Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,173 Year: 5,430/9,624 Month: 455/323 Week: 95/204 Day: 11/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution Logic
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5861 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 151 of 302 (319382)
06-08-2006 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by crashfrog
06-08-2006 10:36 PM


Re: Great example
I think you meant "fish have remained fish."
Yes, thank you, I fixed that. You know, it's not easy sitting here for hours replying so many times, hurridly too. I mean, since I've started debating here, this thread grew by several pages! In about 24 hr!
But, yeah. Here's the thing - there's more different breeds of dogs now than before. There's more different species of monkey now than before. There's more families of fish now than before.
There's more different kinds of mammals now than before. More different kinds of plants. More different kinds of everything. That's the definition, and proof, of evolution. Evolution is not one organism changing into another. It's populations of species giving rise to new species. "Mammal" used to encompass a single species. Now it encompasses thousands. There used to be one kind of insect. Now there are millions.
That's evolution. And when we see new species arise, even now, that's observing evolution in action.
No, that is not macroevolution. That is variations within a kind. Yes, I believe that originally, all dog species probably came from one dog type, but that's still dogs! Not like they evolved into a different creature! Same with other creatures. This is just variations within a kind.
And you still haven't answered my question. Instead, you're reasoning circularly - your proof that evolution can't happen is because there's this barrier. But your proof that the barrier exists is your assertion that evolution can't happen.
I do believe I have already addressed the barrier issue, maybe after your post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by crashfrog, posted 06-08-2006 10:36 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by crashfrog, posted 06-08-2006 11:30 PM Someone who cares has replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5861 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 152 of 302 (319383)
06-08-2006 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Coragyps
06-08-2006 10:36 PM


I referred you to chickens with feathers on their legs, where their ancestors had scales/scutes/? in that position. There ya go.
But this is just a variation that can happen in chickens. It's not a reptilian scale evolving into a bird feather.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Coragyps, posted 06-08-2006 10:36 PM Coragyps has not replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5861 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 192 of 302 (319789)
06-09-2006 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by crashfrog
06-08-2006 11:30 PM


Re: Great example
One kind gives rise to several kinds, but each of those kinds is part of the original kind. It's hierarcheal, do you see? Kinds contain kinds. We use the term "taxa", though, or sometimes "clade."
Who said one kind gives rise to several kinds? What if one kind remained one kind?
Eventuallly, dogs will give rise to a different creature; but that creature will still be a dog. The dog "kind", that you recognize, will give rise to new kinds, but those kinds will still be part of the "dog kind." Just as the first mammal gave rise to many different kinds of creatures that are all still mammals. Just as the first vertebrate gave rise to many, many different kinds of creatures, all of which are still vertebrates.
Evolution doesn't predict that the decendant of dogs will not be dogs. They're be dogs, but they'll be something else, too, just as humans are both mammals and humans at the same time.
This isn't magic or mysticism, this is the imprecision of describing a hierarcheal concept in linear language.
Who said the dog kind will give rise to new kinds? What if it remains the dog kind? You have to consider the other views as well...

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by crashfrog, posted 06-08-2006 11:30 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by crashfrog, posted 06-09-2006 11:11 PM Someone who cares has replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5861 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 194 of 302 (319831)
06-09-2006 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by kuresu
06-09-2006 1:57 AM


