|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 11/30/2009 : 08:52:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
Hi Gals and Guys.
This is my response, or the bigginning of some of it. Since writing this ive seen all your posts. For me to answer as much as I can ill need to only reply to the main questions/statements im concerned with. Please understand I cannot answer everything.
Dave W comment,
Originally posted by matt36
<snip> |
Matt, if you want people to read what you write, at least do us the courtesy of trying to format your text so it gets readable.
If you don't feel comfortable using the forum tags, at least use a few more line-breaks and/or other characters to show where quotes start. And separate paragraphs with different points by line-breaks too. I makes things so much easier for everyone.
matt36 wrote: | Please understand I cannot answer everything. |
How about several threads, with one issue in each of them? The thread will be less cluttered by irrelevant stuff to the point being made.
|
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 - 11/30/2009 : 09:08:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
Words are so cheap in an evolutionist’s world so I challenge you, put your money where you mouth is or stop making ignorant comments you got from others. Anyone else who thinks they have proven facts supporting evolution can apply within but be warned, if admin allow ill tear your “proven facts” TO PIECES JUST AS I HAVE FOR THE LAST 25 YEARS. No proof exists for evolution. None!!!! |
LMFAO!
You're so delusional I almost feel sorry for you.
 |
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. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2009 : 10:01:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
Hope there is some food for thought for some of you. Regards, Matt.
|
I'm afraid not. Your post is nearly impossible to read. May I suggest that if you want to quote someone, use the quote tag.
Of all the mish-mash you wrote I'd just like to single out this little tid-bit of yours:
| DNA science we are told prove evolution. Not so, if anything, DNA suggests a designer and anyone looking into it would agree unless they subscribe "blindly" to evolution. |
ONE of the problems with your statement is that evolution could be true even if DNA was designed. Your feeble attempt at arguing against DNA as evidence for evolution is but a false dichotomy. But then I suppose that you subscribe blindly to anything that seems to deny evolution, don't you? |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2009 : 10:56:39 [Permalink]
|
Okay now. Matt36. Your post is unreadable. Suggestions have been made and you should follow them. At the very least, you should do a paragraph break after each reply, and make sure that what you are replying to is clear and in quotes.
Another thing you should be clear on is that there is an overwhelming consensus among scientists that evolution happens, and has been observed. Your claim is that evolution doesn't happen. Since evolution is the accepted explanation for describing the diversity of life on this planet (whether you like it or not), it falls on you to defend your assertions. And even though we probably will try to, it is not incumbent upon us to prove to you that evolution happens. The burden of demonstrating that it can't happen is on you because you are the one making a claim that is in direct contradiction to the accepted view. That's logic 101.
For example, if you think the 2nd Law renders evolution impossible, you must show us why that is. At that point we can point out to you that the sun exists, providing a constant source of energy, and that the relationship between the earth and the sun is not a closed system which is required for entropy to take place. Photosynthesis is an example of how this energy input is utilized and then how it works its way up the food chain. While the universe will one day succumb to entropy, right now, on our planet, the energy input from the sun prevents that from happening. Eventually it will. But not for a very long time. In short, the 2nd law of thermodynamics is either being misconstrued by creationists, or they are lying about it. Since they have been corrected by physicists and other scientists since they first ran that one up the flagpole, and are still spouting that nonsense, I think they are lying. (You will not likely recognize the lie because you probably confine your reading to creationist literature.)
So lets go down your list of objections and take them one at a time. That will avoid the chaos of going after too many of your assertions at one time. (Of course, I don't think you will buy any of what we have to say on any given subject with regard to evolution. You have dug in, as far as I can tell. But perhaps this will be a way to sort out where everyone stands, and with what evidence they can provide to support their position in a comprehensible way. And in that way, the lurkers will be able to see who has the most convincing argument.)
(No doubt Dave will go through your post and respond. Still, please do take my advice, since I, and many others here will not take the time to decipher almost unreadable posts.)
Thanks! |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2009 : 11:19:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
For example, if you think the 2nd Law renders evolution impossible, you must show us why that is. At that point we can point out to you that the sun exists, providing a constant source of energy, and that the relationship between the earth and the sun is not a closed system which is required for entropy to take place. Photosynthesis is an example of how this energy input is utilized and then how it works its way up the food chain.
|
Yeah, combining CO2 and water to make sugar does indeed "violate" the second law of thermodynamics in that there is a decrease in entropy. I suppose that means that Matt36 should argue that photosynthesis cannot occur.
And Matt, not even the sun is necessary for decreases in entropy. For example, hydrothermal vents can create some pretty complex compounds in the absense of light - abiotically. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2009 : 11:51:24 [Permalink]
|
Matt36......
Matt, please listen to this:
1. Your illegible, run-together style of posting is unacceptable. No one can understand it. Separate your thoughts into paragraphs. Separate the paragraphs on the page. Use the quote box when you are quoting someone. Organize your writing!
