Jump to content


Photo

Outdated Information

An evolutionists folly?

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
5 replies to this topic

#1 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 17 November 2012 - 06:25 PM

It seems to be reoccuring that the evolutionist get tripped up by relying on out-dated and debunked information that support their worldview. This can be seen from those why attempt to use the following arguments

- Tikaalik (debunked, Polish footprint older by millions of years)

- Archepteryx (considered offshoot species, not a transitional form)

- "Junk" DNA (non coding sections of the DNA are now found to have function)

- Appendix / other organs that are junk from evolution- (appendix is used as a reservoir for the benefitical bacteria in the intestines, useful but not critical to have)

- others which I cannot remember or haven't heard yet.



Does this bring warning bells to viewers?
  • goldliger likes this

#2 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 18 November 2012 - 06:30 AM

It seems to be reoccuring that the evolutionist get tripped up by relying on out-dated and debunked information that support their worldview. This can be seen from those why attempt to use the following arguments

- Tikaalik (debunked, Polish footprint older by millions of years)

- Archepteryx (considered offshoot species, not a transitional form)

- "Junk" DNA (non coding sections of the DNA are now found to have function)

- Appendix / other organs that are junk from evolution- (appendix is used as a reservoir for the benefitical bacteria in the intestines, useful but not critical to have)

- others which I cannot remember or haven't heard yet.



Does this bring warning bells to viewers?


Warning bells? ... did you say warning bells?? I'm sorry, I'm having a little difficulty hearing for all the ringing sounds in my ears.. Posted Image
  • gilbo12345 and Calypsis4 like this

#3 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 18 November 2012 - 07:54 AM

Lol wish there were warning bells as a person's bad argument detector :P

But the sad thing is that some of this stuff is still being taught to people, as if its still valid and factual. I have no worries with people believing evolution, what boils my blood is when its palmed off as science rather than as philosophy. I predict that once this truth comes to light there will be quite a few less evolutionists in the world :)
  • Calypsis4 likes this

#4 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2281 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 18 November 2012 - 02:33 PM

Lol wish there were warning bells as a person's bad argument detector Posted Image

But the sad thing is that some of this stuff is still being taught to people, as if its still valid and factual. I have no worries with people believing evolution, what boils my blood is when its palmed off as science rather than as philosophy. I predict that once this truth comes to light there will be quite a few less evolutionists in the world Posted Image


Well, we certainly hope so! Posted Image

#5 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 20 November 2012 - 06:53 AM

It seems to be reoccuring that the evolutionist get tripped up by relying on out-dated and debunked information that support their worldview. This can be seen from those why attempt to use the following arguments

- Tikaalik (debunked, Polish footprint older by millions of years)

- Archepteryx (considered offshoot species, not a transitional form)

Which scientific publication states that these are not transitional species? Are you saying that if an land animal existed before Tikaalik, then Tikaalik could not be a transitional species also. Why not? Couldn't Tikaalik be a transitional species between a species of fish and a different land species than the one that existed in Poland already? (I don't know the details on the Polish footprint).

- "Junk" DNA (non coding sections of the DNA are now found to have function)

I am not sure of the origin of the description, "junk DNA". I know that the portions of the DNA string that don't code for genes are described as "portions of the DNA that don't code for genes". I am not well versed on this subject. Do you want to talk about it along with the other topics in this thread? If so, I will have to do some research before I say anything else.

- Appendix / other organs that are junk from evolution- (appendix is used as a reservoir for the benefitical bacteria in the intestines, useful but not critical to have)

Vestigial organs are not considered junk. They are organs that have a reduced or different function from an organ in the same location with very similar structure in an evolutionary predecessor. Kinda presumes evolution but the structural similarity of organs in the same locations within land animals is rather striking even though those organs perform different functions. I think the idea that the appendix is junk came from the fact that it can be removed with no ill effect upon the patient.

- others which I cannot remember or haven't heard yet.

Does this bring warning bells to viewers?

Yep. It's warning me that this thread is going to go "galloping" around to different "outdated" evolutionist "teachings", and it won't actually explore any of the claims in depth.

#6 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 20 November 2012 - 09:33 AM

1. Which scientific publication states that these are not transitional species? Are you saying that if an land animal existed before Tikaalik, then Tikaalik could not be a transitional species also. Why not?


2. Couldn't Tikaalik be a transitional species between a species of fish and a different land species than the one that existed in Poland already? (I don't know the details on the Polish footprint).


