Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
546 online now:
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,808 Year: 21,844/19,786 Month: 407/1,834 Week: 407/315 Day: 3/82 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Darwinism is wrong
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 1229 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 286 of 305 (227512)
07-29-2005 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by randman
07-29-2005 3:55 PM


Re: you are right on no transitions in the fossil record
"But my point is made by the fact that evolutionists only consider convergent evolution to be plausible, until recently, for the changes you refer to here, but now we see that in reality, convergent evolution, if evolution is true, can account for just about any similarity."

No. Most similarities are explained by common ancestry. You gave one example (mammalian ear bones) where convergence is being claimed when it seems as if common ancestry or a designer would be a more convenient explanation. Is it not also true that this is one paper that has not yet been fully vetted by the rest of the scientific community? The researcher found one monotreme that did not have the three ear bones found in all other mammals. Actually, he only found a lower jaw bone. So you are hanging your skepticism of convergent evolution on the discovery of one jaw bone of one extinct monotreme species - that has not been fully vetted by the scientific community. Against all of the other evidence for convergent evolution and in light of your designer bias, this seems like an extremely thin reed to me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 3:55 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 4:59 PM deerbreh has responded

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 287 of 305 (227517)
07-29-2005 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by randman
07-29-2005 4:38 PM


Unfalsifiable
There is no fact that disagrees with Intelligent Design

Now here we have an example of the famous "unfalsifiable" theory.

It would not matter what sort of variety that life forms showed--it could always be attributed to "intelligent design."

This argument is really no different from the old Argument from Design. Notice how the planets revolve around the sun with perfect regularity and order.

This is like saying, everytime I throw a ball into the air, it comes back down. Every single time. There are no exceptions.

Therefore, God exists.

That's really what this ID concept amounts to.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 4:38 PM randman has not yet responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3235 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 288 of 305 (227518)
07-29-2005 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by Chiroptera
07-29-2005 4:12 PM


Re: Oh, this is going to be fun.
I explained one way to falsify evolution.

Except that does not falsify evolution. All that would change is the proposed path of evolution, and that sort of thing has happened a lot.

Why would it prove creation?

It would be a duplicatable, hard evidence proof of the creation process.

No one can "prove" technically anything in science, but it would be very strong evidence for creation, and it's a prediction of mine.

ID predicts the discovery, or my form of ID does, of direct engineering processes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Chiroptera, posted 07-29-2005 4:12 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Chiroptera, posted 07-29-2005 5:09 PM randman has responded

deerbreh
Member (Idle past 1229 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 289 of 305 (227522)
07-29-2005 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by randman
07-29-2005 4:38 PM


Re: you are right on no transitions in the fossil record
Did you try the little exercise I suggested?

"Biology reflects what we know and is fully congruent with what we know of design"

How can you possibly say that? What are your biological credentials/training that allow you to make such a sweeping generalization?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 4:38 PM randman has not yet responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3235 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 290 of 305 (227523)
07-29-2005 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by deerbreh
07-29-2005 4:44 PM


Re: you are right on no transitions in the fossil record
The point is it is entirely an unproven assumption that similarities in different species are the result of prior species with similarities evolving into those species.

That is a total assumption with no direct observation of that.

That assumption governs nearly all of the interpretation of the data in the fossil record and otherwise, but even within ToE, there is acknowledgement that similarities could also arise independently.

The fact evolutionists say it is more likely that they arose via common ancestry is somewhat meaningless since evolution is the exploration of a concept which is extremely unlikely, but is considered plausible due to the vast periods of time involved, so that extremely unlikely and rare events could work.

Well, considering that none of it is "likely", except granting 100s of millions of years, the notion that is safe to assume common ancestry rather than convergent evolution for individual instances of similarity strikes me as highly dubious.

In fact, we know similar environmental pressures exert a continous pressure on species to select for traits that emerge within that genome. It would not be surprising then for various reptile "kinds" for lack of a better term to exhibit some convergent traits over a long period of time, assuming the time exists.

It is also likely that mammals with a similar structure, a jaw, would exhibit the same convergent tendencies brought on by the environment.

However, the idea that the reptile can mutate into a mammal is really not supported by the data. We don't actually see that change. We see bits and pieces, so-called snapshots, but the snapshots and data are so far apart, we could well be talking about just about anything.

The claims of evolutionists here are just not substantiated.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by deerbreh, posted 07-29-2005 4:44 PM deerbreh has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by deerbreh, posted 07-29-2005 5:03 PM randman has responded

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2248 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 291 of 305 (227525)
07-29-2005 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by randman
07-29-2005 3:09 PM


Re: Oh, this is going to be fun.
I still find it funny that you are using common decent to show an example of convergent evolution in order to try to disprove common decent. A riot you are.


Organizations worth supporting:
www.eff.org (Protect Privacy and Security)
www.aclu.org (Protect Civil Rights)
www.aaup.org (Protect Higher Learning)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 3:09 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 5:15 PM Jazzns has responded

deerbreh
Member (Idle past 1229 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 292 of 305 (227526)
07-29-2005 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by randman
07-29-2005 4:59 PM


Re: you are right on no transitions in the fossil record
Was this a response to my post?

On edit: I was questioning how you could be so sceptical of convergent evolution based on one recent discovery that has not been verified by other scientists?

You have a habit of repeating "boiler plate" instead of answering specific questions. It is a little annoying.

