Karl
Thomas Paine
Although I have found many creationist opinions I disagree with, it is still
frustrating to find someone so arrogant, so distorted that even trying to
discuss the differences between creationism and evolution is futile.
Although I have done a little of it in the past, I do not like to make mean
personal comments about another poster.
Karl is another story.
Never have I seen someone so far out in left field that it would take a
lifetime of patient teaching just to get him anywhere near dealing with
reality.
His arguements are silly, his knowledge of true facts almost non existant,
his distortions of reality remind me of drug induced friends trying to drive
in rush hour traffic.
I would love nothing more than to get into an honest discussion/debate with
anyone about creation/evolution.
But talking to a blind, dense, corrupt fool is more than I can handle.
KARL
Get a clue!
Get a Brain!
Get an Education!
Get real!
Pat James
On Fri, 19 Jun 1998 0:54:03 -0500, Thomas Paine wrote
(in message <6mcui5$slb$0...@208.231.48.151>):
>
> Although I have found many creationist opinions I disagree with, it is
> still frustrating to find someone so arrogant, so distorted that even
> trying to discuss the differences between creationism and evolution is
> futile.
That's Karl, alright. Don't even try. Just read his stuff for laughs and poke
fun at him. Absolutely _nothing_ gets through his skull.
>
> Although I have done a little of it in the past, I do not like to make mean
> personal comments about another poster.
>
> Karl is another story.
>
> Never have I seen someone so far out in left field that it would take a
> lifetime of patient teaching just to get him anywhere near dealing with
> reality.
Two lifetimes, at least.
>
> His arguements are silly, his knowledge of true facts almost non existant,
> his distortions of reality remind me of drug induced friends trying to
> drive in rush hour traffic.
>
> I would love nothing more than to get into an honest discussion/debate with
> anyone about creation/evolution. But talking to a blind, dense, corrupt fool
> is more than I can handle.
>
> KARL Get a clue! Get a Brain! Get an Education! Get real!
>
He never, ever, will get any of the above.
Warning: posted with demo version of new newsreader. Strange results may occur.
ras...@highfiber.com
On 19 Jun 1998 17:30:30, patj...@newsguy.com wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Jun 1998 0:54:03 -0500, Thomas Paine wrote
>(in message <6mcui5$slb$0...@208.231.48.151>):
>>
>> Although I have found many creationist opinions I disagree with, it is
>> still frustrating to find someone so arrogant, so distorted that even
>> trying to discuss the differences between creationism and evolution is
>> futile.
>That's Karl, alright. Don't even try. Just read his stuff for laughs and poke
>fun at him. Absolutely _nothing_ gets through his skull.
Let's be fair. Next to Riley Sinder, Karl is rationality incarnate. Next
to Ed Conrad, Karl is the very soul of Christian tolerance. And, if
nothing else, at least his intentions are good.
Pity the poor Karlpecker ... but never, ever expect to get any sense
out of him or into him.
JM
In article <6mcui5$slb$0...@208.231.48.151>, Lo...@commonsense.com (Thomas
Paine) wrote:
> Although I have found many creationist opinions I disagree with, it is still
> frustrating to find someone so arrogant, so distorted that even trying to
> discuss the differences between creationism and evolution is futile.
>
> Although I have done a little of it in the past, I do not like to make mean
> personal comments about another poster.
>
> Karl is another story.
>
> Never have I seen someone so far out in left field that it would take a
> lifetime of patient teaching just to get him anywhere near dealing with
> reality.
>
> His arguements are silly, his knowledge of true facts almost non existant,
> his distortions of reality remind me of drug induced friends trying to drive
> in rush hour traffic.
>
> I would love nothing more than to get into an honest discussion/debate with
> anyone about creation/evolution.
> But talking to a blind, dense, corrupt fool is more than I can handle.
>
> KARL
> Get a clue!
> Get a Brain!
> Get an Education!
> Get real!
Actually, the message is to you,one who call himself Thomas Paine.
Hal Vickery
In article <JM-200698...@darwin29.dcsi.net>, J...@Time.net (JM) wrote:
> In article <6mcui5$slb$0...@208.231.48.151>, Lo...@commonsense.com (Thomas
> Paine) wrote:
<snip>
> > KARL
> > Get a clue!
> > Get a Brain!
> > Get an Education!
> > Get real!
>
> Actually, the message is to you,one who call himself Thomas Paine.
Have you noticed how much trouble cretinists have with words that end in s?
Karl with plurals (as all you evolutionist out there know), Nameless with
verbs (I wonder what JM call himself).
Of course, it could be that there ideas reflect their level of education
which manifests itself in the inability to write in English.
H. Vickery
JM
In article <hvickery-ya0240800...@brownfox.svs.com>,
hvic...@svs.com (Hal Vickery) wrote:
You were saying about education? Note following:
--
Subject: Re: Freud, Gould
From: hvic...@svs.com (Hal Vickery)
Date: 1998/06/11
Message-ID: <hvickery-ya0240800...@brownfox.svs.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Article Segment 2 of 2
(Get Previous Segment)
(Get All 2 Segments)
Like the earth being the center of the universe? Like the Ptolomaic modelof the heavens? Like the constellations? I hold you to the same standards as you hold Freud.
[You misspelled Ptolemaic, Vickery]
Subject: Re: Freud, Gould
From: hvic...@svs.com (Hal Vickery)
Date: 1998/06/10
Message-ID: <hvickery-ya0240800...@brownfox.svs.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Again, he is writing about what was considered to be scientific and could
seemingly address "the deep questions about the meaning of our lives."
Since you have not shown any evidence that Freudiansim is completely
unscientific, as you have asserted, the burden is still on you to show that
is isn't.
Got the S in the wrong spot Vickery?
So what do you think Vickery? Is it worthwhile pointing out other people's typos?
"but maybe you could explain one
thing to me -- what IS porn?"
- Steve Sondericker
> Ok, why is Homo Habalis not a trasitional from A. aferensis to Homo
> Erectus?
>
I don't know. I've never heard of a Homo Habalis. Could you be referring to Homo Habilis?
>
> ----------------------------
> Steve "Chris" Price
> Associate Professor of Computational Aesthetics
> Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
> University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 530,000,000 BC"
Thomas Paine
In article <JM-200698...@darwin29.dcsi.net>, J...@Time.net (JM) wrote:
>In article <6mcui5$slb$0...@208.231.48.151>, Lo...@commonsense.com (Thomas
>Paine) wrote:
>
>> frustrating to find someone so arrogant, so distorted that even trying to
>> discuss the differences between creationism and evolution is futile.
>>
>> Although I have done a little of it in the past, I do not like to make mean
>> personal comments about another poster.
>>
>> Karl is another story.
>>
>> Never have I seen someone so far out in left field that it would take a
>> lifetime of patient teaching just to get him anywhere near dealing with
>> reality.
>>
>> His arguements are silly, his knowledge of true facts almost non existant,
>> his distortions of reality remind me of drug induced friends trying to drive
>> in rush hour traffic.
>>
>> I would love nothing more than to get into an honest discussion/debate with
>> anyone about creation/evolution.
>> But talking to a blind, dense, corrupt fool is more than I can handle.
>>
>> Get a clue!
>> Get a Brain!
>> Get an Education!
>> Get real!
>
>Actually, the message is to you,one who call himself Thomas Paine.
Karl, I hate to do this to you, but apparently your uniqueness is beaing
threatened by JM.
Compared to him, you might be an Einstein.
>
Robert Gotschall
In article <358ae0b9...@ediacara.org>, ras...@highfiber.com says...
> On 19 Jun 1998 17:30:30, patj...@newsguy.com wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 19 Jun 1998 0:54:03 -0500, Thomas Paine wrote
> >(in message <6mcui5$slb$0...@208.231.48.151>):
> >>
> >> still frustrating to find someone so arrogant, so distorted that even
> >> trying to discuss the differences between creationism and evolution is
> >> futile.
>
> >fun at him. Absolutely _nothing_ gets through his skull.
>
> Let's be fair. Next to Riley Sinder, Karl is rationality incarnate. Next
> to Ed Conrad, Karl is the very soul of Christian tolerance. And, if
> nothing else, at least his intentions are good.
>
> Pity the poor Karlpecker ... but never, ever expect to get any sense
> out of him or into him.
>
> ras...@highfiber.com
>
>
vivid imaginative. He reminds me of that guy on the TV show Cheers, that
finds potatoes that look like famous people. Karl on the other hand,
comes across as something Mr. Bill cooked up in retaliation for our not
paying him enough for using his software.
--
rg
remove spam from email address
Dick
In article <6mi8di$e...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, Hob...@mailexcite.spam.com (Robert Gotschall) wrote:
>>
> He may be deranged, but at least Ed has a sense of humor, and has a
>vivid imaginative. He reminds me of that guy on the TV show Cheers, that
>finds potatoes that look like famous people. Karl on the other hand,
>comes across as something Mr. Bill cooked up in retaliation for our not
............................................^^^^^^^^
>paying him enough for using his software.
When I first read that Mr. Bill I thought you were talking about the
Saturday Night Live clay-mation character.