2. Your claims, dogmatic statements, and unsupported assumptions are all over the map. Stick to one thought, or argument, and present your beliefs sequentially and in order. Stop running all your words together into one big unintelligible paragraph that covers the page!
3. If you continue this mindless babbling without any organization of your thoughts, you will doubtless be banned as a attack troll, not worth anyone's time or effort to try to understand your posts ---which largely come over as nonsense -- just words strung together, without meaning.
4. The childish "Nah, Nah, I'm right and you're wrong" schoolyard taunting does nothing to clarify your presentation; and it makes you appear as though you are a child, which perhaps you are. If you are indeed an adult, write like one; and make your posts intelligible and understandable!
Or go away and troll somewhere else!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2009 : 13:18:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
Dave, no evidence other than suggestive is apparent for creation. Creationists do not state creation as a scientific proven fact. |
Sure, Matt, that's why there have been Supreme Court cases about "Scientific Creationism" and an outfit called "Creation Science Ministries," for just two examples. For a third, you're attempting to use science to discredit evolutionary theory and then hint that because evolution is false, the Bible must be right.| However, evolutionists do say that evolution is an undeniable proven fact. |
It is an observed fact, and also an undeniably powerful explanation.| This is the issue because evolution is not a proven fact. You say you require evidence of evolution from evolutionists, then where is it? Speak up, because no-one else ever has. Evolutionists “continually” say evolution is an undeniable proven fact without “EVER ONCE” supplying these proven facts. |
A thin tissue of lies, there. My personal favorite example of the power and correctness of evolution is Tiktaalik, for which researchers said, "if evolution is true, then there should have been a creature like this living in thus-and-such a climate, which would be found in rocks of a particular age." So they mount an expedition, dig for the right rocks in an area which had the right climate at that age, and find just such a fossil. Prediction followed by confirmation.| Is it? Then ill suppose you will be able to supply at least one “PROVEN” fact then wont you. |
We see evolution occuring all the time.| Words are so cheap in an evolutionist’s world so I challenge you, put your money where you mouth is or stop making ignorant comments you got from others. Anyone else who thinks they have proven facts supporting evolution can apply within but be warned, if admin allow ill tear your “proven facts” TO PIECES JUST AS I HAVE FOR THE LAST 25 YEARS. No proof exists for evolution. None!!!! |
Hey, maybe if you use more capital letters or even a bigger font, your statements will magically become true.
| Islamic, Judaist, and Christian Creation is all basically the same. They all come from the original Torah account of creation. So, whats your point???????? |
Okay, then what about Amerind creation theories?| “Mountains of supporting evidence” is a repeated claim I hear every day regarding evolution. Name just one. |
Already did. I note you refuse to take the time to acknowledge the correction to your bad idea of what makes a theory a theory.According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics The first law is stated as such, “The first law of thermodynamics, an expression of the principle of conservation of energy, states that energy can be transformed (changed from one form to another), but cannot be created or destroyed.”
Thus nothing but energy can be created... |
No, you contradict what you quote from Wikipedia. The quote says that energy cannot be created, yet you turn around and instantly reverse that meaning by saying "nothing but energy can be created." Did you really expect to get away with such a bold lie?But you quoted it yourself: "The recovery of the ordered deck via the random process of shuffling is highly unlikely..." That doesn't mean "CANNOT" (especially not in all-caps). Furthermore, your copy-and-paste also says that order can come from disorder with the application of "work," which occurs in natural systems all the time, and the Sun provides huge amounts of energy with which that work can be done.
But most importantly, you linked to a page which is chock-full of the equations of thermodynamics, and you didn't make use of a single one of them. I asked you to show your work, but you have refused to do so, instead insisting that Wikipedia pages say things that they clearly do not say. Poor Matt, caught lying for Jesus.| ...showing evolution as impossible according the the LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE. Evolution absolutely requires order from disorder hence a non valid theory. |
If "order from disorder" were impossible, then acorns could not grow into mighty oaks, nor could you make use of any of the nutrients in your food. The fact that you are alive disproves your sophmoric interpretation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.| The first law is tied in with the second law, tied in with entropy, none of which can be separated in the case of evolution. Heat has not much to do with it except for the example of energy displacement. Thermo means heat. The law does not. The heat part means that the molecular heat in the contact of alien molecules destroys order and creates disorder. |
Wow, you are astoundingly deluded when it comes to these subjects.| So, evolution is in great violation of the first and second law of thermodynamics and is stated in Wikipedia and science everywhere. |
No, it's not. You are lying about what Wikipedia and "science everywhere" says about these laws. Here, look what else Wikipedia says:The second law of thermodynamics has been proven mathematically for thermodynamic systems, where entropy is defined in terms of heat divided by the absolute temperature. The second law is often applied to other situations, such as the complexity of life, or orderliness. [14] However it is incorrect to apply the closed-system expression of the second law of thermodynamics to any one sub-system connected by mass-energy flows to another ("open system"). In sciences such as biology and biochemistry the application of thermodynamics is well-established, e.g. biological thermodynamics. The general viewpoint on this subject is summarized well by biological thermodynamicist Donald Haynie; as he states: "Any theory claiming to describe how organisms originate and continue to exist by natural causes must be compatible with the first and second laws of thermodynamics."[15]
This is very different, however, from the claim made by many creationists that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. Evidence indicates that biological systems and evolution of those systems conform to the second law, since although biological systems may become more ordered, the net change in entropy for the entire universe is still positive as a result of evolution.[16] Additionally, the process of natural selection responsible for such local increase in order may be mathematically derived from the expression of the second law equation for non-equilibrium connected open systems,[17] arguably making the Theory of Evolution itself an expression of the Second Law.
