Jump to content


Photo

Facts Of Evolution (Cassiopeia Project)


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#1 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 17 September 2012 - 01:14 PM



I am posting this having watched about 3 minutes of it and already there is unsubstantiated story telling, logical fallacies, and overstatement of evidence. I just figured I would post it for discussions sake. Have fun but lets try to keep it serious.


Edited by Bonedigger, 13 January 2014 - 06:19 PM.
Fixed Youtube embed


#2 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 19 September 2012 - 10:04 AM

Doing a bit more with this today. Essentially this is 51 minutes and 25 seconds of uninterrupted propaganda for evolution. http://www.cassiopei...lution&big=tran is a transcript for easy refuting of what they are saying, so you can copy and paste instead of listening to the video and typing (which is a pain). In the first thirty seconds they have already made a false statement, leading people down the illusory path of evolution, and making it the only game in town. This continues later in the video but I will take a quote from it (around 14 seconds in):

"Along the way, many will applaud and many will object. But both reactions are inappropriate. Science as a discipline does not cheer for a given outcome of its experiments and investigations."

While applauding is inappropriate, objection is absolutely appropriate when experiments and evidence refutes the claims made. I think we can all agree on this.

Continuing (40 seconds):


"But we will touch on enough detail to give a solid underpinning for the following conclusions…
Common Descent is a fact…all life on earth is related through common
ancestry.
Changes within a single species occur – so-called microevolution.
Species themselves come and go – so called macroevolution.
The primary mechanism of change is genetic inheritance…with
variation…and natural selection."

Bolded the deceptive claims. They aim to prove common descent within the video, therefore, their claim that it is a fact at the beginning of the video is premature to the viewer, preloading the average viewers brain with a conclusion so as not to allow them to question the evidence presented. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." -Oz

Species themselves come and go? Well if you loosely define species as birds giving rise to new species of birds that can no longer interbreed with their ancestors then yes, but they look exactly the same, and so calling that macro evolution is DECEPTION. Also, species disappearing is NOT evidence for evolution. These phrases roll off the tongue in such a languid voice so as to hypnotize the audience, lulling them into a peaceful mood which allows them to be indoctrinated easier.


"We will NOT discuss God or Intelligent Design. Worthy topics – but NOT for science.

If you examine all the pertinent data within the video, it also fits perfectly with Intelligent Design, but it is so much easier to convince people of evolution when it is the only game in town, so they discard it as irrelevant. What they really do not want you to know is that evolution itself is in the realm of philosophy, pulling its supporting data from science, much like the ID that they disparage in this video.


"[...] None of this changes the fact that every living thing on earth is related to every otherliving thing on earth."

Again, reinforcing their beliefs as fact. If you repeat the word "fact" enough, it must be true right?


"If it is to be called science, it must be testable. And for almost 150 years the research community has done every test imaginable to examine Evolution and Common Descent. And for 150 years not a single test has EVER failed to validate that all life on earth comes from a common ancestor."

Notice the indication that ID is not testable.

Tests over 150 years have not resoundingly DISPROVEN common descent, but no one test would do that. It requires an analysis of data from experiments to disprove common descent. Such experiments certainly have not VALIDATED common descent either, yet If you take out their double negative "not" and "failed", then you see WHAT THEY ARE REALLY SAYING: "every single test in the last 150 years has validated universal common descent."

REALLY???!!! Shameless lies...


"Here are just a few of the prestigious scientific organizations that accept this as a
proven fact…check it out…
American Association for the Advancement of Science
National Academy of Sciences
National Center for Science Education
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Society of Naturalists
Animal Behavior Society
Ecological Society of America
Genetics Society of America
Paleontological Society
Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution
Society for the Study of Evolution
Society of Systematic Biologists
Geological Society of America"

So a shameless argument from authority. I am sure that the leading flat earthers had credibility for awhile in their heyday...but creationists have systematically shown that all this "evidence" is an illusion, that it does not exclusively point to common descent but also, conflictingly, points to a common designer.

To Be Continued...

#3 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1083 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: 49
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 23 September 2012 - 10:21 PM

Only non-marsupial mammals have a placenta, birds and mollusks are never found with placenta.

Only mammals have hair and mammary glands

I just had to laugh when I read these two statements being presented as examples of nested hierarchies proving common descent. Hair and mammary glands are part of the diagnostic criteria used to define a mammal, and the presence of a placenta is used to define "placental" (non-marsupial and non-monotreme) mammals. Those criteria are used because they don't occur in any other groups (i.e. have been cherry-picked as diagnostic because of their exclusive distribution). It's like declaring that no one with blond hair has black hair-a self fulfilling definition. It's just retroactive "prediction".


