|
3 registered members (AndrewAMD, Akow, 1 invisible),
1,417
guests, and 12
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#78110
06/25/06 22:39
06/25/06 22:39
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
OP
User
|
OP
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
What was the problem with the transitional fossils that were brought up here? The Tiktaalik and the two legged snake both certainly appear to be forms in transition.
What was the proof that it was in transition? It had fins that could flex? As I recall the fins of a coelacanth leds us to believe it was in transition. Oh wait, that one has been in stasis for about 100 million years or more. Hm.
This creature appears perfectly adapted to doing what it does. Mudskippers have been mudskippers for as long as we know. They haven't given birth to anything but mudskippers. Based on arbitrary and highly subjective classifications we could call these transitional. However, besides arbitrary classification, there's no reason to think mudskippers have, or will transition. But we should somehow assume that these creatures, which we only observe three partial skeletons of, gave birth to something besides the exact same creature. That's kind of a big leap of faith.
This creature is in transition, only if you assume that creatures do transition. Even then, we could only know that it transitioned, if we already know that creatures do transition. There's no evidence that it would otherwise, but the only reason you guys say we have to believe creatures do transition is because of the fossil record. That's getting kind of close to a tautology.
Quote:
the two legged snake both certainly appear to be forms in transition.
The two legged snake would only prove that animals could lose limbs, at best. You don't explain how animals got legs by saying they lost them. I guess there's the chance its in transition. Transition into something less than it was. Perhaps a true transitional fossil snake would show a lizard with a mostly normal skeletal structure, but with some snake like attributes. The only problem with that, is that nature would never select for such a creature. It would be rediculous to even think that a lizard would become a snake in the first place. At what point in being half lizard, half snake, would it be more adapted than just being a plain old lizard? In fact, the slow, bit by bit process makes it seem all but impossible.
Although, based on the evidence at hand, I could just say these snakes went extinct in their two legged form, without giving birth to any kids. My claim would be just as substantial. It just wouldn't be taken as seriously because it ignores evolution.
You can claim I lack imagination, but lizards move well because they're designed like lizards. It would be a burden extra ribs and body length, while still generally being a four legged lizard if you otherwise had a good way to move about.
Quote:
This is so not true, and I'm quite sure you haven't met or spoke to any paleontologist nor do you seem to have much knowledge about paleontology at all.
I'm sorry, they found the bones of actual humans. Except some of them were stricken with diseases, or they had smaller skulls than most, or overdeveloped features and they called them all new animals. Or they found highly fragmented skeletons, and added a whole bunch of imagination to get to a whole new animal.
Or someone outright hoaxed a skull and it passed your precious 'peer review' for 50 or so years before someone finally figured out they were lied to.
Quote:
You've misunderstood the observation-part here. He only witnissed natural selection, survival of the fittest and as a result of this he saw speciation around him. He didn't even had a full theory before he witnissed this. By the way, believing in your own theory when evidence shows you are at least on the right track, seems perfectly okey to me.
If Darwin had used a little bit of different reasoning, the evidence he saw would have put him on the right track to creation too. But I don't suppose that matters. Nothing he saw contradicts creation, he just imagined it was evidence for evolution.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 06/25/06 22:47.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#78111
06/26/06 12:19
06/26/06 12:19
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
If Darwin had used a little bit of different reasoning, the evidence he saw would have put him on the right track to creation too. But I don't suppose that matters. Nothing he saw contradicts creation, he just imagined it was evidence for evolution.
Okey, explain why the evidence would support creation instead please, because that sounds to me like plain crap.
Quote:
This creature appears perfectly adapted to doing what it does. Mudskippers have been mudskippers for as long as we know. They haven't given birth to anything but mudskippers.
Right, and there were also never sheep born with two heads, never humans without arms born, there is no such thing as a siamese twin and there is no such thing as mutations. 
Come on, evidence shows otherwise, seeing the forms in transition is as easy as 1,2,3, but you just desperately ignore them because it offends your belief.
By the way the coelacanth isn't THAT surprising, just look at sharks, that species is also over 100 million years old. It just means that their situation hasn't changed that much and that they've been adapted well enough to not need change that much.
Quote:
Although, based on the evidence at hand, I could just say these snakes went extinct in their two legged form, without giving birth to any kids. My claim would be just as substantial. It just wouldn't be taken as seriously because it ignores evolution.
You can claim I lack imagination, but lizards move well because they're designed like lizards. It would be a burden extra ribs and body length, while still generally being a four legged lizard if you otherwise had a good way to move about.
