|
This website is so ass-backwards it's funny (pg. 11)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
| Nellie, I believe MrOpus has provided numerous examples for transitional fossils as well as myself. As a matter of fact, way back in page 2, when you actually posted a link to a source, I believe I addressed that source and responded with arguments of my own. Would you care to address the numerous examples myself and MisterOpus have cited? |
|
|
| MrSquirrel |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Nellie, I believe MrOpus has provided numerous examples for transitional fossils as well as myself. As a matter of fact, way back in page 2, when you actually posted a link to a source, I believe I addressed that source and responded with arguments of my own. Would you care to address the numerous examples myself and MisterOpus have cited? |
/waves hand in air
Me, me, me, me, me, me!!!!!!
I think the answer is No.
:crazy:
MrS |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487
I just had a friend get out of the hospital because she had over dosed on drugs. So if I were you,I'd stop right there. |
Actually, if you knew what I was talking about you wouldn't write this. But you don't (as usual), so I'll explain a bit. Dj-Fuq kept saying that drugs are more or less harmless and that overdoses are practically impossible, while I was the one who was saying otherwise. We had discussions on several threads about it, each about 7-8 pages long where he continually presented shakey or faulty evidence and kept attacking me as being a part of a worldwide conspiracy against harmless substances. That's why I said you guys would make a perfect match. You have opposing views, extreme stubbornness, and shakey resources. :p |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Damn, I'm seriously having some fun here! Anyone else wanna give a "shout-out" to this stuff? C'mon, folks, you know you're lovin' it!
| quote: | Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487
The fact of the matter is you are believing in something that never took place. |
What I believe in is the observed, tested, and falsified evidence that is in front of us for all to see. This is what evolution has gone through over and over. The fact of the matter is Creationism cannot undergo the same scrutiny: give me one piece of evidence from creationism that shows it has undergone the observed, tested, and falsified scrutiny. If you do, you’ll win a great many science awards. So far, no creationist has done so, which is why nothing has been published in any peer-reviewed science magazines on ANY creationist theories. Why do you think that is?
| quote: | | Macro evolution is false |
,
Repetition does not make a statement more true.
| quote: | | there are missing links,and no those missing links haven't been cleared up. |
LOL.
Oh, so you’re having a problem with missing links? What missing links are you referring to? Now seriously, of course there are missing links – no evolutionist would ever deny such. But if this is your point, you are creating a straw man. One of the most obvious difficulties of digging up critters from the ground that are hundreds of millions of years old is there’s a lot of organic gunk that simply can’t be preserved. But the stuff that has been preserved has answered a great many questions about those “missing links” you refer to, and those “gaps” have become smaller and smaller and smaller. But hey, don’t take my word for it, have a look at a very small sample of those “missing links” for the vertebrate fossils (starting from the most primitive):
| quote: | Summary of the known vertebrate fossil record
(We start off with primitive jawless fish.)
Transition from primitive jawless fish to sharks, skates, and rays
•Late Silurian -- first little simple shark-like denticles.
•Early Devonian -- first recognizable shark teeth, clearly derived from scales.
GAP: Note that these first, very very old traces of shark-like animals are so fragmentary that we can't get much detailed information. So, we don't know which jawless fish was the actual ancestor of early sharks.
•Cladoselache (late Devonian) -- Magnificent early shark fossils, found in Cleveland roadcuts during the construction of the U.S. interstate highways. Probably not directly ancestral to sharks, but gives a remarkable picture of general early shark anatomy, down to the muscle fibers!
•Tristychius & similar hybodonts (early Mississippian) -- Primitive proto-sharks with broad-based but otherwise shark-like fins.
•Ctenacanthus & similar ctenacanthids (late Devonian) -- Primitive, slow sharks with broad-based shark-like fins & fin spines. Probably ancestral to all modern sharks, skates, and rays. Fragmentary fin spines (Triassic) -- from more advanced sharks.
•Paleospinax (early Jurassic) -- More advanced features such as detached upper jaw, but retains primitive ctenacanthid features such as two dorsal spines, primitive teeth, etc.
•Spathobatis (late Jurassic) -- First proto-ray.
•Protospinax (late Jurassic) -- A very early shark/skate. After this, first heterodonts, hexanchids, & nurse sharks appear (late Jurassic). Other shark groups date from the Cretaceous or Eocene. First true skates known from Upper Cretaceous.
A separate lineage leads from the ctenacanthids through Echinochimaera (late Mississippian) and Similihari (late Pennsylvanian) to the modern ratfish.
Transition from from primitive jawless fish to bony fish
•Upper Silurian -- first little scales found.
GAP: Once again, the first traces are so fragmentary that the actual ancestor can't be identified.
•Acanthodians(?) (Silurian) -- A puzzling group of spiny fish with similarities to early bony fish.
•Palaeoniscoids (e.g. Cheirolepis, Mimia; early Devonian) -- Primitive bony ray-finned fishes that gave rise to the vast majority of living fish. Heavy acanthodian-type scales, acanthodian-like skull, and big notochord.
•Canobius, Aeduella (Carboniferous) -- Later paleoniscoids with smaller, more advanced jaws.
•Parasemionotus (early Triassic) -- "Holostean" fish with modified cheeks but still many primitive features. Almost exactly intermediate between the late paleoniscoids & first teleosts. Note: most of these fish lived in seasonal rivers and had lungs. Repeat: lungs first evolved in fish.
•Oreochima & similar pholidophorids (late Triassic) -- The most primitive teleosts, with lighter scales (almost cycloid), partially ossified vertebrae, more advanced cheeks & jaws.
•Leptolepis & similar leptolepids (Jurassic) -- More advanced with fully ossified vertebrae & cycloid scales. The Jurassic leptolepids radiated into the modern teleosts (the massive, successful group of fishes that are almost totally dominant today). Lung transformed into swim bladder.
