TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Samoan Butterflies Evolving Fast / Butterfly shows evolution at work
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

Samoan Butterflies Evolving Fast / Butterfly shows evolution at work

Thought this was interesting to share

quote:

Butterfly shows evolution at work Scientists say they have seen one of the fastest evolutionary changes ever observed in a species of butterfly. The tropical blue moon butterfly has developed a way of fighting back against parasitic bacteria. Six years ago, males accounted for just 1% of the blue moon population on two islands in the South Pacific. But by last year, the butterflies had evolved a gene to keep the bacteria in check and male numbers were up to about 40% of the population. Scientists believe the comeback is due to "suppressor" genes that control the Wolbachia bacteria that is passed down from the mother and kills the male embryos before they hatch. "To my knowledge, this is the fastest evolutionary change that has ever been observed," said Sylvain Charlat, of University College London, UK, whose study appears in the journal Science. Rapid natural selection Gregory Hurst, a University College researcher who worked with Mr Charlat, added: "We usually think of natural selection as acting slowly, over hundreds of thousands of years. "But the example in this study happened in the blink of the eye, in terms of evolutionary time, and is a remarkable thing to get to observe." The team first documented the massive imbalance in the sex ratio of the blue moon butterfly ( Hypolimnas bolina ) on the Samoan islands of Savaii and Upolu in 2001. In 2006, they started a new survey after an increase in reports of male sightings at Upolo. They found that the numbers of male butterflies had either reached or were approaching those of females. The researchers are not sure whether the gene that suppressed the parasite emerged from a mutation in the local population or whether it was introduced by migratory Southeast Asian butterflies in which the mutation already existed. But they said that the repopulation of male butterflies illustrates rapid natural selection, a process in which traits that help a species survive become more prominent in a population. "We're witnessing an evolutionary arms race between the parasite and the host. This strengthens the view that parasites can be major drivers in evolution," Mr Charlat said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6896753.stm

quote:

Samoan Butterflies Evolving Fast July 12, 2007 � The dramatic comeback of a tropical male butterfly, which was almost wiped out of existence by an invasive parasite, shows just how fast natural selection can work in practice, researchers said Thursday. When researchers sampled the numbers of the Blue Moon butterfly species on the South Pacific island of Savaii at the beginning of 2006, the males accounted for just one percent of the population. By the end of the year, a period that is equivalent to 10 generations of Blue Moon butterflies, that figure had jumped to almost 40 percent. Investigators believe the comeback is due to the proliferation of "suppressor" genes that hold in check the Wolbachia bacteria that is passed down from the mother and kills male embryos before they can hatch. "To my knowledge, this is the fastest evolutionary change that has ever been observed," said Sylvain Charlat, lead author on the study and a post-doctoral researcher at the University of California, Berkeley. "This study shows that when a population experiences very intense selective pressures, such as an extremely skewed sex ratio, evolution can happen very fast." "We usually think of natural selection as acting slowly, over hundreds of thousands of years," added Gregory Hurst, a senior author on the paper and a researcher in evolutionary genetics at University College London. "But the example in this study happened in the blink of the eye, in terms of evolutionary time, and is a remarkable thing to get to observe." Charlat and his colleagues first documented the massive imbalance in the sex ratio of the butterfly species on Savaii and the neighboring island of Upolu in 2001. At that point, the male butterfly was extremely rare, making up just one percent of the total population. In 2006, the team embarked on a new survey after an increase in reports of male sightings at Upolu. They found that the sex ratio among the latest crop of insects, (scientific name Hypolimnas bolina) was 1:1 on Upolu and approaching parity on Savaii, even though the female insects were still infected with the Wolbachia parasite, and it was still capable of killing the male of the species. It is not yet clear whether the suppressor gene emerged from a chance mutation from within the local population, or if it was introduced by migratory Southeast Asian butterflies in which the mutation had already been established. "But regardless of which of the two sources of the suppressor gene is correct, natural selection is the next step. The suppressor gene allows infected females to produce males, these males will mate with many, many females and the suppressor gene will therefore be in more and more individuals over generations," Charlat explained. Overall, the waxing and waning fortunes of the male Blue Moon butterfly shows that not only how fast species can evolve, or adapt, but just how important parasites can be as evolutionary drivers, the authors said. "In the case of H. bolina, we're witnessing an evolutionary arms race between the parasite and the host. This strengthens the view that parasites can be major drivers in evolution," said Charlat. The paper appears in the journal Science.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/...ategory=animals
----
Now this is one of those interesting (and rare) instances in which evolution shows its mechanism within one's lifetime

