|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
 Posted - 02/19/2004 : 20:14:12 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Originally posted by filthy
[The Cuffey is a favorite of mine, an excellent, illustrated essay on reptile to mammal transition. Therefore, here it be's:
http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm
Thank you for providing this link, filthy. Something not mentioned by either side of the argument (Gish/Cuffey) is that these "possible" transitional skeletons, may only be skeletons/fossils of extinct creatures and the similarities, though interesting, do not possitively link a transmutation. What Evolutionary Theory actually is or is not is the current question, not proof of the same.
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
 |
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2004 : 20:41:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
I don't wish to make this forum a debate, but a learning place where the actual modern "hypotheses" can be noted and listed.
Except that we are not talking about a hypothesis, but a well established theory.
Point taken.
Here is link to an interesting article which categorizes the many words and their definitions connected with evolutionary theory.
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/arn/orpages/or122/newman.htm
sorry about the "missing link" LOL |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
| Edited by - Doomar on 02/20/2004 19:15:29 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2004 : 22:00:09 [Permalink]
|
Doomar wrote:quote:
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/arn/orpages/or122/newman.htm
sorry about the "missing link" LOL
I find it interesting you would cite this article, since it says, in part,Those who accept the current scientific arguments for an earth several billion years old (as the authors do) see a large amount of change; those who see the earth as only a few thousand years old feel all this diversity existed at one time rather than developing over eons. Evolution in the sense of vast biological change is a natural consequence of an old earth and a geologic record which accurately records the diversity of life at each period of earth's history. The authors of this article are clearly old-Earth Creationists who have taken to some typical Creationist misinformation. They heavily cite Denton, whose ideas are far from mainstream, and also use some typical Creationist tactics like citing scientists at or before the understanding of DNA. They also completely fail to see the irony in citing continental drift as a "historical theory" with an adequate known mechanism, when just 80 years ago, that wasn't at all the case.
And their closing statments appear to disagree with many Creationists who have graced this forum:In closing, it is worth noting that proving the theory of evolution, even in most of its macroevolutionary forms, would not disprove the existence of a Creator. For the demonstration of a "naturalistic" mechanism does not, in itself, exclude a Designer who uses that mechanism as a tool to achieve certain purposes. Consequently, it is entirely possible for a scientist to investigate "how God may have done it," without compromising either his religious convictions or his scientific credibility. In short, Doomar, I question why it is that you would give the authors of this article credibility as to their definitions of 'evolution', 'theory', 'hypothesis', etc. when they disagree with you on many other things. Especially since they specifically state they will make no attempt at differentiating between 'hypothesis', 'theory', and 'law', and thus don't really define any of those words. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2004 : 22:04:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
[The Cuffey is a favorite of mine, an excellent, illustrated essay on reptile to mammal transition. Therefore, here it be's:
http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm
Thank you for providing this link, filthy. Something not mentioned by either side of the argument (Gish/Cuffey) is that these "possible" transitional skeletons, may only be skeletons/fossils of extinct creatures and the similarities, though interesting, do not possitively link a transmutation. What Evolutionary Theory actually is or is not is the current question, not proof of the same.
[quote]Originally posted by Doomar
[quote]Originally posted by filthy
[The Cuffey is a favorite of mine, an excellent, illustrated essay on reptile to mammal transition. Therefore, here it be's:
http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm
Thank you for providing this link, filthy. Something not mentioned by either side of the argument (Gish/Cuffey) is that these "possible" transitional skeletons, may only be skeletons/fossils of extinct creatures and the similarities, though interesting, do not possitively link a transmutation. What Evolutionary Theory actually is or is not is the current question, not proof of the same.
"Proof only applies in mathmatics and whiskey."
I don't remember who said that, might have been Sagan, but evolutionary science isn't concerned with proving anything, just in evidence supporting theory. Which amounts pretty much the same thing, I suppose, but whaddahell. 
