Jump to content


Evolution Applied


  • Please log in to reply
97 replies to this topic

#81 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 27 April 2010 - 02:48 AM

Lets see?

Law of Biogenesis.
Law of Heredity.
Taxonomy.
Mechanisms within the cell that repair DNA.

And now you want us to produce another list for you to ignore? laugh.gif

Now please explain how these are application.


If creation is true, then so are created kinds, and taxonomy is an application of the prediction. Without creation this science would have never been developed. Evolutionists have gone as far as to try and classify humans and chimps as being in the same genus and every Evo. on this forum has been quoted as saying "humans are apes", which contradicts the scientific classification of them.

If creation is true, then life can be demonstrated as coming from life, which makes the "law of biogenesis" an application of creation, etc.

I described specific instances where evolution is applied.


There is no useful application of the "belief" in universal common descent. Calling adaptation - evolution, is an equivocation at best.



Enjoy.

#82 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 April 2010 - 03:59 AM

There is enough water to do this.
http://www.ldolphin....deepwaters.html

View Post


Interestingly this material was published back in 1997, but just last year many of these very facts have been brought to light in well known scientific peer reviewed journals. One of the main reasons for these studies of just how much water does reside inside the mantle is because of GPS mapping of the Earth's electrical conductivity from within side the earth itself. No other element coducts electrical current better than water and certainly the crust is not doing this. What they have found is that there is perhaps 3 or 4 times the amount of water inside the mantle than all of the Earth's surface oceans, seas, lakes and rivers combined.


Earth Structure: Fluid Factory In Solid Earth



Mantle Water - Subduction Zones



These are just some teasers, but I'll come back with more. For the moment I have a meeting to attend. Keep in mind that this is directly related to the mechanisms that allowed for the ancient hydrological cycle noted in Genesis chapter 2. The applications of this are huge as far as technology. Atheists (scienctists are really missing out on a golden opportunity for learning and applying) ;)

#83 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 April 2010 - 12:36 PM

Interestingly this material was published back in 1997, but just last year many of these very facts have been brought to light in well known scientific peer reviewed journals. One of the main reasons for these studies of just how much water does reside inside the mantle is because of GPS mapping of the Earth's electrical conductivity from within side the earth itself. No other element coducts electrical current better than water and certainly the crust is not doing this. What they have found is that there is perhaps 3 or 4 times the amount of water inside the mantle than all of the Earth's surface oceans, seas, lakes and rivers combined.
Earth Structure: Fluid Factory In Solid Earth
Mantle Water - Subduction Zones



These are just some teasers, but I'll come back with more. For the moment I have a meeting to attend. Keep in mind that this is directly related to the mechanisms that allowed for the ancient hydrological cycle noted in Genesis chapter 2. The applications of this are huge as far as technology. Atheists (scienctists are really missing out on a golden opportunity for learning and applying)  :)

View Post


This is just some further research of the hydrological cycle deep inside the earth. Finding out details about such an ancient hydrological mystery and phenomena which is really totally foreign to any of our experience described in Genesis 2:5,6 & Genesis 2:10-14. Unlocking the secrets of just how such a system operated would bring huge amounts of information with the research group I am associated with. We are looking at ways of creating energy from water modeled after just such a mechanism. The major engineering compoants are all still there inside the earth. It's the surface and perhaps the Earth's tilt along with it's turning speed that may effect the absense of just such a water feature phenomena. Out of 100+ people in our group it is myself and one other individual who are believers in a creator, so any snarky response and criticism would be unwarranted and unfair. It's finding the correct frequency and resonance that is key to some of the devices some members have invented. Much of the research is also based on the findings of a Viktor Schauberger of Austria who is long since dead now. He was born in 1885 and died in 1958. He was from a family of foresters in Tyrol and was able to observe natural phenomena regarding water that has almost dosappeared now because of the Earth's environment being so degraded.

Here's a further link to findings back in 2002 by National Geographic and there are other more recent articles about this deep mantle aquafir. It's really kool. It's difficult in times past to even discuss such deep earth oceans with the atheist crowd, much of the ignorant criticism being that it's so hot down there that the water H2O would boil and blow up. Absolutely ignorant comments based on nothing more than predjudice and bias. If they'd had a clue they'd know that water does not boil because of the deep compression and pressure on water and the storage mechanisms of various crytals like Olivine. In the end it doesn't matter because the truth is out there despite who wishes or not to believe it.