Species are essentially never found that combine characteristics of different groupings.


One example that comes to mind is the presence of a cloaca (a common urogenital canal found in the platypus and echidna--from which the term monotreme is derived=single opening). Yet, for some mysterious reason, beavers, and tenrecs and golden moles, all placental mammals, also have a cloaca. Hmm. Maybe that's why the absence of a cloaca is not used in the definition of a non-monotreme mammals.

#4 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 24 September 2012 - 09:47 PM

I like this thread :D Its interesting, amusing and somewhat frustrating to see the propaganda evolutionists utilise to support their ideology.

#5 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 06 October 2012 - 02:59 PM

no they dont do that.

#6 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1023 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 29 January 2013 - 03:22 AM

....

Species are essentially never found that combine characteristics of different groupings.

One example that comes to mind is the presence of a cloaca (a common urogenital canal found in the platypus and echidna--from which the term monotreme is derived=single opening). Yet, for some mysterious reason, beavers, and tenrecs and golden moles, all placental mammals, also have a cloaca. Hmm. Maybe that's why the absence of a cloaca is not used in the definition of a non-monotreme mammals.


The Platypus is an interesting one. Found an article on that:

"While we've always been able to compare and consider all of these creatures on the basis of their physical characteristics, internal anatomy and behavior, it's truly amazing to be able to compare their genetic blueprints and begin to get a close-up look at how evolution brings about change," Wilson says.

As part of their analysis, the researchers compared the platypus genome with genomes of the human, mouse, dog, opossum and chicken. They found that the platypus shares 82 percent of its genes with these animals. The chicken genome was chosen because it represents a group of egg-laying animals, including extinct reptiles, which passed on much of their DNA to the platypus and other mammals over the course of evolution.


The researchers also found genes that support egg laying - a feature of reptiles - as well as lactation - a characteristic of all mammals. Interestingly, the platypus lack nipples, so its young nurse through the abdominal skin.


The researchers also attempted to determine which characteristics of the platypus were linked to reptiles at the DNA level. When they analyzed the genetic sequences responsible for venom production in the male platypus, they found it arose from duplications in a group of genes that evolved from ancestral reptile genomes. Amazingly, duplications in the same genes appear to have evolved independently in venomous reptiles.


The platypus swims with its eyes, ears and nostrils closed, relying on electrosensory receptors in its bill to detect faint electric fields emitted by underwater prey. Surprisingly, the researchers found the genome contains an expansion of genes that code for a particular type of odor receptor. "We were expecting very few of these odor receptor genes because the animals spend the majority of their life in the water," Warren says.


Similar genes are found in animals that rely on a sense of smell, such as rodents and dogs, and the scientists suspect that their addition in the platypus allows the animals to detect odors while foraging underwater.



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080507131453.htm


  • Bonedigger likes this

#7 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 29 January 2013 - 04:18 AM


The Platypus is an interesting one. Found an article on that:


I believe it also has sensors in it's bill similar to those used by fish.



#8 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1023 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 17 August 2013 - 01:17 PM

I believe it also has sensors in it's bill similar to those used by fish.

It would be interesting to see whether that also reflects in its genome:
 

But new research proves that the oddness of the platypus' looks isn't just skin-deep. Platypus DNA is an equally cobbled-together array of avian, reptilian and mammalian lineages that may hold clues for human disease prevention.

Mark Batzer of Louisiana State University, along with an international group of scientists led by Wes Warren at Washington University in St. Louis, Mo., recently completed the first draft sequence and analysis of the platypus genome.

It was the first genome sequencing project of a mammal that lays eggs, confirming that platypus DNA also looks like something of a patchwork.

"Their genomic organization was strange and a little unexpected," says Batzer. "It appeared much more bird- and reptile-like than mammalian, even though it is indeed classified as a mammal."

http://www.nsf.gov/n...?cntn_id=111521

  • gilbo12345 likes this

#9 lifepsyop

lifepsyop

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 591 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maine

Posted 13 January 2014 - 09:25 AM

This video is truly ridiculous...

 

another claim at about 5:50 mark

 

Only non-marsupial mammals have a placenta, birds and mollusks are never
found with placenta.