3. I am not sure of the origin of the description, "junk DNA". I know that the portions of the DNA string that don't code for genes are described as "portions of the DNA that don't code for genes". I am not well versed on this subject. Do you want to talk about it along with the other topics in this thread? If so, I will have to do some research before I say anything else.


4. Vestigial organs are not considered junk. They are organs that have a reduced or different function from an organ in the same location with very similar structure in an evolutionary predecessor. Kinda presumes evolution but the structural similarity of organs in the same locations within land animals is rather striking even though those organs perform different functions. I think the idea that the appendix is junk came from the fact that it can be removed with no ill effect upon the patient.


5. Yep. It's warning me that this thread is going to go "galloping" around to different "outdated" evolutionist "teachings", and it won't actually explore any of the claims in depth.



1. There are many lines of evidence to disprove archeopteryx as a transitional form, The first is to do with lung design and how the mechanism of "evolving" the bird lung design would be severely detrimental meaning it would never be selected for.

"In analyzing the fabric strength of the material that evolutionists have woven together to promote the importance of Archaeopteryx, we must invest some time looking at an important anatomical feature, for it is at this point that we begin to see the threads of evolution unravel. Current evolutionary theory demands that the lungs of certain land-dwelling animals “somehow” evolved into bird lungs. However, birds’ lungs are quite unlike the lungs of other animals because they do not “breathe out.” The lungs of land-dwelling animals work somewhat like a bellows in which the “good” air is inhaled and the “bad” air is exhaled. Birds’ lungs, on the other hand, are unique because they have an opening at each end and thus possess a one-way respiratory system. In birds’ lungs, the new air comes in one end, is stored in special sacs until needed, and then is stored in another sac until it is released out the other end.

So how do the millions of years required for evolution mesh with the fact that “air breathers” can survive for only a few moments (at most) if a disruption to their respiratory system occurs? How can you take a “two-way” reptile lung and over a period of minutes evolve it into a fully functional “one-way” bird lung? The simple answer is, you cannot. John Ruben, an expert in respiratory physiology from Oregon State University at Corvallis, addressed the problem of such a hypothetical intermediate.

Recently, conventional wisdom has held that birds are direct descendants of theropod dinosaurs [those dinosaurs that are said to have been “beastfooted” and bipedal Saurischians—BH/BT]. However, the apparently steadfast maintenance of hepatic-piston diaphragmatic lung ventilation in theropods throughout the Mesozoic poses a fundamental problem for such a relationship. The earliest stages in the derivation of the avian abdominal airsac system from a diaphragmatic-ventilating ancestor would have necessitated selection for a diaphragmatic hernia [or hole—BH/BT] in taxa transitional between theropods and birds. Such a debilitating condition would have immediately compromised the entire pulmonary ventilatory apparatus and seems unlikely to have been of any selective advantage (1997, 278:1269).

To suggest that the “debilitating condition of a diaphragmatic hernia would have immediately compromised the entire pulmonary apparatus” and thus be “unlikely to have been of any selective advantage” is nothing more than scientific “prestige jargon” for stating the obvious: in other words, the animal would not have been able to breathe. We think it is a gross understatement, therefore, to suggest that this “seems unlikely to have been of any selective advantage.” Death—to put it bluntly—is not a good survival mechanism!"

http://www.apologeti...y=9&article=419



The site then goes on to state that the pelvis defines it as a bird, and the leg claws and wing claws are all similar to modern birds that exist today.

It then goes over the problems already identified by other scientists.

"In the February 1998 issue of Scientific American, Kevin Padian and Luis Chiappe, while fully backing the dinosaurian origin of birds, added a sidebar explaining the major points of contention:

1. The hands of theropod dinosaurs and birds differ in important ways.
2. Theropod wishbones differ significantly from those of birds.
3. Avian lungs are very complex and could not have evolved from theropod dinosaur lungs.
4. Theropod dinosaurs appear to have been exclusively ground dwellers; thus, flight would have had to originate from the cursorial or “ground-up” theory, which many scientists do not accept (Padian and Chiappe, 1998).

In his review of an article on “Developmental Patterns and the Identification of Homologies in the Avian Hand” by Ann Burke and Alan Feduccia in the October 24, 1997 issue of Science, Richard Hinchliffe reiterated many of these same problems by pointing out problems with the “dinosaur-to-bird” hypothesis. These included:

1. The much smaller theropod forelimb (relative to body size) in comparison with the Archaeopteryx wing. Such small limbs are not convincing as proto-wings for a “ground-up” origin of flight.
2. The rarity in theropods of the semilunate wrist bone—known in only four species. Most theropods have relatively large numbers of wrist elements difficult to homologize with those of Archaeopteryx.
3. The time problem. Theropod dinosaurs are found too recently in the fossil record to have given rise to Archaeopteryx (Hinchliffe, 1997)."

It then covers controversy and bias in the media, here just a taste..


"In an “open letter” dated November 1, 1999 and addressed to Peter Raven, Secretary of the National Geographic Society Committee for Research and Exploration, Dr. Storrs L. Olson, the eminent curator of birds at the prestigious Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History, verbally castigated the Society, Dr. Raven, Christopher P. Sloan (author of the National Geographic article), and Bill Allen, the magazine’s editor, for what he called “an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism.” And that was the nicest thing he had to say! Dr. Olson continued:

Prior to the publication of the article “Dinosaurs Take Wing” in the July 1998 National Geographic, Lou Mazzatenta, the photographer for Sloan’s article, invited me to the National Geographic Society to review his photographs of Chinese fossils and to comment on the slant being given to the story. At that time, I tried to interject the fact that strongly-supported alternative viewpoints existed to what National Geographic intended to present, but it eventually became clear to me that National Geographic was not interested in anything other than the prevailing dogma that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Sloan’s article takes prejudice to an entirely new level and consists in large part of unverifiable or undocumented information that “makes” the news rather than reporting it. His bald statement that “we can now say that birds are theropods just as confidently as we say that humans are mammals” is not even suggested as reflecting the views of a particular scientist or group of scientists, so that it figures as little more than editorial propagandizing. This melodramatic assertion had already been disproven by recent studies of embryology and comparative morphology, which, of course, are never mentioned.

More importantly, however, none of the structures illustrated in Sloan’s article that are claimed to be feathers have actually been proven to be feathers. Saying that they are is little more than wishful thinking that has been presented as fact. The statement on page 103 that “hollow, hairlike structures characterize protofeathers” is nonsense, considering that protofeathers exist only as a theoretical construct, so that the internal structure of one is even more hypothetical.[/indent][indent=1]The hype about feathered dinosaurs in the exhibit currently on display at the National Geographic Society is even worse, and makes the spurious claim that there is strong evidence that a wide variety of carnivorous dinosaurs had feathers. A model of the undisputed dinosaur Deinonychus and illustrations of baby tyrannosaurs are shown clad in feathers, all of which is simply imaginary and has no place outside of science fiction.

The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age—the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion. If Sloan’s article is not the crescendo of this fantasia, it is difficult to imagine to what heights it can next be taken. But it is certain that when the folly has run its course and has been fully exposed, National Geographic will unfortunately play a prominent but unenviable role in the book that summarizes the whole sorry episode (Olson, 1999)."

I haven't even begun to scratch the surface of this Posted Image

In the case of Tiktaalik it means that the entire timeline built up for it is way out of whack, meaning all the "fossil data" previously found is also out of whack. More later.



2. According to evolution no it shouldn't since...
i- the benefit of the new habitat is gone since there are already creatures existing there
ii- predators could exist thus take advantage of the ill-prepared transitional

Additionally this demonstrates that you'd rather place your faith in something that goes totally against the evidence that has been found.


3. It was a term coined by evolutionists since they regarded the non-coding DNA as "junk" vestigial DNA of a sorts.
Its not coding for proteins, a gene is a part of the DNA itself. From what I have heard, 4% of our DNA is coding and the rest was believed to be junk, It was claimed that a creator wouldn't make so much useless DNA. However we now know that about 80% of our DNA has purpose, things such as RNAi and post transcriptional modification, which add another layer of complexity for evolving biochemistry since not only do you need the right DNA code you now also need the right RNAi to modify the protein into the active form required, not to mention the correct signaling factors etc.. This new information has broadened the gap between evolution and Biochemistry.


4, Certainly does preclude evolution... Which therefore means that it cannot be verified that such a thing is in fact "vestigial" its merely taken on faith. However with the shrinking number of vestigial organs it seems that this argument is going belly up anyway.

5. Think again, rather than attempting to define the thread before anything of note has happened.




I'd prefer to limit this to Archeopteryx and Tiktaalik for now to allow for shorter more readable posts
  • Salsa and Bonedigger like this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users