Evolutionists:Where are the Failures?
Joe Bruno
wrote:
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 13:27:13 -0700 (PDT), coati chulo
> <nasua0nar...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
> >On Apr 18, 7:02 am, Pastor Dave <newsgroup-mail @ tampabay.rr.com>
> >wrote:
> >> On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:30:45 -0700 (PDT), coati chulo
> >> <nasua0nar...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
> >> >On Apr 17, 3:43 am, Pastor Dave <newsgroup-mail @ tampabay.rr.com>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:20:27 -0700 (PDT), coati
> >> >> <nasua0nar...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
> >> >> >> But assuming you're just a nice, honest guy, who really
> >> >> >> doesn't see it and is genuinely asking for help in seeing
> >> >> >> it, I will respond and say that you don't need any detail
> >> >> >> at all to see when something is circular reasoning.
> >> >> >> Person 1 will be "P1" and Person 2 will be "P2":
> >> >> >> P1) I see that rock that you're holding and it has
> >> >> >> some fossils in it. How old are those fossils?
> >> >> >> P2) They are 400 million years old!
> >> >> >> P1) How do you know that?
> >> >> >> P2) By the rock they were found in. This rock.
> >> >> >> P1) But how do you know how old that rock is?
> >> >> >> P2) By the fossils that we found in it.
> >> >> >> Now if you can't see the circular reasoning there,
> >> >> >> then with all due respect, you need to go back
> >> >> >> to school and take some classes. :)
> >> >> > Several centuries of study have demonstrated that
> >> >> > saguaro cacti are found exclusively in the Sonoran
> >> >> > desert, and nowhere else.
> >> >> So is the claim. But that is irrelevant, especially since
> >> >> it does not speak for all fossils everywhere
> >> >It's called an "analogy",
> >> When speaking of proving something scientifically,
> >> an analogy is simply a cop out's way of trying to
> >> avoid that they don't have the proof.
> >And snipping the detailed factual discussion
> >which followed the analogy is simply a cop
> >out's way of trrying to avoid the fact that
> >I indeed did demonstrate that the
> >original premise was not circular.
> >I've heard of "lying for Christ"; it's
> >hardly uncommon. We see it
> >here with depressing frequency.
> >And snipping that to which you are
> >unable to reply is simply one more
> >species of this behavior
> >Coati
> >> --
> >> Pastor Dave
> >> The following is part of my auto-rotating
> >> sig file and not part of the message body.
> >> "A man is too apt to forget that in this world
> >> he cannot have everything. A choice is all
> >> that is left him." - H. Mathews
> Notice folks, it always degenerates to evolutionists attacking
> and we never see the supposed "proof" of evolution.
> All they might ever post, is bait and switch. Examples
> of flowers from flowers, for example, as proof that
> particles to people is true. Please! <chuckle>
> Goodbye sir! I have no need to waste time arguing
> with people who are all about hate and claim that's
> "science". (:
I am not a creationist, Dave. However, I do have doubts about the
certainty of evolution based on logic and common sense.
I have no personal explanation of what they find in the rocks, but I
do have doubts about the theories insisted on by the evolutionists.
The theory of evolution is too simplistic for me to explain such a
complex set of facts.
It all happened by chance thru random mutations?????? What caused
these mutations?Isn't it convenient that all the mutations (of all
the
millions that were possible) happened in just the right direction to
produce all these complex organisms that have so many features and so
many techniques for survival?
Natural selection made the choice?
Where are the fossils of the animals whose mutations didn't allow
them
to last very long?
Where are all the bad mutations that failed?
Don't show me fossils of trilobites. They lasted millions of years. I
want to see the fossils of the animals that didn't last
even 1,000 years. I want to see the failures.If what the evos say is
true, their remains should be preserved somewhere.
There is a gap in the evidence. Until it is filled, I will continue
to
doubt.
richardal...@googlemail.com
No, there is a gap in your knowledge, which is easy to fill if you
bother to educate yourself.
If you won't educate yourself it's your problem, not a problem for
evolutionary biology.
RF
Burkhard
You mean like Down syndrome? Or any other of the known genetic
diseases? We can see them all around us, do you doubt they exist?
el cid
There are some simple retorts, such as the observation
that more defective variants exist in smaller proportion
to better variants. This means that, even though we get
the occasional two headed snake, they are so rare that
we don't expect to find a fossil of one.
But while true, this argument supports a flawed contention
in your question. That flawed contention is that the species
you observe today or in fossils are not flawed.
Humans, for example, have a very flawed mechanism
for separating intake to the stomach and intake into
the lungs. Ever take a drink and 'have something go
down the wrong way'? It's a horrible design but you
can survive with it. Stroke victims, however, often
huge problems with microaspiration with pneumonia
being a common cause of death for stroke victims
due to the increase in fluids that _went down the
wrong way_.
So again, it's mistaken to think that the organisms
one observes aren't defective.
There's also the incorrect notion (that I've helped
support here in the two headed snake comment),
that "mutation" in the relevant evolutionary context
is readily mapped as some morphological anomaly
matched to a genetic event.
One would hope that even a high school level
education in biology would allow one to have
a better concept of the actual science of evolution
but sadly that doesn't seem to be the case in
much of the US (biology isn't even required in
many high schools). Rather, I would say that
the level of understanding of evolution reflected
in the original post is consistent with that one
would likely find in a morning TV news personality.
On the positive side, anyone with an IQ over 85
can reasonably hope to do much better with very
modest independent reading.
Joe Bruno
That's a human disease. I ask again:Where are the fossils of the
animals that failed?
Humans have only been on Earth for maybe 50,000 years. That's a drop
in the bucket compared to the age of the earth and the beginning of
life.If what you say is true, the animal kingdom must have had lots of
failures before humans even came around and could get Down's Syndrome.
Show me the fossils of the defective prehistoric fish and birds.
Not the Pterodactyl. They lasted a long time. Who failed before they
were advanced enough to survive?
The mutations were RANDOM. That means alot and alot and alot of them
FAILED.
Where are the lots and lots and lots?
>
>
>
Mike Dworetsky
.....
>
> I am not a creationist, Dave. However, I do have doubts about the
> certainty of evolution based on logic and common sense.
> I have no personal explanation of what they find in the rocks, but I
> do have doubts about the theories insisted on by the evolutionists.
> The theory of evolution is too simplistic for me to explain such a
> complex set of facts.
Please note that personal incredulity is not evidence of anything other than
a lack of education.
> It all happened by chance thru random mutations?????? What caused
> these mutations?Isn't it convenient that all the mutations (of all
> the
> millions that were possible) happened in just the right direction to
> produce all these complex organisms that have so many features and so
> many techniques for survival?
Sigh. You are trying to do battle with a strawman representation of
evolution, not with the actual theory of evolution.
The effects of mutations are not random.
Mutations have many causes, including transcription errors, insertion of
virus genetic code sequences, radiation-induced changes, and
chemically-induced changes.
Most mutations are "bad" but some are good. Even if only a tiny fraction
are good, the bad ones die out and the good ones are passed on.
> Natural selection made the choice?
>
Yes. Imagine an organism with numerous offspring. The main predator is a
very fast critter that chases down the little offspring and eats them for
lunch. The offspring have a variety of inherited abilities for, say, speed.
Of all the offspring, the chances are that the faster ones will survive to
reproduce. Hence, over time, even if the selective pressure is slight in
each generation, the descendants will be faster and faster.
> Where are the fossils of the animals whose mutations didn't allow
> them
> to last very long?
> Where are all the bad mutations that failed?
>
>
> Don't show me fossils of trilobites. They lasted millions of years. I
> want to see the fossils of the animals that didn't last
> even 1,000 years. I want to see the failures.If what the evos say is
> true, their remains should be preserved somewhere.
>
Why? No one expects to see fossils of species that only last a short time.
Fossilisation is a rare event, especially for land animals or soft-bodied
sea creatures.
And a species that only lasts 1,000 years would probably look so much like
its ancestor species (in fossil form) that we would be hard pressed to tell
the difference.
>
> There is a gap in the evidence. Until it is filled, I will continue
> to
> doubt.
Your choice, but a poor one.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
bpuharic
<ser...@russiamail.com> wrote:
>
>
>I am not a creationist, Dave. However, I do have doubts about the
>certainty of evolution based on logic and common sense.
>I have no personal explanation of what they find in the rocks, but I
>do have doubts about the theories insisted on by the evolutionists.
>The theory of evolution is too simplistic for me to explain such a
>complex set of facts.
the ol' 'argument from incredulity'. 'i cant believe it so it hasnt
happened that way'.
yes...we've heard that before
>It all happened by chance thru random mutations?????? What caused
>these mutations?Isn't it convenient that all the mutations (of all
>the
read up on the statistical distribution of bond energies in molecules.
it ain't all that complicated. DNA is a molecule. during replication
errors can be made
yes, it's simplistic. but it's a fact
>millions that were possible) happened in just the right direction to
>produce all these complex organisms that have so many features and so
>many techniques for survival?
in the 'right direcction'?
only if you dont count the millions of organizms that died due a
non-functional mutation.
what you SEE when you look at evolution is the winners. you don't see
the losers.
>
>
>Where are the fossils of the animals whose mutations didn't allow
>them
>to last very long?
>Where are all the bad mutations that failed?
what is a 'bad' mutation that 'failed'? species have gone extinct. we
see THAT in the fossil record, too.
>
>There is a gap in the evidence. Until it is filled, I will continue
>to
>doubt.
go ahead and doubt. scientists don't. you're assessment of science is
colored by religion. it's not your fault. it's the problem of being
uneducated
that's what creationism is...backwards education. you're just another
victim
>
>
>
bpuharic
<ser...@russiamail.com> wrote:
>
>That's a human disease. I ask again:Where are the fossils of the
>animals that failed?
>Humans have only been on Earth for maybe 50,000 years. That's a drop
>in the bucket compared to the age of the earth and the beginning of
>life.If what you say is true, the animal kingdom must have had lots of
>failures before humans even came around and could get Down's Syndrome.
>Show me the fossils of the defective prehistoric fish and birds.
how would we know they were 'defective' absent info on their
environment? we HAVE found fossils of neaderthals that showed evidence
of age, and showing they were cared for by members of their
communities because they couldnt have survived on their own.
>
>Not the Pterodactyl. They lasted a long time. Who failed before they
>were advanced enough to survive?
>The mutations were RANDOM. That means alot and alot and alot of them
>FAILED.
>Where are the lots and lots and lots?
