Darwin In Evolution
Tiglath
Well folks, some of us must think that Darwin is resting in peace on
his well-earned laurels but evolution in its subtle ways has got hold
of "The Origin of Species" itself and gave it a mighty nudge.
There is a NEW EDITION, and the best part is that IT IS FREE.
But before you eat that inexpensive lunch you may want to judge by
what lies beyond the cover.
Wow! It has a NEW INTRODUCTION.
Not only new but the MOTHER OF ALL INTRODUCTIONS as well.
It's FIFTY pages long.
Mon Dieu.
Wait! Something wrong here!
What? No. It can't be.
Darwin a creationist?
Aaaarrrrrrgggggg!!!
http://www.livingwaters.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=383
J Antero
"Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
news:4684f51e-d3c9-46c7...@p32g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
http://www.dontdissdarwin.com/?gclid=CIDdgaSAm54CFY915QodbDWbpA
""" What makes this introduction special? Darwin biographer and science
writer David Quammen puts it best:
Comfort's confused polemic, disguised as an informational Introduction but
full of mistakes, half truths, untruths, muddled logic, old creationist
arguments, misleadingly excerpted quotations, and ill-framed analogies -
plus a good dose of fire and brimstone at the end - will do a severe
disservice to anyone who takes it for an entryway to Darwin's great book.
""""
If only they would all stop getting innoculations and using the benefits
of medical science...
An analysis of the jesus fools "intro"...
Analysis and synopsis
Ray Comfort has written a lengthy introduction to his edition of Darwin's
Origin of Species. This introduction is partly lifted from other sources,
partly Comfort's own musings on Darwin's life and legacy, and partly
Comfort's evangelism.
Virtually every page contains scientific and historical errors.
Comfort repeats hackneyed creationist claims: a lack of fossils with
transitional forms (false), the complexity of DNA requiring a creator
(false), the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics somehow making evolution impossible
(false). Comfort offers no fresh ideas, and simply parrots standard
creationist talking points, all long-ago debunked by sites such as
TalkOrigins.org.
Comfort attacks Darwin personally, assailing what he believes to be
Darwin's racism and misogyny. Comfort even goes so far as to say that
Darwin's most "famous student" was Adolf Hitler. Comfort does not provide
meaningful evidence for such outrageous claims, only a few out-of-context
quotes in a limp effort to tarnish Darwin. Comfort's use of attacks that are
both ad hominem and insupportable exposes him as someone willing to bear
false witness in order to promote his agenda.
Comfort dwells upon Darwin's religious beliefs, as if these beliefs were
the key to evolution rather than the scientific evidence Darwin marshaled.
It isn't surprising, then, to find that religion is at the heart of
Comfort's own agenda. Because Comfort is unable to make meaningful attacks
on evolution on the basis of the scientific evidence, he turns to
non-scientific arguments.
Some of the most egregious quotes from Comfort:
a.. "Adolf Hitler took Darwin's evolutionary philosophy to its logical
conclusions."
b.. "...Darwin was a racist."
c.. "Darwin believed that women were not as competent as men, and less
intelligent than men, but they were better than a dog."
d.. "The legacy of Darwin's theory can be seen in the rise of eugenics,
euthanasia, infanticide, and abortion."
e.. "DNA... presents a formidable challenge to Darwinian evolution."
1. p. 1-5, The History of Charles Darwin
a.. presents basic biographic information on Darwin.
b..
c.. as the blog aigbusted.blogspot.com has revealed, some of the
language in this section is taken unattributed from Stan Guffey's "A Brief
History of Charles Darwin"
d.. the timeline Comfort uses is taken verbatim, with attribution, from
Darwin200 (http://www.darwin200.org/press-releases/darwin-timeline.doc)
2. p. 5-9, Darwin's Religious Beliefs
a.. Comfort writes, "The issue of why God would allow such suffering in
the world was an internal conflict that Darwin could not resolve."
b.. Comfort writes, "[Darwin] never entirely discounted the existence of
a God but gradually become agnostic."
c.. it is unclear what relevance Darwin's personal religious beliefs
have to the theory of evolution. Indeed, evolution is today accepted by a
variety of people across the spectrum of religious belief and non-belief.
They accept evolution not because of their agreement with Darwin's personal
beliefs, but because the evidence in favor of evolution is so strong and
compelling.
3. p. 9-13, The DNA Code
a.. Comfort talks about complexity, saying, "Imagine that there was
nothing. Then paper appeared and ink fell from nowhere onto the flat sheets
and shaped itself into perfectly formed letters of the English alphabet."
b.. this is part of Comfort's standard rhetoric, claiming that evolution
requires that "something came out of nothing." This is not a scientific view
of evolution
c.. this also mimics the argument of "irreducible complexity," implying
that something very complex-DNA, a language-could not have arisen through
evolutionary processes
d.. quotes Charles Thaxton, a creationist
e.. quotes Francis Collins (the current head of NIH), without explaining
that Collins is a Christian who also accepts evolution
f.. Comfort: "DNA is an incredibly detailed language, revealing vast
amounts of information encoded in each and every living cell-design which
could not have arisen by purely materialistic means."
g.. this is the meat of Comfort's argument, but almost all scientists
understand that complexity is not a problem for evolution
4. p. 13-16, Transitional Forms
a.. Comfort: "We would expect to find something that is half monkey,
half man."
b.. this is Comfort's infamous "crocoduck" argument, which purports that
evolution requires strange hybrid creatures in order for new species to
arise; no scientist, of course believes this
c.. the truth is that evolutionary changes, over a long time, can
produce major differences through minor changes
d.. Comfort criticizes the website Understanding Evolution
(evolution.berkeley.edu) for saying there are numerous transitional forms in
the fossil record, but listing Pakicetus as "the only example."
e.. in fact, the page Comfort is referring to
(http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IAtransitional.shtml), has a
link to a TalkOrigins page detailing hundreds of fossils with transitional
forms. While Comfort is technically correct that the only example given on
this particular page is Pakicetus, this criticism is meaningless because the
page provides a reference to profuse examples
f.. "And Neanderthal Man was exposed as being fully human, not ape. Not
only was his stooped posture found to be caused by disease, but he also
spoke and was artistic and religious."
g.. Neanderthals were not "stooped" in posture. Comfort may be thinking
of Hollywood presentations of "cavemen."
h.. Archaeological evidence for Neanderthal art is controversial, and
evidence for Neanderthal religion non-existent
i.. There are distinct physical traits (brow, rib cage shape) that
distinguish Neanderthals and modern humans
j.. Neanderthal DNA has been analyzed and compared to modern humans;
although there is much shared DNA, this evidence does not support the
conclusion that Neanderthals were "fully human"
5. p. 16-18, The Missing Link
a.. Comfort criticizes the recent "Ida" fossil
b.. "In May 2009, however, headlines boldly proclaimed that scientists
had finally found the missing link between animals and man."
c.. no headline described this as a link between "animals and man." Some
journalists did describe the importance of Ida in terms of human evolution.
d.. journalists, not scientists, speak in terms of "missing links."