Allow me to defend myself
wrong. Whales are thought to have come from a more hippo like species, if I remember correctly.
Actually, evolutionists say whales came from hippos, pigs, cattle, buffalo, etc. Creatures that have one certain hoof structure. I believe it was even on this thread, someone who was an evolutionist made the claim that whales came from hippos, pigs, cattle, etc, maybe a little while back.
This is from where you are explaining the fossil inconsistencies. Since when were insects not animals? I do believe their classification is Animalia, Arthropoda, Uniramia (the original Insecta). That's Kingdom, Phylum, Class. We are Animalia, Chordata, Mammalia, Primata, Hominidae, Homo, sapiens.
I meant mammals and reptiles and the rest of those. Yes, insects are animals. But they are very different in several ways from the rest of the animals.
I was unaware the Neanderthalensis had a civilization. I knew they had a culture, but not civilization. An entire race of cripples? I don't think it was arthritis that did this. In fact, they did not stoop, but walked properly.
Are you willing to support your claim, that they walked properly and upright? Please do.
Wow, okay. This is in reference to Homo erectus, everyone. Their brain volume varied within this range--750 - 1250 cc
. That's 3/4 of a liter to 1 and 1/4 liters. The modern human's brain volume is--a good chunk more, with less than one percent of the total human population reaching just under a liter in volume. Most of us have a brain capacity of almost 1.5 liters. Are you saying that the average European is stupid? Because if you are, I take offense to that (hey, I am half swede, so . . .).
No way, I do not mean you are in any way unsmarter than others. Just that the average brain size of a European is generally a bit smaller, like Homo erectus' brain size. Hey, I'm European too, don't think I would mean offense to myself.
And your point is? Humans are hominids. Hominid = The common name for humans and their ancestors, members of the family Hominidae. It consists of the genus Australopithecus and the genus Homo. Since the species in question is a Homo, then he is a hominid. Or perhaps you meant hominiod, of which we and erectus also belong. BY the way, homo is latin for "man" (I'm pulling this from the translation of Homo sapiens being "wise man" or "knowing man", and because their are different species in Homo)
I was meaning hominid as in the part of the supposed primate human ancestors, as it is in this definition: hominid: "an adjective referring to primate human ancestors and the rest of the human line or family, starting from Australopithecus" define:hominid - Google Search
An accepted timeline for the Homo genus and when each species was alive is this: Hominid Species (if an admin can link this, I don't know how, please do).
As you can clearly see (if you look at the picture) Homo erectus was gone by the time we were on the scene. Neanderthalnesis was just about gone, and questions are being raised as to whether or not they were still around in Europe by the time we were there.
Take a look at this chart. It's not exactly the one I would like, but, notice here, that archaic homosapiens lived during the times of homoerectus; and Neanderthal and modern homosapiens, and archaic homosapiens all lived in the same time period. Each graph differs, this one isn't quite the one I need, but you can see how they tie in here: No webpage found at provided URL: http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/images/table_of_hominid_evolution.gif
And here homo erectus is shown to be alive during Neanderthal: No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/Summer_2004/ling001/images/human_evolution.gif
See?
That double negative is throwing me for a loop. This is continuing in your vein of humans not being hominids. Which is showed just above to be wrong.
Sorry for the double negative, but the point is, Cro Magnon Man is not a hominid, or primate human, he is a fully developed human.
Can you tell me why a primitive man, with no form of toothbrushes, toothpaste, or flossing would not have tooth decay?
Because they didn't have refined sugars, and chocolate back then. They didn't eat as much sugar as we do today. Their sweets would be like honey, not cookies, and chocolate, and cakes, and frosting, and candy, and sticky candies, and brownies, and cupcakes, and gum, and pastries, and ice cream, etc..., as ours are today.
This is in a new paragraph in your paper, and it comes from Henry Morris saying who we are related to. And the quote is your answer. Actually, we are related to all of them, though some quite distantly (the butter bean being the most distantly related).
Actually, I was referring to Henry Morris' quote, I just followed the rules about making a new paragraph for a quote. But see, no one is claiming that our common ancestor is a butter bean! Or a chicken, or garter snake! Maybe I should have used the words "common ancestor" instead of "related to." That would have made it clearer.
If you want to argue this point, I recommend taking it to my thread, titled about morality and charity and how they fit into the evolutionary paradigm. Point is, they do. Also, we are not the only animal with intelligence, language, or altruism.
Humans are the only ones with a complex SPOKEN language. Yes, some creatures have their own form of communication, but not complex spoken languages...
This one might be long. The first part of that quote makes me think of this show called "Way of the Master", which was quite ridiculus with trying to disprove evolution by using this argument. Actually, this answer will be short. Reason being, in order to explain why it is wrong, I need to explain all of evolution and how it works--something which you seem to not understand by this and many other statements you made (or make for the moment). You are right in that evolution can't tell a creature to evolve the right stuff for the right things, but this is not proof against evolution. They get the right stuff for the right things through natural selection, which isn't all that unguided. We can discuss this at a later point.
By "unguided", I mean unguided by an Intelligent Being.
Well blow me down and shiver me timbers, I never knew this! or wait, are you possibly wrong again? Me thinks it's the latter choice. They are similar in that they are eyes, and the interpret light stimulation, however, as far as the mechanisms they operate off of, the octupus eye is much different (like how each type of eye focuses). It's equivalent to saying a bird and bat wing are similar. Oh yeah, for those who couldn't tell, this part of the paper is trying to explain why things have similar things without using common ancestry, and in this case, it's God using the same design over and over.
The octopus eye is very similar to the human eye. That doesn't mean there aren't any differences.
The continuation of the last quote. Actually, we do claim that we have a common ancestor with octupi. In fact, we claim that all living organisms today have a common ancestor (or at the very most a few common ancestors).
Are you saying that the octopus and the human came from one ancestor?!?
Not that great a definition of natural selection, so I might want to introduce it now, as it makes sense here.
First of, NS (natural selection) applies to all living organsisms, not just animals and plants.
Secondly, this is how NS operates.
Let's take a population of deer. The habitat can support 1000 deer.
Now then, more offspring are created than the habitat can support. Lets says, for simplicity's sake, that the parents are all gone.
And let's say they made 3000 fawns. We now have 3000 fawns competing for those 1000 spots. The 1000 that make it to sexual maturity are the ones who get to reproduce, and they pass their genes off to their offspring. The reason they are in the top 1000 is becuase they were the most "fit"--best adapted to their environment.
The other 2000 of the second generation (parents are first generation, then the offspring, offsprings offspring not included) die before they can pass off their genes, or they move out of the habitat. Either way, those 2000 were not "fit" enough, and do not pass off thier genes in this population of deer.
Let's use a real world example, like Sickle Cell Anemia. It is generally a deletorius gene--that means it's bad. However, in regions in the world with a high incidence of malaria, it is no longer deleterious so long as the person with is not homozygous recessive. The normal, dominant condition is AA. The SCA condition is either Aa or aa. The last is what is known as homozygous recessive, and it kills you before the age of five, well before we reach sexual maturity. The heterozygous condition (Aa) is also deleterious, except in places with malaria.
Another fact to remember, malaria kills those without SCA much more easily, so they often do not reach sexual maturity.
THis means that the most "fit" are the ones with the heterozygous condition, becuase they survive to sexual maturity and procude more offspring than the others. And becuase the others are not passing their genes on, fewer and fewer are going to be AA or aa, until most of, if not all of, the population is Aa.
And if someone else can better explain this, please do, because I realize I'm not the best at explaining.
Thanks for the explanation. But it really doesn't mean much to my essay. Most people already know what natural selection is, the name gives it away! So I didn't go on explaining it.
Do you know how many genes humans have? about 25,000, based off of the research done by the Human Genome Project. Do you know how many the common fruit fly, Drosophilia melanogaster, has? Something like twice as many. So does this mean that the fruit fly is more complex than man? Because that is what you are implying--you need more information for more complexity, and lo and behold, man has relatively few genes. I guess that means were pretty simple, huh?
No, that's not what it means. But take the bacteria, and take a human, which has more genetic code information?
Actually, it fits in perfectly with NS, as Darwin realized. Those that die before they can reproduce will not pass on these deletorius genes, and hence NS is verified, not falsified.
But what about evolution in general? How is that single cell going to get to a human, if 99% or so of mutations are harmful or neutral?
Mutations in somatic cells (body cells) will not make a monkey walk upright. In order to do that, the mutations would have to change the monkey's skeletal structure while it is living, as well as reposition the entrance of the spinal cord into the skull and doing a few other odds and ends, and no matter how much the transformers may look real, those sort of mutations aren't possible. Our bodies just can't reorient that quickly without being excrutiatingly painful as well as possibly deadly (for those who read everything in Metroid Prime, think back to what happened to the Space Pirates that tried to use Samus' morph ball--death).
I didn't say mutations would do it. I just said IF a monkey did learn to walk upright, it's decsendants wouldn't. So how did stooped monkeys evolve into upright humans?
Not quite true. Starfish empty their stomachs onto their food. Reptiles don't have diaphrams. Insects don't use thier mouths to breathe, and they don't have noses. many animals don't even have lungs. We might need them, but that doesn't mean that they don't work without those other parts or can't be used without the other parts.
Notice the word "our" that I used. This means I was speaking of humans, the only ones able to read my essay.
Again, I refer you to the morality, charity, and evolution thread of mine to see why you are wrong. with this. Oh, and natural selection doesn't evolve anything, it is the mechanism by which organisms evolve. It's like saying that the computer monitor runs the computer, but it is actually the mechanism by which the computer displays graphic representations of data.
I know natural selection doesn't do the evolving part. But how could those emotions evolve WITH THE HELP of the mechanism - natural selection? I'm new here, I haven't gotten to all the threads I'd like to, so maybe a bit later I can see your thread.
And this disproves evolution how? Remember, there was no life, and then there was. Even if God made life, he still made it out of non-life--you know, the whole from the dust of the earth bit, from which you are made you shall return.
Biological evolution only starts when there is life present, it doesn't matter how said life arose.
God doing it, and random processes doing it, are two different things. God can do anything. Random processes cannot form life from non life, that goes against scientific principles.
Oh, so you say it doesn't matter how life arose? You aren't even the least bit curious? Wish you would spend a little more time thinking about that, maybe you will come to the conclusion that God did it.
And this disproves evolution? Who said a plant cell had to be simpler, they could just as well be more complex. After all, they are our relatives (and the possible descendants of the animal kingdom, at any rate, they appear after animals do). If evolution is supposed to increase complexity, like you imply, then you contradict yourself. At any rate, we know fairly well how chlorophyll converts solar energy into chemical energy.
There are two photosytems, I and II. In each one, there are two types of chlorophyll, A and B. Chl. B surrounds A. Now then, when light hits photosystem II, it excites electrons in the photosystem. These are bounced around until they end up on the chlorophyll A molecule, which then throws it out of the photosystem. This electron passes through what is known as an electron transport chain, and something like 2 ATP is made. Then this electron enters photosystem I, bounces around until it gets to the A molecule in the center, it launched up again, and absorbed by (NADP?). But I'm too far ahead. Remember that first photosystem? Well, when that electron jumped out of it, it split water. This is possibly done by activating an enzyme or through the eletrical charge itself. Then you have 2Hsub2O yielding 2Hsub2 and Osub2. The Hydrogen is accepted by (NADP?) The oxygen will be incorporated into the Calvin Cycle, which makes the sugar molecules that provide the source for chemical energy, which is what the mitochondria does. The (NADP?) becomes NADPHsub2 at the end of all this, at which point it plays a role in the Calvin Cycle. Don't get me started on meiosis.
Oh, and you say a random, chance process did all this?!? ^^ How could it?
Not too far off, but ultraviolet radiation is nothing more than alpha radiation, if I remember correctly. Alpha radiation can be stopped by a piece of paper. Water breaks up Ultraviolet radiation, so in a deeper pool of water, the amino acids would be quite safe from the UV radiation. Again, this doesn't disprove evolution.
But then, ultraviolet rays of the sun break up water molecules, which would in effect release oxygen, which would kill the surrounding amino acids. This only goes to show how impossible the whole thing is, with or without oxygen in the atmosphere in the beginning.
Actually, it can. Do you realize how many simple organisms there are on this planet today? They outnumber the complex ones by a lot. Simple ones can also be simplified. Also, what if they lived at the same time? You use this same argument to say that Homo sapiens lived at the same time as Homo erectus, and thus we didn't come from this "simple" man. Parent species don't have to die out after a speciation event.
But why would these "parent" species be found in "more recent" layers than the daughter species?
No, evolution cannot. But paleontology can. Ever hear of Pompeii? That entire city was buried in a very short period of time (in less than an hour if I'm not mistaken), and everone in the city was preserved. This same phenomenon happens a lot with the fossil record, and a good thing to.
Have you considered that a massive, quick flood would explain this better? Then volcano eruptions and dust and wind and local floods... A massive flood would do this instantly, whereas local floods and small events wouldn't have much of the same power to do it.
Evolution does not require upgrading or degrading. (This one is refering to vestigial organs)
Then how did a single cell evolve into a human?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't your paper state that
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are two basic forms of evolution: microevolution, and macroevolution. Microevolution is just the variations within a kind of an organism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When trying to disprove something, or prove something, its best not to contradict yourself. It just doesn't add credibility to your argument. And unless I'm gravely mistaken, nothing I written here is a contradiction or one as big as the one you made in that paper.
That was not a contradiction. Didn't you read that part, where I said the evolution I will be referring to is macroevolution? So anywhere where I said "evolution", I was referring to macroevolution, therefore, that was not a contradiction.
I've answered this before. You know, about how humans actually have a small number of genes compared to simpler orgranisms, and how evolution doesn't require new information in the manner you mean.
Then how does a single cell evolve into a human, without great increases of new information?
By that same logic, the world should be overflowing with visible bacteria (visible because there are so many). It's called the carrying capacity of the environment, that it, how many organisms the environment can support. And we have a tendency to increase that with our agricultural methods. That began ten-thousand years ago (roughly the time of the agricultural revolution). Before then, we were hunter-gatherers, and that lends itself towards smaller, village like or less numbers in the community. In fact, even with agricuture, the carrying capacity didn't increase too much, as evidenced by the native americans, with a few notable exceptions. It wasn't until mechanized farming that the capactiy wildly increased. And since then, we have grown exponentially in population. Again, not a disprove of evolution.
It shows that evolution is flawed. I mean, if humans have been around for "millions" of years or something, then, according to average reproduction speed, we would have way too many humans!
As a final note. WHy the focus of plants and animals? You really should have included all the kingdoms, and if you want, I can dig through your paper again for more wrong stuff. I jsut spent over two hours on this set of roughly 27 quotes, but I know of more mistakes you made in the paper, I just didn't feel like going through them all.
You know what? Why did evolutionists only make up some charts for how animals evolved? Why didn't they make up a chart of how each plant evolved, and the common ancestors, etc.? Hmmm...
You may continue showing supposed "mistakes." I will continue defending myself. If you don't want to, you don't have to. But I'm ready if you want to. No problem.
Edited by Someone who cares, : Mistake.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by kuresu, posted 06-09-2006 1:57 AM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by jar, posted 06-10-2006 12:09 AM Someone who cares has replied
 Message 196 by crashfrog, posted 06-10-2006 12:17 AM Someone who cares has replied
 Message 197 by kuresu, posted 06-10-2006 1:04 AM Someone who cares has replied
 Message 198 by ReverendDG, posted 06-10-2006 4:32 AM Someone who cares has replied
 Message 199 by Belfry, posted 06-10-2006 8:55 AM Someone who cares has replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5861 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 218 of 302 (320147)
06-10-2006 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by RAZD
06-09-2006 8:23 AM


