Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
gilbo12345

Evolution Of The Lung

Recommended Posts

I am curious as to how evolutionists rationalize the evolution of the lung.

 

According to this, the lung "evolved" (somehow) and the swim bladder came after.

 

 

lungstree.jpg

 

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/fishtree_09

 

 

 

If the lungs "evolved" first then I and curious as to the mechanism of how this was achieved, I am not asking for claims of "evolution did it", rather a process or method that can be tested and thus verified using the scientific method...

 

 

 

 

Thank you Gilbo for posting this.

 

 

Such a feat would require a complete restructure of the organisms respiratory system.

 

That leads me to ask the following questions:

 

1. If the organisms present structure (gills) were working fine to begin with then what would motivate it to change.

 

2. Where did the information necessary to make a radical change to such a crucial (life support) system come from.

 

3. How did the change come about without killing the organism during transition.

 

4. What evidence is there to support the existence of claimed transitions.

 

5. What reasons would compel me to blindly accept such a transition took place in the absence of a plausible transition mechanism (I know... getting a little ahead of myself).

 

I'm quite eager for some tangible support from the evolutionist camp regarding this. 

 

Regards.

 

Max ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then by all means please find  some scientifically tenable support and post it for the rest of us.

 

 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/422058?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Abstract Several times throughout their radiation fish have evolved either lungs or swim bladders as gasâ€holding structures. Lungs and swim bladders have different ontogenetic origins and can be used either for buoyancy or as an accessory respiratory organ. Therefore, the presence of airâ€filled bladders or lungs in different groups of fishes is an example of convergent evolution. We propose that air breathing could not occur without the presence of a surfactant system and suggest that this system may have originated in epithelial cells lining the pharynx. Here we present new data on the surfactant system in swim bladders of three teleost fish (the airâ€breathing pirarucu Arapaima gigas and tarpon Megalops cyprinoides and the nonâ€airâ€breathing New Zealand snapper Pagrus auratus). We determined the presence of surfactant using biochemical, biophysical, and morphological analyses and determined homology using immunohistochemical analysis of the surfactant proteins (SPs). We relate the presence and structure of the surfactant system to those previously described in the swim bladders of another teleost, the goldfish, and those of the airâ€breathing organs of the other members of the Osteichthyes, the more primitive airâ€breathing Actinopterygii and the Sarcopterygii. Snapper and tarpon swim bladders are lined with squamous and cuboidal epithelial cells, respectively, containing membraneâ€bound lamellar bodies. Phosphatidylcholine dominates the phospholipid (PL) profile of lavage material from all fish analyzed to date. The presence of the characteristic surfactant lipids in pirarucu and tarpon, lamellar bodies in tarpon and snapper, SPâ€B in tarpon and pirarucu lavage, and SPs (A, B, and D) in swim bladder tissue of the tarpon provide strong evidence that the surfactant system of teleosts is homologous with that of other fish and of tetrapods. This study is the first demonstration of the presence of SPâ€D in the airâ€breathing organs of nonmammalian species and SPâ€B in actinopterygian fishes. The extremely high cholesterol/disaturated PL and cholesterol/PL ratios of surfactant extracted from tarpon and pirarucu bladders and the poor surface activity of tarpon surfactant are characteristics of the surfactant system in other fishes. Despite the paraphyletic phylogeny of the Osteichthyes, their surfactant is uniform in composition and may represent the vertebrate protosurfactant

 

 

I'm simply asking you to provide support for your "That is why I trust the experts on how lungs in this case have evolved." statement.

 

 

 

debate 102:

 

Let's update the argument made:

 

my argument:

That is why I trust the experts (on how lungs in this case have evolved)

my support :

1)It makes way more sense to me then an invisible force that created them out of nothing (aka god)

2)as an example of some scientifically tenable support see above article.

 

your conterargument:

So you prefer to believe that lungs arose by natural processes despite the fact that natural processes have a destructive effect.

your support :

1. The Law of Biogenesis.

2. The Laws of Thermodynamics.

3. The Laws of Information.

 

in detail:

1. The Law of Biogenesis.

The Law of Biogenesis is totally irrelevant to evolutionary processes, since evolution acts on the presupposition of the existence of life.

How that life came to be is of no consequence to evolution's validity.

Failure to provide a scientifically tenable explanation for the origin of life is your 1st problem.

the origin of life is not debated here, please ask for this in the relevant forumtopic.

 

2. The Laws of Thermodynamics.

I fail to see how the laws of thermodynamica has any relevance with evolutionary processes. please explain.

Failure to explain how a lung can increase in Specified Complexity contrary to the 2LOT is your 2nd problem.

Why should i explain that? I did not bring that up. it is not up to me to explain that.. However YOU brought the law of thermodynamics in this debate. The explanation therefore lies with YOU.

 

3. The Laws of Information.

I fail to see how the laws of informatica has any relevance with evolutionary processes. please explain.

Failure to explain the origin of the information required to increase or reorganize the lungs Specified Complexity from

"simple" to "complex" is your 3rd problem.