This message has been edited by deerbreh, 07-29-2005 05:08 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 4:59 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 5:23 PM deerbreh has responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6831
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.6


Message 293 of 305 (227528)
07-29-2005 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by randman
07-29-2005 4:48 PM


Re: Oh, this is going to be fun.
quote:
All that would change is the proposed path of evolution, and that sort of thing has happened a lot.

You say that as if it would be such a simple thing to do. But I guess it might really seem simple when you don't really understand the nature of hierarchical classification.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 4:48 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 5:20 PM Chiroptera has responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3235 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 294 of 305 (227532)
07-29-2005 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by Jazzns
07-29-2005 5:01 PM


Re: Oh, this is going to be fun.
You find it funny for me to show you guys your own inconsistency using your own theory, eh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Jazzns, posted 07-29-2005 5:01 PM Jazzns has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Jazzns, posted 07-29-2005 5:34 PM randman has not yet responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3235 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 295 of 305 (227533)
07-29-2005 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by Chiroptera
07-29-2005 5:09 PM


Re: Oh, this is going to be fun.
Imo, it seems like you are misreading or misunderstanding the concept of "hierarchical classification."

It is my understanding that evolution is thought of as not directional. So species could evolve backwards if environmental pressures dictated that, correct?

So there is no goal which governs the nested heirarchy, correct?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Chiroptera, posted 07-29-2005 5:09 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Chiroptera, posted 07-29-2005 5:26 PM randman has responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3235 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 296 of 305 (227536)
07-29-2005 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by deerbreh
07-29-2005 5:03 PM


Re: you are right on no transitions in the fossil record
Because I see no reason if macro-evolution could occur, that it would not produce the same similarities across a wide range of species, and thus the data would be interpreted as common ancestry perhaps when it was just micro or macro-evolution producing convergent similarities.

So the base assumption that these similarities can only be explained as common ancestry is false. It can at least be explained via convergent evolution, and it can also be explaine, imo, by a Common Creator.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by deerbreh, posted 07-29-2005 5:03 PM deerbreh has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by deerbreh, posted 07-30-2005 1:17 AM randman has not yet responded
 Message 302 by mark24, posted 07-30-2005 6:56 AM randman has responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6831
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.6


Message 297 of 305 (227537)
07-29-2005 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by randman
07-29-2005 5:20 PM


Huh?
I don't understand your question.

Whales are definitely mammals. There is no way that whales can reasonably be classified as anything other than mammals. The number of characteristics that whales share with other mammals (including genetic evidence) is too great to allow whales to be anything other than mammals. What is more, cetaceans and artiodactyls can be grouped together. This is part of the hierarchical classification.

So it is no surprise that artiodactyl/whale intermediates were discovered.

It would be very problematic if fish/whale intermediates were discovered.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 5:20 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 5:54 PM Chiroptera has responded

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2248 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 298 of 305 (227541)
07-29-2005 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by randman
07-29-2005 5:15 PM


Re: Oh, this is going to be fun.
No, I find it funny that you don't see how your example of convergent evolution falls apart if common decent is not true. It is a matter of dependency. It is quite funny to see how groundbreaking you feel your argument is. I imagine you will find some quip to respond back with. You go have fun feeling validated while the rest of us gaze in wonderment.


Organizations worth supporting:
www.eff.org (Protect Privacy and Security)
www.aclu.org (Protect Civil Rights)
www.aaup.org (Protect Higher Learning)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 5:15 PM randman has not yet responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3235 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 299 of 305 (227554)
07-29-2005 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by Chiroptera
07-29-2005 5:26 PM


Re: Huh?
Well, a lot of this gets into how you classify an intermediary.

But my point on whales is that if evolutionists found out that creatures appeared to be intermediaries between whales and fish, then they would say whales evolved from fish, and that land mammals evolved from whales, not that whales would be called anything but mammals.

They would posit the so-called intermediaries you speak of as having descended from whales, not the other way around.

This message has been edited by randman, 07-29-2005 05:55 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Chiroptera, posted 07-29-2005 5:26 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Chiroptera, posted 07-29-2005 6:13 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 303 by mark24, posted 07-30-2005 12:59 PM randman has not yet responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6831
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.6


Message 300 of 305 (227560)
07-29-2005 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by randman
07-29-2005 5:54 PM


Re: Huh?
That is exactly what they would not say.

Many creationists seem to think that evolution is just a bunch of random facts that are interpreted in a certain way. Well, the evidence for evolution is actually a whole lot of evidence, no single piece of which can be arbitrarily re-interpreted without creating problems for the rest.

In the fossil record, there are definite intermediaries that show the evolution of fish into amphibians into synapsids into therapsids into mammals. These have been reliably dated, and the order is consistent with what we expect. Then, dated much later, we see transitionals linking land-bound artiodactyls to modern whales, again reliably dated as much later than the evolution of mammals from land based non-mammals.

The genetic evidence is pretty conclusive, as well. The split between lungfish and terrestrial vertebrates occurred much earlier than the split between reptiles and mammals, which occurred much earlier than the split between marsupials and placentals, which occurred earlier than the split between cetaceans from the other mammal groups.

This is what makes the theory of evolution so powerful -- the data itself, in different fields, using different analytic tools, gives a very consistent picture of the history of life. One cannot simply overturn all of this by stating suddenly stating that whales evolved directly from fish, and the other mammals from whales. It would completely contradict the entire picture that we have developed showing the evolution of whales from distant lung-fish ancestors via a terrestrial mammal route.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 5:54 PM randman has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019