna take Bryozoa as an exception.... until proven otherwise.
Regards,
Ahmad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by mark24, posted 11-14-2002 8:14 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by edge, posted 11-16-2002 5:35 PM Ahmad has not replied
 Message 110 by mark24, posted 11-18-2002 7:55 AM Ahmad has replied

Ahmad
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 148 (22937)
11-16-2002 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by mark24
11-14-2002 8:17 PM


quote:
550 mya? You provide evidence that destroys your own argument. The CAMBRIAN BEGINS 543 MYA!!!!
I don't think I was meaning to be exact. Some say it's 500 mya, some 545 mya, some 550. Statistics differ but the fact remains the same. A wide variety of mosaic living organisms and complex invertebrates appeared abruptly all "at once", i.e, within a period of ~5-10 million years.
Regards,
Ahmad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by mark24, posted 11-14-2002 8:17 PM mark24 has not replied

Ahmad
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 148 (22938)
11-16-2002 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by edge
11-15-2002 9:39 AM


quote:
What do you mean 'as if?' Does that mean that you do not understand this creature?
No, it means "as if nature was experimenting with various designs for complex life forms to determine which would work best". Opabinia's complex physiological structures are well understood and it is as if....
quote:
How do you know what its vision was like?
Fossil interpretation. Just like the complex vision system of the trilobites, Opabinia too had a remarkable vision.
quote:
Yep, all unknown. I guess we need a supernatural origin for it. This is the entire argument for ID.
Call it ID or call it a miracle; Opabinia has no ancestors whatsoever... nor any transitional links.
quote:
Yes. Sooooo complex. Oooh, it must have been designed becasue we do not understand it. I'm going to look into this just as soon as I sacrifice a goat to the snow gods.
We understand it perfectly... thats why we reiterate its complexity.
quote:
Please show your calculations on this.
Mark my prerequisite... "IF evolution were true"; Now thats a BIG IF
quote:
I'm glad you noticed this. I'll tell all my paleo friends that they've had a unsolved puzzle all this time and didn't know it.
Do tell...
quote:
What about the various orders and families then? Where do they show up? This is a 'specious' argument.
Orders, class, and family come under Phylums and Subphylums.
[QUOTE]You have been given several examples. Just because you do not accept them does not carry much weight. [/QUOTES]
No examples have been given yet.
quote:
Yeah. ONLY 75 million years! What a joke!
Guess the fossil experts were "jokers" and you're the only sane guy.
quote:
Then what about the last 50 million or so years of the ProteroZOIC?? Why do you ignore this minor segment of time?
Thats irrelevant here. My argument is on the relatively extremenly short period of time the organisms took to make appearance. And these organisms were highly complex marking no transitional links nor ancestors. I gave you the examples.
quote:
I guess you would know. Now tell us why Gould remained an ardent evolutionist if he had such problems with the speed of evolution...
Why should I? Ask Gould.
quote:
Oh, great, another peer-reviewed scientific journal...
Time magazine is not credible?
quote:
And his own answer is? Why do you not give us all of the information here? I'm sure that Bowring had something to say about this. This is just more out of context quoting.
It is context. This question he posed to his "biological friends" as he calls them. Then he goes on to explain the various fossil interpretations. But he made that statement with reference to Cambrian explosion.
Edge, you don't seem to be making an intellectual argument but merely baseless assertions. Mark24 has good arguments and I suggest the next time, you respond to my arguments with empirical evidence instead of sheer sarcasm. I would appreciate that
Regards,
Ahmad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by edge, posted 11-15-2002 9:39 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by gene90, posted 11-16-2002 4:03 PM Ahmad has not replied
 Message 101 by edge, posted 11-16-2002 5:05 PM Ahmad has not replied

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


Message 99 of 148 (22939)
11-16-2002 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Ahmad
11-16-2002 3:55 PM


[QUOTE][B]Time magazine is not credible?[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Not in regards to science, where only PR papers count.
If Creationism is such a great contender to evolution, where are the papers?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Ahmad, posted 11-16-2002 3:55 PM Ahmad has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Zhimbo, posted 11-17-2002 1:00 PM gene90 has replied

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


Message 100 of 148 (22940)
11-16-2002 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Ahmad
11-14-2002 5:59 PM


