Jump to content


Photo

Let's Stack The Deck For Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
171 replies to this topic

#1 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6956 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 29 June 2009 - 12:26 PM

Okay, I want to give evolutionists (and creationists) the opportunity to play. Maybe someone has already done this and if they have I'd love to see a link. If I could think of a scenario where an evolutionist could make a case it would be like this. 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. Now the platform is wide open. All you have to do is put these creatures in order based on morphology. It doesn't matter if you make a living monkey the ancestor of a human it's allowed by these rules. In fact if it's convenient to make the line up more believable you could put an extinct dinosaur after a living lizard if the morphology looks more convincing. You won't be judged on time or other factors like habitat just shape and body plan. You can have 500 trillion years to accomplish the task if you think you need it.

The only rule is that you are not allowed to dismiss a creature because it doesn't fit the line up. You have to put it somewhere.

I would say that this would be a very generous playbook. You don't have to worry about a branching tree because every living specimen past or present is available to fill in the gaps in one long continuous string. You don't even have to worry about species variation. If it helps the line up to put someones sister between themselves and a monkey that is a-okay. If it helps to keep caterpillars and butterflies as totally different creatures, that's a-okay too. What would this single line up look like?

Certain sections would look very convincing. You could have cats morphing into dogs and dogs morphing into bears. You could have a favorite; monkeys molding into apes and chimpanzees morphing into people. The sky is the limit it has been done before but not on this scale. Every known body plan in one single line up based solely on morphology from bacteria to people. Or maybe it would be bacteria to dinosaurs and blue whales if size helps the line up be more appealing.

Posted Image

What would this line up look like in its entirety and would evolutionists be able to deal with the places where there are huge leaps? Would they admit their stumbling blocks when one line up looks appealing for this feature but it has to be rearranged for another feature to receive similar treatment. Are we ambitious and cooperative enough on this forum to complete such a line up with rules that we could satisfy even within the constraints of an interactive internet web site?

What if we started posting every organism we can with a clear picture of the animal or plant and allowed the members to put them in an order that is appealing and agreeable to most people. What kind of gross gaps would we find? What kind of unexplainable changes would crop up as certain features would look good morphing along, while others would betray the purpose of the line up?

Are we up to the challenge?

#2 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6956 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 29 June 2009 - 12:57 PM

The only rule is that you are not allowed to dismiss a creature because it doesn't fit the line up. You have to put it somewhere.

View Post

You know what I'll take this back, if you need a branch, you can have a branch on your line-up but you don't need it if you don't want it.

I want to be as flexible and generous as possible to our evolutionists. They've had it kind of rough lately and this could be fun.

#3 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 June 2009 - 01:09 PM

All you have to do is put these creatures in order based on morphology. It doesn't matter if you make a living monkey the ancestor of a human it's allowed by these rules.


Not at all clear how you think any such exercise bears any relation to evolution.

The only 'natural' ordering is by descent, and this is not tied closely to morphology, except that children somewhat resemble their parents.

#4 Guest_ajgrovery_*

Guest_ajgrovery_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 June 2009 - 01:16 PM

if you can get me a complete list of all the species that ever lived then i'll do it, until then its kinda hard

and its impossible anyway as your list includes bacteria to which the tree of life does not apply

#5 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6956 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 29 June 2009 - 01:20 PM

The only 'natural' ordering is by descent, and this is not tied closely to morphology, except that children somewhat resemble their parents.

View Post

Well, if this is true and you reject the hopeful monster scenario, then a long linage of parent to child resemblances should make the task easy. I'm giving you a chance to stick in your thumb and pull out a plumb, my friend. Not only can you show us this convincing 'descent with modification' but you get to make the arrangement virtually without constraints. You just have to make it look like there is a long parent/child progression as Darwinism proclaims has been proven. Aren't you going to jump on this? I'm pulling out all the stops. I'm just saying, for this exercise, if it helps your case to tell us that a Komodo Dragon...

Posted Image

...is the ancestor of a Shielded Sauropelta...

Posted Image

...man, go for it, I'm taking all those pesky restrictions of time and actual descent off of you. You can tell the story any way you want.

#6 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6956 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 29 June 2009 - 01:29 PM

if you can get me a complete list of all the species that ever lived then i'll do it, until then its kinda hard

View Post


Well, lets just start simple. What if we start with:

People, apes and monkeys:



and its impossible anyway as your list includes bacteria to which the tree of life does not apply

View Post

Pardon me? Since when are bacteria not on the evolutionist's tree of life:

Yup look there they are:

Posted Image

There they are again:

Posted Image

I think you might be mistaking bacteria and viruses which opens up a whole new ball of problems for evolutionists, but in the name of being generous, we will certainly allow viruses to be excluded.