Re: "Macro"evolution still undefined.
You have not demonstrated why it cannot be the accumulation of many "micro"evolutionary changes in species over time, and until you DO that you cannot CLAIM it is not such an accumulation.
Would you be willing to explain to me how tiny variations within the kind could accumulate to make a new kind?
This is a false statement, you have been corrected on it, so repeating it is just repeating your previous mistake.
Repeating false statements does not make them any more valid the second or the hundreth time it is repeated.
How have I been corected? I still repeat my claim, no one has yet shown me a transitional fossil that is undebatable, and no one can. Because the fossil record does indeed have "sudden" appearances of all the kinds of creatures. Like in the lowest layer, there are fully developed sponges, trilobites, jellyfish, worms, and other organisms, and this is the bottom of the geologic column!
Evolution is change in species over time. That is all there is. It happens on a species to species level. After species have diverged there is NO mechanism that prevents further changes in either species, but they will always be related back to the species where they separated ways.
Microevolution, what you just said about species changing is microevolution. But not the popular evolution belief, macroevolution. And yes, I have already gave my general definition from macroevolution, for what it WOULD be, please check back.
Is there any reason these two species at the end cannot diversify further? What is it and how does it operate?
The species can continue to have variation, within the kind. Look at a wolf, and look at a poodle, they sure do look different, don't they? But it's still a dog "kind." It's not like a dog evolved into a cat or something.
This is the second or third time that you have refused to substantiate an assertion of yours. A young earth is NOT supported by facts, the facts show just the opposite, and until you can show that is not so you are making an assertion that is contradicted by the facts (ie -- you are just plain wrong).
I said I would support my claim later, in a more suitable thread, and you still attack me. Please, have patience. I have enough on my hands with only two threads! And the facts do support a young earth, I will show you later in the thread for it. As the administrator said, this thread has gone way off topic, you are promoting it to go even more off topic. Let us not do this. Specific topics will go to specific threads, as this young earth thing.
Let me help remain with this topic by saying: Evolution logic? No, evolution is not logical. A single cell, forming into a human, and everything else, by chance, randomly, unguided by a Higher Being, is not logical. It defies all logic. That random, chance processes would make creatures able to make sounds, and make them also have ears to pick up those sounds. To make the sights, and to also make the eye to see them, by chance. To make the smell producing foods and flowers and trees, and to also make the nose to be able to sense these smells, by random chance. To make varying temperatures, and to make sensors in our bodies to be able to differentiate between the temperatures, by chance. To make food, and to make mouths and digestive systems to use to food for our survival, without guidance by a Higher Being. No my friends, evolution is not logical. Evolution could not do all this by chance, by random processes, unguided by a Higher Being. And did you know that the chance for the single living cell to form by chance, is mathematically impossible? You have to have a lot of faith in a theory that is mathematically impossible... That's why evolution is like a religion. It takes faith.
That is an assertion. You made an assertion, you failed to substantiate or to defend your assertion when challenged.
I didn't make an assertion. Please read over those posts. Someone said we cannot rely on AIG for information. I said, that I could use the same reasoning and say we cannot rely on TO. Pointing out how that reasoning could be flipped back at the person from the opposite view. So thus that claim shouldn't have been made, it could be used against the person making it.
I'll read it tonight just for fun, but you might want to post it to a new topic to see how well it stands up in the real world: anyone can post whatever they like on a website, there is no need for any of it to be true eh?
So far all I have seen is one argument from incredulity and ignorance after another. Yawn.
Oh, right. I'm sure that those many sources I used mean nothing to you? The Bibliography, the Works Cited?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by RAZD, posted 06-09-2006 8:23 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Chiroptera, posted 06-10-2006 7:32 PM Someone who cares has not replied
 Message 220 by jar, posted 06-10-2006 7:53 PM Someone who cares has not replied
 Message 221 by crashfrog, posted 06-10-2006 7:58 PM Someone who cares has not replied
 Message 227 by RAZD, posted 06-10-2006 8:25 PM Someone who cares has not replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5861 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 222 of 302 (320185)
06-10-2006 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by arachnophilia
06-09-2006 10:55 AM