Why should i explain that? I did not bring that up. it is not up to me to explain that.. However YOU brought the laws of informatica in this debate. The explanation therefore lies with YOU.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abstract Several times throughout their radiation fish have evolved either lungs or swim bladders as gasâ€holding structures. Lungs and swim bladders have different ontogenetic origins and can be used either for buoyancy or as an accessory respiratory organ. Therefore, the presence of airâ€filled bladders or lungs in different groups of fishes is an example of convergent evolution. We propose that air breathing could not occur without the presence of a surfactant system and suggest that this system may have originated in epithelial cells lining the pharynx. Here we present new data on the surfactant system in swim bladders of three teleost fish (the airâ€breathing pirarucu Arapaima gigas and tarpon Megalops cyprinoides and the nonâ€airâ€breathing New Zealand snapper Pagrus auratus). We determined the presence of surfactant using biochemical, biophysical, and morphological analyses and determined homology using immunohistochemical analysis of the surfactant proteins (SPs). We relate the presence and structure of the surfactant system to those previously described in the swim bladders of another teleost, the goldfish, and those of the airâ€breathing organs of the other members of the Osteichthyes, the more primitive airâ€breathing Actinopterygii and the Sarcopterygii. Snapper and tarpon swim bladders are lined with squamous and cuboidal epithelial cells, respectively, containing membraneâ€bound lamellar bodies. Phosphatidylcholine dominates the phospholipid (PL) profile of lavage material from all fish analyzed to date. The presence of the characteristic surfactant lipids in pirarucu and tarpon, lamellar bodies in tarpon and snapper, SPâ€B in tarpon and pirarucu lavage, and SPs (A, B, and D) in swim bladder tissue of the tarpon provide strong evidence that the surfactant system of teleosts is homologous with that of other fish and of tetrapods. This study is the first demonstration of the presence of SPâ€D in the airâ€breathing organs of nonmammalian species and SPâ€B in actinopterygian fishes. The extremely high cholesterol/disaturated PL and cholesterol/PL ratios of surfactant extracted from tarpon and pirarucu bladders and the poor surface activity of tarpon surfactant are characteristics of the surfactant system in other fishes. Despite the paraphyletic phylogeny of the Osteichthyes, their surfactant is uniform in composition and may represent the vertebrate protosurfactant

 

 

Can you flesh out the FORMAL HYPOTHESIS here, then the EXPERIMENT validating/CONFIRMING....?

 

If not, that sure is a colorful yarn.  :laugh_point:

 

 

1. The Law of Biogenesis.

The Law of Biogenesis is totally irrelevant to evolutionary processes, since evolution acts on the presupposition of the existence of life. 

How that life came to be is of no consequence to evolution's validity.

 

the origin of life is not debated here, please ask for this in the relevant forumtopic.

 

 

Wrong-O-Rama....

 

 

From two of the Fathers of evolution theory...
 
‘General Theory of Evolution’, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’

Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.

 
"Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments.  Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous.  Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life." 
Dobzhansky T.G. "Changing Man", Science, 27 January 1967, Vol. 155. No 3761. p 409

 

 

2. The Laws of Thermodynamics.

I fail to see how the laws of thermodynamica has any relevance with evolutionary processes. please explain.

 

That was Explained to you here: http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6371-questions-for-theistic-evolutionists/page-6&do=findComment&comment=126054

 

 

3. The Laws of Information.

I fail to see how the laws of informatica has any relevance with evolutionary processes. please explain.

 

 

 

That also was Explained to you here: http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6371-questions-for-theistic-evolutionists/page-6&do=findComment&comment=126054

 

 

 

That is why I trust the experts (on how lungs in this case have evolved)

 

 

Begging The Question Fallacy.  Where'd you get DNA, start here...

 

1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!
 
To refute, Please show a Functional 30 mer- RNA or Protein (most are 250 AA or larger) that formed spontaneously "Outside" a Cell/Living Organism, CITE SOURCE! The smallest "Functional" DNA (Genome) is a little over 100,000 Nucleotides... so that ain't happenin !
 
Then the Wholly Mammoth in the Room... 
 
2. How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software....?  
In other words, show how ink/paper/glue molecules can author War and Peace ?
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enoch, you are still on ignore, no need to reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you said: Then by all means please find  some scientifically tenable support and post it for the rest of us.

 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/422058?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Abstract Several times throughout their radiation fish have evolved either lungs or swim bladders as gasâ€holding structures. Lungs and swim bladders have different ontogenetic origins and can be used either for buoyancy or as an accessory respiratory organ. Therefore, the presence of airâ€filled bladders or lungs in different groups of fishes is an example of convergent evolution. We propose that air breathing could not occur without the presence of a surfactant system and suggest that this system may have originated in epithelial cells lining the pharynx. Here we present new data on the surfactant system in swim bladders of three teleost fish (the airâ€breathing pirarucu Arapaima gigas and tarpon Megalops cyprinoides and the nonâ€airâ€breathing New Zealand snapper Pagrus auratus). We determined the presence of surfactant using biochemical, biophysical, and morphological analyses and determined homology using immunohistochemical analysis of the surfactant proteins (SPs). We relate the presence and structure of the surfactant system to those previously described in the swim bladders of another teleost, the goldfish, and those of the airâ€breathing organs of the other members of the Osteichthyes, the more primitive airâ€breathing Actinopterygii and the Sarcopterygii. Snapper and tarpon swim bladders are lined with squamous and cuboidal epithelial cells, respectively, containing membraneâ€bound lamellar bodies. Phosphatidylcholine dominates the phospholipid (PL) profile of lavage material from all fish analyzed to date. The presence of the characteristic surfactant lipids in pirarucu and tarpon, lamellar bodies in tarpon and snapper, SPâ€B in tarpon and pirarucu lavage, and SPs (A, B, and D) in swim bladder tissue of the tarpon provide strong evidence that the surfactant system of teleosts is homologous with that of other fish and of tetrapods. This study is the first demonstration of the presence of SPâ€D in the airâ€breathing organs of nonmammalian species and SPâ€B in actinopterygian fishes. The extremely high cholesterol/disaturated PL and cholesterol/PL ratios of surfactant extracted from tarpon and pirarucu bladders and the poor surface activity of tarpon surfactant are characteristics of the surfactant system in other fishes. Despite the paraphyletic phylogeny of the Osteichthyes, their surfactant is uniform in composition and may represent the vertebrate protosurfactant