Furthermore, the second law is only true of closed systems. It is easy to decrease entropy, with an energy source. For example, a refrigerator separates warm and cold air, but only when it is plugged in. Since all biology requires an external energy source, there's nothing unusual (thermodynamically) with it growing more complex with time. It looks to me, Matt, that you've got a lot of work to do to "correct" that Wikipedia entry, since it flatly contradicts everything you've said.| So Dave W, you were wrong weren’t you. |
No, you are lying.| As for your comments of maths, ill take that literally, so hows this, Fact: ( according to mathematicians), “The mathematical probability of a SINGLE CELL coming about by chance is 1/10340,000,000, the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by 340 million zeros!” THAT’S THREE HUNDRED AND FORTY MILLION ZERO’S!!!!! There are many figures out there for “problemabilities” (hehe) of the same but lets just say that that they “all” have many more noughts than your great, great granny’s age. So who believes in the supernatural NOW?? |
You do. You think that evolution requires cells to just poof into existence with all their parts intact and working, which is the only basis for such a probability calculation. Plus, you didn't show any math, you just posted a number and a long-debunked lie to go with it.| There is not one fossil anywhere in the world proving a transitional step between a species. |
Of course not. There are millions of them. |
Dave, you have embarrassed yourself by making this statement in public. I DARE you to proclaim even one, let alone millions, or anybody else for that matter can reply. Please “think” way before you write. |
No, the millions of fossils demonstrate transitions. Not any single one of them. Your expectations simply confirm your lack of understanding of evolution. Yet you choose to comment on it as if you're an expert.| Dave, evolution does not supply an answer for the origins of life as the primordial soup theory has been thrown out the window by all evolutionists who matter as a STUPID, INCORRECT AND IGNORANT THEORY. |
Name one "evolutionist who matters" who rejects all current abiogenesis hypotheses, please.| So what does this leave? Peoples opinions. That’s it, and that’s it alone. |
You wish.| Dawkins says space aliens could be responsible, others have no idea. Some say a creator is responsible. Draw your own conclusions but don’t pretend evolution has proven anything here, nor has any answers, otherwise, you just may be “unscientific”. |
If it were just a matter of opinion, why are you so dead-set on proving evolution to be wrong?| Don’t forget that you ridiculed me for “Suggesting a designer”, but so did Dawkins, is he wrong too? If so, why do you believe anything he says? He is a scientist isn’t he? Scientists have an “enlightened understanding” don’t they? No?. Didn’t think so. |
If you're going to carry on a conversation all by yourself, have fun, but don't pretend that the answers you supply are the same as the answers I would supply.| No Dave, you are the one who needs to check out not the “NEWS” but science. Sure millers experiment is correct, I don’t deny it, electricity can produce amino acids. but evolutionists who are worth their salt know that the experiment is incorrect because the “ATMOSPHERE” used is not one that evolutionists now believe was present at primordial soup ( discredited) time. |
Name one evolutionist "worth their salt" who thinks that Miller's experiments were wrong.| You see oxygen was not present in the atmosphere by miller and was thought not to be present at primordial time but scientists now know that oxygen ( an oxidant) “WAS” present in “ABUNDANCE” at the time as is “PROVEN” by oxidants caused by oxygen in rocks formed at the primordial time. |
No, the oxygen was present later. Here's some more Wikipedia for you to change:Sometime during the late Archaean era an oxygen-containing atmosphere began to develop, apparently from photosynthesizing algae which have been found as stromatolite fossils from 2.7 billion years ago...