Re: Great example
yet as even aig shows in another graphic, there is considerably more of the pakicetus skeleton than that:
I think you missed something. See, Gingerich probably did draw the picture with only two skull fragments. And later, someone found the whole skull or something. But we are speaking of Gingerich's picture, when speaking of the skull fragments. Sure, maybe later along the way, someone found the whole skull, or fake it, or something like that... Thanks for the picture, where did you get it? What is the source? Can we rely on it?
no, i emphasized a word for a reason. it's the important word. they are PECTORAL, not HIND limbs. they do not have ball and socket joints or kneecaps. no tetrapod -- including you -- has a ball and socket joint for your shoulder, and a kneecap in your elbow.
When I said knee cap I was referring to the hind legs, the part they haven't yet found. And, this may startle you, but yes, you do have a ball and socket joint for your shoulder, check out this site: Forbidden
Bet you didn't know that, huh? It's okay, we all make mistakes sometimes.
But my point was, you called it a pectoral fin, not a limb, or something. As someone claimed it was a leg.
so it's a fish, with a leg?
No, maybe that's not a leg at all. Or maybe, it didn't even belong to Tiktaliik. Or maybe, Tiktaliik is not a fish.
stubby legs that highly resemble lobed fins (as in a coelacanth) that would have been largely incapable of walking on land.
So it's not a fish with legs? Like someone said? Because legs have to be able to move a creature on land, you just said those "things" wouldn't be able to do that.
i did. there's a picture a few pages back.
I know, but I didn't see any hands or fingers.
i'll remember not to bring up chemistry or physics then.
Lol. Yes, thank you. Please don't, I don't know much about those topics! It would help to not bring them up!
if you found half a fish, would you be able to guess at what the rest looked like? if you found half a newt, would you be able to guess at what the rest looked like? if you found half something that looked like both a newt and a fish, would the rest of it be important to telling you it was something similar to both a fish and a newt?
See, if it were just half a fish, or just half a newt, we wouldn't really need the back end. But evolutionists are claiming it is a transitional fossil, a fish with legs, so the rear end is important to see if that is valid and true. Like it would tell us if the pelvis is connected to the vertebrae, if it had hind legs or just a tail, and more important information like that.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by arachnophilia, posted 06-09-2006 10:55 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Coragyps, posted 06-10-2006 8:40 PM Someone who cares has not replied
 Message 243 by arachnophilia, posted 06-10-2006 10:51 PM Someone who cares has not replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5861 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 225 of 302 (320216)
06-10-2006 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by arachnophilia
06-09-2006 11:07 AM


the animal we were looking at is not a bird at all.
Ok, thanks for the info. But pterosaur is classified as an archosaur, which contains birds. But you're right, there's also crocodiles and dinosaurs in that category. So, you say this is a reptile-dinosaur type of creature?
actually, it is. it's hard to do it an be convincing. one, maybe, could be faked. but *all* the pterosaurs we have with hair? and all of the dinosaurs with feathers?
Probably not all. But there is a possibility that some were faked. It's easy to carve into an old fossil, if you have the right tools.
the same way anything else fossilized. by making an impression that fills with minerals.
Have you considered how great of a force it would take to leave an imprint in rock? Probably something like, a great flood?
hair (and feathers) don't fossilize very well either. it doesn't mean they DON'T.
But think of it, all those fossils with hair and feathers being fossilized, I think there's some conspiracy behind it or some of it...
because it's such a minor one, and it's not my job to go around correcting every herpetology website about tiny errors.
Maybe it's not a mistake after all? That's a possibility...
yes.
Dinosauria On-Line
if you remove a single gene from the chicken genome, the scutes on their feet are replaced by feathers. this gene is the one that modifies feathers into scutes. one gene.
But see, that is from one creature, a bird that had the genes for scutes and feathers. But how about reptilian scales and bird feathers, do you have proof that they came from one gene?
except, of course, for the fact that they do have a lot to do with feathers, if we can fairly easily turn them into feathers. we also have some dinosaurs, like microraptor gui, that have flight feathers on their feet, growing from where modern birds have scutes:
But those dinosaurs are not birds. And I thought they can only turn into feathers easily in chickens. But that's not reptilian scales evolving into bird feathers.
no, please try to follow along.
the reptilian scales on a bird's feet, which are located on the bottom of the foot, are not the same chemical composition as feathers. the bird scales on a bird's feet, SCUTES, which are located on the top of the foot, ARE.
So you're saying that the chicken has reptilian scales? How? Oh, and, scutes are also the scales of turtles and other creatures, not just chickens.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by arachnophilia, posted 06-09-2006 11:07 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by arachnophilia, posted 06-10-2006 10:19 PM Someone who cares has not replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5861 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 228 of 302 (320234)
06-10-2006 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by arachnophilia
06-09-2006 11:19 AM