Eels & sardines date from the late Jurassic, salmonids from the Paleocene & Eocene, carp from the Cretaceous, and the great group of spiny teleosts from the Eocene. The first members of many of these families are known and are in the leptolepid family (note the inherent classification problem!).
Transition from primitive bony fish to amphibians
Few people realize that the fish-amphibian transition was not a transition from water to land. It was a transition from fins to feet that took place in the water. The very first amphibians seem to have developed legs and feet to scud around on the bottom in the water, as some modern fish do, not to walk on land (see Edwards, 1989). This aquatic-feet stage meant the fins didn't have to change very quickly, the weight-bearing limb musculature didn't have to be very well developed, and the axial musculature didn't have to change at all. Recently found fragmented fossils from the middle Upper Devonian, and new discoveries of late Upper Devonian feet (see below), support this idea of an "aquatic feet" stage. Eventually, of course, amphibians did move onto the land. This involved attaching the pelvis more firmly to the spine, and separating the shoulder from the skull. Lungs were not a problem, since lungs are an ancient fish trait and were present already.
•Paleoniscoids again (e.g. Cheirolepis) -- These ancient bony fish probably gave rise both to modern ray-finned fish (mentioned above), and also to the lobe-finned fish.
•Osteolepis (mid-Devonian) -- One of the earliest crossopterygian lobe-finned fishes, still sharing some characters with the lungfish (the other lobe-finned fishes). Had paired fins with a leg-like arrangement of major limb bones, capable of flexing at the "elbow", and had an early-amphibian-like skull and teeth.
•Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion (mid-late Devonian) -- Early rhipidistian lobe-finned fish roughly intermediate between early crossopterygian fish and the earliest amphibians. Eusthenopteron is best known, from an unusually complete fossil first found in 1881. Skull very amphibian-like. Strong amphibian- like backbone. Fins very like early amphibian feet in the overall layout of the major bones, muscle attachments, and bone processes, with tetrapod-like tetrahedral humerus, and tetrapod-like elbow and knee joints. But there are no perceptible "toes", just a set of identical fin rays. Body & skull proportions rather fishlike.
•Panderichthys, Elpistostege (mid-late Devonian, about 370 Ma) -- These "panderichthyids" are very tetrapod-like lobe-finned fish. Unlike Eusthenopteron, these fish actually look like tetrapods in overall proportions (flattened bodies, dorsally placed orbits, frontal bones! in the skull, straight tails, etc.) and have remarkably foot-like fins.
•Fragmented limbs and teeth from the middle Late Devonian (about 370 Ma), possibly belonging to Obruchevichthys -- Discovered in 1991 in Scotland, these are the earliest known tetrapod remains. The humerus is mostly tetrapod-like but retains some fish features. The discoverer, Ahlberg (1991), said: "It [the humerus] is more tetrapod-like than any fish humerus, but lacks the characteristic early tetrapod 'L-shape'...this seems to be a primitive, fish-like character....although the tibia clearly belongs to a leg, the humerus differs enough from the early tetrapod pattern to make it uncertain whether the appendage carried digits or a fin. At first sight the combination of two such extremities in the same animal seems highly unlikely on functional grounds. If, however, tetrapod limbs evolved for aquatic rather than terrestrial locomotion, as recently suggested, such a morphology might be perfectly workable."
GAP: Ideally, of course, we want an entire skeleton from the middle Late Devonian, not just limb fragments. Nobody's found one yet.
•Hynerpeton, Acanthostega, and Ichthyostega (late Devonian) -- A little later, the fin-to-foot transition was almost complete, and we have a set of early tetrapod fossils that clearly did have feet. The most complete are Ichthyostega, Acanthostega gunnari, and the newly described Hynerpeton bassetti (Daeschler et al., 1994). (There are also other genera known from more fragmentary fossils.) Hynerpeton is the earliest of these three genera (365 Ma), but is more advanced in some ways; the other two genera retained more fish- like characters longer than the Hynerpeton lineage did.
•Labyrinthodonts (eg Pholidogaster, Pteroplax) (late Dev./early Miss.) -- These larger amphibians still have some icthyostegid fish features, such as skull bone patterns, labyrinthine tooth dentine, presence & pattern of large palatal tusks, the fish skull hinge, pieces of gill structure between cheek & shoulder, and the vertebral structure. But they have lost several other fish features: the fin rays in the tail are gone, the vertebrae are stronger and interlocking, the nasal passage for air intake is well defined, etc.
More info on those first known Late Devonian amphibians: Acanthostega gunnari was very fish-like, and recently Coates & Clack (1991) found that it still had internal gills! They said: "Acanthostega seems to have retained fish-like internal gills and an open opercular chamber for use in aquatic respiration, implying that the earliest tetrapods were not fully terrestrial....Retention of fish-like internal gills by a Devonian tetrapod blurs the traditional distinction between tetrapods and fishes...this adds further support to the suggestion that unique tetrapod characters such as limbs with digits evolved first for use in water rather than for walking on land." Acanthostega also had a remarkably fish-like shoulder and forelimb. Ichthyostega was also very fishlike, retaining a fish-like finned tail, permanent lateral line system, and notochord. Neither of these two animals could have survived long on land.