Free oxygen did not exist until about 1.7 billion years ago and this can be seen with the development of the red beds and the end of the banded iron formations. This signifies a shift from a reducing atmosphere to an oxidising atmosphere. | Oxygen destroys amino acids and prevents its creation via electricity. This makes the experiment redundant and scientists no longer believe this theory, ( except for dopey ones). Do your homework please. |
No, you do your homework and provide some names of these allegedly non-dopey scientists who think that oxygen was present long before there's any evidence of it.
| Even Dawkins admits there is no explaination ( evolutionary) for the beginning of life. |
Yeah, that's because he's strictly separating evolutionary theory and abiogenesis theory. I see no need for that, since chemical evolution long predated (and was necessary for) the evolution of life.| (Except for his alien theory, and we will all ignor that im sure). |
We'll ignore it because it's not a theory. You keep repeating this as if it will magically make Dawkins' statement mean what you think it means, when it doesn't.| Also the “sludge found by miller was found to contain only 2% amino acid, the rest of which has not been found in any rock strata proving the theory incorrect. |
Where is your evidence for this?| The amino acids were also equally left and rights, an incompatible building block for life. |
Actually, chirality explanations are pretty good already. The idea that this is a big stumbling block for OOL researchers is an old canard.| And Dave, i came back didnt i. I wouldnt have said i would if i didnt mean it. |
Hey, most people who say things like you do don't come back. I was playing the odds.| Hope there is some food for thought for some of you. |
Nope. Same old tired nonsense in which mathematical laws are presented without any math, probabilities are claimed without proper context, and lies are lied for Jesus Christ. |
- 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 - 11/30/2009 : 13:39:09 [Permalink]
|
Hydrothermal vents are incredible, so much so that there is a school of thought that abiogenesis occurred at them, rather than at some "warm little pond." Indeed, it could still be occurring today, although any progeny would quickly fall to predation by the fabulous creatures already established at the vents.
The deep sea vent theory
The deep sea vent, or hydrothermal vent, theory for the origin of life on Earth posits that life may have begun at submarine hydrothermal vents, where hydrogen-rich fluids emerge from below the sea floor and interface with carbon dioxide-rich ocean water. Sustained chemical energy in such systems is derived from redox reactions, in which electron donors, such as molecular hydrogen, react with electron acceptors, such as carbon dioxide (see iron-sulfur world theory).
|
Me, I dunno and at this point, neither does anyone else, including and especally the Creationists, who would have us believe it was all poofed into existence or made out of mud at the whim of some Great Juju or other -- Christians are not the only ones with a creation myth.
|
"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! 
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2009 : 16:15:44 [Permalink]
|
So Matt, you don't have any response to ERVs, chromosome 2, or transposition. Didn't figure you would. Oh well.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
matt36
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2009 : 23:28:32 [Permalink]
|
Ok ok, ill try to start again in a better format. I cannot answer to all comments so ill need to just pick and choose the more important ones. But if you want to challenge me on something please make it clear that you wish me to respond to you.
Originally posted by filthy
Bah! To perdition with all that assertions smeg! I want something with a little raw meat outside the bone and sweet marrow within.
Here's another transitional and while it doesn't look likely that Tiktaalik was a direct ancestor of it, it was certainly a partner in the fish to amphibian lineage. I speak, of course, of ol' Spiny-Roof; Acanthostegia.
Acanthostega gunneri
The skull roof of Acanthostega gunneri was first recovered from Famennian deposits (360 million years ago) in eastern Greenland in 1933, and was described and named in 1952 by Erik Jarvik. Additional fossils were recovered during a 1970 geological expedition, but they languished in obscurity until rediscovered by Jennifer Clack. In a 1987 expedition led by Clack and Per Ahlberg recovered some exceptionally well preserved material from several individuals.
The abundance and quality of Acanthostega remains has made it the best known of the early tetrapods. From their investigations of these remains Clack and Michael Coates have reported a series of remarkable findings that have necessitated changes in our thinking on early tetrapod evolution.
Prior to these findings, most scientists assumed that the evolution of legs and feet was initiated and driven by the colonization of land. Here, however, was an early tetrapod that was ill-suited for life on land. It had well-defined digits (fingers and toes), but no wrists or ankles. It had relatively long limb bones, but they couldn't support much weight. Its hip also couldn't support much weight since it was weakly attached to the spine.
A firm attachment to the spine wouldn't help much anyway, since its spine was structurally based on the (ancestral) notochord rather than on a series of interlocking, yet flexible, vertebrae. The spine was well-suited for handling the mechanical stresses of swimming but was nearly useless for supporting weight. Moreover, its short and thin ribs were incapable of protecting vital organs. Acanthostega also had a deep tail which sported a large bony fin. In short, it had a tail suited for swimming, a fish's spine and paddle-like limbs.
|
It is most probable that this animal never left the water. It is also probable that it lived under fairly stagnant, oxygen-poor conditions that required an auxiliary breathing apparatus as seen in many fishes today, electric eels and catfishes being among them. They use the swim bladder as a rudimentary lung. It was a predator of pond shores and swamps, making it's living snapping up 'most anything that came near enough, in or out of the water.