Practicing paleontologists regard the term "missing link" as reflecting a
popular misconception of evolution as progressive.
6. p. 18-20, The Cambrian Explosion
a.. "No new body plans have come into existence since then."
b.. not true. There are some post-Cambrian phyla, such as the Bryozoa.
c.. "Life forms are strictly separated into very distinct categories."
d.. not true. We human have created categories such as phyla, but these
groupings have changed over time and continue to change. They are a human
construct rather than a fact of nature.
7. p. 20-21, The Evolutionary Process
a.. "Species do of course change over time by adaptation and natural
selection, but some disagree that this indicates Darwinian evolution."
b.. are any of those "who disagree" scientists, or are they all
creationists?
c.. this statement is nonsensical, because we define Darwinian evolution
in terms of natural selection
d.. "Darwin's theory of evolution is instead based on the concept of
macroevolution."
e.. the phrase "based on" misleadingly suggests that Darwin was
assuming, rather than showing, that variation and selection can lead to
speciation
f.. there is no abrupt dividing line between macroevolution and
microevolution
g.. the small-scale processes of evolution, when accumulated over time,
can fully explain the large-scale differences in organisms over time
8. p. 21-26, Mutations
a.. "Despite being bombarded with mutation agents for half a century,
the mutant fruit flies continue to exist as fruit flies."
b.. Comfort seems to expect fruit flies to abruptly become some new
creature, or perhaps a half-fly hybrid such as his infamous crocoduck. This
simply is not how evolution works.
c.. "The theory of punctuated equilibrium was proposed as a way to
explain the lack of fossil evidence."
d.. No. Eldredge and Gould's seminal 1972 paper examined fossil evidence
from Bermudan mollusks and trilobites, and proposed the punctuated view as a
better fit for their data than standard phyletic gradualism.
9. p. 26-30, Evolution's Difficult Questions
a.. Comfort here proposes that the heart and the eye are examples of
"irreducible complexity," and proposes this as proof of divine creation
rather than evolution
b.. the creationist idea that irreducibly complex structures cannot have
evolved, so often espoused by groups such as the Discovery Institute, has
been thoroughly debunked:
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
10. p. 30-31, Vestigial Organs-Leftovers Again?
a.. Comfort writes, "If an organ were no longer needed, it could at best
be considered devolution. This is consistent with the Law of Entropy-that
all things deteriorate over time."
b.. like many creationists, Comfort here incorrectly describes the 2nd
Law of Thermodynamics
c.. the 2nd Law is not simply that "things deteriorate"
d.. although creationists frequently comment on the 2nd Law as if they
had completed the coursework required to understand it, they rarely talk
about entropy in ways meaningful to scientists
e.. Comfort seems to think that vestigial organs are by definition
useless
f.. in fact, a vestigial organ is defined as "a reduced and rudimentary
structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms.
Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or
inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other
complex purposes."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#morphological_vestiges
11. p. 31, Another Thought
a.. Comfort here brings out his argument that science cannot explain the
world because it rests on the assumption that something came "from nothing"
b.. this is more the realm of cosmological physics than evolution
c.. Darwin's theory of evolution only involves interactions after the
beginning of life, and does not touch upon the origin of life or the origin
of the universe
d.. this section is therefore irrelevant to a discussion of Darwin and
evolution
12. p. 31-34, Darwin's "Unsavory" Views
a.. Comfort recommends googling "social Darwinism," as if an Internet
search engine result constituted evidence
b.. Comfort puts forth a quote by Darwin which compares different races
of humans and apes, and cites a letter of 23 May 1833, by Darwin to William
Fox. If one goes to Comfort's citation for this letter, however, this quote
does not exist in the letter. You can see for yourself here:
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-207.html
c.. this quote actually comes from Chapter VI of Darwin's Descent of
Man, and this example of academic sloppiness is typical of Comfort's loose
concern for factual accuracy
d.. the full quote, as explained on Talk Origins,
(http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/2009_03.html ), reveals that
Darwin was talking about taxonomy and classification, using unfortunate
language typical of even educated persons in the nineteenth century
e.. "It's interesting that a number of Atheists have agreed with me in
my belief that Darwin was a racist."
f.. Comfort seems to imagine that all non-believers are conspired
against him to oppose his interpretation of Darwin in every respect
g.. most historical figures, if judged by the standards of today, would
offend modern sensibilities
h.. We honor George Washington, for example-but Washington was a slave
owner. Should we therefore chip Washington off Mt. Rushmore and pretend he
never existed? Historical figures needs to be understood within the context
of their time
i.. Comfort attempts to tar Darwin as a racist. But even if Darwin were
a virulent racist-and the record does not support this-that in no way
diminishes the scientific power of evolution
j.. as an example, Nobel laureate William Shockley is rightly honored
for inventing the transistor, a vital component of electronics that in no
way functions differently because Shockley was a racist who supported
eugenics
k.. Comfort himself realizes this, saying, "Darwin's racism has nothing
to do with the credibility of the theory of evolution."
l.. If so, why does Comfort even bring up this topic, if not to attempt
to smear Darwin as a person, because Comfort is unable to touch evolution as
a theory?
m.. Comfort then backtracks on the racism charge: "However, after much
research, I do concede that you won't find anything in Darwin's writings
that would indicate that he in any way felt blacks were to be treated as
inferior or that his views of them were due to their skin color."
n.. why then does Comfort even bring it up?
