Jump to content


Photo

Living Fossils Refute Evolutionist Methodology


  • Please log in to reply
103 replies to this topic

#1 lightbo

lightbo

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Oregon

Posted 21 October 2009 - 06:00 PM

Living Fossils Refute Evolutionist Methodology

Remember how evos claimed that dog & nylonase bacteria supported their model, when in fact they turned out to be refutations against evolution?
Well, enter the living fossils.

Here's the main point - "Superior is Not Necessarily Advantageous".

A debating evo brought up the Nautilus, how its lens-less eyes had not changed in 500 million years. He was constructive hypothetical arguments how gradual development of a lens could appear, based on "clearly advantageous" improvements.

A couple of things struck me when I read it. One, the way he worded about "scientists have been looking at living fossils for a long time" and "living fossils fit well into the evolution model" smacked of whistling in the dark. Bereft of explanations why they would contribute, it warranted a closer look. Then, it hit me. Evolutionists have been nervous about living fossils, because they haven't evolved.

The response to 'why' was simply, "The Nautilus is "genetically stable".'
Does that sound like an explanation to you?
I'll tell you what it is. It's a restatement of the problem.
What is stable? Bullet proof genes that wear little capes?
What's so special about them that they're "stable"?

Okay, let's look at Mr. Nautilius.
He has no lens on his eye.
He has a slow breeding cycle.
He has comparatively limited mobility.

How is he competing in an ocean with other creatures which have superior sight and faster breeding?
Well, obviously, it must have something to do with the niche they are in.
Those "superior" traits aren't needed for it to survive in nature.

The conclusion is inescapable... Superior is not necessarily advantageous.
This is significant, because many, MANY evo arguments depend upon the mutation fairy creating "superior" traits which natural selection would favor (within the population/species).

Their methodology is in trouble. They don't know that a superior trait is necessarily advantageous, with respect to natural selection. They're guessing. They don't "know" that a given species "developed" or "evolved" a better trait. It's just what they want to think, at this point. Once it's realized that superior is not necessarily advantageous, it lets the air out of evolution's tires. The driving force behind evo theory is gimped.

Okay, well, isn't it safe to point to a giraffe's long neck and say it's advantageous for getting food high in trees? Isn't that superior and advantageous? That is applying the terms "superior" and "advantageous" to a species niche. In that sense, it's trivial. It's superior and advantageous for hawks to have wings, or fish to have gills, niches-wise.

Also, the terms "superior" and "advantageous" have yet a different application to Intraspecies Variations. Natural Selection can favor a pug in one environment and a basset hound in another. Evolution has el zippo to do with it.

The attack point to evo methodology is "superior" and "advantageous" applying to a brand new trait going beyond the existing species map. As squidly, mr. nautilus vividly proves (along with other living fossil species), superior traits within a species might not Necessarily be advantageous.

You can't advance organic slop into complex life, it it's hap-hap-happy right in the niche where it is.

I would like to note that many more nautiloid variations existed in prehistoric times. The disappearance of all those varieties, especially the coneheads, is consistent with the erosions of genetic entropy.

#2 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 22 October 2009 - 02:29 AM

Posted Image

Correct,lightbo.

There was several different genera,which suddenly appeared without any ancestors and instead of diversification,the end result was elimination.



Thanks.

#3 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 22 October 2009 - 04:40 AM

Living Fossils Refute Evolutionist Methodology

... Their methodology is in trouble. They don't know that a superior trait is necessarily advantageous, with respect to natural selection. They're guessing. They don't "know" that a given species "developed" or "evolved" a better trait. It's just what they want to think, at this point. Once it's realized that superior is not necessarily advantageous, it lets the air out of evolution's tires.  The driving force behind evo theory is gimped.
...You can't advance organic slop into complex life, it it's hap-hap-happy right in the niche where it is.

View Post


Hi lightbo

I think the point of the nautlioids is to show that niches can stay the same for long periods. If a population lives in an static niche, the evidence is that it tends to evolve slowly or not at all.