ROFLMAO!! 99% of all species are extinct.
he wants to be shown EXTINCT species but, when shown these, he says
they're successes and wants evidence of failures
IOW 'dont confuse me with facts, i've made up my mind'.
>>
>>
>>
Eric Root
Only a tiny percentage of animals that die turn into fossils. That
means a lot of animals will be missed. And defective ones will die in
utero or very shortly afterwards, making them even less likely to be
found. There is no basis, though for hypothesizing that they don't
exist.
Eric Root
Ernest Major
<ec014526-9867-4600...@u32g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
Eric Root <er...@swva.net> writes
Also, in wild populations visibly distinct mutant phenotypes are rare,
so if you've got 10 fossil specimens of a species, the chance of one of
them being a "failure" is small. The theory of evolution predicts that
"failures" will be extremely rare in the fossil record. (Which is why I
was skeptical that the hobbit fossils represented microcephalic
individuals of Homo sapiens sapiens.)
> There is no basis, though for hypothesizing that they don't
>exist.
--
alias Ernest Major
Garamond Lethe
Common sense stopped being a reliable guide to science about 200 years
ago.
> I have no personal explanation of what they find in the rocks, but I
> do have doubts about the theories insisted on by the evolutionists.
And that's fine. It's what you do with the doubting that counts. If
it spurs you to learn, great --- biologists have doubts about the
margins of evolution, and they resolve those doubts by doing research,
and evolution becomes stronger and more nuanced as a result. But just
announcing that you have doubts without being willing to do anything
to resolve them tells me more about you than it does about evolution.
> The theory of evolution is too simplistic for me to explain such a
> complex set of facts.
You doubt the Ideal Gas Law for the same reason? Atomic theory? Germ
theory? They're also too simplistic to provide a complete explanation
of complex sets of facts. That's not the right question. The right
question is: does it explain and predict better that any other theory
we know of?
> It all happened by chance thru random mutations??????
If that were evolution, I'd be doubting it, too.
> What caused
> these mutations?
Plain old boring chemistry. There's a very good discussion of this in
Alberts's _Molecular Biology of the Cell_ if you have a library
handy. If not, you could made do with wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutations
> Isn't it convenient that all the mutations (of all
> the
> millions that were possible) happened in just the right direction to
> produce all these complex organisms that have so many features and so
> many techniques for survival?
That's so implausible that biologists are certain it didn't happen
that way. (No wonder you have doubts about evolution if you think
this is what evolution is.)
>
> Natural selection made the choice?
>
Do cheetahs choose to eat slower gazelles over faster gazelles? For
sake of argument, let's say that this is a conscious decision on their
part. Any gazelle born with the slightest advantage in speed will
tend to live long enough to pass this advantage along (and it doesn't
have to be much of an advantage at all --- they don't have to be
faster than the cheetah, they just have to be faster than the next
gazelle). Likewise, any gazelle born with a slight disadvantage is
going to be much less likely to pass that advantage along. And so
gazelles, as population, evolve. That's natural selection.
If the cheetahs decided instead to only go after the fastest gazelles,
one of two things would happen. If the cheetahs are fast enough to
pull this off and nobody cheats, the population of gazelles will start
to become much slower over time. More likely, though, some hungry-and-
non-civic-minded cheetah will decide "to hell with this" and grab the
gazelle that's easiest to catch; that cheetah is more likely to pass
along this anti-social behavior (more food more cheaply), and
eventually th population of cheetahs will consist entirely of the lazy
variety.
If you have an alternate explanation, I'd love to hear it. If you
don't have an alternative explanation, then I'll stick with the one I
have.
> Where are the fossils of the animals whose mutations didn't allow
> them
> to last very long?
In the cold, cold ground, mostly. A few of them are in museums or
private collections.
> Where are all the bad mutations that failed?
Pediatric oncology wards, unfortunately.
> Don't show me fossils of trilobites. They lasted millions of years. I
> want to see the fossils of the animals that didn't last
> even 1,000 years. I want to see the failures.If what the evos say is
> true, their remains should be preserved somewhere.
And if these are shown to you, then what? Then suddenly you'll
believe it was all random mutation after all?
Or will you instead demand a full population census of the species
during its existence so you can be satisfied that the distance from
the first to the last is less than 1000 years? (There are several
extinct dog breeds that satisfy this, btw.)
>
> There is a gap in the evidence. Until it is filled, I will continue
> to
> doubt.
But there are gaps in everything. Are your parents really your
parents? There are gaps, better start doubting.... or you could go
with the best explanation you have, accepting that you'll never have
perfect knowledge, and change your mind only when presented with a
better explanation, not just any remotely possible explanation.
Burkhard
So what? You think only humans suffer from genetic diseases? Can't see
any reasons to make special pleading for humans, but today, dogs are
born with hip dysplasia, a genetic disease. Throw a dead one suffering
from it into some molten lava, and hey presto you get an instant
fossil from a failed animal.
> I ask again:Where are the fossils of the
> animals that failed?
That would be in a sense every species that went extinct?
> Humans have only been on Earth for maybe 50,000 years. That's a drop
> in the bucket compared to the age of the earth and the beginning of
> life.If what you say is true, the animal kingdom must have had lots of
> failures before humans even came around and could get Down's Syndrome.
> Show me the fossils of the defective prehistoric fish and birds.
>
> Not the Pterodactyl. They lasted a long time.
And how do you know that the specific fossil of a Pterodactyl that we
found did not have a genetic disease that killed it - this would not
necessarily show in the bone record. Few detrimental mutations would -
and many animals affected by one would die in uterus anyway.
> Who failed before they
> were advanced enough to survive?
> The mutations were RANDOM. That means alot and alot and alot of them
> FAILED.
> Where are the lots and lots and lots?
The majority would have genetic mutations that killed them, but did
not find an expression in the bone record - an inability to digest
food properly say. So we can calculate the chances that of the fossils
we actually found, _that _ animal would have carried a disadvantageous
mutation, simply by observing mutation rates now.
Nick Keighley
in the medical waste bin
On 20 Apr, 11:16, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 01:08:09 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
> <ser...@russiamail.com> wrote:
> >[Down's syndrome is] a human disease. I ask again:Where are the fossils of the
> >animals that failed?
> >Humans have only been on Earth for maybe 50,000 years. That's a drop
> >in the bucket compared to the age of the earth and the beginning of
> >life.If what you say is true, the animal kingdom must have had lots of
> >failures before humans even came around and could get Down's Syndrome.
> >Show me the fossils of the defective prehistoric fish and birds.
>
> >Not the Pterodactyl. They lasted a long time. Who failed before they
> >were advanced enough to survive?
> >The mutations were RANDOM. That means alot and alot and alot of them
> >FAILED.
> >Where are the lots and lots and lots?
>
> ROFLMAO!! 99% of all species are extinct.
>
> he wants to be shown EXTINCT species but, when shown these, he says
> they're successes and wants evidence of failures
>
> IOW 'dont confuse me with facts, i've made up my mind'.
you don't understand he doesn't want just any extinct species. You
keep on showing him examples of species that were successful in their
time and hence well represented in the fossil record. He wants
*unnsuccessful* species that aren't represented in the fossil record.
Steven L.
"Joe Bruno" <ser...@russiamail.com> wrote in message
news:a1ecd2f9-1b21-455c...@v27g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
It's really impossible to know which animals soon evolved into some
other species, just by looking at the few skeletons we have. (We have
fossils of maybe 0.0000001% of all the creatures who ever lived on
earth.)
Paleontologists argue and argue about the phylogenetic position of each
species they discover. As new species are discovered, the "Tree of
Life" is constantly refined and adjusted.
Try this analogy: Go to a cemetery and try to figure out which of the
dead persons there died childless. It's impossible to know that, just
by looking at the skeletons.
I myself have asked before: How do we know that Archaeopteryx was
indeed the ancestor of today's birds, rather than being an evolutionary
dead end? Perhaps it was what you called a "failure," leaving no living
descendants, and the ancestor of today's birds was really some other
species like Avimimus?
All we can say is that Archaeopertyx is a "candidate" for the
transitional species between dinosaurs and birds.
-- Steven L.
Boikat
<snip>
> I am not a creationist,
Bull crap.
> Dave. However, I do have doubts about the
> certainty of evolution based on logic and common sense.
No, your doubts are based upon your religious beliefs. Either that,
or you're a fool that bought into the ID movements propaganda because
you are ignorant of some of the basic principles of real science. If
the latter is the case, don't feel bad: You are their target
audience.
> I have no personal explanation of what they find in the rocks, but I
> do have doubts about the theories insisted on by the evolutionists.
"Doubts" based upon what? Your personal incredulity and ignorance?
That is your problem, and not a problem for the ToE.
> The theory of evolution is too simplistic for me to explain such a
> complex set of facts.
So, your argument is that the ToE is not complex enough?
> It all happened by chance thru random mutations??????
And the filter of natural selection. That is basically the fact.
> What caused
> these mutations?
It's called "copy errors", and can be caused by many things.
> Isn't it convenient that all the mutations (of all
> the
> millions that were possible) happened in just the right direction to
> produce all these complex organisms that have so many features and so
> many techniques for survival?
See? I knew you were a pretender. That's straight from the ID/
Creationist playbook, and depends upon ignorance and incredulity.
>
> Natural selection made the choice?
Natural selection *filtered* the variations. NS is no more
"choosing" (as in "a conscious sorting process") than waves sorting
grains of sand by size or weight.
>
> Where are the fossils of the animals whose mutations didn't allow
> them
> to last very long?
Most likely, if they had a "bad mutation" (which is relative to the
environment) they died before they were born/hatched, or died soon
after birth, or were quickly eaten by predators. Also, they would be
relatively rare, and the chances of any of them becoming a fossil is
even more rare.
> Where are all the bad mutations that failed?
Dead.
>
> Don't show me fossils of trilobites. They lasted millions of years. I
> want to see the fossils of the animals that didn't last
> even 1,000 years. I want to see the failures.If what the evos say is
> true, their remains should be preserved somewhere.
>
Dispite the rarity:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061226-two-heads.html
> There is a gap in the evidence. Until it is filled, I will continue
> to
> doubt.-
The only "gap" of consequence to your understanding of the ToE is the
gap in your understanding of the ToE, and basic scince, for that
matter.
Boikat
Mark Evans
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, severe failures never got around to being born, or hatched.