 

 

you said: I'm simply asking you to provide support for your "That is why I trust the experts on how lungs in this case have evolved." statement.

 

 

Did you actually bother to read what you have posted???

Care to point out the transition mechanism?

Otherwise your "support" does nothing nothing to support your position.

 

 

debate 102:

 

Let's update the argument made:

 

my argument:

That is why I trust the experts (on how lungs in this case have evolved)

my support :

1)It makes way more sense to me then an invisible force that created them out of nothing (aka god)

2)as an example of some scientifically tenable support see above article.

 

your conterargument:

So you prefer to believe that lungs arose by natural processes despite the fact that natural processes have a destructive effect.

your support :

1. The Law of Biogenesis.

2. The Laws of Thermodynamics.

3. The Laws of Information.

 

in detail:

1. The Law of Biogenesis.

The Law of Biogenesis is totally irrelevant to evolutionary processes, since evolution acts on the presupposition of the existence of life.

How that life came to be is of no consequence to evolution's validity.

you said: Failure to provide a scientifically tenable explanation for the origin of life is your 1st problem.

the origin of life is not debated here, please ask for this in the relevant forum topic.

Without Abiogenesis you have no starting point to begin with... so, yeah, it's pretty relevant.

 

2. The Laws of Thermodynamics.

I fail to see how the laws of thermodynamica has any relevance with evolutionary processes. please explain.

you said: Failure to explain how a lung can increase in Specified Complexity contrary to the 2LOT is your 2nd problem.

Why should i explain that? I did not bring that up. it is not up to me to explain that.. However YOU brought the law of thermodynamics in this debate. The explanation therefore lies with YOU.

Until you produce a plausible mechanism to overcome the obstacle of the 2LOT then the problem remains on your shoulders.

 

3. The Laws of Information.

I fail to see how the laws of informatica has any relevance with evolutionary processes. please explain.

you said: Failure to explain the origin of the information required to increase or reorganize the lungs Specified Complexity from

"simple" to "complex" is your 3rd problem.

Why should i explain that? I did not bring that up. it is not up to me to explain that.. However YOU brought the laws of informatica in this debate. The explanation therefore lies with YOU.

Unless you can provide an plausible process that explains where the information necessary to cause said transition came from then the burden of proof remains on your shoulders.

 

 

note:

You still did not provide support for the fact that natural processes have a destructive effect

 

Here you go... ;)

 

I encounter this problem frequently with people of all persuasions.

 

Actually, there is abundant evidence from both experimental and

empirical observations demonstrating the mechanism preventing

micro to macro evolution and those barriers are the same ones

that prevent abiogenesis from happening.

 

Those barriers all involve entropy.

 

This subject of entropy requires an understanding of thermodynamics

and information theory... which is not something I can explain in a

short post.

 

What I hope to do is to supply you with some of the basics to help you

move forward towards a better understanding of the subject thereby

enabling you to better deal with such questions.

 

I have gathered some of the best entry level essays on those subjects

and suggest you first study them carefully before we go any further.

First up is a three part essay on thermodynamics.

 

Part 1: http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v7i1f.htm

 

Part 2: http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v7i2f.htm

 

Part 3: http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v7i3f.htm

 

The take away I want to get across from thermodynamics is that:

 

A: Heat (energy) naturally flows in one direction only.

 

B: In order to get heat (energy) to flow in the opposite direction

additional heat must be combined with a compatible conversion

mechanism to accomplish the task.

 

C: The more complex the task, the more sophisticated the conversion mechanism.

 

 

Next up, some basic information theory.

 

Part 1: http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v2i12f.htm

 

Part 2: http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v10i11f.htm

 

The basics I want to get across from information theory is that:

 

A: Information naturally flows in one direction only.

 

B: In order to get information to flow in the opposite direction,

directed energy must be employed with pre existing information

to accomplish the task.

 

C: The more complex the task, the proportionately higher level of sophistication is required.

 

 

Summary:

 

Once you begin to wrap your mind around thermodynamics and information

theory the more quickly you'll see the problems associated with abiogenesis

and macro evolution.

 

Heat (energy) flow alone just isn't enough regardless if it's a open or a closed system.

 

The burden of proof is not on us to provide a mechanism preventing

micro to macro evolution (which, by the way, I just provided).

 

The burden of proof is on those who make the outlandish claim that a lot of

micro evolution can add up to macro evolution.

It is they who must (and continually fail to) produce a plausible mechanism

capable of supporting their claim.