You don't lack imagination, otherwise you wouldn't believe in God in the first place. Do you know what 'rudimentary' bones are? If not, then better look it up.
If designed, then for exactly what does a whale need bones where once legs were? You see, your conclusion doesn't make sense if you ask me,
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: PHeMoX]
#78112
06/26/06 13:01
06/26/06 13:01
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,011
South Africa
capanno
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,011
South Africa
|
Quote:
Right, and there were also never sheep born with two heads, never humans without arms born, there is no such thing as a siamese twin and there is no such thing as mutations.
Yes, but those are scrambled info. No new info was added. the sheep did not grow a wing out of his nostril. That would be new info. Mutations dont cause a species to develop 'further'. in 99% of the cases mutations mess up a perfectly designed system. Look at your examples.
Quote:
If designed, then for exactly what does a whale need bones where once legs were? You see, your conclusion doesn't make sense if you ask me.
Those bones are part of the reproductive system.
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#78113
06/26/06 15:14
06/26/06 15:14
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
jcl
Chief Engineer
|
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
This creature appears perfectly adapted to doing what it does. Mudskippers have been mudskippers for as long as we know.
Of course it's adapted to doing what it does, otherwise it would have been removed by natural selection and we wouldn't have a fossil.
You're evading the issue. You first told that there were no transitional fossils, then we show you transitional fossils, and now you're telling us that those fossils are not transitional because they are adapted to doing what they do.
A species is transitional when it's just between two other species in time as well as in a certain feature, as in the above case the fin -> leg transition.
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: jcl]
#78114
06/26/06 20:47
06/26/06 20:47
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
OP
User
|
OP
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Okey, explain why the evidence would support creation instead please, because that sounds to me like plain crap.
Let's take his finches for instance. He saw that there were 13 species that were all fairly similar, and said it looked like they had come from a similar acestor. His assumption was that this ancestor was more basic than all of these species. When in fact, what we know about genetics, speciation, etc could just as easily have led him to the conclusion that there was an original finch, from which the genetic data had diverged (without the creation of NEW characteristics) into 13 different species. For instance, finches with longer beaks survived better in one environment, finches with thicker beaks survived better in another, and finches with smaller bodies in on environment, etc. Much like dogs, these finches are just the result of one set of one kind splitting off into various other species.
Basically, instead of jumping to the conclusion that all varieties of finches came from a basic ancestor, he could just as well have assumed they come from a more complex (genetically) ancestor. And there would be no reason to assume he was wrong. In fact, if we took selective pressures off (and this has been shown to happen) the finches could interbreed between species (hybridize) and return closer to the genetic characteristics of a more generalized finch.
Just as an example.
Quote:
Right, and there were also never sheep born with two heads, never humans without arms born, there is no such thing as a siamese twin and there is no such thing as mutations.
Remixing existing DNA into the wrong spot, or copying DNA into the wrong spot is hardly what I would call a transition. I mean, technically I guess it is. But its not going to change a sheep into a banana.
Quote:
Come on, evidence shows otherwise, seeing the forms in transition is as easy as 1,2,3, but you just desperately ignore them because it offends your belief.
Can you seriously not respond with anything except questioning my motives.
Quote:
By the way the coelacanth isn't THAT surprising, just look at sharks, that species is also over 100 million years old. It just means that their situation hasn't changed that much and that they've been adapted well enough to not need change that much.
Yeah. It seems pretty much every species reserved in the fossil record is perfectly adapted and doesn't change. Stasis (unchanging) is the rule, not the exception. The fossil record shows animals popping up, without ancestor, not changing, and then disappearing after million of years with relatively little change.
Quote:
If designed, then for exactly what does a whale need bones where once legs were? You see, your conclusion doesn't make sense if you ask me,
Man, digging out the lies of evolution is like digging out weeds. If you don't hit the whole root, it keeps popping back up. I totally almost typed pooping instead of popping. 
Anyway, those 'legs' are anchors for muscles and the genitals. They make reproduction possible. Doesn't sound like legs to me. Besides, they aren't attached to the 'axial' skeleton like you would expect legs to be. They 'float' below the spine.
Your theory doesn't make sense to me, because evolutionists can mislead people (or lie in some cases) and people will believe those lies for years and years.
Much like I believed a lie that eventually made me question evolution.
Quote:
You're evading the issue. You first told that there were no transitional fossils, then we show you transitional fossils, and now you're telling us that those fossils are not transitional because they are adapted to doing what they do.