Coates & Clack (1990) also recently found the first really well- preserved feet, from Acanthostega (front foot found) and Ichthyostega (hind foot found). (Hynerpeton's feet are unknown.) The feet were much more fin-like than anyone expected. It had been assumed that they had five toes on each foot, as do all modern tetrapods. This was a puzzle since the fins of lobe-finned fishes don't seem to be built on a five-toed plan. It turns out that Acanthostega's front foot had eight toes, and Ichthyostega's hind foot had seven toes, giving both feet the look of a short, stout flipper with many "toe rays" similar to fin rays. All you have to do to a lobe- fin to make it into a many-toed foot like this is curl it, wrapping the fin rays forward around the end of the limb. In fact, this is exactly how feet develop in larval amphibians, from a curled limb bud. (Also see Gould's essay on this subject, "Eight Little Piggies".) Said the discoverers (Coates & Clack, 1990): "The morphology of the limbs of Acanthostega and Ichthyostega suggest an aquatic mode of life, compatible with a recent assessment of the fish-tetrapod transition. The dorsoventrally compressed lower leg bones of Ichthyostega strongly resemble those of a cetacean [whale] pectoral flipper. A peculiar, poorly ossified mass lies anteriorly adjacent to the digits, and appears to be reinforcement for the leading edge of this paddle-like limb." Coates & Clack also found that Acanthostega's front foot couldn't bend forward at the elbow, and thus couldn't be brought into a weight-bearing position. In other words this "foot" still functioned as a horizontal fin. Ichthyostega's hind foot may have functioned this way too, though its front feet could take weight. Functionally, these two animals were not fully amphibian; they lived in an in-between fish/amphibian niche, with their feet still partly functioning as fins. Though they are probably not ancestral to later tetrapods, Acanthostega & Ichthyostega certainly show that the transition from fish to amphibian is feasible!
Hynerpeton, in contrast, probably did not have internal gills and already had a well-developed shoulder girdle; it could elevate and retract its forelimb strongly, and it had strong muscles that attached the shoulder to the rest of the body (Daeschler et al., 1994). Hynerpeton's discoverers think that since it had the strongest limbs earliest on, it may be the actual ancestor of all subsequent terrestrial tetrapods, while Acanthostega and Ichthyostega may have been a side branch that stayed happily in a mostly-aquatic niche.
In summary, the very first amphibians (presently known only from fragments) were probably almost totally aquatic, had both lungs and internal gills throughout life, and scudded around underwater with flipper-like, many-toed feet that didn't carry much weight. Different lineages of amphibians began to bend either the hind feet or front feet forward so that the feet carried weight. One line (Hynerpeton) bore weight on all four feet, developed strong limb girdles and muscles, and quickly became more terrestrial.
Transitions among amphibians
•Temnospondyls, e.g Pholidogaster (Mississippian, about 330 Ma) -- A group of large labrinthodont amphibians, transitional between the early amphibians (the ichthyostegids, described above) and later amphibians such as rhachitomes and anthracosaurs. Probably also gave rise to modern amphibians (the Lissamphibia) via this chain of six temnospondyl genera , showing progressive modification of the palate, dentition, ear, and pectoral girdle, with steady reduction in body size (Milner, in Benton 1988). Notice, though, that the times are out of order, though they are all from the Pennsylvanian and early Permian. Either some of the "Permian" genera arose earlier, in the Pennsylvanian (quite likely), and/or some of these genera are "cousins", not direct ancestors (also quite likely).
Dendrerpeton acadianum (early Penn.) -- 4-toed hand, ribs straight, etc.
•Archegosaurus decheni (early Permian) -- Intertemporals lost, etc.
•Eryops megacephalus (late Penn.) -- Occipital condyle splitting in 2, etc.
•Trematops spp. (late Permian) -- Eardrum like modern amphibians, etc.
•Amphibamus lyelli (mid-Penn.) -- Double occipital condyles, ribs very small, etc.
•Doleserpeton annectens or perhaps Schoenfelderpeton (both early Permian) -- First pedicellate teeth! (a classic trait of modern amphibians) etc.
From there we jump to the Mesozoic:
•Triadobatrachus (early Triassic) -- a proto-frog, with a longer trunk and much less specialized hipbone, and a tail still present (but very short).
•Vieraella (early Jurassic) -- first known true frog.
•Karaurus (early Jurassic) -- first known salamander.
Finally, here's a recently found fossil:
•Unnamed proto-anthracosaur -- described by Bolt et al., 1988. This animal combines primitive features of palaeostegalians (e.g. temnospondyl-like vertebrae) with new anthracosaur-like features. Anthracosaurs were the group of large amphibians that are thought to have led, eventually, to the reptiles. Found in a new Lower Carboniferous site in Iowa, from about 320 Ma.
Transition from amphibians to amniotes (first reptiles)
The major functional difference between the ancient, large amphibians and the first little reptiles is the amniotic egg. Additional differences include stronger legs and girdles, different vertebrae, and stronger jaw muscles. For more info, see Carroll (1988) and Gauthier et al. (in Benton, 1988)
•Proterogyrinus or another early anthracosaur (late Mississippian) -- Classic labyrinthodont-amphibian skull and teeth, but with reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, humerus, and digits. Still has fish skull hinge. Amphibian ankle. 5-toed hand and a 2-3-4-5-3 (almost reptilian) phalangeal count.
•Limnoscelis, Tseajaia (late Carboniferous) -- Amphibians apparently derived from the early anthracosaurs, but with additional reptilian features: structure of braincase, reptilian jaw muscle, expanded neural arches.
•Solenodonsaurus (mid-Pennsylvanian) -- An incomplete fossil, apparently between the anthracosaurs and the cotylosaurs. Loss of palatal fangs, loss of lateral line on head, etc. Still just a single sacral vertebra, though.
•Hylonomus, Paleothyris (early Pennsylvanian) -- These are protorothyrids, very early cotylosaurs (primitive reptiles). They were quite little, lizard-sized animals with amphibian-like skulls (amphibian pineal opening, dermal bone, etc.), shoulder, pelvis, & limbs, and intermediate teeth and vertebrae. Rest of skeleton reptilian, with reptilian jaw muscle, no palatal fangs, and spool-shaped vertebral centra. Probably no eardrum yet. Many of these new "reptilian" features are also seen in little amphibians (which also sometimes have direct-developing eggs laid on land), so perhaps these features just came along with the small body size of the first reptiles.
The ancestral amphibians had a rather weak skull and paired "aortas" (systemic arches). The first reptiles immediately split into two major lines which modified these traits in different ways. One line developed an aorta on the right side and strengthened the skull by swinging the quadrate bone down and forward, resulting in an enormous otic notch (and allowed the later development of good hearing without much further modification). This group further split into three major groups, easily recognizable by the number of holes or "fenestrae" in the side of the skull: the anapsids (no fenestrae), which produced the turtles; the diapsids (two fenestrae), which produced the dinosaurs and birds; and an offshoot group, the eurapsids (two fenestrae fused into one), which produced the ichthyosaurs.