"Inner Earth May Hold More Water Than the Seas"



Here's another yet interesting education on water and it's various unusual properties and anomalies. This website is by a researcher named Martin Chaplin. If you are serious into research then it may take you a few months to really digest if you aren't familar with terms and differing properties of water. :)


Water Structure and Science


Everyone needs to appreciate that it takes understanding of far more complex componats to be able to fit it all together. The chemical signature of just such a minerotrophic water source is actually prefered by plants as opposed to water from Ocean storms, even today. But I'll drop that info on another occasion. :(

#84 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 April 2010 - 06:56 AM

There is enough water to do this.
http://www.ldolphin....deepwaters.html

View Post


Hydrated minerals??? That's not actually water. It's an oxygen and two hydrogens bonded to a mineral.

Either the water suddenly came lose or suddenly want back into those minerals or both. What are the chemical reactions that caused this to happen so suddenly???

#85 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 April 2010 - 07:09 AM

Hydrated minerals???  That's not actually water.  It's an oxygen and two hydrogens bonded to a mineral.

Either the water suddenly came lose or suddenly want back into those minerals or both.  What are the chemical reactions that caused this to happen so suddenly???

View Post

Do you even remotely understand that none of this information about the massive amounts of water inside the mantle are NOT coming from anyone labling themselves as a creationist ???????

All of these geologists, geophysicists, etc from around the planet and at differing academic institutions have arrived at the same conclusions and as far as I know, none of them gives a hoot about your or my worldview.

I appreciate this doesn't bode well for your vision of matters, but that's the facts as presented by the scientists and not religious folks. :(

#86 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 April 2010 - 06:00 PM

Do you even remotely understand that none of this information about the massive amounts of water inside the mantle are NOT coming from anyone labling themselves as a creationist ???????

All of these geologists, geophysicists, etc from around the planet and at differing academic institutions have arrived at the same conclusions and as far as I know, none of them gives a hoot about your or my worldview.

I appreciate this doesn't bode well for your vision of matters, but that's the facts as presented by the scientists and not religious folks.  B)

View Post


Please read what I said. I'm not arguing that there isn't water, I'm telling you it isn't liquid water in wadsleyite.

If creation is true, then so are created kinds, and taxonomy is an application of the prediction. Without creation this science would have never been developed. Evolutionists have gone as far as to try and classify humans and chimps as being in the same genus and every Evo. on this forum has been quoted as saying "humans are apes", which contradicts the scientific classification of them.


What is the application of taxonomy. I would never think of calling cladistics an application because it doesn't actually do anything. What has taxonomy done to make the world better. Heck, biologists don't even like it anymore because it was becoming increasingly difficult to classify animals without creating super and sub divisions of each taxonomic rank.




There is no useful application of the "belief" in universal common descent. Calling adaptation - evolution, is an equivocation at best.


Huh??? There is an application in the fact that allele frequencies changing over successive generations in a population. That's evolution, and apparently you don't have a problem with evolution, but instead you don't like what it implies.

#87 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 April 2010 - 10:59 PM

Please read what I said.  I'm not arguing that there isn't water, I'm telling you it isn't liquid water in wadsleyite. 


Every single legitimate scientific research report on this FACT says there is water and calls it water. The even call it a hydrological cycle by which the Earth itself as a brilliantly engineered machine recycles not noly water but also all the carbons that made upwards movement to the surface of the planet. Sure compression locks up and stores some water in mineral, but a vast portion of it IS LIQUID. This is what fascillitates lava formation, tectonic plate motion, and there are even pathways of super compressed water movement into the deep mantle. This is why electrical conductivity is present throughtout the Earth and scientists have mapped these anomalies.

The point is in relation to this thread, if science can find out exactly how such an ancient hydrological cycle mentioned in Genesis 2:5,6 & 10-14 actually worked and functioned, then they could copy the discovery by building devices which would replicate the process by which we would have clean energy. And they (paleoclimatologists, paleogeologists and paleobiologists) have discovered that such a unusual hydrological system with a deep Earth chemical signatured water did indeed hydrate plants and all other life at one time and they are completely dumbfounded as to how this could be so. You ought to see some of the mythological fables they come up with to try and explain it. Again the point is the bible was correct in it's description of just such an engineered mechanism (for which it has been demonized, vilified and poked fun at by the very people who should know better) and as a point of "Creation Applications" it is imperitive that mankind start dumping the destructive traits of which evolutionists claim as their own, namely Greed & Selfishness and start using such creative applications for the benefit of other fellow humans because the Marxian approach to science has destroyed many of our natural world's ecosystems and their ability to sustain life for which we all depend.

Huh???  There is an application in the fact that allele frequencies changing over successive generations in a population.  That's evolution, and apparently you don't have a problem with evolution, but instead you don't like what it implies.