Those that made it long enough to stand on their own 2, or 4, feet
( or bellies or fins) tended to get caught and eaten real fast and did
not get around to being fossils. And lastly, if the fault was
something that would not reflect in a fossil, such as slightly flawed
eye sight or a pattern on the skin that said, in dino lettering, "EAT
ME" how would you tell? Not all "failures are clearly marked.
It can also be argued that anything that has died is a failure in some
sense or another. If they were "perfect" they would not have been
eaten, gotten trapped in a tar pit, fallen off a cliff or posted
foolishness on the web.
Mark Evans
Mike Dworetsky
> On Apr 20, 1:11 am, "Mike Dworetsky"
> any of them.
> Of all the huge number of sea creatures who were hard-bodied, you have
> found NONE of the defectives.
> Face it;Belief in evolution requires an inductive leap to fill the
> gaps.Inductive leaps are not science. They are faith.
>
>> And a species that only lasts 1,000 years would probably look so
>> much like its ancestor species (in fossil form) that we would be
>> hard pressed to tell the difference.
>
Sigh. As soon as a scientist deals with reality, reminding us that nothing
in science is perfectly and absolutely proven, the faith-based crowd crows
that it has won the argument because probability or likelihood has to be
discussed in scientific arguments. "You have to use statistics, therefore
God exists and we win." Creationists do not admit of doubt or correction;
all scientific knowledge is in some sense provisional, even if the
probability of error is very tiny.
Probably? Do you think your great-great grandchildren (poor benighted
souls, that they will have you as an ancestor) will look so different from
your great-great grandparents that an anthropologist or paleontologist would
readily distinguish them as different species? Do you think the Romans
looked so very different from modern Europeans that we could dig one up and
at once know from the skeletal remains that we were dealing with a Roman,
and not, say, an Egyptian? Of all the millions of Egyptians who lived over
the course of the empire, why is it that they are physically unmistakably of
the same species as ourselves, and why is it that out of all those millions,
only a few hundred sets of remains have been found, despite the careful
burial techniques so often used?
As I said, a species or variety that only lasted 1,000 years would look so
much like its ancestor species that we would not distinguish them. And if
you pick any 1,000 year slice of time over the past 500,000,000 years we may
have only a handful of fossil remains of all creatures, out of thousands or
millions of species alive at the time.
> Evolution is faith, not science.
Ah, the favoured mantra of the creationist. Tell us again how you aren't
"one of them".
Mike Dworetsky
> I don't buy the creation bit anymore than I buy evolution.
So why are all your claims and arguments exactly the same as creationist
arguments? ID = creationism. Before using one of them again, you should
check whether it has been dealt with in the Index to Creationist Claims:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
Mike Dworetsky
> time on other things that interest me more.
> YOu fucking fools are ranting and raving that your theory is right and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I'm stupid and ignorant, but you don't present the evidence to prove
> your side. So far, you have confronted my questions with nothing but
> vague bs and personal attacks.
Actually a lot of evidence has been given. For example, you wanted to know
where the fossils of mutations and defectives were and someone gave you an
example. You never replied.
You also gave several arguments that amount to personal incredulity. This
was pointed out to you several times. You also used a strawman argument
(creating a cartoon or caricature of your "opponent's" position and arguing
against that, rather than their actual position).
Pointing out that you are committing basic logical errors is not the same as
a personal attack.
> Save your breath. I don't care if you approve of me or not. As far as
> I'm concerned, all of you have wasted your time in an futile attempt
> to intimidate me and failed completely.
Aw, your poor baby....
>
> The dialogue has gone like this:
>
> Joe Bruno:Show me the evidence. I'm not convinced.
>
> Origins:You damn idiot! How stupid can you be. How ignorant can you
> be???
> Evolution is a fact. It's a fact. It's a fact. It's a fact. It's a
> fact.
>
> Bruno:Where is the evidence supporting your claim???
>
> Origins:You damn idiot! How stupid can you be. How ignorant can you
> be???
> Evolution is a fact. It's a fact. It's a fact. It's a fact. It's a
> fact.
>
> Bruno:Do you have any evidence?
>
> Origins::You damn idiot! How stupid can you be. How ignorant can you
> be???
> Evolution is a fact. It's a fact. It's a fact. It's a fact. It's a
> fact.
>
> Bruno:But I want to see evidence that fills the gaps in evolution.
>
>
> Origins::You damn idiot! How stupid can you be. How ignorant can you
> be???
> Evolution is a fact. It's a fact. It's a fact. It's a fact. It's a
> fact.
If it weren't for the fact that he uses a different ISP, I'd almost say this
was Nando.
John Harshman
>
> I am not a creationist, Dave. However, I do have doubts about the
> certainty of evolution based on logic and common sense.
Let's see if your logic and common sense hold up under examination.
> I have no personal explanation of what they find in the rocks, but I
> do have doubts about the theories insisted on by the evolutionists.
> The theory of evolution is too simplistic for me to explain such a
> complex set of facts.
> It all happened by chance thru random mutations?????? What caused
> these mutations?Isn't it convenient that all the mutations (of all
> the
> millions that were possible) happened in just the right direction to
> produce all these complex organisms that have so many features and so
> many techniques for survival?
>
> Natural selection made the choice?
You may not be a creationist, but the above is a very common creationist
misunderstanding of evolution. Mutations are indeed random as far as we
can tell (and there's a lot of experimental work to determine this). The
bad ones are eliminated by natural selection, and the good ones are
preserved. So the fact that you see only the good ones is an artifact of
selection: only the good ones become common enough for you to notice.
> Where are the fossils of the animals whose mutations didn't allow
> them
> to last very long?
> Where are all the bad mutations that failed?
>
>
> Don't show me fossils of trilobites. They lasted millions of years. I
> want to see the fossils of the animals that didn't last
> even 1,000 years. I want to see the failures.If what the evos say is
> true, their remains should be preserved somewhere.
No they shouldn't. Preservation is the exception rather than the rule.
most organisms that die are completely consumed by decay processes. You
may have noticed that, for example, you aren't up to your ears in dead
flies, despite the fact that untold billions of flies die every year,
just in your neighborhood. Any single individual is very, very unlikely
to be preserved. A mutation has to spread through a species before it
has any real chance of being found in the fossil record. And even a
single species is (depending on its characteristics) unlikely to have
been preserved. There are in fact a dozen or so entire phyla that have
no known fossil record at all.
> There is a gap in the evidence. Until it is filled, I will continue
> to
> doubt.
You have to ask yourself whether that gap would be filled if evolution
were true. And the logical, common sense answer should be no, it
wouldn't. So your gap is no test of the theory.
By the way, you should understand that fossils, despite what you may
have been told, are not the main evidence for evolution. The main
evidence comes from living species, especially, these days, from their
genes.
Anyway, your logic and common sense turn out not to be in very good
shape. Your objection is just plain wrong.
marks...@yahoo.com
> certainty of evolution based on logic and common sense.
> do have doubts about the theories insisted on by the evolutionists.
> The theory of evolution is too simplistic for me to explain such a
> complex set of facts.
> It all happened by chance thru random mutations?????? What caused
> these mutations?Isn't it convenient that all the mutations (of all
> the
> millions that were possible) happened in just the right direction to
> produce all these complex organisms that have so many features and so
> many techniques for survival?
>
> Natural selection made the choice?
>
> them
> to last very long?
> Where are all the bad mutations that failed?
>
> Don't show me fossils of trilobites. They lasted millions of years. I
> want to see the fossils of the animals that didn't last
> even 1,000 years. I want to see the failures.If what the evos say is
> true, their remains should be preserved somewhere.
>
> to
> doubt.
I am making some guesses here but I think I am close to reality.
Mutations can be caused by radiation, transfer by virus, copy errors,
etc.
A very bad mutation would result in a reproductive failure, a dead
baby organism. Since we are talking single mutations in a group, that
death isnt likely to be fossilised as something readily identifiable.
A mutation that was beneficial might be selected and would gradually
spread through the gene pool of the organism and you are more likely
to see a fossil of that creature, but not the specific change that
made it "better"
In fossils you are going to see major changes in form.
So , fossil gerbil with better lungs and oxygen transport in the blood
- not so much .
a fossil gerbil with wings , yup that would be noticable.
Natural selection is not what I think of as an active process. Theres
no 'Fairy of selection' going around killing things that dont measure
up. Its a simple statement of observations that organisms better
suited to their environment will survive longer and reproduce more
than others. A "super gerbil" that doesnt mate and reproduce is a
dead end for evolution.
If you have a fairly empty environment , any animal may find a niche
that it can fill and survive in. As those niches fill up, then it is
actively competing against other animals and some will lose, and go
extinct. If one goes away, other animals dependant on it for food or
other service will have to change or go extinct themselves. There is a
figure of 99%+ of all species that ever existed are now extinct. Thats
a lot of things.
All this stuff is easily available online and on youtube if you look
for it.
John Harshman
> time on other things that interest me more.
> YOu fucking fools are ranting and raving that your theory is right and
> your side. So far, you have confronted my questions with nothing but
> vague bs and personal attacks.
> I'm concerned, all of you have wasted your time in an futile attempt
> to intimidate me and failed completely.
>
>
> Joe Bruno:Show me the evidence. I'm not convinced.
>
> Origins:You damn idiot! How stupid can you be. How ignorant can you
> be???
> Evolution is a fact. It's a fact. It's a fact. It's a fact. It's a
> fact.
I'd say it's more like this:
Joe Bruno: If the sky were blue, we would expect all the birds to be
blue too, so as to be camouflaged. Show me that all the birds are blue,
or your blue-sky theory is wrong.
Salviati: But blue birds would not be an expected consequence of a blue
sky. That's not a test of the blue sky theory. Your ideas are wrong.
Here's a picture of the sky; it's blue.
Joe: You can't show me the blue birds. I win.
In other words, you're proposing false tests of evolution. Sure, it
fails those tests. But they aren't real tests. A real test is something
we would see if evolution were true, and not if it were false. You're
proposing things we wouldn't see in any event and calling them tests.
That is neither logical nor common sensical.
Burkhard
> On Apr 20, 12:33 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > do have doubts about the theories insisted on by the evolutionists.
> > > complex set of facts.
> > > It all happened by chance thru random mutations?????? What caused
> > > these mutations?Isn't it convenient that all the mutations (of all
> > > the
> > > millions that were possible) happened in just the right direction to
> > > produce all these complex organisms that have so many features and so
> > > many techniques for survival?
>
> > > Natural selection made the choice?
>
> > > Where are the fossils of the animals whose mutations didn't allow
> > > them
> > > to last very long?
> > > Where are all the bad mutations that failed?