If the niche changes, individuals in the population that are best suited to the new circumstances will be more likely to have children, all of whom are more likely to have the parent's well-suited characteristics. This is just the process adaptation, which I think everyone agrees has been observed.

Evolutionists extend this argument and say that, if a niche keeps changing, then the population will keep changing too, leading over long periods to macroevolution.

Cheers
SeeJay

#4 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 22 October 2009 - 05:11 AM

Posted Image

Correct,lightbo.

There was several different genera,which suddenly appeared without any ancestors and instead of diversification,the end result was elimination.
Thanks.

View Post


Hi jason777

I'm not quite sure what that diagram represents. Recent scientific research shows significant diversification amongst the nautiloids:

During the Ordovician Radiation cephalopods expanded their habitat from the shallow marine environments of the low latitudes to global occurrences in almost all marine environments. The expansion of habitat was accompanied by a drastic morphological and taxonomical diversification.


And here's something I found quite interesting about nautiloids:

Daily growth lines and lunar monthly septa are formed in Nautilus pompilius Linnaeus shells. The number of days per lunar month determined using fossil shells has increased dramatically during the last 420 Myr, indicating that during this period the Moon revolved more rapidly and was much closer to the Earth than has previously been expected.


Regards
SeeJay

#5 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 October 2009 - 02:04 PM

Living Fossils Refute Evolutionist Methodology

Remember how evos claimed that dog & nylonase bacteria supported their model, when in fact they turned out to be refutations against evolution?
Well, enter the living fossils.

Here's the main point - "Superior is Not Necessarily Advantageous".

A debating evo brought up the Nautilus, how its lens-less eyes had not changed in 500 million years. He was constructive hypothetical arguments how gradual development of a lens could appear, based on "clearly advantageous" improvements.

A couple of things struck me when I read it. One, the way he worded about "scientists have been looking at living fossils for a long time" and "living fossils fit well into the evolution model" smacked of whistling in the dark. Bereft of explanations why they would contribute, it warranted a closer look. Then, it hit me. Evolutionists have been nervous about living fossils, because they haven't evolved.

The response to 'why' was simply, "The Nautilus is "genetically stable".'
Does that sound like an explanation to you?
I'll tell you what it is. It's a restatement of the problem.
What is stable? Bullet proof genes that wear little capes?
What's so special about them that they're "stable"?

Okay, let's look at Mr. Nautilius.
He has no lens on his eye.
He has a slow breeding cycle.
He has comparatively limited mobility.

How is he competing in an ocean with other creatures which have superior sight and faster breeding?
Well, obviously, it must have something to do with the niche they are in.
Those "superior" traits aren't needed for it to survive in nature.

The conclusion is inescapable... Superior is not necessarily advantageous.
This is significant, because many, MANY evo arguments depend upon the mutation fairy creating "superior" traits which natural selection would favor (within the population/species).

Their methodology is in trouble. They don't know that a superior trait is necessarily advantageous, with respect to natural selection. They're guessing. They don't "know" that a given species "developed" or "evolved" a better trait. It's just what they want to think, at this point. Once it's realized that superior is not necessarily advantageous, it lets the air out of evolution's tires.  The driving force behind evo theory is gimped.

Okay, well, isn't it safe to point to a giraffe's long neck and say it's advantageous for getting food high in trees? Isn't that superior and advantageous? That is applying the terms "superior" and "advantageous" to a species niche. In that sense, it's trivial. It's superior and advantageous for hawks to have wings, or fish to have gills, niches-wise.

Also, the terms "superior" and "advantageous" have yet a different application to Intraspecies Variations. Natural Selection can favor a pug in one environment and a basset hound in another. Evolution has el zippo to do with it.

The attack point to evo methodology is "superior" and "advantageous" applying to a brand new trait going beyond the existing species map. As squidly, mr. nautilus vividly proves (along with other living fossil species), superior traits within a species might not Necessarily be advantageous.

You can't advance organic slop into complex life, it it's hap-hap-happy right in the niche where it is.

