- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 07 2010,07:01) A whole page of strawmen, and not one single disproof of evolution by natural selection. We don't have to debate you, you have defeated yourself.
Stuart
You were the one that called the thread “debating Bodhitharta” and now you want to run?Do you believe that poisonous snakes were all at one point non-venomous or were any non-venemous snakes formerly venemous?
Did bats evolve sonar capabilities and if so how did they hunt before then?
Just very briefly,
Quote It is important for the teaching of children to know that scientist would often mask a skull to look a certain way that was primarily coming from the imagination of the scientist. Bones do not reflect hair and skin placement or texture, would you deny this?
There may be some wild models made based on skulls, but none of them have been important for establishing that natural selection is the best explanation for the fact of evolution, because it is the skull not the reconstruction that is used as evidence. As a child I would rather have been told that a fanciful skull reconstruction was an ancestor species than lied to that myth of Adam and Eve represented anything real.Quote It is important to know for example that Scientist have never created living matter out of non living matter. Ironically a lot of pepole don't realize that very important fact. Scientist have never created even 1 cell from non living matter.
But you are not going to tell us why you think it is important. Actually it is not, and it has nothing to do with Darwin’s theory, which is in no way disproved by our technological capabilities or otherwise.Quote The invertebrate species called Nautilus, which proliferates in the seas of today, is also found in abundance in fossil form in the Cambrian strata dating back 520 million years. Since the day of its creation, the Nautilus has not undergone any evolution. the Nautilus has not undergone any evolution. Is this true or false?
False.Quote GENETIC MATHEMATICS human 100 %
chimpanzee 86.7 %
That puts the Chimpanzee at
LESS than HALFWAY
between a Worm and Human!
And even more recently researchers found that about
80% of the proteins in the human
and chimpanzee genomes are different.Quote Well if that last figure is true then the 86.7% one cannot possibly be, can it?! It must be that chimps are only 20% human. Of course neither is right. A difference can be just one neutral swap of a single amino acid for another, which can have no effect on the fact that the protein does the same job regardless. You would expect this with natural selection, but not with common design. Well done on giving a good piece of evidence for Darwin’s theory.
Quote If all things are related then there classifications are all abitrary, right?
Yes.Quote You said “Whales are mammals, and not remotely fish.” if they are related wouldn't that make them “remotely fish”
Yes. And you are remotely daffodil. (Ask t8!) That is how the Linnaean system works. All living things share some traits, as you move from trunk to branch of the tree the divisions describe finer and finer differences. Humans and chimpanzees belong on the same twig of that tree.Quote Mammal doesn't equate to human, is that clear. The platypus is a tetrapod and a mammal but is clearly not human. A bat is not a tetrapod but is a mammal. Are you following all this?
Oh dear. Where to start?Humans are mammals. They feed their young with milk.
The platypus is a monotreme, a kind of mammal that does feed its young with milk but lays eggs instead of giving birth. It is exactly the kind of animal creationists mockingly say should exist if evolution is true!
A bat IS a tetrapod; two of its legs are adapted into wings, which can be seen in the way the ‘fingers’ form the framework of the wing.
Glad you mentioned whales. They have hip bones. Certainly those bones have modern functions to do with being anchoring points for ligaments, but they are unquestionably hipbones. Why would whales have ever needed hips?
Quote Think carefully and realize that you are saying that the lower order of the apes survived and the Man has survived but all in between did not survive. The apes do not have any signifigant intelligence and the chimp has 35 million differences from a human so what you are saying is that the closer an ape gets to being a human the more likely he is to be extinct.
No that just displays patent ignorance about the nature of the species in question. We are the only species of human because we progressively stole the environment of all other versions of us, most recently the Neanderthals. Chimpanzees are similarly competitive apes, and they survived because we left them the trees, although we can see that changing in the same way today, with chimps heading for extinction. There are the bonobos, who branched off because of the geographical allopatric split caused by the appearance of the Congo river, and they survive today (again periously) because they exploit a different biological economy.I did think carefully. Did you?