what mechanism prohibits change from compiling?
Variations can compile, I mean, look at the wolf and the poodle, they do look very different, but they're still the "dog" kind. Variations can compile, but they cannot produce different kinds!
many reptiles lack crocodilian-type scales. an early reptile might have grown hair (and the follicles it requires) during the shift to warm-blood. there were many adaptations that aided in this, but one -- bipedalism - required it.
"Might have?" But can we see proof that this happened?
all 7, faked in exactly the same, precisely accurate way? a way that's fooled paleontologists trained at spotting fakes? a way that lines up nicely with every other feathered dinosaur found?
Notice I said SOME, not all. I think at least two of them are faked.
bad logic. evolution is not a straight line, it's a forking tree. archaeopteryx is not a direct ancestor of modern birds, no. but it is closely related to the common ancestor of it, and modern birds.
"transitional" doesn't mean "exactly between in a direct line of ancestors." it means that it indicates the sorts of transitions that were going on.
But those transitions were supposed to happen slowly, bit by bit, right? So where are the fossils to show the slow transitions leading to archaeopteryx, and coming from it?
scales did not evolve into feathers.
and if if they did, what would you expect to see as a transition? tell me how you would represent a transition, with one species, frozen in time, in the rock? would you accept less advanced feathers? we have those too.
Oh? So you say that scales didn't slowly evolve into feathers? Instead they just jumped suddenly from one to the other, from reptile covering to bird covering? That's not how your theory goes. And no, "less advanced" feathers won't do.
birds have hollow bones as part of their respiratory system. they have hollow bones because they have air sacrs. actually, the hollow bones are the air sacs.
But why would non avian dinosaurs have air sacs? Would it benefit them in any way?
birds are reptiles too. they're warm blooded. remember that page you just looked up about archosaurs? birds are dinosaurs, dinosaurs are archosaurs, archosaurs are sauropsides ("reptiles").
but you failed to follow the logic here. cold blooded animals cannot be bipedal. period. they have to remain close to the ground for warmth. because dinosaurs walked with their legs under them, and often on two legs (the four legged ones, btw, all started off bipedal) they MUST have been warm-blooded in some degree.
Why "must?" I mean, say, what if the climate and atmosphere during dinosaurs was different than todays?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by arachnophilia, posted 06-09-2006 11:19 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by arachnophilia, posted 06-10-2006 9:57 PM Someone who cares has not replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5861 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 230 of 302 (320238)
06-10-2006 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by RAZD
06-09-2006 8:41 PM


Re: define "Macro"evolution ... eh?
Your comment on Lucy with the knee is typical of the lack of any care or attempt to find the truth of the statements you included. This has already been dealt with on the Lucy - fact or fraud? (click) thread, so I expect you either to:
(1) Correct your essay accordingly (the honest thing to do) or
(2) Substantiate you claim -- on the linked thread, not here -- by providing actual evidence of professional misconduct by the scientists involved (the other honest thing to do) or
(3) Continue in your ignorance and incredulity to claim such falsehoods as if they were real (with some mistaken belief that you are somehow right to do so, no matter how dishonest it is)
Well, you know what? If you do indeed believe it is a false statement, then why don't you talk about it with the source of that statement? Because you see, I just gathered the information from many sources, and put it together. I was not the one digging the finds or recording them or making those statements. So, I suggest, you send a letter or email or make a phone call, or something, directly to the source: Gish, Duane T. The Amazing Story of Creation from Science and the Bible El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1990, p.83. Ok? If they decide to change their books and change the statement, then I will have to change my essay. But if not, then you can just accept the fact that I used that source, and any problems you have with their information, should be directed to them, not me. Or, you could just do nothing about it. Your choice. I put a number after that statement in my essay, which tells you which source that information was from, so, problems would have to be directed to that source, not me. I didn't make up that statement.
So: you have not presented any evidence yet to show that an accumulation of small changes over time results in the 'remarkable' differences that we humans consider different enough to characterize as {family} or larger taxon groups.
Actually, you are the one who should be doing that, not me.
Do you or do you not agree that this is just normal speciation - that Pelycodus ralstoni evolved into Pelycodus trigonoodus which then evolved into Pelycodus jarrovii which then evolved into two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus -- all by "micro"evolutionary changes, small changes where they remained essentially the same sort (kind) of organisms, yes?
Do you agree that this is no different than "dog is dog" variations? If no why not?
Once we have established the "micro"evolution aspects of the fossil record of events like this we can move on to the next level.
If your information is correct, then I can say, that the two species came about by variation within the kind. This is acceptable in my theory. As long as it is WITHIN the kind. Yes, variation does happen, within the kind.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by RAZD, posted 06-09-2006 8:41 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Coragyps, posted 06-10-2006 8:58 PM Someone who cares has not replied
 Message 237 by RAZD, posted 06-10-2006 9:44 PM Someone who cares has not replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5861 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 231 of 302 (320240)
06-10-2006 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by crashfrog
06-09-2006 11:11 PM


Re: Great example
Who said? That's what we observe. We see it happen.
It does stay one kind, though. One kind that contains an increasing number of kinds.
What if it remains the dog kind?
It will. But that kind contains a bunch more kinds. Is it just that you don't get the idea of a hierarcheal system of classification?
No, one kind doesn't give rise to other kinds. I have yet to see a dog evolving into a cat, or something to the sort, it hasn't been observed.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by crashfrog, posted 06-09-2006 11:11 PM crashfrog has not replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5861 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 232 of 302 (320241)
06-10-2006 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by jar
06-10-2006 12:09 AM


