Jump to content


Photo

Please Explain: How The Whale Evolved. How Feathers Evolved.


  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

#1 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 21 October 2010 - 07:36 PM

Alright, evolutionists, now you have a chance to show some proof.

#2 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 21 October 2010 - 09:26 PM

http://notexactlyroc...ofed-ancestors/

the best evidence was the presence of a thickened knob of bone in its middle ear, called an involucrum. This structure helps modern whales to hear underwater, it’s only found in whales and their ancestors, and acts as a diagnostic feature for the group.


Because Indohyus had slender legs and not paddle-shaped ones, Thewissen pictures it wading in shallow water, walking hippo-style along the river floor while its heavy bones provided ballast.


Why would this animal have a structure to help it hear underwater if it waded in the shallows?

This article claims that this was a 'sister' to the whale, not an ancestor.

http://news.national...-evolved_2.html

But this latest attempt to solve the long-running conundrum of how whales first evolved doesn't satisfy University of Michigan paleontologist Philip D. Gingerich, a past grantee of the National Geographic Society's Committee for Research and Exploration.
Since this ear bone is "absolutely the key feature," Gingerich said, "I cannot understand why they wouldn't show us some kind of cross-section, computerized tomography scan, or anything that would convince a person that they hadn't just measured [a fossil ear bone] that was broken."



This last article claims that since this was already an aquatic creature, the reason for the whale-like developments was a switch to a carnivorous diet.

Then there are other "whale ancestors" that were already carnivores. :huh:

#3 OneHourPhoto

OneHourPhoto

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Melbourne

Posted 22 October 2010 - 04:49 AM

Alright, evolutionists, now you have a chance to show some proof.

View Post


I'm not sure exactly what you are looking for.

For whale evolution I will not go into as I am skeptical on that particular area.

The feather is believed to have evolved in reptilian creatures at the time when dinosaurs roamed the earth, the scales of these reptilian creatures (not unlike current existing reptiles) are made from proteins and fibres/microfibres, these such features are said to have formed the first feathers although these feathers would not have reassembled what we see in birds of today, the benefit most likely was thermal regulation.
That is off the top of my head so I'm not going to cite any references, if I'm incorrect please correct me.

#4 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 25 October 2010 - 06:28 AM

I'm not sure exactly what you are looking for.

View Post

I am actually showing that Evolutionary Theory has holes.

It seems to be that the majority of people think that when Creationists explanations have a perceived whole then creation is disproved, but holes in evolution are viewed as okay. :) It should be the opposite. A God who performs miracles can take care of holes a lot better than random (and highly unlikely) chance.

#5 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 25 October 2010 - 09:46 AM

I'm not sure exactly what you are looking for.

View Post

It seemed pretty straight forward to me.

For whale evolution I will not go into as I am skeptical on that particular area.

View Post

As it should be for everyone; but I would take it a step further (as ME did here) and request the same for most all of the claims of the model of evolution.

The feather is believed to have evolved in reptilian creatures at the time when dinosaurs roamed the earth, the scales of these reptilian creatures (not unlike current existing reptiles) are made from proteins and fibres/microfibres, these such features are said to have formed the first feathers although these feathers would not have reassembled what we see in birds of today, the benefit most likely was thermal regulation.
That is off the top of my head so I'm not going to cite any references, if I'm incorrect please correct me.

View Post

The key words above are “believed” and “said to”. But, there are absolutely NO “A to Z” transitional steps for evidentiary foundation to substantiate said claims. There isn’t so much as an “A-B-C” transitional to help corroborate the claim. There are only “Fully formed” scales and/or feathers, and a load of speculation used as glue in-between.

#6 where's the water

where's the water

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Vancouver, BC

Posted 25 October 2010 - 10:17 AM

I am actually showing that Evolutionary Theory has holes.

How do you figure? The article only shows us that it is way too early in the research of this particular find to come to any conclusion as to where this creature fits in - in the evolutionary scheme of things. Until you have extensive scrutiny of the find with some kind of consensus reached among the researchers in the scientific community, there isn't much chance that any specific classification will be accepted.