Quote No new genetic material can be added to DNA.
False.Quote Trait changes result in re-arranging(recombination) the genetic code that is already present.
No, Lamarckian evolution is wrong. Acquired traits do not affect the genome.Quote We do observe mutations, but they are a loss of information or a defective copy of information that damages the species.
Most are. Not all.Quote recombination does not add new information.
No, but it does add new combinations of traits, giving greater variation, which is the reason nature goes to al
l the energy expense of doing sexual reproduction.Quote Unless the UCA genome got information to change into other genomes and those genomes got information to change in to other genomes all with specific sets of NEW INSTRUCTIONS it couldn't have happened
This was the answer you were given at RichardDawkins.net:Specific sets of new instructions, no, but point mutations, insertions and duplications etc. have, over time, changed genomes, with the aid of natural selection of course.
Quote New information added to DNA has never been observed in science. But you said there were mutations that were bad, right? Are they not ‘new information’? Actually you don’t know what you mean by ‘new information’.
Quote Still want to debate Bodhitharta?
Not really. You don’t know enough for it to be interesting. There are far more ingenious creationist lies to quibble over than the ones you choose to copy and paste from AnswersInGenesis.Stuart
Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 07 2010,07:57) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 07 2010,07:01) A whole page of strawmen, and not one single disproof of evolution by natural selection. We don't have to debate you, you have defeated yourself.
Stuart
You were the one that called the thread “debating Bodhitharta” and now you want to run?Do you believe that poisonous snakes were all at one point non-venomous or were any non-venemous snakes formerly venemous?
Did bats evolve sonar capabilities and if so how did they hunt before then?
I don't know the answers to either, I am not an evolutionary zoologist.Are you interested in the answers?
Are you bright enough to understand them?
Are you honest enough not to misrepresent them?
I could find the answers to your questions, indeed Richard Dawkins has a brilliant description of bat sonar in his book “The Blind Watchmaker”, but tell me why I should bother. Your usual modus operandi is to ignore intelligent responses and change the subject, indeed that is the point of this thread, to highlight your dishonesty in doing what you laughably call “debate”.
You are demonstrating that with every post.
By the way since you mentioned snakes, tell us why some more primitive snake species, some boas, for example, have vestigial hip bones!
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 07 2010,08:43) Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 07 2010,07:57) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 07 2010,07:01) A whole page of strawmen, and not one single disproof of evolution by natural selection. We don't have to debate you, you have defeated yourself.
Stuart
You were the one that called the thread “debating Bodhitharta” and now you want to run?Do you believe that poisonous snakes were all at one point non-venomous or were any non-venemous snakes formerly venemous?
Did bats evolve sonar capabilities and if so how did they hunt before then?
I don't know the answers to either, I am not an evolutionary zoologist.Are you interested in the answers?
Are you bright enough to understand them?
Are you honest enough not to misrepresent them?
I could find the answers to your questions, indeed Richard Dawkins has a brilliant description of bat sonar in his book “The Blind Watchmaker”, but tell me why I should bother. Your usual modus operandi is to ignore intelligent responses and change the subject, indeed that is the point of this thread, to highlight your dishonesty in doing what you laughably call “debate”.
You are demonstrating that with every post.
By the way since you mentioned snakes, tell us why some more primitive snake species, some boas, for example, have vestigial hip bones!
Stuart
So you believe that certain snakes and whales don't need those bones? Why would you assume such things? Are hip bones solely for the purpose of walking?Aren't they for locomotion in general? Possible needed for whales to give birth.
As far as snakes such as the Boa it is a large snake so once again movement and possibly a birth device.
A lack of understanding does not mean it is vestigial as I have shown you with the appendix, The tonsil and also the cocyx
Quote So you believe that certain snakes and whales don't need those bones? Why would you assume such things?
Actually I gave one use for them. See how you misrepresent what people write?Quote Are hip bones solely for the purpose of walking?