 

All origin of life experiments have failed by reason of the fact

that heat (energy), matter and information never self-organize from

scratch into structures of specified complexity such as living organisms (abiogenesis)

without a more advance complex conversion mechanism and intelligent intervention.

 

The same processes that prevent abiogenesis from happening are the

exact same processes that prevent micro to macro evolution from happening.

 

The bottom line is this;

 

A:  Life ONLY comes from pre existing life.

 

B:  All organisms faithfully reproduce after their own kind.

 

 

Side note to the moderators;

My apologies for not going into greater detail.

As you can see this is no easy task.

 

 

Max :)

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Your argument:

Fact is, evolutionists don't have a leg to stand on scientifically.

your support:

????????????????????????

 

My counterargument:

that is not a fact.

My support:

That is an opinion

 

you said: Then please post some scientifically tenable evidence to demonstrate I'm wrong.

I don't have to demonstrate you are wrong. You have to demonstrate you are right: the '??????????????????????'

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Still waiting for you to post a scientifically tenable reply to support your "That is why I trust the experts on how lungs in this case have evolved."  statement.

 

Regards.

 

Max ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enoch, you are still on ignore, no need to reply.

 

Thanks for your concern but there's no need for "you" to respond; Remember I said..."it's probably better (for you) if you don't"?  <--- It's Rhetorical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The burden of proof is not on us to provide a mechanism preventing

micro to macro evolution (which, by the way, I just provided).

 

The burden of proof is on those who make the outlandish claim that a lot of

micro evolution can add up to macro evolution.

It is they who must (and continually fail to) produce a plausible mechanism

capable of supporting their claim.

debating micro and macro-evolution is taboo on this forum for some reason.

 

this is just trying to bait me into breaking a rule.

 

 

The bottom line is this;

 

A:  Life ONLY comes from pre existing life.

 

B:  All organisms faithfully reproduce after their own kind.

 

 

A: the origin of life is not debated here, please ask for this in the relevant forum topic.

 

B: debating micro and macro-evolution is taboo on this forum for some reason. this is just trying to bait me into breaking a rule.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Gilbo. :)

 

It's difficult trying to get people to understand that evolution goes against naturally occurring processes.

And it's absolutely mind boggling to me the mental gymnastics and rhetoric they'll exercise in order to dodge

that which is so plainly obvious.

 

Regards.

 

Max ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Gilbo for posting this.

 

Thanks for reading it Max :)

 

 

 

Such a feat would require a complete restructure of the organisms respiratory system.

 

Certainly the same applies for the avian "flow through" lung design

 

 

1. If the organisms present structure (gills) were working fine to begin with then what would motivate it to change.

 

2. Where did the information necessary to make a radical change to such a crucial (life support) system come from.

 

3. How did the change come about without killing the organism during transition.

 

4. What evidence is there to support the existence of claimed transitions.

 

5. What reasons would compel me to blindly accept such a transition took place in the absence of a plausible transition mechanism (I know... getting a little ahead of myself).

 

I'm quite eager for some tangible support from the evolutionist camp regarding this.

 

1- That is the big question ;) Its akin to why did bacteria "evolve" if they are already the most efficient organism on the planet? Since any change would be a detriment to reproductive success and thus not be selected for by natural selection...

 

2- Doubtless evolutionists would claim "mutation" though this is wishful thinking since mutations are random.

 

3- Another of the big questions. Evolutionists just assume that it happens, despite it being akin to switching a car from petrol to gas while it is still running.

 

4- There is none, hence the dodging ;)

 

5- Its a good question, if evolutionists can't answer 4 then there is literally no reason why anyone should accept evolution as a cause.

 

 

I am eager for a response too,  I just hope it doesn't become the Mental Gymnastic Olympics ;)

 

 

Thanks Gilbo.

 

It's difficult trying to get people to understand that evolution goes against naturally occurring processes.

And it's absolutely mind boggling to me the mental gymnastics and rhetoric they'll exercise in order to dodge

that which is so plainly obvious.

 

Regards.

 

Max

 

 

It boggles me too :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A: the origin of life is not debated here, please ask for this in the relevant forum topic.

 

 

 

Wrong-O-Rama....

 

From two of the Fathers of evolution theory...
 
‘General Theory of Evolution’, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’

Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.

 
"Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments.  Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous.  Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life." 
Dobzhansky T.G. "Changing Man", Science, 27 January 1967, Vol. 155. No 3761. p 409

 

 

 

B: debating micro and macro-evolution is taboo on this forum for some reason. this is just trying to bait me into breaking a rule.

 

 

Not Exactly.  It's just when you Equivocate (Fallacy) that will get you...post-1695-0-18528500-1435186056.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

debating micro and macro-evolution is taboo on this forum for some reason.

 

this is just trying to bait me into breaking a rule.

 

 

A: the origin of life is not debated here, please ask for this in the relevant forum topic.

 

B: debating micro and macro-evolution is taboo on this forum for some reason. this is just trying to bait me into breaking a rule.

 

 

Those afore mentioned barriers (Laws of Thermodynamics and Laws of Information) are what prevent lung evolution.

 

And pretty much the evolution of any other novel structure.

 

 

 

You'd know that if you'd bother to read those essays which clarify the reasons behind why (lung) evolution is physically impossible.

 

 

Regards.

 

Max ;)

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Wrong-O-Rama....

 

From two of the Fathers of evolution theory...
 