I would like to note that many more nautiloid variations existed in prehistoric times. The disappearance of all those varieties, especially the coneheads, is consistent with the erosions of genetic entropy.

View Post



Evolution doesn't depend on what's advantageous based on your criteria. This is something that's lost on creationists. I think pretty much refutes your entire post.

#6 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 22 October 2009 - 02:20 PM

I think the point of the nautlioids is to show that niches can stay the same for long periods. If a population lives in an static niche, the evidence is that it tends to evolve slowly or not at all.


Hi seejay,

Not with 420 million years of deleterious mutations accumulating.

Remember also,apes lived in the same niche with apes while some evolved into humans in only 5-7 million years.

why is it so easy to tell an Evo fairytale with major vertebrates,but not marine invertebrates ? Major vertebrates are only 0.0125% of the fossil record and since they share a similar body plan it makes it easy to "cherry pick" the data you want.On the other hand 95% of the fossil record,which is in favor of creation,is marine invertebrates.If creation is true,then we would expect the vast majority of the data to favor it.


Thanks.

#7 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 952 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 22 October 2009 - 03:28 PM

I think the point of the nautlioids is to show that niches can stay the same for long periods. If a population lives in an static niche, the evidence is that it tends to evolve slowly or not at all.


Hi seejay,

Not with 420 million years of deleterious mutations accumulating.

Remember also,apes lived in the same niche with apes while some evolved into humans in only 5-7 million years.

why is it so easy to tell an Evo fairytale with major vertebrates,but not marine invertebrates ? Major vertebrates are only 0.0125% of the fossil record and since they share a similar body plan it makes it easy to "cherry pick" the data you want.On the other hand 95% of the fossil record,which is in favor of creation,is marine invertebrates.If creation is true,then we would expect the vast majority of the data to favor it.
Thanks.

View Post


Good posting Jason.

#8 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 22 October 2009 - 03:33 PM

I think the point of the nautlioids is to show that niches can stay the same for long periods. If a population lives in an static niche, the evidence is that it tends to evolve slowly or not at all.


Hi seejay,

Not with 420 million years of deleterious mutations accumulating.

Remember also,apes lived in the same niche with apes while some evolved into humans in only 5-7 million years.

why is it so easy to tell an Evo fairytale with major vertebrates,but not marine invertebrates ? Major vertebrates are only 0.0125% of the fossil record and since they share a similar body plan it makes it easy to "cherry pick" the data you want.On the other hand 95% of the fossil record,which is in favor of creation,is marine invertebrates.If creation is true,then we would expect the vast majority of the data to favor it.
Thanks.

View Post


Hi jason777

I'm not sure I understand. Are you suggesting that natural selection doesn't operate at all? Because in a static niche with natural selection operating, deleterious mutations will tend not to accumulate, because individuals with them will be less likely to have children.

Also, regarding human evolution, I'm not aware of any evolutionist that proposes humans diverged from ape-like ancestors whilst occupying exactly the same niche. As you rightly point out, this wouldn't make much sense. I believe evolutionists propose the ape-like ancestor population split up to occupy different niches, and then the divergence occurred.

If you have the chance to read over the article I quoted on cephalopod evolution, I believe you may find there are very reasonable, evidence-based conclusions about the long-term evolution of that class of marine invertebrates. So I don't see that the evolution story is just confined to major verterbrates.

Regards
SeeJay

#9 lightbo

lightbo

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Oregon

Posted 22 October 2009 - 03:45 PM

I think the point of the nautlioids is to show that niches can stay the same for long periods. If a population lives in an static niche, the evidence is that it tends to evolve slowly or not at all.

... which falls under my genetic entropy topic: Adaptability Destruction / Niche confinement. Non-selected traits are subjected to corruption and reduction. Heterozygous traits are subject to drift towards homozygous traits. An unchanging niche will better enable genetic drifts to reach fixation, loss of traits, loss of adaptability.

If the niche changes, individuals in the population that are best suited to the new circumstances will be more likely to have children, all of whom are more likely to have the parent's well-suited characteristics. This is just the process adaptation, which I think everyone agrees has been observed.

It is circular to say that specimens with favorable traits will be favored.
The question is IF the population possesses the necessary traits, after the scheme of natural selection has changed. If it no longer does (due to fixation), then that population is on its way towards extinction.

Evolutionists extend this argument and say that, if a niche keeps changing, then the population will keep changing too, leading over long periods to macroevolution.

View Post

That assumes, and it's one heck of an assumption, that the population possesses the requisite trait to survive in the new selection schema.

Selection inherently erodes trait variety.
Selection inherently erodes adaptability.
You can't progress species complexity or explain any kind of evolution, micro/micro/middle, in that context.

#10 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 22 October 2009 - 06:49 PM

I'm not sure I understand. Are you suggesting that natural selection doesn't operate at all? Because in a static niche with natural selection operating, deleterious mutations will tend not to accumulate, because individuals with them will be less likely to have children.


No seejay,deleterious mutations accumulate in every species until they go extinct.In humans there are 796–837 deleterious mutations per individual and the number is only getting higher.

Each human carries a large number of deleterious mutations. Together, these mutations make a significant contribution to human disease. Identification of deleterious mutations within individual genome sequences could substantially impact an individual's health through personalized prevention and treatment of disease. Yet, distinguishing deleterious mutations from the massive number of nonfunctional variants that occur within a single genome is a considerable challenge. Using a comparative genomics data set of 32 vertebrate species we show that a likelihood ratio test (LRT) can accurately identify a subset of deleterious mutations that disrupt highly conserved amino acids within protein-coding sequences, which are likely to be unconditionally deleterious. The LRT is also able to identify known human disease alleles and performs as well as two commonly used heuristic methods, SIFT and PolyPhen. Application of the LRT to three human genomes reveals 796–837 deleterious mutations per individual, ∼40% of which are estimated to be at <5% allele frequency. However, the overlap between predictions made by the LRT, SIFT, and PolyPhen, is low; 76% of predictions are unique to one of the three methods, and only 5% of predictions are shared across all three methods. Our results indicate that only a small subset of deleterious mutations can be reliably identified, but that this subset provides the raw material for personalized medicine.


Source




Enjoy.

#11 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 23 October 2009 - 05:12 AM

No seejay,deleterious mutations accumulate in every species until they go extinct.In humans there are 796–837 deleterious mutations per individual and the number is only getting higher.
Source
Enjoy.

View Post


Hi jason777

I agree with you, in the sense that species that go extinct tend to be those that have accumulated lots of deleterious mutations.

Nevertheless, modern observations show that natural selection does strongly weed out deleterious mutations from a population. Some experiments have to deliberately reduce the effect of natural selection to allow deleterious mutations to spread (e.g. by introducing bottlenecks, or decreasing population sizes).

That's why I asked "Are you suggesting that natural selection doesn't operate at all?" There has to be something that removes the deleterious mutations from a population, or they would accumulate at a geometric rate. I assumed that natural selection was the accepted reason for this.

See for example:
Nature 445 (2007) "Direct estimation of per nucleotide and genomic deleterious mutation rates in Drosophila"
Nature 381 (1996) "Estimate of the genomic mutation rate deleterious to overall fitness in E. coli."
Genetics 151 (1999) "The rate of spontaneous mutation for life-history traits in Caenorhabditis elegans."

Regards
SeeJay

#12 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 23 October 2009 - 05:42 AM

... which falls under my genetic entropy topic: Adaptability Destruction / Niche confinement.  Non-selected traits are subjected to corruption and reduction.  Heterozygous traits are subject to drift towards homozygous traits.  An unchanging niche will better enable genetic drifts to reach fixation, loss of traits, loss of adaptability.


Hi lightbo. What you say here makes good sense to me. Blind cavefish would be a good example of this, I think.

It is circular to say that specimens with favorable traits will be favored.
The question is IF the population possesses the necessary traits, after the scheme of natural selection has changed.  If it no longer does (due to fixation), then that population is on its way towards extinction.
That assumes, and it's one heck of an assumption, that the population possesses the requisite trait to survive in the new selection schema.