Yes. If they are for other uses then you would not call them hip bones, would you.Quote Possible needed for whales to give birth.
Possibly!Quote As far as snakes such as the Boa it is a large snake so once again movement and possibly a birth device.
Are you saying it is or not?Quote A lack of understanding does not mean it is vestigial as I have shown you with the appendix, The tonsil and also the cocyx It is only you who has managed to maintain a lack of understanding. Just because we don’t know something doesn’t mean you can make the conclusion of goddidit. That is a logical fallacy.
Once again you misrepresent. I did not claim that tonsils were vestigial, but here you STILL are implying that in some way I did.
You lie about ‘showing me’ anything concerning the coxyx. This is the first time you have ever mentioned it to me.
We did discuss the appendix. I remember giving you the definitions of vestigial and explaining in what senses the appendix is vestigial. Of course you ignored that opportunity to educate yourself and carried on in the darkness of your own prejudice.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 07 2010,12:14) Quote So you believe that certain snakes and whales don't need those bones? Why would you assume such things?
Actually I gave one use for them. See how you misrepresent what people write?Quote Are hip bones solely for the purpose of walking?
Yes. If they are for other uses then you would not call them hip bones, would you.Quote Possible needed for whales to give birth.
Possibly!Quote As far as snakes such as the Boa it is a large snake so once again movement and possibly a birth device.
Are you saying it is or not?Quote A lack of understanding does not mean it is vestigial as I have shown you with the appendix, The tonsil and also the cocyx It is only you who has managed to maintain a lack of understanding. Just because we don’t know something doesn’t mean you can make the conclusion of goddidit. That is a logical fallacy.
Once again you misrepresent. I did not claim that tonsils were vestigial, but here you STILL are implying that in some way I did.
You lie about ‘showing me’ anything concerning the coxyx. This is the first time you have ever mentioned it to me.
We did discuss the appendix. I remember giving you the definitions of vestigial and explaining in what senses the appendix is vestigial. Of course you ignored that opportunity to educate yourself and carried on in the darkness of your own prejudice.
Stuart
Quote Yes. If they are for other uses then you would not call them hip bones, would you. Hips are not only for walking by the way Whales and Large snakes move in a way where gravity or inertia works horizontally not vertically so why wouldn't hip bones be needed to assist in locomotive pressure being transfered?
For instance since whales are mammals and need to breath air they have to exert continuous gravitational pressure in rising and diving, hip bones would only be a benefit and stabilizing force.
Quote Hips are not only for walking by the way Whales and Large snakes move in a way where gravity or inertia works horizontally not vertically so why wouldn't hip bones be needed to assist in locomotive pressure being transfered?
Even though they once WERE hip bones, I don't think they actually ARE hip bones any more, are they? I'm amused to see you calling them such. Surely a creationist wouldn't use those words, as they imply what you jokingly call “macroevolution”!Quote For instance since whales are mammals and need to breath air they have to exert continuous gravitational pressure in rising and diving, hip bones would only be a benefit and stabilizing force.
Yes. Why DO whales need to breath air? Sounds like a pretty stupid bit of 'design' to me, when there are plenty of other sea animals who don't have to. Perhaps common design is not all it seems eh?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 07 2010,12:29) Quote Hips are not only for walking by the way Whales and Large snakes move in a way where gravity or inertia works horizontally not vertically so why wouldn't hip bones be needed to assist in locomotive pressure being transfered?
Even though they once WERE hip bones, I don't think they actually ARE hip bones any more, are they? I'm amused to see you calling them such. Surely a creationist wouldn't use those words, as they imply what you jokingly call “macroevolution”!Quote For instance since whales are mammals and need to breath air they have to exert continuous gravitational pressure in rising and diving, hip bones would only be a benefit and stabilizing force.
Yes. Why DO whales need to breath air? Sounds like a pretty stupid bit of 'design' to me, when there are plenty of other sea animals who don't have to. Perhaps common design is not all it seems eh?Stuart
Because that is the way ther were created and they are majestic and beautiful. Do you think a blow hole evolved?There is no need to think these bones have anything to do with “macroevolution” because whales were never land animals and there is absolutely no evidence of such.