View Post

This has already been proven and shown to be a farce. Those algorithm engineering genes couple with error correction mechanisms have nothing to do with blind chanced without purpose or intent evolution. It's been observed that such genetic mechanisms actually have goals, evolution however has no goals because there is nothing intelligently driving what it does. It's about random copying errors and random lucky selection. That is not how the nature of DNA works. But hijacking these mechanisms and labling them evolution is nothing more than a philosophical necessity for someone else's worldview. To be honest, the natural world doesn't care about anyone's point of worldview (believer vrs non-believer), It simply functions and runs intelligently the way it was clearly programmed to do with massive amounts of instructions in the form of files encoded onto it's DNA.

" . . , but instead you don't like what it implies."


Well let's see what does it imply ???? <_< Oh that's right, there is no God. :mellow: But wait, you believe in some kind of a god, although we never observe you giving any sort of credit to IT os singing IT's praises. B)

#88 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 May 2010 - 09:30 AM

Every single legitimate scientific research report on this FACT says there is water and calls it water. The even call it a hydrological cycle by which the Earth itself as a brilliantly engineered machine recycles not noly water but also all the carbons that made upwards movement to the surface of the planet. Sure compression locks up and stores some water in mineral, but a vast portion of it IS LIQUID. This is what fascillitates lava formation, tectonic plate motion, and there are even pathways of super compressed water movement into the deep mantle. This is why electrical conductivity is present throughtout the Earth and scientists have mapped these anomalies.

View Post


No it isn't. The water Ike was referring to in wadsleyite is chemically bonded. The hydrological makes sense. Not because it is engineered, but because what we know about chemistry and physics makes it predictable. Add water to something and the melting point drops. Water makes it easier for objects to slide past each other. None of what you posed actually addresses the fact that water in the mantle is largely hydrated minerals.


The point is in relation to this thread, if science can find out exactly how such an ancient hydrological cycle mentioned in Genesis 2:5,6 & 10-14 actually worked and functioned, then they could copy the discovery by building devices which would replicate the process by which we would have clean energy. And they (paleoclimatologists, paleogeologists and paleobiologists) have discovered that such a unusual hydrological system with a deep Earth chemical signatured water did indeed hydrate plants and all other life at one time and they are completely dumbfounded as to how this could be so. You ought to see some of the mythological fables they come up with to try and explain it. Again the point is the bible was correct in it's description of just such an engineered mechanism (for which it has been demonized, vilified and poked fun at by the very people who should know better) and as a point of "Creation Applications" it is imperitive that mankind start dumping the destructive traits of which evolutionists claim as their own, namely Greed & Selfishness and start using such creative applications for the benefit of other fellow humans because the Marxian approach to science has destroyed many of our natural world's ecosystems and their ability to sustain life for which we all depend.

View Post


Well when that happens creationism will have an application. As for the rest of this paragraph, well you're not going to discredit evolution using social means.

This has already been proven and shown to be a farce. Those algorithm engineering genes couple with error correction mechanisms have nothing to do with blind chanced without purpose or intent evolution. It's been observed that such genetic mechanisms actually have goals, evolution however has no goals because there is nothing intelligently driving what it does. It's about random copying errors and random lucky selection. That is not how the nature of DNA works. But hijacking these mechanisms and labling them evolution is nothing more than a philosophical necessity for someone else's worldview. To be honest, the natural world doesn't care about anyone's point of worldview (believer vrs non-believer), It simply functions and runs intelligently the way it was clearly programmed to do with massive amounts of instructions in the form of files encoded onto it's DNA.

View Post


What are you talking about??? I never mentioned anything about algorithm engineering genes.

The point of science is to understand the world and learn how to apply that knowledge. This is why creationism has gotten hammered in the court room against evolution repeatedly. It has actually demonstrated that it's science. Even when it had the deck stacked in its favor at Dover, it got the beatdown.

Well let's see what does it imply ????  <_<  Oh that's right, there is no God. :mellow:  But wait, you believe in some kind of a god, although we never observe you giving any sort of credit to IT os singing IT's praises.  B)

View Post


No, evolution implies nothing of the sort.

#89 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 May 2010 - 01:37 PM

No it isn't.  The water Ike was referring to in wadsleyite is chemically bonded.  The hydrological makes sense.  Not because it is engineered, but because what we know about chemistry and physics makes it predictable.  Add water to something and the melting point drops.  Water makes it easier for objects to slide past each other.  None of what you posed actually addresses the fact that water in the mantle is largely hydrated minerals.

Who's talking about Ike's link ?????? There's far more research out there on the subject and it comes from real world geologists, not from some creationist website. This thread is the wrong subject venue for it anyway. I'll post elsewhere. I do realize of course that it may shatter your worldview of no minerotrophic hydrological cycle, but the research group I work with would never have created some of the inventions we've done without it. :mellow:


Well when that happens creationism will have an application.  As for the rest of this paragraph, well you're not going to discredit evolution using social means.