It seems to be that the majority of people think that when Creationists explanations have a perceived whole then creation is disproved

Can you provide some examples? I can't recall anyone ever stating that creationism was disproved. According to non-believers, the problem with creationism is a lack of evidence. However, a lack of evidence never disproves something.

A God who performs miracles can take care of holes a lot better than random (and highly unlikely) chance.

View Post

Natural selection isn't based on random chance. Random chance occurs at the mutation stage.

#7 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 25 October 2010 - 10:37 AM

How do you figure? The article only shows us that it is way too early in the research of this particular find to come to any conclusion as to where this creature fits in - in the evolutionary scheme of things. Until you have extensive scrutiny of the find with some kind of consensus reached among the researchers in the scientific community, there isn't much chance that any specific classification will be accepted. 

View Post

Are you insinuating that evolution has no holes? Because; if it’s way too early to come to any conclusions, then there are indeed holes…

Can you provide some examples? I can't recall anyone ever stating that creationism was disproved. According to non-believers, the problem with creationism is a lack of evidence. However, a lack of evidence never disproves something.

View Post

The exact same correlation can be drawn about the model of evolution (i.e. the lack of evidence). While, in actuality, evolution needs a creator, a creator doesn’t need evolution. Why you ask? Well, answer this simple question: from where did evolution come?

Natural selection isn't based on random chance. Random chance occurs at the mutation stage.

View Post

Really? Then where did “natural selection” originate, and who is driving it? If it isn’t random, then its driven.

#8 where's the water

where's the water

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Vancouver, BC

Posted 25 October 2010 - 12:06 PM

Is it not considered good etiquette on this forum to allow questions addressed to a particular individual to be first answered by the individual they were addressed to? If it isn't, it should be.

Are you insinuating that evolution has no holes? Because; if it’s way too early to come to any conclusions, then there are indeed holes…


I'm stating that the procedure scientists use is one that requires a great deal of time to analyze a particular find. They are simply adhering to the tenets of the scientific method. The scientific community is wisefully prudent not to jump to a quick conclusion on any new discovery. There is usually going to be some disagreement among scientists regarding a particular discovery which will take time to resolve. Sometimes these disagreements aren't resolved thereby requiring more discoveries to determine the issue.

The exact same correlation can be drawn about the model of evolution (i.e. the lack of evidence). While,  in actuality, evolution needs a creator, a creator doesn’t need evolution.

Then where did “natural selection” originate, and who is driving it? If it isn’t random, then its driven.
Why you ask? Well, answer this simple question: from where did evolution come?

Where does evolution and natural selection come from? It comes from the passing on and survival of traits/genes in a population. This natural process hardly requires a creator.

#9 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 25 October 2010 - 12:50 PM

Please excuse my use of incorrect homophones. I have been typing them a lot lately. I have no idea why.

How do you figure? The article only shows us that it is way too early in the research of this particular find to come to any conclusion as to where this creature fits in - in the evolutionary scheme of things. Until you have extensive scrutiny of the find with some kind of consensus reached among the researchers in the scientific community, there isn't much chance that any specific classification will be accepted. 
Can you provide some examples? I can't recall anyone ever stating that creationism was disproved. According to non-believers, the problem with creationism is a lack of evidence. However, a lack of evidence never disproves something.
Natural selection isn't based on random chance. Random chance occurs at the mutation stage.

View Post

Well, when the research for created kinds is in its early stages that isn't good enough for evolutionists. When we have a theory about how starlight could reach the earth within the 6,000 year time frame, evolutionists claim that isn't good enough. But when we have a hole in evolutionary theory, such as where feathers came from, or why whales suddenly have the ability to nurse underwater without drowning, there isn't a big fuss, the majority of people just assume that it somehow happened.

I have no problem with natural selection... I just don't think that blow-holes, tail-fins and hemoglobin all came from a random mutation to begin with.

For example, the evolution of the whale video that I watched claimed that the blow-hole gradually moved to the top of the head. Why? Why and how would there be a gradual change? It just makes no sense if you are talking about random mutations.

I didn't understand a lot about creation until I let down my prejudices and defenses and read up YEC materials. I think that there is plenty of evidence for creation to begin with, even within a OEC time frame. We have threads already I am sure. I will try to find them and add to it.

#10 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 26 October 2010 - 04:01 AM

Is it not considered good etiquette on this forum to allow questions addressed to a particular individual to be first answered by the individual they were addressed to? If it isn't, it should be.

View Post

No… As in any forum, it is good etiquette, good form, and good administrating, to correct misunderstandings, misinformation, logical fallacies (or fallacious assertions of any form), as soon as possible. It is also “good etiquette” to allow for clarification by using good questioning techniques (i.e. succinct questions to assure the post stays on track and on topic etc…).


I'm stating that the procedure scientists use is one that requires a great deal of time to analyze a particular find. They are simply adhering to the tenets of the scientific method.

View Post

That is true, unless you (a generic term in this context) are proceeding on an agenda. And in this case, when you stated “this creature fits in - in the evolutionary scheme of things”, you were proceeding with extreme prejudice. What if it doesn’t “fit” within the “evolutionary scheme of things” at all? It seems, with your statement, you are trying very hard to make it “fit” within the “evolutionary scheme of things”. And this is not how science proceeds at all. Nor does it “fit” within or “adhere” to “the tenets of the scientific method”.

The scientific community is wisefully prudent not to jump to a quick conclusion on any new discovery.

View Post

As well it should not! But, when you make statements like “as to where this creature fits in - in the evolutionary scheme of things.” You have already “jumped” to a “quick conclusion” via an “a priori” line of thought.

There is usually going to be some disagreement among scientists regarding a particular discovery which will take time to resolve. Sometimes these disagreements aren't resolved thereby requiring more discoveries to determine the issue.

View Post

The above is mostly correct, but when one looks at the discovery through “evolutionary glasses” from the outset, they are negating the entire “scientific method” in doing so. And, when one is assuming evolution from the outset, said person (or persons) are assuming future events via Argumentum ad Futuris, which inevitably leads to further tautologies and/or Petitio Principii fallacious lines of reasoning.

Where does evolution and natural selection come from?

View Post

That was the question.

It comes from the passing on and survival of traits/genes in a population.

View Post

You do realize that the above in no way approaches, let alone comes close to answering the question. But, that’s okay, I’ll play along by further asking the question:
Then what originated the genes and the population for this passing on of “information”?


This natural process hardly requires a creator.

View Post

Really? Then where did this “Natural Process” come from?

#11 where's the water

where's the water

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Vancouver, BC

Posted 26 October 2010 - 05:42 PM

No… As in any forum, it is good etiquette, good form, and good administrating, to correct misunderstandings,  misinformation, logical fallacies (or fallacious assertions of any form), as soon as possible. It is also “good etiquette” to allow for clarification by using good questioning techniques (i.e. succinct questions to assure the post stays on track and on topic etc…).

:( Do you actually expect anyone to buy into your rationalization? I don't believe for a moment that the responses given in the prior post were at all necessary based on any of the criteria you have just listed but please spare us any further attempts at justification.

What if it doesn’t “fit” within the “evolutionary scheme of things” at all? It seems, with your statement, you are trying very hard to make it “fit” within the “evolutionary scheme of things”. And this is not how science proceeds at all. Nor does it “fit” within or “adhere” to “the tenets of the scientific method”.
As well it should not! But, when you make statements like “as to where this creature fits in - in the evolutionary scheme of things.” You have already “jumped” to a “quick conclusion” via an “a priori” line of thought.
The above is mostly correct, but when one looks at the discovery through “evolutionary glasses” from the outset, they are negating the entire “scientific method” in doing so. And, when one is assuming evolution from the outset, said person (or persons) are assuming future events via Argumentum ad Futuris, which inevitably leads to further tautologies and/or Petitio Principii fallacious lines of reasoning.
That was the question.

That is true, unless you (a generic term in this context) are proceeding on an agenda. And in this case, when you stated “this creature fits in - in the evolutionary scheme of things”, you were proceeding with extreme prejudice.

Not at all. Every animal ever discovered has been put into its respective spot in the evolutionary scheme of things. Why would this animal be any different? Unless the animal has a different morphology than any creature that has ever lived on the planet, it will no doubt fit in somewhere.

You do realize that the above in no way approaches, let alone comes close to answering the question. But, that’s okay, I’ll play along by further asking the question:
Then what originated the genes and the population for this passing on of “information”?
Really? Then where did this “Natural Process” come from?

View Post

No, what I realize is that you don't want to hear that biological evolution and natural selection don't need a creator. As a reminder to you, biological evolution by natural selection refers to a process which began AFTER abiogenesis. If you want to speculate on the concept that a creator(including alien entities)got the universe going, go right ahead. I don't have a problem with that possibility, although there is no way to know exactly how many stages of natural processes there might be prior to(and including), the creation of the universe.

#12 where's the water

where's the water

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Vancouver, BC

Posted 26 October 2010 - 06:27 PM

Please excuse my use of incorrect homophones. I have been typing them a lot lately. I have no idea why. Well, when the research for created kinds is in its early stages that isn't good enough for evolutionists. When we have a theory about how starlight could reach the earth within the 6,000 year time frame, evolutionists claim that isn't good enough. But when we have a hole in evolutionary theory, such as where feathers came from, or why whales suddenly have the ability to nurse underwater without drowning, there isn't a big fuss, the majority of people just assume that it somehow happened.

Scientists reject the 6,000 year time frame because it contradicts everythng that science has learned to this point.

Of course, there is much information yet to be learned about the biological development of certain traits in species. However, you might be surprised to learn just how much the scientists do know.

"Evolution of Feathers
Modern feathers consist of hundreds of thin fibers extending from a hollow shaft that runs the length of the feather. At the tip of each fiber are numerous tiny, hook-shaped structures that work like Velcroâ„¢ to hold the feather together. This complicated structure evolved in multiple stages over many millions of years.
STAGE ONE: thin, hollow filaments appeared over 150 million years ago
STAGE TWO: tufts of filaments that somewhat resemble down feathers
STAGE THREE: numerous filaments sticking out from a central shaft
STAGE FOUR: shaft located off-center; these feathers provide the aerodynamic lift needed for flight"
http://www.amnh.org/...ma/feathers.php

#13 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 27 October 2010 - 04:14 AM

:mellow: Do you actually expect anyone to buy into your rationalization? I don't  believe for a moment that the responses given in the prior post were at all necessary based on any of the criteria you have just listed but please spare us any further attempts at justification. 

View Post


What I, and every other regular member here, do expect, is for you to read the forum rules:
http://www.evolution...forum_rules.htm
And fully understand the phrases “a place for honest, educational, civil, and fun debate”, “Ad hominem attacks”, “Trolling”, and “Complaining about board moderation”.

Your understanding of, and adhering to those forum rules (and ALL others), that you accepted as a condition for your being here, is a fundamental understanding of your being able to stay.

Not at all. Every animal ever discovered has been put into its respective spot in the evolutionary scheme of things.

View Post


And done so by believers in evolution (i.e. followers of evolution).

Why would this animal be any different? Unless the animal has a different morphology than any creature that has ever lived on the planet, it will no doubt fit in somewhere. 

View Post


Unless you can provide a clear transitional (via incremental) steps, you are presupposing at best. Therefore, your usage of the words “morphology” falls within that field of opining for evolution.

No, what I realize is that you don't want to hear that biological evolution and natural selection don't need a creator.

View Post


Actually, your usage of the above phrase doesn’t bother me at all, because you have still failed to provide an answer to the questions:

Where did evolution come from (or from what did evolution “evolve”)?

Where did “natural selection” come from (or who is doing the selecting)?

Therefore, until you (or anyone else) provides an answer, evolution is just another “faith based” institution.

As a reminder to you, biological evolution by natural selection refers to a process which began AFTER abiogenesis.

View Post


And, again, “abiogenesis” is nothing more than another “faith based” initiative for which you have absolutely NO evidence; just more presupposition. And, your obvious zeal in the attempt at promulgating “abiogenesis” further begs the questions:

From where did “abiogenesis” evolve?