‘General Theory of Evolution’, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’

Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.

 
"Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments.  Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous.  Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life." 
Dobzhansky T.G. "Changing Man", Science, 27 January 1967, Vol. 155. No 3761. p 409

 

 

 

 

Not Exactly.  It's just when you Equivocate (Fallacy) that will get you...post-1695-0-18528500-1435186056.gif

Thank you Enoch.

 

I was undecided on whether or not to waste time chasing down her little "rabbit hole" diversion.

Thank you for taking the time to clarify that point.

 

Regards.

 

Max ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what mechanisms lead to the "evolution" of the lung? I don't see any on here...

If evolutionists freely admit that they don't have any mechanisms or evidence for such then how on Earth can they claim that evolution was the cause? All they are doing is assuming "evolution did it".... Is this what science has become?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was undecided on whether or not to waste time chasing down her little "rabbit hole" diversion.

Thank you for taking the time to clarify that point.

 

Regards.

 

Max ;)

 

Authority fallacy.

Equivocation fallacy.

 

It is not because some obscure scientists have an own opinion on the definition of the theory of evolution. that therefore their definition is the right definition.

 

I respect this forum's rule not to equivocate micro and macro evolution. Thus I ask you to respect and not equivocate evolution neither.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If evolutionists freely admit that they don't have any mechanisms or evidence...

You're lying. No one admitted any such thing.

 

Stop trolling, gilbo12345. No one wants to play your silly little games. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gjones said"

Perhaps God used evolution to create these things? Why have you ruled that out?

The same reason you don't use evolution to bring anything into existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're lying. No one admitted any such thing.

 

Stop trolling, gilbo12345. No one wants to play your silly little games. 

 

Um you are the liar here since YOU were the one who admitted you don't know the mechanisms of how the lung "evolved"...

 

Let's cut to the chase...

 

We don't know how it evolved. Would you like to propose a mechanism for the origin of the mammalian lung?

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6463-evolution-of-the-lung/?p=126030

 

 

So you're now reduced to lies and intellectual dishonesty... Despicable.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gilbo12345 wrote:

 

Um you are the liar here since YOU were the one who admitted you don't know the mechanisms of how the lung "evolved"...

 

Because we don't claim to KNOW how the lung evolved does not mean that we do not have evidence or mechanisms to explain it. 

 

I could tell you how we believe the mammalian lung evolved... but you asked us how we know it evolved... so that's a different question. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because we don't claim to KNOW how the lung evolved does not mean that we do not have evidence or mechanisms to explain it. 

 

I could tell you how we believe the mammalian lung evolved... but you asked us how we know it evolved... so that's a different question. 

 

 

Once again you are being dishonest since you're statement of not knowing came as a reply to my request about mechanisms... Hence it was an admission of not having any evidence as to the mechanisms of how the lung "evolved"...

 

Post #12

Correction I am asking you to provide mechanisms... Here is the OP I suggest you learn to read...

 

This forum doesn't allow you to hide behind links... You need to explain how said link supports your claim... I've caught you out doing this previously... Many times I've had evolutionists post links through which I demonstrate that their link has no relevance to the discussion only to have them back-out claiming they "posted the wrong link" or some other BS excuse.

 

I'm not going to do your homework for you... No matter how hard you plead...

 

All that is given from the site I linked to is an assertion that it evolved... that is it... There is no mention of mechanisms or specifics?...

 

How is asking for mechanisms a broad question anyway?

 

What are the mechanisms involved in the evolution of the lung?...

 

Post #14

Let's cut to the chase...

 

We don't know how it evolved. Would you like to propose a mechanism for the origin of the mammalian lung?

 

 

I mean just look at your reply here....

 

"Because we don't claim to KNOW how the lung evolved does not mean that we do not have evidence or mechanisms to explain it."

 

If you don't know how it evolved (how = mechanisms)... Then you can't claim that you have evidence of a mechanism that can explain it... Since IF you did have such then you'd be able to explain HOW it evolved... Can you not see this?

 

It seems as if you want to claim that you don't know but still claim evolution did it at the same time... This takes double-think to a new level...

 

 

I could tell you how we believe the mammalian lung evolved... but you asked us how we know it evolved... so that's a different question.

 

This is the second time on this thread you have attempted to shift the goal posts... (In fact lurkers can read my response to your first attempt in post #12 above, "Correction I am asking you to provide mechanisms... Here is the OP I suggest you learn to read..." )

 

 

I am asking you for the mechanisms...  I have put it in big font so hopefully you read and understand... This is the "HOW" of your lung "evolution", if you feel that you can provide this then (as you stated above), then please feel free.

 

However I will state (like in my OP) I do not want to hear assumptions or opinions, rather I would like actual evidence that can be supported by the scientific method in terms of verification...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gilbo12345 trolling:

 

Once again you are being dishonest since you're statement of not knowing came as a reply to my request about mechanisms... Hence it was an admission of not having any evidence as to the mechanisms of how the lung "evolved"...

 

Yeah, after I answered your question in post thirteen. Heritable mutation and natural selection.

 

Do you have a learning disability? Is English your second language? 

 

We (meaning people who understand how to read and write) use italics to emphasize a word or phrase. I was emphasizing the word know to MAKE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR that we do not know for a fact how the mammalian lung evolved. It has not been verified by the scientific method. Your question is an enormous straw man and you are a dishonest, ineffectual troll.

 

By the way, you should probably learn the difference between your and you're.

 

If you don't know how it evolved (how = mechanisms)... Then you can't claim that you have evidence of a mechanism that can explain it... Since IF you did have such then you'd be able to explain HOW it evolved... Can you not see this?

 

Geez.... I'd probably have better luck explaining logical fallacies to Enoch2021.

 

We can have evidence and propose mechanisms without KNOWING that evolution was THE CAUSE. 

 

You have already claimed that evolution is not science and yet you insist that we verify evolution (via the scientific method). Why ask a question that you WILL NOT accept the answer to unless you're trolling? Do you think we're all as mentally deficient as you are? I mean, seriously? You started four different threads asking how different biological features evolved. Any semi-intelligent person could tell exactly what you're trying to accomplish.

 

You might want to Google the Dunning Kruger-Effect, gilbo. You are exhibiting the symptoms. 

 

It seems as if you want to claim that you don't know but still claim evolution did it at the same time... This takes double-think to a new level...

 

I am not CLAIMING anything. What don't you understand about my position, troll? I can provide the proposed mechanisms, I can discuss the molecular evidence, I can point to specific genes and transcription factors that ALL POINT TO LIKELY PATHWAYS FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE MAMMALIAN LUNG... but I have not now nor would I ever claim to KNOW that evolution was THE CAUSE... because I understand that we can never KNOW for certain HOW something happened without ALL the evidence.

 

But as I said... I'm not wasting my time being troll bait. Exposing you for the troll that you are is a much better use of my time. 

 

This is the second time on this thread you have attempted to shift the goal posts... (In fact lurkers can read my response to your first attempt in post #12 above, "Correction I am asking you to provide mechanisms... Here is the OP I suggest you learn to read..." )

 

Don't play dumb, gilbo. We've all seen this routine before. We provide mechanisms and then you ask us to verify them. We humbly admit that we cannot verify them and you whine that we cannot "know that evolution was the cause". 

 

I am asking you for the mechanisms...

 

 

And I gave them to you. But that wasn't good enough. You wanted me to EXPLAIN the entire process to you knowing damn well you would never accept any explanation that didn't involve special creation.

 

However I will state (like in my OP) I do not want to hear assumptions or opinions, rather I would like actual evidence that can be supported by the scientific method in terms of verification.

 

Then I suggest you start researching it yourself because I'm not wasting my time explaining it to you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, after I answered your question in post thirteen. Heritable mutation and natural selection.

 

Again I must ask you to actually read the OP....

 

I am curious as to how evolutionists rationalize the evolution of the lung.

 

According to this, the lung "evolved" (somehow) and the swim bladder came after.

 

If the lungs "evolved" first then I and curious as to the mechanism of how this was achieved, I am not asking for claims of "evolution did it", rather a process or method that can be tested and thus verified using the scientific method...

 

Did you read (and remember) my reply in post #15? Or did you evolve from a Goldfish?

 

Asserting "Heritable mutation and natural selection." without evidence is tantamount to assuming "evolution did it"... I am asking for your EVIDENCE...

 

Do you think science doesn't require evidence?

 

Do you have a learning disability? Is English your second language? 
 
Might I suggest you look in a mirror considering your inability to actually read my OP and post #15...
 
 

 

We (meaning people who understand how to read and write) use italics to emphasize a word or phrase. I was emphasizing the word know to MAKE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR that we do not know for a fact how the mammalian lung evolved. It has not been verified by the scientific method. Your question is an enormous straw man and you are a dishonest, ineffectual troll.

 

I wasn't asking about facts I was asking about evidence... This is YOUR attempt to shift the goal posts...

 

There it is again... You just admitted that you have no evidence, (in red)... This is utterly insane... How can you in a post replying to my pointing out that you admitted you had no scientific evidence... Attempt to insult me, shift the goal posts and claim I was wrong, when in fact you admit again that you have no scientific evidence...
 

 

Geez.... I'd probably have better luck explaining logical fallacies to Enoch2021.
 
Really... Because you seem to trip up over them ALL the time... Despite what we try and teach you...

 

 

We can have evidence and propose mechanisms without KNOWING that evolution was THE CAUSE. 
 
Hang on you claimed that you don't know HOW it evolved... The HOW is the mechanism... So what you claim here is an attempt to twist away from what you claimed previously... So once again your intellectual dishonesty is demonstrated for all to see...
 

gjones, on 06 Sept 2015 - 01:39 AM, said:snapback.png

Let's cut to the chase...

 

We don't know how it evolved. Would you like to propose a mechanism for the origin of the mammalian lung?

 

However if you really are able to provide evidence and mechanisms then why haven't you done so over four pages of your dodging providing mechanisms?.... Why waste four pages of not providing evidence and mechanisms, when you claim you can... Or is this your attempt to save-face?

 

 

We can have evidence and propose mechanisms without KNOWING that evolution was THE CAUSE.

 

How can you not know something, yet have evidence for it.... Double-think anybody?

I can imagine each of gjones' brain cells spontaneously combusting whilst attempting to rationalize this concept....

 
 

 

You have already claimed that evolution is not science and yet you insist that we verify evolution (via the scientific method).
 
Yet YOU believe it is science, hence it needs to be held accountable to the same standards all other scientific claims are... Unless you want to demonstrate double-standards?
 