Let me put it this way. Creatures never transition in real life. These creatures you cited don't have creatures that transition into them, or transition away from them. They just have fins that are different from most fish. Why can't I just assume that these creatures weren't created with these fins to begin with? There's just as much evidence that these animals haven't transitioned as there is that they have transitioned.
What takes it out of the range of fish, and into the range of some other kind of animal?
Coelacanth had unusual fins. Scientists original stated that it walked along the ocean floor. Then it turned out it just swam better with those kinds of fins. How is this any different?
The supposed transition here is between fins and arms. Your proof that fins turned into arms is an animal that has fins?
That's a killer whale's fin bone above the tiktaalik's. Why couldn't tiktaalik have evolved into whales, they look pretty close? If evolutionists were convinced that tiktaalik were the transition between fish and whales, this would have been 'undeniable proof' of the transition. In fact, the evidence is so open ended, that you can pretty much read any transition into it that looks relatively close.
The evidence is good enough to name a transition into several kinds of animals. So I say that means its not evidence that it lead to any of them. Again, if animals (even, and especially, according to the fossil record) do not change, why should I believe this one did?
There is no unbroken line of evolution in the fossil record, so what this comes down to once again is the argument that since some animals look alike, they must have evolved.
Whales have fins, why would fish eventually evolve into mammals which would then re-evolve fins again? Trying to add imaginary stories into animals and the fossil record is going to produce some inconstiencies or downright stupid ideas. Nature doesn't work the way evolution would like it to. You can read anything you want it to it, and the evidence is so open ended you'll eventually find 'undeniable proof'.
edit: My main point is we've heard all of this before. The clamoring by evolutionists to jump on the newest fossil. We've heard, "This animal has pre-legs before." But what'll happen is what always happens, they'll find a fossil they like better, and then so, "Ok, we admit now that it wasn't really a good example of a transition."
One other major point is that, like all other animals with lobe fins, this creature doesn't have the fins attached to the axial skeleton. It wouldn't be good for bearing weight, with the exception of (possibly) lifting the creature out of shallow water to gulp air.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 06/27/06 02:16.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#78115
06/27/06 09:02
06/27/06 09:02
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,011
South Africa
capanno
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,011
South Africa
|
Quote:
By the way the coelacanth isn't THAT surprising, just look at sharks, that species is also over 100 million years old. It just means that their situation hasn't changed that much and that they've been adapted well enough to not need change that much.
Another Q. Is it adaptation that causes variation or mutations? I species cant mutate willingly, can it? A mutation happens by itself. Then why is it that 'they did not have the need to change'? In 100 million years alot has supposed to have happened right? Then why is there not even the slightest change?
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: capanno]
#78116
06/27/06 09:17
06/27/06 09:17
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,121
Potsdam, Brandenburg, Germany
Machinery_Frank
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,121
Potsdam, Brandenburg, Germany
|
Sharks did change. Do you know how many different kinds of small and big sharks exists?
But when a shark is a perfect animal then it is very likely that every new mutation does not make it better. It can (and did) change to a new shark, smaller, thinner or whatever. But to make it a better hunter than it already is? There is no chance. It can smell over long distances, it can feel electricity under water and it can kill prey very fast. It is a perfect animal and most mutation make it worse not better.
Because of this it did not improve over the years.
And concerning the need of evolvement: If a being like human beings do not die very quickly...if there is no chance that a mutated human has an advantage over other ones or can get more children ... then there is no need and even no chance for evolution because you have no advantage over your opponents. In this case evolution stopps. The new mutation will be a weird being and thats all.
You simply need competition for evolution.
Models, Textures and Games from Dexsoft
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: Machinery_Frank]
#78117
06/27/06 09:49
06/27/06 09:49
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,305
Damocles
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,305
|
Here is a little tool, that enables people to see evolution accur in a simulated enviorment, and see how random mutations and selection can build up very complex structures. http://www.frams.alife.pl/ 
Last edited by Damocles; 06/27/06 09:54.
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#78119
06/27/06 20:29
06/27/06 20:29
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
You can usually tell the weakness of an idea by its evidence.
A brilliant observation. So, there being absolutely no evidence at all for creationism, it seems it is the weakest idea around.
Seriously, what evidence do you have for your position? None. All you can do is attack evolution, and hope this somehow helps your own claim, when inreality you have absolutely no positive evidenec for a creator or creation.
|
|
|
|