Or,

What “naturally selected” “abiogenesis” into being?

#14 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 27 October 2010 - 04:17 AM

If you want to speculate on the concept that a creator(including alien entities)got the universe going, go right ahead.

View Post


As a logically incoherent concept, your statement is a non sequitur.

First, you speculate on the concept of “abiogenesis” as a creator, and yet attempt to ridicule God as a creator. So which is it? Is “abiogenesis” the creator, or is God?

Second, if “abiogenesis” is not the creator, then it is a cause looking for a causer (unless you believe number one above). And therefore, if you push “abiogenesis” as a fact, you need to provide “empirical” facts to support said posit.

I don't have a problem with that possibility, although there is no way to know exactly how many stages of natural processes there might be prior to(and including), the creation of the universe.

View Post


It doesn’t really matter what the process is. The facts are; from ALL of our “empirical” and “inductive” evidence, using the actual “scientific” method we have found that:

From nothing, nothing comes.

Life does not come from non-life.

Intelligence does not come from non-intelligence.

Design does not come from non-design.

So, unless you can “empirically” disprove the above, you are proceeding on a “faith based” world view.

#15 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 27 October 2010 - 10:50 PM

"Evolution of Feathers
Modern feathers consist of hundreds of thin fibers extending from a hollow shaft that runs the length of the feather. At the tip of each fiber are numerous tiny, hook-shaped structures that work like Velcroâ„¢ to hold the feather together. This complicated structure evolved in multiple stages over many millions of years.
STAGE ONE: thin, hollow filaments appeared over 150 million years ago
STAGE TWO: tufts of filaments that somewhat resemble down feathers
STAGE THREE: numerous filaments sticking out from a central shaft
STAGE FOUR: shaft located off-center; these feathers provide the aerodynamic lift needed for flight"
http://www.amnh.org/...ma/feathers.php

View Post

The most interesting thing to me in this example is that an actual bird fossil with the off-center shaft is dated older than any of the dinosaur fossils with proto feathers, etc. We have flightless birds today. Evidence shows that these birds descended from birds that had flight capability. The fossils seem to line up the same way if you ask me. :mellow:

#16 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 28 October 2010 - 03:58 AM

"Evolution of Feathers
Modern feathers consist of hundreds of thin fibers extending from a hollow shaft that runs the length of the feather. At the tip of each fiber are numerous tiny, hook-shaped structures that work like Velcroâ„¢ to hold the feather together. This complicated structure evolved in multiple stages over many millions of years.
STAGE ONE: thin, hollow filaments appeared over 150 million years ago
STAGE TWO: tufts of filaments that somewhat resemble down feathers
STAGE THREE: numerous filaments sticking out from a central shaft
STAGE FOUR: shaft located off-center; these feathers provide the aerodynamic lift needed for flight"
http://www.amnh.org/...ma/feathers.php

View Post


Of course there is absolutely no empirical evidence for the above, it is merely speculation. One need only read the claims to find the vague references “Scientists continue to investigate these questions”, “scientists aren't certain”, “Some researchers have suggested”. They will then go on to make “factual-like” claims based upon these “guesses”. And that, my friends, is the “faith-based” world of evolution!

#17 where's the water

where's the water

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Vancouver, BC

Posted 28 October 2010 - 06:15 PM

see post below

#18 where's the water

where's the water

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Vancouver, BC

Posted 28 October 2010 - 06:32 PM

What I, and every other regular member here, do expect, is for you to read the forum rules:
http://www.evolution...forum_rules.htm
And fully understand the phrases “a place for honest, educational, civil, and fun debate”, “Ad hominem attacks”, “Trolling”, and “Complaining about board moderation”. 
Your understanding of, and adhering to those forum rules (and ALL others), that you accepted as a condition for your being here, is a fundamental understanding of your being able to stay.

I’ve read the rules and have adhered to them. My original comment on the matter only questioned whether the “good etiquette” or practice of letting individuals be the first to answer questions directed to them was a policy(unwritten) of this forum. Clearly, your involvement in this matter wasn’t as a moderator but as a debate participant. I don’t believe you nor anyone else on this forum would appreciate others responding to a post intended for them before they first got their chance to respond. I certainly wouldn’t.

And done so by believers in evolution (i.e. followers of evolution).

And these believers in evolution are virtually the entire scientific community.

Unless you can provide a clear transitional (via incremental) steps, you are presupposing at best. Therefore, your usage of the words “morphology” falls within that field of opining for evolution.

It may not be the evolutionary evidence you demand but regardless of whether each and every transitional step is discovered, if species display a close morphological relationship to one another and both fit well into the geological timeline, it makes perfect sense that they should be considered to have a close evolutionary relationship. If you have another explanation that makes logical sense of these transitions, I'd like to hear it.

Actually, your usage of the above phrase doesn’t bother me at all, because you have still failed to provide an answer to the questions:

Where did evolution come from (or from what did evolution “evolve”)?

Where did “natural selection” come from (or who is doing the selecting)?

Therefore, until you (or anyone else) provides an answer, evolution is just another “faith based” institution.

Your questions have nothing to do with the biological evolution of species. Any speculation on these questions are outside the realm of the theory of evolution. It is a simple as that. Regardless of the title of Darwins’s book, Origin of Species, in all of Darwin’s writings, he didn't address the issue of what occurred prior to the decent from a common ancestor.

And, again, “abiogenesis” is nothing more than another “faith based” initiative for which you have absolutely NO evidence; just more presupposition. And, your obvious zeal in the attempt at promulgating “abiogenesis” further begs the questions:

From where did “abiogenesis” evolve?

Or,

What “naturally selected” “abiogenesis” into being?

View Post

“My obvious zeal in the attempt at promulgating abiogenesis? Really? Tell me, what specific words have I used to bring you to that conclusion? I introduced the phrase “after abiogenesis” only as a timeline frame of reference from which to indicate the beginning of biological evolution.

#19 where's the water

where's the water

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Vancouver, BC

Posted 28 October 2010 - 06:43 PM

As a logically incoherent concept, your statement is a non sequitur.

And how is it logically incoherent? You are taking my comments far too seriously. FYI, I was merely putting this statement out there - not as part of an argument, but as a personal commentary/opinion regarding the limitless possibilities of who or what might have been originally responsible for the creation of the universe.

First, you speculate on the concept of “abiogenesis” as a creator, and yet attempt to ridicule God as a creator. So which is it? Is “abiogenesis” the creator, or is God?

No, I wasn’t speculating that abiogenesis was a creator nor did I attempt to ridicule God as a creator. In order to support your claims, if you are going to accuse me of making these kind of remarks, you might want to produce some of that “empirical” evidence you are so fond of.

Second, if “abiogenesis” is not the creator, then it is a cause looking for a causer (unless you believe number one above). And therefore, if you push “abiogenesis” as a fact, you need to provide “empirical” facts to support said posit.

It appears you are bound and determined to beat this abiogenesis horse to death. :P Since abiogenesis (and existence prior to abiogeneis) is irrelevant to the biological evolution discussion, it seems you are guilty of the ad nauseam logical fallacy.

It doesn’t really matter what the process is. The facts are; from ALL of our “empirical” and “inductive” evidence, using the actual “scientific” method we have found that:

From nothing, nothing comes.

Life does not come from non-life.

Intelligence does not come from non-intelligence.

Design does not come from non-design.

So, unless you can “empirically” disprove the above, you are proceeding on a “faith based” world view.

View Post

There’s one major problem with your assessment/rationale. My worldview is evidence-based and therefore doesn’t include anything resembling a belief of our existence prior to biological evolution.

#20 where's the water

where's the water

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Vancouver, BC

Posted 28 October 2010 - 06:54 PM

Of course there is absolutely no empirical evidence for the above, it is merely speculation. One need only read the claims to find the vague references “Scientists continue to investigate these questions”, “scientists aren't certain”, “Some researchers have suggested”. They will then go on to make “factual-like” claims based upon these “guesses”. And that, my friends, is the “faith-based” world of evolution!

View Post


The following website has a detailed explanation of feather evolution.
http://people.eku.ed...r_evolution.htm




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users