Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evol...

[nasher168]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

I would strongly recommend that all other posters refrain from addressing any other issues until Micah acknowledges the black-to-white analogy. The fact that he's dodging it implies he is unable to answer effectively, despite it's relevance to the issue he has.

 

[Inferno]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

You've not provided evidence that this process you think occurs, actually does. You are unable to show me an observable example of evolution occuring without structural change. So everything looks exactly the same, has the same number of bones, and same number of organs?

And I'll answer your last question. Do fish have legs? Ofcourse not, so how did amphibian tetrapods come to be without fish evolving a new structure?

How did dinosaurs evolve wings and feathers? I've showed you that scales cannot become feathers, it's biologically impossible. By the way, modern birds are found below dinosaurs in the "fossil record", so that poses quite a problem, but I'm sure you'll deny that it does, since you deny real observable science every minute of your life.

And since you claim I don't understand evolution, why don't you show me an example of evolution, so I can see exactly what your talking about. Whatever you insist evolution is, show me an example that we have observed.

Actually, we've shown abundant evidence for the process. Just because you don't accept it doesn't mean that we haven't done so. So we're unable to show you examples of evolution occurring without structural change?
Experiment on E. Coli - Explained in "The greatest show on Earth
Nylon eating bacteria
A lizard who previously laid eggs not laying them anymore!

No fish with legs?`Wrong again!

You didn't show anything to be impossible, though you apparently think that you have. The evolution of what you call dinosaurs to what you call birds is amply documented. However, you fail to realize that Birds are still Dinosaurs today!
And birds are found below Dinosaurs? Well that's impossible because they are themselves Dinosaurs. But OK, demonstrate your example and I/we will show you exactly why you are wrong.

And lastly, one example of evolution? Well we've given you some, but why don't you choose any of the four amply documented cases by AronRa? Or what about Dog evolution? Because dogs sure don't fit your criteria of what a "kind" is either, so they have evolved even by your criteria.

 

[lrkun]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

You've not provided evidence that this process you think occurs, actually does. You are unable to show me an observable example of evolution occuring without structural change. So everything looks exactly the same, has the same number of bones, and same number of organs?

And I'll answer your last question. Do fish have legs? Ofcourse not, so how did amphibian tetrapods come to be without fish evolving a new structure?

How did dinosaurs evolve wings and feathers? I've showed you that scales cannot become feathers, it's biologically impossible. By the way, modern birds are found below dinosaurs in the "fossil record", so that poses quite a problem, but I'm sure you'll deny that it does, since you deny real observable science every minute of your life.

And since you claim I don't understand evolution, why don't you show me an example of evolution, so I can see exactly what your talking about. Whatever you insist evolution is, show me an example that we have observed.

According to the subsequent article, you're a special kind of fish.

Notwithstanding that statement, please answer nash's request. TY.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/3/text_pop/l_043_41.html

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

 

[Squawk]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

You cited the 300 bones in chimps (I haven't even checked). Care to point out which one would be non-derived if the basal form was human?

I've answered each and every one of your questions multiple times, so I'm now content to sit and laugh at you.

 

[micah1116]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

You've not provided evidence that this process you think occurs, actually does. You are unable to show me an observable example of evolution occuring without structural change. So everything looks exactly the same, has the same number of bones, and same number of organs?

And I'll answer your last question. Do fish have legs? Ofcourse not, so how did amphibian tetrapods come to be without fish evolving a new structure?

How did dinosaurs evolve wings and feathers? I've showed you that scales cannot become feathers, it's biologically impossible. By the way, modern birds are found below dinosaurs in the "fossil record", so that poses quite a problem, but I'm sure you'll deny that it does, since you deny real observable science every minute of your life.

And since you claim I don't understand evolution, why don't you show me an example of evolution, so I can see exactly what your talking about. Whatever you insist evolution is, show me an example that we have observed.