Damn, but you gotta love the Devonian! There was some amazing evolutionary action in those days, when the tetrapods first invaded the land. The arthropods, of course, were already well established there, having come ashore in the Cambrian, but that's another story in the stone to dig out another time.
|
There are zero "transitionals" This example of a transitional fossil means nothing.
Lets say we are in a time before Darwinism. We find this fossil and what do we think? We may come up with all types of things but ill bet the most common line of thought would be that its an extinct species. No proof exists that it is an extinct species but likewise there is no proof its a transitional. Its just an idea, its not proven that its a transitional. The fossil is neither for nor against evolution. Same goes for all the other so called transitionals. Its only an idea that someone has to try and support their evolutionary theory. Just because it fits the theory doesnt mean it proves the theory. It also fits the theory of an extinct species just as well. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2009 : 23:47:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
There are zero "transitionals" This example of a transitional fossil means nothing.
Lets say we are in a time before Darwinism. We find this fossil and what do we think? We may come up with all types of things but ill bet the most common line of thought would be that its an extinct species. No proof exists that it is an extinct species but likewise there is no proof its a transitional. Its just an idea, its not proven that its a transitional. The fossil is neither for nor against evolution. Same goes for all the other so called transitionals. Its only an idea that someone has to try and support their evolutionary theory. Just because it fits the theory doesnt mean it proves the theory. It also fits the theory of an extinct species just as well. |
Wow, you really don't have a clue as to what "transitional fossil" means, do you? Why don't you tell us what you think a "transitional fossil" is, so we can all understand why you think there are "zero" of them? Don't just quote Wikipedia or some other source on this one, relate to us your own internal understanding of the term, please. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
matt36
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
 Posted - 12/01/2009 : 01:13:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by matt36
Virus's have always evolved. they have been designed this way. This is not Darwinian evolution as there is no transition of species even after long periods. |
Why are you arguing against 150-year-old notions of evolution? Is it because you can't argue against current evolutionary theory?| Creationists do not deny micro evolution. Macro evolution is an entirely different concept altogether and has never been observed or recorded to the record of fossils. |
At what point (be specific) does "micro" become "macro?" | There is no specific point as you request. This is because we are dealing with two entirely differnt types of evolution. Micro evolution is found on some species to say have become larger or smaller or a part of the animal has become smaller or larger. good example is Darwins finches where he observed the beaks becoming larger due to the food types being eaten. he failed though to realise that these beaks over the generations returned to normal size. All this is because micro evolution is not Darwinian evolution which requires many small steps of evolution to change into a completely new species. This happens and is dictated by environment, aka survival of the fittest. |
There is NO proof of evolution whatso ever... |
So you claim, but all you've spouted is nonsense, so far.| ...and if it was true the fossil record would have BILLIONS of examples of it. |
It does.| All life found in the oldest layers of the earth appear exactly the same as their modern example in younger strata. |
Wow. Some of that old life doesn't exist anymore at all.| No transitions appear. Transitions paraded as transitions have been proven as fraudulent... |
Name three. 1.Piltdown... ok i know you all know that one. 2.Probably the most recent one is Archaeoraptor. A farmer digging in a shale pit in Xiasanjiazi, China, hacked out a slab containing “the fossilized bones of what seemed to be a bird, including a faint aura of feathers and a beak lined with tiny teeth”. “Continuing to dig, he uncovered another, smaller slab a couple of yards away. This one contained a tail, rigid and about the size of a crocheting needle, a skull, a foot, and some other parts”.
The farmer took the two slabs home. “Using a home made paste, he glued the slab of the tail to the lower portion of the birdlike body. With counterslab pieces from the body itself–and possibly other scraps he had kept over time–he glued in missing legs and feet”. “The result was the missing link–the body of a primitive bird with teeth and the tail of a landbound little dinosaur, or dromaeosaur. In time the tail, and the question whether or not it belonged where it was stuck, would wag the dinosaur.
The reason the fraud was not immediately discovered was that scientists who looked at it at first were busy with other projects, and assuming it was authentic, did not scrutinize it carefully. Stephen A. Czerkas, director of a nonprofit dinosaur museum raised $80,000 to buy it, never doubting it was authentic. He stated, “It’s a missing link between terrestrial dinosaurs and birds that could actually fly”.
He showed it to the renowned Canadian scientist, Philip J. Currie, who accepted it as authentic without adequately examining the fossil, supposing it was real. He consulted with Christopher Sloan of National Geographic who wrote the story that the missing link between dinosaurs and birds had been found. A complete investigation of the fossil was not made because of a deadline to submit the story for publication.