 

SKINK LIZARD

 

About 45% of skink species are viviparous. Many are ovoviviparous (hatching eggs internally and giving birth to live offspring). Some, such as the genera Tiliqua and Corucia, give birth to live young that develop internally, deriving their nourishment from a mammal-like placenta attached to the female – viviparous matrotrophy. However, a recently described example occurring in Trachylepis ivensi is the most extreme to date, of a purely reptilian placenta directly comparable in structure and function, to a eutherian placenta.[4] In skinks, though, placental development of whatever degree is of course phylogenetically analogous, rather than homologous to functionally similar processes in mammals.

http://en.wikipedia....lizard#Breeding

 

  Evolution falsified!.... oh wait...  it would have to be a scientific theory first to do that..gotcha.gif

 

 



#10 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 13 January 2014 - 11:12 AM

This video is truly ridiculous...

 

another claim at about 5:50 mark

 

Only non-marsupial mammals have a placenta, birds and mollusks are never
found with placenta.


(Quote)

 

  Evolution falsified!.... oh wait...  it would have to be a scientific theory first to do that..gotcha.gif

 

Good find :D I am sure the evolutionists will say something to the effect of "well maybe that is just an exception" ;) Don't you just love it how evolution isn't falsifiable because they redefine evolution so anything that does contradict their claims fits.



#11 lifepsyop

lifepsyop

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 591 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maine

Posted 13 January 2014 - 11:51 AM

Good find biggrin.png I am sure the evolutionists will say something to the effect of "well maybe that is just an exception" wink.png Don't you just love it how evolution isn't falsifiable because they redefine evolution so anything that does contradict their claims fits.

 

lol,  that is why you always hear evolutionists bringing up the "Mammals don't have feathers" example, when they're trying to argue for the supposed "Nested hierarchy of common descent".  They only keep using this example because they have looked closely and made sure no mammals actually have feathers! But as we can see, they have blundered numerous times when attempting to regulate other traits in some kind of nested pattern.

 

If we found a rare feathered mammal tomorrow, it would INSTANTLY become an example of convergent evolution.  (There are no rules against it in Evo-Land! Where imagination rules! smashfreak.gif  )

 

Again we see the non-falsifiable evolution "theory" in action.  If a trait supports the nested hierarchy then -> Evolution.  If the same trait later ends up breaking the nested hierarchy then -> Evolution. 

 

Do they really not see how ridiculous some of their most popular arguments are? I mean, this ain't rocket science.... think.gif



#12 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

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

Posted 13 January 2014 - 01:42 PM

Yet, for some mysterious reason, beavers, and tenrecs and golden moles, all placental mammals, also have a cloaca. Hmm. Maybe that's why the absence of a cloaca is not used in the definition of a non-monotreme mammals.

Never knew that!

Thanks for the info.

 

There are some shark species that have placentas.

 


 

 


 




 



#13 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 13 January 2014 - 04:48 PM

There are some shark species that have placentas.

 

I can see it now........

 

"Shark has similar mammalian origin like whales"



#14 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

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

Posted 13 January 2014 - 05:50 PM

As you all know, Carl Linnaeus was a creationists, lived some 100 years before Darwin, and is considered the father of taxonomy.

He classified and grouped plants and animals in a "hierarchical structure of classification which is based upon observable characteristics and intended to reflect natural relationships."

 

So, let's travel back in time, say Carl hired you as an assistant and asks you to classify the N. Am. beaver.

Are you going to put it in the same group as the Platypus?

 

Would you include skinks with mammals?

 

If so, how would you justify to him your reasoning?



#15 lifepsyop

lifepsyop

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 591 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maine

Posted 13 January 2014 - 06:19 PM

There are no vestigial structures that were not previously functional in an
ancestor. All vestigial organs make sense only in the framework of evolution.
And of course we do NOT find vestigial organs that argue against evolution…no
nipples in amphibians, or vestigial feathers on mammals. No primates carry
vestigial horns or degenerate wings. We don’t find arthropods with left-over
backbones. No snakes have wing parts and no humans have gizzards.


 

The anteater's stomach, similarly to a bird's gizzard, has hardened folds and uses strong contractions to grind the insects; a digestive process assisted by small amounts of ingested sand and dirt.

http://en.wikipedia....nteater#Feeding

 

If one mammal has a gizzard (gastric mill), then why can't a primate or human potentially have one?  What is the logic?

 

Fish have them, too.  Another supposedly shared common ancestor to humans.
 

The mullet (Mugilidae) found in estuarine waters worldwide, and the gizzard or mud shad, found in freshwater lakes and streams from New York to Mexico, have gizzards. The gillaroo (Salmo stomachius), a richly colored species of trout found in the Irish lake, lough Melvin in County Fermanagh, has a gizzard which is used to aid the digestion of water snails, the main component of its diet.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Gizzard#Fish

 

 

And really now... if a primate had horns, would it not simply be classified as the evolution of a new or convergent trait?  Of course it would.  If a lizard can "convergently evolve" an advanced placental reproductive system, then obviously a primate could potentially evolve a dinky little horn.

 

Okay, so to recap:

 

if a species has a "reduced" trait that is found in one of its supposed "ancestors", then it is homologous and vestigial.

If it's NOT found in an "ancestor" then it is simply the evolution of a new trait.

 

So when you see this statement repeated from above:

we do NOT find vestigial organs that argue against evolution

 

It is because if the organ argues against evolution (homology) then it is not classified as vestigial.  Like Bonedigger mentioned above, these are self-fulfilling conditions, and is equivalent to declaring "WE NEVER FIND BROWN EYES ON PEOPLE WITH BLUE EYES." 

 

smashfreak.gif



#16 lifepsyop

lifepsyop

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 591 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maine

Posted 13 January 2014 - 06:24 PM

So, let's travel back in time, say Carl hired you as an assistant and asks you to classify the N. Am. beaver.

Are you going to put it in the same group as the Platypus?

 

Would you include skinks with mammals?

 

Would you classify the people building cathedrals composing symphonies with the animals out in the woods throwing feces at each other?



#17 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 13 January 2014 - 06:24 PM

As you all know, Carl Linnaeus was a creationists, lived some 100 years before Darwin, and is considered the father of taxonomy.

 

I thought Creationists did nothing for science ;)

 

He classified and grouped plants and animals in a "hierarchical structure of classification which is based upon observable characteristics and intended to reflect natural relationships."

 

Was it "intended to reflect natural relationships" or is that simply what evolutionists claim. Can you please quote Linnaeus himself.

 

So, let's travel back in time, say Carl hired you as an assistant and asks you to classify the N. Am. beaver.

Are you going to put it in the same group as the Platypus?

 

Would you include skinks with mammals?

 

If so, how would you justify to him your reasoning?

 

I'd do as Linnaeus does :)

 

Now here is the rub. If this structure of classification was known and evolution was based on it, then how can it be claimed as "evidence" for evolution... I mean if you create an idea based on another idea its no surprise that your created idea fits the one you base it on. Therefore whether they fit is entirely arbitrary (since you made it that way), and thus cannot be evidence for your created idea.

 

Therefore any evolutionist claiming "animals fit a pattern according to evolution" are deluding themselves.

 

Additionally I agree with Lollypop :)



#18 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 655 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 13 January 2014 - 06:38 PM

There are no vestigial structures that were not previously functional in an
ancestor. All vestigial organs make sense only in the framework of evolution.
And of course we do NOT find vestigial organs that argue against evolution…no
nipples in amphibians, or vestigial feathers on mammals. No primates carry
vestigial horns or degenerate wings. We don’t find arthropods with left-over
backbones. No snakes have wing parts and no humans have gizzards.


 

 

If one mammal has a gizzard (gastric mill), then why can't a primate or human potentially have one?  What is the logic?

 

Fish have them, too.  Another supposedly shared common ancestor to humans.
 

 

 

And really now... if a primate had horns, would it not simply be classified as the evolution of a new or convergent trait?  Of course it would.  If a lizard can "convergently evolve" an advanced placental reproductive system, then obviously a primate could potentially evolve a dinky little horn.

 

Okay, so to recap:

 

if a species has a "reduced" trait that is found in one of its supposed "ancestors", then it is homologous and vestigial.

If it's NOT found in an "ancestor" then it is simply the evolution of a new trait.

 

So when you see this statement repeated from above:

we do NOT find vestigial organs that argue against evolution

 

It is because if the organ argues against evolution (homology) then it is not classified as vestigial.  Like Bonedigger mentioned above, these are self-fulfilling conditions, and is equivalent to declaring "WE NEVER FIND BROWN EYES ON PEOPLE WITH BLUE EYES." 

 

smashfreak.gif

 

Those are actually very interesting questions and not being a professional scientist I don't know the answers.  But, maybe it all comes down to timing like when did mammals first develop horns; was it before or after primates split off? Which fish developed gizzards and, most importantly, when?



#19 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

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

Posted 13 January 2014 - 07:11 PM

Would you classify the people building cathedrals composing symphonies with the animals out in the woods throwing feces at each other?

Well he did.

 

Can you explain why you wouldn't?

 

Based upon his system.



#20 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

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

Posted 13 January 2014 - 07:18 PM

Okay, so to recap:

 

if a species has a "reduced" trait that is found in one of its supposed "ancestors", then it is homologous and vestigial.

If it's NOT found in an "ancestor" then it is simply the evolution of a new trait.

Vestigials need not be non-functioning.

Explain how an animal can have a trait that is not from an ancestor.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users