A brilliant addition to my creationism vs. evolution collection [of articles, videos and books] ;-) Thanks a lot ;-)

Hey, if Jurassic Park can do it...

Seriously though, interesting article

I'm still waiting for a cross-species jump...

This is more like adaption at work.

...what do you think evolution is?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I'm still waiting for a cross-species jump...

Just wondering, do you know how taxonomy works in biology?

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Just wondering, do you know how taxonomy works in biology?

classification of species. Your point sir?

The butterfly is still a damn butterfly. It's called micro evolution. Is this what we're talking about? Certainly gives no support to the false notion of macro-evolution.

Makes sense...

If all the males were killed except for the ones who got lucky and ended up immune to the bacteria, then all future generations from them would have a higher chance of aquiring that little tidbit of code.

The direct symbiosis is strange, and I wonder if it is really just chance that causes it to exist, since we are in a huge system and all share commonalities at the source.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton classification of species. Your point sir? The butterfly is still a damn butterfly. It's called micro evolution. Is this what we're talking about? Certainly gives no support to the false notion of macro-evolution.

Not to burst your bubble, but there really is no true "macroevolution" in the sense that there's an automatic "jump" from one species to another. The changes from species to species in the definition you imply for "microevolution" is exactly what occurs in the long-term "macroevolutionary" sense. The idea of one species magically turning into another species, say a butterfly into a giraffe, would actually be evidence that directly counters evolution rather than supports it.

When researchers use the term macroevolution, they are merely referring to observable patterns that are above the species-level of evolution, i.e. that which breaks away from the lowest taxonomic level.

But if you do want to get a bit more technical, there have been numerous other instances of new species being created (or at least how we define a new species in each particular sense). For example:

1. A new species of mosquito, the molestus form isolated in London's Underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens:

Byrne, K. and R. A. Nichols, 1999. Culex pipiens in London Underground tunnels: differentiation between surface and subterranean populations. Heredity 82: 7-15.

2. Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human cervical carcinoma in 1951. The culture grows indefinitely and has become widespread:

Van Valen, Leigh M. and Virginia C. Maiorana, 1991. HeLa, a new microbial species. Evolutionary Theory 10: 71-74.

3. Sticker's sarcoma, or canine transmissible venereal tumor, is caused by an organism genetically independent from its hosts but derived from a wolf or dog tumor:

Zimmer, Carl. 2006. A dead dog lives on (inside new dogs). http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2006/0..._inside_new.php

4. Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more) (de Wet 1971). One example is Primula kewensis:

Newton, W. C. F. and Caroline Pellew, 1929. Primula kewensis and its derivatives. Journal of Genetics 20(3): 405-467

There's also a wealth of research on ring species, such as:

1. The salamander Ensatina, with seven different subspecies on the west coast of the United States. They form a ring around California's central valley. At the south end, adjacent subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi do not interbreed:

Brown, Charles W., n.d. Ensatina eschscholtzi Speciation in progress: A classic example of Darwinian evolution. http://www.santarosa.edu/lifesciences2/ensatina2.htm

2. greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides), around the Himalayas. Their behavioral and genetic characteristics change gradually, starting from central Siberia, extending around the Himalayas, and back again, so two forms of the songbird coexist but do not interbreed in that part of their range

Irwin, Darren E., Staffan Bensch and Trevor D. Price, 2001. Speciation in a ring. Nature 409: 333-337.
Irwin, Darren E., Staffan Bensch, Jessica H. Irwin and Trevor D. Price. 2005. Speciation by distance in a ring species. Science 307: 414-416.
Whitehouse, David, 2001. Songbird shows how evolution works. BBC News Online, 18 Jan. 2001, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1123973.stm

3. the subterranean mole rat, Spalax ehrenbergi
Nevo, Eviatar, 1999. Mosaic Evolution of Subterranean Mammals: Regression, Progression and Global Convergence. Oxford University Press.