Again, this makes good sense to me. However many species inhabit a wide range of varying niches, and thus exhibit a number of varieties and subspecies -- like the nautiloids. Such species are not confined to an unchanging niche, and are not so subject to fixation. Therefore, they are much more likely to have traits somewhere in their population that are adapted to changed conditions, especially if they have large populations.

I didn't intend to state a circular argument. I said "individuals in the population that are best suited to the new circumstances will be more likely to have children." I didn't mean that "best suited" and "likely to have more children" are the same thing. I believe they're quite different. For example, experiments have measured the "suitability" of organisms in all sorts of ways, like metabolic rate or mobility. These are strongly correlated with the number of children those oranisms have.

Selection inherently erodes trait variety.
Selection inherently erodes adaptability.
You can't progress species complexity or explain any kind of evolution, micro/micro/middle, in that context.

View Post


I would gree that selection erodes trait variety and adaptability as a general rule for populations that inhabit an unvarying niche. But many populations are very large and inhabit niches that are in constant change. I don't think this general rule would apply to them.

Regards
SeeJay

#13 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 952 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 23 October 2009 - 11:15 AM

Hi jason777

I agree with you, in the sense that species that go extinct tend to be those that have accumulated lots of deleterious mutations.

Nevertheless, modern observations show that natural selection does strongly weed out deleterious mutations from a population. Some experiments have to deliberately reduce the effect of natural selection to allow deleterious mutations to spread (e.g. by introducing bottlenecks, or decreasing population sizes).

That's why I asked "Are you suggesting that natural selection doesn't operate at all?" There has to be something that removes the deleterious mutations from a population, or they would accumulate at a geometric rate. I assumed that natural selection was the accepted reason for this.

See for example:
Nature 445 (2007) "Direct estimation of per nucleotide and genomic deleterious mutation rates in Drosophila"
Nature 381 (1996) "Estimate of the genomic mutation rate deleterious to overall fitness in E. coli."
Genetics 151 (1999) "The rate of spontaneous mutation for life-history traits in Caenorhabditis elegans."

Regards
SeeJay

View Post



Hi SeeJay,

Would you unpack this for me please. I don't understand what you are saying about natural selection.

TIA -Bruce

#14 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 952 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 23 October 2009 - 11:35 AM

Mutation Rate Catastrophe: You Can’t Even Break Even

The intricate adjustment of organisms to their environment demonstrates the effectiveness of natural selection.  But Darwin himself recognized that certain biological features could limit this effectiveness, features that generally reduce the efficiency of natural selection or yield suboptimal adaptation.  Genetic linkage is known to be one such feature, and here we show theoretically that it can introduce a more sinister flaw: when there is complete linkage between loci affecting fitness and loci affecting mutation rate, positive natural selection and recurrent mutation can drive mutation rates in an adapting population to intolerable levels.



Our theoretical findings indicate that mutator hitchhiking can set in motion a self-reinforcing loss of replication fidelity, but the question of how a process as robust as natural selection could allow this to happen remains.  The key fact is that natural selection, although eminently robust, is a short-sighted process that favors traits with immediate fitness benefits.  The fitness cost of mutator hitchhiking is generally not anticipated because of the slow accumulation of deleterious load.  When a mutator hitchhikes with a new beneficial mutation, a simple model shows that the increased deleterious load due to the mutator is in fact suppressed during the spread of the beneficial mutation.  Indeed, the full fitness cost of the mutator is only realized well after the beneficial mutation has stopped spreading.... A mutator may therefore enjoy the immediate benefit of producing a new beneficial mutation without anticipating the eventual increase in deleterious load.  Because of this delay in the accumulation of deleterious load, natural selection can drive mutation rate up to the point of no return....


Why don’t the beneficial mutations ever win? After all, they can spread rapidly in a population. The reason is that fitness is short-sighted. Natural selection cannot see down the road or have a goal. It can only act on the immediate consequences of a change.

This cascade applies to higher organisms as well.

There is almost certainly no physiological barrier to such an effect in most organisms: the genomic mutation rate in organisms from viruses to eukaryotes is a quantitative trait affected by many mutations whose effects can readily cumulate to intolerable levels of error.  In what follows, we show that there need not be a selective barrier to this process either: because the full fitness effect of increased deleterious mutation takes some time to accumulate after a higher mutation rate has evolved, it is theoretically possible for a population to evolve a critically high mutation rate and subsequently go extinct.


Pick your poison: “Either an asexual population does not adapt and goes extinct as a result of the slow accumulation of deleterious mutations, as suggested by existing theory, or else it adapts and goes extinct as a result of the mutation-rate catastrophe.”

Posted Image

#15 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 October 2009 - 01:49 PM

Living Fossils Refute Evolutionist Methodology

Remember how evos claimed that dog & nylonase bacteria supported their model, when in fact they turned out to be refutations against evolution?
Well, enter the living fossils.

Here's the main point - "Superior is Not Necessarily Advantageous".

A debating evo brought up the Nautilus, how its lens-less eyes had not changed in 500 million years. He was constructive hypothetical arguments how gradual development of a lens could appear, based on "clearly advantageous" improvements.

A couple of things struck me when I read it. One, the way he worded about "scientists have been looking at living fossils for a long time" and "living fossils fit well into the evolution model" smacked of whistling in the dark. Bereft of explanations why they would contribute, it warranted a closer look. Then, it hit me. Evolutionists have been nervous about living fossils, because they haven't evolved.

The response to 'why' was simply, "The Nautilus is "genetically stable".'
Does that sound like an explanation to you?
I'll tell you what it is. It's a restatement of the problem.
What is stable? Bullet proof genes that wear little capes?
What's so special about them that they're "stable"?

Okay, let's look at Mr. Nautilius.
He has no lens on his eye.
He has a slow breeding cycle.
He has comparatively limited mobility.

How is he competing in an ocean with other creatures which have superior sight and faster breeding?
Well, obviously, it must have something to do with the niche they are in.
Those "superior" traits aren't needed for it to survive in nature.

The conclusion is inescapable... Superior is not necessarily advantageous.
This is significant, because many, MANY evo arguments depend upon the mutation fairy creating "superior" traits which natural selection would favor (within the population/species).

Their methodology is in trouble. They don't know that a superior trait is necessarily advantageous, with respect to natural selection. They're guessing. They don't "know" that a given species "developed" or "evolved" a better trait. It's just what they want to think, at this point. Once it's realized that superior is not necessarily advantageous, it lets the air out of evolution's tires.  The driving force behind evo theory is gimped.

Okay, well, isn't it safe to point to a giraffe's long neck and say it's advantageous for getting food high in trees? Isn't that superior and advantageous? That is applying the terms "superior" and "advantageous" to a species niche. In that sense, it's trivial. It's superior and advantageous for hawks to have wings, or fish to have gills, niches-wise.

Also, the terms "superior" and "advantageous" have yet a different application to Intraspecies Variations. Natural Selection can favor a pug in one environment and a basset hound in another. Evolution has el zippo to do with it.

The attack point to evo methodology is "superior" and "advantageous" applying to a brand new trait going beyond the existing species map. As squidly, mr. nautilus vividly proves (along with other living fossil species), superior traits within a species might not Necessarily be advantageous.

You can't advance organic slop into complex life, it it's hap-hap-happy right in the niche where it is.

I would like to note that many more nautiloid variations existed in prehistoric times. The disappearance of all those varieties, especially the coneheads, is consistent with the erosions of genetic entropy.

View Post




The attack point to evo methodology is "superior" and "advantageous"

Just a thought here... you might consider trying to understand it rather than concentrating on attacking.

As an attack point you really dont have anything here.

A person might say that the jet is superior to the piston aircraft.

And you might be correct, if the job didnt happen to be crop dusting.