>
> > diseases? We can see them all around us, do you doubt they exist?
>
> That's a human disease. I ask again:Where are the fossils of the
> animals that failed?
> Humans have only been on Earth for maybe 50,000 years. That's a drop
> in the bucket compared to the age of the earth and the beginning of
> life.If what you say is true, the animal kingdom must have had lots of
> failures before humans even came around and could get Down's Syndrome.
> Show me the fossils of the defective prehistoric fish and birds.
another example:
Ann Forsten: Abnormal Enamel Morphology in Fossil Equid Teeth
Journal of Mammalogy, Vol. 54, No. 1 (Feb., 1973), pp. 255-258
chris thompson
> want to see the fossils of the animals that didn't last
> even 1,000 years. I want to see the failures.If what the evos say is
> true, their remains should be preserved somewhere.
>
> There is a gap in the evidence. Until it is filled, I will continue
> to
> doubt.
You have a severe misunderstanding of natural selection. A "failed"
species is one that never appears. Species that leave fossils are by
definition successful enough to succeed at a very difficult process-
fossilization. Fossilization, as has been pointed out, is an extremely
rare event. How many fossils of Archaeopteryx do we have? Do you know?
The species is known from 11 specimens. We have fewer than 50 T. rex
specimens. Most extinct species are known from a single bone or tooth
or shell that is distinctive enough (to experts) to ID it as a new
species.
A failed species, on the other hand, would never achieve reproductive
isolation from its parent species. This might be a bad example but
it's the best I can come up with on the spur of the moment. For a long
time people classified a couple of warblers as two distinct species-
Lawrence's Warbler and Brewster's Warbler. It turns out that these are
actually hybrids between Golden-Winged Warbers and Blue-Winged
Warblers. They are not real species in their own right. They actually
had the potential to be although it would have been terribly unusual
to see a successful hybrid animal species. But what are the chances of
one of these relatively rare individuals to actually fossilize? And
what are the chances we would have found the fossil? And even if we
did find the fossil, what are the chances we could have distinguished
the skeletal features from fossils of Golden-Winged or Blue-Winged
Warblers? We distinguish living individuals on the basis of their
plumage, behavior (song) and genetic makeup- none of which are
available to us from fossils.
You are asking the wrong question, I think.
Chris
Ognjen
Isn't convenient that of all the millions of shapes a quantity of
water could take, it takes the one that exactly matches the cup it is
poured into? There must be something more to it than simple physics.
Rodjk #613
> On Apr 20, 12:33�am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > > Where are the fossils of the animals whose mutations didn't allow
> > > them
> > > to last very long?
> > > Where are all the bad mutations that failed?
>
> > diseases? We can see them all around us, do you doubt they exist?
>
> animals that failed?
See, what we have here is a failure to communicate.
Joe is asking what seems to him to be a reasonable question and
getting no answers.
Yes, I think the problem is that Joe has an incorrect view of what is
expected in the fossil record, and perhaps and incomplete grasp of the
science of evolution, but it is not an unreasonable question.
> Humans have only been on Earth for maybe 50,000 years. That's a drop
> in the bucket compared to the age of the earth and the beginning of
> life.If what you say is true, the animal kingdom must have had lots of
> failures before humans even came around and could get Down's Syndrome.
> Show me the fossils of the defective prehistoric fish and birds.
The thing is, Joe, that the defective fish and birds died without
reproducing. So the chance of any of them being fossilized are slim to
none.
What we do see are species that failed, but there is something you
have to realize. The species did not necessarily fail all at once,
they may have lived for 10's of thousands of years and then failed. To
evolution, it is the same. Except that the species may well be
represented in the fossil record.
> Not the Pterodactyl. They lasted a long time. Who failed before they
> were advanced enough to survive?
Thats just it, if a species failed quickly, there is almost no chance
it would be in the fossil record.
> The mutations were RANDOM. That means alot and alot and alot of them
> FAILED.
Yes.
> Where are the lots and lots and lots?
All of the extinct species in the fossil record.
Again, Joe... I am trying to answer your question.
But I don't think that it will be easy for you to understand without
spending some time learning about species.
Rodjk #613
Walter Bushell
<a1ecd2f9-1b21-455c...@v27g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
Joe Bruno <ser...@russiamail.com> wrote:
> Don't show me fossils of trilobites. They lasted millions of years. I
> want to see the fossils of the animals that didn't last
> even 1,000 years. I want to see the failures.If what the evos say is
> true, their remains should be preserved somewhere.
>
>
> There is a gap in the evidence. Until it is filled, I will continue
> to
> doubt.
I hope you are trolling.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Joe Bruno
> In article
> <a1ecd2f9-1b21-455c-8de3-467450934...@v27g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
Steven L.
"Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:47e6d028-b521-4914...@l37g2000vbd.googlegroups.com:
Paleontologists have found that Tyrannosaurus rex and its close
relatives suffered from a potentially life-threatening infectious
disease similar to one that occurs in living birds known as
trichomonosis. Trichomonas gallinae infections are most prevalent in
pigeons which are generally immune. Birds of prey are particularly
susceptible to trichomonosis if they eat infected pigeons. Adult birds
can then pass the disease to their nestlings through beak-to-beak
contact. Tell-tale symptoms of trichomonosis include swellings and holes
in the back of the lower jaw. The disease is prevented from infecting
the entire interior of the bone by the innate immune response that
localizes infections as a result of the actions of a unique avian white
blood cell called the heterophil. Some of the world's most famous T. rex
specimens, such as "Sue" at the Field Museum in Chicago, and the
holotype specimen at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in
Pittsburgh have holes like these in their lower jaw. The holes in
tyrannosaur jaws occur in exactly the same place as in modern birds with
trichomonosis. The shape of the holes and the way that they merge into
the surrounding bone is very similar in both animals. The cause of these
holes in tyrannosaurs has previously been attributed to tooth gouges
from biting or bacterial infections, but a trichomonosis-type disease is
more likely given the position and nature of the holes.
The disease appeared to be quite common in tyrannosaurs and could have
been deadly to those that were infected.
http://www.microbiologybytes.com/blog/2009/09/30/diseases-of-dinosaurs/
-- Steven L.
John Stockwell
Your statement of evolution is certainly a symplistic one, and
an incorrect one. (Strawmen usually are overly simplified charactures
of the real thing.)
> It all happened by chance thru random mutations?????? What caused
> these mutations?Isn't it convenient that all the mutations (of all
> the
> millions that were possible) happened in just the right direction to
> produce all these complex organisms that have so many features and so
> many techniques for survival?
>
> Natural selection made the choice?
There is certainly no direction evident in biology. There is
no notion of progress leading from molecules to man. Most
of biology is molecules to bacteria, because there are a far
larger number of bacteria than multicellular organisms.
The system is massively parallel so it is rich in possible structures.
Each of these is apparantly a modification of a previous structure.
>
> Where are the fossils of the animals whose mutations didn't allow
> them
> to last very long?
> Where are all the bad mutations that failed?
Most of the species that have ever existed, as much as
98% by some estimates are extinct. Most of biology didn't make it.
>
> Don't show me fossils of trilobites. They lasted millions of years. I
> want to see the fossils of the animals that didn't last
> even 1,000 years. I want to see the failures.If what the evos say is
> true, their remains should be preserved somewhere.
You could look up "extinction rates" and you would find that
there is a continuous pruning of the tree of life. That change
in biodiversity ispart of evolution in action.
>
> There is a gap in the evidence. Until it is filled, I will continue
> to
> doubt.
There is nothing wrong with reasonable doubts. Science operates
on reasonable doubts. As far as gaps are concerned, it is impossible
for there not to be gaps. The fossil record does not have sufficient
spatio-temporal resolution for gaps to provide evidence that would
disprove evolution.
What would disprove evolution if it were false is if the notion
of common descent were called into question. That hasn't happened
yet, and does not seem likely to happen. So, your claim that
your doubt is based on gaps are not reasonable doubts. The
data tell us what is reasonable to doubt, we don't tell the data
how the data should be. Yet, that is what you are doing.
-John
Chocolate Marble Caek.
>I am not a creationist, Dave. However, I do have doubts about the
>certainty of evolution based on logic and common sense.
That's very bizarre. Do you also have dounts and uncertainty about
gravitation?
No offense intended
---
Does belief in astrology cause insanity? http://www.skeptictank.org/edm.htm
Steven L.
"Joe Bruno" <ser...@russiamail.com> wrote in message
news:25f2f762-5def-45f8...@b39g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
Didn't you say at one point that your background is law, rather than
science?
OK, then you must understand rules of evidence.
What evidence--if we could find it and present it--would you find
convincing that the Theory of Evolution accounts for the diversity of
life on Earth?
What exactly would convince you, short of direct eyewitness observation
which (in the case of species long gone before human civilization) we
obviously don't have.
-- Steven L.
raven1
One would also hope that with a law background, he would understand
that forensic evidence, which we have in abundance, is much more
reliable than eyewitness testimony.
Dana Tweedy
snip
>
> I am not a creationist, Dave. However, I do have doubts about the
> certainty of evolution based on logic and common sense.
Would you please present what doubts your have that are based on logic,
or common sense?
> I have no personal explanation of what they find in the rocks, but I
> do have doubts about the theories insisted on by the evolutionists.
> The theory of evolution is too simplistic for me to explain such a
> complex set of facts.
Why do you assume it's too "simplistic"?
> It all happened by chance thru random mutations??????
No, it happened by a process that includes random mutation, and non
random selection.
> What caused
> these mutations?
Transcription errors, radiation, chemicals, etc.
> Isn't it convenient that all the mutations (of all
> the
> millions that were possible) happened in just the right direction to
> produce all these complex organisms that have so many features and so
> many techniques for survival?
The mutations happened randomly in regards to the needs of the
individual. Selection is what provided the "right direction".
>
> Natural selection made the choice?
Right. Why do you have a problem with that?
>
>
> Where are the fossils of the animals whose mutations didn't allow
> them
> to last very long?
Fossilization is unlikely for them, as they didn't survive.
Fossilization is a rare process, and it's highly unlikely that any
individual will be fossilized. We tend to see only examples of
successful populations in the fossil record.
> Where are all the bad mutations that failed?
The didn't survive.
>
>
> Don't show me fossils of trilobites.
Trilobites were a quite successful group. That's why there are so many
fossils of them.
> They lasted millions of years.
Which means they didn't fail.
>I
> want to see the fossils of the animals that didn't last
> even 1,000 years.
If they didn't last that long, it's highly unlikely that any of them
fossilized.
