Sunday, March 3, 2013

English Professor Completely Destroys Three Evolution Professors

And That Was Before He Saw Their Arguments

Because the only thing worse than having all your points refuted, is having all your points refuted before you even make them. In this telling exchange English professor Terry Scambray first shows Chemistry professor George Kauffman the door (“It’s disappointing to read George Kauffman assert … that everyone should accept Darwin’s “creation” story because a … congressman had a House Resolution passed saying that we should! Professor Kauffman … must know that House Resolutions are decorative statements, done to enhance politicians’ résumés. I hope that we could all agree that if members of Congress had to pay the cost to produce such trivia, none would exist.”) and then proceeds to anticipate and demolish the sophomoric, non scientific rebuttals that would come from Biology professors Paul Crosbie and Fred Schreiber. Scambray has just shown us that behind all the sound and fury of evolutionary bravado is nothing more than the same old themes. And so, without further ado, presenting, the man whom evolutionists should never debate.

Scambray first ensures that everyone understands the basics. And the basics are that the evidence does not support evolutionary theory very well. In fact there are major problems. Evolutionary theory certainly does not explain the data very well. But no sooner can Scambray warn that “No knowledgeable individual denies this” then the evolutionists, well, deny it:

TS: Animals and plants appear in the fossil record fully formed and remain unchanged through millions of years. No knowledgeable individual denies this.

PC/FS: Natural selection remains the mechanism that best explains the data we gather

Next Scambray forestalls the usual equivocation on evolution. The English professor is careful to ensure we understand what is meant by the word so we are not fooled when the inevitable equivocation was to come, and come it did, Scambray’s warnings notwithstanding:

TS: Such changes as occurred with these finches are sometimes referred to as "evolution in action." But these infinitesimal changes are not "evolution" in the way that Darwin meant the word. For he meant to explain how nature by itself could make something new, how one animal or plant over long periods of time could transform itself into something quite different, like a trout changing into a tiger, or a bacterium into a whale.

PC/FS: there unfortunately remain widespread misconceptions regarding not only whether evolution occurs, but about the meaning of the word theory. … Evolution is the change of organisms over time, observed most fundamentally in alterations of genes. This is a fact, directly observed in any organism that is investigated, and supported by thousands of research studies.

Scambray also explained that DNA similarities are not the profound confirmation that evolutionists claim they are, but of course the evolutionists could not resist, fulfilling yet again Scambray’s prophecy. Amazing, humans share more genetic similarities with dogs than with yeast. Will evolutionists ever learn?

TS: DNA studies have confirmed the traditional relationships and "genetic distances" between different plants and animals which have always existed as observed by humans over thousands of years.

PC/FS: Most recently, molecular biologists have found that DNA contains a record of the changes in organisms as they evolved. For example, closely related species such as humans, dogs and other mammals share about 90% of the same genes, whereas more distantly related organisms, such as the yeast cell, share about 50% of their genes with humans.

And of course there are the finches, flies, insects and bacteria that are supposed to prove evolution. Scambray wisely explains the problems and the fallacies and, yes, the evolutionists rush in.

TS: Over millions of generations of laboratory testing, fruit flies, as one example, when subjected to genetic changes have not changed into anything but mutated, crippled fruit flies. So also much the same thing happened with the famous "Galapagos finches" whose average beak size became bigger when the conditions there made it harder to find food due to bad weather. Then when food became more plentiful, the beak size of those finches that survived returned to normal. Thus the finches changed a little, adapted, while remaining fundamentally unchanged. In this way, nature moves back and forth, in cycles, rather than in a permanent upward climb or downward slide. … Resistance to pesticides and antibiotics does not mean that the insects and bacteria who survive these threats have "evolved." Quite the contrary. Those organisms "resist" the antibiotic or pesticide poisoning merely because of some feature of their cellular structure that does not bind with the poison.

PC/FS: Natural selection makes sense of much of modern medicine. Just as we explain the origin of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, we can explain why antiviral drugs work over the short term but become ineffective over the long term. Our knowledge of how viruses evolve is the basis for great concern about the H5N1 strain of the influenza virus that shifts from pigs to birds to humans.

Finally there is, of course, the underlying motivation for evolution, that creation must be false. And as usual Scambray does the explaining and the evolutionists do the shtick.

TS: Subsequently the tactic was to attack individuals who doubted Darwin by calling them "creationists" -- meaning "crackpots." As one historian writes, the Darwinists' attacks "have been in almost direct proportion to the shortcomings of the theory." Does this explain why congressional resolutions need to be relied on now to prop up Darwin?

PC/FS: Alternative ideas have been tested over the past two centuries, including special creation and versions of "intelligent design." Biologists rejected these alternatives decades ago. They have no explanatory power, no credible evidence, and have long been regarded as non-science, as they invoke supernatural causation, which is not considered by scientists.

No explanatory power, no credible evidence, and aren’t science anyway? I guess that covers it. He’s not my dog, he didn’t bite you, and besides you hit the dog first anyway. Evolutionary thought is so trite and so predictable that Scambray not only destroyed the evolutionist’s pablum, he did so before they even regurgitated it.

And in case there was any doubt about the standing of evolutionary thought, the evolutionists finish with their favorite motto, the non scientific, metaphysical claim from Theodosius Dobzhansky that “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.”

Religion drives science and it matters.

104 comments:

  1. I liked this comment:

    Darwin vs. creationists is evolving debate By Terry Scambray - February 2013
    Excerpt: ,,,Subsequently the tactic was to attack individuals who doubted Darwin by calling them "creationists" -- meaning "crackpots." As one historian writes, the Darwinists' attacks "have been in almost direct proportion to the shortcomings of the theory."
    http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/02/22/3184701/terry-scambray-darwin-vs-creationists.html

    and the other day, Eric at UD noted:

    "The perception of evolution’s explanatory power is inversely proportional to the specificity of the discussion."
    http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/macroevolution-microevolution-and-chemistry-the-devil-is-in-the-details/#comment-448348

    Thus, finally, after years of fruitless searching, it now appears we are closing in on the mathematical foundation of Darwinism:

    note:

    Oxford University Admits Darwinism's Shaky Math Foundation - May 2011
    Excerpt: However, mathematical population geneticists mainly deny that natural selection leads to optimization of any useful kind. This fifty-year old schism is intellectually damaging in itself, and has prevented improvements in our concept of what fitness is. - On a 2011 Job Description for a Mathematician, at Oxford, to 'fix' the persistent mathematical problems with neo-Darwinism within two years.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/oxford_university_admits_darwi046351.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. Scambray writes: "Animals and plants appear in the fossil record fully formed and remain unchanged through millions of years. No knowledgeable individual denies this."

    Say what? Of course knowledgeable individuals will deny that! It suffices to give one example to destroy this proposition. Whales did not appear fully formed in the fossil record. We have a beautiful succession of fossils connecting them to early ungulates. The charitable interpretation is that Scambray is not well-informed. (The uncharitable one is that he is lying.)

    Scambray: "DNA studies have confirmed the traditional relationships and "genetic distances" between different plants and animals which have always existed as observed by humans over thousands of years."

    This sentence makes no sense. A genetic distance is measured by comparing DNAs. DNA studies cannot confirm themselves, can they? Instead, genetic distances confirm evolutionary relations inferred by other means (eg., morphological analyses). The guy clearly writes about a subject he knows next to nothing about.