 

Why ask a question that you WILL NOT accept the answer to unless you're trolling? Do you think we're all as mentally deficient as you are? I mean, seriously? You started four different threads asking how different biological features evolved. Any semi-intelligent person could tell exactly what you're trying to accomplish.

 

I've told you multiple times that IF you were to provide evidence that is not assumptions or opinions and was supported by experiment then I would accept it... Why do you keep ignoring this?... Oh I know because you want to keep claiming I am a troll in order to create a facade to hide your inability to provide said evidence...

 

I can see it now.. (since this has happened on other threads)

 

Gjones- I have tonnes of evidence

Gilbo- Ok please provide some

Gjones- No you're a troll

Gilbo- How do I know you have evidence then?

Gjones- Because I say so and you are a troll

 

 

 

I am not CLAIMING anything. What don't you understand about my position, troll?
 
Then what have you done for the last four pages idiot?....
 

 

I can provide the proposed mechanisms

 

This is a claim.... :get_a_clue:
 
Then provide them... Along with the evidence for said mechanisms as I asked for in the OP... I don't want assumptions I want REAL science...
 

 

I can discuss the molecular evidence,

 

This is another claim..... :get_a_clue:
 
Then discuss it, I am all ears... Again keep in mind it needs to be supported by the scientific method... NO ASSUMING THE CONCLUSION ALLOWED.
 

 

I can point to specific genes and transcription factors

 

This is yet another claim.... :get_a_clue:
 
For someone who doesn't make claims, you sure do make lots of claims...

 

Please point to these genes and transcription factors, again keep in mind that I don't want your assumptions or opinions I want REAL science...

 

that ALL POINT TO LIKELY PATHWAYS FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE MAMMALIAN LUNG...

 

Oh... So it is all assumption then?...

 

Likely... Science isn't based on what you THINK is "likely" its based on evidence from reality..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but I have not now nor would I ever claim to KNOW that evolution was THE CAUSE... because I understand that we can never KNOW for certain HOW something happened without ALL the evidence.

 

There is a difference between "knowing" and "knowing for certain".... So your use of the different terminology debunks your attempt to imply that know is absolute...
 
 
It seems that you want to persist in your belief that the word "know" means absolute.... Despite attempts by myself and Giovanni to correct you in that I am NOT asking for an absolute... Stop with this ridiculous strawman.
 

Post #17

Was I discussing absolute knowledge? How about you respond to my post rather than create a tangent to hide behind...
 

Only because you created such a thing... Perhaps try responding to my post...
 

Thanks for finally admitting that you have no evidence of the mechanisms pertaining to the evolution of the lung.

 

So does this mean all your bluster of claiming there was lots of evidence for the mechanisms was a lie? Does this also mean that your claims that I should look it up were a deflection tactic?

 

I'm not expecting you to reply to these questions, just something to think about ;)


Now that you admit that you don't know the process or mechanisms involved in the alleged "evolution" of the lung... One wonders how do you know it evolved?

 

 

Post #20

By the way, the OP was asking for a scientific explanation, and it didn't mention "absolute knowledge" nor did it ask for what truly happened in reality. To be honest and in all due respect, I find what you wrote useless. Please re-read the OP, emphasis added:
 

 

 

 

Not trying to repeat gilbo's words, but I honestly agree with him; I think it's not the OP's fault since it was clearly asking for an explanation but all I could see in your posts was deflection. No offense intended.

 

 
 
  However the word "know" isn't an absolute as I already explained to you and provided the definition of know for you in post #29
 

 

 

Just for the record...
 

know
/
verb
verb: know; 3rd person present: knows; past tense: knew; gerund or present participle: knowing; past participle: known
1.
be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.
 
 
SO yeah not absolute...

 

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6463-evolution-of-the-lung/?p=126079

 

 

So your entire response here was created by your inability to read and understand words as well as posts being directed to you which correct your misunderstanding, as well as explaining said words to you...
 

 

But as I said... I'm not wasting my time being troll bait. Exposing you for the troll that you are is a much better use of my time.

 

So you have no mechanisms or evidence then... Since this is your "tactic" whenever we ask you for evidence, its getting a bit old...
 

 

Don't play dumb, gilbo. We've all seen this routine before. We provide mechanisms and then you ask us to verify them. We humbly admit that we cannot verify them and you whine that we cannot "know that evolution was the cause".

 

Where? You have yet to provide any form of mechanism supported by evidence on any thread on this forum... You have attempted to provide assumptions or your opinions which get shot down... Perhaps that is why you won't provide your "evidence" is it because its merely assumptions and opinions?

 

And I gave them to you. But that wasn't good enough. You wanted me to EXPLAIN the entire process to you knowing damn well you would never accept any explanation that didn't involve special creation.

 

Again, where?.... Simply asserting something isn't going to fly here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gilbo12345 trolling:

 

Yeah, after I answered your question in post thirteen. Heritable mutation and natural selection.

 

 

So these are your Mechanisms?  Aren't These "NOUNS" (Heritable Mutations and Natural Selection)? Aren't MECHANISMS, VERBS (action tenses)??

 

How can "Concepts" have Mechanistic Powers?  That is, How can a "CONCEPT" Physically Affect Material Objects (DNA)....?  Can't wait to hear this.

 

If you say that Natural Selection isn't a "CONCEPT", then....

 

Please please post, for "Natural Selection" it's: Chemical Formula, Dimensions (L/W/H), and Location please....?

 

 

Have you seen this...

 

Denis Noble: Department of Physiology, Anatomy & Genetics; Oxford...
 
"In this article, I will show that all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often also called Neo-Darwinismhave been disproved. Moreover, they have been disproved in ways that raise the tantalizing prospect of a totally new synthesis; one that would allow a reintegration of physiological science with evolutionary biology." {Emphasis Mine}
Noble, D., Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology; Exp Physiol 98.8 (2013) pp 1235–1243
 
"Neo-Darwinism" ='s  Natural Selection and Mutations.  They...... " have been disproved ". 

 

 

 

Mutations??  Where'd you get Genes?  Let's Table this Begging The Question Fallacy for now....and discuss this Non-Sequitur (Fallacy) first:

 

Meta Information (Instructions). This is Information about the Information.  About 2% of Entire Genome consists of the Protein-Coding Genes with 98% devoted to Regulatory "Meta-Information".  It's like a Recipe for a Cake: Ingredients (Protein-Coding Genes) List of Instructions (Meta Information).  

 

DNA in humans (about 2 meters in length per Cell) is packed and coiled into 4 different levels of chromatin structure inside the nucleus. Each of these levels carry the "Meta Information".  In fact, for every molecule of protein producing machinery there are 50 molecules of regulatory machinery.

 

evolution says that "Mutations" are the foundation mechanism to get from Bacteria to Boy Scouts.  hmmm  :think: 

Mutation: a spelling error or a change in the sequence of letters (deletion, inversion, swap, insertion, ect) 

 

Question:  If a Mutation occurs in the Protein Coding Region....How on GOD'S GREEN EARTH are you getting Matching and Functional Corresponding "RANDOM" Mutations in the Regulatory Instructions (over 50 on a GOOD DAY!!)???

 

Or better said: You have a List of Ingredients for a Pineapple Upside Down Cake and the Instructions for a Unicycle and your telling me that the cake turned out perfect?  :laugh_point: 

 

It's probably the reason why Drosophila,  after years of Radiation-Induced Mutations, has Non-Functional Wings/Antenna/Legs et al growing out its Eyes/Back and Tail!!!  AND IT'S STILL A FLY!

 
Ernst Mayr PhD Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University (“Ernst Mayr, the world’s greatest living evolutionary biologist" -- Stephen Jay Gould)...
 
"The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation, for instance the homeotic mutant in Drosophila,  is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as 'hopeless.' They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through stabilizing selection. Giving a thrush the wings of a falcon does not make it a better flier. Indeed, having all the other equipment of a thrush, it would probably hardly be able to fly at all. It is a general rule, of which every geneticist and breeder can give numerous examples, that the more drastically a mutation affects the phenotype, the more likely it is to reduce fitness. To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles." {Emphasis Mine}  
Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution, p.253
 
 
'‘My recent book resulted from many years of intense study.  This involved a complete re-evaluation of everything I thought I knew about evolutionary genetic theory. It systematically examines the problems underlying classic neo-Darwinian theory. The bottom line is that Darwinian theory fails on every level. It fails because: 1) mutations arise faster than selection can eliminate them; 2) mutations are overwhelmingly too subtle to be “selectableâ€; 3) “biological noise†and “survival of the luckiest†overwhelm selection; 4) bad mutations are physically linked to good mutations, so that they cannot be separated in inheritance (to get rid of the bad and keep the good). The result is that all higher genomes must clearly degenerate.'
John Sanford PhD Geneticist Cornell University (Inventor of the 'Gene Gun')

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gilbo12345 wrote:

 

How can you not know something, yet have evidence for it.

 

Easy. It's called belief. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any mention to your failure to understand that 'know' is not absolute?...

 

 

gilbo12345 wrote:

 

Easy. It's called belief. 

 

Um no.... It seems you're confused there is no way, literally no way... You can have evidence for something, and yet still claim that you don't know it...
 

Perhaps if you were claiming that you know something without evidence, then that could qualify as one of the definitions of belief... HOWEVER it doesn't work the other way round... Since if you BELIEVE in something then you know it...

 

 

gilbo12345, on 06 Sept 2015 - 03:13 AM, said:snapback.png

 

Just for the record...
 

know
/
verb
verb: know; 3rd person present: knows; past tense: knew; gerund or present participle: knowing; past participle: known
1.be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.
 
 
SO yeah not absolute...

 

http://evolutionfair...-lung/?p=126079

 

1.be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.

 

So if you believe in something then you know of it... Since you are aware of the thing you believe in...

 

 

It seems that whenever you are asked to provide evidence you then derail the thread into your inability to understand words.... If you want to look like a fool, then I guess that is your choice.

The fact remains when I asked you for mechanisms of evolution causing the lungs you stated you don't know HOW evolution did such... HOW = mechanisms, so you have no mechanisms...

 

Whatever happened to you claiming you can provide evidence and the mechanisms? Was that all talk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what mechanisms lead to the "evolution" of the lung? I don't see any on here...

 

If evolutionists freely admit that they don't have any mechanisms or evidence for such then how on Earth can they claim that evolution was the cause? All they are doing is assuming "evolution did it".... Is this what science has become?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms