Jump to content


Photo

New Species


  • Please log in to reply
156 replies to this topic

#61 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 09 January 2014 - 08:26 AM


Hesperocyon-Vulpes-001-rs_zpscb93bc9e.jp
 
 

 

Uff-da! I'm in trouble,

Dude digs up  his own fossils!

 ohmy.png



#62 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,424 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 09 January 2014 - 08:43 AM

Uff-da! I'm in trouble,

Dude digs up  his own fossils!

 ohmy.png

 

smile.png Actually, the Hesperocyon is a Valley Anatomical Preparations replica, although the red fox skull is original. My VP professor had a pet peeve about the private collecting of vertebrate fossils, a view I tend to agree with.



#63 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 09 January 2014 - 09:27 AM

smile.png Actually, the Hesperocyon is a Valley Anatomical Preparations replica, although the red fox skull is original. My VP professor had a pet peeve about the private collecting of vertebrate fossils, a view I tend to agree with.

 

Sure, all in good fun.

I've actually seen a few of your earlier posts and to say that you are "astute" would be an understatement.

Agree with the philosophy of private collections.



#64 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 09 January 2014 - 10:12 AM

If they could demonstrate the mechanisms for such empirically then perhaps they would be onto something. Otherwise they are simply making assumptions and assumptions are not science.

 

I sincerely thought we did in our discussion with the Hesperocyon to dog example.

Nobody is asking for such. However there should be a RECORD of these slight changes in the fossils , instead we see stasis which is 100% contradictory to what you claim.

Is this strict criteria met with the Hesperocyon to dog example?

 

I really think I failed in my attempt to demonstrate that creationists and evolutionists agree on the exact same mechanism for diversification, and merely disagree upon which point in time that this mechanism started.



#65 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,891 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 09 January 2014 - 12:43 PM

I really think I failed in my attempt to demonstrate that creationists and evolutionists agree on the exact same mechanism for diversification, and merely disagree upon which point in time that this mechanism started.

By paradox, similarities between world-views are often hardest to point out or accept. :)



#66 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,509 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 09 January 2014 - 01:19 PM

But still, what started this discussion was this comment from M. Summers:

"What is not observed is a dog morphing gradually into a cow in real life or in the fossil record.
That's the evidence needed to support evolution as a theory instead of the hypothesis it is."



This is a viewpoint that the theory of evolution in no way subscribes to.

If it was discovered that a dog actually gave rise to a cow, it would shatter what we currently think about evolution.



That was my sole intention, not necessarily to argue the validity of the theory, but rather simply clear up the common misconception of what the theory actually proposes

let's make an attempt to put this in proper perspective. According to the evolutionary hypothesis, we at this time, can look back through 3.5 billion years of alleged evolution.

Now let me use an analogy. Suppose I go to a movie and they show two frames of that movie. That's simply not enough to determine what the movie is about. However, by comparison that is largely what the hypothesis of evolution claims. An average two-hour movie has 172,800 frames. Two frames by comparison is just not enough to determine what the movie is about. What is filling in all the missing frames is our creative ability, most of which,  is pure speculative fiction. Where is the evidence? Where are the missing frames? Deliver them or stop claiming that evolution is a theory.



#67 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,509 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 09 January 2014 - 01:36 PM

Nonaffiliated said:

But still, what started this discussion was this comment from M. Summers:

"What is not observed is a dog morphing gradually into a cow in real life or in the fossil record.
That's the evidence needed to support evolution as a theory instead of the hypothesis it is."



This is a viewpoint that the theory of evolution in no way subscribes to.

If it was discovered that a dog actually gave rise to a cow, it would shatter what we currently think about evolution.



That was my sole intention, not necessarily to argue the validity of the theory, but rather simply clear up the common misconception of what the theory actually proposes

let's make an attempt to put this in proper perspective. According to the evolutionary hypothesis, we at this time, can look back through 3.5 billion years of alleged evolution.

Now let me use an analogy. Suppose I go to a movie and they show two frames of that movie. That's simply not enough to determine what the movie is about. However, by comparison that is largely what the hypothesis of evolution claims. An average two-hour movie has 172,800 frames. Two frames is just not enough to determine what the movie is about.


What is filling in all the missing frames is our creative ability, most of which, is pure speculative fiction. Where is the evidence? Where are the missing frames (links)--the transitionals? Deliver them or stop claiming that evolution is a theory.



#68 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 09 January 2014 - 02:01 PM

By paradox, similarities between world-views are often hardest to point out or accept. smile.png

Yes,

But do you see my point here?

How many times amongst creationists the phrase: "well if evolution were true then....."

which is then followed by some totally ridiculous scenario that evolution would never predict.

And if the theory did actually predict that there should be a "crocoduck", then of course I would think it would be a ridiculous idea myself.

 

But that is exactly what this whole "macro" "micro" nonsense is.

 

It's a way to distort the idea by insisting that evolution creates animals that suddenly evolve from one "kind" to another.

 

Evolution just doesn't predict that, it would be like Hesperocyon giving birth to a poodle.



#69 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 09 January 2014 - 02:48 PM

Nonaffiliated said:

let's make an attempt to put this in proper perspective. According to the evolutionary hypothesis, we at this time, can look back through 3.5 billion years of alleged evolution.

Now let me use an analogy. Suppose I go to a movie and they show two frames of that movie. That's simply not enough to determine what the movie is about. However, by comparison that is largely what the hypothesis of evolution claims. An average two-hour movie has 172,800 frames. Two frames is just not enough to determine what the movie is about.


What is filling in all the missing frames is our creative ability, most of which, is pure speculative fiction. Where is the evidence? Where are the missing frames (links)--the transitionals? Deliver them or stop claiming that evolution is a theory.

 

I would like to address this, but right now I am trying merely trying to address the misrepresentation that many creationists cast upon the "idea" (how's that smile.png)  of evolution.



#70 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,509 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 09 January 2014 - 03:04 PM

Address it then!

Definition of evolution (n)

Bing Dictionary
ev·o·lu·tion
[ èvvə lsh'n ]


1.theory of development from earlier forms: the theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of life.
2.developmental process: the natural or artificially induced process by which new and different organisms develop as a result of changes in genetic material
3.gradual development: the gradual development of something into a more complex or better form

&

I take it you disagree with this definition?

#71 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 09 January 2014 - 05:38 PM

So that's it, there is no "macro evolution"

 

OK, well that's the main thing.

 

We can discuss more about the "long term" vs "short term" evolution.

 

Great. Since that was what I was demonstrating to be false earlier. We could return to my arguments.

 

But my main point of this discussion was to dispel this idea that a "fish gave birth to a lizard, that gave birth to a mammal" (or something like that) idea that I see so many creationists put forth.

 

Yet no-one on here has put that argument forth so how can you claim it here?

 

Earlier you said:

"However still stating that a fly cannot become a pig or a fish to a horse etc."

 

Can you see how a fly cannot become a pig, (within the theory of evolution)?

Now, the theory does allow for a common fish ancestor, to later give rise to a horse.

But a fish would never give birth to a horse.

So I may have mis-represented you when I made the statement:

"So, a fish that is living today, can in no way give birth to a dog."...my apologies.

 

Yes you did misrepresent what I said, (thanks for admitting it :) ).

 

I merely said for a fly to become a pig or a fish to a horse, no specific time-frame was given meaning the "slight successive changes" methodology can be applied to these.

 

(nor was it claimed that the initial animal would give birth to the other).

 

But still, what started this discussion was this comment from M. Summers:

"What is not observed is a dog morphing gradually into a cow in real life or in the fossil record.
That's the evidence needed to support evolution as a theory instead of the hypothesis it is."

 

See the bolded word? I think you over looked this ;)

 

This is a viewpoint that the theory of evolution in no way subscribes to.

If it was discovered that a dog actually gave rise to a cow, it would shatter what we currently think about evolution.

 

How so? Isn't organisms becoming different organisms the basis of evolution

 

That was my sole intention, not necessarily to argue the validity of the theory, but rather simply clear up the common misconception of what the theory actually proposes.

 

Yet it seems the only misconception was your own ;)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I sincerely thought we did in our discussion with the Hesperocyon to dog example.

Is this strict criteria met with the Hesperocyon to dog example?

 

What mechanisms were cited?

 

I really think I failed in my attempt to demonstrate that creationists and evolutionists agree on the exact same mechanism for diversification, and merely disagree upon which point in time that this mechanism started.

 

I thought I agreed with you....



#72 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 09 January 2014 - 07:23 PM

Yes you did misrepresent what I said, (thanks for admitting it smile.png ).

 

I merely said for a fly to become a pig or a fish to a horse, no specific time-frame was given meaning the "slight successive changes" methodology can be applied to these.

 

(nor was it claimed that the initial animal would give birth to the other).

 

 

See the bolded word? I think you over looked this wink.png

 

OK I think I see our misunderstanding.

 

A dog could not give rise to a cow, no matter how long.

A fish could have given rise to a dog or a cow.wacko.png Whaaat?

 

Let me explain, again, I am merely explaining what evolution claims.

 

Animals can only be derived from their ancestory.

So, the theory is that Eusthenopteron,

b6b2e28c33d2182cc214180827aaa9b8.jpg

a fish that had bones in its fins, was one of the first fish that showed traits that are believed to have been passed on (branched out) to give rise to all tetrapods we see today.

 

So, according to evolution, a cow or dog shared the common ancestor Eusthenopteron.

 

A carp,

1000x1000.jpg

 

on the other hand, has evolved separately, it has rayed fins, and not thought to be part of land animals ancestory.

 

Besides that, a cow has already evolved into its present form, and so has the carp.

They are both modern, extant animals.

If the carp, in the distant future, gave rise to a new set of land animals, then they would have to evolve completely separately, and perhaps, give rise to something that resembled a cow, but it would never be the Guernsey we see today.

It would be a new animal that evolved into its cow-like form.

 

We call that convergent evolution.

This has actually happened in Australia, where the animals there all derived from the marsupial type mammals that have filled virtually every niche there. The eutherian mammals have filled their own niches with similar type animals but from different ancestory.

 

A fly could not be the ancestor of any vertebrate, because they are extant species from completely different lines.

Neither could a fly be the ancestor of a grasshopper, they have evolved to their present extant forms.

 

So back to our dog scenario.

The wolf is common ancestor of all domestic dogs.

The poodle is a descendent of the wolf, so is the bulldog.

They evolved artificially from a common source and diversified into two completely different dog breeds.

So a poodle could not be selectively bred to be a bulldog. (unless you cheat and breed it with a bulldog).

You could select poodle pups that somewhat resembled bulldogs, and breed them with others that showed bulldog traits over and over, and eventually, you could create a bulldog-like dog, but it would not be a bulldog. It would just resemble the bulldog.

 

Does that help explain evolution any better? Not asking you to buy it, just trying to explain what the theory says.

You evolutionists out there please correct me if I totally butchered something here.wacko.png



#73 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,509 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 09 January 2014 - 11:03 PM

Like the little old lady said, "Where's the beef?" Evolution can not talk. You are its puppet master. I think we all aagree that ypu are a very creative story teller. Same as Darwin.

Evolution is an hypothesis not a theory.

 

So what can you breed a poodle into? Have you run into the species wall? The wolf had all the code to be able to get all the different kinds of dogs but after selective breeding there seems to be nothng more one can breed out of a poodle or some other kind of dog. All the code was in the wolf but was exhausted by losing information not ganing it which is one fo evi's main claims. Furthermore breeding does not =mutatiions.

All the dogs seem to adapt to their environment quite nicely leading one to wonder wich ones are more fit?



#74 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 10 January 2014 - 02:17 AM

OK I think I see our misunderstanding.
 
A dog could not give rise to a cow, no matter how long.
A fish could have given rise to a dog or a cow.wacko.png Whaaat

No matter how long? I thought time was the hero of the plot? We as creationists think its a complete leap into foolishness to try to find Fido the dog's and Goldy the goldfish's common ancestor but evolutionists presume it's a fact whether they have evidence or not. simply wave the magic wand of time and anything is suddenly possible. Moistened rocks turn into people given enough magic time.

#75 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 10 January 2014 - 03:12 AM

OK I think I see our misunderstanding.

 

What misunderstanding? Evolution claims one form of organism turns into another gradually, does it not? This was what Mike (and I) were getting at. The reference of "Cow", "Dog", "Fly", "Horse" etc are used as arbitrary names since the (claimed) ancestors of such are unknown for the most part.

 

A dog could not give rise to a cow, no matter how long.

A fish could have given rise to a dog or a cow.wacko.png Whaaat?

 

Actually I believe a "dog-like" animal is claimed as the ancestor of the larger quadruped mammals

 

Let me explain, again, I am merely explaining what evolution claims.

 

Animals can only be derived from their ancestory.

So, the theory is that Eusthenopteron,

b6b2e28c33d2182cc214180827aaa9b8.jpg

a fish that had bones in its fins, was one of the first fish that showed traits that are believed to have been passed on (branched out) to give rise to all tetrapods we see today.

 

So bones in its fins.... and?... So that means its the ancestor of all land animals? Do you see the amount of assumptions being made here. For a paltry amount of fact there is an unsubstantiated amount of postulation going on.

 

 

So, according to evolution, a cow or dog shared the common ancestor Eusthenopteron.

 

No according to you, a cow or dog shared the common ancestor Eusthenopteron.

 

Otherwise you are personifying evolution in which Fjuri would (should) give you a lecture ;)

 

A carp,

1000x1000.jpg

 

on the other hand, has evolved separately, it has rayed fins, and not thought to be part of land animals ancestory.

 

Besides that, a cow has already evolved into its present form, and so has the carp.

They are both modern, extant animals.

If the carp, in the distant future, gave rise to a new set of land animals, then they would have to evolve completely separately, and perhaps, give rise to something that resembled a cow, but it would never be the Guernsey we see today.

It would be a new animal that evolved into its cow-like form.

 

Great story :D

 

We call that convergent evolution.

 

Yes its an ad hoc hypothesis made to explain similar or same traits in totally unrelated organisms. For example bats and dolphins share the same gene for their sonar, yet no evolutionist would ever claim they are related.... Soooo up comes "convergent evolution" to save the day and explain away these contradictions. I ask you, what evidence is there to support the claims of "convergent evolution" (apart from the contradictions it is being used to explain away). In other words how is it verified? I've asked this previously but got a reply that lead to a red herring and a poisoning the well fallacy which never touched on this point at all.

 

This has actually happened in Australia, where the animals there all derived from the marsupial type mammals that have filled virtually every niche there. The eutherian mammals have filled their own niches with similar type animals but from different ancestory.

 

How does this support the claim of convergent evolution?

 

A fly could not be the ancestor of any vertebrate, because they are extant species from completely different lines.

Neither could a fly be the ancestor of a grasshopper, they have evolved to their present extant forms.

 

Ah, but as I said the names of the organisms were irrelevant in that they were merely arbitrary names... All Mike and I wanted to express was this.

 

Evolution claims "Organism 1 changes into Organism 2 over time". That is it.

 

Whereas Creationism claims Organism 1 changes into other variants of Organism 1 but never Organism 2".

 

The Creationist perspective is what we actually observe, the evolutionist is based on imagination and flights of fancy (and story telling ;))

 

You could select poodle pups that somewhat resembled bulldogs, and breed them with others that showed bulldog traits over and over, and eventually, you could create a bulldog-like dog, but it would not be a bulldog. It would just resemble the bulldog.