The other major line of reptiles developed an aorta on left side only, and strengthened the skull by moving the quadrate bone up and back, obliterating the otic notch (making involvement of the jaw essential in the later development of good hearing). They developed a single fenestra per side. This group was the synapsid reptiles. They took a radically different path than the other reptiles, involving homeothermy, a larger brain, better hearing and more efficient teeth. One group of synapsids called the "therapsids" took these changes particularly far, and apparently produced the mammals.
Some transitions among reptiles
I will review just a couple of the reptile phylogenies, since there are so many.... Early reptiles to turtles: (Also see Gaffney & Meylan, in Benton 1988)
•Captorhinus (early-mid Permain) -- Immediate descendent of the protorothryids.
Here we come to a controversy; there are two related groups of early anapsids, both descended from the captorhinids, that could have been ancestral to turtles. Reisz & Laurin (1991, 1993) believe the turtles descended from procolophonids, late Permian anapsids that had various turtle-like skull features. Others, particularly Lee (1993) think the turtle ancestors are pareiasaurs:
•Scutosaurus and other pareiasaurs (mid-Permian) -- Large bulky herbivorous reptiles with turtle-like skull features. Several genera had bony plates in the skin, possibly the first signs of a turtle shell.
•Deltavjatia vjatkensis (Permian) -- A recently discovered pareiasaur with numerous turtle-like skull features (e.g., a very high palate), limbs, and girdles, and lateral projections flaring out some of the vertebrae in a very shell-like way. (Lee, 1993)
•Proganochelys (late Triassic) -- a primitive turtle, with a fully turtle-like skull, beak, and shell, but with some primitive traits such as rows of little palatal teeth, a still-recognizable clavicle, a simple captorhinid-type jaw musculature, a primitive captorhinid- type ear, a non-retractable neck, etc..
•Recently discovered turtles from the early Jurassic, not yet described.
Mid-Jurassic turtles had already divided into the two main groups of modern turtles, the side-necked turtles and the arch-necked turtles. Obviously these two groups developed neck retraction separately, and came up with totally different solutions. In fact the first known arch-necked turtles, from the Late Jurassic, could not retract their necks, and only later did their descendents develop the archable neck. Early reptiles to diapsids: (see Evans, in Benton 1988, for more info)
•Hylonomus, Paleothyris (early Penn.) -- The primitive amniotes described above
•Petrolacosaurus, Araeoscelis (late Pennsylvanian) -- First known diapsids. Both temporal fenestra now present. No significant change in jaw muscles. Have Hylonomus-style teeth, with many small marginal teeth & two slightly larger canines. Still no eardrum.
•Apsisaurus (early Permian) -- A more typical diapsid. Lost canines. (Laurin, 1991)
GAP: no diapsid fossils from the mid-Permian.
•Claudiosaurus (late Permian) -- An early diapsid with several neodiapsid traits, but still had primitive cervical vertebrae & unossified sternum. probably close to the ancestry of all diapsides (the lizards & snakes & crocs & birds).
•Planocephalosaurus(early Triassic) -- Further along the line that produced the lizards and snakes. Loss of some skull bones, teeth, toe bones.
•Protorosaurus, Prolacerta (early Triassic) -- Possibly among the very first archosaurs, the line that produced dinos, crocs, and birds. May be "cousins" to the archosaurs, though.
•Proterosuchus (early Triassic) -- First known archosaur.
•Hyperodapedon, Trilophosaurus (late Triassic) -- Early archosaurs.
Some species-to-species transitions:
•De Ricqles (in Chaline, 1983) documents several possible cases of gradual evolution (also well as some lineages that showed abrupt appearance or stasis) among the early Permian reptile genera Captorhinus, Protocaptorhinus, Eocaptorhinus, and Romeria.
•Horner et al. (1992) recently found many excellent transitional dinosaur fossils from a site in Montana that was a coastal plain in the late Cretaceous. They include:
1.Many transitional ceratopsids between Styracosaurus and Pachyrhinosaurus
2.Many transitional lambeosaurids (50! specimens) between Lambeosaurus and Hypacrosaurus.
3.A transitional pachycephalosaurid between Stegoceras and Pachycephalosaurus
4.A transitional tyrannosaurid between Tyrannosaurus and Daspletosaurus.
All of these transitional animals lived during the same brief 500,000 years. Before this site was studied, these dinosaur groups were known from the much larger Judith River Formation, where the fossils showed 5 million years of evolutionary stasis, following by the apparently abrupt appearance of the new forms. It turns out that the sea level rose during that 500,000 years, temporarily burying the Judith River Formation under water, and forcing the dinosaur populations into smaller areas such as the site in Montana. While the populations were isolated in this smaller area, they underwent rapid evolution. When sea level fell again, the new forms spread out to the re-exposed Judith River landscape, thus appearing "suddenly" in the Judith River fossils, with the transitional fossils only existing in the Montana site. This is an excellent example of punctuated equilibrium (yes, 500,000 years is very brief and counts as a "punctuation"), and is a good example of why transitional fossils may only exist in a small area, with the new species appearing "suddenly" in other areas. (Horner et al., 1992) Also note the discovery of Ianthosaurus, a genus that links the two synapsid families Ophiacodontidae and Edaphosauridae. (see Carroll, 1988, p. 367) |
This was just a small sample of primitive vertebrate species. If you would like me to continue onward with the more advanced vertebrates, I’ll continue as needed. Just let me know.