Re: Allow me to defend myself
Well, I think I responded to that back in on pairs and tells (Message 161).
The human is about average for the lower end of critterdom, having about the same amount as corn or chimps, but certainly not as much as a lungfish, or common toad or amoeba.
I didn't say the length of the genome. Just take the DNA content, which has more volume of DNA content?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by jar, posted 06-10-2006 12:09 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by jar, posted 06-10-2006 9:06 PM Someone who cares has not replied
 Message 238 by RAZD, posted 06-10-2006 9:53 PM Someone who cares has not replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5861 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 234 of 302 (320243)
06-10-2006 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by crashfrog
06-10-2006 12:17 AM


Re: Allow me to defend myself
You really need to look stuff up while you're typing it, because this sentence doesn't make a lick of sense. "Hydrogen molecules" don't contain oxygen.
Yes, thank you, not hydrogen molecules, WATER molecules. I will fix that.
And this? I mean, what are you talking about? Of course there's charts for how plants evolved. Plant evolution is a huge deal, particularly in agroscience, where it's super-important. There's a lot of work being done on plant evolution.
You really need to be checking your statements more carefully.
Really? Could you show me a plant evolution chart with all of the plant types in it? I haven't come across one yet.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by crashfrog, posted 06-10-2006 12:17 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Belfry, posted 06-10-2006 9:26 PM Someone who cares has not replied
 Message 240 by Wounded King, posted 06-10-2006 10:06 PM Someone who cares has not replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5861 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 244 of 302 (320307)
06-10-2006 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by kuresu
06-10-2006 1:04 AM


Re: Allow me to defend myself
Evolutionists can be wrong, and I don't think that hippos have a similar hoof structure to pigs, cattle, and I don't think that the whale ancestor would be based off of hoof structure alone, esp. since today whales have no hooves.
Even someone here said that the supposed pre-whale forms like Ambulocetes had legs, and this would be under the category ungulates, so this means that the whales, hippos, pigs, cattle are all related. It's not my words, an evolutionist said it.
You agree that insects are animals, which was not evienced in your paper. If I remeber correctly, the way you wrote it was to imply that insects aren't animals. However, they are not that different. First off, they represent one of the major classes in the animal kingdom. And that class belongs to one of the major phylums of the same kingdom.
Yes, I never considered insects to be like the rest of the animals, I don't know if I do now. But according to the classification system, it appears they are animals. But I see much difference between an insect and another animal, I probably wouldn't have classified it to be an animal, but I guess scientists have.
Then you are still wrong on saying that Homo erectus is not a hominid. The definition you use is not too different from the one I used. Fact is, they are hominids, or else they wouldn't be the the hominidae family (which is where hominidae is gotten).
The fact that we may or may not have been alive along with H. erectus and H. neanderthalensis does not mean that we didn't evolve from them. Of course, in the H. neanderthalensis case, the scientific conclusion is that they are a cousin, not an ancestor. H.erectus is, if I remember correctly.
When I refer to hominid, I mean a primate human, as it was in the first part of the definition I gave earlier. So when I say a certain class is not hominid, I mean to say, it is not a primate human, it is either a primate, or a human, not a transition or combination.
For previously stated reasons, you are still wrong on this. Cro-magnon is H.sapiens (and we are, more specifically, H. sapiens sapiens). As such, he is a hominid.
As I have stated above, "not hominid" means he is not a monkey human, he is either fully monkey, or fully human, not an inbetween.
That doesn't mean that they can't have tooth decay. All you need is for bacteria to break through the lining on our teeth, which is what plaque does. A cracked tooth would easily allow for it, I'd say.
Maybe. But it was rarer back then, than it is now, if not totally non existent.
And of course they aren't our ancestor--all those species are currently alive today, and our links with them are millions and millions of years older--when these species weren't present.
Even the chimpanzee?
Yes. I would need to look at a cladistics chart to be more precise, but we do share a common ancestor. Now, if you mean that Octupi and humans share a recent ancestor, then no (recent being less than several hundred million years ago).
That's a first! You say that the octopus and the human branched off from one creature?!? That they had a common ancestor?
You don't need mutations to get multicelled creatures. You just need a colony (which most likely is created because the genetics allow for communication or whatever). From there things get more complex, and even if 99% of mutations won't help doesn't mean it won't, or can't, happen. I refer you to my post regarding the 603 or more generations needed to rework your post into one supporting evolution, as to why this is so.
I'm sure you heavily rely on mutations as the mechanism which did most of the supposed evolving.
A somewhat long answer. First off, what do you mean by stooped, because that generally refers to a hung head and a bent back. Monkeys do not walk upright because their hips and head don't allow for it. You need to change the orientation of the pelvis so that the legs are closer to gether (closer to being parallel with each other, rather than being pointed away from each other at something like a 45 degree angle). Then, the spinal cord needs to enter from the bottom of the skull, not the back, in order for the head to be held up porperly. This would be done through mutation.
You think mutations would be able to do all that? Totally move bones and put them in different positions and different places?
I really wish you would get the time to check out the "morality, charity according to evolution" thread. It should help increase your understanding of how they fit in.
I really wish too! But I'm just so busy with only 2 threads! I can barely keep up! And I just started visiting these forums. I have a lot of threads I would still like to see, but it may take some time for me to get there...
You were using it as a disproof of evolution, which it isn't, which is why I explained it out. I am curious as to how life originated, but it's not important to the theory of evolution, the one area I'm schooled in as far as science goes. (though not so much as some others here)
But how did the first living cell or organism come about? Did it evolve from non living matter?
You're moving the goalpost. You claimed that we did not fully understand how this process works, and by doing so, trying to claim "how can we then fully understand anything else". I was just showing you how much we do know. And yes, random processes were invovled, as in the mutations that lead to the ability to create chlorophyll, and whether or not it was inbedded in the thylakoid membrane. However, the reaction is predictable, nothing random about the chemical reaction itself.
I don't believe scientists COMPLETELY know how it all works out, why it happens like it does, etc. Can you COMPLETELY explain the conversion process that turns light energy into chemical energy? Not just what mechanisms it uses and the steps, but how it exactly works.
Perhaps the parent species outlived the daughter species. Or, maybe we haven't found any daughter species fossils yet in the younger layer. Again, not a disproof of evolution, which I contend you were using it as.
Look, by your theory, simple organisms evolved into more complex ones. Now why would we find simpler organisms above the more complex ones in the geologic column? I say a flood would explain it.
I'm going to assume that you mean water molecules. I left out that statement because of the ambiguity as to which molecule the UV rays were breaking up. After all, Hsub2 has no oxygen. Now, Hsub2O does.
And how I wish this were true. That would mean that we could get all the hydrogen needed for the hydrogen powered cars really cheap. Let the sun do the work. But question--considering its the UV rays that create the sunburn, that means that UV rays reach the earth's surface. Why does it now not split water?
Yes, water molecules. H20
Now, if the early earth didn't have oxygen, there would be no ozone layer, which would allow A LOT more UV rays to reach the earth. But now we have oxygen and an ozone layer, which helps protect the earth against most UV rays from the sun, which means we have a lot less UV rays now, than the "supposed" oxygen free atmosphere of the early earth. But, either way, oxygen in the beginning or not, amino acids would not survive, much less form a living cell...
I'm not even going to bother with the global flood. You do realize that the bible says it rained for 40 days and nights. The force you describe in your paper is that of a flash flood or a fire hose. Not the force of a global flood. And volcanoes do a really good job at fossilizing. I wouldn't be surprised if fossils were found in Indonesia (wherever it will be millions of years from now) from the recent eruption.
Yes, the Bible says it rained, but the Bible also says, "...on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." Genesis 7:11
That sure does sound like the beginning of the flood was a flash flood, windows of heaven opening, fountains of the deep, probably geyesers, exploding, fire hose like pressure - you bet! If not greater!!
Now then, as to the contradiction. This is what you did.
"Evolution = microevolution and macroevolution.
When I say evolution, I mean macro."
or
"x = y,z
x = z
both are true"
And yet you have already defined what you consider evolution in the paper before you make the second statement. Which means that you are saying this.
"macro is evolution. macro is therefore micro and macro."
or
"x = z
z = z, y
both true"
do you not see the contradiction? Esp. if both statements are true. How can "x = y,z" be and "x =z" This means that "y,z" are the same thing. Which means that you are saying that macro is the same as micro. Or "y = z". Which means, since you accept micro, you must then also accept macro. Way to go for disproving macroevolution. It's the most original strategy I've seen--disprove by acceptance.
No, here's how it went. I said there are two basic forms of evolution, macro, and micro. Then I said, after describing macro, this is the evolution we will be talking about when referring to "evolution." So from that point on, unless specified, all terms "evolution" in my essay meant macroevolution. Thus it was not a contradiction.
This would assume that we all die at old age, and that our growth has been constant. It took over a million years to get a billion people. A century later, there were three billion. But that doesn't mean evolution is flawed. How can one too many of any organism disprove evolution?
But it does make evolution flawed, we are not overflowing with humans on earth! Yes, of course there are some factors like average age of death and all, but the point still remains.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by kuresu, posted 06-10-2006 1:04 AM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by DrJones*, posted 06-10-2006 11:18 PM Someone who cares has not replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5861 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 246 of 302 (320338)
06-11-2006 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by ReverendDG
06-10-2006 4:32 AM