The Cuffey concerns it's self with a rather narrow range of known species that show major adaptation into relitivly newly opened niches. It is the result of years of study by many dedicated people. And it only touchs the surface. The feathered theropod fossils currently being found and studied in China are showing a dino to bird progression, as long hypothosized -- Yer parakeet is a stunted allosaur!! Fear it! :cring:
I really dislike the term, "transmutation." It smacks of stage magic rather than science. When you come right down to it, all fossils are transitional because evolution never stops working. Modern species, including ourselves, are still evolving, slowly or rapidly, but evolving none the less.
Excellent examples of this can be seen in whale and equine histories. These are very well known and, if I'm not mistaken, TO has several essays on them, heavily referenced.
What it all sugars off to is, are we going to critically examine the studies of professional scientists, or simply take the words of a single volume that illuminates metaphysics and mentions no science at all?
And a last question: How did Noah accomadate the Gymnotiforms, particurly the electric eel on the ark? 
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2004 : 01:24:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Here is link to an interesting article which categorizes the many words and their definitions connected with evolutionary theory.
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/arn/orpages/or122/newman.htm
sorry about the "missing link" LOL
While I do not agree with some of their definitions of the words used (what is a theory, for example) it is an interesting article to read.
Some of the conclusions they make are found lacking in my opinion.
For example, they don't seem willing to investigate the Cytochrome C deeply enough.
quote:
Quoted from http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/arn/orpages/or122/newman.htm
The evolutionary alternative, that all proteins mutate at essentially constant rates, so that every living thing diverges from every other at a uniform speed, seems incredible in view of the vastly different reproduction rates of (say) bacteria and humans and the obvious evidence from the fossil record of strong physical constancy in many species (the "equilibrium" in the Punctuated Equilibria scheme) over hundreds of millions of years.
They are blatantly disregarding the big difference in reproduction between bacteria and a multi-cellular organism such as a human being.
The setup of the copying of DNA makes the mutation rate linear, and is in the order on one error in one billion base-pairs copied.
For a human cell (*1) ~3 billion base pairs = 3 mutations per cell divisions.
For E. Coli (*2) 4,6 million base pairs = ~220 generations per mutation.
If we disregard the actual mutation-rate of 1 per 1 billion, we still end up with 660 generations of E. Coli to produce as many mutations as one generation of human cells.
(1) http://www.genome.gov/10001772
I have quoted Armand Delsemme's "Our cosmic origin" before, and it was originally written in 1994. It would seem that he was a bit off in the estimation of the number of base pairs in the human genome.
(2) http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/sept97/nhgra-04.htm |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2004 : 19:14:32 [Permalink]
|
[.[/i][/bq]In short, Doomar, I question why it is that you would give the authors of this article credibility as to their definitions of 'evolution', 'theory', 'hypothesis', etc. when they disagree with you on many other things. Especially since they specifically state they will make no attempt at differentiating between 'hypothesis', 'theory', and 'law', and thus don't really define any of those words.
[/quote]
Dave, I don't disregard everything someone says just because I disagree with parts of their theory. I am simply noting what I thought were informative explanations/definitions of confusing terms. Without common definitions how can people ever honestly discuss a difficult issue. If you disagree with one of their definitions, please state your own definition so we might be enlightened and decide whether we can agree on it or not. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2004 : 19:32:36 [Permalink]
|
"Proof only applies in mathmatics and whiskey."
I don't remember who said that, might have been Sagan, but evolutionary science isn't concerned with proving anything, just in evidence supporting theory. Which amounts pretty much the same thing, I suppose, but whaddahell.
As regarding proof, what, really is the point and/or purpose of evolutionary theory? Math has a true purpose which helps us in everyday life (whiskey helps some tolerate life), but without evolutionary theory, would anyone really be affected? If it all was chucked out the window tomorrow would it really make much difference to scientists? Wouldn't they continue to study nature, fossils, and rocks? Just a thought.
Yer parakeet is a stunted allosaur!! Fear it! :cring:
Hey, I have a parakeet!
I really dislike the term, "transmutation." It smacks of stage magic rather than science.
It was Darwins choice.
What it all sugars off to is, are we going to critically examine the studies of professional scientists, or simply take the words of a single volume that illuminates metaphysics and mentions no science at all?