Now here’s the reference list to this evidence, just in case you thought I was making this up:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq...nal/part2c.html
Now keep in mind that according to Creationist Theory, there should be NO transitions whatsoever. So how does creationism explain these transitions? Give specific examples in your answer.
| quote: | | You know Darwin's finches? Yea, they are still creating Finches. |
Yep, I know them quite well. Do you? Are you trying to tell me that your interpretation of evolution means that the Galapagos finches should evolve into something else by now? It’s the same bad creationist argument as to why bacteria is still bacteria. Welp, the short answer is an organism that is successful in a given niche has very little selective pressures to evolve any further. Only under selective pressures will an organism evolve in order to survive.
If this was your argument, then you have proven my point that you understand very little about evolution. If this wasn’t your argument, again, be specific with details and examples as to what you refer to.
| quote: | | I don't have anything against evolution,I believe in micro evolution. Just not macro. |
Just to clarify a minor point – it’s not a belief system, it just “is”. The reason being is there’s no faith involved in science – it is purely the observed and tested, which evolution is. But whether or not you believe in it does not entail its lack of existence. It will continue on, whether or not you believe in it.
| quote: | | No, that's not true. You need to stop accusing me of things I haven't done. Alright? You want this debate to be fair,correct? So I suggest you drop the personal picking, alright? |
But your actions (or in this case, your opinions) dictate your unwillingness to be fair. It is painfully obvious to everyone here that you have either blatantly ignored the material I posted, or you choose not to read it because you do not understand it. Since you haven’t asked me any questions in regards to the material, I’ve deducted that you are being blatantly ignorant but pretending to know the material in the first place. Hence, you are being dishonest.
| quote: | | No, My entire case against MACRO evolution doesn't rest on this book alone. But, that's one of the books I refer to. |
Well when you get some fresh information, I hope you let me be the first to know.
| quote: | | It's not immature elementry broken down. |
Anyone with a right-mind would think otherwise, including the vast majority of readers here.
| quote: | | You aren't listening, there is a difference between Micro and macro,you are saying they are the same but they totally aren't. I'm not playing a game. |
It sure appears that you are. Or you’re being quite ignorant.
| quote: | | I'm not being dishonest either. I already gave you a link explaining about micro and macro. I understand the difference between the two clearly. |
Ah yes, your other piece of evidence. Occrider did a descent job debunking a good portion of it. See for yourself:
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...15&pagenumber=2
Why did you not respond to his criticisms? What say you?
| quote: | | I'm not lying. Believe what you will,but I'm not. |
We’ve covered this ground already.
I’m afraid I don’t. Please pull this specific quote off the link. I do not find it anywhere.
Now look, if you want to play semantics games with me, I’ll bite – yes there is a difference between the words micro- and macro-. Science, however, does not see these changes as a difference – over long periods of time there is a result of lots of changes in allele frequencies. Hell, there’s a small change within a species (and thus creating a new species) in polychaete worms over a mere period of 40 years as a result of isolationism:
In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete
worm, Nereis acuminata, were collected in Long Beach
Harbor, California. These were allowed to grow into a
population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs
from this population were transferred to the Woods
Hole Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these
worms were used as test organisms in environmental
toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long Beach area was
searched for populations of the worm. Two populations,
P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg, et al. (1992)
performed tests on these two populations and the Woods
Hole population (WH) for both postmating and premating
isolation. To test for postmating isolation, they
looked at whether broods from crosses were
successfully reared. The results below give the
percentage of successful rearings for each group of
crosses.
WH X WH - 75%
P1 X P1 - 95%
P2 X P2 - 80%
P1 X P2 - 77%
WH X P1 - 0%
WH X P2 - 0%
They also found statistically significant premating
isolation between the WH population and the field
populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed
slightly different karyotypes from the field
populations.
Source: J. R. Weinberg et al. 1992. Evidence for rapid
speciation following a founder event in the
laboratory. Science 46(4):1214-1220.
In accordance to you, this isin’t even “micro” evolution. Since a new species was created, it is (drum roll) Speciation (i.e. “macro”)! And this occurred in a mere 40 years, no less. Now what do you think would happen over 400 million years?
Do you get it?
| quote: | I told you already,I studied this subject. So,yea I've done my research.
I'll find my science book from last year ( and I'll check what chapter from this year. ) |
Everything up to this point indicates that you were either studying from a bad science source, or that you pick and choosed parts that only adhere to your faith.
| quote: | | Yes, I can. God wouldn't tell you to do something like that. |
But he did. How do you know he didn’t? Stop playing games and prove to me he didn’t.
| quote: | | You aren't. I'm not the boss of you either, so I'd appreciate it if you'd stop trying to act like you're above me, and stop acting so condscending. Just because you're older than me doesn't mean anything. |
I am neither above nor below you (though your Bible does say to respect your elders). You entered into the realm of science and made a claim that so far you have failed to prove with evidence. Consequentially, I have been criticizing you for doing so.
| quote: | | I know what this forum is about. Debating. It's not about personally attacking ones beliefs. You can't deny that. |
But you personally attacked something I understand very well and know to be true and supported with evidence. You therefore attacked me first. I am defending what I understand to be true with evidence. So far you’ve failed miserably to do the same for what you believe.
| quote: | | Go look in the mirror,and that's your proof. You are living breathing evidence my friend. The Bible isn't man made, It was written through man, but it was God's words. You could says God's inspiration. |
Again, logical fallacy: Leap of Logic. You need to show me with DIRECT evidence how I am living proof that your God exists. Going from saying, “I exist” to “therefore God exists” is quite a humongous leap of logic without any evidence to support the following steps. However, going from “I exist” to “therefore evolution is true” is not near as big of a leap when you sit down and look at the fossil and genetic evidence that supports it.
Show me the fossil, genetic, molecular, comparative biological evidence that God exists simply because I exist, and I will consider it. You are missing quite a few steps of logic here. Please fill them in accordingly.
| quote: | But,it's obvious that God is logical.