Are you saying that if we all started buying and using Micro$oft
programs Karl would disappear? I think I will keep with Karl.
Dick (Chris) Craven
University of Ediacara
email: dic...@drizzle.com
Homepage http://www.drizzle.com/~dickcr
david.h...@ffvaerotech.ffv.se
> frustrating to find someone so arrogant, so distorted that even trying to
> discuss the differences between creationism and evolution is futile.
>
> personal comments about another poster.
>
> Karl is another story.
>
> Never have I seen someone so far out in left field that it would take a
> lifetime of patient teaching just to get him anywhere near dealing with
> reality.
>
> His arguements are silly, his knowledge of true facts almost non existant,
> his distortions of reality remind me of drug induced friends trying to drive
> in rush hour traffic.
>
> I would love nothing more than to get into an honest discussion/debate with
> anyone about creation/evolution.
> But talking to a blind, dense, corrupt fool is more than I can handle.
>
> KARL
> Get a clue!
> Get a Brain!
> Get an Education!
> Get real!
>
>
Actually there are many who thinks that he is the most successfull & longest
running troll on t.o. Sometimes when I see another regurgipost or selective
blindness from his side, I start to get the feeling they are right, its hard
to believe somebody is both that stupid and ignorant (but energic at writing
looong stupid posts).
On the other hand, reality check! Its Y.E./flood creationists we are talking
about!
If he is a troll, he certainly did more to discredit creationist "science"
and their followers than anybody else in internet history!
DH.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Jason
E V O - B A B B L E R S, get a clue.
Once again the E V O - B A B B L E R S revert to the tactic of attacking
an opponents character rather than answering his argument. To sum it up in
a word, Ad hominem.
....But then again, when the evolutionist don't have any answers that
really explain evolution this is to be expected.
Or if you like, as an evolutionist you can present ANYTHING and claim a
refute. This way at a later date you can type, "that was already refuted"
and not really have to bother with the real facts concerning the
impossibilities of evilution.
Then again, it is now apparent to me that both the evolutionist and the
ostritch both "evolved" with their heads in the sand.
lets begin,
Instantly the Woodpecker comes to mind...something that really never was
refuted.
**************************
The tongue of an ordinary bird attaches to the back of the birds beak. Not
so with the woodpecker. The woodpeckers complex tongue is so long that
he has to put it somewhere. God in His creation wisdom had a solution,
attach it to his right nostril through the following ingenius method.
The unique complex tongue of the woodpecker is extended by a complex
system which includes a very long hyoid (tongue-base) extensible bone-
sheathed muscle apparatus which help to control the protrusion and
retraction of the tongue. The tongue system splits in two, like a Y,
exits through a hole in the back of the beak. Each half then goes under
the skin on separate sides, up and around the back of his head, where it
is joined together as it passes over his forehead area, then into the
right nostril where it is attached.
Q. what is the evolutionary mechanism that allowed the tongue mechanism
to take such a unique and complex path from the beak to the nostril?
What good was it when it was not complete and fully functional?
***************************
The evolutionist claim....."what you wrote about the tongue is incorrect".
Well sorry fellows, this is certainly not an adequate refute, although you
may think it is. (remember the ostrich?)
First of all, I presented the tongue system and mechanism.
If you checked out my references it would become crystal clear to you that
this is how the tongue systems mechanism works.
Note: 6 of the 9 references were not from creationist material.
....Now, please explain how it could have possibly evolve....in other
words, put up or shut up.
References:
The Birdwatchers Companion. By, Christopher Leahy.
The Lives of Birds. By, Lester L. Short
The Birders Handbook. By, Paul R. Ehrlich, David S. Dobkin and
Darryl Wheye.
Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia
Comptons Interactive Encyclopedia
The World Book Encyclopedia
Creation ex nihilo December 95/Jan 96
It couldnšt just happen by: Lawrence Richards
Unlocking the mysteries of creation by: dennis R. Peterson
Grand Canyon Monument to Catastrophe p159,160 by: Steven Austin Ph.D.
There's more fellows...
Scales to feathers still stump evolutionist....
Scales are basically a fold in the reptiles skin. A skin that molts all at
once in a single unit.
Feathers on the other hand, penetrate well into the skin inside of a sac
called a follical. Birds donšt molt their skin. They molt their feathers
one at a time, reptiles donšt molt individual scales, they molt their skin
all at once or in large sheets at a time. Big differance.
Itšs instantly obvious that a scale has nothing to do with a feather and a
feather as nothing to do with a scale.
Now the tough question that still has not ben explained in scientific
terms NOR demonstrated in the fosil record.
Q)...When, how and why did the folded skin scale turn into a single unit
and develope a follicle, quill, pith, rhachis and barbules? Donšt forget
to explain how the papilla, the artery that nourishes the feather also
evolved.
Come on fellows, I've been waiting a while for the answer to this one.
To date the best answer I've received...go read this book Karl, I really
don't understand what the author is saying, but it must be true. Anyway,
consider the book a refute.
The creationist are still waiting for an answer to how a dead puddle of
GUE was able to evolve into living organic life. This beginnings of the
evolutionary theory is still just a quess. Then again the evolutionist
really never have explained why the fossils found in the Cambrian strata
appear fully complete with complex systems such as eyes YET there is no
ancestral linage leading up to them. ....no transitionals,
And speaking of transitionals, what about the challenge?????Hmmmmm
**********************
Show me a series of fossils that clearly demonstrate the evolution of one
species into another species inwhich the new species is a member of a
different taxonomic rank of Family.
Or (if you don't like taxonomic ranks and your a cladistics fan)
Show me a historical series of fossils that clearly demonstrate the
evolution of one species into another species that shows a detailed common
ancestral phylogenetic link in which the new species has a group of
derived traits which is proceeded by primitive traits.
***********************
Oh that's right, you already presented the evidence. Well atleast you
claimed you did. For you evolutionist that seems good enough.
Perhaps the Talk.Origins FAQ's could present the proper information to
back up their claims of transitionals. It'll take some work, but if they
really do exist it shouldn't be to hard to accomplish.
The Web page would be nice if it included the following information,
- Name of species in the transitional series.
- Country in which each species in the transitional series was found.
- Rock strata, formation etc in which fossils were found.
- Suggested age of fossils and dating technique used. Radiometric, index
fossils?
- A discreption as to why each fossil is considered a transitional. I.E.
Which bone fragments were used in this determination of a transitional.
- Pictures of the transitional.
_ References to each of the above.
A simple list from a book just doesn't cut it fellows. Perhaps for you it
does, but, doesn't that require faith?
It is true that evolution is based upon speculative assumptions and wild
assertions based upon some preconceived bias driven fervent desire to
prove creation incorrect at all cost.
I could continue like this all day long, but I think you get the point.
.....evolution is bogus.....and as demonstrated in this thread all you can
produce is an Ad hominem attack.
may...@andrews.edu
In article <nospam-2206...@maxtnt04-phl-35.fast.net>,
nos...@spam.net (Jason) wrote:
snip
> Instantly the Woodpecker comes to mind...something that really never was
> refuted.
> **************************
> The tongue of an ordinary bird attaches to the back of the birds beak. Not
> so with the woodpecker. The woodpeckers complex tongue is so long that
> he has to put it somewhere. God in His creation wisdom had a solution,
> attach it to his right nostril through the following ingenius method.
> The unique complex tongue of the woodpecker is extended by a complex
> system which includes a very long hyoid (tongue-base) extensible bone-
> sheathed muscle apparatus which help to control the protrusion and
> retraction of the tongue. The tongue system splits in two, like a Y,
> exits through a hole in the back of the beak. Each half then goes under
> the skin on separate sides, up and around the back of his head, where it
> is joined together as it passes over his forehead area, then into the
> right nostril where it is attached.
> Q. what is the evolutionary mechanism that allowed the tongue mechanism
> to take such a unique and complex path from the beak to the nostril?
> What good was it when it was not complete and fully functional?
Why wouldn't it have been fully functional when it was not complete?
> ***************************
> The evolutionist claim....."what you wrote about the tongue is incorrect".
> Well sorry fellows, this is certainly not an adequate refute, although you
> may think it is. (remember the ostrich?)
> First of all, I presented the tongue system and mechanism.
> If you checked out my references it would become crystal clear to you that
> this is how the tongue systems mechanism works.
> Note: 6 of the 9 references were not from creationist material.
> ....Now, please explain how it could have possibly evolve....in other
> words, put up or shut up.
> References:
> The Birdwatchers Companion. By, Christopher Leahy.
> The Lives of Birds. By, Lester L. Short
> The Birders Handbook. By, Paul R. Ehrlich, David S. Dobkin and
> Darryl Wheye.
> Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia
> Comptons Interactive Encyclopedia
> The World Book Encyclopedia
> Creation ex nihilo December 95/Jan 96
> It couldnšt just happen by: Lawrence Richards
> Unlocking the mysteries of creation by: dennis R. Peterson
> Grand Canyon Monument to Catastrophe p159,160 by: Steven Austin Ph.D.
>
> There's more fellows...
>
> Scales to feathers still stump evolutionist....
They do not stump evolutionists.
> Scales are basically a fold in the reptiles skin. A skin that molts all at
> once in a single unit.