> I want to see the failures.If what the evos say is
> true, their remains should be preserved somewhere.
Actually, any group numerous enough to be fossilized is going to be a
successful species. The "failures" by definition are going to be
extinct long before one should expect them to show any examples in the
fossil record.
>
>
> There is a gap in the evidence. Until it is filled, I will continue
> to
> doubt.
The "gap" is not in the evidence, but in your expectation.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Apr 20, 12:33 am, Burkhard<b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
snip
>> You mean like Down syndrome? Or any other of the known genetic
>> diseases? We can see them all around us, do you doubt they exist?
>
> That's a human disease.
and humans are animals.
> I ask again:Where are the fossils of the
> animals that failed?
One that fail are not going to be around long enough to leave
representatives in the fossil record.
> Humans have only been on Earth for maybe 50,000 years.
The species H. sapiens has been around for about 200,000 years. It's
only been about 70,000 years since they left Africa.
> That's a drop
> in the bucket compared to the age of the earth and the beginning of
> life.If what you say is true, the animal kingdom must have had lots of
> failures before humans even came around and could get Down's Syndrome.
Down Syndrome is a genetic condition, and similar conditions are seen in
other species. However, again, you don't seem to grasp how unlikely
fossilization is. Generally one needs a fairly large population before
one should expect to see any fossils at all.
Any creature that dies before it reproduces could be seen as a "failure".
> Show me the fossils of the defective prehistoric fish and birds.
It's unlikely that "defective" fish or birds, or other animals or plants
would leave enough individuals to fossilize.
>
> Not the Pterodactyl. They lasted a long time.
No one claims that pteryodactyls were failures.
> Who failed before they
> were advanced enough to survive?
Actually, "advanced" is not necessary for a species to survive.
Those individuals that died, the vast majority of them did not leave
fossils. It's very unlikely that 'defective' individuals were numerous
enough to have left a visible fossil record.
> The mutations were RANDOM.
Yes, in respect to the needs of the individual.
> That means alot and alot and alot of them
> FAILED.
> Where are the lots and lots and lots?
You seem to be misunderstanding the difference between populations and
individuals. Any population that had enough numbers to leave fossil
records, is going to be a successful population. The individual
failures out of a population are not likely to fossilize.
DJT
William Hughes
> Where are the fossils of the animals whose mutations didn't allow
> them
> to last very long?
> Where are all the bad mutations that failed?
>
> Don't show me fossils of trilobites. They lasted millions of years. I
> want to see the fossils of the animals that didn't last
> even 1,000 years.
To have even a remote chance of fossilization, a species
must last a long time.
According to your definition, only a successful species can
be expected to leave fossils.
Another way of putting it. Over the lifetime of the earth, the vast
majority of individuals have been members of successful species.
So, it is not at all surprising that the vast majority of fossils are
fossils of successful species.
- William Hughes
Ray Martinez
> > certainty of evolution based on logic and common sense.
>
> ago.
>
More like 150 years ago, or since 1859.
Ray
SNIP....
Ray Martinez
<richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > do have doubts about the theories insisted on by the evolutionists.
> > The theory of evolution is too simplistic for me to explain such a
> > complex set of facts.
> > these mutations?Isn't it convenient that all the mutations (of all
> > the
> > millions that were possible) happened in just the right direction to
> > produce all these complex organisms that have so many features and so
> > many techniques for survival?
>
>
> > them
> > to last very long?
> > Where are all the bad mutations that failed?
>
> > Don't show me fossils of trilobites. They lasted millions of years. I
> > want to see the fossils of the animals that didn't last
> > true, their remains should be preserved somewhere.
>
> > to
> > doubt.
>
> bother to educate yourself.
> If you won't educate yourself it's your problem, not a problem for
> evolutionary biology.
>
> RF- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ad hom attack caused by the inability to address the argument.
Ray
richardal...@googlemail.com
No, Ray, it's an observation. It's patently clear that the poster
doesn't have a clue about evolutionary biology.
Or do you think that he is making informed criticisms of evolutionary
theory which have not been addressed by evolutionary biologists over
and over again?
RF
RF
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
and if you cannot see the corrupted lying going on in that statement - you
need to have an "assorectomy" to get your head out.
Rocks are dated by chemical composition and decay.
It is not evolution that has simplistic answers; the problem is that your
mental limitations only allow for the most simple minded thinking.
>
> Natural selection made the choice?
>
>
> Where are the fossils of the animals whose mutations didn't allow
> them
> to last very long?
Duhhhhhh ...... there ARE fossils of spieces that didn't make it.
The VAST majority, like other - more well know - fossils decayed.
> Where are all the bad mutations that failed?
Decayed.
>
>
> Don't show me fossils of trilobites. They lasted millions of years. I
> want to see the fossils of the animals that didn't last
> even 1,000 years. I want to see the failures.If what the evos say is
> true, their remains should be preserved somewhere.
IOW Don't show me the fossiles that made it through the very limiting
process that it takes to make a fossil;
show me the fossils of the "lesser number" of species tht DIDN'T make it
through the fossilization process.
>
>
> There is a gap in the evidence. Until it is filled, I will continue
> to
> doubt.
Then, in your whole lifetime - you better not use, get up on, a ladder -
because it's FILLED with gaps.
And, maybe, you should quit trying to use your brain - because there are,
obviously, large gaps in both your knowledge and thinking.
Stuart
> On Apr 20, 12:33 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > > Where are the fossils of the animals whose mutations didn't allow
> > > them
> > > to last very long?
>
> > diseases? We can see them all around us, do you doubt they exist?
>
> That's a human disease.
And?
I ask again:Where are the fossils of the
> animals that failed?
How can you tell from a fossil it is a fossil of an animal
that failed?
Stuart
Stuart
No. Random Mutation + Selection
Please learn something about TOE.
Stuart
Moist Lipwig
>> > these mutations?Isn't it convenient that all the mutations (of all
>> > the
>> > millions that were possible) happened in just the right direction to
>> > produce all these complex organisms that have so many features and so
>> > many techniques for survival?
>>
>> > Natural selection made the choice?
>>
>> > Where are the fossils of the animals whose mutations didn't allow
>> > them
>> > to last very long?
>> > Where are all the bad mutations that failed?
>>
>> You mean like Down syndrome? Or any other of the known genetic
>> diseases? We can see them all around us, do you doubt they exist?
>
> animals that failed?
> Humans have only been on Earth for maybe 50,000 years. That's a drop
> in the bucket compared to the age of the earth and the beginning of
> life.If what you say is true, the animal kingdom must have had lots of
> failures before humans even came around and could get Down's Syndrome.
>
> were advanced enough to survive?
> FAILED.
> Where are the lots and lots and lots?
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/bookdescription.cws_home/705571/description#description
Darwin123
broken teeth. Juveniles that never had children.
Extant animals with birth defects. Two headed calves. Mice with a
muscular sclerosis-like disease. Horses with more than one toe in
their hooves. Flies with legs instead of antennae. Homeotic mutations
of all the animals.
Animals currently mutate in lots of ways. Usually, the mutation
"fails". Most birth defects don't show up in fossils because they
don't involve bones.
> Humans have only been on Earth for maybe 50,000 years. That's a drop in the bucket compared to the age of the earth and the >beginning of
> life.If what you say is true, the animal kingdom must have had >lots of failures before humans even came around and could get >Down's Syndrome.
last another 50 KY. So the human race may end up being a failure by
your definition.
Maybe you mean the hominid family of primates. The earliest
hominid may have appeared 5 MYA. That is pretty good, since most
families of primates have become extinct. Most genuses of hominids
have gone extinct. Australeopithicus africanus last a MY and went
extinct. Loads and loads of hominid species have gone extinct. So far,
we haven't even beat A. africanus. So lots of hominid species failed
and lasted longer than we have so far. So there is enough failure even
for you.
> Show me the fossils of the defective prehistoric fish and birds.
stars with 5 arms.
Some dinosaur fossils are said to have arthritis.
>
> Not the Pterodactyl. They lasted a long time. Who failed before >they were advanced enough to survive?
reptiles. Some scientists refer to them as a separate class. However,
the separate species of pterodactyls did not survive through the
entire Jurassic. So most pterodactyls species "failed" in the most
narrow sense of the word.
The "pterodactyl" group survived a long time, the way "mammals"
have lived a long time. However, there was a huge variety of
pterodactyls, just the same as there was a large variety of "mammals".
There may have been as many species of pterodactyls as there are bird
species today. To say that only one species had failed would not be
explaining how pterodactyls evloved into so many variations. A lot a
species had to go extinct to leave room for all the species of
pterodactyls. Yes, a lot of species went extinct.
Maybe you mean that in a broader sense. You are asking what
species of animal died that left a niche for the first species of
pterodactyl. I don't know the exact one species, but for a different
reason than you imply. There are too many candidates for such a
species for me to chose just one. Many, many species died before the
pterodactyls evolved. We would need a better fossil record to find the
one. However, there was a large mass extinction that basically
explains where all the room came from.
Pterydactyls seem to have appeared during the Jurasic. The
Jurassic is separated from the Triassic by a large mass extinction.
The Triassic-Jurassic (TJ) boundary was maybe the fourth largest mass
extinction known. It appears to have been caused by a bolide, similar
to the KT extinction. However, the cause of the JT extinction doesn't
matter for this discussion. The salient point is that a large number
of animal species went extinct very soon before true pterodactyls
appeared. There was lots of parking space after the JT extinction.
Many species evolve soon after a mass extinction. The reason is
what you are implying. A mass extinction leaves room for new species.
There were many crocodilians and therapsids crawling around in the
Triassic. After the TJ boundary extinction, the number of crocodilian
and therapsid species decreased drastically. Dinosaur and pterosaur
species replaced them as predators. So I would say that the TJ
extinction explains how both pterodactyls and dinosaurs differentiated
into so many types.
> The mutations were RANDOM.
You didn't read the fine print. Mutations are random with respect
to the application of the feature. Any application of the variation
that improves fitness accumulates due to natural selection.
>That means alot and alot and alot of them
> FAILED.
extinction has been the fate of almost all species. Furthermore, every
fossil of a juvenile is a failure, in some sense. Short lived species
of animals are quite common. In fact, species that survive more than 5
million years are exceptional. Classes and orders of animals can last
millions of years, but not species. It's been said that all species
eventually fail. So their is your lots and lots.
As I said, the are many fossils of animals that are atypical of
the other animals that are fossilized nearby. Common mutations, like
four armed sea stars, are found in the fossil record.