Revelation,and Genesis, and all the books inbetween tell of God's existance. He is speaking to us through it. It's His word afterall. |
Incorrect Nessa. It’s not obvious at all. Your job was to prove it to me. God did not write anything down in the Bible. Man wrote all those things down. What’s more, man decided what stays and what goes into the Bible, as well as what merges with other pagan beliefs (i.e. 1st Council of Nicaea). I can read you a story about unicorns and it would be no different – both stories are created by man. The Bible is the weakest source known to show that God exists with evidence. You have to do a better job in showing God exists other than what man wrote down in a book. What is the observed evidence?
And more importantly, how does that differentiate with the Muslim God in terms of evidence?
How does that differ with the evidence of Buddha?
How does that differ with the Hindu God? Keep in mind that the Hindu God is much older than your God by a couple of thousand years. Where is the evidence to support your God over the Hindu God?
| quote: | | I suggest you read it, you might actually find something interesting...and no I don't mean read it to pick it apart,I mean read it to learn it. |
It’s rather presumptuous of you to think I haven’t read the Bible thoroughly. It’s even more presumptuous of you to think I haven’t learned anything from it. I tend to find a little judgement in your tone. That’s not very Christian of you to judge my beliefs, is it?
You see, I grew up a devout Southern Methodist, Nessa, and I once believed very literally in much of what the Bible said. But it didn’t take long after a couple of college science courses to realize that the literal word of the Bible does not stand the scrutiny of science, and that a clear distinction between that of faith and that of scientific observation had to be made. IOW, you can believe in the supernatural all you want. You can believe in the powers of God, Jesus, Allah, or any other deity. But when it comes to the test of scientific scrutiny via Methodological Naturalism (from which the scientific method is derived), the supernatural simply cannot be tested because it has no observed evidence to support it.
That is my take home message I am trying to get across to you – you must separate science and faith, because faith cannot and has never withstood the scientific scrutiny. When you do actually separate the two, you may actually find that you can still believe in the supernatural and even miracles for that matter, so long as you try not to rigorously test it.
And if it can’t be tested or observed, Nessa, then it simply can’t be science. That is a fact that you will have to come to grips with eventually (or not, depending on whether you want to continue being ignorant).
| quote: | I know the 9th commandment, but remember you have to follow it also. I would send you the links, but the debates aren't there anymore, only new ones open ( which I haven't participated in.)The webmaster ( Jeffrey ) removes anything past a certain date.
This is a special board for people who have the same illness I have. But, I can tell you the topics. If you wish.
I'm sure you'll still accuse me of being a liar, but I did win debates there. I've lost many aswell. |
Show me where I’ve been dishonest and I’ll consider it. Otherwise, stop playing games. And if you can’t post the links about your past “wins”, it would do you credit not to mention them at all. If I can’t see you “winning” any arguments, I can just as easily conclude that you are lying. So please be careful not to post anything in the future you cannot support with evidence. You’re just better off sticking to the topic at hand and not trying to draw upon past “wins” to support your stance. Quite frankly it is completely irrelevant anyway. |
|
|
| cbxzcm |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Damn, I'm seriously having some fun here! Anyone else wanna give a "shout-out" to this stuff? C'mon, folks, you know you're lovin' it! |
Yes, this thread has turned out to be quite entertaining. |
|
|
| dimiz |
Thank you guys: occrider, MisterOpus, DrUg_Tit0 and DigiNut.
I've learned a lot from this topic. |
|
|
| occrider |
| The response is going to be stupendous ... I can feel it. The entertainment value is probably the surest thing that's going to come out of this thread. I'm preparing myself to be blown away. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
this is just wrong, how can a thread go on for 9 pages here and NOT be related to Israel. This is horrible, something must be done quick.
MODERATOR, OH MODERATOR!!
;) :D :p |
|
|
| MrSquirrel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
this is just wrong, how can a thread go on for 9 pages here and NOT be related to Israel. This is horrible, something must be done quick.
MODERATOR, OH MODERATOR!!
;) :D :p |
Go back to the Mustard field. :whip:
It is probably the only place safe for you since I feel a "The Jews Killed Jesus" comment coming from certain circles.
:gsmile:
MrS |
|
|
| WhoaNellie1487 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
What I believe in is the observed, tested, and falsified evidence that is in front of us for all to see. This is what evolution has gone through over and over. The fact of the matter is Creationism cannot undergo the same scrutiny: give me one piece of evidence from creationism that shows it has undergone the observed, tested, and falsified scrutiny. If you do, you’ll win a great many science awards. So far, no creationist has done so, which is why nothing has been published in any peer-reviewed science magazines on ANY creationist theories. Why do you think that is? |
You will only ignore it,So why should I even bother? No matter what you say,you still can't prove to me that Macro evolution is true.(even if you think those links explain everything.)
| quote: | | Repetition does not make a statement more true. |
I was hoping maybe you'd get get it through your thick skull.^_^
| quote: | | Oh, so you’re having a problem with missing links? What missing links are you referring to? Now seriously, of course there are missing links – no evolutionist would ever deny such. But if this is your point, you are creating a straw man. One of the most obvious difficulties of digging up critters from the ground that are hundreds of millions of years old is there’s a lot of organic gunk that simply can’t be preserved. But the stuff that has been preserved has answered a great many questions about those “missing links” you refer to, and those “gaps” have become smaller and smaller and smaller. But hey, don’t take my word for it, have a look at a very small sample of those “missing links” for the vertebrate fossils (starting from the most primitive): |
I'm not the one having the issue here. I'm not referring to any particular link, what I'm talking about is this theory is so full of holes that it's ridiulous. They aren't getting smaller,and they aren't getting found because Macro evolution is completely false. One species cannot morph,or cannot evolve into the next.
| quote: | This was just a small sample of primitive vertebrate species. If you would like me to continue onward with the more advanced vertebrates, I’ll continue as needed. Just let me know.
Now here’s the reference list to this evidence, just in case you thought I was making this up:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq...nal/part2c.html
Now keep in mind that according to Creationist Theory, there should be NO transitions whatsoever. So how does creationism explain these transitions? Give specific examples in your answer. |
If they have these so called fossils of this crap then show me a picture.