 

Perhaps you can demonstrate a Poodle with "Bulldog-like traits" but wasn't bred with a Bulldog (since as you said that is cheating).

 

Does that help explain evolution any better? Not asking you to buy it, just trying to explain what the theory says.

You evolutionists out there please correct me if I totally butchered something here.wacko.png



#76 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,891 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 10 January 2014 - 03:27 AM

No, according to you, a cow or dog shared the common ancestor Eusthenopteron.

 

Otherwise you are personifying evolution in which Fjuri would (should) give you a lecture wink.png

Please refrain from intentional misrepresentation of my statements.

 

The way he is using the word "evolution" is a Metonymy. That has nothing to do with what I stated.


 



#77 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 10 January 2014 - 06:54 AM

Please refrain from intentional misrepresentation of my statements.

 

The way he is using the word "evolution" is a Metonymy. That has nothing to do with what I stated.


 

 

 

How is it an intentional misrepresentation? You dislike when people personify evolution, (though I have caught you doing it a few times ;) ).

 

nonaffiliated, on 10 Jan 2014 - 12:42, said:snapback.png

So, according to evolution, a cow or dog shared the common ancestor Eusthenopteron.

 

Perhaps if nonaffiliated said according to the theory of evolution then he'd be in the clear. However saying it this way is implying evolution as a thing.

 

 

I am being as semantic driven as nonaffiliated was with his literal interpretation of "cow" and "dog" etc. Annoying isn't it ;)



#78 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,136 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 10 January 2014 - 08:12 AM

Evolution claims "Organism 1 changes into Organism 2 over time". That is it.

 

Whereas Creationism claims Organism 1 changes into other variants of Organism 1 but never Organism 2".

 

The Creationist perspective is what we actually observe, the evolutionist is based on imagination and flights of fancy (and story telling wink.png)

 

Except that Creationism also relies on a Creator or a God whose creation, for most, is one of several descriptions written thousands of years ago .... long before the Science Revolution.  Some (not me, however) might argue that that is the epitome of imagination, flights of fancy, and storytelling.

 

As I have said numerous times, the theory of evolution is currently the leading scientific theory that explains the history and diversity of life on earth and either it's right or it's wrong.  Creation is not a scientific theory; it is a religious belief where, IMHO, the ideas of "right" and "wrong" do not apply. 



#79 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,891 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 10 January 2014 - 08:48 AM

How is it an intentional misrepresentation? You dislike when people personify evolution, (though I have caught you doing it a few times wink.png ).

Can you show that for me (where I personified evolution)?

 

I am being as semantic driven as nonaffiliated was with his literal interpretation of "cow" and "dog" etc. Annoying isn't it wink.png

So you have to act it out on me? That's trolling...



#80 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 10 January 2014 - 09:11 AM

I promise to use "theory of evolution" from now on.

I intentionally left it out because folks were getting their panties in a bunch because they didn't like the word "theory".

Sheesh!

 

I feel that we are getting lost in semantics here.

 

I really don't feel that you are understanding the principles of this theory.

 

Have you studied it so as to gain an understanding?

 

I know more about the flood theory than most creationists because I research the topic to hear what they have to say about it, analyze it, and then base my discussions based upon that before I post something.

So I honestly understand what flood theorist have to say and what they propose.

 

Have you done this with the theory of evolution?

Forgive me for having to ask this.

Perhaps you have, but perceived a far different idea of it then than what most evolutionists have.

 

To avoid all confusion...A dog, (any member of the canine family, extinct or extant), can never, or ever could have (through the process of variation and natural selection proposed by the alleged "evolutionary theory") gave/given rise to any cow (any member of what we call the bovine family, extinct or extant) either now or in the past.

 

Would you agree that this is a true statement according to what is proposed by the alleged, proposed, scientific idea, theory,(whatever) of evolution??

 

I am NOT asking you to believe this right now.

 

This entire thread has been about WHAT evolution proposes, not IF it is correct.

 

I am just wondering if you are aware that this is what the theory proposes.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users