> Where are the lots and lots and lots?
found today. Obviously, this variation is not fit. Regardless, we find
a very few in the fossil record. Mutations have always occurred. If a
four armed sea star isn't a failure, what is a failure?
Birth defects that occur now among animals are "failures." Some
creationists turn this around and say NO mutations improve the chances
for fitness. However, that isn't true. Variations can be helpful or
harmful. It depends on context.
Scores of juveniles are found in the fossil record. No
juvenile has left offspring. So you can count each and every juvenile
as a "failure." Scores of animals have been fossilized by being buried
alive. Some animals are fossilized in the tummies of other fossilized
animals. Each is a "failure." You don't know what was different about
these animals that got them killed, maybe nothing. However, it is easy
to see how a small variation could have improved their chances for
survival.
Dinosaur eggs have been found with foetuses inside, buried by a
sand storm. Fossils of their mothers lie right beside them. Yet,
burrowing animals sometimes survive sand storms. Animals that seek
high ground for their nests survive sand storms. So those eggs, and
their mothers, could be counted as failures. If this is not what you
mean, explain to us what you count as a failure.
Heather L.
>
> One would also hope that with a law background, he would understand
> that forensic evidence, which we have in abundance, is much more
> reliable than eyewitness testimony.
>
But all evidence is forensic: 'forensic' simply means 'of the courts'...
HL.
Nashton
>> Ad hom attack caused by the inability to address the argument.
>>
>> Ray
>
> No, Ray, it's an observation. It's patently clear that the poster
> doesn't have a clue about evolutionary biology.
>
> Or do you think that he is making informed criticisms of evolutionary
> theory which have not been addressed by evolutionary biologists over
> and over again?
>
> RF
>
> RF
>
No need to sign twice. Get over yourself.
University education: It's expensive but boy is it ever worth it.
Get one.
Greg G.
> want to see the fossils of the animals that didn't last
> even 1,000 years. I want to see the failures.If what the evos say is
> true, their remains should be preserved somewhere.
>
> to
> doubt.
Does anybody know how many species are known from a single fossil
specimen? Maybe that is what he is asking for.
bpuharic
<nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>you don't understand he doesn't want just any extinct species. You
>keep on showing him examples of species that were successful in their
>time and hence well represented in the fossil record. He wants
>*unnsuccessful* species that aren't represented in the fossil record.
it's amazing how he hasn't figured that out yet.
>
John Wilkins
<96de40b8-2be4-46c8...@20g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
Stuart <bigd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How can you tell from a fossil it is a fossil of an animal
> that failed?
It was found working in a McDonald's.
Cory Albrecht
As I show below, your doubts are based on misundertandings of how
evolution actually works, how rare or common fossilization is and of
science in general.
> I have no personal explanation of what they find in the rocks, but I
> do have doubts about the theories insisted on by the evolutionists.
> The theory of evolution is too simplistic for me to explain such a
> complex set of facts.
Complex things arise out of simplicity all the time. In mathematics,
Mandelbrot & Julia sets are perfect examples of this. Flocking behaviour
of birds can be simulated with a few simple rules.
Also, this shows a basic misunderstanding of science in general. If two
theories both explain the same things, the better theory is the one
which is the simplest, not the one that is most complex. have you ever
heard of Occam's Razor?
> It all happened by chance thru random mutations?????? What caused
Well, there's a flaw in you understanding of how evolution works.
Natural selection is not chance. If it were, then animals with thin fur
would be just as likely to survive colder winters as animals with thick fur.
> What caused
> these mutations?
Cellular replication is not perfect, so that's one cause.
Certain materials when ingested significantly increase those errors,
which is how many cancers occur (like lung from smoking or liver cancer
from drinking) so imagine an intake below the cancer-threshold but still
high enough to cause excess mutations during spermatogenesis.
Radiation can also cause mutations.
That you don't know how mutations happen is a flaw in your understanding
of how evolution happens.
> Isn't it convenient that all the mutations (of all
> the
> millions that were possible) happened in just the right direction to
> produce all these complex organisms that have so many features and so
> many techniques for survival?
No, it's not convenient, it's how natural selection works. Your comment
comes across as implying that evolution is directed towards complexity,
which it is not. Evolution is undirected, which is a flaw in your
understanding of how evolution works.
> Natural selection made the choice?
Non-directed choice (without any epistemeological baggage), yes.
> Where are the fossils of the animals whose mutations didn't allow
> them
> to last very long?
Do you have any concept of just how extremely rare fossilization is?
> Where are all the bad mutations that failed?
They didn't reproduce as much, or were immediately sterile to their
possessors, and thus were out competed by other variations and disappeared.
>
>
> Don't show me fossils of trilobites. They lasted millions of years. I
> want to see the fossils of the animals that didn't last
> even 1,000 years. I want to see the failures.If what the evos say is
> true, their remains should be preserved somewhere.
No, they should not. Nothing about evolutionary theory says that at all.
This is yet another flaw in your understanding of how evolution works,
combined with an ignorance of just how rare fossilization actually is.
Fossilization is an unlikely event that depends upon the environment of
the animal's death. It should be immediately obvious to you that
successful species with high populations over longer periods of time
will be more likely to have members die in locations amenable to
fossilization. The converse should also be immediately obvious to you -
that less successful species with smaller populations and shorter
durations will be less likely to have members die in ways conducive to
fossilization.
Do you understand how these misunderstandings of how evolution works
limit or even prevent you from properly judging evolutionary theory?
> There is a gap in the evidence. Until it is filled, I will continue
> to
> doubt.
And what "gap" is this? What do you know that 150 years of scientific
research on the topic has missed?
Dana Tweedy
snip
>>
>>> I am not a creationist, Dave. However, I do have doubts about the
>>> certainty of evolution based on logic and common sense.
>>
>> Common sense stopped being a reliable guide to science about 200 years
>> ago.
>>
>
> More like 150 years ago, or since 1859.
"Common sense" is often mistaken when it comes to science, that's why
science makes use of investigation, and relies on evidence.
When one relies on "common sense" you get things like "heavier objects
fall faster than light objects", or "a straight line on the map is a
shorter distance than a curved one". Both of course are false.
Darwin didn't change science, despite what happens in Ray's fantasy
world.
DJT
John Harshman
Dana Tweedy
> On Apr 20, 4:56 am, Garamond Lethe<cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I have no personal explanation of what they find in the rocks, but I
>>> do have doubts about the theories insisted on by the evolutionists.
>>
>> And that's fine. It's what you do with the doubting that counts. If
>> it spurs you to learn, great --- biologists have doubts about the
>> margins of evolution, and they resolve those doubts by doing research,
>> and evolution becomes stronger and more nuanced as a result. But just
>> announcing that you have doubts without being willing to do anything
>> to resolve them tells me more about you than it does about evolution.
>
>
> YOu are the one advocating evolution. I'm not a scientist and spend my
> time on other things that interest me more.
Shall this be taken as an admission you don't care to learn?
> YOu fucking fools are ranting and raving that your theory is right and
> I'm stupid and ignorant, but you don't present the evidence to prove
> your side.
What evidence would you find conclusive?
> So far, you have confronted my questions with nothing but
> vague bs and personal attacks.
Actually, what's been done is point out that your expectations are
unrealistic, and you apparently don't understand how science works.
Without that understanding, any evidence presented will be useless to you.
> Save your breath. I don't care if you approve of me or not. As far as
> I'm concerned, all of you have wasted your time in an futile attempt
> to intimidate me and failed completely.
Noone is trying to intimidate you.
>
> The dialogue has gone like this:
>
> Joe Bruno:Show me the evidence. I'm not convinced.
>
> Origins:You damn idiot! How stupid can you be. How ignorant can you
> be???
> Evolution is a fact. It's a fact. It's a fact. It's a fact. It's a
> fact.
You were asked what evidence you wished to see. You largely ignored that.
>
> Bruno:Where is the evidence supporting your claim???
It's been presented to you.
>
> Origins:You damn idiot! How stupid can you be. How ignorant can you
> be???
> Evolution is a fact. It's a fact. It's a fact. It's a fact. It's a
> fact.
>
> Bruno:Do you have any evidence?
Yes, quite a lot. If you are willing to look at it.
>
> Origins::You damn idiot! How stupid can you be. How ignorant can you
> be???
> Evolution is a fact. It's a fact. It's a fact. It's a fact. It's a
> fact.
>
> Bruno:But I want to see evidence that fills the gaps in evolution.
By talking about the "gaps" you are showing you don't understand the
process. Evolution is an ongoing process, and doesn't have any gaps.
Fossils aren't the best evidence of evolution, although they are
fairly spectacular in a large sense.
>
>
> Origins::You damn idiot! How stupid can you be. How ignorant can you
> be???
> Evolution is a fact. It's a fact. It's a fact. It's a fact. It's a
> fact.
Evolution is a fact, and denying a fact is irrational. If you would
bother to look at the evidence, and learn something about the subject,
perhaps you'd not be so frustrated.
DJT
Cory Albrecht
> On Apr 20, 7:31 am, Walter Bushell<pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>> In article
>> <a1ecd2f9-1b21-455c-8de3-467450934...@v27g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
>> Joe Bruno<ser...@russiamail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> certainty of evolution based on logic and common sense.
>>> do have doubts about the theories insisted on by the evolutionists.
>>> complex set of facts.
>>> the
>>> millions that were possible) happened in just the right direction to
>>> produce all these complex organisms that have so many features and so
>>> many techniques for survival?
>>
>>
>>> them
>>> to last very long?
>>
>>> want to see the fossils of the animals that didn't last
>>> even 1,000 years. I want to see the failures.If what the evos say is
>>> true, their remains should be preserved somewhere.
>>
>>> to
>>> doubt.
>>
>>
> Nyet.(No)
If you were not trolling, why was this post one of the few you responded
to rather than the many others which pointed out your misunderstandings
of what evolution and evolutionary theory really are?
If you aren't trolling and are not a creationist in disguise, why would
you not do that?
John Wilkins
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
The taphonomy of that is questionable.
Jeffrey Turner
Not any more it doesn't. At least not among lay people.
--Jeff
--
Love consists of overestimating
the differences between one woman
and another. --George Bernard Shaw
Ron O
> On Apr 20, 12:33 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > diseases? We can see them all around us, do you doubt they exist?
>
> animals that failed?
> Humans have only been on Earth for maybe 50,000 years. That's a drop
> in the bucket compared to the age of the earth and the beginning of
> life.If what you say is true, the animal kingdom must have had lots of
> failures before humans even came around and could get Down's Syndrome.