#7 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6956 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 29 June 2009 - 01:42 PM

Not at all clear how you think any such exercise bears any relation to evolution.

View Post

It's already being done. Every bone found in the dirt is presumed to be a part of a line up. I'm just being extra generous by lifting any additional constraint that evolutionists have felt obligated to adhere to while painting their story of how one unique animal; like a Pakicetus:

Posted Image

Turned into another unique animal like a sperm whale:

Posted Image

Basically, I'm welcoming you to stick a hippopotamus

Posted Image

...and a manatee...

Posted Image

...in between the two of them if it will help the case.

Have you ever had a creationist be this generous? Your questions are like looking a gift horse in the mouth. I'm a little offended. :mellow:


:D

#8 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6956 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 29 June 2009 - 02:03 PM

Oh and if we stick a seal...

Posted Image

and a walrus, in between the Hippo and the manatee:

Posted Image

I start to get goosebumps looking at the line up. So here we have:

1. Pakicetus

2. Hippo

3. seal

4. walrus

5. manatee

and 6. sperm whale

Now the walrus and the seal might need flip flopped because walrus have tusks and hippos have tusks but then size-wise the hippo and walrus are pretty big and then the seal is kind of small then the manatee get big again. Maybe on second thought, we should put the seal on a branch beside the walrus.

#9 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6956 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 29 June 2009 - 06:22 PM

I discovered some of our friends lurking on this thread and discussing it. The issue of the platypus came up:

platypus.jpeg

This was supposed to be my secret weapon according to them and for all intents and purposes this little guy seams to come from nowhere and has a lifestyle all it's own. Where would this fit in the line up?

The platypus is one case of many that should make an honest Darwinist scratch their own heads rather than scoff.

However, for this thread we can have a good old time and stick to some easy ones first.

I think the biggest problems will crop up in one of our most common organisms; insects. There is a huge variety of these things, so some order should be easy but the roadblocks should be interesting if we look it them closely.



#10 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 29 June 2009 - 08:40 PM

Hey Adam,

Thanks for all the freedom in this forum, but I highly doubt you'll get anyone who wants to play. The shear amount of work you're asking for is ridiculous. Even if I were to try and match every creature that ever existed based purely on opinion and not a scrap of evidence you're looking at years worth of work. And that's assuming I already had a long list of creatures with photos.

If you're interested, I wouldn't mind playing the same game, but with someone randomly picking an animal. We could then try and trace it's ancestry back as far as the evidence will allow.

The platypus wouldn't be a bad place to start. With the quick search I just did it seems scientists are pretty baffled as to it's origins. Which I guess is better than just making something up :mellow:

Good luck with this idea. I doubt you'll get much of a bite but I'll be interested to watch all the same.

Regards,

Arch.

#11 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 30 June 2009 - 12:42 AM

Not at all clear how you think any such exercise bears any relation to evolution.

The only 'natural' ordering is by descent, and this is not tied closely to morphology, except that children somewhat resemble their parents.

View Post


When teaching films are made for evolution, do they not morph one species into another as a convincing animation of a process that is not observable?

#12 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 30 June 2009 - 12:43 AM

if you can get me a complete list of all the species that ever lived then i'll do it, until then its kinda hard

and its impossible anyway as your list includes bacteria to which the tree of life does not apply

View Post


If evolution is so provable, this should actually be easy.

#13 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 30 June 2009 - 12:48 AM

Hey Adam,

Thanks for all the freedom in this forum, but I highly doubt you'll get anyone who wants to play. The shear amount of work you're asking for is ridiculous. Even if I were to try and match every creature that ever existed based purely on opinion and not a scrap of evidence you're looking at years worth of work. And that's assuming I already had a long list of creatures with photos.

If you're interested, I wouldn't mind playing the same game, but with someone randomly picking an animal. We could then try and trace it's ancestry back as far as the evidence will allow.

The platypus wouldn't be a bad place to start. With the quick search I just did it seems scientists are pretty baffled as to it's origins. Which I guess is better than just making something up :mellow:

Good luck with this idea. I doubt you'll get much of a bite but I'll be interested to watch all the same.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


With all the work and effort already put into proving evolution, I am actually surprised no one has not already done this. And the work involved can be done in sections. Starting with what we already have deemed as evolution of certain species. Then work on the ones that have no tree.

#14 Guest_ajgrovery_*

Guest_ajgrovery_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 June 2009 - 02:04 AM

Well, lets just start simple. What if we start with:

People, apes and monkeys:
Pardon me? Since when are bacteria not on the evolutionist's tree of life:

Yup look there they are:

Posted Image

There they are again:

Posted Image

I think you might be mistaking bacteria and viruses which opens up a whole new ball of problems for evolutionists, but in the name of being generous, we will certainly allow viruses to be excluded.

View Post


i think you'll find i know a hell of a lot more then you about evolution and bacteria do not follow the tree of life due to the large amount of horizontal gene transfer

#15 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 30 June 2009 - 02:22 AM

3.7 billion years of horizontal gene transfer in cyano bacteria and it's still cyano bacteria....Hmmmmm.

#16 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 30 June 2009 - 03:35 AM

i think you'll find i know a h**l of a lot more then you about evolution and bacteria do not follow the tree of life due to the large amount of horizontal gene transfer

View Post



Whew, I'm glad you hold your arrogance, self aggrandizing and language in check so well ajgrovery. I'd hate to see if you let loose and really blasted someone with your mighty intellect :o

#17 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 30 June 2009 - 03:37 AM

Posted Image

View Post


I just noticed how much that looks like an eye Adam. Coincidence, hmmmmmmmmm.

And that little "You are here" is a crack up :o

#18 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6956 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 30 June 2009 - 06:26 AM

i think you'll find i know a h**l of a lot more then you about evolution and bacteria do not follow the tree of life due to the large amount of horizontal gene transfer

View Post

This is not what you said my little, self congratulatory genius of a friend.

Here is what you said:

...and its impossible anyway as your list includes bacteria to which the tree of life does not apply

View Post

How can the tree of life not apply to bacteria while all the evo-clergy administer these trees with bacteria included? :)

Your statement is actually a much more interesting statement than I first realized. Isn't it interesting how evolutionists are so quick to set the rules and empower themselves by limiting the data. If it doesn't fit the paradigm make some lame excuse why it isn't allowed for consideration in evolution.

Bacteria among other single-celled creatures were Darwin's little darlings until they demonstrated the most rigorous morphological stasis of any organism, then they get quietly shuffled to the back because they didn't perform according to the evolution fairytale.

The couple of comments that I've received here, and read elsewhere, just goes to show that even with the most generous conditions and the flabbiest rules, so an observational method can be carried out, the results are frightening to the evolutionist because they don't want to face the problems that are looming if even this flabby test is pursued.

I can pinpoint some of the most looming gaps and problems that evolutionists will face before we even get underway

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

Now if you're an evolutionist and your rolling your eyes because these are such old issues... well... not only are they old issues but they are persistent issues. You can't just dismiss these things because they are annoying. You must let the science work by acknowledging these problems.

When evolutionists say that evolution is a fact and we may not be sure how it happened but we know that it happened. What demonstrates this? The only thing you have is the very thing we're doing in this thread and it is ridiculous. It doesn't change the fact that without DNA or other factors that throw big wrenches into the evolution mechanism, this is exactly what Charles Darwin and his buddies were sitting around doing. Looking at animals and putting them in line-ups. They assumed that the gaps would be filled in by more fossils.

Here we are today and this thread demonstrates that no evolutionist wants to seriously deal with the actual organisms that are present, whether fossil or living because they don't want to face the problems that will be so glaring.

Keith said:

The only 'natural' ordering is by descent, and this is not tied closely to morphology, except that children somewhat resemble their parents.

View Post

If children somewhat resemble their parents and we are expected to believe a long linage of parent/child relationships back to the first wriggly protozoa then this line up should be a sinch. :o

We as the "fool-hearty creationists" should be easily put in our places when all the transitions are revealed regardless of the organisms we present in this thread.

It's not going to happen though is it?

#19 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6956 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 30 June 2009 - 06:32 AM

And that little "You are here" is a crack up  :o

View Post

I got a kick out of that myself.

Look at it closer and look towards the inner rings. For instance what evidence do they have to link animals and plants together where they do?

#20 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6956 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 30 June 2009 - 06:38 AM

Here we are today and this thread demonstrates that no evolutionist wants to seriously deal with the actual organisms that are present, whether fossil or living because they don't want to face the problems that will be so glaring.

View Post

Actually, we shouldn't even have to do this in this thread. There should be so many links to well documented trees going organism by organism that our heads should spin. Instead we get those lame eye shaped phylogenetic trees that don't even come close to dispelling the doubt. They are for the faithful. Those who already believe can imagine how the problem is solved because look... they have a chart. It's blasphemy to look at the chart too closely. :o




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users