Just to name a few. We also have evidence of speciation occurring in environments who did not exist in the past. For example:

1. In several Canadian lakes, which originated in the last 10,000 years following the last ice age, stickleback fish have diversified into separate species for shallow and deep water:

Schilthuizen, Menno., 2001. Frogs, Flies, and Dandelions: the Making of Species, Oxford Univ. Press, esp. chap. 1.

2. Cichlids in Lake Malawi and Lake Victoria have diversified into hundreds of species. Parts of Lake Malawi which originated in the nineteenth century have species indigenous to those parts

Schilthuizen, ibid

3. A Mimulus species adapted for soils high in copper exists only on the tailings of a copper mine that did not exist before 1859

Macnair, M. R., 1989. A new species of Mimulus endemic to copper mines in California. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 100: 1-14.

So the creationist claim of "no macroevolution occurring" is misleading and misguided at best with very little understanding of the evolutionary process over very long periods of time.]

Oh, so macro-evolution in the sense that whales come from wolf-like land animals? Come on, there is a limit to adaption, and it stops at the species level. Darwin was correct in the notion that species develop diversity, but he was wrong when trying to apply this diversity from one common ancestor to the entire animal kingdom coming from one ancestor.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Oh, so macro-evolution in the sense that whales come from wolf-like land animals? Come on, there is a limit to adaption, and it stops at the species level. Darwin was correct in the notion that species develop diversity, but he was wrong when trying to apply this diversity from one common ancestor to the entire animal kingdom coming from one ancestor.

yeah, just because you say so

did you even read any books like "The Ancestor's Tale" which describe how evolution happens?

any ignorant moron can talk out of his asshole

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Oh, so macro-evolution in the sense that whales come from wolf-like land animals? Come on, there is a limit to adaption, and it stops at the species level.

Are you wanting to actually have a conversation on whale evolution? Because it would behoove you to hold your creationist-like skepticism aside and examine the well-documented evidence by paleontologists if you truly have an interest in doing so. You can start here:

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/babin..._evolution.html

Evidence ranging from the skull structure and function, the spine, pelvis, foot symmetry, the ear, vestigial, embryological, molecular, and geochemical studies demonstrate the chronological ancestry well.

What evidence do you have to present an alternative? Do you have supporting, verifiable, and falsifiable evidence that an all-encompassing Being created them all by themselves? If so, please present it. If not, what about other alternative theories, if you have them?

quote:

Darwin was correct in the notion that species develop diversity, but he was wrong when trying to apply this diversity from one common ancestor to the entire animal kingdom coming from one ancestor.

Because you say so? Funny how the paleontological, geological, genetic, molecular, and biological evidence says otherwise.

I like your quote, BTW:

quote:

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." -Evolutionist/paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould

Actually, this is a mesh of two quotes together. Let's break them down together, shall we? The first quote is:

quote:

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."

This is from "The Return of Hopeful Monsters" in Panda's Thumb, Gould's 1980 book (which I once had but gave it away). We need to finish the quote here, because this sentence does NOT stand alone. Gould opines further:

quote:

"Although I reject this argument (for reasons discussed in ["The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change"]), let us grant the traditional escape and ask a different question. Even though we have no direct evidence for smooth transitions, can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms -- that is, viable, functioning organisms -- between ancestors and descendants in major structural transitions? Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing? The concept of preadaptation provides the conventional answer by permitting us to argue that incipient stages performed different functions. The half jaw worked perfectly well as a series of gill-supporting bones; the half wing may have trapped prey or controlled body temperature. I regard preadaptation as an important, even an indispensable, concept. But a plausible story is not necessarily true. I do not doubt that preadaptation can save gradualism in some cases, but does it permit us to invent a tale of continuity in most or all cases? I submit, although it may only reflect my lack of imagination, that the answer is no, and I invoke two recently supported cases of discontinuous change in my defense.