>
> were advanced enough to survive?
> FAILED.
> Where are the lots and lots and lots?
>
>
>
Your brain seems to have fossilized and it seems to have been a
failure.
Do you have any idea that the vast majority of fossil lifeforms are
not represented as extant species. The vast majority are extinct and
are "failures" in the sense that they are no longer around.
Ron Okimoto
Thurisaz the Einherjer
> There is a gap in the evidence. Until it is filled, I will continue
> to
> doubt.
Attend elementary school. FINISH it this time. Come back after that to
continue arguing... if you still dare.
Seriously, if you feel offended by my choice of words, boo-fucking-hoo. I'm
sickened to the point of physical nausea reading "I never got an education
therefore evolution is bunk" crap from one idiot after another after
another time and time again.
As we say over here: "Wenn man keine Ahnung hat, einfach mal die Fresse
halten!" (If you got no clue, keep your pie hole shut)
'nuff said.
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
Joe Bruno
I have a Bachelor's degree in Economics and I've taken
Biology,Zoology,Physics and Chemistry.
The Russians have a saying, too:
Закрете дурок.Те знаыерт ницхто.
Silence, fool. You know nothing.
richardal...@googlemail.com
Is that the best you can come up with?
How silly of me - of course it is.
RF
Mike Dworetsky
Wow!!! Holy Batman!! You have a bachelor's degree in Economics!! I guess
that entitles you to pontificate on evolution as well as Constitutional Law
(which you don't seem to have mentioned--where did your claimed expertise
come from?).
As the old joke says, unlike Biology, Physics, and Astronomy, in Economics
the exam questions stay the same every year; it's only that the accepted
answers change to suit the current fashion.
I suspect (if you graduated from an American university) the physical
science courses you took were the specially designed "descriptive
non-calculus" ones for those not in a science major. Nothing wrong with
that, but I get the impression you were not listening in any of them.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
bpuharic
<ser...@russiamail.com> wrote:
>I have a Bachelor's degree in Economics
yes, the subject that brought us 60 trillion dollars (no exaggeration)
in derivatives, and 8,000,000 jobs lost in the last 2 years.
>
> Silence, fool. You know nothing.
i wouldnt be calling anyone else a fool if i were an economist. i'd be
licking my wounds and doing ALOT of research
bpuharic
and for some folks...who shall remain unnamed, (like nashtie), it
doesnt take...
Ron O
So you are too incompetent to take your own warning serioiusly?
Ron Okimoto
Joe Bruno
>
> - Show quoted text -
I also attended law school and served as a prosecutor in the Navy for
4 years.
I went to the Univ of Illinois.
Joe Bruno
I didn't say I was an expert.You don't read very well.What else have
you completely misread?
>
> As the old joke says, unlike Biology, Physics, and Astronomy, in Economics
> the exam questions stay the same every year; it's only that the accepted
> answers change to suit the current fashion.
No, they don't, liar.Classical Economics has been the same for 70
years.
I'm also a CPA.
>
> I suspect (if you graduated from an American university) the physical
> science courses you took were the specially designed "descriptive
> non-calculus" ones for those not in a science major. Nothing wrong with
> that, but I get the impression you were not listening in any of them.
I took calculus, too.Your impressions do not constitute evidence.
I was in pre-medicine for 2 years.
>
> --
Ron O
Well, at least, you don't claim to be an engineer.
Have you ever heard of Philip Johnson? I wouldn't try to immitate
him. You might want to look up Berlinski. He claimed to be an
agonstic and would just put up the scientific creationists scam junk
like you, but he got paid to do it. You might not want to look that
stupid if the returns aren't that good. The Discovery Institute might
be looking for more agnostics for propaganda purposes if you can
stomach working for an organization that ran a bogus bait and switch
scam on their own creationist supporters.
Ron Okimoto
nando_r...@yahoo.com
going on in nature than randomness. Also for inanimate things like
planets, mountains etc. you are too quick to jump to organisms as a
sign of sophistication, and forget that there is already much
organization in inanimate things. When you look at the origin of
anything, you should look at the decisions by which it came to be. A
planet might have been different, or not even exist, if some, or many,
decisions had turned out differently, and so on. Look at origins in
this way, and you would know that evolution theory is not right.
On Apr 20, 8:33 am, Joe Bruno <ser...@russiamail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 19, 5:37 am, Pastor Dave <newsgroup-mail @ tampabay.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> - Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
>
>
>
>
>
> Don't show me fossils of trilobites. They lasted millions of years. I
> want to see the fossils of the animals that didn't last
> even 1,000 years. I want to see the failures.If what the evos say is
> true, their remains should be preserved somewhere.
>
> There is a gap in the evidence. Until it is filled, I will continue
> to
> doubt.- Hide quoted text -
Burkhard
wrote:
> Joe Bruno:
>
> > There is a gap in the evidence. Until it is filled, I will continue
> > to
> > doubt.
>
> Attend elementary school. FINISH it this time. Come back after that to
> continue arguing... if you still dare.
>
> Seriously, if you feel offended by my choice of words, boo-fucking-hoo. I'm
> sickened to the point of physical nausea reading "I never got an education
> therefore evolution is bunk" crap from one idiot after another after
> another time and time again.
>
> As we say over here: "Wenn man keine Ahnung hat, einfach mal die Fresse
> halten!" (If you got no clue, keep your pie hole shut)
Ah yes, that's from Wittgenstein's Tractatus at 7, isn't it ;o)
Burkhard
Was that before or after you build the great Pyramid and discovered
Australia?
Ernest Major
<089a7f67-c2fa-471e...@h16g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Joe
Bruno <ser...@russiamail.com> writes
>>
>> > Silence, fool. You know nothing.
>>
>> Wow!!! Holy Batman!! You have a bachelor's degree in Economics!! I guess
>> that entitles you to pontificate on evolution as well as Constitutional Law
>> (which you don't seem to have mentioned--where did your claimed expertise
>> come from?).
>
>I didn't say I was an expert.You don't read very well.What else have
>you completely misread?
You said that you were a "scholar of Constitutional law". While that
does leave you with implausible deniability, on the face of it that is a
claim to expertise - if you didn't intend a claim of expertise then
"student" would have perhaps been a more appropriate word, especially if
qualified as "amateur student" so that there's no appearance of a claim
of formal training.
The wider context - "Don't define the issues for me. I'm a scholar of
Constitutional law and I can do that very well by myself. The legal
profession is the best capable of defining issues and evaluating
evidence." - also has the appearance of being a claim of expertise.
>>
>> As the old joke says, unlike Biology, Physics, and Astronomy, in Economics
>> the exam questions stay the same every year; it's only that the accepted
>> answers change to suit the current fashion.
>
>No, they don't, liar.Classical Economics has been the same for 70
>years.
>I'm also a CPA.
>>
>> I suspect (if you graduated from an American university) the physical
>> science courses you took were the specially designed "descriptive
>> non-calculus" ones for those not in a science major. Nothing wrong with
>> that, but I get the impression you were not listening in any of them.
>
>I took calculus, too.Your impressions do not constitute evidence.
>I was in pre-medicine for 2 years.
Before people get the wrong idea about this as well, perhaps you should
clarify what calculus you took - whether it was the calculus taught in
high school, or something more advanced. While you're at it, you could
also clarify what you describe as two years of pre-medicine.
--
alias Ernest Major
Mike Dworetsky
In case you didn't notice, I said it was a joke (I've heard it many times).
In fact, some astronomy questions can stay the same but the answers change,
e.g., "Describe the evolution of our Galaxy as understood by current
astronomy," "How many satellites does Jupiter have?", "How many planets are
there in our solar system?" "Which planet has a ring?"
Why was it that 70 years ago, "everyone" knew that currencies had to be
backed by silver, and coins were made of various grades of fine silver to
ensure that they had "value" and exchange stability relative to other
currencies? But suddenly in the 1960s this turned out not to be necessary?
> I'm also a CPA.
Sounds as if you spent a lot of time doing many different degree courses.
Pre-med, law, economics, accountancy. Presumably you had to do some time as
a trainee teacher also (you mentioned teaching eighth grade).
>> I suspect (if you graduated from an American university) the physical
>> science courses you took were the specially designed "descriptive
>> non-calculus" ones for those not in a science major. Nothing wrong
>> with that, but I get the impression you were not listening in any of
>> them.
>
> I took calculus, too.Your impressions do not constitute evidence.
> I was in pre-medicine for 2 years.
>>
Glad to hear it. It doesn't change the fact that you know very little about
evolution and the evidence for it, or about how science works.
John Harshman
Why does any of this matter? He's demonstrated that he knows almost
nothing about evolutionary biology. That should be enough.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
is no freedom in natural selection the fittest always survive, and if
they don't survive then that is due to things other than natural
selection. So never can an alternative result be reached by natural
selection, so natural selection is not free, and does not choose.
When a population increases or decreases that is the same principle at
work in nature as natural selection. Regardless if an organism is
different or the same as another, the same principle of reproduction
in nature applies. The principle that preservation of organization
over certain death is through reproduction, generally leading to the
organization of organisms in terms of their reproduction.
So natural selection theory is a misconceived subset of the principle
of preservation of organization through reproduction. Misconceived
because nature does not compare forms of organisms, as Darwinists say
it does. If population size increases or decreases, then according to
Darwinists there is no change in fitness of these organisms, because
for Darwinists fitness is a relative measure of percentages of X and Y
type organisms in a population. So a fish on dry land, or in the
water, it makes no difference to a Darwinist, fitness is not really
relative to the environment in Darwinist math, but relative to the
reproduction of a variant organism.
You should simply ignore Darwinists and consider when the population
size increases as a function of an increase in fitness of the
organisms, and when the populationsize decreases then you should
consider that in terms of a decrease in fitness of organisms.
On Apr 20, 10:11 am, "Mike Dworetsky"
<platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
> Joe Bruno wrote:
>
> .....
>
>
>
> > I am not a creationist, Dave. However, I do have doubts about the
> > certainty of evolution based on logic and common sense.
> > I have no personal explanation of what they find in the rocks, but I
> > do have doubts about the theories insisted on by the evolutionists.
> > The theory of evolution is too simplistic for me to explain such a
> > complex set of facts.
>
> Please note that personal incredulity is not evidence of anything other than
> a lack of education.
>
> > It all happened by chance thru random mutations?????? What caused
> > these mutations?Isn't it convenient that all the mutations (of all
> > the
> > millions that were possible) happened in just the right direction to
> > produce all these complex organisms that have so many features and so
> > many techniques for survival?