I've already read this stuff.
| quote: | | Yep, I know them quite well. Do you? Are you trying to tell me that your interpretation of evolution means that the Galapagos finches should evolve into something else by now? It’s the same bad creationist argument as to why bacteria is still bacteria. Welp, the short answer is an organism that is successful in a given niche has very little selective pressures to evolve any further. Only under selective pressures will an organism evolve in order to survive. |
No, That's not my entire case.But, what I'm saying is Finches will throughout the future only be finches, they aren't going to evolve into something else.
I have a question for you later tonight(it isn't because I don't understand, It's food for thought.)but, I'm trying to find the correct way to word it so you understand.
| quote: | | Just to clarify a minor point – it’s not a belief system, it just “is”. The reason being is there’s no faith involved in science – it is purely the observed and tested, which evolution is. But whether or not you believe in it does not entail its lack of existence. It will continue on, whether or not you believe in it. |
No it's not like a belief in God,that's not what I'm saying. It's not like I have faith in it.
| quote: | | But your actions (or in this case, your opinions) dictate your unwillingness to be fair. It is painfully obvious to everyone here that you have either blatantly ignored the material I posted, or you choose not to read it because you do not understand it. Since you haven’t asked me any questions in regards to the material, I’ve deducted that you are being blatantly ignorant but pretending to know the material in the first place. Hence, you are being dishonest. |
Me? Unfair? Naw. Who said I didn't read it? I've already read most the junk you've posted. I know what it's saying. ( there you go again with your condescending attitude. >_< ) I don't need to ask you questions,why would I? I'm not being dishonest. I can assure you.
| quote: | | Well when you get some fresh information, I hope you let me be the first to know. |
You'll have to wait your turn.
| quote: | | Anyone with a right-mind would think otherwise, including the vast majority of readers here. |
Sure,that's your opinion. Keep thinking that,maybe one day it will come true. ;)
| quote: | It sure appears that you are. Or you’re being quite ignorant.
|
No more than you,my friend.^_^
Oh,I didn't see it.
Just a heads up, If I don't reply to a post, I either don't see it,or I don't have anything to say at the time.
| quote: | | We’ve covered this ground already. |
Then lets drop it.
| quote: | | I’m afraid I don’t. Please pull this specific quote off the link. I do not find it anywhere. |
The whole " Get it? " post was yours, I just realized I messed up the quote thing. But, What I was saying was... (Let me see if I can find it.)
| quote: | quote:
Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change |
-Micro evolution small changes within the species.
| quote: | quote:
Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" |
Yes, Macroevolution large changes from one species to the next.
I just pulled that from a link you sent me.
| quote: | | Now look, if you want to play semantics games with me, I’ll bite – yes there is a difference between the words micro- and macro-. Science, however, does not see these changes as a difference – over long periods of time there is a result of lots of changes in allele frequencies. Hell, there’s a small change within a species (and thus creating a new species) in polychaete worms over a mere period of 40 years as a result of isolationism: |
I told you,I'm not playing games here. It's not just the difference between the words. Do I have to explain it once again?
| quote: | In accordance to you, this isin’t even “micro” evolution. Since a new species was created, it is (drum roll) Speciation (i.e. “macro”)! And this occurred in a mere 40 years, no less. Now what do you think would happen over 400 million years?
Do you get it? |
No no no, that's not what I'm talking about. Micro evolution, I already explain it but you aren't listening to me.
Take your pinky...ok? Lick it...now,both ears! okies?
Micro evolution is completely different than macro,and I guess I have to explain it once again. Lions,tigers,leppards,domestic cats, they are allllll a part of the feline family. All animals within the feline family are an example of micro evolution. They are all different kinds of cats,but they are all cats!
| quote: | | Everything up to this point indicates that you were either studying from a bad science source, or that you pick and choosed parts that only adhere to your faith. |
No,it doesn't. I don't pick and choose what I want to hear, despite what you might think. It was a very good source.
| quote: | | But he did. How do you know he didn’t? Stop playing games and prove to me he didn’t. |
One word " Bible ". There's all the proof you need,and beyond. That and I know he didn't, don't be immature.No mocking either.
| quote: | | I am neither above nor below you (though your Bible does say to respect your elders). You entered into the realm of science and made a claim that so far you have failed to prove with evidence. Consequentially, I have been criticizing you for doing so. |
Yes, the bible says respect your elders,BUT you also have to show respect to deserve respect, It's a two way street my friend. (thought you had me there,eh?)
No one gave you the right to criticize me,Or anyone. That's the point.
| quote: | | But you personally attacked something I understand very well and know to be true and supported with evidence. You therefore attacked me first. I am defending what I understand to be true with evidence. So far you’ve failed miserably to do the same for what you believe. |
I didn't come here to jump on your case,totally not my intentions. But,I'm also not going to let someone sit there and tell me things I know aren't true.(And I'm sure you're thinking the same thing.)
I'm defending what I understand to be the truth,and I do have evidence and I have presented it. I haven't failed.
| quote: | | Again, logical fallacy: Leap of Logic. You need to show me with DIRECT evidence how I am living proof that your God exists. Going from saying, “I exist” to “therefore God exists” is quite a humongous leap of logic without any evidence to support the following steps. However, going from “I exist” to “therefore evolution is true” is not near as big of a leap when you sit down and look at the fossil and genetic evidence that supports it. |
You don't get it...ugh, I'm telling you. It's not that hard to understand. I'm not saying just because I exist God exists, but that's evidence enough for me. I guess not for you,seeing as you are completely ignoring faith here. Just read the Bible,it explains it all. Start to finish, heck who knows you might actually learn something from it! It can't hurt you-you know.
| quote: | | Show me the fossil, genetic, molecular, comparative biological evidence that God exists simply because I exist, and I will consider it. You are missing quite a few steps of logic here. Please fill them in accordingly. |
Let's see, Noah..You remeber the happening of Noah? Scientists found fossils of animal and prey sitting together,WAY WAY up there on a mountain,they were trying to avoid the flood.
