Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9174 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,609 Year: 4,866/9,624 Month: 214/427 Week: 24/103 Day: 4/9 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution Logic
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5833 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 28 of 302 (318452)
06-06-2006 9:52 PM


"For the record, scientists have documented quite a few (at least several hundred) instances of speciation/macroevolution occuring."
Really? Could you give me some for macroevolution?

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by RAZD, posted 06-06-2006 9:59 PM Someone who cares has replied
 Message 32 by Cthulhu, posted 06-06-2006 10:27 PM Someone who cares has not replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5833 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 30 of 302 (318464)
06-06-2006 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by RAZD
06-06-2006 9:59 PM


Well, macroevolution is when one kind of an organism supposedly evolves into another one. So, I would like if you could prove this, either by fossils, genetics, observation, or by something else to the sort. Like if you saw macroevolution in action. Or if you found that genetics would permit it. Or if you found a REAL fossil of a scale evolving into a feather. Or something else to the sort.

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by RAZD, posted 06-06-2006 9:59 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Coragyps, posted 06-06-2006 10:14 PM Someone who cares has not replied
 Message 74 by RAZD, posted 06-07-2006 7:54 AM Someone who cares has replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5833 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 33 of 302 (318474)
06-06-2006 10:36 PM


Hi, SWC!
Hi, you're using my nickname already, do I know you from other forums? If not, just ignore this.
What are you trying to say here? Scales and feathers don't reproduce, and don't do like X-men and morph into something new with titanium claws.
Animals with scales and feathers, like chickens with scales on their legs, do reproduce, and the chicks don't exactly copy every feature of the parents. Some fancy breeds of chickens even have feathers down to their feet - where their ancestors had scales. Is this what you're driving at?
Ok, here's what I meant. Evolutionists say that reptiles evolved into birds. Reptiles have scales for a covering, birds have feathers. So, if reptiles evolved into birds, the scales would have to have evolved into feathers.
The Nylon Bug.
Long story short, it is a bacterium that had a frame-shift mutation that caused it to produce an enzyme that can metabolize nylon. Such a change would qualify it as a new species. Since macroevolution refers to speciation, that is an example of macroevolution.
Um, I would not say that speciation is macroevolution. Macroevolution would have to evolve one kind of an organism from another kind. Like a human from a monkey. A bird from a reptile. Etc. That is what I am looking for, not speciation.

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Coragyps, posted 06-06-2006 10:41 PM Someone who cares has replied
 Message 36 by Belfry, posted 06-06-2006 10:58 PM Someone who cares has replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5833 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 35 of 302 (318481)
06-06-2006 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Coragyps
06-06-2006 10:41 PM


As in the example I gave you, where the main selection pressure for the evolutionary event happened to be human desire for goofy-looking chickens. Leg scales ----> feathers. QED.
No, but see, that is breeding artificially, what you brought up. I want to see something in nature, happening without humans intervening. And, it would have to be a reptilian scale evolving into a bird feather, like a fossil of this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Coragyps, posted 06-06-2006 10:41 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Coragyps, posted 06-06-2006 10:59 PM Someone who cares has replied
 Message 38 by arachnophilia, posted 06-06-2006 11:00 PM Someone who cares has replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5833 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 40 of 302 (318493)
06-06-2006 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Belfry
06-06-2006 10:58 PM


If you mean a human individual born from a monkey individual, or a bird hatching from an egg laid by a reptile, these are not things that are expected according to evolutionary theory. They are silly creationist straw-man ideas of what evolution is. What you want is not macroevolution (which is really just the result of an accumulation of microevolutionary changes), but something more like saltationism.
No, that is not what I want. What you described with the reptile laying an egg with a bird is the "hopeful monster" theory which some have made after rejecting Darwinism. That is not macroevolution.
What I would mean, by a human from a monkey, is a REAl fossil(s) of this transition, one that is valid and relative. I know you believe evolution takes time and goes in steps. So show me the REAL steps of a monkey turning into a human, or something to the sort.
And no, microevolution does not accumulate to make macroevolution. They are two different things. Microevolution, I like to call it "variations within a kind", is those changes that happen within a kind. Macroevolution, real evolution, is when one kind of an organism evolves into a different one.