What is superior or advantageous depends entirely on the circumstances. Your giraffe wont have much luck eating grass or running thru the brush.
A house is superior to a tent unless you have to take it with you!


As for the rest of your post, it is not possible to make a reasonable response to so many topics. You might consider limiting it to a single topic, unless of course you just want to present ideas but dont want a response.


Oh one other thing. "Evolutionists have been nervous about living fossils, because they haven't evolved."

1. "evolutionist" is not a real term. Its is only used when trying to discredit some aspects of science.
2. Nobody is nervous about them
3. "living fossil" is a pop culture term with no real meaning
4. who says they have not evolved?

#16 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 23 October 2009 - 03:44 PM

The attack point to evo methodology is "superior" and "advantageous"

Just a thought here... you might consider trying to understand it rather than concentrating on attacking.

As an attack point you really dont have anything here.

A person might say that the jet is superior to the piston aircraft.

And you might be correct, if the job didnt happen to be crop dusting.

What is superior or advantageous depends entirely on the circumstances.  Your giraffe wont have much luck eating grass or running thru the brush.
A house is superior to a tent unless you have to take it with you!
As for the rest of your post, it is not possible to make a reasonable response to so many topics.  You might consider limiting it to a single topic, unless of course you just want to present ideas but dont want a response.
Oh one other thing.  "Evolutionists have been nervous about living fossils, because they haven't evolved."

1.  "evolutionist" is not a real term. Its is only used when trying to discredit some aspects of science.
2.  Nobody is nervous about them
3.  "living fossil" is a pop culture term with no real meaning
4.  who says they have not evolved?

View Post


Your logic is flawed, a toyota camry can get the Job of going from point A to point B in the exact same amount of time as a Ferrari F430 at a speed of 70mph.

The F430 is more advanced than the toyota camry, and the same is true with the jet engine being more advanced than the piston driven engine.

1. Evolutionist is a real term applied to you by creationist
2. Living fossil has a real meaning... your logic is flawed yet again.
3. Evolutionist are nervous about them, and would do anything to avoid the destruction of their beloved theory.

4. Where is the evidence that these creatures evolved??? Nowhere!

#17 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 October 2009 - 05:30 PM

Your logic is flawed, a toyota camry can get the Job of going from point A to point B in the exact same amount of time as a Ferrari F430 at a speed of 70mph.

The F430 is more advanced than the toyota camry, and the same is true with the jet engine being more advanced than the piston driven engine.

1.  Evolutionist is a real term applied to you by creationist
2. Living fossil has a real meaning... your logic is flawed yet again.
3. Evolutionist are nervous about them, and would do anything to avoid the destruction of their beloved theory.

4. Where is the evidence that these creatures evolved??? Nowhere!

View Post



If you just want to be dismissive for no particular reason you can just say so and avoid having to write more. And i wont bother to respond either. Fair?

What i said about the aircraft inst LOGIC, its an analogy. If you dont wish to understand it, i guess you wont. But its simple and obvious that the more elaborate expensive advanced design isnt better for all possible uses. sometimes a sharp stick is better than a knife. A bug can live where a lion would die. A tractor can run on fuel that would ruin a Ferrari.

If you want to say "evolutionist" as a deliberately demeaning term, then I guess you wont mind if i call you a theocreologist? i think its more respectful tho, to use neutral terms. Do you mind? "scientist' or "theist' would do.

"Living fossil" is undefinable other than that there are fossils to be found of a creature living today. The cow and the possum being examples, as well was h sapiens. its not a useful term except in a "pop" culture.

There is nothing , no-thing about a "living fossil" that does anything to detract from the ToE. That is what i say, and believe.. but..

If you have solid evidence that the ToE is false then for goodness sake, present it to the world, get famous, and be hailed as one of the greatest scientist of all time.

Perhaps you know this but I will say anyway, that there is no theory in science that is not open to falsification, and no scientist worth his salt who is not open to it being falsified. That is how science works; do you know that? if there is a way to falsify the ToE, someone will present the evidence and it will go the way of the dodo.