    It boggles the mind that Hunter, who has considerable knowledge of evolutionary biology, would defend such half-baked arguments. It exposes him as a partisan shill.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oleg:

      I think he meant individual species show up fully formed in the fossil record.

      And I read that they found a fossil of a fully aquatic whale that is older then the semi-aqautic species that were though to be whale ancestors. That kind of upsets the "beautiful succession." (Funny how that keeps on happening with fossil ancestors.)

      Delete
    2. natschuster: "I think he meant individual species show up fully formed in the fossil record."

      Not sure I understand how this changes anything.

      Delete
    3. oleg thinks that chromosomes are one long polymer called DNA- IOW he doesn't understand biology on any level.

      Delete
    4. natschuster

      I think he meant individual species show up fully formed in the fossil record


      What would a "half-formed" species look like?

      Delete
    5. What he meant was that the fossil record does not show one species evolving into another through intermediates. What happens is that species show up, hang around, then abruptly go extinct, and a new species suddenly shows up.

      Delete
    6. natschuster

      What he meant was that the fossil record does not show one species evolving into another through intermediates.


      But that's flat out false. Science knows of many such clearly transitional series.

      We've only been over this about two dozen times nat.

      Delete
    7. I'm not talking about transitions within groups. I'm talking about transitions from one species to another through a Darwinian mechanism. Y'know, in small increments. And lots of the examples sited on the site you linked are very questionable as to their transitional status. Even I know that.

      Delete
    8. Anyway, I was trying to explain what Terry Scambray meant in the above OP. It's interesting that his opponents didn't answer. "but we have the transitions!" Rather they said that evolution was the best explanation for what we have. Whatever.

      Delete
    9. natschuster

      I'm not talking about transitions within groups. I'm talking about transitions from one species to another through a Darwinian mechanism.


      Which is what the examples I provided are.

      Y'know, in small increments.

      Which is what the examples I provided show.

      And lots of the examples sited on the site you linked are very questionable as to their transitional status.

      Only to the willfully ignorant who haven't studied the evidence.

      Even I know that.

      Because you're one of those willfully ignorant, We all know that.

      Delete
    10. natschuster

      Anyway, I was trying to explain what Terry Scambray meant in the above OP. It's interesting that his opponents didn't answer. "but we have the transitions!" Rather they said that evolution was the best explanation for what we have. Whatever.


      Those weren't questions and rebuttals in one session nat. CH took two completely different articles and shuffled them together.

      Delete
    11. Quote Thorton Quoting me:


      ""I'm not talking about transitions within groups. I'm talking about transitions from one species to another through a Darwinian mechanism."

      Which is what the examples I provided are."

      ""Y'know, in small increments."

      Which is what the examples I provided show."

      Maybe my reading comprehension is faulty, but I didn't actually see any mention of this. It looked to me like a list of different species that live at different times.

      ""And lots of the examples sited on the site you linked are very questionable as to their transitional status."

      Only to the willfully ignorant who haven't studied the evidence."

      The site you linked actually admitted that some of the examples are questionable, e.g. Tiktaalik, archaeopteryx, etc.

      Delete
    12. Quote Thorton Quoting Me:

      "natschuster

      "Anyway, I was trying to explain what Terry Scambray meant in the above OP. It's interesting that his opponents didn't answer. "but we have the transitions!" Rather they said that evolution was the best explanation for what we have. Whatever."

      Those weren't questions and rebuttals in one session nat. CH took two completely different articles and shuffled them together."

      It seems like the didn't address fossils at all. I wonder why not.

      Delete
  3. Genetic similarities are evidence for a common design. And common designs are something we have quite of bit of experience with.

    Natural selection doesn't do anything but undo what artificial selection has wrought. 150+ years after "On the Origin of Species..." was published there still isn't any evidence that says NS is the designer mimic Darwin thought it was.

    And finally there isn't anything in any microevolutionary event that we can take to extrapolate into macroevolution (as defined by Jerry Coyne in "WEIT").

    ReplyDelete
  4. PC/FS: Alternative ideas have been tested over the past two centuries, including special creation and versions of "intelligent design." Biologists rejected these alternatives decades ago. They have no explanatory power, no credible evidence, and have long been regarded as non-science, as they invoke supernatural causation, which is not considered by scientists.

    J: This would be intelligible if there was an explanatory alternative to ID-style SA that had credible evidence. But there's not. All inferences to biological origins consist of a combination of teleological inference (because it's not known that naturalistic UCA is even a logical possibility), posited ad-hoc hypotheses, and a trivial amount of prediction for very limited degrees of evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Cornelius Hunter pushing straight Biblical Creationism:

    TS: Animals and plants appear in the fossil record fully formed and remain unchanged through millions of years.


    Sure. That's why we find fossils of modern whales, horses, humans, mixed in with the fossils of ambulocetus, eohippus, australopithecus. Oh, wait....

    TS: For he meant to explain how nature by itself could make something new, how one animal or plant over long periods of time could transform itself into something quite different, like a trout changing into a tiger, or a bacterium into a whale.

    He forgot the crocoduck.

    TS: Over millions of generations of laboratory testing, fruit flies, as one example, when subjected to genetic changes have not changed into anything but mutated, crippled fruit flies.

    And mammals are still mammals, vertebrates are still vertebrates.

    Really CH, is triumphing another dirt ignorant Creationist regurgitating PRATT stupidity straight from Ken Ham and AIG the best you can do these days?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whale Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence – video - fraudulent fossils revealed
      http://vimeo.com/30921402

      Whale Evolution? - Exposing The Deception - Dr. Terry Mortenson - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4032568

      How Whales Have (NOT) Changed Over 35 Million Years – May 2010
      Excerpt: We could have found that the main whale lineages over time each experimented with being large, small and medium-sized and that all the dietary forms appeared throughout their evolution, or that whales started out medium-sized and the largest and smallest ones appeared more recently—but the data show none of that. Instead, we find that the differences today were apparent very early on.
      http://www.uncommondescent.com/education/beacon-comes-home-with-the-bacon/#comment-356170

      The following articles show how misleading Darwinists can be with the fossil evidence of whales:

      An Email Exchange Regarding "Vestigial Legs" Pelvic Bones in Whales by Jim Pamplin
      Excerpt: The pelvic bones (supposed Vestigial Legs) of whales serve as attachments for the musculature associated with the penis in males and its homologue, the clitoris, in females. The muscle involved is known as the ischiocavernosus and is quite a powerful muscle in males. It serves as a retractor muscle for the penis in copulation and probably provides the base for lateral movements of the penis. The mechanisms of penile motion are not well understood in whales. The penis seems to be capable of a lot of independent motion, much like the trunk of an elephant. How much of this is mediated by the ischiocavernosus is not known.
      In females the anatomical parts are smaller and more diffuse. I would imagine that there is something homologous to the perineal muscles in man and tetrapods, which affect the entire pelvic area - the clitoris, vagina and anus.
      The pelvic rudiments also serve as origins for the ischiocaudalis muscle, which is a ventral muscle that inserts on the tips of the chevron bones of the spinal column and acts to flex the tail in normal locomotion.
      http://www.darwinisdead.com/an_email_exchange_regarding.htm

      Delete
    2. "The construction of the whole Cenozoic family tree of the horse is therefore a very artificial one, since it is put together from non-equivalent parts, and cannot therefore be a continuous transformation series".
      Dr. Heribert Nilsson - Evolutionist - Former Director of the Swedish Botanical Institute.