Please B) , the good Reverend Richard Dawkins and others have insisted that Selfishness is the driving animalism behind evolution. When I have more time I'll post some of the expert opinions on selfish evolutionary applications. In fact it'll be fun. For example, did you know that rape is a natural evolutionary adaptation for survival ???????? <_<

Trust me, these geniuses are serious on this!! :lol:


What are you talking about???  I never mentioned anything about algorithm engineering genes.

Well okay - Here ya go Rocky, you said this:

Huh???  There is an application in the fact that allele frequencies changing over successive generations in a population.  That's evolution, and apparently you don't have a problem with evolution, but instead you don't like what it implies.


We have been discussing through this thread what purposes Algorithm engineering genes perform along with brilliant error correction mechanisms built right into the DNA. This show purpose and intent with goals to be achieved. There is nothing about evolution that is goal oriented, predictable or purpose driven. The religious philosophy behind this dogma insists without proof that everything is a bundle of errors, comprises that just happen by nothing more than luck and some mystical goddess called natural selection , which in of itself is random luck, which happily without any intellignce makes all the correct choices. Every Atheist (and you are an atheist) on the Net parrots this same mysticism garbage about alelle frequencies magically changing through generations over long periods of time and that is how the evo-world came about and that is simply not the FACTS as proven by scientific researchers like Geneticist James shapiro and Physicist Hubert Yockey. We've been through all of this and you keep rehashing it again.

The point of science is to understand the world and learn how to apply that knowledge.  This is why creationism has gotten hammered in the court room against evolution repeatedly.  It has actually demonstrated that it's science.  Even when it had the deck stacked in its favor at Dover, it got the beatdown.

View Post


Unfortunately science DOES NOT follow what it finds in the natural world and therefore makes responsible applications of what it found. Science is a power and wealth driven animal, this is why our planet is ecologically in the sewer as a direct result of this planet's scientific leadership. I've proven this by my own natural world observations for 24 years at the edge of wilderness regarding plants. I ran the landscape division for a property management company for four years before moving here to Europe. I eliminated all the conventional Green Revolution chemical applications for the landscape and applied real natural world mycorrhizal and beneficial bacterial science and created a healthy wild ecosystem environment within a damaged Urban development. Once the plants were balanced and healthy, it was easy not to buy Petroleum Industry based chemical pesticides because we didn't need them. Such applications goes against all that science says we should do.

As far as the politics of Creationism in the courts I have no support for what they do because I'm not political anyway. I don't even like the term Creationism, because it was a term coined out of that political courtroom drama mess and yes I agree they failed miserably. It was absolutely their own fault because rather than actually showing any type of responsible proofs, they spent most of the time attacking evolutionists which was stupid. Schools would do a lousey job of teaching Intelligent design anyway. They clearly fail at responsible teachings of the basics like math, reading , english, history, etc.

Again I'm not political and that's why I stay out of the political threads since I really have no say. So you're welcome to duke it out with the rest of them on those issues. The governments have been given a right by the creator to prove their worth. This world of mankind (which for the most part is alienated from God) has been allowed to exist and prove it's responsible worth for custodialship in the way things are run Politically, Socially, Economically, Religiously and envirnomentally. It has been allowed to prove that self-determination works, it hasn't. At every turn they have proved themselves a huge failure. Proof on my stand is for you to watch any and all of the News Reporting on any channel in any country 24/7 and see what failure after failure passes before your very eyes.

#90 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 May 2010 - 04:05 PM

What is the application of taxonomy. I would never think of calling cladistics an application because it doesn't actually do anything. What has taxonomy done to make the world better.


Who said applications are only valid if they make the world better? An application is an application.

Heck, biologists don't even like it anymore because it was becoming increasingly difficult to classify animals without creating super and sub divisions of each taxonomic rank.


Thats because taxonomy is an application of created kinds.

Huh??? There is an application in the fact that allele frequencies changing over successive generations in a population. That's evolution, and apparently you don't have a problem with evolution, but instead you don't like what it implies.


Allele frequencies changing over time is the product of S@xual reproduction, which in no way accounts for universal common descent.

S@xual reproduction; Definition - noun

A mode of reproduction involving the fusion of female gamete (ovum) and male gamete (spermatozoon), which forms a zygote that potentially develops into genetically distinct offspring.




Enjoy.

#91 Guest_tomato_*

Guest_tomato_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 May 2010 - 06:35 PM

That's about as close as you'll ever get them to use the words "accountability & morality"


I often see the slogan "anything goes" in Creationist literature, but never with a jot of documentation.
Those are merely words which Creationists put in the mouths of Evolutionists.
We can have an orderly society with or without religion.

■ Animals of most species are restrained from killing members of their own kind.

In fact, most species are more inhibited in this regard than we are.
That's because we share a lineage with the chimpanzees, who kill members of their own kind.

■ Animals of other species are benevolent.

Peter Kropotkin was the first major proponent of altruism on Evolutionary grounds. In his book Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, published in 1902, he cited numerous observations of animal benevolence. de Waal (2009) also recounts such observations. Bekoff & Pierce (2009) provide such evidence from the animal laboratory.

■ Animals of other species show grief.

Bekoff (2008) reports a case of a mother gorilla grieving for its infant. Irvine (2009) reports a case of chimpanzees grieving over the death of an adult member of their group.

■ Animals of other species are kind to species other than their own.

Dolphins have been observed helping humans escape from sharks (Bekoff & Pierce 2009). Elephants have been observed helping antelopes escape from captivity (Bekoff & Pierce 2009).

■ There are other monogamous species.

Our species is susceptible to venereal disease. Moreover, we have the longest childhood of any species on earth. Naturally, monogamy is in the Evolutionary interests of our species.

According to anthropologist Dennis O'Neil ([2000] 2009), monogamous simian species include "gibbons, siamangs, titi monkeys, indris, tarsiers, and apparently some pottos."

■ Animals of other species sacrifice themselves.

Hamilton (1963) observed that a ground squirrel delivers an alarm upon seeing a predator. The alarm may save the ground squirrel's family, but it can spell suicide for the ground squirrel itself.

This may seem odd even to some Evolutionist readers. How could Evolution allow this if it prevents the individual ground squirrel from reproducing? Hamilton inferred that genes do not seek survival for their carriers, but rather for the genes themselves. The ground squirrel is protecting relatives who carry genes similar to his or her own. An animal would be more likely to sacrifice itself for siblings than for cousins, and cousins more than for animals less related. This inference has come to be known as Hamilton's rule.

Are we so selfish and greedy that we need promises of Heaven and threats of Hell to keep us in line? Frans de Waal (1997, 2006, 2009) doesn't think so. He dismisses such an allegation as the veneer theory. His writings are replete with easy-to-read anecdotes about morality being displayed by animals of other species, including our simian cousins. According to de Waal, if other animals can maintain an orderly society without supernatural motivators, so can we.


Bekoff, M. 2008. Mother gorilla's grief shows emotion is not only human
http://www.telegraph...only-human.html

_____ & Pierce, J. 2009. Wild justice: The moral lives of animals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Reported in Gray, R. 2009. Animals can tell right from wrong.
http://www.telegraph...from-wrong.html

de Waal, F. 1997. Good natured: The origins of right and wrong in humans and other animals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

_____. 2006. Primates and philosophers: How morality evolved. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

_____. 2009. The age of empathy: Nature's lessons for a kinder society. New York: Harmony Books.

Irvine, C. 2009. Chimpanzees' grief caught on camera in Cameroon.
http://www.telegraph...n-Cameroon.html

Kropotkin, P. 1902. Mutual aid: A factor of Evolution.
http://dwardmac.pitz...idcontents.html

O'Neil, D. [2000] 2009. Social structure.
http://anthro.paloma...or/behave_2.htm

#92 Guest_tomato_*

Guest_tomato_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 May 2010 - 07:51 PM

Evolution applied

Both the tonsils & appendix organs have important function as modern day biologists begrudgingly now admit.

Begrudgingly? Why begrudgingly?
And who are these biologists who felt so bitterly defeated?
Whoever they are, they couldn't know much about Evolution.
Otherwise, they would know about homology. That is a pattern in which:

1. A species changes its lifestyle.
2. The species continues to inherit an organ which was either of use only in its old lifestyle.
3. The species finds an alternate use for that organ.

(cf. Pagel 2002: 1131-1133 quoted in Cartwright & Theobald 2003)

This is nothing new. Darwin wrote in Origin of Species ([1859] 1979: 428): "An organ rendered, during changed habits of life, useless or injurious for one purpose, might easily be modified and used for another purpose."

Creationists try to shock us with stories of alternate uses of vestigial organs, but usually we already know about it. In a debate with Fezer (1993b), Gish spoke about the pelvic bone of the whale. Evolutionists contend that the bone was inherited from the whale's land-dwelling ancestors. According to Gish, "it is not vestigial, it is functional," because the bone us used for reproductive purposes. It so happens that Gingerich et al. (1990) said the same thing three years earlier.

There are other examples also. Penguins no longer use their wings to fly, but now use them for underwater swimming (Wikipedia 2008). The inner ear for the Mammal Order is derived from the jaw for the Reptile Order (De Beer (1971: 7).

We can even have a chain of homologies. Pectoral fins for the fish changed to forelimbs of amphibians which in turn changed to human arms (De Beer 1971: 8). To put it figuratively, life hands the species a lemon and they make lemonade.

Some species aren't so lucky. According to Sutera (2001), some whale species carry ear flaps which they inherited from their land-dwelling ancestors. As far as we know, they only get in the way when they try to swim in the water.

It's difficult to prove a negative, so we don't know that such whales can't find another use for their ear flaps. I hope they do.


Cartwright, R. A. & Theobald, D. L. 2003. Citing Scadding (1981) and misunderstanding vestigiality: Another example of poor Creationist scholarship.
http://www.talkorigi...s/scadding.html

Darwin, C. R. (Leakey, R. E., ed.). [1859] 1979. The Illustrated Origin of Species. London: Faber and Faber.

Fezer, K. D. 1993b. Creation's incredible witness: Duane T. Gish, Ph. D. Creation/Evolution 13, 2: 5-21.

Gingerich, P. D.; Holly Smith, B.; & Simons, E. L. 1990. Hind limbs of Eocene Basilosaurus: Evidence of feet in whales. Science 249:154-157.


Pagel, M., ed. 2002. Encyclopedia of evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sutera, R. 2001. The origin of whales and the power of independent evidence. http://www.talkorigi...eatures/whales/

Wikipedia. 2008. Vestigiality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigial

#93 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 May 2010 - 01:04 PM

Evolution applied
Begrudgingly?  Why begrudgingly?
And who are these biologists who felt so bitterly defeated?
Whoever they are, they couldn't know much about Evolution.
Otherwise, they would know about homology.  That is a pattern in which:

  1. A species changes its lifestyle.
2. The species continues to inherit an organ which was either of use only in its old lifestyle.
3. The species finds an alternate use for that organ.

(cf. Pagel 2002: 1131-1133 quoted in Cartwright & Theobald 2003)

This is nothing new.  Darwin wrote in Origin of Species ([1859] 1979: 428): "An organ rendered, during changed habits of life, useless or injurious for one purpose, might easily be modified and used for another purpose."

Creationists try to shock us with stories of alternate uses of vestigial organs, but usually we already know about it.  In a debate with Fezer (1993b), Gish spoke about the pelvic bone of the whale.  Evolutionists contend that the bone was inherited from the whale's land-dwelling ancestors.  According to Gish, "it is not vestigial, it is functional," because the bone us used for reproductive purposes.  It so happens that Gingerich et al. (1990) said the same thing three years earlier.

There are other examples also.  Penguins no longer use their wings to fly, but now use them for underwater swimming (Wikipedia 2008).  The inner ear for the Mammal Order is derived from the jaw for the Reptile Order (De Beer (1971: 7).

We can even have a chain of homologies.  Pectoral fins for the fish changed to forelimbs of amphibians which in turn changed to human arms  (De Beer 1971: 8).  To put it figuratively, life hands the species a lemon and they make lemonade.

Some species aren't so lucky.  According to Sutera (2001), some whale species carry ear flaps which they inherited from their land-dwelling ancestors.  As far as we know, they only get in the way when they try to swim in the water.

It's difficult to prove a negative, so we don't know that such whales can't find another use for their ear flaps.  I hope they do.
Cartwright, R. A. & Theobald, D. L.  2003. Citing Scadding (1981) and misunderstanding vestigiality: Another example of poor Creationist scholarship.
http://www.talkorigi...s/scadding.html

Darwin, C. R.  (Leakey, R. E., ed.).  [1859] 1979.  The Illustrated Origin of Species.  London: Faber and Faber.

Fezer, K. D. 1993b. Creation's incredible witness: Duane T. Gish, Ph. D. Creation/Evolution 13, 2: 5-21.

Gingerich, P. D.; Holly Smith, B.; & Simons, E. L.  1990.  Hind limbs of Eocene Basilosaurus: Evidence of feet in whales.  Science 249:154-157. 
Pagel, M., ed.  2002.  Encyclopedia of evolution.  New York: Oxford University Press.

Sutera, R.  2001.  The origin of whales and the power of independent evidence.  http://www.talkorigi...eatures/whales/

Wikipedia.  2008. Vestigiality.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigial

View Post


You do realize you lose all credibility when you cut and paste from these Atheist Agenda religious websites don't you ???????? :blink:

Can't you find real world scientific research papers that don't wreak with human philosophy ??????? :unsure:
It makes it so much more interesting for the discussion and the readers. My advise to you is to use your own words as opposed to the philosophical worldview found on richarddawkins.net - talkrational.org - talkorigins.org - & infidels.org and any other materialist evangelism site. You don't realize it, but your manner, style and demeanor are entirely different when you as a person post in your own words rather than when you republish their dogmatic rants.

ALL of those items you've listed are simply Atheistic Mythologies and I find them of equal value to the Aisan Creationist teams who recently claimed to have found that Ark on Mt Ararat with flimsy evidence such as you are posting here. In otherwords no value.