Re: Allow me to defend myself
if someone did they don't understand how it all works then, what they might have meant was that whales share a common ancestor - or you may have misunderstood them
Ok, I think they said that the whale was related to ungulates, like hippos, pigs, cattle, etc.
well yes they differ but they are alike too, they have legs, lungs, eyes, organs, ect, infact they differ less than you seem to think they do
Actually, insects DO NOT have lungs. All the more proving my point that they are very different from the rest of animals.
any evidence of this?, i've read black people have smaller brains than eurpeans (i don't believe this eather) i'm starting to think brain size isn't that much of an impact on intellegence. example the "hobbits" scientists have been finding, they are found with stone tools and other things and have a culture but have a smaller brain that us
Ok, first off, I don't think that brain sizes means too much for smartness or intelligence. But, here is what I found out: The average Eastern Asian person has a cranial volume of 1,415 cm3, while the average European person has a cranial volume of 1,362 cm3. So, it is a bit smaller, but I don't think that really matters in intelligence, although some will claim it does. Here is the site, with more info on that, though I don't like how they put other people down because of these facts: http://christianparty.net/grebrainsize.htm
supposed? its well supported, its not complete and i doubt it will ever be in creationists views - heres a nice site on it from T.O Hominid Species
Yes, supposed, and I showed in my essay why.
how is this relevent its not even arguing agenst the post, they never said anything about erectus, the fact that they arn't exact doesn't mean they are wrong
I was supporting the claim I used in my essay, which someone else here challenged.
uh what? i think you need to go read what a hominid is first, of course its a hominid, cro magnon isn't a modern human, which is homo sapian sapian, there are differences between modern humans and archic man, you need to go read about it though
When I say hominid, I mean a primate human, an ape man. And there are no ape men, as I have shown in my essay. They were either fully monkey or fully human, not a mix.
what does the way its made have to do with tooth decay? honey is sugar as much as the things you listed
Honey is a natural sugar like source. While modern sweets are made using refined sugars. And they are probably consumed in greater portions than honey ever was, and with more sugar content than honey. Candy is loaded with sugar, soda is loaded with sugar, etc.
wolves have a more complex language than we do, they use movement smell and sound to communicate - we only view ours as complex because other animals languages make no sense to us
Again, you forgot the main word "SPOKEN."
true it is not guided by intelligence, do you really think intelligence would allow stupid faulty things such as the apendix to exist? i mean an organ that doesn't function the way it used to and is dangerus to a good percent of humans - or a back bone that isn't bult for standing on two legs fully? even from human design i can tell no one would do that
what life is guided by is pressure from the envirnment, and natural selection
WOAH! Did you read the part in my essay about the appendix and coccyx? I think you should. You would be surprised, and you may even change your thinking in that post right there. Go on, you will learn something new about your bones and organs and their functions in day to day things: Page Not Found - Webs
the eyes similarities end at seeing in color and being an eye, the envirment is so different that there is very little similarity between them
Here, take a look at this, over there you will find an octopus eye and a human eye side by side: http://www.godrules.net/...cruncher/images/co9p/Image344.gif
universal common decent (one line of decent) isn't fully accepted, but most people accept common decent - the ancester would be really far back between the two right before backbones
What kind of creature would that be? Do you have a chart or something to show me?
i would say bacteria has more genetic code, considering the rate of mutation and how long its been around, but i may well need some help from a microbiologist
You say the bacteria has more volume of genetic code material than a human? More DNA volume?
you need to see the big picture, populations evolve not indivigals, so something with a mutation that helps will survive to produce while the ones that don't will die out - for someone who says they understand NS, you have to ask this question?
if a gene that leads to survival is there the other 99% doesn't matter if it leads to survival
We're not speaking of a gene, we are speaking of beneficial mutations, and it's more like 0.1%.
they didn't learn anything, they evolved having a straighter frame to survive, this is the basic structure of NS, if the requirment to survive and pass genes on is to have a straighter back then those that have a mutation that causes this would survive while those that did not wouldn't, thus the next generation would have this trait thus the lifeform would continue
your argument sounds too lamarkian and lamark was put to rest years ago
So you say mutations would totally displace and relocate bones?
many have written about evolution and emotion, the vertict is that emotion evolved to help survival of a population, after all lifeforms tend to survive better if they have a strong bond to thier mates
NS is the filter, mutation is the cause of change
I don't see how evolution would make emotions which aren't necessary for survival... But like I said, I may visit those threads a bit later, when things slow down on this thread or when I have more time.
the problem is this doens't work, what is life? what is non-life? there is hardly a line between the two, are viruses alive?
what is the difference between a dead person and a living? basically an electronic spark causing the brain to do things - why couldn't a mixure of chemecals that are very much like the ones that make up our bodies get hit and form the beginings of what we term life?
You mind demonstrating this simple act of forming life? Man has been trying to do it since...?
who is to say god didn't start evolution?
That would be Theistic Evolution. Most people here are just evolutionists who don't believe in God. Oh, and are you a Reverend like your username suggests?
you need to stop reading creationist propaganda sites, i've read this before and its wrong, all the oxygen in our atmosphere is organic - produced by organisms, none of it is inorganic, plus i think you mean water not hydrogen
What do you mean by organic and inorganic oxygen? Yes, I changed it to "water" already.
no because a huge quick flood would leave too many markers and would not show up the way things look, have you ever looked at a picture of say the grand cannon?
its layers on layers with order, floods wouldn't do that - think about it the reason it has layers, is that it was put down over time by different things a huge flood would leave one layer not more than one
local floods would be plausable
Local floods wouldn't have the pressure needed to leave an imprint in rock...
But the layers COULD HAVE been formed by ONE GREAT FLOOD! They most likely were! The universal flood wouldn't be like one swoop, there would be many tide changes and reversing paths and bumps, that would be laying layer after layer of sediments.
lots and lots of time, trying to survive envierment changes
Lots of time wouldn't help it, if it's impossible to do at all.
its not a contradiction, its just not meaningful, macroevolution is microevolution on a grander scale, its all the same, science doesn't differate the two much
THANK YOU! It's not a contradiction.
(This is to the person who said it was a contradiction.) See? It's not a contradiction! Even another member says so!
what do you mean by information? single cells tend to mutate more so have more information, but a microbiologist would know more about it
Information, that would be the genetic code, DNA. The volumes of it. Not the length of the sequence or something, but the volumes of the DNA content.
wow, just wow, do you really think humans don't die? we only live max now of 75 years on average, but the birth/death rate was pretty high before 19th century, most people through out the ages were lucky to make it a quarter of that
how is a theory flawed if you make a strawman arguement like this?
oh yes by the way we do have way too many humans now, though its not because of evolution
Even if the average death age was different back then, look at how many people we have from just (I believe) around 6,000 years! Imagine what a couple "million" years would do!