      Darwin vs. the Fossils
      Excerpt: "A team of 22 international researchers led by Ludovic Orlando of the University of Lyon in France did one of the first-ever comprehensive comparisons of ancient DNA (aDNA) from fossil equids (including horses, donkeys and zebras). These specimens came from 4 continents. The results were so shocking, they call for an almost complete overhaul of the horse series. For one thing, they concluded that many specimens relegated to separate species are actually variations on the same species. For another, they found that for evolution to be true there had to be sudden bursts of diversification – Cambrian-like explosions within the horse family – contrary to Darwin’s prohibition of great and sudden leaps."
      http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200912.htm#20091211a

      The evolution of the horse?
      http://creation.com/horse-evolution

      The non-evolution of the horse
      http://creation.com/the-non-evolution-of-the-horse

      Delete
    3. Evolution of the Genus Homo - Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences - Tattersall, Schwartz, May 2009
      Excerpt: "Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for “early Homo,” finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5–1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to “early Homo” or Homo habilis/rudolfensis."
      http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100202

      Man is indeed as unique, as different from all other animals, as had been traditionally claimed by theologians and philosophers.
      Evolutionist Ernst Mayr (What Evolution Is. 2001)
      http://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=home_more4

      Human Origins and the Fossil Record: What Does the Evidence Say? - Casey Luskin - July 2012
      Excerpt: Indeed, far from supplying "a nice clean example" of "gradualistic evolutionary change," the record reveals a dramatic discontinuity between ape-like and human-like fossils. Human-like fossils appear abruptly in the record, without clear evolutionary precursors, making the case for human evolution based on fossils highly speculative.
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/human_origins_a_1061771.html

      Later Hominins: The Australopithecine Gap - Casey Luskin - August 2012
      Excerpt: Paleoanthropologist Leslie Aiello, who served as head of the anthropology department at University College London, states that when it comes to locomotion, "australopithecines are like apes, and the Homo group are like humans. Something major occurred when Homo evolved, and it wasn't just in the brain." The "something major" that occurred was the abrupt appearance of the human body plan -- without direct evolutionary precursors in the fossil record.
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/later_hominins_062891.html

      “Something extraordinary, if totally fortuitous, happened with the birth of our species….Homo sapiens is as distinctive an entity as exists on the face of the Earth, and should be dignified as such instead of being adulterated with every reasonably large-brained hominid fossil that happened to come along.”
      Anthropologist Ian Tattersall, The Fossil Trail: How We Know What We Think We Know about Human Evolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 246. (curator at the American Museum of Natural History)
      (curator at the American Museum of Natural History)

      Delete
    4. Ambulocetus
      Excerpt: Of all the supposed whale transitions, ambulocetus is probably the most well known. It is often depicted as an animal that is adapted to living on land and in the water. Of course, just like pakicetus, the artistic reconstructions of ambulocetus go beyond what the fossil findings justify.
      The ambulocetus remains that have been discovered are much more complete than the first findings of pakicetus; however, crucial parts of the animal still have not been discovered. For example, the pelvic girdle has not been found.[7] Without this, there is really no way of telling how the creature moved. This, however, does not stop evolutionists from using artistic manipulations to make ambulocetus look like it is a transitional form.
      Very often, popular science journals, such as National Geographic, have depicted ambulocetus as being very transitional-like by giving the creature webbed feet.[8] This is another place where the reader must be able to distinguish between fact and fiction. Soft tissue rarely ever gets preserved, and the ambulocetus remains are no exception. In other words, all we have are the bones. There is no evidence that the creature had webbed feet other than in the imagination of the evolutionists.
      http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/whale.htm

      Actually, from the researcher's own lips, Ambulocetus is now known to be fraudulent:

      Whale Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence – video - fraudulent fossils revealed
      http://vimeo.com/30921402

      Delete
    5. a) The first gap (in the fossil record) occurs at Epihippus8

      Only sparse fossil pieces have been found of this animal, and they resemble those of the earlier Orohippus, Eohippus and other formerly-identified hyracotherid species.9

      b) The second gap occurs in or just after the group Parahippus10
      The early Parahippus species are supposed to resemble Miohippus and Mesohippus while the latter ones are supposed to look like Merychippus; this is only partly supported by the fossil findings.11 Furthermore, the fossil material for Parahippus is incomplete.12 It would probably be possible to classify the different parts of Parahippus as belonging to two different animals—Miohippus (figure 4) and Merychippus.13 This latter result can also be inferred by the work of Cavanaugh et al.,14 as Parahippus showed similarities to 14 of 18 species of horses. Therefore, the “Parahippus” step in the horse series appears to be a mixed up group of unrelated fossils.
      http://creation.com/horse-evolution

      Delete
    6. australopithecus

      "these australopith specimens (Lucy) can be accommodated with the range of intraspecific variation of African apes"
      Nature 443 (9/2006), p.296

      "The australopithecines (Lucy) known over the last several decades from Olduvai and Sterkfontein, Kromdraai and Makapansgat, are now irrevocably removed from a place in a group any closer to humans than to African apes and certainly from any place in a direct human lineage."
      Charles Oxnard, former professor of anatomy at the University of Southern California Medical School, who subjected australopithecine fossils to extensive computer analysis; http://creationwiki.org/Australopithecines

      Israeli Researchers: 'Lucy' is not direct ancestor of humans"; Apr 16, 2007
      The Mandibular ramus morphology (lower jaw bone) on a recently discovered specimen of Australopithecus afarensis closely matches that of gorillas. This finding was unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans.,,,its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor.
      http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2007/04/24/lucy_demoted_from_the_human_ancestral_li

      "The australopithecine (Lucy) skull is in fact so overwhelmingly simian (ape-like) as opposed to human that the contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white."
      Lord Solly Zuckerman - Chief scientific advisor to British government and leading zoologist

      Lucy - The Powersaw Incident - a humorous video showing how biased evolutionists can be with the evidence
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4032597

      Delete
    7. ...and batspit77 loses control of his sphincter once again.

      Delete
    8. Don't get upset with me Thorton, get upset at the evidence. It is the evidence that is exposing you as a liar.

      Delete
    9. Maybe if you tried a butt plug Phil you wouldn't have these messy accidents all the time. Not sure they make one big enough to fit you though.

      Delete
    10. Actually a fully aquatic whale jawbone was dated ~49 MYA, same time as Ambulocetus, so that proposed sequence doesn't even make sense.

      The Laetoli footprints are perfectly human and dated very close to australopithecus.

      Many modern birds are found in the Cretaceous.

      We find modern fish in the Devonian. And other modern marine life in the Cambrian.

      So it seems like you're really just selecting which data supports evolution and discarding the rest.

      Delete
    11. Modern marine life in the Cambrian, lifepsy? Really? Can you name an extant species found as a Cambrian fossil?

      Delete
    12. lifepsy

      Actually a fully aquatic whale jawbone was dated ~49 MYA, same time as Ambulocetus


      Not of an extant whale we didn't.

      The Laetoli footprints are perfectly human and dated very close to australopithecus.

      Laetoli footprints aren't from an extant human. No fossils matching extant humans have been found dating 3.8 MYA.

      Many modern birds are found in the Cretaceous.

      Creationist lie. Extinct species in the lineage of modern birds have been found.

      We find modern fish in the Devonian. And other modern marine life in the Cambrian.

      More Creationist lies. Extinct fishes in the lineage of modern fishes have been found.

      So it seems like you're really just selecting which data supports evolution and discarding the rest.

      Nope. You avoided the question. If no species ever changed over time then why don't we find fossils of modern extant species mixed with those of long extinct species?

      Delete
    13. Are you a homosexual male, Thorton? Your frequent references to sphincter control and butt plugs are telling. I am asking because we all know about the animosity that exists between the gay community and certain factions of Christianity. The opinions of an anti-Christian gay atheist in the evolution vs. creation debate are certainly just as suspect as that of a fundamentalist Christian. ahahaha...

      Delete
    14. Species of Nautilus found in the cambrian are essentially the same as extant species. Also Velvet Worms. More, I'm sure. And there are plenty of examples of such "living fossils" found in any other geologic time period.

      There may be slight morphological differences between ancient and modern species, but we observe comparable differences within a single species today. A change in diet, for instance, can modify lizard skull, teeth, and gut morphology in a matter of weeks due to plasticity.

      So basically all you're doing is selecting patterns that fit your theory, and discarding the patterns that don't. That's not very scientific.

      Delete
    15. So basically all you're doing is selecting patterns that fit your theory, and discarding the patterns that don't. That's not very scientific.

      All evolutionists are consummate liars and deceivers.

      Delete
    16. thorton,

      "Extinct species in the lineage of modern birds/fish/etc have been found."

      Based on morphology and anatomy they are extremely similar, if not identical to extant species. We find greater differences in morphology of extant individuals in the same species today.

      So based on your incredibly rigorous criteria, if we found a modern whale fossil dated at 50 MYA, you would simply label it an "extinct species in the lineage of modern whales"

      IOW you have no criteria for falsifiability either way.

      Delete
    17. Lifespy

      So basically all you're doing is selecting patterns that fit your theory, and discarding the patterns that don't. That's not very scientific.


      You're projecting. Why don't we find fossils of extant humans, cows, dogs, etc. among the fossils of dinosaurs? Or mixed with the Cambrian era fossils?

      You seem to be the guy denying 99.99% of the evidence.

      Delete
    18. lifepsy

      Based on morphology and anatomy they are extremely similar, if not identical to extant species.


      Sorry but to support the silly Creationist claim you require ALL extant species to be virtually identical to ones found tens to hundreds of million years ago.

      They don't, so the claim "species never change over time" is good and busted.

      Delete
    19. Thorton:

      You're projecting. Why don't we find fossils of extant humans, cows, dogs, etc. among the fossils of dinosaurs? Or mixed with the Cambrian era fossils?

      For the same reason that we won't find jet engines under Westminster Abbey's parking lot buried together with medieval artifacts. Design implies progression over time.

      What a dishonest moron you are, Thorton. But that is to be expected from rabidly virulent anti-Christian atheist.

      ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

      Delete
    20. Thorton:

      They don't, so the claim "species never change over time" is good and busted.

      And who is making this claim, you? Cretin.

      Delete
    21. " Why don't we find fossils of extant humans, cows, dogs, etc. among the fossils of dinosaurs? Or mixed with the Cambrian era fossils?"

      The same reason we wouldn't expect to find the remains of humans,cows,dogs, or rabbits with deep sea animals today. Because they didn't share the same habitat.

      Why doesn't the fossil record show any kind of continuous gradation of morphology between major families? Why does every anatomical feature and major body plan appear fully formed?

      The problems in the fossil record for Creation are merely an interesting puzzle, as compared to the perpetual utter disaster it is for darwinian evolution.

      Delete
    22. lifespy

      The same reason we wouldn't expect to find the remains of humans,cows,dogs, or rabbits with deep sea animals today. Because they didn't share the same habitat.


      Evidence please. What habitat did extant humans have that was not shared by Australopithecus? What habitat did extant horses have that was not shared by eohippus? Creationist are quite fond of making up crap as they go, and you seem to be no exception.

      Why doesn't the fossil record show any kind of continuous gradation of morphology between major families?

      Because one extant major family didn't evolve from another extant major family. Extant major families evolved from a common ancestor. The fossil record is full of transitional sequences from the ancestor to the extant, not from extant to extant.

      Why does every anatomical feature and major body plan appear fully formed?

      They don't. For most we have clear examples of transitional development, like the evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles.

      Are you going to run through the whole Creationist stupid PRATT list today, or just a few?

      Delete
    23. lifespy:

      The same reason we wouldn't expect to find the remains of humans,cows,dogs, or rabbits with deep sea animals today. Because they didn't share the same habitat.

      Hold on a second. Are you arguing that humans coexisted with dinosaurs? If so, I can tell you that you are seriously mistaken and probably sinfully so. And I say this as a Christian. Christians should be careful not to mix their personal doctrines with science or even the scriptures.

      Delete
    24. Thorton:

      The fossil record is full of transitional sequences from the ancestor to the extant, not from extant to extant.

      How is this evidence for Darwinian evolution and not evidence for intelligent design progression?

      Delete
    25. thorton -

      "What habitat did extant humans have that was not shared by Australopithecus? "

      I already told you that modern human trackways have been found in roughly the same time period. You didn't want to accept that evidence. If we do find modern human skeletal remains, you will just call it some kind of proto-human. You don't have a falsifiable theory.

      "The fossil record is full of transitional sequences from the ancestor to the extant, not from extant to extant. "

      I wasn't talking about extant to extant. You misunderstood. And no, there are no transitional gradations between major extinct families. You only have a highly ambiguous rarity like "Tiktaalik" here and there. (and even that one has been falsified with tetrapod trackways going back 20 mya prior) Overall the pattern found in the fossil record is laughably discontinuous from the perspective of neo-darwinian evolution.

      "For most we have clear examples of transitional development, like the evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles."

      "most" ? More like a couple of decades old cherry-picked examples.. Let's see some more?

      Where are the transitions between the mammalian organ of Corti and the reptilian Basilar papilla? Surely we could find some sort of midway point in an extant species? After all every transition would have to be positively selected for.

      What if any similarities between reptile and mammal skull-jaw morphology is simply due to convergent evolution? That would be a fairly mild case of convergence. After all, Katydid crickets have an identical auditory mechanism to mammals without any homology.

      Delete
    26. Louis -

      I don't propose to have empirical evidence of this. But I certainly am not going to blindly accept the geologic/evolutionary timeline from the same institutions that assure us that is beyond a doubt that we evolved from fish millions of years ago.

      What's your opinion on the multiple secular journal articles being published now on soft tissues and proteins (confirmed to belong to the dino) being found in dinosuar fossils dated 70+ MYA ? Do you think it's reasonable to believe protein is going to be preserved for 70 million years?

      (additionally these fossils also return consistent C14 dates at under 40,000 years)

      Delete
    27. lifepsy

      I already told you that modern human trackways have been found in roughly the same time period. You didn't want to accept that evidence.


      First you said they had completely different habitats, now you say they had the same habitat. You want to come back when you get your made up story straight?

      I wasn't talking about extant to extant. You misunderstood. And no, there are no transitional gradations between major extinct families. You only have a highly ambiguous rarity like "Tiktaalik" here and there.

      OK, you're another Creationist woefully ignorant of the actual scientific findings. Got it.

      "most" ? More like a couple of decades old cherry-picked examples.. Let's see some more?

      Oh, you mean like the evolution of vertebrate limbs?

      Or like the evolution of blowholes in whales?

      Any one falsifies the stupid Creationist claim that species never change over time.

      What if any similarities between reptile and mammal skull-jaw morphology is simply due to convergent evolution?

      Feel free to write up your hypothesis with your evidence and submit it to the appropriate scientific journals. Creationist bullshit is free because there's so much of it.

      Delete
    28. lifepsy

      I don't propose to have empirical evidence of this.


      Then science has no reason to take any of your Creationist blithering seriously.

      Delete
    29. lol, evolution of the whale's blowhole? Where is the evolution of the whale itself? I just told you the remains of a fully aquatic species are dated to before Ambilocetus.

      http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44867222/ns/technology_and_science-science/

      The popular whale sequence, just like the tetrapod sequence are nothing but campfire stories.

      Oh boy, another "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" story with the blowhole. This is the kind of "evidence" evolutionists are famous for. That is truly comical, Thorton. Thank you.


      From the vertebrate limb paper conclusions:
      "First, the evolution of serially homologous structures can be understood in terms of the redeployment of preassembled genetic modules in novel locations." Uh oh, looks like we're in Evo Storyland.

      This whole paper is a giant speculative "What-If" concerning hox gene expression. Really, thorton? Did you even read the paper? Which one of your evo-blogs convinced you this was evidence for evolution?

      Please keep them coming. This is comedy gold.

      Delete
    30. lifepsy:

      I don't propose to have empirical evidence of this. But I certainly am not going to blindly accept the geologic/evolutionary timeline from the same institutions that assure us that is beyond a doubt that we evolved from fish millions of years ago.

      I agree that evolutionists must not be trusted but that does not mean everything they say is a lie. We must be very careful not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Let that be their weakness, not ours.

      The fact is that the fossil record does show a progression, an evolution of sorts. Is this observed progression powerful evidence for Darwinian evolution? Of course not. Intelligent design also progresses over time.

      So don't get bent out of shape when Darwinian evolutionists present evidence that look it might be proof of their cretinous theory. You don't have to reject everything they say. It is usually not the evidence that is the problem (although the jackasses are known to futz with the evidence at times). The problem is their dishonestly flawed logic. Also, don't let evolutionists fool you into thinking they speak for all of science. They are a self-important bunch.

      What's your opinion on the multiple secular journal articles being published now on soft tissues and proteins (confirmed to belong to the dino) being found in dinosuar fossils dated 70+ MYA ? Do you think it's reasonable to believe protein is going to be preserved for 70 million years?

      Yes I do. Preservation is a relative term. The soft tissues in question were seriously degraded to the point that no genetic information could be extracted. We know that insect tissue can be amazingly preserved in amber for tens of millions of years. Maybe the particular properties of the soil where the dinosaurs fossils were found had something to do with it.

      (additionally these fossils also return consistent C14 dates at under 40,000 years)

      Geologists use different methods for dating fossils, including the position of the fossils within the various sedimentary layers. So I am sure they cross-check their results to make sure there are no major contradictions. It's not a perfect science but it's good enough for our purposes.

      Besides, not all scientists are fundamentalist Darwinists. Many geologists are Christians or members of some other organized religion. If there were a major problem with existing dating methods, they would not hesitate to point it out in a way that would result in a correction. Not all of science is bad, even if only the jackasses seem to call the shots.

      Delete
    31. thorton:
      Or like the evolution of blowholes in whales?

      There isn't any evidence for that and none at the linked article.

      And defininetely there isn't even a testable hypothesis for accumulations of genetic accidents doingit.

      Delete
    32. Thorton asked: "Why don't we find fossils of extant humans, cows, dogs, etc. among the fossils of dinosaurs? Or mixed with the Cambrian era fossils?"

      lifepsy responded: "The same reason we wouldn't expect to find the remains of humans,cows,dogs, or rabbits with deep sea animals today. Because they didn't share the same habitat."

      Oh come on Thorton, don't you know that humans, cows, dogs, rabbits, etc., didn't share the same habitat because they were living at Old MacDonald's Farm (EE-I-EE-I-O) during the Paleozoic and Mesozoic and didn't socialize with trilobites and dinosaurs? ;)

      Delete
    33. louis said:

      "And I say this as a Christian. Christians should be careful not to mix their personal doctrines with science or even the scriptures."

      Then why are you mixing your personal doctrine with science and "the scriptures"? What makes you qualified to judge science, and to judge how "the scriptures" should be interpreted?

      Delete
    34. louis said:

      "All evolutionists are consummate liars and deceivers."

      But then said:

      "I agree that evolutionists must not be trusted but that does not mean everything they say is a lie."

      He also said:

      "The fact is that the fossil record does show a progression, an evolution of sorts. Is this observed progression powerful evidence for Darwinian evolution? Of course not. Intelligent design also progresses over time."

      Yeah, the fossil record does show evolution and since you agree with that you're an evolutionist, which means that you are a consummate liar and deceiver according to your words.

      Hey louis, exactly how does intelligent design progress over time? Is the alleged 'progress' front-loaded via software or does 'the designer' redesign/recreate things from time to time? How does extinction fit into intelligent design? Is extinction caused by faulty software or is it due to 'the designer' deliberately killing off certain species because it likes to watch things die?

      Delete
    35. lifepsy said:

      "I already told you that modern human trackways have been found in roughly the same time period. You didn't want to accept that evidence."

      Citation please. What you "told" is not "evidence".

      "What's your opinion on the multiple secular journal articles being published now on soft tissues and proteins (confirmed to belong to the dino) being found in dinosuar fossils dated 70+ MYA ? Do you think it's reasonable to believe protein is going to be preserved for 70 million years?

      (additionally these fossils also return consistent C14 dates at under 40,000 years)"

      Again, citation please, for the "consistent C14 dates at under 40,000 years".

      "Species of Nautilus found in the cambrian are essentially the same as extant species."

      Hmm, "essentially the same", eh? Aren't humans "essentially the same" as chimps?

      Delete
    36. lifepsy said:

      "There may be slight morphological differences between ancient and modern species, but we observe comparable differences within a single species today."

      I'm curious as to which modern (extant) species has slight morphological differences between itself and say, Andrewsarchus mongoliensis, Styracosaurus albertensis, Tyrannosaurus rex, Pteranodon longiceps, Mauisaurus haasti, and Cotylorhynchus hancocki?

      Delete
  6. Fruit Loop Savain

    Are you a homosexual male, Thorton?


    Sorry Fruit Loop, I'm as straight as they come. You'll have to look elsewhere for your next boyfriend. Try Chubby Joe G, he likes to meat men in parking lots.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So how do you explain your inordinate infatuation with sphincters and butt plugs? LOL.

      Delete
    2. ...not that there is anything wrong with it...(Seinfeld)
      :D

      Delete
  7. There is a pecking order in the sciences. It usually goes like this: Mathematicians > physicists > chemists > biologists > evolutionists. This is my interpretation. Some omit mathematicians. It is obvious that evolutionists are at the bottom. No one who cares about science and has a respectible amount of knowledege would say the things that they do.

    This debate adds a humourous twist on this pecking order. Now English professors are more competent than evolutionists about evolution. So the revised pecking order looks like this:

    Mathematicians > physicists > chemists > biologists > English professor > evolutionists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thorton, does not science progress through self-criticism? How is your extreme addiction to attacking non-scientists going to benefit science? Jackass.

      Delete
    2. Peter, why do you think mathematics is usually not included among sciences, whereas you include it?

      Delete
    3. Louis Savain

      Thorton, does not science progress through self-criticism?


      Science advances through informed, constructive self-criticism. That doesn't include a bunch of ignorant, dishonest Creationist asshats whining about things they haven't studied and don't understand.

      Delete
    4. Thorton:

      Science advances through informed, constructive self-criticism.