Well, Darwin's works are pretty much just what you described with only observations and not an in-depth scientific study. Simply observing several species over a short period of time and coming up with a theory on why they are as they are is not what I'd call deep science. Part of their science (original evolutionists) thought that life started from some gooey mush plasma with a very simplistic uncomplicated framework. We know today that it is just not true, as even the simplest of creatures is highly complex in its makeup.
And a last question: How did Noah accomadate the Gymnotiforms, particurly the electric eel on the ark?
And why would Noah need to put any sea creature in the ark? I thought they lived in water?
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2004 : 20:25:17 [Permalink]
|
If memory serves me, a sampling of all of the air-breathing animals of the earth were taken aboard the ark. The electric eel gets something like 80% of it's oxygen from the air, absorbed through capilarlies in the roof of it's mouth. It is an inhabitant of stagnent, oxygen-poor backwaters of SA rivers.
I'm just messin' with ya.
As I've sipped a dram of two of proof, I'd best get back to it tomorrow. 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2004 : 21:16:11 [Permalink]
|
Doomar wrote:quote:
Dave, I don't disregard everything someone says just because I disagree with parts of their theory. I am simply noting what I thought were informative explanations/definitions of confusing terms. Without common definitions how can people ever honestly discuss a difficult issue. If you disagree with one of their definitions, please state your own definition so we might be enlightened and decide whether we can agree on it or not.
Well, the definitions of 'fact', 'theory', 'hypothesis', and 'evolution' that most evolutionists accept are available in the two links I provided above. As noted, the link you provided makes no distinctions between laws, theories, and hypotheses, so it is of little use in defining those words. And while its definitions of evolution are mostly correct, its authors fail to understand enough of it to criticize it properly.
You also wrote:quote:
As regarding proof, what, really is the point and/or purpose of evolutionary theory? Math has a true purpose which helps us in everyday life (whiskey helps some tolerate life), but without evolutionary theory, would anyone really be affected? If it all was chucked out the window tomorrow would it really make much difference to scientists? Wouldn't they continue to study nature, fossils, and rocks? Just a thought.
From the Introduction to Evolutionary Biology:The Importance of Evolution in Biology
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." -- Theodosius Dobzhansky
Evolution has been called the cornerstone of biology, and for good reasons. It is possible to do research in biology with little or no knowledge of evolution. Most biologists do. But, without evolution biology becomes a disparate set of fields. Evolutionary explanations pervade all fields in biology and brings them together under one theoretical umbrella.
We know from microevolutionary theory that natural selection should optimize the existing genetic variation in a population to maximize reproductive success. This provides a framework for interpreting a variety of biological traits and their relative importance. For example, a signal intended to attract a mate could be intercepted by predators. Natural selection has caused a trade- off between attracting mates and getting preyed upon. If you assume something other than reproductive success is optimized, many things in biology would make little sense. Without the theory of evolution, life history strategies would be poorly understood.
Macroevolutionary theory also helps explain many things about how living things work. Organisms are modified over time by cumulative natural selection. The numerous examples of jury- rigged design in nature are a direct result of this. The distribution of genetically based traits across groups is explained by splitting of lineages and the continued production of new traits by mutation. The traits are restricted to the lineages they arise in.
Details of the past also hold explanatory power in biology. Plants obtain their carbon by joining carbon dioxide gas to an organic molecule within their cells. This is called carbon fixation. The enzyme that fixes carbon is RuBP carboxlyase. Plants using C3 photosynthesis lose 1/3 to 1/2 of the carbon dioxide they originally fix. RuBP carboxlyase works well in the absence of oxygen, but poorly in its presence. This is because photosynthesis evolved when there was little gaseous oxygen present. Later, when oxygen became more abundant, the efficiency of photosynthesis decreased. Photosynthetic organisms compensated by making more of the enzyme. RuBP carboxylase is the most abundant protein on the planet partially because it is one of the least efficient.
Ecosystems, species, organisms and their genes all have long histories. A complete explanation of any biological trait must have two components. First, a proximal explanation -- how does it work? And second, an ultimate explanation -- what was it modified from? For centuries humans have asked, "Why are we here?" The answer to that question lies outside the realm of science. Biologists, however, can provide an elegant answer to the question, "How did we get here?" And another example: it's quite possible to create a new antibiotic without any knowledge of evolution, but the theory of evolution can explain why it might get less and less effective over the years.quote:
It was Darwins choice.