> Feathers on the other hand, penetrate well into the skin inside of a sac
> called a follical.
Follicles could have developed after the feathers evolved.
> Birds donšt molt their skin. They molt their feathers
> one at a time, reptiles donšt molt individual scales, they molt their skin
> all at once or in large sheets at a time.
Molting patterns could have changed.
> Big differance.
> Itšs instantly obvious that a scale has nothing to do with a feather and a
> feather as nothing to do with a scale.
It doesn't seem obvious to me; just because they're not similar now doesn't
mean they never were.
> Now the tough question that still has not ben explained in scientific
> terms NOR demonstrated in the fosil record.
> Q)...When, how and why did the folded skin scale turn into a single unit
when: must have been some time during the Mesozoic, since that's when the
fossil record shows that birds came from dinosaurs
how: mutation guided by natural selection
why: probably as a means of insulation, originally, since dinosaurs were
apparently to some degree warm-blooded (and warm-blooded animals need
insulation); then, when flight evolved, they became used for flight as well
> and develope a follicle, quill, pith, rhachis and barbules?
These specialized adaptations for flight must have developed after flight
evolved.
> Donšt forget
> to explain how the papilla, the artery that nourishes the feather also
> evolved.
Why would it have trouble evolving?
> Come on fellows, I've been waiting a while for the answer to this one.
> To date the best answer I've received...go read this book Karl, I really
> don't understand what the author is saying, but it must be true. Anyway,
> consider the book a refute.
>
> The creationist are still waiting for an answer to how a dead puddle of
> GUE was able to evolve into living organic life. This beginnings of the
> evolutionary theory is still just a quess.
True, but the evidence indicates that evolution has in fact occurred, despite
the difficulties with the spontaneous generation of life. Maybe God created
life to begin with, and let it evolve from there.
> Then again the evolutionist
> really never have explained why the fossils found in the Cambrian strata
> appear fully complete with complex systems such as eyes YET there is no
> ancestral linage leading up to them. ....no transitionals,
Since the base of the Cambrian is generally marked by a lot of erosion world-
wide, the rapid of evolution of the invertebrate phyla would not have been
likely to show up in the fossil record. Other transitions, where there hasn't
been as much erosion, are well-documented.
> And speaking of transitionals, what about the challenge?????Hmmmmm
How many times must we refute it before you'll stop posting it?
> **********************
> Show me a series of fossils that clearly demonstrate the evolution of one
> species into another species inwhich the new species is a member of a
> different taxonomic rank of Family.
>
> Or (if you don't like taxonomic ranks and your a cladistics fan)
>
> Show me a historical series of fossils that clearly demonstrate the
> evolution of one species into another species that shows a detailed common
> ancestral phylogenetic link in which the new species has a group of
> derived traits which is proceeded by primitive traits.
> ***********************
> Oh that's right, you already presented the evidence. Well atleast you
> claimed you did. For you evolutionist that seems good enough.
>
> Perhaps the Talk.Origins FAQ's could present the proper information to
> back up their claims of transitionals.
There is such information in the FAQs, but for unexplained reasons, you refuse
to read the FAQs.
> It'll take some work, but if they
> really do exist it shouldn't be to hard to accomplish.
Maybe they should add those things in; it wouldn't be all that difficult. The
fact is, macroevolution has been observed in the fossil record (reptiles
turning into mammals, for example).
> The Web page would be nice if it included the following information,
> - Name of species in the transitional series.
> - Country in which each species in the transitional series was found.
> - Rock strata, formation etc in which fossils were found.
> - Suggested age of fossils and dating technique used. Radiometric, index
> fossils?
> - A discreption as to why each fossil is considered a transitional. I.E.
> Which bone fragments were used in this determination of a transitional.
> - Pictures of the transitional.
> _ References to each of the above.
>
> A simple list from a book just doesn't cut it fellows. Perhaps for you it
> does, but, doesn't that require faith?
It requires faith that the book isn't lying, but accusing someone of lying
does not consitute a good refutation unless there is some reason to believe
that your opponent is lying. You simply cannot explain the transitional forms
that have been presented to you. To me, it takes a lot more faith to believe
that all scientists in the world are lying to you than it does to believe
that they are not lying.
> It is true that evolution is based upon speculative assumptions and wild
> assertions based upon some preconceived bias driven fervent desire to
> prove creation incorrect at all cost.
Geologic, paleontological, and biological data demonstrate that creationism is
false. Emotions have nothing to it.
--vince
karl
In article <6mm8tq$tlr$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, may...@andrews.edu wrote:
maycock, your one line response back with out any backbone doesn't do much
for your cause.
next.
> In article <nospam-2206...@maxtnt04-phl-35.fast.net>,
> nos...@spam.net (Jason) wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > Instantly the Woodpecker comes to mind...something that really never was
> > refuted.
> > **************************
> > The tongue of an ordinary bird attaches to the back of the birds beak. Not
> > so with the woodpecker. The woodpeckers complex tongue is so long that
> > he has to put it somewhere. God in His creation wisdom had a solution,
> > attach it to his right nostril through the following ingenius method.
> > The unique complex tongue of the woodpecker is extended by a complex
> > system which includes a very long hyoid (tongue-base) extensible bone-
> > sheathed muscle apparatus which help to control the protrusion and
> > retraction of the tongue. The tongue system splits in two, like a Y,
> > exits through a hole in the back of the beak. Each half then goes under
> > the skin on separate sides, up and around the back of his head, where it
> > is joined together as it passes over his forehead area, then into the
> > right nostril where it is attached.
> > Q. what is the evolutionary mechanism that allowed the tongue mechanism
> > to take such a unique and complex path from the beak to the nostril?
> > What good was it when it was not complete and fully functional?
>
> Why wouldn't it have been fully functional when it was not complete?
Ah, what good was it?
THEN EXPLAIN HOW IT HAPPENED!!!!!!!
>
> > Scales are basically a fold in the reptiles skin. A skin that molts all at
> > once in a single unit.
> > Feathers on the other hand, penetrate well into the skin inside of a sac
> > called a follical.
>
> Follicles could have developed after the feathers evolved.
Why? There needed for the feather to survive.
>
> > Birds donšt molt their skin. They molt their feathers
> > one at a time, reptiles donšt molt individual scales, they molt their skin
> > all at once or in large sheets at a time.
>
> Molting patterns could have changed.
Do you have any evidence or is this ad-hoc?
>
> > Big differance.
> > Itšs instantly obvious that a scale has nothing to do with a feather and a
> > feather as nothing to do with a scale.
>
> It doesn't seem obvious to me; just because they're not similar now doesn't
> mean they never were.
What ever.
>
> > Now the tough question that still has not ben explained in scientific
> > terms NOR demonstrated in the fosil record.
> > Q)...When, how and why did the folded skin scale turn into a single unit
>
> when: must have been some time during the Mesozoic, since that's when the
> fossil record shows that birds came from dinosaurs
>
> how: mutation guided by natural selection
>
> why: probably as a means of insulation, originally, since dinosaurs were
> apparently to some degree warm-blooded (and warm-blooded animals need
> insulation); then, when flight evolved, they became used for flight as well
Nice try.....nothing but pure speculation. NO FACTS PRESENTED.
>
> > and develope a follicle, quill, pith, rhachis and barbules?
>
> These specialized adaptations for flight must have developed after flight
> evolved.
After flight evolved???? You're trolling..right??
>
> > Donšt forget
> > to explain how the papilla, the artery that nourishes the feather also
> > evolved.
>
> Why would it have trouble evolving?
There would be no need for it....unless it had a feather to nourish....and
the feather couldn't evolve...unless it had a follicle. Catch 22.
>
> > Come on fellows, I've been waiting a while for the answer to this one.
> > To date the best answer I've received...go read this book Karl, I really
> > don't understand what the author is saying, but it must be true. Anyway,
> > consider the book a refute.
> >
> > The creationist are still waiting for an answer to how a dead puddle of
> > GUE was able to evolve into living organic life. This beginnings of the
> > evolutionary theory is still just a quess.
>
> True, but the evidence indicates that evolution has in fact occurred, despite
> the difficulties with the spontaneous generation of life. Maybe God created
> life to begin with, and let it evolve from there.
Then God would have told us He used billions of years...NOT 6 DAYS!!!!
>
> > Then again the evolutionist
> > really never have explained why the fossils found in the Cambrian strata
> > appear fully complete with complex systems such as eyes YET there is no
> > ancestral linage leading up to them. ....no transitionals,
>
> Since the base of the Cambrian is generally marked by a lot of erosion world-
> wide, the rapid of evolution of the invertebrate phyla would not have been
> likely to show up in the fossil record. Other transitions, where there hasn't
> been as much erosion, are well-documented.
Well documented???????????????? please present your facts.
>
> > And speaking of transitionals, what about the challenge?????Hmmmmm
>
> How many times must we refute it before you'll stop posting it?
I'm still waiting for the refuting evidence.
Heck, if you had such great evidence the school science text books would
be full of them. The only thing the print is the refuted stories of the
whale and the horse.....But then again, you say it's well documented.