Now getting back on topic , as far as applications are concerned, there is nothing of value or worth in any of that subject matter that can be of benefit to mankind that you just shared. Certainly the medical field's past stupidity regarding vestigial organs or JUNK DNA no doubt hurt many a man and woman in the past. But real scientists (that would be ones having nothing to do with creationism or evolutionism) have found out otherwise in today's understanding. You clearly are not up with the times.

#94 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 May 2010 - 07:01 AM

Who's talking about Ike's link ?????? There's far more research out there on the subject and it comes from real world geologists, not from some creationist website. This thread is the wrong subject venue for it anyway. I'll post elsewhere. I do realize of course that it may shatter your worldview of no minerotrophic hydrological cycle, but the research group I work with would never have created some of the inventions we've done without it.  :)

View Post


Wow, I mean just wow. Check out post number 84 of the thread. I'm talking about Ike's link.


Please  :rolleyes: , the good Reverend Richard Dawkins and others have insisted that Selfishness is the driving animalism behind evolution. When I have more time I'll post some of the expert opinions on selfish evolutionary applications. In fact it'll be fun. For example, did you know that rape is a natural evolutionary adaptation for survival ????????  ;) 

View Post


Sigh, you can't use science so you use this right???


Trust me, these geniuses are serious on this!!  :lol:
We have been discussing through this thread what purposes Algorithm engineering genes perform along with brilliant error correction mechanisms built right into the DNA. This show purpose and intent with goals to be achieved. There is nothing about evolution that is goal oriented, predictable or purpose driven. The religious philosophy behind this dogma insists without proof that everything is a bundle of errors, comprises that just happen by nothing more than luck and some mystical goddess called natural selection , which in of itself is random luck, which happily without any intellignce makes all the correct choices. Every Atheist (and you are an atheist) on the Net parrots this same mysticism garbage about alelle frequencies magically changing through generations over long periods of time and that is how the evo-world came about and that is simply not the FACTS as proven by scientific researchers like Geneticist James shapiro and Physicist Hubert Yockey. We've been through all of this and you keep rehashing it again.
Unfortunately science DOES NOT follow what it finds in the natural world and therefore makes responsible applications of what it found. Science is a power and wealth driven animal, this is why our planet is ecologically in the sewer as a direct result of this planet's scientific leadership. I've proven this by my own natural world observations for 24 years at the edge of wilderness regarding plants. I ran the landscape division for a property management company for four years before moving here to Europe. I eliminated all the conventional Green Revolution chemical applications for the landscape and applied real natural world mycorrhizal and beneficial bacterial science and created a healthy wild ecosystem environment within a damaged Urban development. Once the plants were balanced and healthy, it was easy not to buy Petroleum Industry based chemical pesticides because we didn't need them. Such applications goes against all that science says we should do.

View Post


There is nothing about quantum mechanics that is goal oriented. Remember that next time you get an MRI. You seem to think changing my arguments is a way to make a point for some reason.

I love how I'm an atheist because you don't like my beliefs.

As far as the politics of Creationism in the courts I have no support for what they do because I'm not political anyway. I don't even like the term Creationism, because it was a term coined out of that political courtroom drama mess and yes I agree they failed miserably. It was absolutely their own fault because rather than actually showing any type of responsible proofs, they spent most of the time attacking evolutionists which was stupid. Schools would do a lousey job of teaching Intelligent design anyway. They clearly fail at responsible teachings of the basics like math, reading , english, history, etc.

Again I'm not political and that's why I stay out of the political threads since I really have no say. So you're welcome to duke it out with the rest of them on those issues. The governments have been given a right by the creator to prove their worth. This world of mankind (which for the most part is alienated from God) has been allowed to exist and prove it's responsible worth for custodialship in the way things are run Politically, Socially, Economically, Religiously and envirnomentally. It has been allowed to prove that self-determination works, it hasn't. At every turn they have proved themselves a huge failure. Proof on my stand is for you to watch any and all of the News Reporting on any channel in any country 24/7 and see what failure after failure passes before your very eyes.

View Post


There was nothing political to it. I personally don't have to duke it with anyone if I don't want to.

Who said applications are only valid if they make the world better? An application is an application.

Thats because taxonomy is an application of created kinds.


Okay, fair enough. Evolution saves lives and classifies animals. Creationism classifies animals.

Anyway, I'm not a mod, but I think this thread has run its course. I think I'll bow out of it now.

#95 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 May 2010 - 08:42 AM

 
There is nothing about quantum mechanics that is goal oriented.  Remember that next time you get an MRI.  You seem to think changing my arguments is a way to make a point for some reason.


