Ajackson17
New member
Interesting, its a personal belief but there is an higher energy form that appears to be self aware and powerful. I'll leave it at that.
And_So_It_Burns
New member
bambu;7672371 said:
"In 1859, when Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species was first published, the fossil record was poorly known. Darwin described the perceived lack of transitional fossils as, "...the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory," but explained it by relating it to the extreme imperfection of the geological record.[2] He noted the limited collections available at that time, but described the available information as showing patterns that followed from his theory of descent with modification through natural selection.[3] Indeed, Archaeopteryx was discovered just two years later, in 1861, and represents a classic transitional form between dinosaurs and birds. Many more transitional fossils have been discovered since then, and there is now abundant evidence of how all classes of vertebrates are related, much of it in the form of transitional fossils"
I posted a list of transitional fossils which happens to be the bane of all pseudoscience based biology. Obviously, these fossils wouldn't exist if creationism were true. The disclaimer you posted earlier is to highlight what has been known since Darwin's time, finding a preserved fossil is rare, finding a fossil that's serves as a transition between two taxa is extremely rare. Since Darwin's time, the fossilized remains of many more transitional organisms have been found not to mention the advance in genetics only further validate his claims.
Here's THE classic transitional fossil. Archaeopteryx How would a creationist explain this?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx
bambu;7672371 said:
Not sure why you googled the definition of the terms I used and I didn't use morphology in that context. Here's the correct definition.
"Morphology is a branch of biology dealing with the study of the form and structure of organisms and their specific structural features. This includes aspects of the outward appearance (shape, structure, colour, pattern) as well as the form and structure of the internal parts like bones and organs."
bambu;7672371 said:
You have to understand, in science, especially in modern times, more than one methodology is used in biology. These methodologies usually validated each other. For example, DNA was undiscovered in Darwin's time yet the morphological traits exhibited through animals (especially birds, dinosaurs and primates) were so clear, we could infer that birds are a subset of dinosaurs and humans are a subset of apes. DNA would only validate his observation decades later as a fact. No discipline is perfect and I agree more than one methodology should be used but when multiple methods validate each other it's a slam dunk.
[quote="bambu;7672371]
Exactly…..
We call spinning invalid evidence to fit scientific theories pseudoscience…..[/quote]
We call your world view pseudoscience.
"Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
And_So_It_Burns
New member
[quote="bambu;7672371]
As far as human vestigiality goes....
ves•tige /ˈvestij/ Biology ~ a part or organ of an organism that has become reduced or functionless in the course of evolution.
The human coccyx was created to anchor the pelvic floor and serves that specific function……[/quote]
You listed some great examples of human vestigiality. These organs don't have to be completely functionless but just at a reduced capacity. As far as human vestigiality goes...wisdom teeth and goose bumbs would probably serve as the most relateable example. As it turns out, goose bumbs serve no purpose to modern day humans but serve as a mechanisms to animals covered in fur to wort off predators and in severe cold. You can see how an animal covered in fur could use this mechanism but humans have no use for it. This is an ode to our fur covered ancestors
[quote="bambu;7672371]It is stated that at one time in our alleged evolution we had more room in our mouths. It also has been suggested that we had to chew more than we do today. Both of these statements may be plausible, however they do not prove or even suggest that we are evolving. These teeth still function for chewing and are by no means useless or vestigial. The lack of space in the mouths of certain people – and by no means all people – is a consequence of the degeneration of the human race in regard to both genetics and lifestyles. This is quite contrary to the concept of evolution, which implies that we are improving and adding features.[/quote]
This is completely wrong. I hope for your sake you misspoke. This isn't what evolution states. In alot of cases, natural selection involves removing features which is highlighted by the video I posted. Wisdom teeth are usually removed or impacted. I just had mine removed last month. Wisdom teeth sure are not the work of an intelligent designer. Currently 35% of people are born without these. This number is predicted to only increase. More signs that our species still isn't optimized.
"in regard to both genetics and lifestyles."
This is the driving mechanism of natural selection lol. Lifestyle changes, especially dietary has led to smaller jaws.
Besides organs we could look at it from a genetic standpoint. Whales, and other Cetaceas have the genes for making legs Which is why, on occasion, something occurs known as atavism. This causes animals to occasionally be born with traits that had disappeared generations ago and causes whales and snakes to be born with leg stumps and chicken to be born with teeth.