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by ReverendDG, posted 06-10-2006 4:32 AM ReverendDG has not replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5861 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 247 of 302 (320355)
06-11-2006 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Belfry
06-10-2006 8:55 AM


Re: Allow me to defend myself
Actually, no. I believe you're referring to Message 46, where arachnophilia said this:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not that they "came from" hippos, pigs, etc., but that they are related cladistically. Whales apparently evolved from primitive even-toed land ungulates (order Artiodactyla).
Yes, I said this in a later post. "Related", not "coming from."
The idea that Neandertals walked with a stoop is based on a faulty reconstruction of one of the first complete Neandertal skeleton by Pierre Marcellin Boule in 1915. That individual did happen to have evidence of arthritis, but the reconstruction (which also featured a falsely divergent big toe) appeared to be influenced by Boule's ape-man preconceptions.
We now have many neandertal skeletons of many ages and physical condition, and their anatomy shows that their posture was much like that of modern humans. So much so, that many of your fellow creationists insist that they were "completely human."
source links, for more info:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/...umanorigins/ha/neander_misconc.html
Creationist Arguments: Neandertals
Neandertal Manthe Changing Picture | Answers in Genesis
Of course, many long threads have been devoted to this issue alone, and if you want to continue that line of discussion we'd probably want to start a new topic.
Yes, fully human, that's what I say as well. It's either fully monkey or fully human, and Neanderthal is fully human.
All the same, I suggest that you provide a source for the claim.
Just did in an above reply somewhere. ^^
No, it still wouldn't make much sense in the context. Humans share common ancestry with all of those, the common ancestor with the butter bean plant (Phaseolus lunatus) being the most distant.
In any case, this is in reference to the following paragraph in your essay:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Milk chemistry indicates that the donkey is man’s closest relative.” “Cholesterol level tests indicate that the garter snake is man’s closest relative.” “Tear enzyme chemistry indicates that the chicken is man’s closest relative.” “On the basis of another type of blood chemistry test, the butter bean is man’s closest relative.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is mostly nonsensical. Cholesterol level tests?? As in, garter snakes have similar cholesterol levels to humans, and this is supposed to say something about ancestry? How exactly would you compare the blood chemistry of a plant?
Genes are the primary units of heredity. It makes sense, therefore, to make comparisons of DNA to make conclusions regarding ancestry.
But they say we are related to chimps due to blood precipitation tests. Oh, and by chromosomes, monkeys have 2 more chromosomes than humans, this is a big difference!
This is an odd question. According to evolutionary theory, the octopus and human share a common ancestor. This does not mean that the immediate ancestors of the two groups are the same.
Then what makes evolutionists think that the humans' immediate ancestor was the same as a monkeys', just because of some similarities?
The harmful ones tend to be culled out by natural selection. The neutral ones have no effect (unless other factors later make them harmful or beneficial). Beneficial mutations will be selected for, and increase in prevalence. We actually do see examples of single-cell organisms showing primitive multicellularity under certain conditions. Consider Dictyostelium, for example, unicellular amoebae which form a multicellular assembly when the food supply runs out.
Yes, so the cells may stick together, but that's not showing how they evolved into a human!
Your personal incredulity aside, evolution is not a random, chance process.
So you say evolution is a directed, specific, purposeful process instead?
He is not saying that an increase in complexity cannot occur in evolution. That is one aspect or mode of evolution. It is not, however, necessary for evolution. Evolution is simply change, there is no assumption of an increase in complexity in all cases.
Oh, so you don't need an increase of information to turn that single cell into a human? Please...
An assumption of optimum reproductive rate is foolish, because there are many factors limiting that rate (ETA: You might want to google "sigmoid curve"). In any case, IMO we do currently have way too many humans.
Do you have some elbow room? Then there are not too many humans on the earth. Unless you have every square meter of space near you filled with humans, one human per square meter, for miles away, then we do not have way too many humans.
This is a stunningly ignorant statement. There is no kingdom of life for which we do not study phylogenetic relatedness.
Could you show me a graph with every type of plant graphed on it showing evolution?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Belfry, posted 06-10-2006 8:55 AM Belfry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by crashfrog, posted 06-11-2006 12:25 AM Someone who cares has not replied
 Message 259 by Belfry, posted 06-11-2006 8:28 AM Someone who cares 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