He then talks about a few species in question, and he then states:

quote:

"If we must accept many cases of discontinuous transition in macroevolution, does Darwinism collapse to survive only as a theory of minor adaptive change within species? . . .

To which he answers a few paragraphs later:

quote:

"But all theories of discontinuous change are not anti-Darwinian, as Huxley pointed out nearly 120 years ago. Suppose that a discontinuous change in adult form arises from a small genetic alteration. Problems of discordance with other members of the species do not arise, and the large, favorable variant can spread through a population in Darwinian fashion. Suppose also that this large change does not produce a perfected form all at once, but rather serves as a "key" adaptation to shift its possessor toward a new mode of life. Continued success in this new mode may require a large set of collateral alterations, morphological and behavioral; these may arise by a more traditional, gradual route once the key adaptation forces a profound shift in selective pressures.

So putting that quote in FULL context, you see a wee bit of a different picture as to what Gould was actually stating.

Your second quote:

quote:

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."

This quote was originally from Gould in "Evolution's Erratic Pace" in Natural History 86(5):12-16. He restated this in his Panda's Thumb in the chapter "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", pp. 179-185. In that chapter, however, we see the quote in full context:

quote:

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record: quote: The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks. Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study. For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning [1]. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. [It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.]

So again in the full context, Gould does not have difficulty with what is seen in the fossil record. He feels that there is a paucity of transitional species in the record, but he also fully acknowledges that there is no lack of evidence of transitions between the major groups. Here Gould states it more succinctly than I could:

quote:

[T]ransitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common -- and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. [He then discusses two examples: therapsid intermediaries between reptiles and mammals, and the half-dozen human species - found as of 1981 - that appear in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features.] Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am -- for I have become a major target of these practices. I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record -- geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis) -- reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond . . . Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/libr...and-theory.html

So what's obvious is twofold:

1. You or your sources have no clue about Gould's views

2. You or your sources do have a clue about his views and have deliberately obfuscated those views in hopes to bolster your own claims by discrediting such sources (i.e. creating an argument via false dichotomy in the process).

Now I don't know you well enough to believe that you are doing so deliberately, although I'm sure we've argued on this and similar topics ad nauseum in the past, but I DO know, however, that your sources are willfully abusing and deliberately quote mining in hopes to obfuscate a well-documented theory that counters their preconceived and unfounded beliefs on species origins. There is no explanation as to why your sources would go out of their way to read Gould and cite small snippet quotes that are completely out of context in hopes to somehow undermine his central tenet other than they are deliberately lying and misleading others.

And often times, these very same authors have the audacity to call themselves "Christians." I guess that bearing false witness against thy neighbor Commandment continues to be quite elusive to them.

I'de love to debate whale evolution. I'll start..

Please list the transitional speciation of the whale from a land-dwelling creature to that of a completely sea-borne animal.

quote:

Pakicetus (50 million years ago) Ambulocetus (49 million years ago) Rodhocetus (46.5 million years ago) Procetus (45 million years ago) Kutchicetus (43-46 million years ago) Durodon (37 million years ago) Basilosaurus (37 million years ago) Aeticetus (24-26 million years ago)

Is this correct?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I'de love to debate whale evolution. I'll start.. Please list the transitional speciation of the whale from a land-dwelling creature to that of a completely sea-borne animal. Is this correct?

Great. Since you listed the speciation (more or less), what exactly do you disagree with what the fossil record demonstrates? Be specific.

And I noticed you skipped over my criticism of your deliberate quote mining of Gould. By doing so are you conceding that your source was being deliberately misleading, or do you believe your source is just downright ignorant of what Gould was saying in full context, and somehow didn't read further in Gould's book in order to understand the entire context to the quote?