By the way, Richard Kerr is Science's journalist. This is still not on the same level as a peer-reviewed paper, but it's better than most non-pr sources.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Ahmad, posted 11-14-2002 5:59 PM Ahmad has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 101 of 148 (22942)
11-16-2002 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Ahmad
11-16-2002 3:55 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ahmad:
quote:
What do you mean 'as if?' Does that mean that you do not understand this creature?
No, it means "as if nature was experimenting with various designs for complex life forms to determine which would work best". Opabinia's complex physiological structures are well understood and it is as if....
So, it only appears to be the case.
quote:
How do you know what its vision was like?
Fossil interpretation. Just like the complex vision system of the trilobites, Opabinia too had a remarkable vision.
Tell me it isn't so. A creationist making an assumption!! Now, just how remarkable was this eyesight? Better than a jellyfish? Better than a falcon?
quote:
Yep, all unknown. I guess we need a supernatural origin for it. This is the entire argument for ID.
Call it ID or call it a miracle;...
Or call it evolution!!
quote:
Opabinia has no ancestors whatsoever... nor any transitional links.
And your problem with this is?
quote:
Yes. Sooooo complex. Oooh, it must have been designed becasue we do not understand it. I'm going to look into this just as soon as I sacrifice a goat to the snow gods.
We understand it perfectly... thats why we reiterate its complexity.
Yeah, so do I.
quote:
Please show your calculations on this.
Mark my prerequisite... "IF evolution were true"; Now thats a BIG IF
But you seem to have calculated something here. Show us your work.
quote:
I'm glad you noticed this. I'll tell all my paleo friends that they've had a unsolved puzzle all this time and didn't know it.
Do tell...
So, tell us why they have missed this gaping hole in their theory. Why has no on noticed it before creationists came along?
quote:
What about the various orders and families then? Where do they show up? This is a 'specious' argument.
Orders, class, and family come under Phylums and Subphylums.
Very good. Now why are not all orders, classes and families not represented in the Cambrian? Why do you only refer to Phyla?
quote:
You have been given several examples. Just because you do not accept them does not carry much weight.
No examples have been given yet.
No. You have simply denied them. Tell us why.
quote:
Yeah. ONLY 75 million years! What a joke!
Guess the fossil experts were "jokers" and you're the only sane guy.
Umm, okay. Now what is your point?
quote:
Then what about the last 50 million or so years of the ProteroZOIC?? Why do you ignore this minor segment of time?
Thats irrelevant here.
Not at all. You asked during what time could trilobites have developed and you have been given tens of millions of years.
quote:
My argument is on the relatively extremenly short period of time the organisms took to make appearance. And these organisms were highly complex marking no transitional links nor ancestors. I gave you the examples.
I can see that you do not read our posts. That is kind of disrespectfull. First we are saying that tens of millions of years is not a short time. Second, we have told you that the first appearance is only an artifact of discovery. It may have nothing to do with actual occurrence.
quote:
I guess you would know. Now tell us why Gould remained an ardent evolutionist if he had such problems with the speed of evolution...
Why should I? Ask Gould.
If you take his comments out of context, it is up to you to explain.
quote:
Oh, great, another peer-reviewed scientific journal...
Time magazine is not credible?
Egad, we've got some basic problems here.
quote:
And his own answer is? Why do you not give us all of the information here? I'm sure that Bowring had something to say about this. This is just more out of context quoting.
It is context. This question he posed to his "biological friends" as he calls them. Then he goes on to explain the various fossil interpretations. But he made that statement with reference to Cambrian explosion.
So, there was an explanation. Why did you leave it out? Perhaps because it negated your argument? Or are you just parroting your professional creationists?
quote:
Edge, you don't seem to be making an intellectual argument but merely baseless assertions.
Actually, they are logical arguments against your position.
quote:
Mark24 has good arguments and I suggest the next time, you respond to my arguments with empirical evidence instead of sheer sarcasm. I would appreciate that
Sorry, but after hearing the same old creationist arguments for years, one becomes a bit jaded and cynical that evidence has anything to do with your arguments. Tell you what, you provide evidence other than 'design is just obvious...' and I will start giving you hard evidence.
[This message has been edited by edge, 11-16-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Ahmad, posted 11-16-2002 3:55 PM Ahmad has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 102 of 148 (22943)
11-16-2002 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Ahmad
11-16-2002 3:26 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ahmad:
quote:
See above. Best molecular estimate of the earliest multicellular animal? About 1 bn years ago, this is congruent with the trace fossil estimate.
Then why are trace fossils (fossil tracks, trails, and burrows) so rare before the base of the Cambrian, if these animals existed for that 1 billion years?
Actually, they are not that uncommon. The real problem is getting enough undisturbed exposures that are of such a great age. The point is that with the tracks and burrows and impressions, it can be seen that the animals did exist. Their numbers are not so important.
quote:
One of the earliest metazoans in the Cambrian era, the trilobites are an enigma of complexity. How can evolution explain its sudden origin?
I honestly do not think you read our posts.
quote:
If trilobites descended from spriggina, then are there any transitional links between them??
Oh, so you want to play that game, eh? Sorry, but that's called 'moving the goal posts.'
quote:
What? Walcott published his findings in the scientific community at the time. Perhaps you are referring to S.J. Goulds book, Wonderful Life, 1989? If you are, you will discover in its pages that Walcott published in his lifetime. You will also find some more evidence of Precambrian cladogenesis.
But were they told to the public at his time?
The information was available to anyone who cared to read about it. What do you expect, a headline in the NY Times?
quote:
It was kept unknown from the potential scientists.
Oh no! Another geological conspiracy! Besides that, what the heck is a 'potential scientist?'
quote:
Yes, the fossils were made known by Gould's book who attributed tectonic plates as the cause without any empirical evidence.
Yes, but mountains of circumstantial evidence.
quote:
Er.. the trilobites have evolutionary origins, Spriggina, for one. The best evidence of Precambrian relationships is molecular, not morphological.
There is no know, valid ancestor of the trilobites.
That's right. Keep on saying it and maybe it will come true. The point is that Spriggina is in the right place with the right features. Now, what evidence do you have? Or are you simply playing the absolutist game?
quote:
Only assumptions.
And what is wrong with assumptions? Do you go through life without making any assumptions at all?
quote:
POSSIBLY!!! As has been noted, there are a lot of soft bodied arthropod-a-like organisms in the Precambrian. Another hypothesis is that arthropods were descended from SSF’s. In fact there is debate as to whether the arthropods are a monophyletic clade or in fact polyphyletic.
Presence of "arthropod-a-like" organisms does not mean arthropods descended from organisms in the precambrian. Thats sheer observation not backed up by empirical evidence.
Correct. However, the circumstantial evidence is compelling. Maybe they should have said 'as if' arthropods, since that seems to denote a more absolute concept for you.
quote:
It has been established that major metazoan phyla has appeared abruptly in the Cambrian era.
No. It has not. When will you start reading our posts? You are plain wrong on this and have been given abundant evidence to that effect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Ahmad, posted 11-16-2002 3:26 PM Ahmad has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 103 of 148 (22979)
11-17-2002 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by nator
11-15-2002 10:29 AM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
Ahmad, replies to messages 50, 58, and 59 would be much appreciated.
Ahmad, I can't help but notice that you seem to be avoiding responding to messages 50, 58, and 59.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by nator, posted 11-15-2002 10:29 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Ahmad, posted 11-17-2002 3:13 PM nator has replied

Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6012 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 104 of 148 (22994)
11-17-2002 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by gene90
11-16-2002 4:03 PM


I would just like to add a stronger comment here: No, Time Magazine is NOT a credible source. I stopped reading it entirely after reading articles on neuroscience-related issues (which I have some expertise in) and being appalled at the low quality of reporting. I haven't gone back for a few years now, but the point remains that most mainstream science reporting is truly abysmal. Even the New York Times science section, one of the best mainstream science news sources, often has corrections. Time generally doesn't bother.
quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
[QUOTE][B]Time magazine is not credible?[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Not in regards to science, where only PR papers count.
If Creationism is such a great contender to evolution, where are the papers?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by gene90, posted 11-16-2002 4:03 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by gene90, posted 11-17-2002 6:39 PM Zhimbo has replied

Ahmad
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 148 (23001)
11-17-2002 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by nator
11-17-2002 8:55 AM


Patience my friend. Its not that I am avoiding your responses.. but tossing student life with chores at home, final year exams and then here is Ramadan.. hardly leaves my any time to go online and issue my responses. I will respond to yours Insha Allah
Regards,
Ahmad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by nator, posted 11-17-2002 8:55 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by nator, posted 11-19-2002 12:00 AM Ahmad has not replied

Ahmad
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 148 (23002)
11-17-2002 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Primordial Egg
11-11-2002 11:04 AM


There's a nice response for Dolittle and his likes by Behe >> http://www.arn.org/...mb_indefenseofbloodclottingcascade.htm
Also another response to the Boston Review Publication >> http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_brrespbr.htm
Regards,
Ahmad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Primordial Egg, posted 11-11-2002 11:04 AM Primordial Egg has not replied

Ahmad
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 148 (23003)
11-17-2002 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by nator
11-10-2002 10:11 AM


quote:
I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know,but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science (Gould, 1983).
Thanks for pointing that out. But I don't think I have been misled. Gould was partly right and partly wrong, as I would classify it. Creationism is based on Science.. although there is a certain degree of faith involved. The only thing that can make Gould's prediction about creationists come true, is valid empirical evidence that proves the non-existence of a Creator. The tables are turned. As far as I know, no potential data has yet been uncovered to make creationism a dogma.
On the same criterias, evolution is not a scientific theory either but an ideological dogma if not to say some sort of "religion". The Darwinist professor of philosophy and zoology Michael Ruse confesses this in these words (in context):
"And certainly, there's no doubt about it, that in the past, and I think also in the present, for many evolutionists, evolution has functioned as something with elements which are, let us say, akin to being a secular religion ... And it seems to me very clear that at some very basic level, evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to a kind of naturalism" (Michael Ruse, "Nonliteralist Antievolution", AAAS Symposium: "The New Antievolutionism," February 13, 1993, Boston, MA.)
Regards,
Ahmad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by nator, posted 11-10-2002 10:11 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Zhimbo, posted 11-18-2002 12:49 PM Ahmad has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024