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Belfry, posted 06-06-2006 10:58 PM Belfry has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 06-06-2006 11:18 PM Someone who cares has replied
 Message 94 by RAZD, posted 06-07-2006 10:16 PM Someone who cares has replied
 Message 95 by kuresu, posted 06-07-2006 11:24 PM Someone who cares has replied
 Message 109 by RAZD, posted 06-08-2006 8:50 PM Someone who cares has replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5833 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 41 of 302 (318495)
06-06-2006 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by arachnophilia
06-06-2006 11:00 PM


well, what we have is the proof that one gene alters a condition which must previously exist. birds had feathers on all four limbs prior to developing scutes. in fact, we see confirmation of this in the fossil record: we have some nice four-winged dinosaurs.
but your post makes an additional error. while scutes and feathers are very similar in composition, scutes/feathers and reptilian scales (such as the ones found on the bottom of a bird's foot) are not the same at all. feathers evolved from something else. all of the earliest feathers we have are more similar to hair than to scales.
But see, if reptiles did indeed evolve into birds as evolutionists claim, then the scales would have to have evolved into feathers, and the one lung type would have to have evolved into the other one, and so on... I would like someone to show me a fossil of this transition, or evidence that it could happen in the genetic code, or something to the sort.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by arachnophilia, posted 06-06-2006 11:00 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by arachnophilia, posted 06-06-2006 11:34 PM Someone who cares has replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5833 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 42 of 302 (318497)
06-06-2006 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Coragyps
06-06-2006 10:59 PM


In that case you need to look into the large selection of bird-like dinosaur and dinosaur-like bird fossils that they just keep on finding in China, Madagascar, and Argentina. I'll have to dig out my file on them to give you names to Google - there are examples of a variety of not-quite-feathers on dinosaurs all the way to flight-like feathers on "birds" with teeth and long bony tails.
But would these finds show transitions from reptilian body parts to bird body parts? Scale-feathers? Or something else?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Coragyps, posted 06-06-2006 10:59 PM Coragyps has not replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5833 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 45 of 302 (318507)
06-06-2006 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
06-06-2006 11:18 PM


Re: Great example
Whale evolution is a GREAT place to start.
These things you want to see certainly exist.
Philip D. Gingerich
Evolution: Library: Whale Evolution
That does not show macroevolution. And, if it were true, it would not help evolution, it would show just the opposite, a whale losing legs. While evolution requires GAINING them. This would only prove the point that creatures can't gain new body parts that are not of their kind.

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 06-06-2006 11:18 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by arachnophilia, posted 06-06-2006 11:41 PM Someone who cares has replied
 Message 47 by jar, posted 06-06-2006 11:47 PM Someone who cares has replied
 Message 53 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 06-07-2006 12:18 AM Someone who cares has replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5833 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 48 of 302 (318521)
06-07-2006 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by arachnophilia
06-06-2006 11:34 PM


no. not at all. for starters, not all reptiles have scales in the manner that you are probably thinking. quite a lot are rather smooth skinned. and, we have a number reptiles, and things descended from sauropsids, that have hair. while early mammals/thecodonts are not the best example, pterosaurs are much more closely related. they are also archosaurs, reptiles, and many have hair.
feathers are hair-like structures, and simplest feathers (like down) are nearly analogous to hair in almost every way. first one strand per follicle, then many (down) and then twisting together into harder spines (the sorts of feathers chicken feet grow). as the spines continue to twist, you start seeing strands extend from them. from there it's just barbules to aid in rigidity, and assymetry to aid in flight. we have examples of many of these types of feathers.
I think you missed something very important. REPTILES DO NOT HAVE HAIR FOLLICLES! Reptile Skin Basics Thus, they cannot have hair!
so the fact that a dinosaur like velociraptor has hollow bones means it almost certainly had air sacs as well.
But you cannot prove this. "Almost certainly" doesn't cut it. Can you prove it?
but one thing is actually somewhat certain
But not exactly proven? "Somewhat certain" doesn't cut it. Can you prove it?
the system as a whole appears to have gone from a normal reptilian lung (lacking diaphragm), to a single-cycle air sac system,
Can you show me fossil forms leading to and from this creature, showing the slow progression of these changes?