>
> Sigh. You are trying to do battle with a strawman representation of
> evolution, not with the actual theory of evolution.
>
> The effects of mutations are not random.
>
> Mutations have many causes, including transcription errors, insertion of
> virus genetic code sequences, radiation-induced changes, and
> chemically-induced changes.
>
> Most mutations are "bad" but some are good. Even if only a tiny fraction
> are good, the bad ones die out and the good ones are passed on.
>
> > Natural selection made the choice?
>
> Yes. Imagine an organism with numerous offspring. The main predator is a
> very fast critter that chases down the little offspring and eats them for
> lunch. The offspring have a variety of inherited abilities for, say, speed.
> Of all the offspring, the chances are that the faster ones will survive to
> reproduce. Hence, over time, even if the selective pressure is slight in
> each generation, the descendants will be faster and faster.
>
> > Where are the fossils of the animals whose mutations didn't allow
> > them
> > to last very long?
> > Where are all the bad mutations that failed?
>
> > Don't show me fossils of trilobites. They lasted millions of years. I
> > want to see the fossils of the animals that didn't last
> > even 1,000 years. I want to see the failures.If what the evos say is
> > true, their remains should be preserved somewhere.
>
> Why? No one expects to see fossils of species that only last a short time.
> Fossilisation is a rare event, especially for land animals or soft-bodied
> sea creatures.
>
> And a species that only lasts 1,000 years would probably look so much like
> its ancestor species (in fossil form) that we would be hard pressed to tell
> the difference.
>
>
>
> > There is a gap in the evidence. Until it is filled, I will continue
> > to
> > doubt.
>
> Your choice, but a poor one.
Steven L.
"Joe Bruno" <ser...@russiamail.com> wrote in message
news:089a7f67-c2fa-471e...@h16g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
In that case, may I ask you if you doubt any other commonly accepted
theories besides evolution?
The age of the Universe; the age of the Earth; how the Earth formed;
etc.
Scientists also tell us that billions of years from now, our own Sun
will become a red giant star, engulfing the Earth. Do you doubt that
too?
The reason I ask is that all these theories deal with time scales way
beyond the length of human civilization. No one was around to see the
Earth form. And by the time our Sun expands, our species could be
extinct and no one will see the Sun as a red giant. Yet scientists are
positive these things happened and will happen.
Do you accept those findings?
-- Steven L.
John Wilkins
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
The question to ask about all this is whether he passed any of these
classes...
nando_r...@yahoo.com
theory what you expect to find, simply based on the logic of your
theory, not looking at any evidence. Then after you have formulated
what you expect to find, then you should look at the evidence. So the
hypothesis is random mutation, and reproduction, and then MATHEMATICS
and LOGIC based on that says that what you would expect to find is....
and what the evidence says is.... and the difference between the
evidence and your expectation is....
On Apr 20, 4:31 pm, "Rodjk #613" <rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 20, 3:08 am, Joe Bruno <ser...@russiamail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 12:33 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > I am not a creationist, Dave. However, I do have doubts about the
> > > > certainty of evolution based on logic and common sense.
> > > > I have no personal explanation of what they find in the rocks, but I
> > > > do have doubts about the theories insisted on by the evolutionists.
> > > > The theory of evolution is too simplistic for me to explain such a
> > > > complex set of facts.
> > > > It all happened by chance thru random mutations?????? What caused
> > > > these mutations?Isn't it convenient that all the mutations (of all
> > > > the
> > > > millions that were possible) happened in just the right direction to
> > > > produce all these complex organisms that have so many features and so
> > > > many techniques for survival?
>
> > > > Natural selection made the choice?
>
> > > > Where are the fossils of the animals whose mutations didn't allow
> > > > them
> > > > to last very long?
> > > > Where are all the bad mutations that failed?
>
> > > You mean like Down syndrome? Or any other of the known genetic
> > > diseases? We can see them all around us, do you doubt they exist?
>
> > That's a human disease. I ask again:Where are the fossils of the
> > animals that failed?
>
> See, what we have here is a failure to communicate.
> Joe is asking what seems to him to be a reasonable question and
> getting no answers.
>
> Yes, I think the problem is that Joe has an incorrect view of what is
> expected in the fossil record, and perhaps and incomplete grasp of the
> science of evolution, but it is not an unreasonable question.
>
> > Humans have only been on Earth for maybe 50,000 years. That's a drop
> > in the bucket compared to the age of the earth and the beginning of
> > life.If what you say is true, the animal kingdom must have had lots of
> > failures before humans even came around and could get Down's Syndrome.
> > Show me the fossils of the defective prehistoric fish and birds.
>
> The thing is, Joe, that the defective fish and birds died without
> reproducing. So the chance of any of them being fossilized are slim to
> none.
> What we do see are species that failed, but there is something you
> have to realize. The species did not necessarily fail all at once,
> they may have lived for 10's of thousands of years and then failed. To
> evolution, it is the same. Except that the species may well be
> represented in the fossil record.
>
> > Not the Pterodactyl. They lasted a long time. Who failed before they
> > were advanced enough to survive?
>
> Thats just it, if a species failed quickly, there is almost no chance
> it would be in the fossil record.
>
> > The mutations were RANDOM. That means alot and alot and alot of them
> > FAILED.
>
> Yes.
>
> > Where are the lots and lots and lots?
>
> All of the extinct species in the fossil record.
> Again, Joe... I am trying to answer your question.
> But I don't think that it will be easy for you to understand without
> spending some time learning about species.
>
> Rodjk #613- Hide quoted text -
Rodjk #613
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It is just not true. You should first state a hypothesis based on your
> theory what you expect to find, simply based on the logic of your
> theory, not looking at any evidence. Then after you have formulated
> what you expect to find, then you should look at the evidence. So the
> hypothesis is random mutation, and reproduction, and then MATHEMATICS
> and LOGIC based on that says that what you would expect to find is....
> and what the evidence says is.... and the difference between the
> evidence and your expectation is....
I have no idea what you are talking about, or who you are responding
to, or even what you are responding to.
Rodjk #613
Rodjk #613
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ofcourse natural selection is the anti-thesis of choice, because there
> is no freedom in natural selection the fittest always survive, and if
> they don't survive then that is due to things other than natural
> selection. So never can an alternative result be reached by natural
> selection, so natural selection is not free, and does not choose.
No. If they survive or don't survive it is NS.
There are other factors (genetic drift, asteroids) but that is all
part of the process.
Alternatives are reached, driven by things like drift or
asteroids...that is the random part of the process then the ability to
survive and reproduce becomes a factor.
After all this time in TO, you still don't understand even the basics
of evolution.
> When a population increases or decreases that is the same principle at
> work in nature as natural selection. Regardless if an organism is
> different or the same as another, the same principle of reproduction
> in nature applies. The principle that preservation of organization
> over certain death is through reproduction, generally leading to the
> organization of organisms in terms of their reproduction.
Word salad.
> So natural selection theory is a misconceived subset of the principle
> of preservation of organization through reproduction.
No, you just don't understand it, as has just been pointed out.
>Misconceived
> because nature does not compare forms of organisms, as Darwinists say
> it does.
Yes, it does.
> If population size increases or decreases, then according to
> Darwinists there is no change in fitness of these organisms, because
> for Darwinists fitness is a relative measure of percentages of X and Y
> type organisms in a population.
No.
> So a fish on dry land, or in the
> water, it makes no difference to a Darwinist, fitness is not really
> relative to the environment in Darwinist math, but relative to the
> reproduction of a variant organism.
Word salad again. Fitness, and reproduction, is certainly a component
in evolution.
> You should simply ignore Darwinists and consider when the population
> size increases as a function of an increase in fitness of the
> organisms, and when the populationsize decreases then you should
> consider that in terms of a decrease in fitness of organisms.
Read again what Mike said...
Rodjk #613
Steven L.
"raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:pkkrs5p3g46cgh4pd...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:55:50 +0000, "Steven L."
> <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"Joe Bruno" <ser...@russiamail.com> wrote in message
> >news:25f2f762-5def-45f8...@b39g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
> >
> >> On Apr 20, 7:31�am, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> > In article
> >> > <a1ecd2f9-1b21-455c-8de3-467450934...@v27g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
> >> > > I am not a creationist, Dave. However, I do have doubts about the
> >> > > certainty of evolution based on logic and common sense.
> >> > > I have no personal explanation of what they find in the rocks, but I
> >> > > do have doubts about the theories insisted on by the evolutionists.
> >> > > The theory of evolution is too simplistic for me to explain such a
> >> > > complex set of facts.
> >> > > It all happened by chance thru random mutations?????? What caused
> >> > > these mutations?Isn't it convenient that all the mutations (of all
> >> > > the
> >> > > millions that were possible) happened in just the right direction to
> >> > > produce all these complex organisms that have so many features and so
> >> > > many techniques for survival?
> >> >
> >> > > Natural selection made the choice?
> >> >
> >> > > Where are the fossils of the animals whose mutations didn't allow
> >> > > them
> >> > > to last very long?
> >> > > Where are all the bad mutations that failed?
> >> >
> >> > > Don't show me fossils of trilobites. They lasted millions of years. I
> >> > > want to see the fossils of the animals that didn't last
> >> > > even 1,000 years. I want to see the failures.If what the evos say is
> >> > > true, their remains should be preserved somewhere.
> >> >
> >> > > There is a gap in the evidence. Until it is filled, I will continue
> >> > > to
> >> > > doubt.
> >> >
> >> > I hope you are trolling.
> >> >
> >> Nyet.(No)
> >
> >Didn't you say at one point that your background is law, rather than
> >science?
> >
> >OK, then you must understand rules of evidence.
> >
> >What evidence--if we could find it and present it--would you find
> >convincing that the Theory of Evolution accounts for the diversity of
> >life on Earth?
> >
> >What exactly would convince you, short of direct eyewitness observation
> >which (in the case of species long gone before human civilization) we
> >obviously don't have.
>
> One would also hope that with a law background, he would understand
> that forensic evidence, which we have in abundance, is much more
> reliable than eyewitness testimony.
Sure. And not only that. To convict someone of first-degree murder, you
need *proof beyond reasonable doubt*. The bar is set pretty high.
Yet proof beyond reasonable doubt can be attained with forensic evidence
alone, even without eyewitnesses.
-- Steven L.
Tom McDonald
Well, that, and why he can't seem to stick to anything. :-)
--
Tom