Kevin Aulenback examined the fossil and wrote that it “is a composite specimen of at least 3 specimens.with a maximum.of five.separate specimens”. This should have been adequate evidence that it was a fraud; however, not until Xu Xing presented the results of his examination of the fossil was it finally admitted that it was a fraud. “`I am 100% sure..’ Xu wrote, `we have to admit that Archaeoraptor is a faked specimen’”.Finally it was conceded that “beyond all doubt that the tail belonged to the second fossil” Now this is not a deliberate fraud but it was deliberatly and rabidly accepted by scientists who are so eager to prove evolution that they failed to realise it was fake. 3. The transitional timeline for the evolution of horses. In 1841, the earliest so-called “horse” fossil was discovered in clay around London. The scientist who unearthed it, Richard Owen, found a complete skull that looked like a fox’s head with multiple back-teeth as in hoofed animals. He called it Hyracotherium. He saw no connection between it and the modern-day horse. In 1874, another scientist, Kovalevsky, attempted to establish a link between this small fox-like creature, which he thought was 70 million years old, and the modern horse. In 1879, an American fossil expert, O. C. Marsh, and famous evolutionist Thomas Huxley, collaborated for a public lecture which Huxley gave in New York. Marsh produced a schematic diagram which attempted to show the so-called development of the front and back feet, the legs, and the teeth of the various stages of the horse. He published his evolutionary diagram in the American Journal of Science in 1879, and it found its way into many other publications and textbooks. The scheme hasn’t changed. It shows a beautiful gradational sequence in “the evolution” of the horse, unbroken by any abrupt changes. This is what we see in school textbooks. If it were true, you would expect to find the earliest horse fossils in the lowest rock strata. But you don’t. In fact, bones of the supposed “earliest” horses have been found at or near the surface. Sometimes they are found right next to modern horse fossils! O.C. Marsh commented on living horses with multiple toes, and said there were cases in the American Southwest where “both fore and hind feet may each have two extra digits fairly developed, and all of nearly equal size, thus corresponding to the feet of the extinct Protohippus”. In National Geographic (January 1981, p. 74), there is a picture of the foot of a so-called early horse, Pliohippus, and one of the modern Equus that were found at the same volcanic site in Nebraska. The writer says: “Dozens of hoofed species lived on the American plains.” Doesn’t this suggest two different species, rather than the evolutionary progression of one. There is no one site in the world where the evolutionary succession of the horse can be seen. Rather, the fossil fragments have been gathered from several continents on the assumption of evolutionary progress, and then used to support the assumption. This is circular reasoning, and does not qualify as objective science.
The theory of horse evolution has very serious genetic problems to overcome. How do we explain the variations in the numbers of ribs and lumbar vertebrae within the imagined evolutionary progression? For example, the number of ribs in the supposedly “intermediate” stages of the horse varies from 15 to 19 and then finally settles at 18. The number of lumbar vertebrae also allegedly swings from six to eight and then returns to six again. Finally, when evolutionists assume that the horse has grown progressively in size over millions of years, what they forget is that modern horses vary enormously in size. The largest horse today is the Clydesdale; the smallest is the Fallabella, which stands at 17 inches (43 centimeters) tall. Both are members of the same species, and neither has evolved from the other.
4.Lucy the hominid. There are no Facial bones nor foot or hand bones. No skull cap and 60% of everything else is missing. The fossil is a complete fabrication. Professor David Menton of the university of washington said, "The statue is a complete misrepresentation and i believe they know its a misrepresentation". He was speaking of the wax figure protrayed on the museum and books of Lucy. But the worst part is this, The pelvis bones have been deliberatly changed to suit a more monkey like config. Apes have their pelvic bones in a flat sideways pointing direction while humans have their pelvic bone pointing in a forward position. This forward position is what enables man to stand erect and the pelvic bones of apes are such so that they are stooped. Lucys bones were changed. J Stern and R Sussman of the American Journal of Physical Anthropology said, "The fact that the anterior portion of the iliac blade faces laterally in humans but not in chimpanzees is obvious. The marked resemblance of Lucy to the chimpanzee is equally obvious. It suggests to us that the lateral pelvic balance during bipedalism was closer to that of apes than humans". Dr Owen Lovejoy actually seemed to disagree that Lucys bone could resemble a chimps so what does he do? He make a mould and gets a power saw out and "MODIFIES" the bones so that they fit as he would like them so that it backs up the case for evolution. There is a video of him actually doing this.
|
...neanderthals have shown to be no different in DNA to modern man. |
Where is the evidence for that claim? | According to Rick Groleau and many others including notable evolutionists, Neandethals are humans. "Comparing mtDNA of these Neanderthals to mtDNA of living people from various continents, researchers have found that the Neanderthals' mtDNA is not more closely related to that of people from any one continent over another. This was an unwelcome finding for anthropologists" |
Any other non fraudulent one are proof of nothing as it easily possible that they are extinct species. |
Of course most transitional fossils are of extinct species. Why would you think things would be otherwise?| Vestigial organs of humans were once thought of by evolutionists as left over organs from the evolutionary process. Modern medical doctors have now proven this as a wannabe theory. They have now proven to have use, all of them. |
If you can find a single evolutionary scientist ever claiming that vestigial organs have no function, I'll send you ten bucks. In other words, you're making up a meaning for the word "vestigial" which no scientist uses. In still other words, you're just blindly following along with what your creationist preachers tell you.
|
I did not make up the word Vestigial organs. here is an excerpt from the national geographic.