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by arachnophilia, posted 06-06-2006 11:34 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by crashfrog, posted 06-07-2006 12:09 AM Someone who cares has replied
 Message 52 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2006 12:17 AM Someone who cares has replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5833 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 50 of 302 (318529)
06-07-2006 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by arachnophilia
06-06-2006 11:41 PM


Re: Great example
so you have no problem with the fact that whales are even-toed ungulates? in the same "kind" with hippos, pigs, llamas, camels, deer, sheep, goats, and antelope?
I never said that the whale was the same "kind" as hippos, pigs, llamas, camels, deer, sheep, goats, and antelope. You said that, not me, I do not believe in that.
ok. let's talk about tiktaalik, the fish with legs. i suppose he was "just created that way?"
Ahem! Did you actually do research on Tiktaalik? Well, I did. And guess what, I wasn't satisfied. Tiktaalik is NOT a fish with legs, you are overstating the truth, read some science articles about it. Did you look at the actual find? I did, and those "stubs" don't make a leg in any way. I call them stubs, that's what they are. They do not in any way resemble a full leg. And did you think of the possibility that those stubs could be flexible flippers, like those of seals? Hmmm...? Maybe that's what they are, not fin-legs. And, they didn't find the rear end of Tiktaalik. I bet that when and if they do, they would put down Tiktaalik and forget about the whole matter, they would probably blush and hide the evidence. Because the rear end would contain much valuable information about how Tiktaalik really was. Like if the pelvis was connected to the rest of the body, to allow legs that would actually do something. If it had back legs, probably not. And other things.

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by arachnophilia, posted 06-06-2006 11:41 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2006 12:31 AM Someone who cares has replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5833 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 51 of 302 (318532)
06-07-2006 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by jar
06-06-2006 11:47 PM


Re: Yet another mistake
That statement shows a major misunderstanding of evolution. It is not directional, towards adding something. Rather evolution is a history, it is looking backwards at what did happen. It could be gaining legs or losing them, or as happened several times, gaining wings, losing them and gaining them yet again.
It is change. And it is the history of what critters survived long enough to reproduce. It is not some issue of more or better, simply what worked.
But, that case would not help evolution. If it were losing legs, then that's not showing evolution, where one cell supposedly evolved into a man with legs and arms and a body and a head, etc. This would not help evolution, it would only make it worse. Evolution needs great increases to make a single cell evolve into a human! But decreases don't help at all!

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by jar, posted 06-06-2006 11:47 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 06-07-2006 12:37 AM Someone who cares has replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5833 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 54 of 302 (318537)
06-07-2006 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by crashfrog
06-07-2006 12:09 AM


I think you missed something very important - reptiles do have follicles - scale follicles. I mean, did you miss this? It's from the very article you link to:
But not HAIR FOLLICLES! We all know reptiles have scales! But someone claimed some of them have hair. Yet reptiles do NOT have HAIR follicles, thus hair would NOT grow!
That would seem to undercut almost every conclusion in your post.
No, I read that. And it does not harm my conclusion. Just because God decided to use the same substance to make hair and scales, does not mean one evolved into the other one! It's just more effective! God knows what He's doing!
Almost certain isn't good enough for you to come to a conclusion? Even about stuff that happened so long ago?
Why the high standards? Why so high only for evolution stuff? I'm fairly certain that you don't apply this same standard to anything else, do you?
Well, hello! I mean, I could say to an evolutionist, "I am almost certain evolution is immpossible due to genetics and other things." He wouldn't take that! Or would he?
But here, I'll say this, and we'll see the results.
I AM CERTAIN EVOLUTION (MACROEVOLUTION) HAS NEVER HAPPENED AND NEVER WILL HAPPEN! I CAN BET ON IT!