Actually, we've shown abundant evidence for the process. Just because you don't accept it doesn't mean that we haven't done so. So we're unable to show you examples of evolution occurring without structural change?
Experiment on E. Coli - Explained in "The greatest show on Earth
Nylon eating bacteria
A lizard who previously laid eggs not laying them anymore!

No fish with legs?`Wrong again!

You didn't show anything to be impossible, though you apparently think that you have. The evolution of what you call dinosaurs to what you call birds is amply documented. However, you fail to realize that Birds are still Dinosaurs today!
And birds are found below Dinosaurs? Well that's impossible because they are themselves Dinosaurs. But OK, demonstrate your example and I/we will show you exactly why you are wrong.

And lastly, one example of evolution? Well we've given you some, but why don't you choose any of the four amply documented cases by AronRa? Or what about Dog evolution? Because dogs sure don't fit your criteria of what a "kind" is either, so they have evolved even by your criteria.

Acanthostega is more than likely nothing more than a giant salamder, it's nothing like a fish, it's a reptile. It's has the exact same appearance as a giant salamander, not a fish.

If you wish, you can go to nephilimfree's webiste and read: The Death of Creative Liscence article he has, but I'm sure you won't.

Do 5 minutes of research and you'll find out what caused Nylonaise bacteria to be able to digest nylon, I've gone over this before, and if you didn't just blindly believe something, you would know this. It's not morphological change.

Lastly, your claim that lizards "moving" to live birth is nothing more than smoke and mirrors, and it's assumption and not science. Some lizards have live birth and some through eggs, nothing is switching to live birth or laying eggs. Maybe you should research something before accepting it as fact.

http://creation.com/lizard-eggs-live-birth

http://double-d-reptiles.tripod.com/birth.html

"Ovoviviporous is the correct scientific term for animals that carry the eggs internally and upon delivery of the offspring the entire shell structure has thinned to the point that only the thin mucous membrane remains from which the offspring emerges. Because no whitish shell structure is seen and the membrane is sometimes broken through by the time the baby is fully delivered by the mother, people often assume that these babies are born live."

 

[micah1116]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

You cited the 300 bones in chimps (I haven't even checked). Care to point out which one would be non-derived if the basal form was human?

I've answered each and every one of your questions multiple times, so I'm now content to sit and laugh at you.

Yeah, All 94 of them, have any transitions showing them losing these bones and going from 300 to 206?

 

[borrofburi]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

Acanthostega is more than likely nothing more than a giant salamder, it's nothing like a fish, it's a reptile. It's has the exact same appearance as a giant salamander, not a fish.

If you wish, you can go to nephilimfree's webiste and read: The Death of Creative Liscence article he has, but I'm sure you won't.

Do 5 minutes of research and you'll find out what caused Nylonaise bacteria to be able to digest nylon, I've gone over this before, and if you didn't just blindly believe something, you would know this. It's not morphological change.

Ignoring, for a moment, your quite disingenuous request for evolution without morphological change followed by "nylonaise isn't morphological change" (well duh, you said there were no examples of evolution without morphological change, so someone pointed to one and you complained that, get this, there's no morphological change in it!)...

And I agree, acanthostega is "nothing more than a giant salamder", just as grey is nothing like black, just dirty white.... Speaking of which... Where is the new color in this image micah? Is there not a new color? How can black come from white without a new color?

 

[Gnug215]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

I would strongly recommend that all other posters refrain from addressing any other issues until Micah acknowledges the black-to-white analogy. The fact that he's dodging it implies he is unable to answer effectively, despite it's relevance to the issue he has.

This.

So how about it, micah?

 

[micah1116]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

I would strongly recommend that all other posters refrain from addressing any other issues until Micah acknowledges the black-to-white analogy. The fact that he's dodging it implies he is unable to answer effectively, despite it's relevance to the issue he has.

This.

So how about it, micah?