So did Blow holes evolve or not?
Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 06 2010,19:34) Because that is the way ther were created and they are majestic and beautiful. Do you think a blow hole evolved? There is no need to think these bones have anything to do with “macroevolution” because whales were never land animals and there is absolutely no evidence of such.
So did Blow holes evolve or not?
I'm glad Stu did not say this was only a debate between you and him.This is ridiculous.
Quote Because that is the way ther were created and they are majestic and beautiful. Do you think a blow hole evolved? Is this the best you have to offer, that they do not function as other sea creatures in obtaining oxygen from water? Why the difference? You say “because they were designed that way”. What a non-answer.
The truth of the matter is that whales should be like fish, getting oxygen from water. Since this is not the case, either they had a poor designer, or they are not completely evolved. Take your pick.
So you seem to think that whales once walked the earth with legs and no blowholes and then suddenly lost most of their legs and evolved a blowhole spontaneously and in the same time frame?
STU,
You are beyond naive. You have already admitted that mutations are rare and seldomly beneficial but now you give super selection qualities to the process of evolution. Now suddenly you believe that some event triggered a Huge land animal to go into the ocean develop a blowhole and lose it's ability to walk on land even though walking on land was no sort of disadvantage.
Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 07 2010,12:34) There is no need to think these bones have anything to do with “macroevolution” because whales were never land animals and there is absolutely no evidence of such.
So you aren't going to call them hip bones now?Stuart
Quote (kejonn @ Feb. 07 2010,12:43) Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 06 2010,19:34) Because that is the way ther were created and they are majestic and beautiful. Do you think a blow hole evolved? There is no need to think these bones have anything to do with “macroevolution” because whales were never land animals and there is absolutely no evidence of such.
So did Blow holes evolve or not?
I'm glad Stu did not say this was only a debate between you and him.This is ridiculous.
Quote Because that is the way ther were created and they are majestic and beautiful. Do you think a blow hole evolved? Is this the best you have to offer, that they do not function as other sea creatures in obtaining oxygen from water? Why the difference? You say “because they were designed that way”. What a non-answer.
The truth of the matter is that whales should be like fish, getting oxygen from water. Since this is not the case, either they had a poor designer, or they are not completely evolved. Take your pick.
Kejonn,So glad you joined in, Now please don't run away because it is time for you to be educated.
Whales should not be like fish although they are really big fish despite classifications to the contrary. Whales should be like whales because that is what they are but your disrespect for their design is astonishing. However if in-fact you consider whales not completely evolved in what way is their evolution incomplete?
Quote So you seem to think that whales once walked the earth with legs and no blowholes and then suddenly lost most of their legs and evolved a blowhole spontaneously and in the same time frame?
No. That would be a strawman of what I believe. This is what the evidence says:
From the Holy Wikipedia:
Whereas early cetaceans such as the Pakicetus had the nasal openings at the end of the snout, in later species such as the Rodhocetus, the openings had begun to drift toward the top of the skull. This is known as nasal drift.The nostrils of modern whales have become modified into blowholes that allow them to break to the surface, inhale, and submerge with convenience.
Quote You are beyond naive. You have already admitted that mutations are rare and seldomly beneficial but now you give super selection qualities to the process of evolution.
I take it you are claiming that you caused me to admit as such. Are you yourself therefore admitting that mutations can be beneficial?Why don’t you learn something about it? Creationism is a series of dull lies but real biology is fascinating.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 07 2010,12:45) Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 07 2010,12:34) There is no need to think these bones have anything to do with “macroevolution” because whales were never land animals and there is absolutely no evidence of such.
So you aren't going to call them hip bones now?Stuart
It doesn't matter I will call them hip bones or whatever that won't change any of the facts of their usage.Do you think dolphins were also roaming the grounds they have hip bones too?