And anyone half way resembling a real scientist will be awed and delighted at this amazing new information.

#18 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 23 October 2009 - 05:58 PM

If you just want to be dismissive for no particular reason you can just say so and avoid having to write more.  And i wont bother to respond either.  Fair?

What i said about the aircraft inst LOGIC, its an analogy.  If you dont wish to understand it, i guess you wont.  But its simple and obvious that the more elaborate expensive advanced design isnt better for all possible uses.  sometimes a sharp stick is better than a knife.  A bug can live where a lion would die.  A tractor can run on fuel that would ruin a Ferrari.

If you want to say "evolutionist" as a deliberately demeaning term, then I guess you wont mind if i call you a theocreologist?  i think its more respectful tho, to use neutral terms.  Do you mind?  "scientist' or "theist' would do.

"Living fossil" is undefinable other than that there are fossils to be found of a creature living today.  The cow and the possum being examples, as well was h sapiens.  its not a useful term except in a "pop" culture. 

There is nothing , no-thing about a "living fossil" that does anything to detract from the ToE.  That is what i say, and believe.. but..

If you have solid evidence that the ToE is false then for goodness sake, present it to the world, get famous, and be hailed as one of the greatest scientist of all time.

Perhaps you know this but I will say anyway, that there is no theory in science that is not open to falsification, and no scientist worth his salt who is not open to it being falsified.  That is how science works; do you know that?  if there is a way to falsify the ToE, someone will present the evidence and it will go the way of the dodo.

And anyone half way resembling a real scientist will be awed and delighted at this amazing new information.

View Post


Nowhere in your entire post did you post any new information, so I'd like to say please try again.

No one has even proven the TOE as a true fact either, so you may want to re-think, or try to re-arrange your logic. Ah, yes you do use logic to create your analogies.

Oh, and the term creationist will do.

#19 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 October 2009 - 06:20 PM

Nowhere in your entire post did you post any new information, so I'd like to say please try again.

No one has even proven the TOE as a true fact either, so you may want to re-think, or try to re-arrange your logic.  Ah, yes you do use logic to create your analogies.

Oh, and the term creationist will do.

View Post



If you saw no new information, does that mean you already knew / agree with everything that i said? i dont want to bore you with things you already know.

Of course nobody has proven the ToE to be a "true fact'"

I dont really why you say that... that is the nature of science. Nobody expects to prove a theory. No scientific theory will ever be proven.

The way it works... if you dont know...is this.

a scientist will say "it is a fact that this is the data i got" That is about all you will hear in the way of him saying something is a 'proven fact". They just dont talk or think that way, about proving a true fact.

sometime enough data comes together that a theory is concocted to try to explain what it all means. One does not try to prove the theory; you look for ways to disprove it. if it stands up to all attempts to disprove it, you say its a good maybe a working theory.

do you know this?

I have disproven a couple of minor theories myself, in the lab.

The ToE has a vast body of good data to support it. Mobody has ever come up with data that would contradict or falsify it.

do oyu know that?

"Creationist' will be fine. you can call me Taikoo, or, refer to scientists as scientists. Fair? Im just a student so i dont rate the title.


oh... Do you see what I am saying about how the more complex sophisticated advanced design is not always the better one? Its kind of an important point.

#20 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 23 October 2009 - 07:07 PM

I see your point with your analogy... I misinterpreted it as thinking you were saying the piston driven airplane was more advanced, because the jet-engine powered plane couldn't be used efficiently as a crop duster. The piston driven airplane just does the job better, because it's slower... It's who's better designed for the niche applied.

Also I have something to say about no Scientific Theory being proven. The only reason Scientist say this is because they do not believe in Absolutes. This idea originated by a friend of Albert Einsteins. This friend was Kurt Godel. Kurt is the man who defined the Scientific Theory as we know it today as being unprovable.

Ah, but I do not agree with Kurt Godel... who was not an Atheist by the way... I believe in absolutes. I would like you to know this. Either something is true, or something is false.

I would also like to say, greeting's Taikoo.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users