I keep wanting to say paul,I have no idea why(wathing way to much Dune.) But, Sampson..you do know the story of Sampson and Delilah(sp?) Right?
Well, when Sampson pushed over the pillars, they found the area that happened. The pillars are pushed over.
You remeber when Jesus was hung on the cross, the sky went dark..scientists back in the day recorded that happening,they also recorded the great earthquake too.
Maybe that isn't all about evolution,but that is proof the Bible isn't lying.
| quote: | | Incorrect Nessa. It’s not obvious at all. Your job was to prove it to me. God did not write anything down in the Bible. Man wrote all those things down. What’s more, man decided what stays and what goes into the Bible, as well as what merges with other pagan beliefs (i.e. 1st Council of Nicaea). I can read you a story about unicorns and it would be no different – both stories are created by man. The Bible is the weakest source known to show that God exists with evidence. You have to do a better job in showing God exists other than what man wrote down in a book. What is the observed evidence? |
Not physically,no he didn't. Man physically wrote it down, but God wrote it through man.
(actually unicorns existed,but God took them off the earth because he knew man would covet their horn,Just like a rhino,or the Narwhal).) I can't remeber where it was said... They weren't all magical and junk like fairytales say though. The Bible is not the weakest source known to show that God exists.
| quote: | | And more importantly, how does that differentiate with the Muslim God in terms of evidence? |
Muslims follow the same God Christians follow.
| quote: |
How does that differ with the evidence of Buddha? |
Don't know much about Buddha.
| quote: | | How does that differ with the Hindu God? Keep in mind that the Hindu God is much older than your God by a couple of thousand years. Where is the evidence to support your God over the Hindu God? |
Impossible. God has always been and always will be.
| quote: | | It’s rather presumptuous of you to think I haven’t read the Bible thoroughly. It’s even more presumptuous of you to think I haven’t learned anything from it. I tend to find a little judgement in your tone. That’s not very Christian of you to judge my beliefs, is it? |
Tisk tisk, God said and you shall judge them by their fruits. I know many people who read the Bible,just to try and proove it wrong,and the way you've been speaking sounds like you'd be that kind of person.
| quote: | | You see, I grew up a devout Southern Methodist, Nessa, and I once believed very literally in much of what the Bible said. But it didn’t take long after a couple of college science courses to realize that the literal word of the Bible does not stand the scrutiny of science, and that a clear distinction between that of faith and that of scientific observation had to be made. IOW, you can believe in the supernatural all you want. You can believe in the powers of God, Jesus, Allah, or any other deity. But when it comes to the test of scientific scrutiny via Methodological Naturalism (from which the scientific method is derived), the supernatural simply cannot be tested because it has no observed evidence to support it. |
ooh,Methodist,So strict. :/ so it's college that did it to you then? That happens to a lot of people. :/ Infact,I know a few friends that happened to. (God and Allah are the same person.Just different names.)
| quote: | | That is my take home message I am trying to get across to you – you must separate science and faith, because faith cannot and has never withstood the scientific scrutiny. When you do actually separate the two, you may actually find that you can still believe in the supernatural and even miracles for that matter, so long as you try not to rigorously test it. |
Yea, it can. Scientists are working with it now.
| quote: | | And if it can’t be tested or observed, Nessa, then it simply can’t be science. That is a fact that you will have to come to grips with eventually (or not, depending on whether you want to continue being ignorant). |
You must really enjoy my name,you use it quite often. I'm not ignorant, no more than you are my friend.
| quote: | | Show me where I’ve been dishonest and I’ll consider it. Otherwise, stop playing games. And if you can’t post the links about your past “wins”, it would do you credit not to mention them at all. If I can’t see you “winning” any arguments, I can just as easily conclude that you are lying. So please be careful not to post anything in the future you cannot support with evidence. You’re just better off sticking to the topic at hand and not trying to draw upon past “wins” to support your stance. Quite frankly it is completely irrelevant anyway. |
I'm not playing games, must I remind you so often?
Yea, well if he still had the posts up I would show you..but the webmaster can't keep that many posts from the past, He's trying to keep his space down so he doesn't have to pay for the forum he is hosting.
But, most debates were political. |
|
|
| WhoaNellie1487 |
| Hmm,no one is replying to my post I posted last night. (I'm still waiting,patiently I might add.) |
|
|
| tathi |
| quote: | | Let's see, Noah..You remeber the happening of Noah? Scientists found fossils of animal and prey sitting together,WAY WAY up there on a mountain,they were trying to avoid the flood. |
linkage? evidence? the earths tectonic plates have moved so much in the last 100 million years that that isn't suprising. As for "great floods" they have been occuring for millions of years, ice age after ice age, fossils of sea dwelling creatures have been found in the middle of deserts dating back hundreds of thousands of years before creationists believe the earth was created.
| quote: | | I keep wanting to say paul,I have no idea why(wathing way to much Dune.) |
Frank Herbert Dune???
| quote: | | You remeber when Jesus was hung on the cross, the sky went dark..scientists back in the day recorded that happening,they also recorded the great earthquake too. |
Scientists back then were naive, I saw a documentary in Israel where after an earthquake the "fire and brimstone" shot forth from the ground. Scientists discovered large fissures of flammable gasses including sulfur underneath the ground and theorised that this explained what happened in the bible (revelations?)
a solar eclipse in south america could be used to validate the Cookie Monster God's existence, a hurricane in Asia could be used to prove that Shambola of the church of the unholy octopus' was angry so they needed to sacrifice more virgins. What people don't understand they attribute to some higher power, (you don't understand a GREAT deal :rolleyes: ) we have entered an age where any force majeure or natural phenomenon including something as trivial as an earthquake can be explained.
| quote: | | Maybe that isn't all about evolution,but that is proof the Bible isn't lying. |
Have you listened to nothing about the council of nicaea??!! what of the thousands of contradictions in the bible? |
|
|
|
|
