Jump to content


Photo

Let's Stack The Deck For Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
171 replies to this topic

#41 Ibex Pop

Ibex Pop

    Junior Member

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

Posted 30 June 2009 - 02:27 PM

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

View Post

I don't see the direct relevance, but yes, PE is a valid mechanic, but it is not exclusionary to gradualism, especially above the species level of taxa, which is what it is intended to help describe.

#42 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 - 02:33 PM

I don't see the direct relevance, but yes, PE is a valid mechanic...

View Post

What makes it valid?

#43 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 30 June 2009 - 03:16 PM

ps what would you do if i said f**k or s**t (censored to protect you delicate mind)

View Post


No AJ, I would tell you to read the forum rules, then tell you to have a nice day. :)

#44 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 30 June 2009 - 03:22 PM

the fact of evolution

View Post

:) That was funny


The evidence (or lack thereof) for the model of evolution certainly does not qualify it to be called a scientific fact. Indeed, as science has progressed, atheistic Darwinists have been forced (by logical ans scientific argumentation) to withdraw out of the scientific arena into “Unfalsifiable” positions and/or resorted to many contradictory models (a lot of which are pointed out at this forum only to be blindly denied by the evolutheist faithful.


The 'fact' of evolution = Really Funny :lol:

#45 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 30 June 2009 - 03:53 PM

I'd have to agree with you Ron, because evolution is probably more well suited to be a hypothesis rather than a theory itself.

#46 Guest_ajgrovery_*

Guest_ajgrovery_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 June 2009 - 03:56 PM

I'd have to agree with you Ron, because evolution is probably more well suited to be a hypothesis rather than a theory itself.

View Post

you would be wrong

look on page 2 at my list of insurmountable evidences of evolution

#47 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 - 04:10 PM

you would be wrong

look on page 2 at my list of insurmountable evidences of evolution

View Post

What's insurmountable about it? You do know that 'Ad hoc' and 'insurmountable' are not synonyms right?

#48 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 30 June 2009 - 04:57 PM

you would be wrong

look on page 2 at my list of insurmountable evidences of evolution

View Post



Insurmountable on Bizarro World AJ.

#49 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 - 06:04 PM

I've been following another thread at FRDB that is scrutinizing this thread and these two links were offered as a solution to my request:

http://tolweb.org/tree/phylogeny.html

http://tolweb.org/Or..._anatinus/16253

Is anyone overwhelmed by the convincing linage here? :huh: I see a bunch of animals described. How does that prove evolution? It's kind of like saying "See the animals? Evolution proven."

#50 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 - 06:10 PM

People who are so convinced of the blind watchmaker progression of life should consider the rhetoric of Darwin:

_esXHcinOdA

#51 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 30 June 2009 - 06:31 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?

View Post


Do you really think that compound eyes were part of the common ancestor for mammals? Trilobites developed eyes in three different ways before becoming extinct. No one is suggesting that Trilobites are the ancestors of insects.

Sometimes I wonder if you understand the theory that you are so desperately trying to poke holes in.

#52 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 - 06:43 PM

Do you really think that compound eyes were part of the common ancestor for mammals?  Trilobites developed eyes in three different ways before becoming extinct.  No one is suggesting that Trilobites are the ancestors of insects. 

Sometimes I wonder if you understand the theory that you are so desperately trying to poke holes in.

View Post

Are you telling me that trilobites and mammals have no common ancestry? How many times would you guess that life started independently? I'm trying really hard to give you, the evolutionist, all the grace to play fast and loose with all the evidence and I get ridiculed? :huh:

I believe I have demonstrated that I understand what evolutionists believe and why this thread is set up uniquely the way it is. If you aren't convinced take your time and reread it.

The rules are simple. Show us the transitions protozoa to blue whales. After all evolution is a fact isn't it? This should be so easy, especially from a morphological stance. As Keith made it clear, children look somewhat like their parents. Darwin informed us that through slight modifications the diversity of animals are here.

I just gave a generous additional leeway by giving all animals in all time as fodder for this linage in any desired way and I get ridiculed for my generosity.

#53 Ibex Pop

Ibex Pop

    Junior Member

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

Posted 30 June 2009 - 07:11 PM

Sorry, took a break, got food. I'm thinking I'll try to come up with as convincing a lineage for dogs as possible. To be honest, there's little source material available for this endeavor on the net. A little preliminary research shows there will be gaps, but I will avoid using "made up" animals. I might be able to drop down to bears and seals if I can get high enough in the tree. It'll be interesting, since caniformia and carnivora are such an old clades, to see if no one thinks the fossils near the top don't look a tad reptilian, either, but I'm not going to work back past eutharia, though, so no binding mammals and reptiles today. Not that I expect I'm going to convince anyone here.

I'll get to that, then.

#54 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 - 07:16 PM

Sorry, took a break, got food.  I'm thinking I'll try to come up with as convincing a lineage for dogs as possible.  To be honest, there's little source material available for this endeavor on the net.  A little preliminary research shows there will be gaps, but I will avoid using "made up" animals.  I might be able to drop down to bears and seals if I can get high enough in the tree.  It'll be interesting, since caniformia and carnivora are such an old clades, to see if no one thinks the fossils near the top don't look a tad reptilian, either, but I'm not going to work back past eutharia, though, so no binding mammals and reptiles today.  Not that I expect I'm going to convince anyone here.

View Post

No offense but this will only be superficial and kind of boring. Why not impress us by showing us something cool like the linage from invertebrates to insects? Now that would be impressive.

Don't get me wrong you can do it but isn't the goal to demonstrate to us that evolution is true? You would do a lot of work to show us something that us underwhelming from a creationist's perspective.

#55 Ibex Pop

Ibex Pop

    Junior Member

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

Posted 30 June 2009 - 08:07 PM

No offense but this will only be superficial and kind of boring. Why not impress us by showing us something cool like the linage from invertebrates to insects? Now that would be impressive.

Don't get me wrong you can do it but isn't the goal to demonstrate to us that evolution is true? You would do a lot of work to show us something that us underwhelming from a creationist's perspective.

View Post

OK, done, and without even the need for a picture. Insects are invertebrates. :rolleyes:
If you meant, say, insects and worms, well, that's a pretty early divergence they have in their lineages, meaning fossils would be older (harder to find), and that aside, worms are soft-bodied, making for poor fossils. Fossils exist, but finding them pictured on the internet might be a real doozie. There's just not much interest in worms, and very little attention for early bilaterians (all ancestral worms, including species eventually leading into anthropods, hexaopds, and insects). I'll have a look, but no one should expect much.

As to what you asked me about PE, why it was valid...

It's valid because it explains the speciation booms that are possible when you isolate a population. Ring species are a good example, as changes accumulate more quickly when the gene pool for a population is limited or a section of the pool is isolated from a group. Mutations can spread more quickly, as well. Mind, it requires evo to be true to hold any explanatory power, but under evo, it is an expansionary theory which presents to us that evolution moves slowly for prosperous species who have settled into a biological niche. Take that niche away, the population starts dying, mutations can spread more easily, and what's left of the species will either move into a new niche or plod along into extinction. If a niche is not taken away, and but a segment of the population starts moving into a new niche because of geographic or social isolation, then the process will be the same. Mutations that are beneficial to the new niche will accumulate easily, especially if the forms were farther from the niche. The greater the distance, the more likely a mutation might be of some use. Consider a number line where the greatest possible muscles that could exist in a given life form, considering its other attributes (you can only have muscles so large on a given frame, and the lungs must be big enough and the heart must pump fast enough, etc), would be represented by a 5, and weakest possible with 1 (you can also only have muscles be so weak if you want to support the frame at all). A mutation from 1 to anything in between 2 and 5 is more likely than a mutation from 4 to 5. 4 might mutate to 3 on some individuals, or even lower, but they are less likely to be selected for. Detrimental mutations are less likely to proliferate. Now, if a species already fits into a niche very well, the biological advantage of 5 over 4 is lessened to a point where the advantageous trait will not immediately take over.

A simpler way of describing PE might be to say that if there is high selective pressure, or a small (but not disastrously) genepool, speciation occurs more rapidly than if organisms already meet the selective pressures and/or the population is so large as to diffuse changes from accumulating and creating a new species. It does not prevent slow evolution, it explains why bursts would be expected.

I kind of meandered but I'm in a hurry, so I haven't read this over. Excuse the typos, and the fact that I almost went into a strong brief on what kinds of mutations are likely to accumulate, but then I omitted. Hopefully it reads easily. Gonna go look up some anthropods and some bilaterians. This ancestor search will be difficult.

#56 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 - 08:09 PM

OK, done, and without even the need for a picture.  Insects are invertebrates.   ;)

View Post

:rolleyes: Good call.

So yeah, I want to see how evolution shows the development of an exoskeleton. :)

#57 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 - 08:21 PM

As to what you asked me about PE, why it was valid...

It's valid because it explains the speciation booms that are possible when you isolate a population.  Ring species are a good example, as changes accumulate more quickly when the gene pool for a population is limited or a section of the pool is isolated from a group.  Mutations can spread more quickly, as well.  Mind, it requires evo to be true to hold any explanatory power, but under evo, it is an expansionary theory which presents to us that evolution moves slowly for prosperous species who have settled into a biological niche.  Take that niche away, the population starts dying, mutations can spread more easily, and what's left of the species will either move into a new niche or plod along into extinction.  If a niche is not taken away, and but a segment of the population starts moving into a new niche because of geographic or social isolation, then the process will be the same.  Mutations that are beneficial to the new niche will accumulate easily, especially if the forms were farther from the niche.  The greater the distance, the more likely a mutation might be of some use.  Consider a number line where the greatest possible muscles that could exist in a given life form, considering its other attributes (you can only have muscles so large on a given frame, and the lungs must be big enough and the heart must pump fast enough, etc), would be represented by a 5, and weakest possible with 1 (you can also only have muscles be so weak if you want to support the frame at all).  A mutation from 1 to anything in between 2 and 5 is more likely than a mutation from 4 to 5.  4 might mutate to 3 on some individuals, or even lower, but they are less likely to be selected for.  Detrimental mutations are less likely to proliferate.  Now, if a species already fits into a niche very well, the biological advantage of 5 over 4 is lessened to a point where the advantageous trait will not immediately take over.

