Jump to content


Photo

Let's Stack The Deck For Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
171 replies to this topic

#21 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 30 June 2009 - 07:48 AM

Adam, at first I didn't understand the purpose of this thread... now I do. It's awesome. It shows the very heart and soul of evolution. This is what evolution is, and always has been. It's also the thing that evolutionist continually deny, but cannot ever refute.... but they do try to refute themselves, indeed they do.

#22 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 30 June 2009 - 09:09 AM

Adam, at first I didn't understand the purpose of this thread... now I do.  It's awesome.  It shows the very heart and soul of evolution.  This is what evolution is, and always has been.  It's also the thing that evolutionist continually deny, but cannot ever refute.... but they do try to refute themselves, indeed they do.

View Post


Hi Scott and Adam.

I am not sure I get it - LOL. But I will give it a shot.

Homology is defined as:

Homology refers to any similarity between characteristics that is due to their shared ancestry


They use this definition to classify fossils and create the tree of life. Then they turn around and say that the tree of life (homology) proves common ancestry. But using the contemporary definition of homology as evidence for common ancestry is circular reasoning. How do you know that two organisms share a common ancestor? Because they have features that are homologous. But how do you know the structures are homologous? Because the two organisms share a common ancestor.

The other problem with the definition homology is that assumes evolution: it assumes that common decent was caused by evolution. There is no evidence of that. Random mutation and natural selection, as a mechanism, has not proven much. The fact of similarity does not compel a Darwinian explanation. After all, we see similarities between different kinds of cars, but we don’t conclude that one descended from another.

Now that I think about it , your exercise is quite brilliant because once the evidence speaks for itself without interpretations that assume evolutions it all falls apart.


Bruce

#23 Guest_ajgrovery_*

Guest_ajgrovery_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 June 2009 - 09:58 AM

1. single celled to multi-celled (even the flagella shedding and colonizing e-coli is far far from a simple worm)
2. endoskeleton or exoskeleton (where is the common ancestor)
3. gills and lungs (even our lungfish can't fill that gap properly)
4. scales and feathers, terrestrial lungs versus avian lungs
5. plants to animals


1. http://en.wikipedia....ulticellularity it is naturally impossible to say for sure how it happened because single celled organisms from a billion years ago don't leave a good fossil record

2. orginally it would have been neither as like you say they would be worms with no hard parts, when large organisms arose (none microscopic) hard part like an exoskeleton would be beneficial and so exoskeletons arose, i am unaware of how endoskeletons arose and this simple reason is i'm a 17 year old boy and there are more interesting things on the internet

3. the first gills need only be semipermeable membranes for gas exchange which can occur easily, same with lungs

4. thats an odd lumping together of features but feathers and hairs arent that different and scales just go back to the exoskeleton bit

5. when has there ever been a transition between plants and animals?

the very fact you asked number 5 shows i know a hell of a lot more then u (i said hell again :o )

#24 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 30 June 2009 - 10:23 AM

1. http://en.wikipedia....ulticellularity it is naturally impossible to say for sure how it happened because single celled organisms from a billion years ago don't leave a good fossil record

View Post

Let me interpret this for everyone.

"We have no evidence but it must be true anyway."


2. orginally it would have been neither as like you say they would be worms with no hard parts, when large organisms arose (none microscopic) hard part like an exoskeleton would be beneficial and so exoskeletons arose, i am unaware of how endoskeletons arose and this simple reason is i'm a 17 year old boy and there are more interesting things on the internet

View Post

Oh, very convincing. Please line up some actual organisms to demonstrate this.

3. the first gills need only be semipermeable membranes for gas exchange which can occur easily, same with lungs

View Post

Well, this sounds very intriguing. Please show us the line-up. Sure simple membranes for gas exchange do exist but can you give us a convincing line up with actual organisms demonstrating that? This thread is for you. I have tied the hands of the creationists and we can't criticize whether actual ancestry is feasible or not. If you tell us that a modern bred goldfish...

Posted Image

...needs to come before a coelacanth...

Posted Image

...our hands as creationists are tied by the rules of this thread. Give us the most convincing line up using actual creatures for gill and/or lung development, from these gas exchange membranes, and we'll judge whether it is convincing based solely on morphology. I just can't conceive of an easier, unrestricted test for evolutionists.

4. thats an odd lumping together of features but feathers and hairs arent that different and scales just go back to the exoskeleton bit

View Post

I don't think it is an odd lumping at all. These things had to change simultaneously if the current paradigm is true. Transitions please. Remember you can stuff current organisms in the place of missing organisms. This thread is your oyster. :)

5. when has there ever been a transition between plants and animals?

View Post

According to that phylogenetic tree there was...

Posted Image

Do you see the line connecting plants and animals? Every one that I find has that. Will you admit it is filling in a blank based on no observable evidence?

the very fact you asked number 5 shows i know a hell of a lot more then u (i said hell again :o )

View Post

This disregard for this forum will get you dismissed. What's the purpose? We ignored the first one so you push it. This is a warning based on our desire for you to have the privilege of posting here. Debate us and try to correct our ideas if you think they are wrong. What is the merit of being dismissed for not following simple rules of conduct?

#25 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 30 June 2009 - 11:18 AM

I am unaware of how endoskeletons arose and this simple reason is i'm a 17 year old boy and there are more interesting things on the internet

View Post


BTW, ajgrovery, I don't think your age is an issue here. You seem very sharp and if you're willing to dig in, see the arguments, and ask intelligent questions there is no reason why you can't quickly understand the things that a 60 year old PHD on these types of forums understand.

Your age, hopefully, just puts you in a place of humility to learn, but this doesn't put a cap on your ability to learn. Likewise, age doesn't put a cap on a 60 year old's ability to learn either.

What's more interesting than learning what can be known about your origin?

#26 Guest_ajgrovery_*

Guest_ajgrovery_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 June 2009 - 11:32 AM

Do you see the line connecting plants and animals? Every one that I find has that. Will you admit it is filling in a blank based on no observable evidence?


so now you have proven you can't read a diagram

it doesnt go animals
|
plants

it goes unicellular
/ \
plants animals

so they arent evolving into each other just sharing a common anscestor

how dont u get this

and i wasn't using age as a reason i shouldn't know it

i'm sure if i was suitably motivated i would be able to gain a full understanding into the origins of endoskeletons but i simply don't want to do research for people on this forum who are willingly ignorant to the fact of evolution

#27 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 30 June 2009 - 12:03 PM

Trust me, ajgrovery, I get it. I understand that plants don't change into animals in the evo-paradigm but here is the problem. You have a belief that some organism could go one direction and make plants and another direction and make animals. This is what is portrayed in that phylogenetic tree. I'm just offering an additional crutch for you by pulling out the pesky constraint for this thread.

I'm giving you an opportunity to make an unrestricted line up to show us all these features in transition without limitations.

I'm not only asking for how things evolved but I'm allowing all the current data to be arranged in any order that helps show evolution.

Let me give an example. The eye is often sighted as a product that evolved. Now when the defense is made for eye evolution the examples are always of eye types that exist today, right? So a snail eye is considered 'primitive' relative to a human eye. Now they both exist today, so technically they are both equally 'evolved' based on the evo-paradigm. However, if you want to show me the evolution of the eye we could start with the light sensitive patch through to a human eye:

http://www.simonyi.o...ridley_eyes.gif

So here is my line up:

We'll start with a snail (it looks pretty simple):

Posted Image

A nautilus eye is simple but it is concave with a pinhole:

Posted Image

An octopus eye has a lens:

Posted Image

A squid has an eye that's almost human like:

Posted Image

then the human/mammal eye:

Posted Image

Now the snail and the human don't fit very well in this line up for other features but the nautilus, octopus, and squid fit nicely... more goosebumps. :)

#28 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 30 June 2009 - 12:10 PM

Now if I give you even more rope. What if we just look at eyes. The lineup above is really cool, huh? Now where would insects fit and what would the common ancestor have used before diverging off to compound eyes and single lens eyes?

Posted Image

Obviously this thing doesn't fit in the line up above.

Now according to the fossil record, through evo-vision, compound eyes came first as seen in trilobites:

Posted Image

So maybe it would be useful to make a line up of compound eyes turning into single lens eyes. Maybe?

#29 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 30 June 2009 - 12:22 PM

i'm sure if i was suitably motivated i would be able to gain a full understanding into the origins of endoskeletons but i simply don't want to do research for people on this forum who are willingly ignorant to the fact of evolution

View Post

I'll save you the hassle to let you know that you'll come up completely empty handed. You'll find yourself with a bunch of maybes because of the lack of evidence...

You know... maybe it was like this... maybe it was like that... I bet you could find some really cool computer generated animations showing how it might have happened but then you would be breaking the rules of the thread. Only real organisms need apply. The rules are loose enough for plenty of evolutionary magic dust the way it is:

Posted Image
(Thanks Ron and Bruce. :) )

#30 Guest_ajgrovery_*

Guest_ajgrovery_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 June 2009 - 12:56 PM

I'll save you the hassle to let you know that you'll come up completely empty handed. You'll find yourself with a bunch of maybes because of the lack of evidence...

You know... maybe it was like this... maybe it was like that... I bet you could find some really cool computer generated animations showing how it might have happened but then you would be breaking the rules of the thread. Only real organisms need apply. The rules are loose enough for plenty of evolutionary magic dust the way it is:

Posted Image
(Thanks Ron and Bruce. :) )

View Post

even if there was zero evidence (which i'm sure there isnt) it would still be correct

i know this because of insurmountable genetic and fossil evidence of evolution in other areas which i would go into detail about but it would saddly fall on deaf ears

#31 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 30 June 2009 - 01:27 PM

even if there was zero evidence (which i'm sure there isnt) it would still be correct

View Post

Why?

i know this because of insurmountable genetic and fossil evidence of evolution in other areas which i would go into detail about but it would saddly fall on deaf ears

View Post

This thread is designed for such an exhibition. Maybe if you don't want to, someone else will. I've been the only one defending homology, eidonomy, and morphology in this thread and I don't even believe in evolution. The door is wide open. Where are the evolutionists?

If you feel I'm being too loose with the rules show us a line up with evo-history respected. You know, show us the FARM morphing along:

Fish (coelacanth):

Posted Image

Amphibian (Salamander):

Posted Image

Reptiles:

Posted Image

Mammals:

Posted Image

#32 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 30 June 2009 - 01:31 PM

Now you could stick the lungfish very neatly between the coelacanth and the Salamander (The green one is the lungfish):

https://eapbiofield....QldLungfish.jpg

and you could stick a hairless mole between the lounging lizards and the rat:

Posted Image

#33 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 30 June 2009 - 01:31 PM

i know this because of insurmountable genetic and fossil evidence of evolution in other areas which i would go into detail about but it would saddly fall on deaf ears

View Post

And yet you think that sentence itself will fall on another kind?

Ironically, you really do.

#34 Ibex Pop

Ibex Pop

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 63 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Louisiana, USA

Posted 30 June 2009 - 01:48 PM

I'm sorry, Adam, but this deserves a reply. Are you asking us to give you a line of descent using only extant life? Because that would be a useless endeavor for making a case for evolution. Sort of like me saying "Hey guys, say whatever you want in the Bible, using only the verses written in 1 John. You can re-order them, and you don't even have to use the same verse in a corresponding chapter. I think that's really generous, so now rewrite the Bible, in its entirety, so that you can prove it to me. It's all the word of God, right? It should be interchangeable... " Sorry to post an analogy using a religious text as a comparison to a body of scientific research, but plenty posters here already claim evolution is a religion, so I don't feel I'm losing much validity. But that aside, I'm using a Bible analogue because I think the Bible is something you're familiar with, so as to impress upon you that one shouldn't slander things out of ignorance, whether you're addressing a process or apologetics. One shouldn't willfully maintain ignorance so as to speak in it, either.

What I see posted repeatedly is not evolution. First off, morphology is a tad more complicated than looking at an organism's exterior, and taxonomy, which is classification based on morphology, does not match all the features of various, diverse organisms, anyway. They wouldn't be very diverse if this was possible. It was asked earlier what plants have in common with animals. Well, according to that taxon tree posted, only one thing. They're both in the same domain -- they're both eukaryotes. So, if you put a picture of a spruce pine and a hamster together, and then asked how the spruce evolved into the hamster, and only allow me to use living creatures, it can't be done, and it would be dumb to try. Nonsensical even. Possibly fun in trying to see how "close" (not very) one could get, but not supporting evolution in any way. When discussing a spruce and a hamster, it's far more simple to disclose their only common trait. If you asked for a possible lineage to support evolution, or a list of commonalities between these creatures, I'd say that was fine, though there would not be much to post as the division is at the kingdom level, making it a given the divergence was early and there will not be much shared history, and nearly nothing in common, just as it should be according to descent with modification. As it is, I'm not sure what you're playing at, but it looks like a loaded game. Maybe I just don't understand your rules. In any case, using pictures is sure to prevent some information from being brought to this thread, because, as it happens, not everything has a complimentary picture. This game isn't fair, and really reads as a waste of time, and hopefully everyone can see why.

Peace.

#35 Guest_ajgrovery_*

Guest_ajgrovery_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 June 2009 - 01:51 PM

And yet you think that sentence itself will fall on another kind?

Ironically, you really do.

View Post

fine then i will

insurmountable evidence number 1-transitional fossils

despite what creationist propaganda mill tell you there are a wide range of transitional fossils showing transitions between sea and land vertabrates (tiktallk for example), reptiles to mammals (eg Thrinaxodon ), reptiles to birds (Pedopenna), and human evolution (homo erectus, austrolopithicus aferencis and many many more) (whales and horses also have phenomenal fossil records)

insurmountable evidence number 2- the distribution of gene homology

its not the similarities or the differences its the pattern, donexodus2 does a fantastic job of explaining this one http://www.youtube.c...re=channel_page

insurmountable evidence number 3- the fulfilled predictions of evolution

a scientific theory must make predictions which can be falsified (something creationism has half heartedly tried to do with no success). evolution has had many of its predictions fulfilled and i'll tell you 2 of my favourites.

1. human chromosome 2, when the chimp genome was sequenced it was found to have 1 additional pair of chromosomes which would mean either evolution is wrong or 2 pairs of chromosomes merged, chromosome 2 was found to be a merger of 2 ape chromosomes with a deactivated centromere and telemoeres in the middle of the chromosome.

2. the discovery of tiktalik, using evolutionary theory as well as geology and Paleontology scientists predicted where they would find it, how deep it would be and what it would look like, and they found it

insurmountable evidenc number 4- observed emergance of complexity

a bacteria evolved the ability to digest nylon , a synthetic compound made in the 1930's, new information arose by mutation and other random events and its proliferation occured by natural selection

i think thats enough for now

#36 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 30 June 2009 - 01:52 PM

I'm sorry, Adam, but this deserves a reply.  Are you asking us to give you a line of descent using only extant life?

View Post

Nope. Reference the OP:

Take all the organisms in the world (bacteria, plants, invertebrates, insects, fish, reptiles to mammal and whatever else I might have missed) living or extinct.

View Post

You should rejoice. I lifted all restrictions to demonstrate transitions.

I'm doing it my way, if you don't like it, jump in the ring and show us transitions.

#37 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 30 June 2009 - 01:54 PM

First off, morphology is a tad more complicated than looking at an organism's exterior, and taxonomy, which is classification based on morphology, does not match all the features of various, diverse organisms, anyway.

View Post

I take it that you're a punctuated equilibrium type?

#38 Ibex Pop

Ibex Pop

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 63 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Louisiana, USA

Posted 30 June 2009 - 02:03 PM

Nope. Reference the OP:
You should rejoice. I lifted all restrictions to demonstrate transitions.

I'm doing it my way, if you don't like it jump in the ring and show us transitions.

View Post


My bad. The rest of my post stands. A lot of your "lineages" look like mockeries, intentional or not. You know that you can look up the actual lineages, and that's exactly what I would do if I were to play along, so I don't see the point in making my own entry into this sea of misinformation when the real information is available. Even if evolutionary theory is dead wrong, this is still a bastardization of it. If you're going to criticize it, it would be worthwhile to criticize the actual, current claims of evolutionary biologists.

#39 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 30 June 2009 - 02:09 PM

You see, even the most extreme artificial selection process like dog breeding only exhibits minor generational changes even at an accelerated rate. Now the line of change for dogs can be traced from ancestral breeds to modern breeds fairly well but evolution postulates this huge ancestral tale that all living organisms are related. It's simply asserted and not demonstrated.

I was swimming in my sister-in-laws pool when I got the idea for this thread. I was saving the lives of insects as I was swimming around. While the nearly drowned bug was catching its breath on my hand I was intently examining their features as closely as I could. I saved a couple of honey bees, a few june bugs, a sweat bee and a hornet. As I was looking at their beautiful diversity and intricate design, as they were drying themselves off, with the knowledge that these organisms were all insects it dawned on me how evolution is accepted in spite of the evidence not because of it.

#40 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 30 June 2009 - 02:18 PM

My bad.  The rest of my post stands.  A lot of your "lineages" look like mockeries, intentional or not.  You know that you can look up the actual lineages, and that's exactly what I would do if I were to play along, so I don't see the point in making my own entry into this sea of misinformation when the real information is available.  Even if evolutionary theory is dead wrong, this is still a bastardization of it.  If you're going to criticize it, it would be worthwhile to criticize the actual, current claims of evolutionary biologists.

View Post

Isn't this what you are here for? Provide a link. Give us something. The only limitation is that it can't be loaded with speculation and pretend animals that have no evidence.

We know enough about evolution here (believe it or not) that when you attempt to slip in a creature that is pure imagination, we'll know it.

Yes, I am poking fun at evolution but here is the thing; I'm poking fun at evolution with the very effort that the original evolutionists did to prepare their ideas and I'm doing the very thing that is assumed to be true when an extinct animal is found. The fact that we can make line ups with living animals that are known not to be ancestral to each other, begs a question. Why should we be convinced that bones of a variety of monkey is best suited in the linage of people?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users