What Darwin chose is really of little conseqeunce. Scientists, after all, aren't hero-worshippers, and are quite willing to demonstrate that their predescesors or colleagues are wrong. And this includes terminology, which gets updated as the meanings of the original terms no longer fit the theories. Nobody discusses the "ether" anymore, either.quote:
Well, Darwin's works are pretty much just what you described with only observations and not an in-depth scientific study. Simply observing several species over a short period of time and coming up with a theory on why they are as they are is not what I'd call deep science.
Doesn't much matter, since a very deep science has grown up around Darwin's basic ideas.quote:
Part of their science (original evolutionists) thought that life started from some gooey mush plasma with a very simplistic uncomplicated framework. We know today that it is just not true, as even the simplest of creatures is highly complex in its makeup.
The simplest of today's creatures may be highly complex, but given evolution, it doesn't mean that less-complex creatures did not exist in the past. The idea that everything that is is the way everything has always been is the opposite of what evolutionary theory tells us. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2004 : 05:07:09 [Permalink]
|
I can't improve on Dave's answer, and so won't try except to add that the ToE neatly explains why HIV/AIDS is so hard to treat. The bastard keeps changing, evolving if you will; acccomodating itself to whatever imaginitive, concotion of drugs might be sent after it. This is not uncommon. I understand that our old friend polio, until recently thought to be stamped out thanks to Dr. Salk, has booked a return engagement. And more and more tiny beasties develope resistance to antibotics, requiring new drugs to treat old dieases.
Also, the fossil record can only be accuratly explained in terms of evolution, especally when ancient species are compared with those of today. Again, whale and horse histories bear this out, as does the history of our own, bad selves. Our ancestors too, are quite well documented, although it's not yet complete and most likely will never be. But enough fossils have been found and classified that we've got an excellent, overall picture of our ancient forebearers.
Evolution can be seen in modern peoples. Only a couple thousand years ago, H. sapiens was quite a bit smaller than ourselves. I've read that Jesus was probably about 5' 3'' tall and weighed around 110 pounds or so, and this was about average for the times. If you ever get the chance to visit a museum with a Middle Ages armor display note that, if you are of average hight and build, you would not be able to fit into a suit. These guys too, were small by modern standards.
Better nutrition explains a lot of it, but over the centuries, our bodies have adapted to being better fed, thus, evolving slightly, we have become bigger (and some say, "Dumber!" as well, commenting upon our current leadership. Sorry; couldn't resist).
Hm. I see I've told a small lie. I said I'd not elaborate, but did, anyway. Ah well. 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2004 : 07:31:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
And a last question: How did Noah accomadate the Gymnotiforms, particurly the electric eel on the ark?
And why would Noah need to put any sea creature in the ark? I thought they lived in water?
If the eel and fish survived in the ocean during the flood, why didn't pleiosarus, and other water-living dinos? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2004 : 07:41:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Well, Darwin's works are pretty much just what you described with only observations and not an in-depth scientific study. Simply observing several species over a short period of time and coming up with a theory on why they are as they are is not what I'd call deep science. Part of their science (original evolutionists) thought that life started from some gooey mush plasma with a very simplistic uncomplicated framework.
The same goes for Copernicus who first suggested the Heliocentric world model, and Johannes Kepler, who calculated that planetary orbits were elliptic, and designed formulas to describe it.
Today, we know that there are planetary orbits in our solar system that actually aren't elliptic. The explanation for this is much more indepth, and involves Einstein's theory of relativity. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2004 : 11:52:27 [Permalink]
|
A note to Doomar:
Your sometimes use of very large font size in bold is generally considered to be shouting in forums.
Since you claim that this thread about education and not another attempt to show the superiority of creationist claims over evolution (my ass) why shout?
Also, since you do seem to know how some of the forum code works or you couldn't get those things in bold, And you know how to quote using the same method, how about, for the sake of consistancy, you use that method all the time?
These suggestions, if implemented, will not improve the content of you messages. Seems to me that would take an act of God, or failing that, a bit more thinking outside the envelope. Can't help you there... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