A simpler way of describing PE might be to say that if there is high selective pressure, or a small (but not disastrously) genepool, speciation occurs more rapidly than if organisms already meet the selective pressures and/or the population is so large as to diffuse changes from accumulating and creating a new species.  It does not prevent slow evolution, it explains why bursts would be expected.

View Post

You do see that you haven't demonstrated punctuated equilibrium but rather you have offered an anecdote to express how it possibly works. As for ring species demonstrating this proposed phenomena, I'm not impressed. Even ring species demonstrate a high level of morphological stasis.

You really should study that talk given by Dr. John Angus Campbell:

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=33930

The whole point is that you can show me minor changes. The idea reflects the rhetoric that Darwin used to convince so many, so it stands to reason that the same rhetoric will be employed by Darwin's believers. Basically, the belief is that with the overwhelming evidence of minor changes one must abandon reason to reject the big changes whether there is convincing evidence for it or not. How close is that to how you feel about this debate?

#58 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 30 June 2009 - 11:46 PM

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)

IF it's so insurmountable, how come every discussion of alleged transitionals involves defining all animals as "transitional".?

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

"Homology" by which definition? One that assumes evolutionism to be truth? 'Homology' defines as a study of sameness is broken left & right.

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

A "theory" has to exist before it can make predictions.

Vaporware doesn't cut 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

View Post

Insurmountable? Hardly. What you really play on is creating a dilemma: debunk & derail the thread, or leave the propaganda to stand?

When these things are discussed in the appropriate threads, the outcome doesn't seem to favour evomyth very often. Facts just work like magic. The little dot in the bottom corner of the following box is a link, in case anyone cares to see a fine example of an accurate presentation of facts shutting down evolutionism.

Nylon digesting is due to transposon elements which already exist in bacteria, not point mutation.

View Post

I didn't get this thread at first myself. Now I see what a fine job it does of demonstrating the box evolutionists find comfortable, and their aversion to venturing outside. It matters not how generous one is, they'll stick to their tried & true crate: circular reasoning x appeals to authority x selective vision.

#59 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 01 July 2009 - 01:34 AM

OK, done, and without even the need for a picture. Insects are invertebrates. 
If you meant, say, insects and worms, well, that's a pretty early divergence they have in their lineages, meaning fossils would be older (harder to find), and that aside, worms are soft-bodied, making for poor fossils. Fossils exist, but finding them pictured on the internet might be a real doozie. There's just not much interest in worms, and very little attention for early bilaterians (all ancestral worms, including species eventually leading into anthropods, hexaopds, and insects). I'll have a look, but no one should expect much.


You do know that according to conventional dating centepedes,dragonflies,cockroaches and other insects go back hundreds of millions of years (carboniferous if i'm not mistaken).I don't think it's because of a poor fossil record,it's because they show up suddenly and have'nt changed much since.It's not only the transitionals that are missing,but slow gradual change as well.The only striking difference is the size,they use to be several feet in length in the past and now they are only inches.

Something else i've always considered ironic when evolutionists start saying evolution is a proven fact,is why do we have jawless fish and jawed fish in the fossil record all the way through it,but not a single transition between the two.



Enjoy.

#60 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 01 July 2009 - 06:04 AM

This thread worked out better than I expected. Now the main criticism I received was for not discriminating properly about the time-line and being accused of not understanding evolution because of the freedom I gave to place animals anywhere. Anybody is free to correct me but I believe I did an ample job being clear that I understand the evolution time line but my rules did not add restriction to the already speculative hypothesis of evolution but I removed restrictions. So a participant could freely refuse to play fast and loose with the data and say "I'm going to demonstrate evolution the proper way." This would be well within the rules of this thread but not any takers. Ibex might still give it a go, I'm not sure.

Here's one last one for our buddies over at FRDB (especially you, Ajgrovery) :rolleyes: :

A duck:

Posted Image

A platypus:

Posted Image

A beaver:

Posted Image

Now if these animals were all extinct, and all we had was fossil evidence, what Darwinist wouldn't be salivating over the stories that could be told of a duck evolving into a beaver? If wolf like animals can evolve into whales, in evo-land, this line up is even better.

The platypus makes such clever transitions. egg laying to live birth. bill to mouth. wings to legs. I bet some evolutionists secretly wish that platypus were extinct because they would make such clever transitional species in so many different locations.

Since this is so unconvincing on this generous scale. Let me ask the evolutionists. What makes it so convincing when the fossil record is lined up in this fast and loose manner?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users