I'm a bit puzzled here. You are still insisting that you are a believer in some kind of a god. Is that god, purpose and goal oriented ???? Did this god design the genetic info with all it's brilliance to evolve at random come what may ?????? :)

Oh and I haven't changed your arguement, you did. Mid way through here you turned the tables all the way around and asked for creation applications because everyone shot down your evolutionary examples which were bogus to begin with.


Okay, fair enough.  Evolution saves lives and classifies animals.  Creationism classifies animals.


Evolutionary applications has done more to destroy lives than anyone can count. They've been listed here and you didn't like it. The programming inside virus' and bacteria allow them to engineer themselves to adapt and nothing more. They are almost a carbon copy of your immune system which with sophisticated purpose and intent engineers mechanisms for you to survive whatever is thrown at you. You still haven't read the book, "The Body Victorious". It's a fascinating read on just how sophisticated the encoded information within the goal oriented immune system which intelligently functions with massive amounts of purpose and intent. I read an article about the function called "B-cells & T-cells go to College" , but I can't find it on the net. But I did find a piece from a researcher from the country of Turkey who no doubt is a muslim, but he marks a good discussion and explanation for the complex programming that is our immune system that has ZERO to do with mutations.


The Miracle of the Immune System - (Step By Step To All-Out War)


Random mutations would kill viruses and bacteria, not benefit them, hence those Attenuated vaccines as you first proposed were nothing of an evolutionary sort. The credit goes to the one who programmed them [B](I can only assume you believe that is your animist nature god that you insist you believe in) for survival into any type of new environment in the first place. You are still insisting you believe in a god, therefore it must have been this god who programmed the mechanisms then in the first place and therefore creation gets the applicational credit, not evolution.

Yeah I know, sigh , sigh , sigh. Ahhhh the tests an intellectual has to face these days . :rolleyes:

Anyway, I'm not a mod, but I think this thread has run its course.  I think I'll bow out of it now.

View Post

Really ??????? ;)

#96 Guest_tomato_*

Guest_tomato_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 May 2010 - 10:54 AM

the good Reverend Richard Dawkins and others have insisted that Selfishness is the driving animalism behind evolution.


Are you referring to his book title?
If so, then you probably misunderstood.
It is the gene whih is selfish, not the carrier.
In fact, the gene could render the carrier quite self-sacrificing.

Hamilton (1963) observed that a ground squirrel delivers an alarm upon seeing a predator. The alarm may save the ground squirrel's family, but it can spell suicide for the ground squirrel itself.

This may seem puzzling to some people. How could Evolution allow this if it prevents the individual ground squirrel from reproducing? Hamilton inferred that genes do not seek survival for their carriers, but rather for the genes themselves. The ground squirrel is protecting relatives who carry genes similar to his or her own. An animal would be more likely to sacrifice itself for siblings than for cousins, and cousins more than for animals less related.

This inference has come to be known as Hamilton's rule.

Hamilton, W. D. 1963. The evolution of altruistic behavior. American Naturalist 97: 354-356.

#97 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 May 2010 - 12:41 PM

Are you referring to his book title?
If so, then you probably misunderstood.
It is the gene whih is selfish, not the carrier.
In fact, the gene could render the carrier quite self-sacrificing.

Hamilton (1963) observed that a ground squirrel delivers an alarm upon seeing a predator.  The alarm may save the ground squirrel's family, but it can spell suicide for the ground squirrel itself.

This may seem puzzling to some people.  How could  Evolution allow this if it prevents the individual ground squirrel from reproducing?  Hamilton inferred that genes do not seek survival for their carriers, but rather for the genes themselves.  The ground squirrel is protecting relatives who carry genes similar to his or her own.  An animal would be more likely to sacrifice itself for siblings than for cousins, and cousins more than for animals less related. 

This inference has come to be known as Hamilton's rule.

Hamilton, W. D.  1963.  The evolution of altruistic behavior.  American Naturalist 97: 354-356.

View Post


I really appreciate your own efforts at cut n paste explanations that undercut your own Darwinian Theology. It actually saves me time for having to respond. :rolleyes:

Dawkins memetic "Selfish Genes" and Hamilton's Selction theory are nothing more than "Survival of the Fictitious" :blink:

#98 Guest_tomato_*

Guest_tomato_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 May 2010 - 05:58 PM

That's a clever pun.

Anyway, what's with all your accusations about cutting and pasting?

Have I ever cut and pasted more than a brief quotation?
If so, when?

Have I ever copied material that I didn't acknowledge?
If so, when?

Do I allow other Evolutionists to do my own thinking?
I can start a lively thread on the issue of allowing Intelligent Design to be taught in the schools.
Because I can document opinions of Evolutionists who think it should NOT be allowed, and I can give reasons why it SHOULD be allowed.
And those reasons are all original on my part.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users