What about porpoises?
How would a blowhole develop? It couldn't develop in the water and it wouldn't develop out of the water.
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 07 2010,12:56) Quote So you seem to think that whales once walked the earth with legs and no blowholes and then suddenly lost most of their legs and evolved a blowhole spontaneously and in the same time frame?
No. That would be a strawman of what I believe. This is what the evidence says:From the Holy Wikipedia:
Whereas early cetaceans such as the Pakicetus had the nasal openings at the end of the snout, in later species such as the Rodhocetus, the openings had begun to drift toward the top of the skull. This is known as nasal drift.The nostrils of modern whales have become modified into blowholes that allow them to break to the surface, inhale, and submerge with convenience.
Quote You are beyond naive. You have already admitted that mutations are rare and seldomly beneficial but now you give super selection qualities to the process of evolution.
I take it you are claiming that you caused me to admit as such. Are you yourself therefore admitting that mutations can be beneficial?Why don’t you learn something about it? Creationism is a series of dull lies but real biology is fascinating.
Stuart
The pakicetus skeleton turned out to be a four-footed structure, similar to that of common wolves. It was found in a region full of iron ore, and containing fossils of such terrestrial creatures as snails, tortoises, and crocodiles. In other words, it was part of a land stratum, not an aquatic one.If the marsupial Tasmanian wolf and the common placental wolf had both been extinct for a long time, then there is no doubt that evolutionists would picture them in the same taxon and define them as very close relatives. However, we know that these two different animals, although strikingly similar in their anatomy, are very far from each other in the supposed evolutionary tree of life. (In fact their similarity indicates common design-not common descent.)
the famous Russian whale expert G. A. Mchedlidze, too, does not support the description of Pakicetus, Ambulocetus natans, and similar four-legged creatures as “possible ancestors of the whale,” and describes them instead as a completely isolated group
Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 07 2010,12:57) Do you think dolphins were also roaming the grounds they have hip bones too?
Yes. That would explain why in their early embryology dolphins have little proto-legs (you have to look carefully, near the tail):
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 07 2010,13:05) Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 07 2010,12:57) Do you think dolphins were also roaming the grounds they have hip bones too?
Yes. That would explain why in their early embryology dolphins have little proto-legs (you have to look carefully, near the tail):Stuart
Are those proto-legs? Should I call the little finger like things “Hands” and say that they use to read books?Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 07 2010,13:05) The pakicetus skeleton turned out to be a four-footed structure, similar to that of common wolves. It was found in a region full of iron ore, and containing fossils of such terrestrial creatures as snails, tortoises, and crocodiles. In other words, it was part of a land stratum, not an aquatic one. If the marsupial Tasmanian wolf and the common placental wolf had both been extinct for a long time, then there is no doubt that evolutionists would picture them in the same taxon and define them as very close relatives. However, we know that these two different animals, although strikingly similar in their anatomy, are very far from each other in the supposed evolutionary tree of life. (In fact their similarity indicates common design-not common descent.)
the famous Russian whale expert G. A. Mchedlidze, too, does not support the description of Pakicetus, Ambulocetus natans, and similar four-legged creatures as “possible ancestors of the whale,” and describes them instead as a completely isolated group
Was this the first link that Google gave you?:http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_15.html
Their only argument appears to be an appeal to incredulity.
Why would you believe that one over this one?
http://tursiops.org/dolfin/guide/dolphinevo.html
Or this?
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms….25.html
From The Washington Post: Tokyo – Japanese researchers said Sunday that a bottlenose dolphin captured last month has an extra set of fins that could be the remains of hind legs, a discovery that may provide further evidence that ocean-dwelling mammals once lived on land… Fossil remains show dolphins and whales were four-footed land animals about 50 million years ago and share the same common ancestor as hippos and deer. Scientists believe they later transitioned to an aquatic lifestyle and their hind limbs disappeared.
Did you perhaps choose your source based on your prejudice? Are you a promoter of truth or your own cult mythology?
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