I never addressed it because I thought it was a silly arguement that doesn't make any sense. How can showing me a picture of white and black be evidence for evolution? Am I missing something here? Are you argueing that you can't get one without the other? If so, what does this have to do with biological structures? I'm not making sense of what your trying to convey here, that's the issue.

 

[nasher168]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

Imagine white represents a fin and black represents the human foot. The human foot is demonstrably different from the fins of our ancestors. However, the new structures in the human foot did not suddenly and clearly emerge at one specific point. Rather, they gradually emerged over millions of years, adapted from some previous structure. At no point does an organism have to born with a completely new structure, just a slightly modified version of an existing structure.
In the same way, white does not immediately turn to black, but gradually changes across the picture.


Here you go. I drew you a diagram to illustrate it. Tell me, which "transitional" picture exhibits a new structure? Each picture is just a modified version of the one before it. Even between 4 and 5, no new structure emerges. The end of the fin merely splits slightly. No new structures emerge at any specific point, yet new structures clearly emerge between 1 and 8.

Note that this is NOT an accurate diagram to what really happened, but the analogy still holds.

 

[Squawk]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

Am I missing something here?

Yes ;-)

 

[australopithecus]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

I'm not making sense

Too easy. :lol:

 

[Squawk]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

Turning to something more informative and less amusing than Micah, does anyone have a source for skeleton composition of various ape species? I've been looking for a while and I can't find anything that lists a "bone count", as it were, for ape species other than ourself.

What I have found, somewhat amusingly, are numerous articles discussing the many ways that the bone count in humans differs considerably among individuals (due to sesamoid bones mostly, but also fusions). But that hasn't answered my question on chimps, or the other apes.

 

[Inferno]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

Turning to something more informative and less amusing than Micah, does anyone have a source for skeleton composition of various ape species? I've been looking for a while and I can't find anything that lists a "bone count", as it were, for ape species other than ourself.

What I have found, somewhat amusingly, are numerous articles discussing the many ways that the bone count in humans differs considerably among individuals (due to sesamoid bones mostly, but also fusions). But that hasn't answered my question on chimps, or the other apes.

I haven't either and I've been looking for quite some time now.
On a related note:
OMG A NEW HUMAN SPECIES!!! THEY ARE MORPHOLOGICALLY DIFFERENT! :lol:

 

[DutchLiam84]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

Yeah, All 94 of them, have any transitions showing them losing these bones and going from 300 to 206?

Not to be a dick but uhhh...in the debate you argued that losing bones is not evolution! What do you want from us man when you keep shifting the goalposts, ask for things that don't exist and don't need to exist in order for Evolution to be a valid scientific theory? Stick to one opinion for fuck sake and stop ignoring all other posts. In the debate Squawk addressed every single sentence you posted.....have the decency to do the same. It looks like you don't have the capability to grasp what actually is being said, that's not meant as an insult but merely as an observation. Nothing to be ashamed off, have some dignity for once in your life and do some self reflection......what makes you think you are smart enough to understand what is being said?

Ohh, and a salamander is an amphibian not a reptile, huge difference! Herp ma derp.....

 

[Gnug215]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

This.

So how about it, micah?

I never addressed it because I thought it was a silly arguement that doesn't make any sense. How can showing me a picture of white and black be evidence for evolution? Am I missing something here? Are you argueing that you can't get one without the other? If so, what does this have to do with biological structures? I'm not making sense of what your trying to convey here, that's the issue.

micah, It doesn't surprise me that you think it's silly. No, it's not "evidence for evolution". It's an analogy for some of the very basic concepts involved in evolution, and by admitting that it doesn't make sense, you're basically also admitting that you don't properly understand evolution.

Again, it's not surprising, but at least we've come this far now.

Now, Nasher made a fine post below yours explaining the analogy and how it pertains to evolution. I would like for you to read Nasher's post, and explain to us in your own words how you understand the post, and how you think it pertains to evolution.



(As an aside, micah. Have you noticed how it seems as if you and the rest of the people here are talking past each other a lot of the time? As if we aren't on the same page? Well, if you have, then have you wondered how that could be, and what could be the cause of such a fundamental misunderstanding between people? If you haven't wondered, I think you should, because if anything, we're all human beings, and should be somewhat similarly capable of upholding very similar concepts in our minds, so the fact that we're talking past each other would invariably point to some kind of misunderstanding on the basic level, which then leads to more misunderstandings on other levels. How about we try to clear out the basic misunderstanding first, so that we may have further discussions without being riddled in loads of more complex misunderstandings?)

 

[borrofburi]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

What I have found, somewhat amusingly, are numerous articles discussing the many ways that the bone count in humans differs considerably among individuals (due to sesamoid bones mostly, but also fusions). But that hasn't answered my question on chimps, or the other apes.

This came up a number of time in "waza minoo ####"'s thread about his "disproof of atheism": he claimed that the human body had a specific number of bones, and that that number was holy in the quran and thus this was very strong evidence that we should convert to islam. Someone else pointed out that the number of human bones varies widely depending on how you count. I guess we can also add that it varies widely depending on the individual being counted.

 

[borrofburi]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

I never addressed it because I thought it was a silly arguement that doesn't make any sense. How can showing me a picture of white and black be evidence for evolution? Am I missing something here? Are you argueing that you can't get one without the other? If so, what does this have to do with biological structures? I'm not making sense of what your trying to convey here, that's the issue.

I will of course refer you to Nasher's post, but I thought that maybe my writings could help clarify: you keep asking for a "new structure". You do this by presenting an A (for instance, a fin, or the color white), and a B (for instance, a foot, or the color black) and assert that it's insane for anyone to suggest you can get from an A (a fin, the color white) to a B (a foot, the color black) without the creation of a new X (for instance, a new structure, or a new color).

This is, as others have pointed out, a fundamental misunderstanding of what gradual change actually is. So I present you with a gradient showing a gradual change from white to black that is meant to illustrate how very small gradual change can lead from an A (the color white) to a B (the color black) without any "new" color ever arising. It's an illustration of how you can get from an A to a wildly different B without any of the major instant changes you propose must happen**. After all, what can be more different than black and white?

This obviously doesn't prove evolution in any way, it's merely meant to demonstrate to you why your general (and seemingly only) argument of "you can't get to B from A without a new X! That's preposterous!" is invalid (unless of course you can demonstrate the new color in the gradient image); it's also meant to show you why your continual requests for a new X don't necessarily make sense (it's like my request that you show us the new color in the gradient image).

It's also a metaphor for what common descent (through neo-darwinian evolution) proposes: that you can get to black (and even purple, yellow, green, red, blue, etc.) from white with only gradual change (no "new color" as you are always requesting) in subsequent pixels through space (i.e., population generations through time).

I hope that helps clarify.



**and even worse, you propose that we must provide them to demonstrate the veracity of neo-darwinian evolutionary theory, when such things would be strong evidence against evolutionary theory

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

Turning to something more informative and less amusing than Micah, does anyone have a source for skeleton composition of various ape species? I've been looking for a while and I can't find anything that lists a "bone count", as it were, for ape species other than ourself.

I haven't either and I've been looking for quite some time now.

In my opinion, an average chimpanzee skeleton should have ~208 bones. As a baby, they would have around 300, just as human babies do. The reason I am able to predict that chimpanzees have ~208 bones as adults is because humans have 206 as adults. Humans and chimpanzees share almost all the same bones, the only differences are in the shape. Chimpanzees are also lacking one lumbar vertebra, but have one extra thoracic vertebra (plus the ribs that go with the thoracic) on average compared to humans. That means taking 206 minus one plus three; we would end up with 208. The real funny thing is that the lumbar and thoracic vertebra can very within all species of primate. If anyone would like, I can just e-mail one of my old professors, she would know the number of bones for all the extant apes.

 

[Inferno]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

he_who_is_nobody: Please do so, it would be very interesting!