13. p. 34-35, His Disdain of Women
a.. "Darwin believed that women were not as competent as men, and less
intelligent than men, but they were better than a dog."
b.. Comfort here ignores the profound, life-long love Darwin expressed
for his wife, and focuses on a single tongue-in-cheek statement as if this
were better proof of his feelings
c.. Judging historical figures by the social standards of today is
problematic. As just one example, one can argue that Lincoln did not view
African-Americans as fully equal to whites-and it would have been incredible
if he had, given the extreme racism permeating society during his time-yet
Lincoln still deserves to be honored for ending slavery
14. p. 35-37, His Famous Student [Hitler]
a.. "Adolf Hitler took Darwin's evolutionary philosophy to its logical
conclusions."
b.. Comfort gives a quote from Darwin, followed by three quotes from
Hitler, in an attempt to link Darwin's ideas to Hitler
c.. if Darwin was so important to Hitler, then you might expect that
Hitler would have at least mentioned Darwin once in Mein Kampf. Darwin's
name never appears in Hitler's manifesto
d.. the Darwin quote includes the line from Descent of Man that no one
would be "so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed," but fails to
include the next part of the original passage, which reads, "The aid which
we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of
the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the
social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously
indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our
sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the
noblest part of our nature... if we were intentionally to neglect the weak
and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an
overwhelming present evil."
e.. Darwin is clearly not advocating eugenics, but rather advocates
compassion for his fellow man
f.. Darwin's ideas here are the polar opposite of Hitler's
15. p. 37-39, The Hit List
a.. "In promoting the idea that humans were merely animals and accidents
of nature, the natural consequence of Darwinism was to overturn the
traditional Judeo-Christian values on the sacredness of human life."
b.. "The legacy of Darwin's theory can be seen in the rise of eugenics,
euthanasia, infanticide, and abortion."
c.. this is simply hyperbole on Comfort's part. This laundry-list of
unrelated controversial issues is meant to inflame passions rather than
inform
d.. Comfort details Hitler's odious racial
hierarchy-"Germanic-predominately Aryan... Black African-predominately
Ape..."
e.. this was Hitler's thinking, not Darwin's
f.. "In promoting the idea that humans were merely animals and accidents
of nature, the natural consequence of Darwinism was to overturn the
traditional Judeo-Christian values on the sacredness of human life."
g.. as the previous passage shows, Darwin was a man of great compassion
for his fellow humans, and certainly viewed human life as valuable
h.. it is not a "natural consequence" and does not follow that if human
are merely animals, that then this somehow overturns the sacredness of human
life
16. p. 39-41, Darwin and Atheism
a.. "Many believe that with creation adequately explained by evolution,
there is no need for a God and no moral responsibility."
b.. Comfort ignores the fact that there are many people who fully accept
evolution and are also people of faith
c.. as just one example, over twelve thousand members of the clergy have
signed the pro-evolution Clergy Letter Project
d.. "If there are no absolutes of right and wrong, anything goes as long
as it's within the bounds of civil law, and any sexual exploits are merely
natural instincts to further our animal species."
e.. this is a very superficial reading of the origins of morality
f.. thoughtful people realize that there are many moral precepts (not
telling small lies or returning books to friends, for example) that do not
fall within the bounds of civil law, yet even atheists still follow
g.. "If I deny that there is a God, I am saying nothing created
everything, and that's a scientific impossibility."
h.. Comfort may be unaware of high-vacuum quantum physics experiments
which demonstrate that subatomic particles do indeed appear "out of
nothing." Rather than a scientific impossibility, this is an experimental
result and is measurable in phenomenon such as the Casimir effect
i.. quotes Dawkins and Crick on the appearance of design
j.. but in science, simply pointing out that something "looks like"
something else is not solid evidence
k.. and Dawkins and Crick explain in detail how the appearance of design
can be explained in terms of natural processes
l.. "And despite what evolutionists claim, those who believe in a
Creator are far from being anti-science."
m.. "evolutionists" do not claim that religious people are
"anti-science"
n.. Quite the contrary-many people who accept evolution are also people
of faith
o.. quotes Penn Jillette about how one would struggle to save someone
about to be hit by a truck, which Comfort relates to saving someone's soul
p.. Comfort ends by declaring, "I deeply care about you and where you
will spend eternity."
17. p. 41-42, Solving Life's Most Important Question
a.. Comfort claims, "Christianity is unique among religions."
18. p. 42-43, The Leap
a.. This section on the Ten Commandments comments on religious matters
19. p. 43-44, Little Jessica
a.. In one of the most odious and inexplicable non sequiturs in his
introduction, Comfort describes the gruesome murder of 9 year-old Jessica
Lunsford in 2005.
b.. By exploiting the memory of a murdered child to promote his agenda,
Comfort reveals just how low he is willing to go.
AgitProp
The Theory of Evolution on Earth = Last Century's Dogmatic Religion
Here is a traditional British recipe:
Dramatic music, one piece.
1 Fully grown BBC employee.
5 minute sized - subtle ridicule
5 minute sized - unsubstantiated assumptions
5 minute sized - fossil footage.
20 minutes of flash animations.
Directions:
Take BBC employee and make
sure you scoop out the brain if he came with any!
Finely chop the subtle ridicule and unsubstantiated
assumptions. Stir well! Now stuff the BBC employee
and place on a large tray. Take fossil footage and
sprinkle on top. This would probably leave you with
huge gaps on your tray...but don't worry! - Simply
get the flash animations, chop some more unsubstantiated
assumptions. Mix well and fill in the gaps.
Now place the tray in the oven - medium heat.
Grub a cigar, play the music and wait 30 minutes
to get a delicious, half-baked Evolution program.
VoiceOfReason
Ken
> Despite all the whining and sniffling, evolution is still a fact.
With their little closed off minds, Fundy Fuckwits don't need facts to
futher confuse the issue
Tiglath
Even the smartest of them are self-defeating. If you watch the
debates between the New Atheists and the usual opponents, like Rabbi
Boteach and Dinesh DeSouza -- the best they can offer -- you can see
the theists' argumentation is full of bad science, gratuitous
assertions, and fallacies. They consistently misrepresent the
atheistic view, and try to steal from science in a childish way.
To see what I mean watch this. It is quite long but go to the bits by
the two speakers I mention and see. There are so outgunned, it's a
slaughter.
AgitProp
> Despite all the whining and sniffling, evolution is still a fact.
Absolutely! - Lets' sacrifice a few chickens to it.
AgitProp
The "Debate" has never been about the truth.
That's why both sides look and sound ridiculous.
"Common elements in DNA confirm Evolution" = "Anthropomorphic God
created Humans"
PS
My Toyota has common DNA with the first bike! - I've checked.:)
Tiglath
http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/23/meyer.intelligent.design/index.html
Notice how the Intelligent Design crowd, not being able to win the
debate fair and square try to do it by confusion.
This Christian think tank fomenting creationism goes by the misleading
names of "Center for the Science and Culture" and the "Discovery
Institute", when in fact Creationism has no scientific theory to offer
to counter Darwin, and "discovery" is not something one would think is
representative of established dogma.
As part of their long term Wedge Strategy, creationists are now
focused on portraying Evolution as a theory in crisis.
I'd be interested in checking this statement:
"[M]ore than 800 scientists, including professors from institutions
such as Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Yale and Rice
universities and members of various national (U.S., Russian, Czech,
Polish) academies of science have signed a statement questioning the
creative power of the selection/mutation mechanism."
I bet you that it is just superficially true, as this sort of
announcements usually are.
Has anyone seen that statement?
Peter Jason
"VoiceOfReason" <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
news:dade4e10-8dc3-450a...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> Despite all the whining and sniffling, evolution is still
> a fact.
But not the whole story. There are the missing links who
could not have survived because some of their links were
missing!
Cormac
>
> Notice how the Intelligent Design crowd, not being able to win the
> debate fair and square try to do it by confusion.
Evolution by natural selection was a theory 150 years ago. Now it is a
principle as fundamental to biology as the periodic table is to
chemistry.
Cormac.
Matt Giwer
Missing links are an invention of believers. Missing common
ancestors are the subject of evolution. There are very few which are in fact
still missing.
--
In 2009 there were more memorials over the death of John Lennon
than Pearl Harbor. WWII is finally over!
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4208
http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/sewer-bible.phtml a15
Fri Dec 18 08:10:23 EST 2009
Devils Advocaat
I vote we use the penguins, they are much better for sacrificing. :)
Peter Jason
"Matt Giwer" <ma...@giwersworld.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.64.09...@dawn.a.b.c...
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Peter Jason wrote:
>
>> "VoiceOfReason" <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
>> news:dade4e10-8dc3-450a...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>>> Despite all the whining and sniffling, evolution is
>>> still a fact.
>
>> But not the whole story. There are the missing links who
>> could not have
>> survived because some of their links were missing!
>
> Missing links are an invention of believers. Missing
> common
> ancestors are the subject of evolution. There are very few
> which are in fact
> still missing.
>
I meant the intermediate forms that could not function. eg a
part bird could not fly. And what could have been the link
between the structures of an anphibian and a reptile egg?
Bob T.
> "Matt Giwer" <m...@giwersworld.org> wrote in message
>
> news:Pine.LNX.4.64.09...@dawn.a.b.c...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Peter Jason wrote:
>
> >>news:dade4e10-8dc3-450a...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> >>> Despite all the whining and sniffling, evolution is
> >>> still a fact.
>
> >> But not the whole story. There are the missing links who
> >> could not have
> >> survived because some of their links were missing!
>
> > Missing links are an invention of believers. Missing
> > common
> > ancestors are the subject of evolution. There are very few
> > which are in fact
> > still missing.
>
> I meant the intermediate forms that could not function. eg a
> part bird could not fly.
Apparently you have never heard of the flying squirrel or other
gliding animals. True flight has evolved several times in the animal
kingdom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_and_gliding_animals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flight
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insect_flight
- Bob T.
> And what could have been the link between the structures of an anphibian and a reptile egg?
>
>
>
> > --
> > In 2009 there were more memorials over the death of John
> > Lennon
> > than Pearl Harbor. WWII is finally over!
> > -- The Iron Webmaster, 4208
> > http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/sewer-bible.phtmla15
> > Fri Dec 18 08:10:23 EST 2009- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Paul J Gans
>"Matt Giwer" <ma...@giwersworld.org> wrote in message
>news:Pine.LNX.4.64.09...@dawn.a.b.c...
>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Peter Jason wrote:
>>
>>> "VoiceOfReason" <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
>>> news:dade4e10-8dc3-450a...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Despite all the whining and sniffling, evolution is
>>>> still a fact.
>>
>>> But not the whole story. There are the missing links who
>>> could not have
>>> survived because some of their links were missing!
>>
>> Missing links are an invention of believers. Missing
>> common
>> ancestors are the subject of evolution. There are very few
>> which are in fact
>> still missing.
>>
>I meant the intermediate forms that could not function. eg a
>part bird could not fly. And what could have been the link
>between the structures of an anphibian and a reptile egg?
Take it to talk.origins, the place to discuss evolution.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Peter Jason
"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:hghe7b$ola$1...@reader1.panix.com...
I thought *that* ng was full of trolls and similar
argumentative people.
Cory Albrecht
> "Matt Giwer"<ma...@giwersworld.org> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.64.09...@dawn.a.b.c...
>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Peter Jason wrote:
>>
>>> "VoiceOfReason"<papa...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
>>> news:dade4e10-8dc3-450a...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Despite all the whining and sniffling, evolution is
>>>> still a fact.
>>
>>> But not the whole story. There are the missing links who
>>> could not have
>>> survived because some of their links were missing!
>>
>> Missing links are an invention of believers. Missing
>> common
>> ancestors are the subject of evolution. There are very few
>> which are in fact
>> still missing.
>>
>
>
> I meant the intermediate forms that could not function. eg a
Intermediates being "non-functional" is a creationist strawman because
they can never seem to get beyond their "hopeful monster" fallacy.
Some how they always seem to run away when flying squirrels are pointed
out to them.
> part bird could not fly. And what could have been the link
> between the structures of an anphibian and a reptile egg?
A leathery skin, how about that as a possibility? Do you have no
imagination?
Cory Albrecht
Yes, there are a lot of creationist trolls there, but there are also
many highly knowledgeable science-philes and even a few actual
scientists who refute those creationist trolls every day.
Paul J Gans
>"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:hghe7b$ola$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>> Take it to talk.origins, the place to discuss evolution.
>I thought *that* ng was full of trolls and similar
>argumentative people.
Actually, if you leave out the crazy creationists, it
is filled with many folks who know the field quite well.
One example, they rode DSH out of town on a rail when he
came in trying to pull his usual cuteness.
Matt Giwer
> "Matt Giwer" <ma...@giwersworld.org> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.64.09...@dawn.a.b.c...
>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Peter Jason wrote:
>>> "VoiceOfReason" <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
>>> news:dade4e10-8dc3-450a...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Despite all the whining and sniffling, evolution is still a fact.
>>> But not the whole story. There are the missing links who could not have
>>> survived because some of their links were missing!
>> Missing links are an invention of believers. Missing common ancestors
>> are the subject of evolution. There are very few which are in fact still
>> missing.
> I meant the intermediate forms that could not function.
There are no intermediate forms. Every species is always changing.
> eg a part bird could not fly.
That is the invention of creationists. It has nothing to do with
evolution. The subject is only common ancestor.
> And what could have been the link between the structures of an anphibian
> and a reptile egg?
Assuming you know the difference between an amphibian and a reptile,
the absence of a variety of amphibian which did not require living in water
as part of its life cycle. Over millions of generation one branch of
amphibians needs less and less contact with water until it changes into one
that needs water only for drinking and not for reproduction.
Hundreds of millions of years after that a species with a penchant
for naming things comes along and gives them different names and then
concludes they are uniquely different because of the different names. Giving
a name to a thing is not the same as knowing about the thing.
--
Hodie decimo quarto Kalendas Ianuarias MMX est
-- The Ferric Webcaesar
http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a5
Sat Dec 19 17:02:34 EST 2009
J Antero
Well, did that take a Nobel?
Dave Oldridge
Hey! Long time no see!
>On Sat, 19 Dec 2009, Peter Jason wrote:
>> "Matt Giwer" <ma...@giwersworld.org> wrote in message
>> news:Pine.LNX.4.64.09...@dawn.a.b.c...
>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Peter Jason wrote:
>>>> "VoiceOfReason" <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:dade4e10-8dc3-450a...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.co
>>>> m...
>>>>> Despite all the whining and sniffling, evolution is still a fact.
>>>> But not the whole story. There are the missing links who could not
>>>> have survived because some of their links were missing!
>>> Missing links are an invention of believers. Missing common
>>> ancestors
>>> are the subject of evolution. There are very few which are in fact
>>> still missing.
>
>> I meant the intermediate forms that could not function.
>
> There are no intermediate forms. Every species is always
> changing.
Perhaps another way to put this would be to say that EVERY organism not
at the end of an extinct lineage is an intermediate form. And they are
all fully functional organisms. Nobody is positing anything like a bird
with one wing. Instead, we are seeing feathered theropods, some with
longer feathers on their limbs.
--
Dave Oldridge+
Paul J Gans
>"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:hgj1eb$97k$5...@reader1.panix.com...
>> In soc.history.medieval Peter Jason <p...@jostle.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>>news:hghe7b$ola$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>>
>>>> Take it to talk.origins, the place to discuss evolution.
>>
>>>I thought *that* ng was full of trolls and similar
>>>argumentative people.
>>
>> Actually, if you leave out the crazy creationists, it
>> is filled with many folks who know the field quite well.
>>
>> One example, they rode DSH out of town on a rail when he
>> came in trying to pull his usual cuteness.
>Well, did that take a Nobel?
I know of no other newsgroup that successfully rid itself
of that loon in so short a time. Sadly, he who shall not
be named, P**** N***** followed him back to soc.history.medieval
and remained his staunch ally until the affair of the posted
e-mail.
Peter Jason
How did he disappear so quickly? Much has been left unsaid.
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer <ma...@giwersworld.org> wrote in
> news:Pine.LNX.4.64.09...@dawn.a.b.c:
> Hey! Long time no see!
>> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009, Peter Jason wrote:
>>> "Matt Giwer" <ma...@giwersworld.org> wrote in message
>>> news:Pine.LNX.4.64.09...@dawn.a.b.c...
>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Peter Jason wrote:
>>>>> "VoiceOfReason" <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:dade4e10-8dc3-450a...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com
...
>>>>>> Despite all the whining and sniffling, evolution is still a fact.
>>>>> But not the whole story. There are the missing links who could not
>>>>> have survived because some of their links were missing!
>>>> Missing links are an invention of believers. Missing common ancestors
>>>> are the subject of evolution. There are very few which are in fact
>>>> still missing.
>>> I meant the intermediate forms that could not function.
>> There are no intermediate forms. Every species is always changing.
> Perhaps another way to put this would be to say that EVERY organism not at
> the end of an extinct lineage is an intermediate form. And they are all
> fully functional organisms. Nobody is positing anything like a bird with
> one wing. Instead, we are seeing feathered theropods, some with longer
> feathers on their limbs.
Even with extinction there is evolution so to speak. Less suited for
ghee whiz special effects about meteor impacts is the likely more common
cause. A species changes to become better at eating some other species. The
other species evolves to better avoid being eaten as similarly happens to
the food of that other species. Every species in the entire food change is
constantly adapting to the changes of every other species. There are also
climatic and geological changes over these tens of millions of years.
It is hardly surprising there are casualties in this constant
adaptation.
--
If a man criticizes Israel he will be condemned as anstisemitic.
What does a comdemned man gain from restraint?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4213
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.html a4
Mon Dec 21 16:09:40 EST 2009
Peter Jason
Casualties yes in existing species, but this is not
tolerable in developing attributes. From Darwin: "If it
could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which
could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive,
slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break
down."
As examples: The Avian Lung which is a once-through air
system, completely different from the reptiles, insects,
mammals and the amphibia, and which exhibits the efficient
"counter-current" contact of blood & air. How could this
have evolved in discrete steps? It's like being half dead
or half married - not possible.
Darwin was on the right track and his theory explains much;
yet we wait for a better all-encompassing explanation (which
will not involve creationism) even if it is panspermia.
Matt Giwer
Why do you insist upon saying things about Darwin's THEORY which are
simply not true? That is a serious question. Are we to conclude you do not
know any better?
> From Darwin: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed
> which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight
> modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
First, that is an IF. Second, it applies only to HIS THEORY. Third,
evolution would remain a fact although in need of a better explanation.
> As examples: The Avian Lung which is a once-through air system, completely
> different from the reptiles, insects, mammals and the amphibia, and which
> exhibits the efficient "counter-current" contact of blood & air. How
> could this have evolved in discrete steps? It's like being half dead or
> half married - not possible.
The fact is that it did. Its evolution is a fact. Your problem is to
first *understand* Darwin's theory and then describe an impossible problem.
As a reasonable person would observe insects are also entirely
different from mammals and reptiles. Upon what fossil record do you suggest
there is an insuperable obstacle when it comes to birds?
As to efficiency, that is a variable measure. Are you proposing it
could not have been less efficient in the past? If so, upon what fossils do
you base this proposition?
If you really think you can jump directly to birds could not fly
without this efficiency then you will need to show this structure is not
present in ostriches, emu and other flightless birds. As they have the same
structure you cannot show that.
> Darwin was on the right track and his theory explains much; yet we wait
> for a better all-encompassing explanation (which will not involve
> creationism) even if it is panspermia.
That is an amusing condescension but as you clearly have a minimal
grasp of the fossil record, present day physiology, and Darwin's theory
pardom me if I dismiss your baseless assertions.
--
The amount of sleep the average person needs is one snooze more.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4200
http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/sewer-bible.phtml a15
Tue Dec 22 16:17:08 EST 2009
Peter Jason
>
>> Casualties yes in existing species, but this is not
>> tolerable in
>> developing attributes.
>
> Why do you insist upon saying things about Darwin's
> THEORY which are
> simply not true? That is a serious question. Are we to
> conclude you do not
> know any better?
>
>> From Darwin: "If it could be demonstrated that any
>> complex organ existed
>> which could not possibly have been formed by numerous
>> successive, slight
>> modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
>
> First, that is an IF. Second, it applies only to HIS
> THEORY. Third,
> evolution would remain a fact although in need of a better
> explanation.
*** I do not deny evolution is a fact. I say it is not the
whole story. ***
>> As examples: The Avian Lung which is a once-through air
>> system, completely
>> different from the reptiles, insects, mammals and the
>> amphibia, and which
>> exhibits the efficient "counter-current" contact of blood
>> & air. How
>> could this have evolved in discrete steps? It's like
>> being half dead or
>> half married - not possible.
>
> The fact is that it did. Its evolution is a fact. Your
> problem is to
> first *understand* Darwin's theory and then describe an
> impossible problem.
*** Obviously it did because there are birds fluttering
about everywhere. How did the avian lung evolve? Can
anyone postulate a primitive avian lung? ***
> As a reasonable person would observe insects are also
> entirely
> different from mammals and reptiles. Upon what fossil
> record do you suggest
> there is an insuperable obstacle when it comes to birds?
*** Two wrongs don't make a right. Why not explain the
avian lung first. ***
> As to efficiency, that is a variable measure. Are you
> proposing it
> could not have been less efficient in the past? If so,
> upon what fossils do
> you base this proposition?
*** Reptiles I guess, who had normal lungs and not a trace
of the avian variety. ****
>
> If you really think you can jump directly to birds could
> not fly
> without this efficiency then you will need to show this
> structure is not
> present in ostriches, emu and other flightless birds. As
> they have the same
> structure you cannot show that.
*** I was thinking of sparrows and pigeons; we can leave
BigBird 'till later. ***
>
>> Darwin was on the right track and his theory explains
>> much; yet we wait
>> for a better all-encompassing explanation (which will not
>> involve
>> creationism) even if it is panspermia.
>
> That is an amusing condescension but as you clearly have
> a minimal
> grasp of the fossil record, present day physiology, and
> Darwin's theory
> pardom me if I dismiss your baseless assertions.
*** Christ! Has Darwin been deified? He has become the
Lord High Paradigm of biology. That role was once occupied
by the bible. Let's not make the same mistake. ***
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of
virus signature database 4710 (20091222) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4710 (20091222) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
Paul J Gans
You might start at:
Browsing around there will answer many of your questions.
But still, why not take it to talk.origins and get Folks Who Know
to answer your questions. I'm serious. It is a PhD dense group
of mostly friendly folks.
Matt Giwer
>>> Casualties yes in existing species, but this is not tolerable in
>>> developing attributes.
>> Why do you insist upon saying things about Darwin's THEORY which are
>> simply not true? That is a serious question. Are we to conclude you do
>> not know any better?
>>> From Darwin: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed
>>> which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight
>>> modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
>> First, that is an IF. Second, it applies only to HIS THEORY. Third,
>> evolution would remain a fact although in need of a better explanation.
> *** I do not deny evolution is a fact. I say it is not the
> whole story. ***
Upon what physical evidence do you claim Darwin's theory is
deficient?
>>> As examples: The Avian Lung which is a once-through air system,
>>> completely different from the reptiles, insects, mammals and the
>>> amphibia, and which exhibits the efficient "counter-current" contact of
>>> blood & air. How could this have evolved in discrete steps? It's like
>>> being half dead or half married - not possible.
>> The fact is that it did. Its evolution is a fact. Your problem is to
>> first *understand* Darwin's theory and then describe an impossible
>> problem.
> *** Obviously it did because there are birds fluttering about everywhere.
> How did the avian lung evolve? Can anyone postulate a primitive avian
> lung? ***
Hypotesizing a method has nothing to do with the theory. As we have
no physical remains of dinosaur lungs there is no way to know what bird
lungs were like back then. Without knowing where they started you are saying
they cannot be as they are. That is not logical.
>> As a reasonable person would observe insects are also entirely different
>> from mammals and reptiles. Upon what fossil record do you suggest there
>> is an insuperable obstacle when it comes to birds?
> *** Two wrongs don't make a right. Why not explain the avian lung first. ***
What EXACTLY, in phsiological detail, do you think needs explaining?
In your own words, please explain exactly the problem as you see it.
I do not mean giving it a name as you did to start this. I mean explain what
that word means and what the unexplainable part is. Show how adaptation to
the needs of flight is not possible.
>> As to efficiency, that is a variable measure. Are you proposing it could
>> not have been less efficient in the past? If so, upon what fossils do you
>> base this proposition?
> *** Reptiles I guess, who had normal lungs and not a trace of the avian
> variety. ****
What FOSSILS do you base this on?
>> If you really think you can jump directly to birds could not fly without
>> this efficiency then you will need to show this structure is not present
>> in ostriches, emu and other flightless birds. As they have the same
>> structure you cannot show that.
> *** I was thinking of sparrows and pigeons; we can leave BigBird 'till
> later. ***
Not to later. Birds are birds, flying or flightless or half and half
like chickens. What applies to one species applies to all. If the same
feature is in all birds then it is not reasonable to find a particular
problem only for those that fly.
>>> Darwin was on the right track and his theory explains much; yet we wait
>>> for a better all-encompassing explanation (which will not involve
>>> creationism) even if it is panspermia.
>> That is an amusing condescension but as you clearly have a minimal grasp
>> of the fossil record, present day physiology, and Darwin's theory pardom
>> me if I dismiss your baseless assertions.
> *** Christ! Has Darwin been deified? He has become the Lord High
> Paradigm of biology. That role was once occupied by the bible. Let's not
> make the same mistake. ***
Neither Darwin nor Newton nor Einstein have been deified however
that does not mean people who do not understand the subject can necessarily
find exceptions to their theories. In this case all you know about bird
lungs is what you read from some creationist tract while pretending to
actually understand the issue.
--
On April 15, 1987 more than seven million American children vanished.
This is a well known fact but few talk about it.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4209
http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/sewer-bible.phtml a15
Wed Dec 23 18:02:54 EST 2009
ADR
> Casualties yes in existing species, but this is not
> tolerable in developing attributes. From Darwin: "If it
> could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which
> could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive,
> slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break
> down."
>
> As examples: The Avian Lung which is a once-through air
> system, completely different from the reptiles, insects,
> mammals and the amphibia, and which exhibits the efficient
> "counter-current" contact of blood & air. How could this
> have evolved in discrete steps? It's like being half dead
> or half married - not possible.
Well, you chose a bad example. The birds evolved from dinosaurs, not
reptiles. Before you jump to the proposition that the dinosaurs were
reptiles, let me tell you that modern finds clearly illustrate that
dinosaurs have a very different physiology than reptiles, which helped
them survive the great Permian extinction, which eradicate a lot of
reptiles. The reason that this happened is because they developed
highly efficient lungs that became great survival tools, as the
earth's atmosphere lost 50% of the oxygen at the Permian boundary. In
fact, throughout the period of dinosaur dominance, oxygen content was
substantially lower than today's. Mammals, which were contemporary
with the dinosaurs at the end of the Permian, had difficult adjusting
and this pressure forced the progressive evolution of the diaphragm.
Although of course, we possess the fossils of feathered dinosaurs,
proto-birds and birds in the dinosaur era, the soft organs have not
survived to allow us to track the evolution of the lungs in these
animals. However, we have cases in which impressions of the soft
tissue in dinosaurs have survived that allow us to make some informed
guesses.
> Darwin was on the right track and his theory explains much;
> yet we wait for a better all-encompassing explanation (which
> will not involve creationism) even if it is panspermia.
Panspermia has nothing to do with evolution. It is a theory that
assumes that basic elements of the genetic code are interspersed in
the universe and manage to kick-start life in habitable planets.
After billions of years and with complex forms having already evolved,
some genetic material on asteroids will not transform the avian
lung.
There are proposed modifications of the Darwinian theory such as
punctuated equilibria which have been developed to explain spurts of
speciation but in my mind, they are lame. The darwinian proposition
of geographical fragmentation, bottleneck events, genetic drift and
evolving fitness (in the darwinian sense: more offspring) fully
explains speciation radiation from a pre-existing common genetic pool.
It is a pity that the Darwinian theory of the evolution of species was
mistakenly named "theory of evolution". Evolution is an observed fact
established by many non-controversial tests. Its mechanism is the
theoretical realm (although the Darwinian process is very solid), not
its very existence.
Javi
ADR
> > *** Two wrongs don't make a right. Why not explain the
> > avian lung first. ***
>
> Here you have:http://www.evolutionpages.com/bird_lung.htm
Thanks, this is a good article that makes an excellent connection
between theropod dinosaur lungs and those in birds.
grisha
amphibians?
On Dec 18, 3:41 pm, "Peter Jason" <p...@jostle.com> wrote:
> "Matt Giwer" <m...@giwersworld.org> wrote in message
>
> news:Pine.LNX.4.64.09...@dawn.a.b.c...
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Peter Jason wrote:
>
> >> "VoiceOfReason" <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
Paul J Gans
and put it where it belongs.
ADR
> And what could have been the link between the structures of fish and
> amphibians?
This guy is obviously a joker!!!
Peter Jason
"ADR" <aret...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b944ff35-111c-4bae...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of
virus signature database 4716 (20091225) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4716 (20091225) __________
Peter Jason
Counter-current absorption is the most efficient way of
extracting the oxygen from an O2 depleted atmosphere, but
this begs the question a bit, because if it is the "most
efficient" why did not this become the breathing method of
contemporaneous creatures such as primitive mammals, bats,
snakes et al.?
Also, the driving force compelling fishes to leave the water
and become amphibians was the O2-depleted waters in inland
streams and swamps. Why did not these creatures develop
desirable counter-current breathing? Do lung fishes and
mud-skippers have avian lungs?
Even without soft tissue to analyse I can ask these
questions which beg an answer. Darwin can't answer them.
Peter Jason
This is rather good; thanks.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4716 (20091225) __________
Peter Jason
>
> Neither Darwin nor Newton nor Einstein have been deified
> however
> that does not mean people who do not understand the
> subject can necessarily
> find exceptions to their theories. In this case all you
> know about bird
> lungs is what you read from some creationist tract while
> pretending to
> actually understand the issue.
I am not a creationist at all. And it was the little boy
who pointed out that the emperor had no clothes.
Explain if you will the origin and persistence of the
Pentadactyl Limb. This present in all creatures from fishes
to man. Can Darwin explain why pentadactyl was chosen? Why
not a tetradactyl or hexadactyl limb? Somewhere in the
evolution of fishes the 5-fingered paw and foot became
predominant and consistent - a very curious fact.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4716 (20091225) __________
ADR
> Counter-current absorption is the most efficient way of
> extracting the oxygen from an O2 depleted atmosphere, but
> this begs the question a bit, because if it is the "most
> efficient" why did not this become the breathing method of
> contemporaneous creatures such as primitive mammals, bats,
> snakes et al.?
Although this solution evolved in certain species, it does not mean
that it should have evolved in all. It is possible that you do not
understand how this works. The genes that made it happen for
dinosaurs were already in the dinosaur gene pool. The conditions at
the end of the Permian (increased temperatures, decreased oxygen
concentration) forced the selection of specific traits within the
population that possessed these traits. If you put under
environmental pressure a population that does not possess these genes
in the gene pool, you are not going to get them, however severe the
pressure is. You just kill off the population. Selection works on
existing traits, it does not invent them. Mammals progressively
developed the diaphragm that allowed more air intake, as the genes for
this were already present prior to the Permian extinction event.
In order to really understand how biological systems respond, you
should read the classical book by Jacques Monot, "Chance and
Necessity". If you comprehend the basic principle there, you would
have no further questions on this.
> Also, the driving force compelling fishes to leave the water
> and become amphibians was the O2-depleted waters in inland
> streams and swamps. Why did not these creatures develop
> desirable counter-current breathing? Do lung fishes and
> mud-skippers have avian lungs?
>
> Even without soft tissue to analyse I can ask these
> questions which beg an answer. Darwin can't answer them.
First of all, you are wrong about what drove the "fish to leave the
water". This happened tens of millions of years prior to the Permian
extinction event and we have an excellent understanding of how the
transition worked simply because we do have these (or similar)
organisms living here today among us. As for the fish, the Permian
extinction affected them profoundly with most species disappearing.
Survivors had physiology that allowed them to survive in seas with
poorer oxygen content, very much as you have today. There are fish
today that can live in marginal niches; when the "margin" expands, so
do the species that live in them. It is as simple as that. Fish do
not evolve as a cohesive, collective unit. When the environment
changes, most of the fish die off and only the species that lived in
niches with conditions similar to the new environment get to survive,
multiply, expand to new niches and progressively speciate into a
variety of new species. This is how evolution works.
ADR
> > Neither Darwin nor Newton nor Einstein have been deified
> > however
> > that does not mean people who do not understand the
> > subject can necessarily
> > find exceptions to their theories. In this case all you
> > know about bird
> > lungs is what you read from some creationist tract while
> > pretending to
> > actually understand the issue.
>
> I am not a creationist at all. And it was the little boy
> who pointed out that the emperor had no clothes.
>
> Explain if you will the origin and persistence of the
> Pentadactyl Limb. This present in all creatures from fishes
> to man. Can Darwin explain why pentadactyl was chosen? Why
> not a tetradactyl or hexadactyl limb? Somewhere in the
> evolution of fishes the 5-fingered paw and foot became
> predominant and consistent - a very curious fact.
In fact, you have answered your own question. There is no reason why
five fingers or toes is good and six is not. But genomes are very
conservative beasts. From the moment on solution became dominant, it
remained a constant because no evolutionary pressure was acting on
it. Certain mutations in specific individuals within a single species
may have led to the appearance of four or six limbs (this is not
uncommon even today) but in the absence of any evolutionary pressure
otherwise, these mutations are lost through genetic drift (see your
dictionary for the definition of "genetic drift"). You can also ask
as to why we have the specific four bases in DNA, although others
exist as well. The point is that in order to change a biological
system you need to apply a strong environmental pressure in a diverse
population. In the absence of either the environmental pressure or
the genetic diversity, you cannot get evolution.
ADR
> > however
> > that does not mean people who do not understand the
> > subject can necessarily
> > find exceptions to their theories. In this case all you
> > know about bird
> > lungs is what you read from some creationist tract while
> > pretending to
> > actually understand the issue.
>
> I am not a creationist at all. And it was the little boy
> who pointed out that the emperor had no clothes.
Listen, I do not want to make you feel bad, but so far the only thing
that you have pointed out here is that ***you*** have no clothes.
Admittingly, **population genetics** (the science that deals with the
evolution of populations) is not an easy discipline to understand.
Here is a reference that you need to look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_genetics
In many ways, population genetics is the equivalent of theoretical
physics for the biological sciences and the mathematics of it may make
it difficult to understand for non-scientists. I would suggest that
you should try to understand the work of some of remarkable scientists
in the field such as John Haldane and Richard Lewontin. I know that
neither of them are as well known as Albrecht Einstein, but their
treatises on population genetics and mechanism of evolution are a
cornerstone of today's biological disciplines. In terms of
evolutionary (population) biology, Charles Darwin is what Isaac Newton
was in theoretical physics. He was just a remarkable man at the
beginning of the discipline, not the final word on it.
Matt Giwer
>> Neither Darwin nor Newton nor Einstein have been deified
>> however
>> that does not mean people who do not understand the
>> subject can necessarily
>> find exceptions to their theories. In this case all you
>> know about bird
>> lungs is what you read from some creationist tract while
>> pretending to
>> actually understand the issue.
> I am not a creationist at all. And it was the little boy
> who pointed out that the emperor had no clothes.
You do not appear to realize that is just a story. It didn't really happen.
> Explain if you will the origin and persistence of the
> Pentadactyl Limb. This present in all creatures from fishes
> to man. Can Darwin explain why pentadactyl was chosen? Why
> not a tetradactyl or hexadactyl limb? Somewhere in the
> evolution of fishes the 5-fingered paw and foot became
> predominant and consistent - a very curious fact.
What does chosen mean in this context? What was five in competition with?
With insects there were at least three distinct families that moved from the
ocean to the land. An insect specialist will probably tell me it was more than
that as with cente/millepedes. It is worth noting there was no "selection" of
only one insect type.
With vertebrates it appears to have happened only once. Six and eight legged
vertebrates didn't make the transition to land. Similarly the number of toes
at the ends of those legs did not vary either.
BTW: Who are you trying to impress with greek names for number? Who impressed
you with it?
Do you really expect me to think you made up the names and researched the
Greek names for the numbers? As I said ...
"In this case all you know about bird lungs is what you read from some
creationist tract while pretending to actually understand the issue."
--
The amount of sleep the average person needs is one snooze more.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4200
http://www.giwersworld.org a1
Sat Dec 26 18:48:52 EST 2009
Matt Giwer
> Counter-current absorption is the most efficient way of
> extracting the oxygen from an O2 depleted atmosphere, but
> this begs the question a bit, because if it is the "most
> efficient" why did not this become the breathing method of
> contemporaneous creatures such as primitive mammals, bats,
> snakes et al.?
That response makes it clear you do not understand the subject at all. Why do
you continue instead of learning about evolution first? Anything you get from
creationist sources is ignorant by definition.
It is not possible that anyone who understands the allele variation mechanism
has any objective or that a direction can be conveyed.
> Also, the driving force compelling fishes to leave the water
> and become amphibians was the O2-depleted waters in inland
> streams and swamps. Why did not these creatures develop
> desirable counter-current breathing? Do lung fishes and
> mud-skippers have avian lungs?
What magic "compelling" force are you talking about? Which creationist filled
your head with that nonsense?
> Even without soft tissue to analyse I can ask these
> questions which beg an answer. Darwin can't answer them.
That fact that English permits the formulation of questions does not mean all
questions are rational. Why is there air? is an example. There are an
uncountable number of nonsense questions. You are formulating them.
The mechanism of evolution is the same as the reason the children of the same
parents are not identical. You are formulating questions that have nothing
whatsoever to do with the mechanism Darwin proposed for evolution.
--
The amount of sleep the average person needs is one snooze more.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4200
http://www.giwersworld.org/palestine/answers.phtml a9
Sat Dec 26 19:09:55 EST 2009