      My main point was, how do your rabid attacks on fundamentalist Christians (non-scientists in your view) going to advance science?

      The problem with this is that it creates the false impression that any criticism of science is tainted by religionist motives. The truth is that the real reason that you are so keen on attacking Christianity is that your religion is threatened by the other guy's religion.

      You talk about dishonest Christians but the most dishonest person here is you. Christianity is not defined by young earth creationists. They are a small minority. Your problem is the same as Dawkins. You were raised and probably harmed by some Christian jackasses (yes, there are many of those running around, just like atheist jackasses) and you are hell bent on revenge. Poor babies.

      ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahaha...

      Delete
    5. Oleg, I include mathematics for completeness. And since all the other sciences depend upon it, I consider it of the greatest importance.

      Delete
  8. Sometimes, I wonder is many of those so-called fundamentalist Christians who comment here (and elsewhere) are really Christians and not atheist plants. I would not put it past the dishonest jackasses, given their long history at thumbing their noses at ethics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Wikipedia:

      Poe's law, named after its author Nathan Poe, is an Internet adage reflecting the idea that without a clear indication of the author's intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between sincere extremism and an exaggerated parody of extremism.

      The difference is that the atheist plants are not using parody. Theirs is plain old fashioned dishonesty and deception. They are using Poe's law to lie and get away with it. It's a chicken sh|t, gutless and weak form of debating. Pathetic, really.

      Delete
    3. No, Louis, it's not a form of debating. It's a parody. Poe's law in action. LOL

      Delete
    4. Yeah, right. Pretending to be someone you're not is not parody. It's plain gutless deception. I suspect that you are guilty of being a pretender yourself. Otherwise, you wouldn't be defending it so much. LOL.

      Delete
    5. Louis,

      Here is how parody is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
      1: a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule
      2: a feeble or ridiculous imitation

      Sense 2 is what we are talking about.

      Delete
    6. Sense 2 is what we are talking about.

      It may be what you're talking about. Not me. I know because I am the one who started this thread of discussion.

      Delete
    7. "Pretending to be someone you're not is not parody. It's plain gutless deception. I suspect that you are guilty of being a pretender yourself. Otherwise, you wouldn't be defending it so much. LOL."

      louis, are you claiming that no one could possibly, genuinely disagree with you and that Oleg is pretending to disagree with you?

      And since you're apparently claiming that "many of the so-called fundamentalist Christians who comment here (and elsewhere)" are gutless deceivers who are actually atheists, maybe you will explain exactly why you "wonder" about that? Is it because "many of the so-called fundamentalist Christians who comment here (and elsewhere)" don't believe and say exactly what you want them to believe and say? Is any disagreement with you automatically wrong, no matter what?

      Delete
  9. Too funny- above thorton linked to an evoTARD article that describes the embryonic development of a dolphin. This is the funny part- because the modern dolphin develops such that the nostrils move from the nose to the top of the head, this means it evolved, ie that is evidence that the blowhole evolved from nostrils that were at the tip of the snout.

    That has got to be the dumbest assessment ever.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Completely speculative, untestable, and non-falsifiable. Sounds like evidence for evolution to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Among other things, a human bone found in situ in Cambrian sediments would falsify the ToE. Why don't you ask your imaginary god where to find one?

      Delete
    2. truthy:

      Among other things, a human bone found in situ in Cambrian sediments would falsify the ToE.

      That is not a valid scientific test. A GOOD falsification test has nothing to do with proving a negative. Learn how science works, moron. LOL.

      Why don't you ask your imaginary god where to find one?

      That is your real motivation. It was never the science. Cornelius is so right.

      ahahaha... AHAHAHA...

      Delete
    3. Finding a human bone in situ in Cambrian (or even Eocene) sediments would be positive evidence for ID-creation. Why aren't you out looking for one? Are you afraid that it's a lost cause?

      My motivation is based on "the science". You thumpers are the ones trying to shove your insane religious beliefs into science, education, and public policy. If you god-pushers would just stop trying to force everyone to swallow your fairy tales, there wouldn't be as much of a problem.

      Delete
    4. TWT -
      "Among other things, a human bone found in situ in Cambrian sediments would falsify the ToE. Why don't you ask your imaginary god where to find one?"

      Statements like this just show how weak evolution is. This is along the same level of sophistication as a creationist saying "dogs giving birth to cats" would falsify Creationism. Are you comfortable being at that standard?

      Mammals recently got bumped down ~40 mya to the Lower Jurassic with the discovery of Hadrocodium. Would you be comfortable predicting any of those basal mammal features found in the Permian would falsify reptile-mammal evolution?

      We have modern bird trackways in the Triassic but it hasn't slowed the popular storytelling of dino to bird transformations in the Jurassic. Likewise with advanced tetrapod trackways 20 m.y. before Tiktaalik. Likewise with fully aquatic whales found a couple million years before Rhodocetus. But why let pesky facts get in the way of a good evo-story?

      Delete
    5. lying truthy:

      Finding a human bone in situ in Cambrian (or even Eocene) sediments would be positive evidence for ID-creation. Why aren't you out looking for one? Are you afraid that it's a lost cause?

      I don't know of any theory from the critics of evolution that predicts that human bones will be found in Cambrian sediments. Enjoy lying much?

      My motivation is based on "the science". You thumpers are the ones trying to shove your insane religious beliefs into science, education, and public policy. If you god-pushers would just stop trying to force everyone to swallow your fairy tales, there wouldn't be as much of a problem.

      And yet, you are a dirt worshiper, shoving your chicken sh|t dirt-did-it religion down our children's throats at our expense. That's legalized child abuse, in my opinion. Some of us aim to stop you.

      Delete
    6. First of all, who's "We"? And who found "bird trackways in the Triassic"?

      I didn't choose the example of human bones in situ in Cambrian sediments because it's 'sophisticated'. I chose it because it is pertinent to creationist claims and because it's an example of something that would help to or completely falsify "evidence for evolution", which you said is "non-falsifiable". Apparently, you didn't notice that I also included "Among other things".

      If mammal fossils are ever found in Permian sediments, get back to me.

      "Likewise with advanced tetrapod trackways 20 m.y. before Tiktaalik."

      In other words, if tetrapods evolved from fish, why are there still fish, and if humans evolved from tetrapods, why are there still other tetrapods? Right?

      Delete
    7. louis barfed:

      "I don't know of any theory from the critics of evolution that predicts that human bones will be found in Cambrian sediments. Enjoy lying much?"

      Well, that's probably because you creationists live in delusions and either deny that Cambrian aged sediments exist or you use some other lame argument, such as humans, cows, dogs, etc., didn't live in the same habitat as the organisms whose fossils are found in Cambrian sediments. Many christians believe and claim that humans have been around since the beginning ('creation') of life. If that were true, humans would have to have lived during the Cambrian and well before. Many christians also believe and claim that all other organisms have been around since the beginning ('creation') of life and that humans and all other organisms are unchanged (have not evolved). So, when are you god-pushers going to find some human or cow fossils in Cambrian sediments?

      "And yet, you are a dirt worshiper, shoving your chicken sh|t dirt-did-it religion down our children's throats at our expense. That's legalized child abuse, in my opinion. Some of us aim to stop you."

      I don't "worship" anything. I live in reality and don't suck up to an imaginary sky daddy or mommy. Your monstrous religion, with its threats of horrible punishment, including burning in a lake of fire for eternity, is massively abusive to children and adults. Is your imaginary sky daddy so wimpy and narcissistic that it has to threaten people to get them to worship it?

      Delete
    8. truthy, I am Christian and I don't believe in any of the crap you tell me that I believe in. Besides, I don't see any religion trying to teach their beliefs in the schools other than your own atheist/evolutionist religion. All I am saying is that you should not be allowed under the constitution to teach your religious crap to children in public schools. It's against the law. You get away with it because the people is not allowed to vote on the issue.

      The problem is that you believe and want to force children to believe in the power of dirt to create life all by itself. If that's not a chicken sh!t, dirt-did-it religious theory, then nobody's religious. LOL.

      ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

      Delete
    9. louis said:

      "I am Christian and I don't believe in any of the crap you tell me that I believe in."

      Then you're not christian. You're making up your own religion from bits and pieces of whatever makes you feel fulfilled and superior. Lots of people do that.

      "Besides, I don't see any religion trying to teach their beliefs in the schools..."

      So you've been living incommunicado under a rock your whole life then?

      "All I am saying is that you should not be allowed under the constitution to teach your religious crap to children in public schools. It's against the law. You get away with it because the people is not allowed to vote on the issue."

      Science (including the ToE) is not religious crap and it's legal to teach science in public school science classes. People are certainly allowed to vote on "the issue" and have done so in at least some communities. Do you really think that the majority of people in the USA would vote to replace science with your religious beliefs in public school science classes?

      Would it be okay with you if hindu beliefs were taught in public school science classes? How about islam? How about scientology or nuwaubianism?

      Delete
    10. lifepsy, is this what you're referring to?

      http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2009/06/16/did_birds_fly_in_the_late_triassic

      Delete
    11. LOL. The ToE is not science. It's just a chicken feather dirt-worshiping religion.

      Dirt did it. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

      Delete
    12. TWT-
      Triassic bird tracks

      Melchor et al. 2002 Nature

      "Here we describe well-preserved and abundant footprints with clearly avian characters from a Late Triassic redbed sequence of Argentina at least 55 Myr before the first known skeletal record of birds."

      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n6892/abs/nature00818.html

      TWT-
      "In other words, if tetrapods evolved from fish, why are there still fish, and if humans evolved from tetrapods, why are there still other tetrapods? Right?"

      No. In other words the popularized sequence of Tiktaalik, Icthyostega, etc. has been falsified. Advanced Tetrapods were walking around 20 my earlier, which means tetrapod beginnings go back even earlier than that with no trace of any transitional sequence.

      Delete
    13. lifespy

      TWT-Triassic bird tracks

      Melchor et al. 2002 Nature

      "Here we describe well-preserved and abundant footprints with clearly avian characters from a Late Triassic redbed sequence of Argentina at least 55 Myr before the first known skeletal record of birds."


      Why did you omit this part?

      "These footprints document the activities, in an environment interpreted as small ponds associated with ephemeral rivers, of an unknown group of Late Triassic theropods having some avian characters."

      Creationists have to lie, all the time, about everything. They just can't help themselves.

      No. In other words the popularized sequence of Tiktaalik, Icthyostega, etc. has been falsified.

      Those were never postulated to be a direct lineage. The term "transitional" means having intermediate morphological characteristics, not necessarily a direct descent. The whole genealogy of early tetrapods is much more like a bush. All the find indicates is another previously unknown branching, and that the transition from water to land is more complicated that previously thought. It may have happened multiple times in parallel - we just don't have enough data at this time to know.

      One day we'll get an honest Creationist who is interested in actually understanding instead of just dishonest spin. But not today.

      Delete
  11. Hey joey, why are you arguing against evolution? And why do you argue against evidence of cetaceans evolving from land animals? Embryonic development isn't the only evidence of cetaceans evolving from land animals.

    You often say that ID is not anti-evolution, so shouldn't you be sticking to your usual bald assertions about front-loaded, designed software and be claiming that evolution (including that of cetaceans) was/is definitely real but designed by allah?

    By the way joey, shouldn't you also be complaining to Cornelius about his constant conflation of evolution and the theory of evolution?

    Hey joey, if cetaceans didn't evolve from land animals, what did they evolve from?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Joe may be guilty of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The plain fact is that there was an evolution from land to sea and from sea to land. But so effing what? How does that prove Darwinian evolution?

      Delete
    2. How many mutations did it take to go from sea to land and then back again? IOW how can we test that claim?

      Can we take fish embryos, subject them to targeted mutatgenesis and artificial selection to get a fish-a-pod and then a tetrapod?

      If not how the heck is it a plain fact?

      Delete
    3. So then joey, you're claiming that mutations and evolution (even by 'design') do not occur, even though you have claimed many times that ID is not anti-evolution and that mutations that cause evolution are designed into front-loaded "software".

      Delete
  12. twitty,

    You don't appear to know what evolution is. Not my problem.

    Ya see, moron, there can be a change in allele frequency over time, ie evolution, without land mammals evolving into whales.

    And CH made it very clear that when he says "evolution", he is talking about evolutionism. Again not my fault that you are ignorant.

    And cetaceans evolved from cetaceans.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmm, that's interesting, joey. You're admitting that 'the designer-allah' doesn't have the ability to front-load designed software into any land animals so that they could evolve into cetaceans.

      If cetaceans evolved from cetaceans, where did the first cetaceans come from, joey? Did they get poofed into existence by allah at some point during the Cenozoic or were they created when life was first poofed into existence by allah?

      And the only thing that Cornelius makes clear is that he is an evangelical, fundamentalist, anti-evolution, anti-ToE, anti-science, dishonest, typical creationist.

      Delete
  13. Seriously, CH? This is the best you have to offer? An English professor - not even a scientist - recycling the usual half-baked creationist arguments?

    The most important information a culture has is its creation story because from that a culture derives its morality and law. [Continued]

    There are hundreds of different creation myths around the world. Which - if any - of them are true? How do you tell? In any event, what do they have to do with the way life on Earth has evidently changed over time?

    The truth is that for the last 150 years, slightly below the public's perception, Darwin's theory has been mired in controversy, challenged by scientists of every stripe.

    Project Steve, the list of scientists who endorse the theory limited to just those called Steve or one of its variants, now has 1245 signatories. Since the 'Steves" only account for around 1% of scientists, that is a lot of support.

    Against that, the Discovery Institute's Scientific Dissent from Darwinism has only managed to gather "over 800" (they're a bit coy about the actual figure) signatories of all stripes and all names from around the world.

    The fact is, there is no controversy in biology about evolution, other than the usual academic bunfights you find in any flourishing field of research. It's all in the fevered imaginations of EID/creationism advocates

    Animals and plants appear in the fossil record fully formed and remain unchanged through millions of years. No knowledgeable individual denies this.

    Sure they do.

    Some species appear fully-formed, for others there is fossil evidence of transition. Some species existed for millions of years, relatively unchanged, others show evidence of change over time and others don't last as long. Darwin expected this.

    Over millions of generations of laboratory testing, fruit flies, as one example, when subjected to genetic changes have not changed into anything but mutated, crippled fruit flies

    Never mind the fruit flies, professor, what about the bacteria, the bugs that developed a taste for nylon waste products? From the Wikipedia entry:

    In 1975 a team of Japanese scientists discovered a strain of Flavobacterium, living in ponds containing waste water from a nylon factory, that was capable of digesting certain byproducts of nylon 6 manufacture, such as the linear dimer of 6-aminohexanoate. These substances are not known to have existed before the invention of nylon in 1935. Further study revealed that the three enzymes the bacteria were using to digest the byproducts were significantly different from any other enzymes produced by other Flavobacterium strains (or, for that matter, any other bacteria), and not effective on any material other than the manmade nylon byproducts.

    and later in the same piece:

    Scientists have also been able to induce another species of bacteria, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, to evolve the capability to break down the same nylon byproducts in a laboratory by forcing them to live in an environment with no other source of nutrients. The P. aeruginosa strain did not seem to use the same enzymes that had been utilized by the original Flavobacterium strain

    Nice example of adaptive evolution there, no knowledgeeable individual denies this.

    So also much the same thing happened with the famous "Galapagos finches" whose average beak size became bigger when the conditions there made it harder to find food due to bad weather.

    You need to brush up on creationist talking-points, professor. You forgot to mention the peppered moths.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ian -

      First, the propaganda effort of Project Steve does not change the fact that there are surely thousands of scientists, many biologists, that dissent from darwinian evolution. This is not taking into account the many, many more thousands of scientists that can't afford to publicize their views and jeopardize their careers.

      Yes Darwinian Evolution is such an awesome theory that thousands of scientists (some like Raoult and Tour ranked at the top of their field!) don't accept it.


      Second,

      Nylon-degrading enzymes are no more than a couple amino acid substitutions to existing enzymes, such as Esterase.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17512009

      The P. Aeruginosa were able to degrade nylon in the lab after only 9 days. That points much more towards adaptive plasticity rather than darwinian random mutations.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC167468/pdf/612020.pdf

      Sorry for being blunt, but it is laughable to be holding these examples up as some sort of brilliant discovery of evolution in action... Bacteria changing a tiny bit... Lenski's E.Coli has been going on 50,000+ generations (roughly translated to a million years of higher taxa populations) and let's see now.. He got a colony to shuffle a citrate transporter gene closer to an aerobic promoter....

      These are under the most favorable conditions to darwinian evolution you could get (asexual and under huge selection pressure) and they still barely change at all.. not so much as a single novel functional protein! This is a joke when you apply the same thinking to higher taxa like mammals that would require positive selection and fixation of thousands of small changes, completely restructuring their physiology and morphologies. Just really think about it for a few minutes.. It's ridiculous.

      Delete
    2. However trivial these examples might sound to you, lifepsy, you have to admit that both demonstrate evolution in action. Galileo's experiments with accelerating balls were simple, too. Simplicity is a virtue as far as science is concerned.

      Delete
    3. They demonstrate BIOLOGY in action.

      They are only trivial in their extrapolation to support macroevolution. You guys see bacteria change an amino acid and instantly it is evidence that a rat can turn into a whale over a few million years. It must be the most absurd thinking in human history.

      We are finding more and more about how organisms are equipped with built-in stress response systems (phenotypic plasticity) that facilitate major non-random, environment induced variations in a short amount of time. And clearly within set limits, shifting back and forth with small habitat fluctuations.

      Also, many studies point to the starved cells of bacteria targeting specific regions of the genome in starved cells to induce mutations. These are not the blind searches of darwinian evolution.

      Delete
    4. lifepsy,

      There are quite a few howlers in your response. I will point out a couple; others should feel free to do likewise.

      Darwinian evolution is not a blind search. Mutations are modeled as random, but environmental feedback (selection) is not random. The process that obtains is not pure random walk. It has a non-random component in the direction of higher fitness.

      Rats did not turn into whales. Early ungulates did.

      Delete
    5. lifepsy

      They are only trivial in their extrapolation to support macroevolution. You guys see bacteria change an amino acid and instantly it is evidence that a rat can turn into a whale over a few million years. It must be the most absurd thinking in human history.


      I'd love to hear your explanation for the spatial and temporal distribution of the different creatures found in the fossil record, the ones that certainly look like transitional sequences.

      Do you have one?

      Delete
    6. Oh dear, looks like our latest blustering Creationist lifepsy has cut and run from the thread already.

      Who didn't see that coming?

      Delete
    7. lifepsy March 3, 2013 at 7:54 PM

      Ian -

      First, the propaganda effort of Project Steve does not change the fact that there are surely thousands of scientists, many biologists, that dissent from darwinian evolution. This is not taking into account the many, many more thousands of scientists that can't afford to publicize their views and jeopardize their careers.


      The Discovery Institute's Dissent from Darwinism is such a bust they're too ashamed to front up the total number of signatories.

      Yes Darwinian Evolution is such an awesome theory that thousands of scientists (some like Raoult and Tour ranked at the top of their field!) don't accept it.

      Next time you have a toothache I'm assuming you're going to see a plumber to find out what's wrong because that's the equivalent of what you're doing.

      It doesn't matter how many scientists - or even English professors - have doubts about evolution, what counts are biologists. Fred Hoyle was notoriously skeptical about evolution but his tornado in a junkyard analogy was a strawman and he was also on the wrong side of a major controversy in his own field.

      Sorry for being blunt, but it is laughable to be holding these examples up as some sort of brilliant discovery of evolution in action...

      Sorry to be blunt but it's your attempt to dismiss these findings as a trivial that's a joke. First, Darwin emphasized that it was precisely through such small incremental changes that evolution proceeds. Second, if researchers hadn't found these changes occurring, you would be amongst the first to be screaming that evolutionists couldn't find evidence of even these small changes to back up their theory.

      Delete
  14. [Continued]
    Such changes as occurred with these finches are sometimes referred to as "evolution in action." But these infinitesimal changes are not "evolution" in the way that Darwin meant the word.

    RTFM, professor! Small incremental changes are exactly what Darwin envisaged as an essential part of his theory of evolution.

    For he meant to explain how nature by itself could make something new, how one animal or plant over long periods of time could transform itself into something quite different, like a trout changing into a tiger, or a bacterium into a whale.

    And this passage clearly reveals that all the good professor knows about the theory of evolution is the standard creationist caricature. Far from destroying the arguments of the evolutionary biologists, he hasn't even laid a glove on them.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Well, this has certainly gotten real boring real fast.

    We've got a few first time IDiot Creationists pushing the same tired old PRATT claims. I guess since they do no research and haven't had a new script written in 2000 years it's all they've got.

    Then we've got the old boring IDiot Creationists like one-note Chubby Joke G bellowing his usual "EVOLUTION HAS NO EVIDENCE!! between quivers of his multiple chins.

    Different clowns, same circus.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This is a great thread because it shows a professor punching away at the logic behind evolution can do arm chair destruction of bad ideas.
    Sherlock Holmes did too.

    I like the genetic thing.
    There is no genetic scientific evidence for connecting different kinds of biology.
    All they got is some alike DNA but the connection is JUST a line of reasoning.
    So all one must do is supply another line of reasoning and one has destroyed their evidence.
    In fact if its just a line of reasoning then its already not scientific evidence but just deduction.
    If there was a creator with a single biological blueprint, like in physics laws, then it would be that all biology have like DNA if it has like parts.
    Nevertheless its all lines of reasoning and not conclusions from genetic evidence.
    ID folk make this mistake too and perhaps some YEC.
    Perhaps Mr Hunter could do a thread dedicated to whjether genetic claims of descent is based on genetic scientific investigation of just the same reasoning as connecting me to my dad by DNA.
    True or not its still just a presumed connection and evidence of no more.
    My being related to my dad is based on solid other evidence.
    I'm saying dna is not a trail for relationship but a presumption before theres any trailing.

    ReplyDelete