Added in Edit: Hmm, I think I found your possible source, the one and only Harun Yahya:

http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_whales01.asp

This is the same guy who seemingly loves to confuse abiogenesis with biological evolution, among other notorious traits, but I digress. I'm off to dinner, but will hit up some points tomorrow if I have time.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 This is the same guy who seemingly loves to confuse abiogenesis with biological evolution, among other notorious traits, but I digress. I'm off to dinner, but will hit up some points tomorrow if I have time.

They burning people in Kansas for heresy yet?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton classification of species. Your point sir?

No, I'm not asking you what taxonomy means, I'm asking you whether you have any idea of how scientists classify living creatures into different species and families.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Seriously though, interesting article

agree, very cool!

Krypton, the complete process of evolution is more than just micro and macro evolution. You're completely leaving out a key component, speciation events, which I think will help to answer your questions.

The first so-called ancestor of the whale, Pakicetus inachus, was a fully formed land animal. P. D. Gingerich discovered it in 1983, claimed it was a primitive whale, but only had a skull. Later finds established the fact that the animal was again, a fully functional land-animal, not a "walking whale". Yet, with a good artist, any animal can be turned into a transitional species...

Pakicetus inachus skeleton.

True artistic rendition of the animal.

Featured in the National Geographic as conveniantly a swimming mammal, a walking whale.

The differences are so great between this land creature and whales, that it's absurd to suggest ancestry.

I understand evolution enough to know its proponents have never proved evolution above the species-level now, or else the questions of our origins would be answered. Whales have always produced whales, and the same with Pakicetus inachus. When confronted with this fact, evolutionists just go to their "God excuse" which is, "It takes millions of years." Then when you ask for the millions of transitional fossils that should clearly show relationships of ancestry, we get a few questionable examples of so-called transitional species, which hardly could be called scientific finds. Then I get the excuse, "Well, over the millions of years, a lot of fossils were lost, so we don't have a complete record, so we can't exactly show ancestry like you want (millions of transitional fossils). What pseudo-science.
-------------------------------------------

I saw it the Gould quote, as its seen in the sig, and thought it was good, but if it is quote-mining, then I didn't realize it.

First off, are you going to acknowledge that you are essentially ripping your documentation entirely from Harun Yahya, the Turkish Creationist otherwise known as Adnan_Oktar:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Oktar

He's a very talented fellow in his own right, unfortunately his talent is almost exclusively plagiarizing from the Institute of Creation Research (ICR) as well as threatening people in his own country who believe in anything but creationism:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rn..._12_30_1899.asp

Furthermore, this same interestin fellow and his network also depicts Darwinism as the true "ideological root" of terrorism:

http://www.harunyahya.com/evolution_specialpreface.php

So if this is the guy you're laying you're bed with, best of luck. But let's take a look at your/his claim anyway:

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton The first so-called ancestor of the whale, Pakicetus inachus, was a fully formed land animal. P. D. Gingerich discovered it in 1983, claimed it was a primitive whale, but only had a skull. Later finds established the fact that the animal was again, a fully functional land-animal, not a "walking whale". Yet, with a good artist, any animal can be turned into a transitional species... Pakicetus inachus skeleton. True artistic rendition of the animal. Featured in the National Geographic as conveniantly a swimming mammal, a walking whale. The differences are so great between this land creature and whales, that it's absurd to suggest ancestry.

As I noted previously, the problem with your author's conclusions is not that he's merely incorrect, but I submit that he's being deliberately deceitful. I do not have full access to Gingrich et al.'s 1983 article on me (and it costs way too much $ to buy it), but I do have a coupla quotes I have utilized from it in the past. For example:

quote:

The specimens were recovered from fluvial red sediments.... The fauna associated with Pakicetus at Chorlakki is dominated by land mammals. Nonmammalian remains include poorly preserved Planorbis-like snails [Planorbis is the common freshwater ramshorn snail], fishes (particularly catfish), turtles, and crocodilians.... Altogether this evidence indicates a fluvial and continental rather than marine environment for Pakicetus during at least part of its daily or annual life cycle.... Evidence suggests that Pakicetus and other early Eocene cetaceans represent an amphibious stage in the gradual evolutionary transition of primitive whales from land to sea. Gingerich et al. (1983). Origin of Whales in Epicontinental Remnant Seas: New Evidence from the Early Eocene of Pakistan. Science 220: 403-406)

So you see that your author changed a few things from the original article such as changing turtles to tortoises (thereby making it look more terrestrial), and claiming that snails and crocodiles are purely terrestrial (which some snail species are but not the ones mentioned). Furthermore, I emphasized that the sediments these fossils were found in are fluvial, i.e. river beds (and therefore NOT terrestrial).

Are you beginning to understand why you need to have a more critical view of the sources you are using from creationists?

So Pakicetus wasn't entirely fully aquatic as our modern day whales, and Gingrich's article also demonstrates the fossils were found in sediments deposited in fresh water, not just associated with terrestrial mammals but also with aquatic invertebrates and amphibious invertebrates. So if we go with a prediction of whales arising from land animals, then we would have to conclude that their ancestors arose from land with 4 legs with characteristics that were depicted here, and that is exactly what we find with Pakicetus.

quote:

I understand evolution enough to know its proponents have never proved evolution above the species-level now, or else the questions of our origins would be answered.

As is the difficulty with your Turkish creationist who believes Darwinism is the root cause of terrorism, you are confusing the concept of abiogenesis with evolution. Unless you are merely discussing our origins (i.e. homo sapiens), which that has a wealth of evidence which supports it. The only individuals who have difficulty with such origins are those with pre-conceived religious notions that conflict with the research data, which consequently time and again have been found to deliberately distort and outright lie (which I've demonstrated a few times on this topic already).

quote:

Whales have always produced whales, and the same with Pakicetus inachus.

Of course they have. If they actually produced anything else, that would actually disprove evolution much more than bolster it. Methinks you need to know a bit more about evolution from sources outside of creationists (i.e. actual scientific researchers) before making wild claims.

quote:

When confronted with this fact, evolutionists just go to their "God excuse" which is, "It takes millions of years

That's a "God excuse"? Actually every single researcher I've ever known simply points me to the primary literature and says, "read". Funny you should argue that.

quote:

Then when you ask for the millions of transitional fossils that should clearly show relationships of ancestry, we get a few questionable examples of so-called transitional species, which hardly could be called scientific finds.

Ummm, there's more than just a "few":

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

And that doesn't even touch the plants or microorganisms.

quote:

Then I get the excuse, "Well, over the millions of years, a lot of fossils were lost, so we don't have a complete record, so we can't exactly show ancestry like you want (millions of transitional fossils). What pseudo-science.

Funny how you pose the countless hours of excruciating work by these researchers as merely an "excuse", while somehow pointing to creationists who outright distort the primary literature in hopes to gain gullible readers such as yourself.

That really doesn't bode well for you, sir.

quote:

I saw it the Gould quote, as its seen in the sig, and thought it was good, but if it is quote-mining, then I didn't realize it.

Gullible indeed. Perhaps you should actually read Gould and others similar to him before finding those creationists who deliberately distort and misrepresent his works for their own personal propaganda.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton What pseudo-science.

excuse me? could you give us ANY examples of creationists engaged in anything but??

creationists = holocaust deniers = 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

sounds like you've spent too long in those US museums that claim man existed around the same time as dinosaurs

quote:

creationists = holocaust deniers = 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

You are an idiot.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut You are an idiot.

you don't even understand what im saying child.

quote:

you don't even understand what im saying child.

Actually I do full well. You merged different groups of people together who have very different outlooks on different matters.

Generalizing things you do not understand is pathetic and does make you an idiot.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Actually I do full well. You merged different groups of people together who have very different outlooks on different matters. Generalizing things you do not understand is pathetic and does make you an idiot.

wrong, wrong and wrong. but thanks for playing.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.