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by crashfrog, posted 06-07-2006 12:09 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2006 12:36 AM Someone who cares has replied
 Message 61 by Rob, posted 06-07-2006 12:54 AM Someone who cares has replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5833 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 56 of 302 (318540)
06-07-2006 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by arachnophilia
06-07-2006 12:17 AM


tell that to those crazy flying reptiles with hair.
Where?!? I don't see any, I can't speak to something I can't see! Show me through your binoculars where you spotted them.
internal organs are notoriously bad at fossilizing.
I would understand why. So we cannot be completely sure of this matter, right? What if the bones were hollow, but it didn't have air sacks? How would we know for sure? Guess we can't. See, dinosaurs had big and heavy bones to support all that weight. How could a dinosaur turn into a bird with light bones?

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2006 12:17 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2006 12:42 AM Someone who cares has replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5833 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 57 of 302 (318542)
06-07-2006 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
06-07-2006 12:18 AM


Re: Great example
You don't understand evolution even in the slightest. Evolution has no direction or destination.
Do you have any idea how wrong you are to imply that evolution requires gaining legs? It shows a profound lack of understanding of the subject.
Yes, I know evolution is unguided.
But how would a fish turn into an amphibian without gaining legs or parts of them or starting to evolve them from those fins?

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 06-07-2006 12:18 AM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5833 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 62 of 302 (318555)
06-07-2006 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by arachnophilia
06-07-2006 12:31 AM


Re: Great example
you said that losing limbs was acceptable. and that must mean that a creature like pakicetus (the whale with legs) is still "just a whale." nevermind that he is an even-toed ungulate.
Actually, I don't believe you should call that whale evolution, you fooled me for a while until I got out and actually did some research on this. That is misleading. That is not a whale losing legs. That is trying to tie Mesonychids with whales, but it's not true. The whale is the fully developed creature we know to be a whale now. The creatures above it are not whales, those are walking creatures that couldn't have evolved into whales. Check out this site to see why. Fossils | Answers in Genesis And, I did not classify the whale to be the same kind as a hippo! One common feature does not mean they are the same kind!
i see at least one leg bone (maybe two), some rudimentary digits, and something like a lobed fin on the end. what's it look like to you?
A bunch of pieces of some kind of bones. We must see different, but those bones do not resemble a fin-leg to me. I don't see the ball and socket joint required for a leg, I don't see the knee joint required for a leg, I don't see a foot and the bones connecting it to the leg, and neither do I see fins, which would look like a bunch of small stick like bones close together, kind of branching out.
did you? seal flippers are limbs, with fully formed digits. above is one hindlimb of a seal.
So it's not a fin-leg! There! It's probably a flipper. Problem solved! So that whole find can be put down. It's not a fish with legs. It's probably some kind of creature like a seal!
or, maybe they're more like the "limbs" of the coelacanth:
Maybe. But not fin-legs. So they shouldn't claim it to be that. They should call them flipper like limbs.
its skull makes it a fish, if that's what you're trying to say. the neck connection, however, is more amphibian. however, he doesn't have enough of a leg to be a land creature. we was clearly something that lived in the shallows, and used his rudimentary limbs to scoot around ponds (and maybe from pond to pond as lungfish and even catfish today do) to greater advantage that just the lobe-finned fish.
But it's not a fish with legs, as the original claim was. Maybe this creature had flipper like limbs. Maybe the head doesn't make it a fish. Maybe the neck doesn't make it amphibian. How can we be sure without the rear end? The part with much needed information.

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2006 12:31 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2006 1:16 AM Someone who cares has replied
 Message 96 by kuresu, posted 06-07-2006 11:38 PM Someone who cares 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