How does creationism explain this? why do whales have the genes for making feet?
[quote="bambu;7672371]
Be specific….
That video you posted is talking about adaptation or change over time……
Again….
I am referring specifically to speciation, or the idea of a common ancestor, the Darwinist theory that one specie(kind, organism) can change into another. Not the definition of evolution as the gradual development of something
[/quote]
Lol not this argument. You believe in the driving mechanism behind evolution. "adaptation or change over time…" AKA natural selection but not evolution. You have to understand these minor adaptations over a large time scale and isolation while lead to speciation.
"One example of evolution at work is the case of the hawthorn fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, also known as the apple maggot fly, which appears to be undergoing sympatric speciation.[19] Different populations of hawthorn fly feed on different fruits. A distinct population emerged in North America in the 19th century some time after apples, a non-native species, were introduced. This apple-feeding population normally feeds only on apples and not on the historically preferred fruit of hawthorns. The current hawthorn feeding population does not normally feed on apples. Some evidence, such as the fact that six out of thirteen allozyme loci are different, that hawthorn flies mature later in the season and take longer to mature than apple flies; and that there is little evidence of interbreeding (researchers have documented a 4-6% hybridization rate) suggests that sympatric speciation is occurring. The emergence of the new hawthorn fly is an example of evolution in progress.[20]"
And_So_It_Burns
New member
luke1733;7675122 said:
Lol this post is full of fail. Not sure if I'll even respond. @bambu is at least making coherent arguments.
And_So_It_Burns;7677585 said:
"No intermediate fossils link Archaeopteryx with any of the groups from which it might have evolved."
Vertebrate Life, 3rd ed. (New York: McMillan, 1989), pp. 468, 470.
Perhaps the most significant evidence against the case for Archae is the fossil record itself.
"There are insurmountable problems with that theory. There is the time problem in that superficially bird-like dinosaurs occurred some 25 million to 80 million years after the earliest known bird, which is 150 million years old."
Hypography Sci-Tech, Study confirms birds not dinosaurs,http://www.hypography.com/article.cfm?id=32555, 8/21/02.
No credible scientist argues this point. Dinosaurs with seemingly bird-like characteristics appear, according to the evolutionary timescale, some 25 to 80 million years after the earliest known actual bird. In other words, according to evolution, Archaeopteryx's grandfather was a bird!
Furthermore, your precious evidence has been proven to be a hoax.....
"One of the authors, Dr. Chandra Wickramasinghe, an astrophysicist, has been quoted in a British newspaper as saying the purported hoax was carried out by someone who ''made a paste of crushed limestone from the same period, smeared it around a genuine reptile fossil and then imprinted the feathers.''
The new evidence was historical in nature, he said, and reveals the fossil to have been radically altered in a suspicious manner since it was acquired by the British Museum. He added that although none of the accusers is a paleontologist, they were perfectly qualified to pass judgment on the authenticity of the fossil.
''All you need is a pair of eyes,'' Dr. Wickramasinghe said."
http://www.nytimes.com/1985/05/07/science/authenticity-of-bird-fossil-is-challenged.html
And_So_It_Burns;7677585 said:
No, you need to understand that DNA and modern technology is debunking Darwin's evolution....
"For much of the past 150 years, biology has largely concerned itself with filling in the details of the tree. "For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life," says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change."
http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/2009-February/004416.html
On The Origin of Species 22 years later, Darwin's spindly tree had grown into a mighty oak. The book contains numerous references to the tree and its only diagram is of a branching structure showing how one species can evolve into many.
The tree-of-life concept was absolutely central to Darwin's thinking, equal in importance to natural selection, according to biologist W. Ford Doolittle of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Without it the theory of evolution would never have happened. The tree also helped carry the day for evolution. Darwin argued successfully that the tree of life was a fact of nature, plain for all to see though in need of explanation. The explanation he came up with was evolution by natural selection. ...
"As it became clear that HGT was a major factor, biologists started to realise the implications for the tree concept. As early as 1993, some were proposing that for bacteria and archaea the tree of life was more like a web. In 1999, Doolittle made the provocative claim that "the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree" (Science, vol 284, p 2124). "The tree of life is not something that exists in nature, it's a way that humans classify nature," he says."
Dawkins theory of common ancestry debunked by a true scientist......
And_So_It_Burns;7677585 said:
Anything that goes against evolution is considered a pseudoscience.......
However, when your laws of evolution are broken, your scientists simply bend the theory to fit where it cannot....
Irreversible Evolution? Dust Mites Show Parasites Can Violate Dollo’s Law
By Christie Wilcox | March 8, 2013 5:00 pm
In evolutionary biology, the notion of irreversibility is known as Dollo’s Law after the Belgian paleontologist that first hypothesized it in 1893. He stated that once a lineage had lost or modified organs or structures, that they couldn’t turn back the clock and un-evolve those changes. Or, as he put it, “an organism is unable to return, even partially, to a previous stage already realized in the ranks of its ancestors.”
While this isn’t the first time that Dollo’s Law has been questioned, it’s the first strong evidence that parasitism might not be the evolutionary “blind alley” we tend to describe it as. The more scientists use genetics to study the evolutionary relationships between organisms, the more they find that Dollo’s Law is less law-like than once thought, broadening our understanding of evolution as a whole and challenging our assumptions about how it works.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/science-sushi/?p=2641#.UT62mRwz0th
Another one bites the dust.................
As far as your flies go....
The main example used by evolutionists is Diane Dodd's fruit fly experiment........
However......
Diane Dodd's fruit flies are still fruit flies, regardless of whether they prefer mates who eat maltose or starch......
No evidence of a "new" species.....
http://wps.pearsoncustom.com/wps/media/objects/5697/5834441/ebook/htm/0cc6e.htm?14.07
I will get back to you about the "whales with feet".....
You shouldn't have bit, b......
Last edited:
And_So_It_Burns
New member
Quick response. All of it can easily be refuted but ill wait for you to respond to my atavism argument. Good luck.
And_So_It_Burns;7678767 said:
I know it, studied it and took classes and passed the tests.....
Atavisms violate one of the central evolutionary principles,known as Dollo’s law, that “an organism is unable to return,even partially,to a previous stage already realizedin the ranks of its ancestors.”
Atavism (at'eVIZeM), the appearance in an individual of a characteristic not apparent in the preceding generation. At one time it was believed that such a phenomenon was thought to be a “throwback” to a hypothetical ancestral prototype. The term is seldom used today since science has shown that such abnormal characteristics can be explained by the inheritance of a pair of recessive genes.
There is a complex DNA program which causes the development of the normal bone in this part of the whale’s anatomy. A mutational defect in this program could easily cause one or more extra pieces of bone to form, which would almost inevitably be in the same region, either separate from or fused with the normal bone. In the same way, people can be born with extra fingers, ribs, nipples, etc. If this should extend to two extra pieces of bone, no matter how misshapen or otherwise these were, enthusiastic evolutionists would no doubt interpret one additional piece of bone as a ‘femur,’ and any second one would be labeled a ‘tibia’ (shin bone).
Above: Photo of the skeleton of a Greenland Right whale, with bony disease. The small pelvic bone is seen below.
From E.J.Slijper, Whales,2 fig. 226, p. 423.
Below: Drawing shows a similar (small) pelvic bone of a Sperm whale with an even smaller abnormal lump of bone fused to it, which abnormality is labeled by evolutionists a ‘vestigial femur.’ However, this tiny blob of bone bears little resemblance to the leg bone of any land animal.
And_So_It_Burns;7677586 said:
Wrong.....
And you need to drop some evidence for your grandiose claim that "minor adaptations over a large time scale and isolation while lead to speciation".......
Change over time is observable and obvious......
One species changing into another has never and will never be observed.......
Again.....
Definition 1 is invalid.....
Definition 2 is valid........
ev·o·lu·tionˌ evəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: evolution; plural noun: evolutions
1. the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
synonyms: Darwinism, natural selection "his interest in evolution"
2. the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
"the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution"
synonyms: development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, expansion, unfolding
Last edited:
Trashboat;7678870 said:
LOL.....
Exceptions where it fails.....
I posted those.....
The last time I checked laws did not come with exceptions.....
law
lô/
noun
noun: law; noun: the law
1. the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties.
"they were taken to court for breaking the law"
2. a statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present.
"the second law of thermodynamics"
a generalization based on a fact or event perceived to be recurrent.
"the first law of American corporate life is that dead wood floats"
3. the body of divine commandments as expressed in the Bible or other religious texts.
synonyms: principle, rule, precept, directive, injunction, commandment, belief, creed, credo, maxim, tenet, doctrine, canon
"a moral law"
the Pentateuch as distinct from the other parts of the Hebrew Bible (the Prophets and the Writings).
noun: Law; noun: the Law
the precepts of the Pentateuch.
plural noun: the Law of Moses
Fallback smallback......
Last edited:
"Diane Dodd's fruit flies are still fruit flies" - Bambu
This in a nutshell is Bambu's issue with the Biology debate. He creates definition of words like 'species' then tries to unset evolutionary theory for not using the word according to his definition. In the case of Drosophila (fruit flies) there are 1500 different species according to biology however there is basically one according to Bambu. Speciation to Bambu is a fruit fly giving birth to a horse fly while in biology it is a population of fruit flies becoming reproductively isolated from other fruit flies.
He loves to splash an image about "Darwin is Wrong" but hates to actually read the magazine which includes the following;
"As we celebrate the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth, we await a third revolution that will see biology changed and strengthened. None of this should give succour to creationists, whose blinkered universe is doubtless already buzzing with the news that “New Scientist has announced Darwin was wrong”. Expect to find excerpts ripped out of context and presented as evidence that biologists are deserting the theory of evolution en masse. They are not." - New Scientist Magazine
It is nice to see he is now pitching violations of Dollo's Law. Its at least new material. Since I am unfamiliar with this subject I should thank Bambu for giving the chance to explore biology further.
This in a nutshell is Bambu's issue with the Biology debate. He creates definition of words like 'species' then tries to unset evolutionary theory for not using the word according to his definition. In the case of Drosophila (fruit flies) there are 1500 different species according to biology however there is basically one according to Bambu. Speciation to Bambu is a fruit fly giving birth to a horse fly while in biology it is a population of fruit flies becoming reproductively isolated from other fruit flies.
He loves to splash an image about "Darwin is Wrong" but hates to actually read the magazine which includes the following;
"As we celebrate the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth, we await a third revolution that will see biology changed and strengthened. None of this should give succour to creationists, whose blinkered universe is doubtless already buzzing with the news that “New Scientist has announced Darwin was wrong”. Expect to find excerpts ripped out of context and presented as evidence that biologists are deserting the theory of evolution en masse. They are not." - New Scientist Magazine
It is nice to see he is now pitching violations of Dollo's Law. Its at least new material. Since I am unfamiliar with this subject I should thank Bambu for giving the chance to explore biology further.
Bambu also loves to cite ancient debunked nonsense to counter claim like Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil.
About 30 years ago a group of people attacked the veracity of the Archaeopteryx fossil. They were Prof. F. Hoyle (astronomer), Dr. N. Wickramasinghe (mathematician), Dr. L. Spetner (physicist), Dr. R. Watkins (medical doctor) and J. Watkins (photographer). None were fossil experts but they were each fairly accomplished in their own fields. The whole thing would be consigned to the dustbin of history but creationist clasp to anything to slow the every mounting evidence in support of evolution so Bambu trots out 30 year old nonsense.
The following link is pretty involved but covers the subject. I include the conclusions of the paper for those interested.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/forgery.html
"The evidence claimed by Watkins et al. to indicate that the feather impressions are a forgery appear to be easily explainable by natural processes. Detailed study of the London specimen both across the surface and in vertical section have failed to provide any evidence to support the contention that a layer of cement is present. The method claimed to have been used to produce the forgery cannot explain the presence of fine lines crisscrossing the fossil, or the matching dendrites on the slab and counterslab, which occur on top of the feather imprints. The feather imprints on the Maxberg specimen, despite claims to the contrary, are clearly identifiable as such. In this case, forgery of the type envisaged by Watkins et al. can be discounted because of the fact that the impressions run underneath the bony elements of the skeleton.
Something that should be obvious to anyone is that
"any conclusions about the authenticity of the fossil should be based on the best possible evidence. Photographs are just one ingredient of such evidence" (Parmenter & Greenaway 1985, p. 458).
Watkins et al., however, cite as evidence of their claims a set of "rudimentary," "poor" photographs having "too much contrast and too soft a focus," without looking at the much more extensive and better quality Museum photographs.
The claims that the feathers of Archaeopteryx are fake has been shown to be unsupported. Thus the claim that "the significance of Archaeopteryx lies in the fact that it represents the only unquestionable case of a fossil showing a transition between two vertebrate classes, aves (birds) and reptilia (reptiles)" has been upheld. In other words, Watkins et al. claim that Archaeopteryx represents a transitional form, but cannot be accepted as such because it is a forgery. Since the claim of forgery has not been substantiated, Archaeopteryx must therefore be an example of a transitional form by Watkins, et al.'s own admission (notwithstanding the fact that they mischaracterise Archaeopteryx as the "only" case).
I doubt however, that this particular quote will show up in any creationist literature."
About 30 years ago a group of people attacked the veracity of the Archaeopteryx fossil. They were Prof. F. Hoyle (astronomer), Dr. N. Wickramasinghe (mathematician), Dr. L. Spetner (physicist), Dr. R. Watkins (medical doctor) and J. Watkins (photographer). None were fossil experts but they were each fairly accomplished in their own fields. The whole thing would be consigned to the dustbin of history but creationist clasp to anything to slow the every mounting evidence in support of evolution so Bambu trots out 30 year old nonsense.
The following link is pretty involved but covers the subject. I include the conclusions of the paper for those interested.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/forgery.html
"The evidence claimed by Watkins et al. to indicate that the feather impressions are a forgery appear to be easily explainable by natural processes. Detailed study of the London specimen both across the surface and in vertical section have failed to provide any evidence to support the contention that a layer of cement is present. The method claimed to have been used to produce the forgery cannot explain the presence of fine lines crisscrossing the fossil, or the matching dendrites on the slab and counterslab, which occur on top of the feather imprints. The feather imprints on the Maxberg specimen, despite claims to the contrary, are clearly identifiable as such. In this case, forgery of the type envisaged by Watkins et al. can be discounted because of the fact that the impressions run underneath the bony elements of the skeleton.
Something that should be obvious to anyone is that
"any conclusions about the authenticity of the fossil should be based on the best possible evidence. Photographs are just one ingredient of such evidence" (Parmenter & Greenaway 1985, p. 458).
Watkins et al., however, cite as evidence of their claims a set of "rudimentary," "poor" photographs having "too much contrast and too soft a focus," without looking at the much more extensive and better quality Museum photographs.
The claims that the feathers of Archaeopteryx are fake has been shown to be unsupported. Thus the claim that "the significance of Archaeopteryx lies in the fact that it represents the only unquestionable case of a fossil showing a transition between two vertebrate classes, aves (birds) and reptilia (reptiles)" has been upheld. In other words, Watkins et al. claim that Archaeopteryx represents a transitional form, but cannot be accepted as such because it is a forgery. Since the claim of forgery has not been substantiated, Archaeopteryx must therefore be an example of a transitional form by Watkins, et al.'s own admission (notwithstanding the fact that they mischaracterise Archaeopteryx as the "only" case).
I doubt however, that this particular quote will show up in any creationist literature."
In Dodd's experiment she isolate a population of fruit flies and only provides maltose as a food source. Over several generations these flies become more and more efficient at metabolizing maltose. When Dodd reintroduced these maltose consuming flies back into an environment with typical starch consuming flies she found that the maltose flies reproduced with other maltose flies. Even in a combined setting the flies had become reproductively isolated from each other.
Trashboat;7687896 said:
I didn't post all of them because the list is too long......
I posted definitions to clarify the law......
I figured everyone understood what exceptions are..........
Trashboat;7687897 said:
No.....
As @Whar posted, the flies become reproductively isolated.......
I know you don't like definitions; however, they are necessary to clarify the results of the experiment.......
The flies do not become separate species that cannot reproduce with the other populations.......
Flies that were raised on specific diets preferred to mate with flies who shared similar diets...........
However, the flies did mate with flies from populations that were fed differing food sources..........
Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is no evidence of differing species in the experiment.........
"The mating preference shown in the experimental group is an example of a prezygotic barrier. The reproductive barrier was not absolute—some mating between “maltose flies” and “starch flies” did occur"
http://wps.pearsoncustom.com/wps/media/objects/5697/5834441/ebook/htm/0cc6e.htm?14.07
When does reality set in, or does it not matter???????
Last edited:
