Fossil Record: Evolution a fact?
BlackSphinx
gradual changing from one kind of life into another. And that would
have to be the case regardless of which variation of evolutionary
theory is accepted. Even scientists who believe in the more rapid
changes associated with the "punctuated equilibrium" theory
acknowledge that there would still have been many thousands of years
during which these changes supposedly took place. So it is not
reasonable to believe that there would be no need at all for linking
fossils.
Also, if evolution were founded in fact, the fossil record would be
expected to reveal beginnings of new structures in living things.
There should be at least some fossils with developing arms, legs,
wings, eyes, and other bones and organs. For instance, there should be
fish fins changing into amphibian legs with feet and toes, and gills
changing into lungs. There should be reptiles with front limbs
changing into bird wings, back limbs changing into legs with claws,
scales changing into feathers, and mouths changing into horny beaks.
In this regard the British journal New Scientist says of the theory:
"It predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages
of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of
time." As Darwin himself asserted: "The number of intermediate
varieties, which have formerly existed, [must] be truly enormous."
Khubla
often said that because evolution happened in the past, and we didn't see it
happen, there is no direct evidence for it. That of course is nonsense. It's
rather like a detective coming on the scene of a crime, obviously after the
crime has been committed, and working out what must have happened by looking
at the clues that remain. In the story of evolution, the clues are a
billion-fold.
There are clues from the distribution of DNA codes throughout the animal and
plant kingdoms, of protein sequences, of morphological characters that have
been analyzed in great detail. Everything fits with the idea that we have
here a simple branching tree. The distribution of species on islands and
continents throughout the world is exactly what you'd expect if evolution
was a fact. The distribution of fossils in space and in time are exactly
what you would expect if evolution were a fact. There are millions of facts
all pointing in the same direction and no facts pointing in the wrong
direction. "
You seem to expect all the missing links to be nicely filled in and
available for you. Science is indeed filling in the gaps and as each gap is
filled your god gradually shrinks away. I said earlier "
Evolution is a scientific fact accepted by every nation on Earth including
the Vatican. ID and Creationism are bad guesses using bad religion with no
support evidence...period.
Let's stop battering this around and move on. There is nothing that can be
said to make the Bible correct, and nothing fundamentalist can say to
overturn evolution...nothing.
Khubla
"No god has ever been in advance of its people." Robert Ingersoll
This is a telling truth on just who invented whom.
.
.
.
"BlackSphinx" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:91f837240601231734r726...@mail.gmail.com...
Matt Silberstein
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> in
<91f837240601231734r726...@mail.gmail.com> wrote:
> If evolution were a fact, the fossil evidence would surely reveal a
>gradual changing from one kind of life into another.
And there are examples of such changes.
>And that would
>have to be the case regardless of which variation of evolutionary
>theory is accepted. Even scientists who believe in the more rapid
>changes associated with the "punctuated equilibrium" theory
Punk Eek does not propose more rapid change. It proposes more stasis,
more time of relatively little change.
>acknowledge that there would still have been many thousands of years
>during which these changes supposedly took place. So it is not
>reasonable to believe that there would be no need at all for linking
>fossils.
Which is why paleontologists acknowledge that those fine grained
transitional sequences exist.
> Also, if evolution were founded in fact, the fossil record would be
>expected to reveal beginnings of new structures in living things.
What is a "new structure" and how do you recognize it at the
beginning?
>There should be at least some fossils with developing arms, legs,
>wings, eyes, and other bones and organs.
Ignoring the sloppy biology (eyes don't fossilize, for example) we
have such things.
>For instance, there should be
>fish fins changing into amphibian legs with feet and toes, and gills
>changing into lungs. There should be reptiles with front limbs
>changing into bird wings, back limbs changing into legs with claws,
>scales changing into feathers, and mouths changing into horny beaks.
There are.
>In this regard the British journal New Scientist says of the theory:
>"It predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages
>of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of
>time." As Darwin himself asserted: "The number of intermediate
>varieties, which have formerly existed, [must] be truly enormous."
When did _New Scientist_ say that? A *complete* fossil record would
consist of that, but we don't have anywhere near such a complete
record.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Javriol
Khubla wrote:
> To quote Prof. Richard Dawkins, "We are lucky to have fossils at all. It's
> often said that because evolution happened in the past, and we didn't see it
> happen, there is no direct evidence for it. That of course is nonsense. It's
> rather like a detective coming on the scene of a crime, obviously after the
> crime has been committed, and working out what must have happened by looking
> at the clues that remain. In the story of evolution, the clues are a
> billion-fold.
A billion-fold clues doesnt make a case. Evidence beyod a reasonable
doubt does.
Snipped fpr brevity. your information and reply was not ignored.
> You seem to expect all the missing links to be nicely filled in and
> available for you. Science is indeed filling in the gaps and as each gap is
> filled your god gradually shrinks away. I said earlier "
>
I would venture to say, the Fossil record reflect the Genesis statement
that each different type of living thing would reproduce only
"according to its kind." (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25) Also, if
living things came into being by an act of creation, there would be no
partial, unfinished bones or organs in the fossil record. All fossils
would be complete and highly complex, as living things are today.
In addition, if living things were created, they would be expected to
appear suddenly in the fossil record, unconnected to anything before
them. And if this was found to be true, what then? Darwin frankly
admitted: "If numerous species . . . have really started into life
at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution."
Enkidu
news:1138068113.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> Khubla wrote:
>> To quote Prof. Richard Dawkins, "We are lucky to have fossils at all.
>> It's often said that because evolution happened in the past, and we
>> didn't see it happen, there is no direct evidence for it. That of
>> course is nonsense. It's rather like a detective coming on the scene
>> of a crime, obviously after the crime has been committed, and working
>> out what must have happened by looking at the clues that remain. In
>> the story of evolution, the clues are a billion-fold.
>
> A billion-fold clues doesnt make a case. Evidence beyod a reasonable
> doubt does.
"You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches,
demons, sticks turning into snakes, food falling from the sky, people
walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories,
and you say that we are the ones that need help?"
-- Jon Stoll
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
It is only undemonstrable assertions that require the suspension of
reason, and weak ideas that require faith.
-Dan Barker
Elmer
> If evolution were a fact...
It is. Evolution is defined as the heritable genetic change in a
reproducing population over time. That this happens is a fact.
JTEM
"BlackSphinx" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote
> If evolution were a fact, the fossil evidence would
> surely reveal a gradual changing from one kind of life
> into another.
Why?
From what I understand, there's only ever a 1-in-a-million
chance that any one living creature will ever become naturally
fossilized. Given a small population (as we are speaking of
transitional fossils), and assuming that this "transition" doesn't
take a million years, we'd never have more than a few ever
making it to fossil form.
And where might this fossil be?
Remember: When looking for a "transitional" fossil we are
looking for a fossil from a very unique, even isolated, population.
In other words, if we were looking for, say, a "transitional"
form of an animal that evolved from mice, not any mice fossils
would do. We'd need to identify the exact location were the
isolated population evolved. And it isn't necessarily where we
find the final form today. Climates change. They have changed.
Entire environments have been transformed. As an example,
the closest relatives to the Mammoths are found in southern
Asia today, but that doesn't mean that Mammoths began in
southern Asia.
Does the point of origin -- the geographical location where
the isolated population originally evolved -- still exists?
Was it scraped clean by Glaciers? Buried under ice-age
debris? A volcano? Sunken under rising ocean levels?
And it's not only today that fossils started "weathering out"
of rocks. Rock starts "weathering" from the moment it is
exposed to the environment. What's sticking out of a cliff
face today was buried deep within a rock (and inaccessible)
a million years ago. And what was weathering out of the
rocks a million years ago is likely gone forever at this point.
The odds say that we'll never find "transitional fossils"
for most species. The odds say that no "transitional fossils"
ever even formed for most species. They couldn't. Given a
small population, and only a 1-in-a-million chance of
becoming fossilized, it simply couldn't have happened. And
even if we knew for a fact that one was out there, it wouldn't
do us any good unless we knew exactly where to look. And
even if we knew where to look, the odds say that it's either
going to be buried deep in rock and inaccessible, or long
since weathered out & destroyed.
The retarded "no transitional fossils" creationists argument
is based on stupidity & lies. Fact is, there are transitional
fossils. There's very few of them, but by definition there is
supposed to be very few of them.
Matt Silberstein
Let's be a bit more expansive with this: common descent is a fact as
well.
John Wilkins
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 03:35:18 GMT, in alt.atheism , Elmer
> <nyli...@frontiernet.net> in <WfhBf.562$qg....@news01.roc.ny> wrote:
>
>> BlackSphinx wrote:
>>
>>> If evolution were a fact...
>> It is. Evolution is defined as the heritable genetic change in a
>> reproducing population over time. That this happens is a fact.
>
> Let's be a bit more expansive with this: common descent is a fact as
> well.
>
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
Servum tui ero, ipse vespera
Andrew
But that is not what is controverted. Horizontal changes, or microevolution
as you depict above, are not disputed. Macroevolution on the other hand,
would be vertical changes evidenced by one reproducing species vertically
changing or evolving into a higher, more advanced reproducing species thr-
ough an increase in its genetic information through mutations, or supposed-
ly some other natural processes. That is the theory that is controverted, not
"the heritable genetic change in a reproducing population over time."
Andrew
Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian
_is_ a fact.
Unless, of course, you are a liar for jebus who obviously desires to go to
that legendary "hell" for sinning.
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove,
And gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer,
And fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
Why I am not a christian:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus/nojebus
Elmer
> "Elmer" wrote in message news:WfhBf.562$qg....@news01.roc.ny...
>
>> BlackSphinx wrote:
>>
>>> If evolution were a fact...
>>
>>
>> It is. Evolution is defined as the heritable genetic change in a
>> reproducing population over time. That this happens is a fact.
>>
>> (Elmer)
> But that is not what is controverted.
"Controverted"?? Is that the right word here?
> Horizontal changes, or
> microevolution as you depict above, are not disputed.
As I depicted above the definition clearly encompasses *ALL*
evolutionary change, from the micro to the macro.
> Macroevolution
> on the other hand, would be vertical changes evidenced by one
> reproducing species vertically changing or evolving into a higher, more
> advanced reproducing species thr-
> ough
No. All organisms are equally evolved. Higher or lower is not a
biological term. There are organisms that are more complex and those
that are not as complex.
> an increase in its genetic information through mutations, or supposed-
> ly some other natural processes. That is the theory that is
> controverted, not
> "the heritable genetic change in a reproducing population over time."
Sorry Andrew, macroevolution ala "increase in its genetic information
through mutations" is a scientific fact. Please feel free to look up the
term polyploidy. It is an often seen mutation which doubles the genome
and in one step creates a new species.
Andrew
> "BlackSphinx" wrote:
>
>> If evolution were a fact, the fossil evidence would
>> surely reveal a gradual changing from one kind of life
>> into another.
>
> Why?
"As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do
we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?"
| -- Charles R. Darwin, The Origin of Species, Ch 6, p134
"No fossils have been found that can be considered transitional between the
major groups or phyla. From the beginning, these organisms were just clearly
and distinctly set apart from each other as they are today. Instead of finding
a record of fine graduations preserved in the fossil record, we invariably find
large gaps. This fact is absolutely FATAL to the general theory of evolution."
-- Scott M. Huges. PH.D
Elmer
> "JTEM" wrote in message news:A92dnT0A65O...@comcast.com...
>
>> "BlackSphinx" wrote:
>>
>>> If evolution were a fact, the fossil evidence would
>>> surely reveal a gradual changing from one kind of life
>>> into another.
>> Why?
> "As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why
> do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the
> earth?"
> | -- Charles R. Darwin, The Origin of Species,
> Ch 6, p134
Didn't bother to leave in his answer. Now why is that?
> "No fossils have been found that can be considered transitional between the
> major groups or phyla. From the beginning, these organisms were just
> clearly
> and distinctly set apart from each other as they are today. Instead of
> finding
> a record of fine graduations preserved in the fossil record, we
> invariably find
> large gaps. This fact is absolutely FATAL to the general theory of
> evolution."
> -- Scott M. Huges. PH.D
Scott Huges??? Is it really "Huges" or is it "Hughes"?
Do you have a book citation for this quote? I want to see what Scott's
scientific qualifications are.
cactus
> If evolution were a fact, the fossil evidence would surely reveal a
> gradual changing from one kind of life into another.
Like a 1 1/2 chambered heart? Or a 2 1/2 chambered one?
And that would
> have to be the case regardless of which variation of evolutionary
> theory is accepted. Even scientists who believe in the more rapid
> changes associated with the "punctuated equilibrium" theory
> acknowledge that there would still have been many thousands of years
> during which these changes supposedly took place. So it is not
> reasonable to believe that there would be no need at all for linking
> fossils.
Maybe a complete fossil record would show all the various forms, but we
don't have it. All we can do is make reasonable inference based on
observation.
>
> Also, if evolution were founded in fact, the fossil record would be
> expected to reveal beginnings of new structures in living things.
It does, we're learning more every day. But you would have to read the
literature to understand that.
> There should be at least some fossils with developing arms, legs,
> wings, eyes, and other bones and organs.
As noted above 1 1/2 chambered heart or 1 1/2 atria. There are living
forms that point to what you call "transitional," one example being
Periophthalmodon schlosseri, the giant mudskipper. This fish cannot
stay under water indefinitely, but must breathe air.
See http://www.naturia.per.sg/buloh/verts/mudskipper.htm
For instance, there should be
> fish fins changing into amphibian legs with feet and toes, and gills
> changing into lungs.
There are. See above.
There should be reptiles with front limbs
> changing into bird wings,
You are making assumptions about bird evolution. The birds may be
descended from the dinosaurs.
Gregory A Greenman
<nyli...@frontiernet.net> declared...
Doing a search for "scott huges" I've found a few more quotes.
(Apparently, his name is "Huges" not "Hughes".)
--------------------
"Ironically, although it has been over a hundred years since
Darwin's time, we now have fewer examples of 'transitional
forms' than we did then. Instead of having more (as Darwin had
hoped for), we actually have less.
This is because some of the old classic examples of evolution
have been recently disregarded due to new information and
findings, and no new transitional forms have been found.
Despite these insurmountable problems, the dauntless faith of the
evolutionist persists."
Scott M. Huges. PH.D
http://www.religionisbullshit.net/comments/comments666.html
--------------------
"Spontaneous generation was disproved by the careful studies of
Redi (1688), Spallanzani (1780), Pasteur (1860) and Virchow
(1858). These brilliant men conducted careful experiments that
looked beyond superficial appearance. They proved that when
matter was presterilised and sealed off from possible biological
contamination, no life arose; hence, no spontaneous generation.
The work of these men and others have established the
law of biogenesis: life comes only from pre-existing life and
will only perpetuate its own kind. Clearly, this law precludes
the spontaneous generation and transmutation of life.
How paradoxical it is that students are first taught
the greatness of the disproof of spontaneous generation! Then
they learn the "fact" that spontaneous generation was the
evolutionary mechanism by which life arose!"
Scott M. Huges, PH.D
http://english.sdaglobal.org/research/qotcratn.htm
--------------------
Author Scott M. Huges. PH.D wrote -
"Evolutionists insist that highly complex systems consisting of
numerous interrelating components can arise through purely random
and aimless processes. To their way of "thinking," if enough
monkeys typed for long enough, eventually one of them would type
a prefect unabridged dictionary. Of course, this idea is
completely nonsensical, and a brief consideration of the
probability statistics will reveal the absurdity and the naiveté
of such a viewpoint.
Author Scott M. Huges. PH.D regarding mimicry wrote -
"Evolutionary thinking is completely incapable of explaining the
origin, development, or perfection of such mimicry, especially
when it is accompanied by the concomitant imitation if shape,
colour, habit, and so on. Without question, mimicry is indeed one
of the most persuasive arguments against evolution and for
special creation.
Author Scott M. Huges. PH.D regarding also wrote -
The bewildering complexity, diversity, beauty, order and
astonishing perfection of life-forms thoroughly defy evolutionary
explanation. Fascinating interrelationships such as mimicry,
symbiosis, parasitism, and so on, among organisms clearly
indicate purposeful, intelligent design. The widespread existence
of amazingly sophisticated migratory and other insects do not
lend themselves to evolutionary elucidation. The numerous
instances of convergence and double convergence preclude
evolutionary rationale.
The incomprehensible complexity of the DNA molecule can only be
explained in terms of special creation. And most importantly, the
theory of evolution lacks a mechanism! Thus the consistent and
overwhelming witness of biology is in support of biblical
creationism and soundly against mythological evolution. Charles
Darwin once conceded that his theology was a "simple muddle." It
now seems quite clear that the same thing could be said about his
biology.
http://www.evolusham.com/content_begins1.htm
--------------------
I tried looking him up on Amazon.com, but if he wrote any books,
they don't carry them. Of course, you don't have to write books
to be an author.
I also tried looking him up at bookfinder.com, addall.com and
fetchbook.com and I found no books by him at those sites either.
None of the sites I found had any information on this guy, other
than his quotes. The only clue to when he wrote these quotes is
in their content. The last quote above talks about DNA. While he
doesn't say that DNA has anything to do with genetics, I suspect
that he mentioned it because it does. DNA has been known about
since the mid 19th century, but its relation to genetics was only
discovered in the 1950s.
In the first quote he says "it has been over a hundred years
since Darwin's time". Darwin lived from 1809 to 1882. The Origin
of Species was published in 1859. Assuming he's starting the 100
years from that date (and he got the math right) that would
indicate the quotes (or, at least that one) came from no earlier
than the 1960s. If he's using Darwin's death for the start of the
100 years, then, no earlier than the mid 1980s
I did a groups.google.com search for scott huges and the only
mentions of him that I found were his quotes and people
responding that they could find no information on this guy. For
all we know, someone just made up all these quotes and attributed
them to a fictitious PhD.
--
Greg
----
http://www.spencerbooksellers.com
greg00 -at- spencersoft -dot- com
Nicholas
The key word of the New Scientist quote is "complete". There isn't a
complete fossil record for the simple reason that fossils only occur
under very specific conditions, and those with soft tissue preservation
under even more stringent conditions. And even with these limitations we
do see what you would describe as 'intermediate' forms, including those
developing new structures.
Now I know you will probably jump on the fact that the fossil record is
not complete as some kind of flaw in evolution, which it isn't as there
are no fossils which contradict evolution and hence falsify it. Perhaps
you can explain just which version of creation is your favoured one, why
and the evidence that supports it.
Nicholas
Nicholas
> Khubla wrote:
>
>>To quote Prof. Richard Dawkins, "We are lucky to have fossils at all. It's
>>often said that because evolution happened in the past, and we didn't see it
>>happen, there is no direct evidence for it. That of course is nonsense. It's
>>rather like a detective coming on the scene of a crime, obviously after the
>>crime has been committed, and working out what must have happened by looking
>>at the clues that remain. In the story of evolution, the clues are a
>>billion-fold.
>
>
> A billion-fold clues doesnt make a case. Evidence beyod a reasonable
> doubt does.
Actually, they do. You need but find a single clue which contradicts
that case to falsify it. How many clues, as you put it, do you have for
any other unfalsifiable theory for life as we see it around us?
> Snipped fpr brevity. your information and reply was not ignored.
>
>
>> You seem to expect all the missing links to be nicely filled in and
>>available for you. Science is indeed filling in the gaps and as each gap is
>>filled your god gradually shrinks away. I said earlier "
>>
>
>
> I would venture to say, the Fossil record reflect the Genesis statement
> that each different type of living thing would reproduce only
> "according to its kind." (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25) Also, if
> living things came into being by an act of creation, there would be no
> partial, unfinished bones or organs in the fossil record. All fossils
> would be complete and highly complex, as living things are today.
Every animal that ever lived was complete, some of higher complexity
than others depending on their form. Each generation was a viable
specimen in its own right. You can see structures in fossils chaninging
from one use to another, but you will never see them in an unviable
state which seems to be what you are implying. This argument shows a
misunderstanding of evolution on two levels, a) that you are thinking
too discretely: the generations are a continuum, not steps and b)
evolution has no goals, so you are not going to see it 'striving' for
some end point like photos of a building in construction.
> In addition, if living things were created, they would be expected to
> appear suddenly in the fossil record, unconnected to anything before
> them. And if this was found to be true, what then? Darwin frankly
> admitted: "If numerous species . . . have really started into life
> at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution."
Darwin would be right to some extent. I say some extent because
evolution would still work after that creation point, but it would screw
up the evolution of the organism up until that point, and would
certainly raise questions about the origins of life originally. However,
no one to date has managed to show this, to deomstrate a fossil
unconnected morphologically and molecularly to the rest of life on Earth.
And even if they did it would prove that life appeared from no
predecessor, not Biblical creation. It could be as a result of some
other creation (perhaps the Norse had it right?) or that there had
perhaps been alien intervention. But first let's just see evidence that
falsifies evolution.
Nicholas
Nicholas
> But that is not what is controverted. Horizontal changes, or
> microevolution as you depict above, are not disputed. Macroevolution
> on the other hand, would be vertical changes evidenced by one
> reproducing species vertically changing or evolving into a higher, more
> advanced reproducing species thr-
> ough an increase in its genetic information through mutations, or supposed-
> ly some other natural processes. That is the theory that is
> controverted, not
> "the heritable genetic change in a reproducing population over time."
Using the words higher and lower is highly misleading, I suspect mostly
for yourself. It's gives the impression that evolution is aimed at
goals, or at least in a certain direction, usually of complexity. Most
people seem to think as a result that intelligence is an end point of
evolution, not a means to an end. It is quite possible for evolution to
decrease complexity, to remove traits if they harm a population's
survival. Evolution has no concept of the future and hence no goals.
Nicholas
Nicholas
> I tried looking him up on Amazon.com, but if he wrote any books,
> they don't carry them. Of course, you don't have to write books
> to be an author.
>
> I also tried looking him up at bookfinder.com, addall.com and
> fetchbook.com and I found no books by him at those sites either.
>
> None of the sites I found had any information on this guy, other
> than his quotes. The only clue to when he wrote these quotes is
> in their content. The last quote above talks about DNA. While he
> doesn't say that DNA has anything to do with genetics, I suspect
> that he mentioned it because it does. DNA has been known about
> since the mid 19th century, but its relation to genetics was only
> discovered in the 1950s.
>
> In the first quote he says "it has been over a hundred years
> since Darwin's time". Darwin lived from 1809 to 1882. The Origin
> of Species was published in 1859. Assuming he's starting the 100
> years from that date (and he got the math right) that would
> indicate the quotes (or, at least that one) came from no earlier
> than the 1960s. If he's using Darwin's death for the start of the
> 100 years, then, no earlier than the mid 1980s
>
> I did a groups.google.com search for scott huges and the only
> mentions of him that I found were his quotes and people
> responding that they could find no information on this guy. For
> all we know, someone just made up all these quotes and attributed
> them to a fictitious PhD.
I also failed. I couldn't find a single source that gives a source for
the quotes, no book, no paper, no article, always just the name. There
doesn't seem to be a biography anywhere. They do seem to be quotes from
the ether as some of the sites that enjoy quoting such things are very
rigorous in giving book, page etc but nothing for this guy.
Nicholas
Andrew
"Nicholas" wrote in message news:dr54e4$6pn7$3...@news3.infoave.net...
> Evolution has no concept of the future and hence no goals.
>
> Nicholas
This is true of natural selection and true in reality. This fact alone proves that
evolution as taught in the biology textsbooks of the secondary schools never
happened. Because you cannot have multi-complex structures with purposeful
interworking parts come to be by a process that has no goals - as Darwin has
noted..it would be highly absurd:
"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the
focus to different distances, for admitting different amount of light, and for the
correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by
natural selection, seems, I freely confess, ABSURD in the highest possible
degree." --Charles Darwin
Darwin tries to rationalize the dilemma to fit his theory, but the truth of what he
stated above remains.
Andrew
Elmer
Darwin answers his own question right after this question. Why don't you
post Darwin's answer to his own question?
Alicia
A lot of rubbish here!
A.
BlackSphinx wrote:
>> If evolution were a fact, the fossil evidence would surely reveal a
>> gradual changing from one kind of life into another. And that would
>> have to be the case regardless of which variation of
evolutionary...............
Matt Silberstein
<andrew....@usa.net> in
<XvpBf.2739$Dk....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net> wrote:
How about you respond to the actual argument Darwin gave to resolve
that dilemma. Asserting he rationalize does not work for those of us
who have actually read what he wrote. Tell us specifically what is
wrong. You have read Darwin's argument, haven't you? After all, you
quoted part of it, so I would just assume you actually read the
material in question.
(I wonder if you know it is considered dishonest to modify a quote the
way you did. For some reason you pretended that Darwin emphasized the
word "absurd". For some (other?) reason you failed to notice Darwin
also wrote "seems".)
Andrew
No he does not answer the question. He fantasizes and speculates.
Then he goes on to say....
"we should probably have to descend far beneath the lowest known
fossiliferous stratum to discover the earlier stages, by which the eye
has been perfected." --Charles Darwin
However...the most ancient visual system that we know of is the eye
of the trilobite, which happens to be MORE comples than the human
eye. They have lenses that are biconvex having a doublet, which is a
construction which will correct for spherical aberrations. They give a
sharp image for distances from a few millimeters to infinity.
> Why don't you post Darwin's answer to his own question?
Do you mean his fantasy and speculation? You may read it here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/origin_of_species/Chapter6.html
ebataitis
"The simplest organ which can be called an eye consists of an optic
nerve, surrounded by pigment-cells, and covered by translucent skin, but
without any lens or other refractive body. We may, however, according to
M. Jourdain, descend even a step lower and find aggregates of
pigment-cells, apparently serving as organs of vision, without any
nerves, and resting merely on sarcodic tissue. Eyes of the above simple
nature are not capable of distinct vision, and serve only to distinguish
light from darkness. In certain star-fishes, small depressions in the
layer of pigment which surrounds the nerve are filled, as described by
the author just quoted, with transparent gelatinous matter, projecting
with a convex surface, like the cornea in the higher animals. He
suggests that this serves not to form an image, but only to concentrate
the luminous rays and render their perception more easy. In this
concentration of the rays we gain the first and by far the most
important step towards the formation of a true, picture-forming eye; for
we have only to place the naked extremity of the optic nerve, which in
some of the lower animals lies deeply buried in the body, and in some
near the surface, at the right distance from the concentrating
apparatus, and an image will be formed on it.
In the great class of the Articulata, we may start from an optic nerve
simply coated with pigment, the latter sometimes forming a sort of
pupil, but destitute of a lens or other optical contrivance. With
insects it is now known that the numerous facets on the cornea of their
great compound eyes form true lenses, and that the cones include
curiously modified nervous filaments. But these organs in the Articulata
are so much diversified that Muller formerly made three main classes
with seven subdivisions, besides a fourth main class of aggregated
simple eyes.
When we reflect on these facts, here given much too briefly, with
respect to the wide, diversified, and graduated range of structure in
the eyes of the lower animals; and when we bear in mind how small the
number of all living forms must be in comparison with those which have
become extinct, the difficulty ceases to be very great in believing that
natural selection may have converted the simple apparatus of an optic
nerve, coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an
optical instrument as perfect as is possessed by any member of the
articulate class. "
Andrew
> natural selection may have converted the simple apparatus of an optic <
> nerve, coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an <---- Speculation and Fantasy
Cary Kittrell
> If evolution were a fact, the fossil evidence would surely reveal a
> gradual changing from one kind of life into another. And that would
> theory is accepted. Even scientists who believe in the more rapid
> changes associated with the "punctuated equilibrium" theory
> acknowledge that there would still have been many thousands of years
> during which these changes supposedly took place. So it is not
> reasonable to believe that there would be no need at all for linking
> fossils.
>
> Also, if evolution were founded in fact, the fossil record would be
> expected to reveal beginnings of new structures in living things.
> There should be at least some fossils with developing arms, legs,
> wings, eyes, and other bones and organs. For instance, there should be
> fish fins changing into amphibian legs with feet and toes, and gills
> changing into lungs. There should be reptiles with front limbs
> changing into bird wings, back limbs changing into legs with claws,
> scales changing into feathers, and mouths changing into horny beaks.
>
> In this regard the British journal New Scientist says of the theory:
> "It predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages
> of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of
> time." As Darwin himself asserted: "The number of intermediate
> varieties, which have formerly existed, [must] be truly enormous."
How many cat skeletons have you come across in your life?
Clearly there are no cats.
-- cary
James Michael Howard
Perhaps evolutionary changes occurred that produced major changes which
would render the fossil record as you describe. I suggest the possibility
of hormonal changes.
Elmer
"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and
complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to
its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever
so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the
case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful
to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of
believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural
selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be
considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly
concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark
that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be
rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of
the air which produce sound."
> However...the most ancient visual system that we know of is the eye of
> the trilobite, which happens to be MORE comples than the human
> eye. They have lenses that are biconvex having a doublet, which is a
> construction which will correct for spherical aberrations. They give a
> sharp image for distances from a few millimeters to infinity.
>
Citation please.
Nicholas
The fact doesn't disprove evolution in any point whatsoever as Darwin
himself notes. He merely notes that at first glance it may appear
difficult to explain an eye. Let me pose the opposite question: if the
human eye is intelligently designed, why is the design so poor. What
intelligent designer would put the light sensing cells below the nerve
layer, obstructing the light reception, especially when others, such as
the octupus, have the 'design' the better way around.
The flaw in your follow on statement of course is that the complex
structures are *not* purposely interworking as an end goal. Personally I
don't find the eye that complicated a structure. You start with some
light sensitive cells. Burying those cells in a pit enhances their
effectiveness. A transparent layer above gives rudimentary ability to
focus the light. From there you can go various ways with regard to more
complicated optics.
Nicholas
ebataitis
So? Exactly what process do you think happened to create these eyes??
Keep in mind that the range of eyes, from light sensitive spots to an
octapus' eye, and the fact that similar genetic defect results in
similar development problems across species certainly argues in favor of
this view.
Science. 1994 Aug 5;265(5173):785-9. "Homology of the eyeless gene of
Drosophila to the Small eye gene in mice and Aniridia in humans." By
Quiring R, Walldorf U, Kloter U, Gehring WJ. Department of Cell Biology,
University of Basel, Switzerland.
"A Drosophila gene that contains both a paired box and a homeobox and
has extensive sequence homology to the mouse Pax-6 (Small eye) gene was
isolated and mapped to chromosome IV in a region close to the eyeless
locus. Two spontaneous mutations, ey2 and eyR, contain transposable
element insertions into the cloned gene and affect gene expression,
particularly in the eye primordia. This indicates that the cloned gene
encodes ey. The finding that ey of Drosophila, Small eye of the mouse,
and human Aniridia are encoded by homologous genes suggests that eye
morphogenesis is under similar genetic control in both vertebrates and
insects, in spite of the large differences in eye morphology and mode of
development."
Ash
> If evolution were a fact, the fossil evidence would surely reveal a
> gradual changing from one kind of life into another. And that would
> have to be the case regardless of which variation of evolutionary
> theory is accepted. Even scientists who believe in the more rapid
> changes associated with the "punctuated equilibrium" theory
> acknowledge that there would still have been many thousands of years
> during which these changes supposedly took place. So it is not
> reasonable to believe that there would be no need at all for linking
> fossils.
>
> Also, if evolution were founded in fact, the fossil record would be
> expected to reveal beginnings of new structures in living things.
> There should be at least some fossils with developing arms, legs,
> wings, eyes, and other bones and organs. For instance, there should be
> fish fins changing into amphibian legs with feet and toes, and gills
> changing into lungs. There should be reptiles with front limbs
> changing into bird wings, back limbs changing into legs with claws,
> scales changing into feathers, and mouths changing into horny beaks.
>
one. Has he ever actually seen a fossil? Or a picture of one?
Ash
>
> I would venture to say, the Fossil record reflect the Genesis statement
> that each different type of living thing would reproduce only
> "according to its kind." (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25) Also, if
> living things came into being by an act of creation, there would be no
> partial, unfinished bones or organs in the fossil record. All fossils
> would be complete and highly complex, as living things are today.
>
> In addition, if living things were created, they would be expected to
> appear suddenly in the fossil record, unconnected to anything before
> them. And if this was found to be true, what then? Darwin frankly
> admitted: "If numerous species . . . have really started into life
> at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution."
>
Of course you would, you have no shame and are happy to lie for your beliefs
Ash
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:34:53 -0500, in alt.atheism , BlackSphinx
> <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> in
> <91f837240601231734r726...@mail.gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If evolution were a fact, the fossil evidence would surely reveal a
>> gradual changing from one kind of life into another.
>
>> And that would
>> have to be the case regardless of which variation of evolutionary
>> theory is accepted. Even scientists who believe in the more rapid
>> changes associated with the "punctuated equilibrium" theory
>
> more time of relatively little change.
>
>> acknowledge that there would still have been many thousands of years
>> during which these changes supposedly took place. So it is not
>> reasonable to believe that there would be no need at all for linking
>> fossils.
>
> transitional sequences exist.
>
>> Also, if evolution were founded in fact, the fossil record would be
>> expected to reveal beginnings of new structures in living things.
>
> beginning?
>
>> There should be at least some fossils with developing arms, legs,
>> wings, eyes, and other bones and organs.
>
> have such things.
>
>> For instance, there should be
>> fish fins changing into amphibian legs with feet and toes, and gills
>> changing into lungs. There should be reptiles with front limbs
>> changing into bird wings, back limbs changing into legs with claws,
>> scales changing into feathers, and mouths changing into horny beaks.
>
>
>> In this regard the British journal New Scientist says of the theory:
>> "It predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages
>> of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of
>> time." As Darwin himself asserted: "The number of intermediate
>> varieties, which have formerly existed, [must] be truly enormous."
>
> consist of that, but we don't have anywhere near such a complete
> record.
>
Ignoring the fact that New Scientist is a magazine, not a journal, it
may well have said that. Of course, as you imply, the next line would
likely have been "We don't have a complete record, nor is one possible,
or even necessary" or some such
AråchñÕe¤
"ebataitis" <nyli...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:CWrBf.1659$wk5....@news02.roc.ny...
> Andrew wrote:
>> "Elmer" wrote in message news:DZpBf.589$qg....@news01.roc.ny...
Can you guys please stop cross-posting all these evolution/creation threads
to ARJ-W? It's off-topic for this NG and just creates more traffic. Please
take the time to snick the NGs where the subject is off-topic.
Thanks........
Arach.............
"Precision" <prec...@Usenet.com> wrote:
I'm not an authorized distributor or reseller, neither have
I been licensed to collect funds and distribute their CD.
From: "le ténébreux" <prince.d'aqui...@tour.abolie>
I still haven't worked out how they can claim information
revealed to them by God for the benefit of all mankind as their
intellectual property subject to their own distribution rules. :-P
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<~~{@
Cary Kittrell
>
> Matt Silberstein wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:34:53 -0500, in alt.atheism , BlackSphinx
> >
> >> In this regard the British journal New Scientist says of the theory:
> >> "It predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages
> >> of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of
> >> time." As Darwin himself asserted: "The number of intermediate
> >> varieties, which have formerly existed, [must] be truly enormous."
> >
> > When did _New Scientist_ say that? A *complete* fossil record would
> > consist of that, but we don't have anywhere near such a complete
> > record.
> >
> Ignoring the fact that New Scientist is a magazine, not a journal, it
> may well have said that.
A pretty tabloidish magazine at that. Oh, New Scientist is a
good magazine, and I enjoy it thoroughly, but just about
every issue has Ten Ways the Universe Will End, or
The Theory Which Will Utterly Revolutionize Physics,
or Everything We Thought We Knew Is Wrong -- and then
that's the last we will ever hear of these paradigm-shattering
new approaches.
But its fun.
-- cary
Cracklin'
"Alicia" <Ali...@homeyard.mx> wrote in message
news:Xns97559D5C...@130.186.1.185...
>I thought it was "alt.free.newsservers" newsgroup...
> A lot of rubbish here!
> A.
That's because people wont take the time to remove off-topic groups added by
one and the same Usenet troll. Some can't be bothered, others don't think
to check, others don't care at all. I left the other NGs in hopes they'll
see this message and start removing those that are off topic.
CR.........
Ash
http://www.overcomeproblems.com/trans_forms.htm, so I assume that is
where Jabbers stole it from, but no idea who the guy was originally or
why he would believe his own statement
Ash
other and the people doing so rarely think it is important to reference them
Ash
>
> "Nicholas" wrote in message news:dr54e4$6pn7$3...@news3.infoave.net...
>
>> Evolution has no concept of the future and hence no goals.
>>
>> Nicholas
>
> This is true of natural selection and true in reality. This fact alone
> proves that
> evolution as taught in the biology textsbooks of the secondary schools
> never
> happened. Because you cannot have multi-complex structures with
> purposeful interworking parts come to be by a process that has no goals
> - as Darwin has
> noted..it would be highly absurd:
>
> "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for
> adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different
> amount of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic
> aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely
> confess, ABSURD in the highest possible
> degree." --Charles Darwin
>
Ash
from, but mostly I will remove the newsservers group, because I don't
want to help Jabbers to ruin it, same with arjw as I am pretty sure they
aren't interested.
Sylvia Knörr
"Nicholas" <nm...@netcomuk.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:dr54e4$6pn7$4...@news3.infoave.net...
> Gregory A Greenman wrote:
> > In article <chiBf.568$qg....@news01.roc.ny>, Elmer
> > <nyli...@frontiernet.net> declared...
> >>Andrew wrote:
> >>>"No fossils have been found that can be considered transitional between
the
> >>>major groups or phyla. From the beginning, these organisms were just
> >>>clearly
> >>>and distinctly set apart from each other as they are today. Instead of
> >>>finding
> >>>a record of fine graduations preserved in the fossil record, we
> >>>invariably find
> >>>large gaps. This fact is absolutely FATAL to the general theory of
> >>>evolution."
> >>> -- Scott M. Huges. PH.D
> >>Scott Huges??? Is it really "Huges" or is it "Hughes"?
> >>
> >>Do you have a book citation for this quote? I want to see what Scott's
> >>scientific qualifications are.
> > Doing a search for "scott huges" I've found a few more quotes.
> > (Apparently, his name is "Huges" not "Hughes".)
> >
He's the direct product of some 'Intelligent' Design. :-)
Andrew
> Andrew wrote:
>> "Nicholas" wrote:
>>
>>> Evolution has no concept of the future and hence no goals.
>>>
>>> Nicholas
>>
>> This is true of natural selection and true in reality. This fact alone proves that
>> evolution as taught in the biology textsbooks of the secondary schools never
>> happened. Because you cannot have multi-complex structures with purposeful
>> interworking parts come to be by a process that has no goals - as Darwin has
>> noted..it would be highly absurd:
>>
>> "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for
>> adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different
>> amount of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic
>> aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I
>> freely confess, ABSURD in the highest possible degree."
>> --Charles Darwin
>>
>> Darwin tries to rationalize the dilemma to fit his theory, but the truth
>> of what he stated above remains.
>
> The fact doesn't disprove evolution in any point whatsoever as Darwin
> himself notes.
True. Not in his mind, but it does for those who have retained their reason.
> He merely notes that at first glance it may appear difficult to explain an eye.
It is unexplainable by any process that, as you say.."has no concept of the
future and hence no goals." Because you cannot have complex structures
with purposeful inter-working parts come to be by a mindless process that
has no purpose.
> Let me pose the opposite question: if the
> human eye is intelligently designed, why is the design so poor. What
> intelligent designer would put the light sensing cells below the nerve
> layer, obstructing the light reception, especially when others, such as
> the octupus, have the 'design' the better way around.
The octopus is a denizen of the darkness of the deep,
and thus needs maximim effeciency for light processing.
> The flaw in your follow on statement of course is that the complex
> structures are *not* purposely interworking as an end goal.
The goal is vision.
> Personally I don't find the eye that complicated a structure.
Amazing!
> You start with some light sensitive cells.
Which came from where?
> Burying those cells in a pit enhances their effectiveness.
"Bury them in a *pit*".... OK, go on.......
> A transparent layer above gives rudimentary ability to focus
> the light. From there you can go various ways with regard to
> more complicated optics.
I see. This is essentially what Darwin has said.
But you fail to see that this is improbable speculation and fantasy.
> Nicholas
Andrew
Nicholas
Yes, you can, when it helps survival. But you must realise you don't
jump from no structure at all to everything being present. Each step is
an aid to survival for reproduction, viable in its own right.
>> Let me pose the opposite question: if the human eye is intelligently
>> designed, why is the design so poor. What intelligent designer would
>> put the light sensing cells below the nerve layer, obstructing the
>> light reception, especially when others, such as the octupus, have the
>> 'design' the better way around.
>
> The octopus is a denizen of the darkness of the deep,
> and thus needs maximim effeciency for light processing.
Sounds like an evolutionary argument to me. Why would a designer who had
come up with a good eye then implement a falwed version elsewhere? It
violates reusabiliy and plain design common sense to design another
version that is less good. And the Bible does state that humans were
created last, at least in its initial description of creation.
>> The flaw in your follow on statement of course is that the complex
>> structures are *not* purposely interworking as an end goal.
>
>
> The goal is vision.
That is the end result, not the goal.
>> Personally I don't find the eye that complicated a structure.
>
>
> Amazing!
>
>> You start with some light sensitive cells.
>
>
> Which came from where?
Plenty of light sensitive proteins about. Even photosynthetic cells can
be used as sensors. All you need is a protein or compound which reacts
in the presence of light.
>> Burying those cells in a pit enhances their effectiveness.
>
>
> "Bury them in a *pit*".... OK, go on.......
>
>> A transparent layer above gives rudimentary ability to focus the
>> light. From there you can go various ways with regard to more
>> complicated optics.
>
>
> I see. This is essentially what Darwin has said.
> But you fail to see that this is improbable speculation and fantasy.
Because it isn't improbable, although it is speculation to some extent.
An organism that can detect brightness as compared to dark will have an
advantage over one that is completely blind. It will have better idea of
when it is hidden, where food might be, when a predator is about.
An organism who has those cells in a depression or pit in the surface
will have the a much more directional ability with the same skills and
hence be able to evade, attack, etc. in a direction more likely to be
appropriate for the situation than one that can only detect the presence
of light or dark in general.
An organism with some ability to focus the incoming light, however
rusimentary will be better able to tell how an object is moving, how
large it is. The better the covering cell configuration, the better the
information, the survival and hence reproduction.
Another question for you. If life was designed, why bother to give those
creatures that don't need sight and don't use it eye structures of any
kind? Eyes that are blind, eyes that are small, eyes forever behind
closed eyelids. Why give insects and birds which don't fly useless
wings? Why give any animal which doesn't use an ability associated with
its 'kind' (to use the biblical term) any vestiage of the useless organ
or appendage?
Perhaps you can explain how the creation myths of any religion are any
more than speculation and fantasy without any evidencial basis
whatsoever apart from self-referential texts?
Nicholas
Cråchño
"Ash" <ash.a...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:5vxBf.195$343...@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
> Cracklin' wrote:
>> That's because people wont take the time to remove off-topic groups added
>> by one and the same Usenet troll. Some can't be bothered, others don't
>> think to check, others don't care at all. I left the other NGs in hopes
>> they'll see this message and start removing those that are off topic.
>>
> It can be hard to see where the people who are following the thread post
> from, but mostly I will remove the newsservers group, because I don't want
> to help Jabbers to ruin it, same with arjw as I am pretty sure they aren't
> interested.
Yes, jabriol is out to destroy 3 newsgroups (using off-topic crossposting
and personal attacks) if he can, and these are the ones you need to remove:
rec.ponds or any pet and health related groups, alt.free.newsservers,
alt.religion.jehovahs-witn and most religious NGs since they have no
interest in debating or discussing evolution or atheism.
Thank you.......
--
CR......
Aid to Bible Understanding, 1971 ed., p. 1061
"While malicious lying is definitely condemned in
the Bible, this does not mean that a person is under
obligation to divulge truthful information to people
who are not entitled to it." *WHO DECIDES?*
~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~
http://www.intrex.net/talley/list7_13.html
So many sheep, so much fleecing.
-------------
Get FREE newsgroup access from http://www.cheap56k.com
Michelle Malkin
news:91f837240601231734r726...@mail.gmail.com...
If evolution were a fact, the fossil evidence would surely reveal a
have to be the case regardless of which variation of evolutionary
theory is accepted. Even scientists who believe in the more rapid
changes associated with the "punctuated equilibrium" theory
during which these changes supposedly took place. So it is not
reasonable to believe that there would be no need at all for linking
fossils.
Also, if evolution were founded in fact, the fossil record would be
expected to reveal beginnings of new structures in living things.
There should be at least some fossils with developing arms, legs,
wings, eyes, and other bones and organs. For instance, there should be
fish fins changing into amphibian legs with feet and toes, and gills
changing into lungs. There should be reptiles with front limbs
changing into bird wings, back limbs changing into legs with claws,
scales changing into feathers, and mouths changing into horny beaks.
In this regard the British journal New Scientist says of the theory:
"It predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages
of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of
time." As Darwin himself asserted: "The number of intermediate
varieties, which have formerly existed, [must] be truly enormous."
Don't you get tired of posting this creationist nonsense
over and over under various pseudonyms? I'm certainly
tired of seeing it and asking you to post the issue and
date of the magazine you are supposedly quoting from.
You never do, and you know that what you wrote above
is total ignorance and stupidity and is probably taken
totally out of context.
JTEM
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote
> "As
Gosh, that was really almost interesting.
Now complain about how I only responded to a single word,
exactly as you had done.
Maybe it'll distract someone, and they won't notice that
you couldn't address a single point I made.
Good luck!
Cracklin'
"JTEM" <gymr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9dydnehZa67GCUre...@comcast.com...===========
Please remove AFN from these Jabriol threads as it's just noise in this NG.
Thanks
CR.............
Mark Stahl
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message
news:P3iBf.5282$Hd4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Elmer" wrote in message news:WfhBf.562$qg....@news01.roc.ny...
>> BlackSphinx wrote:
>>
>>> If evolution were a fact...
>>
>> It is. Evolution is defined as the heritable genetic change in a
>> reproducing population over time. That this happens is a fact.
>>
>> (Elmer)
>
>
> But that is not what is controverted.
What is "controverted"?
> Horizontal changes, or microevolution as you depict above, are not
> disputed. Macroevolution on the other hand, would be vertical changes
> evidenced by one reproducing species vertically changing or evolving into
> a higher, more advanced
What defines one species as "higher" or "more advanced"?
> reproducing species thr-
> ough an increase in its genetic information
How is an "increase in genetic information" quantified? Why do humans not
have the most genetic material?
> through mutations, or supposed-
> ly some other natural processes. That is the theory that is controverted,
No, it isn't. You've got some biology to study up on, Andrew.
Cracklin'
"Michelle Malkin" <hypa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Fe-dne0yCKL...@comcast.com...
> "BlackSphinx" JABRIOL<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>Antonio L
> Santana/Camden NJ wrote in message
> If evolution were a fact, the fossil evidence would surely reveal a
> Don't you get tired of posting this creationist nonsense
> over and over under various pseudonyms? I'm certainly
> tired of seeing it and asking you to post the issue and
> date of the magazine you are supposedly quoting from.
> You never do, and you know that what you wrote above
> is total ignorance and stupidity and is probably taken
> totally out of context.
==============================
Jabriol is only doing this to gain CROSSPOSTERS to wipe out several NGs he
has a gripe against. It's an old troll trick. Please don't help him by
crossposting to these groups. Reply in your own group only. Please remove
ARJ-W, alt.free.newsservers and any NG related to ponds or aquariums.
Thanks so much!
Mark Stahl
>
> "Nicholas" wrote in message news:dr54e4$6pn7$3...@news3.infoave.net...
>
>> Evolution has no concept of the future and hence no goals.
>>
>> Nicholas
>
> This is true of natural selection and true in reality. This fact alone
> proves that
> evolution as taught in the biology textsbooks of the secondary schools
> never
> happened.
It just sounds like you need better textbooks. Mine were pretty clear.
> Because you cannot have multi-complex structures with purposeful
> interworking parts come to be by a process that has no goals
Of course you can, and such structures are readily observed.
- as Darwin has
> noted..it would be highly absurd:
>
> "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for
> adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amount
> of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration,
> could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess,
> ABSURD in the highest possible
> degree." --Charles Darwin
>
Nice work, liar. Yes, you're a liar for ommitting the part where Darwin
describes what "seems" ABSURD to the uneducated (hint: your
dishonest/ignorant self) is, in actuality, not absurd at all.
> Darwin tries to rationalize the dilemma to fit his theory, but the truth
> of what he
> stated above remains.
If you haden't cut the true part out, I'm sure it would.
Why are you such a liar?
Mark Stahl
> "ebataitis" wrote in message news:CWrBf.1659$wk5....@news02.roc.ny...
>
>
>> natural selection may have converted the simple apparatus of an optic
>> <
>> nerve, coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an
>> <---- Speculation and Fantasy
Only if by "speculation and fantasy" you mean "biological fact which is
uncomfortable for Andrew".
Mark Stahl
> "Nicholas" wrote in message news:dr5qr6$74d1$1...@news3.infoave.net...
>> Andrew wrote:
>>> "Nicholas" wrote:
>>>> Evolution has no concept of the future and hence no goals.
>>>>
>>>> Nicholas
>>>
>>> This is true of natural selection and true in reality. This fact alone
>>> proves that
>>> evolution as taught in the biology textsbooks of the secondary schools
>>> never
>>> happened. Because you cannot have multi-complex structures with
>>> purposeful interworking parts come to be by a process that has no
>>> goals - as Darwin has
>>> noted..it would be highly absurd:
>>>
>>> "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for
>>> adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different
>>> amount of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic
>>> aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely
>>> confess, ABSURD in the highest possible degree." --Charles Darwin
>>>
>>> Darwin tries to rationalize the dilemma to fit his theory, but the truth
>>> of what he stated above remains.
>>
>> The fact doesn't disprove evolution in any point whatsoever as Darwin
>> himself notes.
>
> True. Not in his mind, but it does for those who have retained their
> reason.
Right. Because all biologists are crazy and you, internet kook and liar, are
the only reasonable one.
>
>> He merely notes that at first glance it may appear difficult to explain
>> an eye.
>
> It is unexplainable by any process that, as you say.."has no concept of
> the future and hence no goals."
Except that is simply untrue. It is readily explainable by the conventional
mechanisms of evolution- descent with modification over time. Such
explanations have been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature!
You really need to keep up (and stop it with the lying.)
> Because you cannot have complex structures with purposeful inter-working
> parts come to be by a mindless process that
> has no purpose.
Of course you can. Why not?
>
>> Let me pose the opposite question: if the human eye is intelligently
>> designed, why is the design so poor. What intelligent designer would put
>> the light sensing cells below the nerve layer, obstructing the light
>> reception, especially when others, such as the octupus, have the 'design'
>> the better way around.
>
> The octopus is a denizen of the darkness of the deep,
> and thus needs maximim effeciency for light processing.
Why was the optimal "design" not used in all the designs?
>
>> The flaw in your follow on statement of course is that the complex
>> structures are *not* purposely interworking as an end goal.
>
> The goal is vision.
The goal is reproductive fitness.
>
>> Personally I don't find the eye that complicated a structure.
>
> Amazing!
Only your lack of intellect and/or dishonesty is amazing here.
>
>> You start with some light sensitive cells.
>
> Which came from where?
Quite likely modifications of proteins that use light for electron transfer,
like rhodopsin (found in simple bacteria)
>
>> Burying those cells in a pit enhances their effectiveness.
>
> "Bury them in a *pit*".... OK, go on.......
>> A transparent layer above gives rudimentary ability to focus the light.
>> From there you can go various ways with regard to more complicated
>> optics.
>
> I see. This is essentially what Darwin has said.
> But you fail to see that this is improbable speculation and fantasy.
It is neither improbable nor fantasy. The developmental biology supports
this sort of pathway.
Mark Stahl
> "JTEM" wrote in message news:A92dnT0A65O...@comcast.com...
>> "BlackSphinx" wrote:
>>
>>> surely reveal a gradual changing from one kind of life
>>
>> Why?
>
> "As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why
> do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the
> earth?"
> | -- Charles R. Darwin, The Origin of Species, Ch
> 6, p134
>
> the
> major groups or phyla. From the beginning, these organisms were just
> clearly
> and distinctly set apart from each other as they are today. Instead of
> finding
> a record of fine graduations preserved in the fossil record, we invariably
> find
> large gaps. This fact is absolutely FATAL to the general theory of
> evolution."
> -- Scott M. Huges. PH.D
What can we say? Huges is wrong. There are many "transitional fossils".
Andrew
"Mark Stahl" wrote in message news:lvKdna_kjJR...@giganews.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "ebataitis" wrote in message news:CWrBf.1659$wk5....@news02.roc.ny...
>>
>>
>>> nerve, coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an <---- Speculation and Fantasy
>
> Only if by "speculation and fantasy" you mean "biological fact which is
> uncomfortable for Andrew".
The fact that you stated that the above was a biological
*fact*demonstrates that you do not know what a fact is.
Andrew
Andrew
"Mark Stahl" wrote in message news:msOdnQIOBM6...@giganews.com...
>
> There are many "transitional fossils".
There is no mechanism for macro evolution. It has never been observed.
There are no proven transitional fossils and there are no transitional fossil
men. It has been a big deception on society, and you have been deceived.
Andrew
Richard Dawkins
They use pissed off fruit flies as evidence.
Elmer
>
> "Mark Stahl" wrote in message news:msOdnQIOBM6...@giganews.com...
>> There are many "transitional fossils".
> There is no mechanism for macro evolution.
Of course there is: polyploidy for just one.
> It has never been observed.
Yes, it has.
> There are no proven transitional fossils and there are no transitional
> fossil
> men.
Of course that depends on what you mean by transitional, because all
fossils are transitional.
> It has been a big deception on society, and you have been deceived.
Sorry Andrew, the deception has been perpetrated on you. Pro 15:32
Zod
> Andrew wrote:
> >
> > "Mark Stahl" wrote in message news:msOdnQIOBM6...@giganews.com...
>
> >> There are many "transitional fossils".
>
> > There is no mechanism for macro evolution.
>
> Of course there is: polyploidy for just one.
>
> > It has never been observed.
>
> Yes, it has.
>
>
where
Elmer
> where
Type "polyploidy" into any search engine for some evidence.
Andrew
"Elmer" <nyli...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message news:qdVBf.1804$wk5....@news02.roc.ny...
"Evolutionists often "forget" to tell the reader that the new "species" are unable
to produce viable offspring with the parental species simply because of a chro-
mosomal duplication event. A casual oversight on the part of the writers? I think
not! How much new information added to the new species? None!"
Elmer
>
> "Elmer" <nyli...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
> news:qdVBf.1804$wk5....@news02.roc.ny...
>
>> Zod wrote:
>>
>>> Elmer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Mark Stahl" wrote in message
>>>>> news:msOdnQIOBM6...@giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> There are many "transitional fossils".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> There is no mechanism for macro evolution.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course there is: polyploidy for just one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It has never been observed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it has.
>>
>>
>>> where
>>
>>
>> Type "polyploidy" into any search engine for some evidence.
> "Evolutionists often "forget" to tell the reader that the new "species"
> are unable to produce viable offspring with the parental species simply
> because of a chro-
> mosomal duplication event.
That's right, They are a new species, because they cannot reproduce with
the parental species. That's the biological *definition* of a species.
> A casual oversight on the part of the
> writers? I think not! How much new information added to the new species?
> None!"
Please explain how doubling the genome doesn't make new information. If
that doubling made no new information why didn't the organism remain
*exactly the same* as the parent species???
Also notice your own reference to "new species" which now conflicts with
your claim, "There is no mechanism for macro evolution."
Will you now acknowledge that your statement "There is no mechanism for
macro evolution." is incorrect?
Andrew
> Andrew wrote:
>> "Elmer" wrote:
>>
>>> Zod wrote:
>>>
>>>> Elmer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Mark Stahl" wrote in message
>>>>>> news:msOdnQIOBM6...@giganews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are many "transitional fossils".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no mechanism for macro evolution.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course there is: polyploidy for just one.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> It has never been observed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, it has.
>>>
>>>
>>>> where
>>>
>>>
>>> Type "polyploidy" into any search engine for some evidence.
>
>> "Evolutionists often "forget" to tell the reader that the new "species"
>> are unable to produce viable offspring with the parental species simply
> That's right, They are a new species, because they cannot reproduce with
> the parental species. That's the biological *definition* of a species.
>
>> A casual oversight on the part of the
>> writers? I think not! How much new information added to the new species?
>> None!"
>
> Please explain how doubling the genome doesn't make new information.
When the same information is simply copied, that doesn't make new information.
> If that doubling made no new information why didn't the organism remain
> *exactly the same* as the parent species???
>
> Also notice your own reference to "new species" which now conflicts with
> your claim, "There is no mechanism for macro evolution."
Polyploidy is a genetic event - not macroevolution.
> Will you now acknowledge that your statement "There is no mechanism for
> macro evolution." is incorrect?
No, because it is not macroevolution.
Elmer
If that's true and doubling made no new information why didn't the
organism remain *exactly the same* as the parent species??? Something
happened there now didn't it?
>> If that doubling made no new information why didn't the organism
>> remain *exactly the same* as the parent species???
>> Also notice your own reference to "new species" which now conflicts
>> with your claim, "There is no mechanism for macro evolution."
> Polyploidy is a genetic event - not macroevolution.
Yes, a genetic event that makes a "new species" as you yourself admitted
- and a new species from an ancestral species is called speciation and
speciation is generally known as macroevolution.
>> Will you now acknowledge that your statement "There is no mechanism
>> for macro evolution." is incorrect?
> No, because it is not macroevolution.
So are you about to try and redefine "species" or redefine
"macroevolution"? ;-)
Cracklin'
and aquarium groups.
--
Troll Information:
http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm
Thank you
=========================================
"Elmer" <nyli...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:qdVBf.1804$wk5....@news02.roc.ny...
Michael Gray
wrote:
- Refer: <h9XBf.2181$1n4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Of course that would mean that people with Down Syndrome would be
unable to reproduce?
Guess what?
You are wrong.
Again.
Still.
Provably.
Who'd a thought it, eh?
When will you get an education, and stop lying?
Don't answer. I can guess: Never.
Clin Genet. 1994 Oct;46(4):324-6.
Down syndrome and male fertility: PCR-derived fingerprinting,
serological and andrological investigations.
Zuhlke C, Thies U, Braulke I, Reis A, Schirren C.
Andrew
It is essentially the ~same~ as the parent species except for the multiplied
chromosome count; and the results, or consequences associated with the
change. I agree that this is evolution, but it is still micro-evolution. It does
not result in a more advanced species than the parent species.
Andrew
Michael Gray
wrote:
- Refer: <_Y1Cf.2285$1n4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Define "advanced".
I bet you can't, without tripping yourself up.
Nicholas
>
> "Elmer" <nyli...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
> news:qdVBf.1804$wk5....@news02.roc.ny...
>> Type "polyploidy" into any search engine for some evidence.
>
>
>
> "Evolutionists often "forget" to tell the reader that the new "species"
> are unable to produce viable offspring with the parental species simply
> because of a chro-
> mosomal duplication event. A casual oversight on the part of the
> writers? I think not! How much new information added to the new species?
> None!"
>
> http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/deception.html
Biologically speaking it is a new species, but admittedly it hasn't
turned into a tree, which seems to be sometimes the only kind of change
that creationists would recognise. The amount of information is doubled.
I think this is where confusion arises though, because information in
this sense is defined by the amount of data present, not the amount of
discrete 'facts'. The amount of information doesn't then increase with
future mutation as described below, but the number of 'facts' will.
However, this is an important mechansim in evolution, whether through
the duplication of a whole chromosome or a single gene. The reason is
that it provides duplicates, which means mutations can happen without
any detriment within one copy as the good copy will still function as
required. This allows evolution to move to new useful versions of the
gene without destroying the original use. It is this kind of gene
duplication (not chromosomal in this case) that allows us to have colour
vision.
Nicholas
Andrew
A flower will not evolve into an apple tree through
the process of polyploidy - OR any other process.
Andrew
Elmer
Evolution does not say a new species will be more "advanced" than the
parent. That's not in any modern biology or paleontology text that I've
ever seen. What it says is that there is a new species when the
population cannot interbreed with the parent species to produce fertile
offspring.
You said, "It is essentially the ~same~ as the parent species except for
the multiplied chromosome count; and the results, or consequences
associated with the change." But it is essentially *NOT* the same as the
parent species, and that's the point.
Elmer
A flower can evolve into something different than what it was, and
that's evolution. If it changes to where it can't interbreed
successfully with the parental species it becomes a new species.
Michael Gray
wrote:
- Refer: <lN2Cf.2291$1n4...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Bzzzt!
Fallen at the first toddler-sized hurdle.
You did not even attempt a definition!
Merely offered an irrelevant and disconnected distraction.
Diversionary tactics seem to be your strongest hand, as opposed to
logic, or information.
I had thought that even an indoctrinated god-bot like you would have
had a reasonable stab at it.
My sights were set too high. It's my fault, you know.
I tell you what; I'll give you a second chance:
Define "advanced".
David Jensen
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
<RdiBf.5286$Hd4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>"JTEM" wrote in message news:A92dnT0A65O...@comcast.com...
>> "BlackSphinx" wrote:
>>
>>> If evolution were a fact, the fossil evidence would
>>> surely reveal a gradual changing from one kind of life
>>> into another.
>>
>> Why?
Because Andrew likes to take quotes out of context
>"As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do
> we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?"
> | -- Charles R. Darwin, The Origin of Species, Ch 6, p134
It seems a shame that you omitted the rest of the thought which follows
immediately after this:
"It will be more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on
the Imperfection of the Geological Record; and I will here only state
that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably
less perfect than is generally supposed. The crust of the earth is a
vast museum; but the natural collections have been imperfectly made, and
only at long intervals of time."
>"No fossils have been found that can be considered transitional between the
>major groups or phyla. From the beginning, these organisms were just clearly
>and distinctly set apart from each other as they are today. Instead of finding
>a record of fine graduations preserved in the fossil record, we invariably find
>large gaps. This fact is absolutely FATAL to the general theory of evolution."
> -- Scott M. Huges. PH.D
Who is Scott M. Huges?
Where did he get his PH. D?
What discipline is it in?
Is he still alive?
Where was this quote from?
Why does he make statements about something that he doesn't seem to
understand?
David Jensen
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
<vkUBf.2080$1n4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>
>"Mark Stahl" wrote in message news:msOdnQIOBM6...@giganews.com...
>>
>> There are many "transitional fossils".
>
>
>There is no mechanism for macro evolution.
Only creationists are worried about something called 'macro evolution'.
Evolution works fine for scientists.
>It has never been observed.
And scientists don't expect to see 'macro evolution'.
>There are no proven transitional fossils and there are no transitional fossil
>men. It has been a big deception on society, and you have been deceived.
You are making false claims here. I don't know if they are of ignorance
or dishonesty.
David Jensen
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
<ZBXBf.3330$Dk....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
Then why are the child species different?
>> If that doubling made no new information why didn't the organism remain
>> *exactly the same* as the parent species???
>>
>> Also notice your own reference to "new species" which now conflicts with
>> your claim, "There is no mechanism for macro evolution."
>
>Polyploidy is a genetic event - not macroevolution.
Please give me your definition of macroevolution. So far not one
anti-science creationist has provided a testable one.
>> Will you now acknowledge that your statement "There is no mechanism for
>> macro evolution." is incorrect?
>
>No, because it is not macroevolution.
Fine. Then the 'macroevolution' you are talking about does not exist,
but it does not affect evolution one bit. Your version of
'macroevolution' is a straw man designed to mislead, nothing else.
Zhavriol
Nicholas wrote:
> Andrew wrote:
> >
> > "Elmer" <nyli...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
> > news:qdVBf.1804$wk5....@news02.roc.ny...
>
> >> Type "polyploidy" into any search engine for some evidence.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Evolutionists often "forget" to tell the reader that the new "species"
> > are unable to produce viable offspring with the parental species simply
> > because of a chro-
> > mosomal duplication event. A casual oversight on the part of the
> > writers? I think not! How much new information added to the new species?
> > None!"
> >
> > http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/deception.html
>
> Biologically speaking it is a new species, but admittedly it hasn't
> turned into a tree, which seems to be sometimes the only kind of change
> that creationists would recognise.
Not at all. I am not a creationist. I would like to see a new life form
developed, from the evolution process. Speciation is not a concern.
There are at least five defintions, and they contradict each other.
David Jensen
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
<lN2Cf.2291$1n4...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>"Michael Gray" wrote in message news:osbht1hp4sorftabd...@4ax.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
...
>>>It is essentially the ~same~ as the parent species except for the multiplied
>>>chromosome count; and the results, or consequences associated with the
>>>change. I agree that this is evolution, but it is still micro-evolution. It does
>>>not result in a more advanced species than the parent species.
>>
>> Define "advanced".
>> I bet you can't, without tripping yourself up.
>
>A flower will not evolve into an apple tree through
>the process of polyploidy - OR any other process.
Not that long ago apples and roses had a common ancestor.
Nicholas
What has 'more advanced' got to do with anything? There is no such thing
when it comes to evolution, only survival and reproduction. Evolution
has no care whether the direction of change is towards more complexity
or not (which is generally what people mean when they say advanced or
higher), only that the resulting organism is survive and reproduce. If a
species was better served by losing intelligence that is the way things
would go, by losing their limbs that is the way things would go.
Nicholas
Matt Silberstein
<andrew....@usa.net> in
<ZBXBf.3330$Dk....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net> wrote:
>"Elmer" wrote in message news:oiXBf.769$qg....@news01.roc.ny...
[snip]
>> Please explain how doubling the genome doesn't make new information.
>
>When the same information is simply copied, that doesn't make new information.
Let me see if I understand. Making two copies is not adding
information. And changing one of those copies is not adding
information. Have you proposed a way of actually measuring this
information?
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Matt Silberstein
<andrew....@usa.net> in
<lN2Cf.2291$1n4...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> wrote:
>"Michael Gray" wrote in message news:osbht1hp4sorftabd...@4ax.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
[snip]
>>>It is essentially the ~same~ as the parent species except for the multiplied
>>>chromosome count; and the results, or consequences associated with the
>>>change. I agree that this is evolution, but it is still micro-evolution. It does
>>>not result in a more advanced species than the parent species.
>>
>> Define "advanced".
>> I bet you can't, without tripping yourself up.
>
>A flower will not evolve into an apple tree through
>the process of polyploidy - OR any other process.
A flower is a part of a plant, not a particular plant. How about a
rose, could a rose evolve into a cherry tree?
Matt Silberstein
<zod...@gmail.com> in
<1138286141.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:
More than 5. If you want, I can send you a very long paper (soon to be
a book) on the topic. But they don't actually contradict each other.
Take the best known definition, sexual infertility. Clearly this only
applies to sexually reproducing organisms. There are other definitions
which apply to sets of organisms. This is actually an interesting and
active area of research and discussion. The question of the "reality"
of species is not clear or obvious. I happen to think that species are
"real" things in the world and I think that John Wilkins is on to
something important about why.
The question of species is, though, somewhat separate from the
question of "new". Darwin had many important insights into the world,
he really was a remarkable thinker. One of the important questions he
answer is, unfortunately, not one people tend to see as a question.
Darwin gave us an understanding of a mechanisms for *change*. People
tend to see things as very distinct in the world, they are one thing
or they are another. Something is a this or a that. Discussion of this
predates Aristotle and, unfortunately for this discussion, get caught
up in development of some early Christian theology.
What Darwin saw and discussed was that biological "things" *always*
vary. Each generation is *always* slightly different than the previous
one. This keeps happening generation after generation. At some point
there is enough difference that we give it a new name. At some further
point there are enough changes that we see it as a different category.
But each step is just a little change and the changes don't happen to
that organism itself. So a cow does not become a whale, but a cow-like
organism gives birth to a slightly different cow-like organism which
gives birth to a slightly different cow-like organism. And so on for
millions of years. That it is hard for use to think of the million
steps from a leg to a fin, it is hard for us to think of a million
steps of any change. And no one ever promised us that the world would
be easy for us to understand.
>
>The amount of information is doubled.
Nicholas
> "Michael Gray" wrote in message
> news:osbht1hp4sorftabd...@4ax.com...
>>> It is essentially the ~same~ as the parent species except for the
>>> multiplied chromosome count; and the results, or consequences
>>> associated with the
>>> change. I agree that this is evolution, but it is still
>>> micro-evolution. It does not result in a more advanced species than
>>> the parent species.
>>
>>
>> Define "advanced".
>> I bet you can't, without tripping yourself up.
>
>
> A flower will not evolve into an apple tree through the process of
> polyploidy - OR any other process.
A flower? You are aware that flowers are plant organs, a feature that
apple trees share?
Nicholas
Andrew
It is the same except for the part about reproduction. It will diversify from
there according to the laws of genetics, which we may call microevolution.
Andrew
Cracklin'
using the *cross-posting* method to destroy several NGs with off-topic noise
with all your help.
Anything cross-posted to ARJ-W, rec.ponds, alt.free.newsservers and any
aquarium (fish/aquarium) NG is this troll. Please reply to Jabriol/Zod in
your own NG only.
Troll Information: http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm
Thank you.
--------------------------------
"Nicholas" <nm...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dracqq$a8kk$1...@news3.infoave.net...
> Andrew wrote:
Koi-lo
using the *cross-posting* method to destroy several NGs with off-topic noise
with all your help.
Anything cross-posted to ARJ-W, rec.ponds, alt.free.newsservers and *any*
aquarium (fish/aquarium) NG is this troll. Please reply to Jabriol/Zod (and
his other sock puppets) in your own NG only.
Troll Information: http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm
Thank you.
Koi-Lo
Andrew
>
> Please give me your definition of macroevolution.
Macroevolution - one reproducing species vertically changing or
evolving into a different and more advanced reproducing species.
> ..the 'macroevolution' you are talking about does not exist..
True, it never has and never will. Microevolution and horizontal variations
are constantly occurring, but macroevolution never happened. Becaeuse it
is contrary to the laws of true science. It is unrepeatable, infeasible, unach-
ievable as well as impossible. It is the great deception which has warped
the direction of our society by the implantation of a world view based on
falsehood.
Andrew
Joe Blow
What do you mean by: vertical and horizonal and advanced?
--
Joe
Elmer
No it is not the same. Its genome has doubled and it cannot breed with
the parental species - that means it is different *FROM* it and is not
the same.
> It will diversify
> from
> there according to the laws of genetics, which we may call microevolution.
That's what you may call it but that's not what science calls it ;-)
Elmer
> "David Jensen" wrote in message
>> Please give me your definition of macroevolution.
>> Macroevolution - one reproducing species vertically changing or
>> evolving into a different and more advanced reproducing species.
Macroevolution is process by which new species are produced from earlier
species (aka speciation). Microevolution, which involves accumulated
changes in two populations, may preclude their interbreeding and this
will lead to the formation of a new species. Since you admitted that
polyploidy leads to a new species, that is an example of macroevolution.
And yet again, biology does not say anything about macroevolution
leading to a more advanced species - just a different species.
>> ..the 'macroevolution' you are talking about does not exist..
> True, it never has and never will. Microevolution and horizontal variations
> are constantly occurring, but macroevolution never happened.
Sorry you just admitted it did:
"Evolutionists often "forget" to tell the reader that the new "species"
are unable to produce viable offspring with the parental species simply
because of a chromosomal duplication event. A casual oversight on the
part of the writers? I think not! How much new information added to the
new species? None!"
Note that you admit that there is a new species. It is difficult to
maintain otherwise since this is basic biology.
> Becaeuse it
> is contrary to the laws of true science. It is unrepeatable, infeasible,
> unach-
> ievable as well as impossible.
Yeah, I guess that's why only creationists know this. Science just goes
ahead and uses macroevolution anyway.
> It is the great deception which has
> warped the direction of our society by the implantation of a world view
> based on falsehood.
The only deception has been perpetrated on you Andrew. Do you really
think all those hundreds of thousands of scientists are all just lying
about the evidence??
Nicholas
> Andrew wrote:
>
>> "David Jensen" wrote in message
>
>
>>> Please give me your definition of macroevolution.
>
>
>>> Macroevolution - one reproducing species vertically changing or
>>> evolving into a different and more advanced reproducing species.
>
>
> Macroevolution is process by which new species are produced from earlier
> species (aka speciation). Microevolution, which involves accumulated
> changes in two populations, may preclude their interbreeding and this
> will lead to the formation of a new species. Since you admitted that
> polyploidy leads to a new species, that is an example of macroevolution.
>
> And yet again, biology does not say anything about macroevolution
> leading to a more advanced species - just a different species.
Like the Herring Gull and the Lesser Black-backed Gull. Completely
different species in Britain but with an observable continuum around the
artic.
And once again to just reinforce the point again: talking about more
advanced species is gibberish. The concept is based on a flawed
understanding of evolution and the expectation that evolution is
'trying' to go somewhere in the end.
Nicholas
Koi-lo
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:5v3it11s715s8rgl1...@4ax.com...
> On 26 Jan 2006 06:35:41 -0800, in sci.anthropology , "Zhavriol" = JABRIOL
> <zod...@gmail.com> in
> <1138286141.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:
==================
Jabriol is a JW and a creationist as all JWs are creationists. If he hasn't
learned anything about evolution by now he never will. What does this have
to do with goldfish, Jehovah's Witnesses or atheism?
Please remove all the off-topic NGs from this Jabriol cross-posted thread.
He's using the *cross-posting* method to destroy several NGs with off-topic
noise with all your unknowing help.
Anything cross-posted to ARJ-W, rec.ponds, alt.free.newsservers and any
aquarium (fish/aquarium) NG is this troll. Please reply to Jabriol in your
own NG only.
Troll Information: http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm
Thank you.
--------------------------------
Douglas Berry
<andrew....@usa.net> posting the following on Thu, 26 Jan 2006
00:02:35 GMT iin alt.atheism?
>
>"Mark Stahl" wrote in message news:msOdnQIOBM6...@giganews.com...
>>
>> There are many "transitional fossils".
>
>
>There are no proven transitional fossils and there are no transitional fossil
>men. It has been a big deception on society, and you have been deceived.
Ah. So, you seem to rely on statements rather than facts.
On macroevolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
On evolution being observed:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe
On transitional fossils:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
On transitional hominid fossils:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
All of those entries contain references to peer-reviewed scientific
literature. Read if you dare.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Richard Dawkins
"Douglas Berry" <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:bjoit15hi6qbk7gg5...@4ax.com...
Oh thats right ...point to a bunch of links that are nothing more than
archived posts by thousands of atheists and call it science.
You are too lame to even send a response to.
snicker~
Budikka666
> If evolution were a fact, the fossil evidence would surely reveal a
> gradual changing from one kind of life into another.
Indeed it does:
> And that would
> have to be the case regardless of which variation of evolutionary
> theory is accepted. Even scientists who believe in the more rapid
> changes associated with the "punctuated equilibrium" theory
> acknowledge that there would still have been many thousands of years
> during which these changes supposedly took place. So it is not
> reasonable to believe that there would be no need at all for linking
> fossils.
The linking fossils are there:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
> Also, if evolution were founded in fact, the fossil record would be
> expected to reveal beginnings of new structures in living things.
> There should be at least some fossils with developing arms, legs,
> wings, eyes, and other bones and organs. For instance, there should be
> fish fins changing into amphibian legs with feet and toes, and gills
> changing into lungs. There should be reptiles with front limbs
> changing into bird wings, back limbs changing into legs with claws,
> scales changing into feathers, and mouths changing into horny beaks.
Indeed there are.
> In this regard the British journal New Scientist says of the theory:
> "It predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages
> of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of
> time." As Darwin himself asserted: "The number of intermediate
> varieties, which have formerly existed, [must] be truly enormous."
Indeed it is. Thanks for highlighting this literally massive weight of
evidence in favor of evolution. And the fossil record isn't the only
evidence.
Abiogenesis:
http://home.houston.rr.com/apologia/orgel.htm
http://informationcentre.tripod.com/abiogenesis.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/default.htm
Proto cells:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/239787.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1142840.stm
Factories of life:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/275738.stm
Lab molecules mimic life:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/217054.stm
Mechanism for evolution described:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/222096.stm
Smallest genome a lot smaller than smallest modern cell:
http://mednews.stanford.edu/news_releases_html/2001/febreleases/bioet...
Precambrian to cambrian:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/evolution/PSCF12-97Miller.html
Early diversification:
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Ecology/early_animal_evolution.htm
Transitional forms:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Primitive fish different:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/504776.stm
Fish with fingers:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/fishfossil0312.html
Snake with legs:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/680116.stm
Ant-wasp evolution:
http://research.amnh.org/entomology/social_insects/publications/ms_sp...
Mosquitoes still evolving:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/158522.stm
Origins of flight:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2664541.stm
4-winged dinos:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2684927.stm
Dog evolution:
http://www.provet.co.uk/online/dogs/evolution%20of%20the%20dog.htm
Human evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
Computer simulated evolution:
http://necsi.org/postdocs/sayama/sdsr/
Evolution vs. creationism debates:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/science/creationism/debates.html
Evolution not "atheist religion":
http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Inside/01-97/creat2.html
29 Evidences supporting evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
The evolution of the eye:
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/eye.html
The woodpecker's tongue:
http://omega.med.yale.edu/~rjr38/Woodpecker.htm
Radiometric dating - a Christian perpective:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page
Noah's ark never happened:
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/noahs_ark.html
Ex-creationist on why young Earth creationism doesn't work:
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/
Another ex-creationist:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/
Creationists cannot define "kind":
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/kinds.htm
Budikka
Budikka
Budikka666
1. A car is organic (molecular structure based in carbon).
True or false?
2. Not counting living things, the universe is, in part, organic.
True or false?
3. This universe is the only example of a universe that we know of for
sure.
True/false?
4. We know for a fact that humans create cars, as can been seen from a
tour of any auto manufacturing plant.
True or false?
5. We have no known-for-a-fact examples of gods creating universes.
True or false?
6. If we know humans create cars, but we do not know that gods create
universes, trying to pretend that finding a car abandoned in the desert
leaves one in the same position, vis-a-vis its origins, as we are in
trying to understand the universe is an irredeemably braindead
proposition.
True or false?
7. In a thread started in alt.religion.jehovahs-witn on Sept 21,2003
you stated: "On the other hand, if the Genesis creation account is
factual, then the fossil record would not show one type of life turning
into another. It would reflect the Genesis statement that each
different type of living thing would reproduce only "according to its
kind." (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25) Also, if living things came into
being by an act of creation, there would be no partial,
unfinished bones or organs in the fossil record. All fossils would be
complete and highly complex, as living things are today."
(http://tinyurl.com/u62b)
That thread was titled "TOBS: The Fossil record support's Genesis".
Posting such an article and/or believing we were created rather than
evolved is an open admission that you are in fact, a creationist.
True or false?
8. Regardless of what it is classed as and regardless of whether it was
or was not in the evolutionary line to birds, the archaeopteryx had
pretty much a fifty-fifty mix of reptile/dino and bird features and
therefore represents an example of a potential intermediate stage.
True or false?
9. The okapi, an animal alive and well today, and biologically related
to the giraffe is pretty much what a transitional giraffe could have
looked like.
True or false?
10. http://www.talkorigins.org/faq s/faq-transitional.html summarises
discoveries pertaining to transitional fossils and contains over 70
references, many of which are to papers published in peer-reviewed
science journals.
True or false?
11. Something akin to a mouse could reasonably change 300 genes over 60
million years to become either human or a modern mouse.
True or false?
12. It is possible to clearly and scientifically define the Biblical
"kind" as used in the Noah's ark story in Genesis.
True or false?
13. There is a mechanism in genetics or biochemistry which prevents one
"kind" of organism varying into another "kind".
True or false?
14. Evolutionists hold that modern amphibians evolved from modern
fish.
True or false?
15. Evolutionists hold that modern reptiles evolved from modern
amphibians.
True or false?
16. Evolutionists hold that modern birds evolved from modern reptiles.
True or false?
17. Evolutionists hold that modern mammals evolved from modern
reptiles.
True or false?
18. Creationist letters published as a joke in a science publication
are of the same standing as peer-reviewed papers published in
recognized science journals.
True or false?
19. There has been at least one peer-reviewed science paper published
in a recognized, refereed science journal that calls the Theory of
Evolution into serious question.
True or false?
20. There has been at least one peer-reviewed science paper published
in a recognized, refereed science journal that establishes a better
theory to explain the distribution and variety of life on Earth today
than the Theory of Evolution.
True or false?
21. There has been posted, in one place in a thread somewhere in these
news groups, a supported and referenced *list* of the colossal holes in
the Theory of Evolution.
True or false?
22. It is hypocritical to demand peer-reviewed published evidence from
others in refutation of non-existent material favoring your own
arguments.
True or false?
23. References to long-dead dead topics such as "Piltdown man",
Nebraska "man", and Ramapithecus as a human ancestor are irrelevant to
the current state of the Theory of Evolution because no one but
creationists ever makes an issue of them any more.
True or false?
24. Certain creationists-in-denial will snip or ignore this entire
post because they cannot even handle a series of simple true/false
questions without realizing what a shithead they are.
True or false?
The last question is a little more difficult. It's multiple choice.
25. The match between human DNA and banana DNA is:
A. 95%
B. 75%
C. 60%
D. Greater than 50%
E. 50%
Please *support* your answer to question 25 with at least one
competent and intelligent reference that does not refer to a
non-existent article in _New Scientist_, is not a throw-away quotation,
and is not merely a headline from an article that has nothing otherwise
to do with the topic.
Budikka
Budikka666
> They are too stupid and indoctrinated to believe that.
> They use pissed off fruit flies as evidence.
Let's see who is stupid. Let's see who has the evidence and let's see
who is the coward.
Present your five best evidences in favor of creation and I'll wipe the
floor with them. Or present your five best scientific refutations of
the Theory of Evolution and I'll wipe the floor with *those*.
Your move.
Or you can run away whining like you always do.
Budikka
Richard Dawkins
"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1138328043.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I've listed hundreds