Vestigial Organs Not So Useless After All, Studies Find
Maggie Koerth-Baker
for National Geographic News
July 30, 2009
Appendix, tonsils, various redundant veins—they're all vestigial body parts once considered expendable, if not downright useless.
But as technology has advanced, researchers have found that, more often than not, some of these "junk parts" are actually hard at work.
Case in point: the spleen, which a new study shows may be critical in healing damaged hearts (interactive heart guide).
Sure, the spleen—kidney shaped and tucked into the upper left of your abdomen—helps spot infections and filters out red blood cells that are damaged or old. But overall the organ has been seen as nonessential. Cut it out, and people still live.
But the new study, to be published tomorrow in the journal Science, has uncovered another, more critical role.
How Do You Mend a Broken Heart?
Researchers studying mice discovered that the spleen stores monocytes, white blood cells essential for immune defense and tissue repair.
Previously, scientists had thought monocytes were made only in bone marrow, like other types of white blood cells, and were "stored" in the bloodstream.
But the new study found that the spleen contains ten times as many monocytes as blood—making it a far more important storehouse.
What's more, the spleen is the source of 40 to 50 percent of the monocytes involved in nursing lab mice back to health after a heart attack, said study co-author Filip Swirski of Massachusetts General Hospital's Center for Systems Biology in Boston.
"If you're going to survive a heart attack, your heart has to heal the proper way, and that depends on monocytes," Swirski said.
"It was thought that the monocytes that accumulated immediately after a heart attack were ones that had been circulating in the blood. But we did calculations and found that the number that accumulated in the heart far exceeded the number in circulation," he said.
|
|
|
|
|
matt36
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2009 : 01:25:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by matt36
There are zero "transitionals" This example of a transitional fossil means nothing.
Lets say we are in a time before Darwinism. We find this fossil and what do we think? We may come up with all types of things but ill bet the most common line of thought would be that its an extinct species. No proof exists that it is an extinct species but likewise there is no proof its a transitional. Its just an idea, its not proven that its a transitional. The fossil is neither for nor against evolution. Same goes for all the other so called transitionals. Its only an idea that someone has to try and support their evolutionary theory. Just because it fits the theory doesnt mean it proves the theory. It also fits the theory of an extinct species just as well. |
Wow, you really don't have a clue as to what "transitional fossil" means, do you? Why don't you tell us what you think a "transitional fossil" is, so we can all understand why you think there are "zero" of them? Don't just quote Wikipedia or some other source on this one, relate to us your own internal understanding of the term, please.
|
Dave, dont treat me like im stupid please. A transitional fossil is exactly as the name says. Its a record of part of the transition from a lower evolved species to another. |
|
|
|
matt36
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2009 : 01:48:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by R.Wreck
Welcome matt.
Perhaps you could clarify one thing for me:
How does "micro" evolution NOT violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, yet "macro" evolution does?
I eagerly await your answer.
|
R.Wreck. I have previously stated the differences between Micro and Macro evolution. But ill explain again in short. Micro isnt Darwinian evolution. Macro is. Micro does not modify a species to another higher evolved species, its still the same species and may in fact return to its previous state as was the case with Darwins finches. Macro is small steps, (not lots of micro,s equally a Macro) in transitions to a new species.
Entrophy is the reason that thermo dynamics does not apply to Micro evolution as micro evolution does not become a more complex state or higher in its order.
Within thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, entropy is a measure of the number of random ways in which a system may be arranged often taken to be a measure of "disorder". Increases in entropy correspond to irreversible changes in a system, reducing the system's ability to do work as energy is lost to irretrievable heat. Thermodynamic entropy is a non-conserved state function that is of great importance in the sciences of physics and chemistry. Historically, the concept of entropy evolved in order to explain why some processes are spontaneous and others are not; entropy is accordingly an index of a system's tendency towards spontaneous change, with systems tending to progress in the direction of increasing entropy. In fact, for isolated systems, entropy is constrained by the condition that it never decreases. This fact has several important consequences in science: first, it prohibits "perpetual motion" machines; and second, it suggests an arrow of time.
An everyday example of entropy can be seen in a deck of cards. A deck ordered by suit and number will tend to progress towards a randomly arranged deck upon shuffling, because the latter system has more possible states than the former. Furthermore, this process is thermodynamically irreversible; restoring the deck to its ordered state requires the application of work. The recovery of the ordered deck via the random process of shuffling is highly unlikely because the random deck has a much higher entropy.
|
|
|
|
matt36
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2009 : 02:08:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Let's dispense with the silly Creationist version of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and get it over with. That'll likely save us all a lot of ennui.
"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."
This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.
However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?
The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws."
There. Now, just for the hell of it, lets do a transitional, an ancient one that was predicted by the ToE long before it was actually found:
"Description
Skull showing spiracle holes above the eyes Tiktaalik represents an intermediate form between fish and amphibians. Unlike many previous, more fishlike transitional fossils, Tiktaalik's "fins" have basic wrist bones and simple fingers, showing that they were weight bearing. Close examination of the joints show that although they probably were not used to walk, they were more than likely used to prop up the creature’s body, push up fashion.[4] The bones of the fore fins show large muscle facets, suggesting that the fin was both muscular and had the ability to flex like a wrist joint. These wrist-like features would have helped anchor the creature to the bottom in fast moving current.[4][5]
Also notable are the spiracles on the top of the head, which suggest the creature had primitive lungs as well as gills. This would have been useful in shallow water, where higher water temperature would lower oxygen content. This development may have led to the evolution of a more robust ribcage, a key evolutionary trait of land living creatures.[2] The more robust ribcage of Tiktaalik would have helped support the animal’s body any time it ventured outside a fully aquatic habitat. Tiktaalik also lacked a characteristic that most fishes have—bony plates in the gill area that restrict lateral head movement. This makes Tiktaalik the earliest known fish to have a neck. This would give the creature more freedom in hunting prey either on land or in the shallows.[5]
In Late Devonian vertebrate speciation, descendants of pelagic lobe-finned fish – like Eusthenopteron – exhibited a sequence of adaptations:
Panderichthys, suited to muddy shallows;
Tiktaalik with limb-like fins that could take it onto land;
Early tetrapods in weed-filled swamps, such as:
Acanthostega which had feet with eight digits,
Ichthyostega with limbs.
Descendants also included pelagic lobe-finned fish such as coelacanth species.Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil; it is to tetrapods what Archaeopteryx is to birds. While it may be that neither is ancestor to any living animal, they serve as evidence that intermediates between very different types of vertebrates did once exist. The mixture of both fish and tetrapod characteristics found in Tiktaalik include these traits:
Fish
fish gills
fish scales
"Fishapod"
half-fish, half-tetrapod limb bones and joints, including a functional wrist joint and radiating, fish-like fins instead of toes
half-fish, half-tetrapod ear region
Tetrapod
tetrapod rib bones
tetrapod mobile neck
tetrapod lungs
Limb shoulder to find Tiktaalik generally had the characteristics of a lobe-finned fish, but with front fins featuring arm-like skeletal structures more akin to a crocodile, including a shoulder, elbow, and wrist. The rear fins and tail have not yet been found. It had rows[6] of sharp teeth of a predator fish, and its neck was able to move independently of its body, which is not possible in other fish. The animal also had a flat skull resembling a crocodile's; eyes on top of its head, suggesting it spent a lot of time looking up; a neck and ribs similar to those of tetrapods, with the latter being used to support its body and aid in breathing via lungs; well developed jaws suitable for catching prey; and a small gill slit called a spiracle that, in more derived animals, became an ear.[7]
Life restoration of Tiktaalik roseae made for the National Science FoundationThe fossils were found in the "Fram Formation", deposits of meandering stream systems near the Devonian equator, suggesting a benthic animal that lived on the bottom of shallow waters and perhaps even out of the water for short periods, with a skeleton indicating that it could support its body under the force of gravity whether in very shallow water or on land. At that period, for the first time, deciduous plants were flourishing and annually shedding leaves into the water, attracting small prey into warm oxygen-poor shallows that were difficult for larger fish to swim in.[2] The discoverers said that in all likelihood, Tiktaalik flexed its proto-limbs primarily on the floor of streams and may have pulled itself onto the shore for brief periods.[9] Neil Shubin and Ted Daeschler, the leaders of the team, have been searching Ellesmere Island for fossils since 1999.[4][10]
“ We're making the hypothesis that this animal was specialized for living in shallow stream systems, perhaps swampy habitats, perhaps even to some of the ponds. And maybe occasionally, using its very specialized fins, for moving up overland. And that's what is particularly important here. The animal is developing features which will eventually allow animals to exploit land."
—Ted Daeschler,"
I dislike the "missing link" terminology. There are none, only information yet to come to light, and virtually all of it predicted by the Theory of Evolution. The discovery of Tiktaalik, after a lot of hard work, was a very pleasant surprise but not an astounding one.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Dennett answers NY Times on Dawkins’ book
Topic Locked