>
> > **********************
> > Show me a series of fossils that clearly demonstrate the evolution of one
> > species into another species inwhich the new species is a member of a
> > different taxonomic rank of Family.
> >
> > Or (if you don't like taxonomic ranks and your a cladistics fan)
> >
> > Show me a historical series of fossils that clearly demonstrate the
> > evolution of one species into another species that shows a detailed common
> > ancestral phylogenetic link in which the new species has a group of
> > derived traits which is proceeded by primitive traits.
> > ***********************
> > Oh that's right, you already presented the evidence. Well atleast you
> > claimed you did. For you evolutionist that seems good enough.
> >
> > Perhaps the Talk.Origins FAQ's could present the proper information to
> > back up their claims of transitionals.
>
> There is such information in the FAQs, but for unexplained reasons, you refuse
> to read the FAQs.
>
> > It'll take some work, but if they
> > really do exist it shouldn't be to hard to accomplish.
>
> Maybe they should add those things in; it wouldn't be all that difficult. The
> fact is, macroevolution has been observed in the fossil record (reptiles
> turning into mammals, for example).
THEN DEMONSTRATE IT. I'm tired of your refuted jawbone rhetoric.
>
> > The Web page would be nice if it included the following information,
> > - Name of species in the transitional series.
> > - Country in which each species in the transitional series was found.
> > - Rock strata, formation etc in which fossils were found.
> > - Suggested age of fossils and dating technique used. Radiometric, index
> > fossils?
> > - A discreption as to why each fossil is considered a transitional. I.E.
> > Which bone fragments were used in this determination of a transitional.
> > - Pictures of the transitional.
> > _ References to each of the above.
> >
> > A simple list from a book just doesn't cut it fellows. Perhaps for you it
> > does, but, doesn't that require faith?
>
> It requires faith that the book isn't lying, but accusing someone of lying
> does not consitute a good refutation unless there is some reason to believe
> that your opponent is lying. You simply cannot explain the transitional forms
> that have been presented to you. To me, it takes a lot more faith to believe
> that all scientists in the world are lying to you than it does to believe
> that they are not lying.
Yup, and at one time all of the scientist thought the world was flat or
leaches could suck out disease. ...Your point was???
>
> > It is true that evolution is based upon speculative assumptions and wild
> > assertions based upon some preconceived bias driven fervent desire to
> > prove creation incorrect at all cost.
>
> Geologic, paleontological, and biological data demonstrate that creationism is
> false. Emotions have nothing to it.
how has it demonstrated that creationist are wrong? Why do you continue
making this claim but never back yourself up?????
Thomas Paine
>
>Once again the E V O - B A B B L E R S revert to the tactic of attacking
>an opponents character rather than answering his argument. To sum it up in
>a word, Ad hominem.
KARL is one of the worst babblers this TO has ever seen.
There are no answers to his arguements because he makes the most outlandish
statements & opinions, asserted as fact, and offers no evidence that any of
his statements are true. Even when asked (occasionally politely - occasionally
not); Karl avoids direct responses by such stupid means as "prove me wrong".
We only attack Karls character because he has none. He is a constant liar, he
has very little, if any knowledge of science, his comments are more of a
brainwashed manequin than a thinking person etc. etc.etc.
ANY scientist will respond respectfully to a post IF the post is presented in
a mature manner.
Karls posts are a joke...and so is Karl.
>
>.....But then again, when the evolutionist don't have any answers that
>really explain evolution this is to be expected.
There are dozens of answers here every day.....obviously you either don't read
them, or ignore them intentionally.
> creationist
>Or if you like, as a**************** you can present ANYTHING and claim a
>refute. This way at a later date you can type, "that was already refuted"
>and not really have to bother with the real facts concerning the
>impossibilities of evilution.
That's all scientists bother with, real facts. It's the idiotic fundies that
wouldn't recognize the truth if it slapped them in the face.
>Then again, it is now apparent to me that both the evolutionist and the
>ostritch both "evolved" with their heads in the sand.
What was it you just said about attacking a persons character?
Or is that how "Christ" taught you to respond?
>
>lets begin,
>Instantly the Woodpecker comes to mind...something that really never was
>refuted.
>**************************
>The tongue of an ordinary bird attaches to the back of the birds beak. Not
>so with the woodpecker. The woodpeckers complex tongue is so long that
>he has to put it somewhere. God in His creation wisdom had a solution,
>attach it to his right nostril through the following ingenius method.
> The unique complex tongue of the woodpecker is extended by a complex
>system which includes a very long hyoid (tongue-base) extensible bone-
>sheathed muscle apparatus which help to control the protrusion and
>retraction of the tongue. The tongue system splits in two, like a Y,
>exits through a hole in the back of the beak. Each half then goes under
>the skin on separate sides, up and around the back of his head, where it
>is joined together as it passes over his forehead area, then into the
>right nostril where it is attached.
Great detail...but useless. All you've said is that there is something complex
at work here. Take a look at any living thing, and you'll find similarly
complex systems at work.
Now, how about bridging the gap between - "This is complex" and "Therefore
there must be a god that created it".
And, if you notice, there isn't an insult or jibe in any one of these
statements/questions. So I expect, in return, a responsible answer that has
some REAL evidence, facts, or proof of your conclusions.
> Q. what is the evolutionary mechanism that allowed the tongue mechanism
>to take such a unique and complex path from the beak to the nostril?
> What good was it when it was not complete and fully functional?
That asks for more detail than I know...but let me ask this.....
even assuming there isn't a clear cut, satifactory (to you) scientific
explanation for your question......how does that do anything to prove "God did
it"?
>***************************
>The evolutionist claim....."what you wrote about the tongue is incorrect".
>Well sorry fellows, this is certainly not an adequate refute, although you
>may think it is. (remember the ostrich?)
>First of all, I presented the tongue system and mechanism.
>If you checked out my references it would become crystal clear to you that
>this is how the tongue systems mechanism works.
>Note: 6 of the 9 references were not from creationist material.
Don't know any of the books listed, but I would bet that the scientific books
tell you that it happens...and the ICR books either lie and attack evolution
or just answer "God did it".
>.....Now, please explain how it could have possibly evolve....in other
>words, put up or shut up.
And you..put up or shut up as to how any of this proves your interpretatin of
creation.
>References:
>The Birdwatchers Companion. By, Christopher Leahy.
>The Lives of Birds. By, Lester L. Short
>The Birders Handbook. By, Paul R. Ehrlich, David S. Dobkin and
>Darryl Wheye.
>Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia
>Comptons Interactive Encyclopedia
>The World Book Encyclopedia
>Creation ex nihilo December 95/Jan 96
>It couldnšt just happen by: Lawrence Richards
>Unlocking the mysteries of creation by: dennis R. Peterson
>Grand Canyon Monument to Catastrophe p159,160 by: Steven Austin Ph.D.
>
>
>There's more fellows...
>
>Scales to feathers still stump evolutionist....
Just from what I read in TO...not as much as you would like to think.
>
>Scales are basically a fold in the reptiles skin. A skin that molts all at
>once in a single unit.
>Feathers on the other hand, penetrate well into the skin inside of a sac
>called a follical. Birds donšt molt their skin. They molt their feathers
>one at a time, reptiles donšt molt individual scales, they molt their skin
>all at once or in large sheets at a time. Big differance.
>Itšs instantly obvious that a scale has nothing to do with a feather and a
>feather as nothing to do with a scale.
>Now the tough question that still has not ben explained in scientific
>terms NOR demonstrated in the fosil record.
>Q)...When, how and why did the folded skin scale turn into a single unit
>and develope a follicle, quill, pith, rhachis and barbules? Donšt forget
>to explain how the papilla, the artery that nourishes the feather also
>evolved.
>
>Come on fellows, I've been waiting a while for the answer to this one.
>To date the best answer I've received...go read this book Karl, I really
>don't understand what the author is saying, but it must be true.
Are you saying that you don't understand the book, or the other poster doesn't
understand it but tells you to read it anyway?
If you don't understand the book, that's one thing.....but if you're accusing
the alledged poster of blindly following a book he doesn't understand, then
you have him confused with a creationist.
Anyway,
>consider the book a refute.
Would you rather have the whole book posted in TO?????
>The creationist are still waiting for an answer to how a dead puddle of
>GUE was able to evolve into living organic life. This beginnings of the
>evolutionary theory is still just a quess.
Tthe answers have not only been given a multitude of times in TO; but many
reference have been made to lab experiments that duplicate the most basic
"chemicals to basic building blocks for organic materials".
Obviously, and this is not intended as a slam, if creationist don't see the
answer it's a result of their own biased blindness...not the absence of facts.
Then again the evolutionist
>really never have explained why the fossils found in the Cambrian strata
>appear fully complete with complex systems such as eyes YET there is no
>ancestral linage leading up to them. ....no transitionals,
The numbers and types of transitionals have already been mentioned several
times...again, if you don't see it....etc.
>
>And speaking of transitionals, what about the challenge?????Hmmmmm
>**********************
>Show me a series of fossils that clearly demonstrate the evolution of one
>species into another species inwhich the new species is a member of a
>different taxonomic rank of Family.
>
>Or (if you don't like taxonomic ranks and your a cladistics fan)
>
>Show me a historical series of fossils that clearly demonstrate the
>evolution of one species into another species that shows a detailed common
>ancestral phylogenetic link in which the new species has a group of
>derived traits which is proceeded by primitive traits.
>***********************
>Oh that's right, you already presented the evidence. Well atleast you
>claimed you did. For you evolutionist that seems good enough.
>
>Perhaps the Talk.Origins FAQ's could present the proper information to
>back up their claims of transitionals. It'll take some work, but if they
>really do exist it shouldn't be to hard to accomplish.
>The Web page would be nice if it included the following information,
This web page would be overcrowded if all the evidence for evolution would be
included...which seems to be what you're asking for.
Not only is that a near impossible task...but useless since you have already
shown that you ignore all the evidence that is already here.
And, yet again, back to what Karl does...it would be nice if some...any
creationist present some REAL evidence about the biblical account of creation
instead of making outlandish, and often foolish, statements and then evading
and ridiculing all the post that ask for proof.
>- Name of species in the transitional series.
>- Country in which each species in the transitional series was found.
>- Rock strata, formation etc in which fossils were found.
>- Suggested age of fossils and dating technique used. Radiometric, index
>fossils?
>- A discreption as to why each fossil is considered a transitional. I.E.
>Which bone fragments were used in this determination of a transitional.
>- Pictures of the transitional.
>_ References to each of the above.
>
>A simple list from a book just doesn't cut it fellows. Perhaps for you it
>does, but, doesn't that require faith?
No. It requires reading something other than the bible and ICR propaganda.
>
>
>It is true that evolution is based upon speculative assumptions and wild
>assertions based upon some preconceived bias driven fervent desire to
>prove creation incorrect at all cost.
And after that insane statement - without any base in reality - you still
expect a mature resoponse?
Evolution is based on evidence, facts, proof, scientific observations, etc.
etc.
Evolutionists don't have (and never have tried) to prove creation wrong.
Creation has never proven itself right!
>
>
>I could continue like this all day long, but I think you get the point.
Yes. You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground!
>......evolution is bogus.....and as demonstrated in this thread all you can
>produce is an Ad hominem attack.
The only thing proven in this thread is that you are blind, biased, ignorant
of reality and arrogant as all hell... ....and happy to be that way for the
rest of your life. You make a Fine creationist!
>
>
roy.altholz
Neither does your regurgipost karl. I'm sorry that you are so lame as to
think otherwise.
karl <nos...@spam.net> wrote in article
<nospam-2206...@maxtnt03-phl-136.fast.net>...
> > > It couldn靖 just happen by: Lawrence Richards
> > > Unlocking the mysteries of creation by: dennis R. Peterson
> > > Grand Canyon Monument to Catastrophe p159,160 by: Steven Austin
Ph.D.
> > >
> > > There's more fellows...
> > >
> > > Scales to feathers still stump evolutionist....
> >
> > They do not stump evolutionists.
>
> THEN EXPLAIN HOW IT HAPPENED!!!!!!!
>
>
> >
> > > Scales are basically a fold in the reptiles skin. A skin that molts
all at
> > > once in a single unit.
> > > Feathers on the other hand, penetrate well into the skin inside of a
sac
> > > called a follical.
> >
> > Follicles could have developed after the feathers evolved.
>
> Why? There needed for the feather to survive.
>
> >
> > > Birds don靖 molt their skin. They molt their feathers
> > > one at a time, reptiles don靖 molt individual scales, they molt their
skin
> > > all at once or in large sheets at a time.
> >
> > Molting patterns could have changed.
>
> Do you have any evidence or is this ad-hoc?
>
> >
> > > Big differance.
> > > It零 instantly obvious that a scale has nothing to do with a feather
> > > Don靖 forget
roy.altholz
Jason <nos...@spam.net> wrote in article
<nospam-2206...@maxtnt04-phl-35.fast.net>...
> E V O - B A B B L E R S, get a clue.
>
> Once again the E V O - B A B B L E R S revert to the tactic of attacking
> an opponents character rather than answering his argument. To sum it up
in
> a word, Ad hominem.
Sort of like you, right karl?
>
> ....But then again, when the evolutionist don't have any answers that
> really explain evolution this is to be expected.
The answers to your questions were provide, you chose to jamb your fingers
in your ears and play with your brain stem rather than objectivly evaluate
them.
>
> Or if you like, as an evolutionist you can present ANYTHING and claim a
> refute.
Or be like karl and just cry "does not!"
> This way at a later date you can type, "that was already refuted"
> and not really have to bother with the real facts concerning the
> impossibilities of evilution.
Or be like karl, and repeatedly post that which *has been refuted* and them
pretend it hasn't. Lying for God and Jesus is Okay!
> Then again, it is now apparent to me that both the evolutionist and the
> ostritch both "evolved" with their heads in the sand.
And I wonder where the creationists heads are. (Hint: "Proctology", and
"Self Examination".)
>
> lets begin,....
[snip regurgipost]
It was answered karl. May 27, 1998, in an article posted by Steven Watson,
in which he posted the following repost of the post that refuted your post,
so since you reposted, allow me to repost the refutiation contained in
Steven Watson's post, written by Chris Brochu:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The web site contains an article by one David Juhasz, which appears to
be the same as one of the "references" given in Karl's standard
regurgipost. I'll save Karl (and everyone else) the trouble. Here,
from my archives, is 1) a response to Karl's woodpecker regurgipost by
Chris Brochu and 2) Karl's absolutely devastating rebuttal:
1)================================================================
From ga...@mail.utexas.edu Thu Jul 11 16:14:04 EDT 1996
Article: 143390 of talk.origins
Path:
bcarh8ab.bnr.ca!bmerhc5e.bnr.ca!bcarh189.bnr.ca!nott!crc-news.doc.ca!news.dr
enet.dnd.ca!news.acsu.buffalo.edu!dsinc!newsfeed.pitt.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!n
ewsgate.duke.edu!newshost.convex.com!cs.utexas.edu!geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!use
net
From: ga...@mail.utexas.edu (chris brochu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: question for ksjj
Date: 11 Jul 1996 01:06:33 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at Austin
Lines: 139
Message-ID: <4s1k2p$8...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
References: <4rul1m$5...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
<ksjj-10079...@abe-ppp316.fast.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: aphelops.paleo.utexas.edu
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.6+
In article <ksjj-10079...@abe-ppp316.fast.net>, ks...@fast.net
(ksjj) says:
>
>
>Poor tactics. to bad your research lacks.
>
Toward the end of your post, you list encyclopedias as your references.
I thus decided to try two other sources - the primary literature and
the woodpeckers themselves.
After drilling a hole in a tree
>the woodpecker sticks his long tongue into the tunnels and then secretes
>a sticky substance from special tongue glands.
These "special tongue glands" are salivary glands. All tetrapods have
them.
Nothing special here, except that the saliva is a bit stickier.
The woodpeckers tongue is so long that he
>has to put it somewhere. God in His creation wisdom had a solution,
>attach it to his right nostril. The woodpecker tongue splits in two,
>like a Y, exits through a hole in the back of the beak. Each half then
>goes under the skin on separate sides, up and around the back of his
>head, where it is joined together as it passes over his forehead area,
>then into the right nostril where it attaches.
The first place I checked was Pough et al.'s Vertebrate Life (3rd Ed.) Not
exactly primary literature, I know, but it was a starting point.
on P. 628:
"The tongue of the green woodpecker, which extracts ants from their tunnels
in the ground, extends four times the length of its beak. The hyoid bones
that support the tongue are elongated and housed in a sheath of muscles
that passes around the outside of the skull and rests in the nasal cavity."
Note: (1) Nothing about the tongue attaching to the nostril; (2) Specific
references to the hyoid, not the tongue, extending around the head. This
reference also includes a picture of a woodpecker tongue, and guess
what! - it doesn't fork or split at all! The hyoid bone, on the other
hand, splits quite deeply. This may sound amazing until you realize that
all advanced tetrapod hyoids split in some way.
This reference also points out that hummingbird hyoids are very similar
to woodpecker hyoids; woodpeckers are thus not as unique as first thought.
Still, this wasn't a primary reference, so I looked further.
G.M. Allen's Birds and their Attributes, p. 85:
"In some species they are of great length, slender and pointed, with
horny barbs at the tip, but none at the base." Note - nothing about
splitting.
"The tongue-bones or hyoids that support the tongue are so long that
instead of being attached at the back of the skull as in most birds, they
are in certain woodpeckers forced to curl over the top of the head and
actually pass over the forehead, coming together at the top, and out
under one nostril into the tip of the beak."
Please note - NOTHING about the tongue actually attaching to the nostril.
Allen specifically states that the HYOID, h-y-o-i-d, is the most
modified element.
Allen also points out that the extent of the hyoid varies from one
woodpecker
to the next.
I would actually argue with Allen on one point - the hyoids actually don't
"attach" to the back of the skull in most birds, but instead have the
corpus (central element) rest against part of the pterygoids.
Although they don't specifically discuss woodpeckers, George and Berger's
Avian Myology has some excellent pictures of bird pharynxes and hyoid
regions, showing that in most or all, the hyoid maintains a pair of back-
projecting processes surrounded by muscles. The woodpecker hyoid owes its
magnificence to an extreme elongation of these posterior processes.
I was still confused about something - what, specifically, did these
authors
mean by "out under one nostril" and the like? Unfortunately, the
illustrations weren't clear enough on that point. So, I went to the
ultimate "primary reference" - some dead woodpeckers. In particular, I
looked at skeletons of Melanerpes erythrocephalus (red-headed woodpecker)
and M. carolinus (red-bellied woodpecker) in the vertebrate paleo lab
here. The red-belly was particularly good because the preparator took
great care to preserve the tongue itself, which absolutely, positively
does not fork, and absolutely, positively does not attach to the nostril.
Basically, the posterior projections (ceratobranchial/epibranchial
elements)
pass back (as they do in all birds), and then over the head. They have to
go somewhere, so they pass into the nostril. They don't actually attach to
the nostril - just pass through it. That's all.
THe extent to which an animal can project its tongue is related (in part)
to the mobility of the hyoid. The extreme length of the cerato/epi
elements
gives the whole hyoid much more "reach."
My references (in no particular order):
Pough, F.H., J.B. Heiser, and W.N. McFarland, 1989. Vertebrate Life
(3rd ed.). MacMillan, New York.
Allen, G.M. 1925. Birds and their Attributes. Marshall Jones,
Francestown, NH.
George, J.C., and A.J. Berger. 1966. Avian Myology. Academic Press,
New York.
Q. what is the
>evolutionary mechanism that allowed the tongue to take such a unique and
>complex path from the beak to the nostril?
Since it doesn't do what you say it does, this is nonsequitur. On the
other hand, the hyoid does some very interesting things. One possible
mechanism is enlargement of the tongue, which can epigenetically lead
to an enlarged base (hyoid).
What good was it when it was
>not complete and fully functional?
It was complete and functional all along. Indeed, the actual size
and extent of the hyoid varies among living woodpeckers.
Furthermore, there is an assemblage of fossil woodpeckers from the Eocene
of Germany (Grube Messel) that might shed some light on early piciform
morphology; from what I understand, they're still under study.
Also, some Eocene fossils have been classified as woodpeckers, but closer
examination makes the identifications much less certain, and some may
be closer to rollers. "Intermediate forms" therefore exist in museum
collections.
chris
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Your post was refuted a long time ago karl, July of '96, to be exact. You
are a liar. That's not an ad hom, just an observation
--
Boikat
"Facts are stupid things."
-- Ronald Reagan
Dave Horn
karl wrote in message ...
>In article <6mm8tq$tlr$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, may...@andrews.edu wrote:
>
>maycock, your one line response back with out
>any backbone doesn't do much for your cause.
One could not ask for a more flagrant example of hypocrisy.
>next.
How 'bout those cichlids, Karl?
[remainder snipped]
may...@andrews.edu
In article <nospam-2206...@maxtnt03-phl-136.fast.net>,
nos...@spam.net (karl) wrote:
>
> In article <6mm8tq$tlr$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, may...@andrews.edu wrote:
>
> maycock, your one line response back with out any backbone doesn't do much
> for your cause.
>
> next.
What are you talking about?
> > In article <nospam-2206...@maxtnt04-phl-35.fast.net>,
> > nos...@spam.net (Jason) wrote:
> >
> > snip
> >
> > > Instantly the Woodpecker comes to mind...something that really never was
> > > refuted.
> > > **************************
> > > The tongue of an ordinary bird attaches to the back of the birds beak. Not
> > > so with the woodpecker. The woodpeckers complex tongue is so long that
> > > he has to put it somewhere. God in His creation wisdom had a solution,
> > > attach it to his right nostril through the following ingenius method.
> > > The unique complex tongue of the woodpecker is extended by a complex
> > > system which includes a very long hyoid (tongue-base) extensible bone-
> > > sheathed muscle apparatus which help to control the protrusion and
> > > retraction of the tongue. The tongue system splits in two, like a Y,
> > > exits through a hole in the back of the beak. Each half then goes under
> > > the skin on separate sides, up and around the back of his head, where it
> > > is joined together as it passes over his forehead area, then into the
> > > right nostril where it is attached.
> > > Q. what is the evolutionary mechanism that allowed the tongue mechanism
> > > to take such a unique and complex path from the beak to the nostril?
> > > What good was it when it was not complete and fully functional?
> >
> > Why wouldn't it have been fully functional when it was not complete?
>
> Ah, what good was it?
It could have been used to catch insects with, in much the same way that frogs
use their tongues.
snip
> > > called a follical.
> >
> > Follicles could have developed after the feathers evolved.
>
> Why? There needed for the feather to survive.
They are not needed; feathers could be attatched to the skin without a
follicle.
> >
> > > Birds donšt molt their skin. They molt their feathers
> > > one at a time, reptiles donšt molt individual scales, they molt their skin
> > > all at once or in large sheets at a time.
> >
> > Molting patterns could have changed.
>
> Do you have any evidence or is this ad-hoc?
Is there any reason to believe they could not have changed?
> >
> > > Big differance.
> > > Itšs instantly obvious that a scale has nothing to do with a feather and a
> > > feather as nothing to do with a scale.
> >
> > It doesn't seem obvious to me; just because they're not similar now doesn't
> > mean they never were.
>
> What ever.
It appears that feathers evolved from scales.
> >
> > > Now the tough question that still has not ben explained in scientific
> > > terms NOR demonstrated in the fosil record.
> > > Q)...When, how and why did the folded skin scale turn into a single unit
> >
> > when: must have been some time during the Mesozoic, since that's when the
> > fossil record shows that birds came from dinosaurs
> >
> > how: mutation guided by natural selection
> >
> > why: probably as a means of insulation, originally, since dinosaurs were
> > apparently to some degree warm-blooded (and warm-blooded animals need
> > insulation); then, when flight evolved, they became used for flight as well
>
> Nice try.....nothing but pure speculation. NO FACTS PRESENTED.
How do you know it didn't happen?
> > > and develope a follicle, quill, pith, rhachis and barbules?
> >
> > These specialized adaptations for flight must have developed after flight
> > evolved.
>
> After flight evolved???? You're trolling..right??
No. Why couldn't they have evolved after flight?
> >
> > > Donšt forget
> > > to explain how the papilla, the artery that nourishes the feather also
> > > evolved.
> >
> > Why would it have trouble evolving?
>
> There would be no need for it....unless it had a feather to nourish....and
> the feather couldn't evolve...unless it had a follicle. Catch 22.
Um...Karl, maybe the artery was nourishing something other than a feather, in
the days before it nourished the feather.
> >
> > > Come on fellows, I've been waiting a while for the answer to this one.
> > > To date the best answer I've received...go read this book Karl, I really
> > > don't understand what the author is saying, but it must be true. Anyway,
> > > consider the book a refute.
> > >
> > > The creationist are still waiting for an answer to how a dead puddle of
> > > GUE was able to evolve into living organic life. This beginnings of the
> > > evolutionary theory is still just a quess.
> >
> > True, but the evidence indicates that evolution has in fact occurred,
despite
> > the difficulties with the spontaneous generation of life. Maybe God created
> > life to begin with, and let it evolve from there.
>
> Then God would have told us He used billions of years...NOT 6 DAYS!!!!
God told us that he used billions of years, very clearly. It's called the
science of geology. Geologic data show that the creation story must have been
a metaphor or parable.
> >
> > > Then again the evolutionist
> > > really never have explained why the fossils found in the Cambrian strata
> > > appear fully complete with complex systems such as eyes YET there is no
> > > ancestral linage leading up to them. ....no transitionals,
> >
> > Since the base of the Cambrian is generally marked by a lot of erosion
world-
> > wide, the rapid of evolution of the invertebrate phyla would not have been
> > likely to show up in the fossil record. Other transitions, where there
hasn't
> > been as much erosion, are well-documented.
>
> Well documented???????????????? please present your facts.
Reptiles have been observed evolving into mammals (the mammal-like reptiles).
> >
> > > And speaking of transitionals, what about the challenge?????Hmmmmm
> >
> > How many times must we refute it before you'll stop posting it?
> I'm still waiting for the refuting evidence.
> Heck, if you had such great evidence the school science text books would
> be full of them.
The science textbooks should include more examples of transitional forms,
you're right. That only means that the textbooks need to be updated and
revised, not that transitional forms don't exist.
> The only thing the print is the refuted stories of the
> whale and the horse.....But then again, you say it's well documented.
Neither the whale or the horse series have been refuted. Both demonstrate
macroevolution.
Also, as I have told you many times before, the reptiles have been observed
changing into mammals in the fossil record.
> > > **********************
> > > Show me a series of fossils that clearly demonstrate the evolution of one
> > > species into another species inwhich the new species is a member of a
> > > different taxonomic rank of Family.
> > >
> > > Or (if you don't like taxonomic ranks and your a cladistics fan)
> > >
> > > Show me a historical series of fossils that clearly demonstrate the
> > > evolution of one species into another species that shows a detailed common
> > > ancestral phylogenetic link in which the new species has a group of
> > > derived traits which is proceeded by primitive traits.
> > > ***********************
> > > Oh that's right, you already presented the evidence. Well atleast you
> > > claimed you did. For you evolutionist that seems good enough.
> > >
> > > Perhaps the Talk.Origins FAQ's could present the proper information to
> > > back up their claims of transitionals.
> >
> > There is such information in the FAQs, but for unexplained reasons, you
refuse
> > to read the FAQs.
> >
> > > It'll take some work, but if they
> > > really do exist it shouldn't be to hard to accomplish.
> >
> > Maybe they should add those things in; it wouldn't be all that difficult.
The
> > fact is, macroevolution has been observed in the fossil record (reptiles
> > turning into mammals, for example).
>
> THEN DEMONSTRATE IT. I'm tired of your refuted jawbone rhetoric.
>
I have demonstrated it; I told you the names of the jawbones, why they
diminished, and what became of them. I also showed that you would be unable to
reproduce this result with "dog skulls." You were utterly unable to deal with
the evidence, so you left for a few days, hoping that people would forget that
you had failed.
> > > The Web page would be nice if it included the following information,
> > > - Name of species in the transitional series.
> > > - Country in which each species in the transitional series was found.
> > > - Rock strata, formation etc in which fossils were found.
> > > - Suggested age of fossils and dating technique used. Radiometric, index
> > > fossils?
> > > - A discreption as to why each fossil is considered a transitional. I.E.
> > > Which bone fragments were used in this determination of a transitional.
> > > - Pictures of the transitional.
> > > _ References to each of the above.
> > >
> > > A simple list from a book just doesn't cut it fellows. Perhaps for you it
> > > does, but, doesn't that require faith?
> >
> > It requires faith that the book isn't lying, but accusing someone of lying
> > does not consitute a good refutation unless there is some reason to believe
> > that your opponent is lying. You simply cannot explain the transitional
forms
> > that have been presented to you. To me, it takes a lot more faith to believe
> > that all scientists in the world are lying to you than it does to believe
> > that they are not lying.
>
> Yup, and at one time all of the scientist thought the world was flat or
> leaches could suck out disease. ...Your point was???
So you admit that science has discovered transitional forms? You seem to be
saying that science has discovered transitional forms, but that the
discoveries of science might be overturned in the future.
> > > It is true that evolution is based upon speculative assumptions and wild
> > > assertions based upon some preconceived bias driven fervent desire to
> > > prove creation incorrect at all cost.
> >
> > Geologic, paleontological, and biological data demonstrate that creationism
is
> > false. Emotions have nothing to it.
>
> how has it demonstrated that creationist are wrong? Why do you continue
> making this claim but never back yourself up?????
Geologic data disprove creationism because plate tectonics theory could not
be fitted into 6,000 years. A worldwide flood could not have produced the
geologic column, because the characteristics of the sediments are not similar
to those produced by a flood.
Paleontological data disprove creationism because transitional forms (like
the mammal-like reptiles) have been found, and because a world-wide flood
could not produce the tremendous amount of order found in the fossil record
(but the evolutionary history of life could easily produce this order).
Biological data disprove creationism because genetic mistakes called
"pseudogenes" show that macroevolution has occurred. Similarities between
different genes strongly imply that evolution has occurred (unless you are
very biased and refuse to admit that the similarities imply evolution).
Robert Gotschall
In article <1998062115...@drizzle.com>, foo.d...@drizzle.com
says...
Actually I heard on the radio that He is now worth fifty billion dollars
U.S. then I did a file save and was informed that this was an illegal
action by His fifty billion dollar U.S. software. Pondering this I asked
myself:
Self, where have I encountered logic like that before?
Answer: Karl.
I then took my medication and am feeling much better.
thank you.
--
rg
"Look, your worship," said Sancho; "what we see there are not giants
but windmills...."
Cervantes
Thomas Paine
I wonder, seeing other creationists posts like this one, if, in their
assumptions, they are forgetting that it is not just the tongue that evolves,
but it is the whole bird. Sometimes it sounds like they are painting a picture
of a fully developed bird...and then can't see how the tongue can evolve
inside it.
Mr. M.J. Smith
In article <nospam-2206...@maxtnt04-phl-35.fast.net>,
Jason <nos...@spam.net> wrote:
<snip>
>Instantly the Woodpecker comes to mind...something that really never was
>refuted.
>**************************
>The tongue of an ordinary bird attaches to the back of the birds beak. Not
>so with the woodpecker.
Wrong. The tongue of an "ordinary bird" attaches to it's hyoid bone.
>The woodpeckers complex tongue is so long that he has to put it somewhere.
>God in His creation wisdom had a solution, attach it to his right nostril
>through the following ingenius method.
Wrong. The woodpecker's tongue is attached to it's hyoid bone. Just like
an "ordinary bird".
>The unique complex tongue of the woodpecker is extended by a complex
>system which includes a very long hyoid (tongue-base) extensible bone-
>sheathed muscle apparatus which help to control the protrusion and
>retraction of the tongue. The tongue system splits in two, like a Y,
>exits through a hole in the back of the beak. Each half then goes under
>the skin on separate sides, up and around the back of his head, where it
>is joined together as it passes over his forehead area, then into the
>right nostril ...
i.e., the hyoid apparatus; woodpeckers have them, "ordinary birds" have
them, extinct dinosaurs had them, modern reptiles have them, humans have
them. Big deal karl, all vertebrates have a hyoid apparatus, though the
morphology of each specific one differs. Why is this change in morphology
not amenable to 'micro-evolution'?
> ... where it is attached.
The hyoid horns, which rest in the right nostril of some species of
woodpecker, are certainly *not* attached there. If they were, the tongue
(which attaches to the *other* end of the hyoid, remember?) would not be
able to protrude.
> Q. what is the evolutionary mechanism that allowed the tongue mechanism
>to take such a unique and complex path from the beak to the nostril?
Selection acting on genetic variation of hyoid morphology.
> What good was it when it was not complete and fully functional?
It never "was not complete and fully functional". Why do you suppose it
was? It *always* functioned as a tongue.
>***************************
>The evolutionist claim....."what you wrote about the tongue is incorrect".
>Well sorry fellows, this is certainly not an adequate refute, although you
>may think it is. (remember the ostrich?)
>First of all, I presented the tongue system and mechanism.
>If you checked out my references it would become crystal clear to you that
>this is how the tongue systems mechanism works.
>Note: 6 of the 9 references were not from creationist material.
Maybe somebody has a problem with reading comprehension?
>....Now, please explain how it could have possibly evolve....in other
>words, put up or shut up.
But Karl, *you* claimed that parts of the woodpecker evolved. You've
never been specific about these parts; until you "put up" about these
claims, just maybe you are the one who should shut up.
>There's more fellows...
Oh boy ....
<snip>
Martin Smith
Cardiff
Hal Vickery
In article <6mnljt$o0r$a...@208.231.48.168>, Lo...@commonsense.com (Thomas
Paine) wrote:
<snip discussion of woodpeckers to the speculation>
> I wonder, seeing other creationists posts like this one, if, in their
> assumptions, they are forgetting that it is not just the tongue that
> evolves, but it is the whole bird. Sometimes it sounds like they are
> painting a picture of a fully developed bird...and then can't see how
> the tongue can evolve inside it.
In Karl's case, he knows woodpeckers didn't evolve because every cartoon
with Woody in it has Walter Lantz's (God's) signature on it.
To be serious, I don't think creationists do much thinking. They have the
ICR do their thinking for them. If the ICR can come up with some
creatio-babble that sounds impressive, they buy into it because it defends
their version of the Bible. I've only been here about six months, and I
see the same old arguments from the creationist side anytime a new one
joins the group with an "evolution can't be true" post. Those arguments
are rehashes of stuff from the ICR and similar organizations.
I even have a hypothesis as to why this is true. Creationists see the
world in black and white. Therefore, they must have an inerrant Bible with
no internal contradictions. It must come from God. Since their pastor
professes these beliefs, the pastor, as authority figure, must be right and
good. Since the IRC-types profess to be God-fearing, Bible-believing
Christians, anything they say must be good. On the other hand, anyone who
challenges their beliefs must be evil.
This fits in nicely, I think, with their ploy that the evil secular world
out there has it's own "relgion" of "Evolutionism." Most of them believe
in the authority of God, the Bible, and their pastor's interpretation of
the Bible. Have you ever noticed how the "evolutionist" side here is
accused of accepting evolution as a matter of faith without questioning its
basic tenets? The reason appears to me to be quite simple.
Creationist/fundamentalists see the world in black and white, and accept
the authority of the Bible, the pastor, the ICR, etc. and cannot dream how
anyone else doesn't look at things in the same way.
I offer the following in support of the anti-evolution types needing
someone in authority telling them what to believe. This is strictly
anecdotal, so I have no numbers to back it up, but there seem to be a lot
of former Roman Catholics who end up in the same churches that the ICR
appeals to. I can't count how many times when guests on "religious talk
shows" give their testimony, they start by saying, "I grew up Catholic, but
there was something missing."
Well, one thing that is missing, at least in the past 35 years or so in the
Catholic Church, is Father or Sister telling you that you must do things
exactly this way in order to go to heaven. Dissent on issues such as birth
control and abortion is now out in the open. The authority is being
challenged. Well, where is a good Catholic who depends on being told what
to do go? To the churches which speak with authority, of course. (There
are other advantages to these churches to, such as not having to tell
Father exactly how many times you touched yourself in the past week, etc.
You're just automatically saved and you don't have to confess anything to
anybody. But I digress.)
As I said, this is only a hypothesis, but I think if you look at the posts
here, you'll see the pattern I'm referring to.
H. Vickery
Dirk
Karl's posts are funny. Just last night he had me laughing. I sort of enjoy
watching him vainly struggle to validate his conception of reality . . .
Splifford
> Karl's posts are funny. Just last night he had me laughing. I sort of enjoy
> watching him vainly struggle to validate his conception of reality . . .
Karl _can't_ do that. Anything even approaching that would require the use
of an actual functioning brain, and Karl either never had one or had his
surgically removed when he became a fundie.
--
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive
ignorance with incredible arrogance.
Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A
person incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible
true believer.
wf...@enter.netxx
On 22 Jun 1998 10:32:52 -0400, nos...@spam.net (Jason) wrote:
>E V O - B A B B L E R S, get a clue.
>
i am a PROUD evo-babbler!!! in fact im a charter member, as well as a
member of the evolutionist GOON squad invented by the CORRECTOR!! so
fire away creationist!
>Once again the E V O - B A B B L E R S revert to the tactic of attacking
>an opponents character rather than answering his argument. To sum it up in
>a word, Ad hominem.
gee im disappointed. i expected better. karl just finished posting a
little note about how all atheists are liars and here you are
complaining about ad hominem arguments??
wimp.
>**********************
>Show me a series of fossils that clearly demonstrate the evolution of one
>species into another species inwhich the new species is a member of a
>different taxonomic rank of Family.
how about speciation in our time? between 1964 and 1992, a species of
polychaete, N. Acuminata, was actually observed to undergo
speciation...a claim creationists say is impossible. N. Acuminata's
taken from los angeles in 1964, and grown at woods hole, MA were
unable to produce viable offspring by 1992 with N Acuminatas from
recent samples in LA (cf icarus.uic.ecu/~vultec/cefec.html#4.10)
>
>Oh that's right, you already presented the evidence. Well atleast you
>claimed you did. For you evolutionist that seems good enough.
of course you wont accept what was presented above...observed
speciation in 30 yrs...because the bible forbids it.
>
>Perhaps the Talk.Origins FAQ's could present the proper information to
>back up their claims of transitionals. It'll take some work, but if they
>really do exist it shouldn't be to hard to accomplish.
>The Web page would be nice if it included the following information,
>- Name of species in the transitional series.
>- Country in which each species in the transitional series was found.
>- Rock strata, formation etc in which fossils were found.
>- Suggested age of fossils and dating technique used. Radiometric, index
>fossils?
see the above web page (minus the #4.10) for a complete set of answers
to karl's bizarre questions. the cite was named 'site of the day' by
'new scientist' magazine in april, 1996.
>
>It is true that evolution is based upon speculative assumptions and wild
>assertions based upon some preconceived bias driven fervent desire to
>prove creation incorrect at all cost.
really? observed events are speculative?
ok karl...
where can we see a creation event?
if THATS not speculation, what is?
roy.altholz
wf...@enter.netxx wrote in article <359058ec....@news3.enter.net>...
> On 22 Jun 1998 10:32:52 -0400, nos...@spam.net (Jason) wrote:
>
> >E V O - B A B B L E R S, get a clue.
> >
>
> i am a PROUD evo-babbler!!! in fact im a charter member, as well as a
> member of the evolutionist GOON squad invented by the CORRECTOR!! so
> fire away creationist!
>
> >Once again the E V O - B A B B L E R S revert to the tactic of attacking
> >an opponents character rather than answering his argument. To sum it up
in
> >a word, Ad hominem.
>
> gee im disappointed. i expected better. karl just finished posting a
> little note about how all atheists are liars and here you are
> complaining about ad hominem arguments??
But it's okay for karl to do that. He's doing it in the name of Gawda!
>
> wimp.
>
> >**********************
> >Show me a series of fossils that clearly demonstrate the evolution of
one
> >species into another species inwhich the new species is a member of a
> >different taxonomic rank of Family.
>
> how about speciation in our time? between 1964 and 1992, a species of
> polychaete, N. Acuminata, was actually observed to undergo
> speciation...a claim creationists say is impossible. N. Acuminata's
> taken from los angeles in 1964, and grown at woods hole, MA were
> unable to produce viable offspring by 1992 with N Acuminatas from
> recent samples in LA (cf icarus.uic.ecu/~vultec/cefec.html#4.10)
>
> >
> >Oh that's right, you already presented the evidence. Well atleast you
> >claimed you did. For you evolutionist that seems good enough.
>
> of course you wont accept what was presented above...observed
> speciation in 30 yrs...because the bible forbids it.
>
> >
> >Perhaps the Talk.Origins FAQ's could present the proper information to
> >back up their claims of transitionals. It'll take some work, but if they
> >really do exist it shouldn't be to hard to accomplish.
> >The Web page would be nice if it included the following information,
> >- Name of species in the transitional series.
> >- Country in which each species in the transitional series was found.
> >- Rock strata, formation etc in which fossils were found.
> >- Suggested age of fossils and dating technique used. Radiometric, index
> >fossils?
>
> see the above web page (minus the #4.10) for a complete set of answers
> to karl's bizarre questions. the cite was named 'site of the day' by
> 'new scientist' magazine in april, 1996.
I tried, and could not get a site. Could you post the entire URL please?
>
> >
> >It is true that evolution is based upon speculative assumptions and
wild
> >assertions based upon some preconceived bias driven fervent desire to
> >prove creation incorrect at all cost.
>
wf...@enter.netxx
On 23 Jun 1998 22:25:20 -0400, "roy.altholz"
<Felis....@MCI2000.com> wrote:
>
>
>wf...@enter.netxx wrote in article <359058ec....@news3.enter.net>...
>>
>> i am a PROUD evo-babbler!!! in fact im a charter member, as well as a
>> member of the evolutionist GOON squad invented by the CORRECTOR!! so
>> fire away creationist!
>>
>>
>> gee im disappointed. i expected better. karl just finished posting a
>> little note about how all atheists are liars and here you are
>> complaining about ad hominem arguments??
>
>But it's okay for karl to do that. He's doing it in the name of Gawda!
>
>>
>>
>> see the above web page (minus the #4.10) for a complete set of answers
>> to karl's bizarre questions. the cite was named 'site of the day' by
>> 'new scientist' magazine in april, 1996.
>
>I tried, and could not get a site. Could you post the entire URL please?
sure...this is as ive tried it...
icarus.uic.edu/~vultec/cefec.html
try that one
Thomas Paine
>Paine) wrote:
>
><snip discussion of woodpeckers to the speculation>
>
>> assumptions, they are forgetting that it is not just the tongue that
>> evolves, but it is the whole bird. Sometimes it sounds like they are
>> painting a picture of a fully developed bird...and then can't see how
>> the tongue can evolve inside it.
>
I couldn't help but question why some (not all) people would re-enlist into an
army that, to me, was insane...and we ALL bitched about while we were in
there.
The very general answer was that some people could not handle life, thinking,
individual reponsibility etc on their own..and needed the army to run their
lives (and thoughts) for them.
Another thing..some of these same people had the same attitudes and actions as
fundamentalists when arguing for the army against those who questioned it.
Raven
In article <359058ec....@news3.enter.net>, wf...@enter.netxx says...
> >
>
> member of the evolutionist GOON squad invented by the CORRECTOR!! so
> fire away creationist!
I miss being called a howler monkey. :(
Ted, where are you?! ;)
----------------------------
Steve "Chris" Price
Associate Professor of Computational Aesthetics
Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 530,000,000 BC"
ra...@kaiwan.com (discontinue in June 1998)
OR
cem...@sprintmail.com
Wayne B. Hewitt
>Karl's posts are funny. Just last night he had me laughing. I sort of enjoy
>watching him vainly struggle to validate his conception of reality . . .
Reality? Wow, what a concept!
--
________________________B_a_r_b_a_r_o_s_s_a_____________________;^{>
Caution! Use MoJo Reply Power! M-T NewsWatcher 2.4.4 &
Remove the Evil Spirits from: 'Saving Face' Header Icon Maker
<whe...@badjuju.ucsd.edu> Courtesy of Simon Fraser:
Delete the badjuju. to reply. <http://www.santafe.edu/~smfr>
Dirk
Splifford wrote in message ...
>In article <6modvu$a...@enews3.newsguy.com>, "Dirk" <di...@praxis.net>
wrote:
>
>> Karl's posts are funny. Just last night he had me laughing. I sort of
enjoy
>> watching him vainly struggle to validate his conception of reality . . .
>
>Karl _can't_ do that. Anything even approaching that would require the use
>of an actual functioning brain, and Karl either never had one or had his
>surgically removed when he became a fundie.
>
(laughing) - Sounds just about right to me . . . but I still love to see him
try.
Dirk