Who's lying now?

[CosmicJoghurt]

Maybe I have the wrong handle on this; what are transitional fossils, if not a record of all these "little changes" adding up over time? Refer to my lovely picture of a dog-like creature becoming a horse.

That is based on the assumption that one came from another. But there is no evidence of that.

Stop being fucking hypocritical. You asked for evidence of a transitional fucking fossil. We've given you one and you're refuting it by saying it's using an assumption? WTF? YOU ASKED FOR IT, YOU CREATED THE SITUATION WITH THE ASSUMPTION.

 

[Laurens]

Deluxe

I thought I'd provide you a link to read up about evolution: http://www.christs.cam.ac.uk/darwin200/pages/index.php?page_id=j

It's aimed at children, so it's about your level of understanding :mrgreen:

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

To say it just happens that way in not scientific.

Scientists don't say "It just happened."
Scientists say: "In a diverse world where life is uniformly similar in many fashions, with both thousands upon thousands of fossils showing clear and transitional forms and countless other DNA, genetically-biological, geological, physically possible phenomenon - combined with the observations of the natural universe as well as in-the-lab experimentation, can honestly conclude that all life is inter-related through natural processes by a common set of origins and evolve and adapt based upon a combination of genetic variation, mutation, and environmental stressors."

Creationists say "it just happens."
Creationists say: "I don't really know what those scientists are on about, but the Bible is obviously right. Ergo, any problems in my logic and flaws in my reasoning can be covered up by a blanket-all statement of 'Well, God Did it!' and any other minor errors I can just ignore. If I try to stab holes in the Evolutionary theory, maybe my single belief will be taken more seriously that God is the LITERAL GOD of the Universe and did do all these things - and all of this is based upon my massive presupposition that this deity actually exists, let alone did anything."

Problems with my theory?
God did it! It just happened to turn out alright, so don't be so critical of me!

 

[deluxe]

Problems with my theory?
God did it! It just happened to turn out alright, so don't be so critical of me!

I see no one could answer the questions about the the eye and eye sockets,in the skull. Or the spine and nerves.

Do you not see the design in this.?

Whats wrong with God did it? That is what the evidence says.
The scientist say a billion years did it.

But I also see that some of you have had it , with this discussion.
But you have to realize that all those video's, on youtube are spreading the lie, that the scientists tell. It was through them that I found this forum.

 

[nasher168]

I see no one could answer the questions about the the eye and eye sockets,in the skull. Or the spine and nerves.

Actually, I suggested a possible mechanism for the spine and nerves. I'll "remind" you:

Note that this is speculation on my part, though. I don't know how complete the fossil record is concerning early evolution of vertebrates.

-What might have happened was that there was a small, invertebrate worm-fish like animal that had a few central nerves going from its primitive brain and branching out to its different body parts.
-Then, over many generations, some animals were born with a sort of casing around the nerves and brain, which made them less likely to get damaged. The casing around the central nerves would already have had holes in it, because the branching nerves were already in place and removing those would be disastrous and cause death probably before such animals were born.
-Over many more generations, this primitive structure became tougher and harder to the point that if it got much harder it might start to restrict the movement of the animals. As a result, further development of the spine was only beneficial when it occurred at the same time as a thinning along certain parts of the spine, allowing it to bend easily from side-to-side as the animal moved.
-Eventually, the spine became completely hard and inflexible. At the same time, the thin areas became gaps between sections of the spine. All this had occurred over hundreds of thousands if not millions of generations. In this time, the worm-fish's descendants had become true fish. They possessed a heart, gills, simple fins and many other adaptations. A basic ribcage had evolved to give the fish structure and protect its internal organs.

And so on... evolution does not happen in bursts, one feature after the other. Think of the entire animal as a single feature trying to be pass its own genes on.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Problems with my theory?
God did it! It just happened to turn out alright, so don't be so critical of me!

I see no one could answer the questions about the the eye and eye sockets,in the skull. Or the spine and nerves.

You have two problems - you're seeing them as two isolated systems that just happen to work together by chance when they are integrated systems; and you have no idea how bones work.

Bones aren't made up of cells. Bones are extruded by cells as a kind of calcium crystal. The first fish had bony armor as the result of the cells around their body extruding bones; but the cells of the eyes, for obvious reasons, did not extrude bone, resulting in holes for the eyes. Same thing with the spine; the bone-extruding cells surround the nerve cell and do their thing. The nerves passing through prevent this extrusion by their presence.

 

[Welshidiot]

Ahem, ahem...

So you're saying that God intervened, and "changed the rules" so that lions and other carnivores wouldn't require meat in their diet for the duration of the flood?

God brought the animals to Noah. So yes he intervened.

This is a very interesting admission on your part, and if accepted as true, leads to a very interesting conclusion.
Namely: You're right,...and so are we!

Puzzled, deluxe? I'll explain.....

You've stated earlier in this thread, that we have to look at the way things are now, and reject any origin hypotheses that contradicts what we currently observe.
But now you've told us that sometimes God intervenes, changes the fundamental workings of nature in order to achieve his purpose, and then puts everything back the way it was before he started.

So if we closely examine the historical, geological, fossil, etc records, we won't see God's hand, because God changed the rules, then changed them back.
What we'll see is exactly what we currently see, which is a 4.5 billion year old planet, where life started without any miraculous intervention, and evolved through a process of natural mutation and selection.
We won't see any evidence of a worldwide flood, or the concurrent seismic activity that raised Everest (and the rest of the Himalayas and Tibetan plateau, and the Andes, and every other mountain range with peaks of over 17,000ft), we won't see any evidence that carnivores can miraculously change their diet, because.....God intervened and changed the rules, then changed them back once he'd achieved his purpose.

And it's quite wrong for you to say that the world is littered with evidence of the flood, or creation, or anything else that proves divine intervention, because as you've pointed out.....God intervenes and changes the rules, and then changes them back once he's achieved his purpose, thus leaving no evidence of his intervention.
In fact what YOU should expect to see as a believer in God's power, is a total lack of evidence of his existence, and conversely a lot of evidence for the world being very old, life being a solely natural process, evolution happening, and so on, and so forth,....because, as you've said, God intervenes and changes the rules, then changes them back once he's achieved his purpose, and all that scientists have to work with is the way that things look once God's finished intervening.

Noone should be surprised that creationists can only present scant, shaky evidence at best, after all their God changed the rules of the natural world, worked his purpose using natural mechanisms like seismic activity, deposition rates, the weather, etc, and then changed the rules of the natural world back to what they were before he intervened, thus leaving no trace of his intervention.

So the scientists are right. They observe life, the planet, the universe,...and then report exactly what it appears to show. It isn't their fault that God intervenes, changes the rules, and then changes them back once he's achieved his purpose.
In fact, given that this is the way God operates, then it doesn't matter how long scientists look at life, the planet, and the universe, they're never going to be able to see God's hand in it, because when God changes the rules back to normal after one of his interventions, the effect of doing so removes all traces of his handiwork.

So, deluxe, would you agree that the only way that scientists can get an accurate insight into the workings of life, the planet, the universe, etc, is to study the one and only record of God's actions, the word of the Bible?

 

[Squawk]

Whats wrong with God did it? That is what the evidence says.
The scientist say a billion years did it.

Evolution happens (you can go observe it, look up ring species, or just look in a mirror).

A billion years happens.
Add the two together, figure out how much change can accumulate, consider what would constitute evidence of such change accumulating. Fuck the fossils (nice as they are), phylogenetics is far more compelling.

Now, where is this god who you claim did stuff? All my requirements for universal common descent are met. Where is your god hiding?

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Problems with my theory?
God did it! It just happened to turn out alright, so don't be so critical of me!

I see no one could answer the questions about the the eye and eye sockets,in the skull. Or the spine and nerves.

Do you not see the design in this.?

Whats wrong with Magical Pixie Dust doing it? That is what the evidence says.
The scientist say a billion years and selective mutation based upon variety and best compatability with the current environment did it.

But I also see that some of you have had it , with this discussion.
But you have to realize that all those video's, on youtube are spreading the lie, that the scientists tell. It was through them that I found this forum.

You're an idiot -
The eye was developed long before the eye sockets. There are still creatures that don't have eye sockets. Microorganisms that detect light don't have eye sockets.
The nerves developed first, and the spinal column built as a support to both the protection of the nerves and the structure of the body. Ants don't have a Spine - but they have pain.

I just answered your question - and and no, God Did It is not a valid answer, because the "evidence" requires massive presupposition of Yahweh's existence, and any flaws with your theories are simply covered with God Dun It.

I haven't had it with this discussion, not by far.
I can see that you enjoy lying though - or you are so ignorant of even your own views. Tell us the Theory of Creation as to the Origin of Life, would you?

 

[deluxe]

nasher168 wrote:Note that this is speculation on my part, though. I don't know how complete the fossil record is concerning early evolution of vertebrates.

-What might have happened was that there was a small, invertebrate worm-fish like animal that had a few central nerves going from its primitive brain and branching out to its different body parts.
-Then, over many generations, some animals were born with a sort of casing around the nerves and brain, which made them less likely to get damaged. The casing around the central nerves would already have had holes in it, because the branching nerves were already in place and removing those would be disastrous and cause death probably before such animals were born.
-Over many more generations, this primitive structure became tougher and harder to the point that if it got much harder it might start to restrict the movement of the animals. As a result, further development of the spine was only beneficial when it occurred at the same time as a thinning along certain parts of the spine, allowing it to bend easily from side-to-side as the animal moved.
-Eventually, the spine became completely hard and inflexible. At the same time, the thin areas became gaps between sections of the spine. All this had occurred over hundreds of thousands if not millions of generations. In this time, the worm-fish's descendants had become true fish. They possessed a heart, gills, simple fins and many other adaptations. A basic ribcage had evolved to give the fish structure and protect its internal organs.

And so on... evolution does not happen in bursts, one feature after the other. Think of the entire animal as a single feature trying to be pass its own genes on.

I know you meant well when you said this is speculation. But that what the scientists do. And really that is not science. You could speculate how a loaf of bread could happen. But the bottom line is did it happen or could it happen?

You are starting with a animal that is already there with many of it's parts, it's heredity. . So the question is how did it get it' parts.
If you talk about the spine, it's not just the bones and nerves you also have a whole system of parts. For example, you need a brain . muscles, nerves blood,etc.
So what part of this system came first?
If you start with a cell, and it lives on rock dust. The earth would be filled with rock dust. why would it change at all?
So the first cells just divided,made copies of itself. But at some point inside this cell some how a nerve started to form. And at the same time a bone material started to form. So How did the cell know how to make these materials? Also how did it know where to place this material? Also would this bone kill it's host? This would be a irritant in a cell. This would also have to affect the DNA so that when it divided it would past it on. Also if bone material is just made,how does it know to protect the nerves and leave holes in itself, to allow the nerve to past through it.?

The point to this is that 'evolution' needs something already with these parts in it, and functioning, already designed. and built.
That why the scientists have no idea how life came about.

But even if you started at a functioning animal. There is no planning in 'evolution' . So an extra fin may happen but the placement would be already taken.So it may come out at the same spot as the other fin, two fins together. So the next time it might just come out a little higher , maybe on the back.the next time it might move backwards on the host. And so on. But the scientists say here is one fish and you can see how the fin moved down the body, to make another fish. But there would be many mistakes before that happened. These should be in the fossil record. But they are not .
With the nerve example, what tells the bone to leave holes just at the correct spot. With out millions of tries and errors? If you have an extra fin, and it moves somewhere else, the spine also has to make new holes for the nerves to come out of. The nerves would have to rewire itself. The brain would have to reprogram itself to make that new fin, useable. Or even a complete fin would be useless without all the systems working correctly. Any where along this line the fin would be useless, and possibly kill the animal or make less likely to survive. This is going on with everything. All the parts. The fossil record does not show this. There are no transitional fossils.
That is the same for the life we see today.

 

[deluxe]

So, deluxe, would you agree that the only way that scientists can get an accurate insight into the workings of life, the planet, the universe, etc, is to study the one and only record of God's actions, the word of the Bible?

I think the scientist would be light years a head of where they are now, if they recognized the creator. As it is now they have been stagnate for the last 150 years. All branches of science, has been made to try and fit this 'evolutionary' idea. With the result of still not knowing how life started, and realizing that man left to himself will destroy everything. And the bottom line is that the scientists have given man the ability to ruin the earth, and himself. So even though the scientists have done many good things in their research, in the end it is destructive. The reason this is so, is becasue, they are not going in the right direction.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Notice what Deluxe is doing:
He/she asked for an explanation for vertebrae with the expectation that this was impossible, and an admitted non-expert provided one provided one that was plausible. So now, because acknowledging the point would corner deluxe into admitting he/she was wrong (which he/she must never do), he/she complains that this explanation requires an already existing complex organism in order to occur.

Well no shit deluxe! What did you expect? Spines to grow out of bacteria? Complex organs don't grow spontaneously from simple organisms, and if you understood evolution even a little bit, you would know why.

 

[deluxe]

I haven't had it with this discussion, not by far.
I can see that you enjoy lying though - or you are so ignorant of even your own views. Tell us the Theory of Creation as to the Origin of Life, would you?

Creation is not a theory. Man knows what creation is. We understand creation. We do it ourselves all the time.
We take raw materials and make something out of that. The scientists say one day they will be able to create life in a lab using the materials found on the earth. That is exactly how God said he did it. So when the scientists do succeed at that , have they proved that God did the same thing, but first.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

I haven't had it with this discussion, not by far.
I can see that you enjoy lying though - or you are so ignorant of even your own views. Tell us the Theory of Creation as to the Origin of Life, would you?

Creation is not a theory. Man knows what creation is. We understand creation. We do it ourselves all the time.
We take raw materials and make something out of that. The scientists say one day they will be able to create life in a lab using the materials found on the earth. That is exactly how God said he did it. So when the scientists do succeed at that , have they proved that God did the same thing, but first.

And deluxe doesn't understand what a Scientific Theory is... anyone surprised?

 

[deluxe]

Evolution happens (you can go observe it, look up ring species, or just look in a mirror).

A billion years happens.
Add the two together, figure out how much change can accumulate, consider what would constitute evidence of such change accumulating. Fuck the fossils (nice as they are), phylogenetic is far more compelling.

Now, where is this god who you claim did stuff? All my requirements for universal common descent are met. Where is your god hiding?

I was expecting better from you Squawk.

Phylogenetics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Phylogenesis" redirects here. For the science fiction novel, see Phylogenesis (novel)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetics#Construction_of_a_phylogenetic_tree

I'm sorry I had to laugh. :shock:

1999 biologist Malcolm S., Gordon wrote: "Life appears to have had many origins. The base of the universal tree of life appears not to have been a single root." Is there evidence that all the major branches of life are connected to a single trunk, as Darwin believed? Gordon continues: "The traditional version of the theory of common descent apparently does not apply to kingdoms as presently recognized. It probably does not apply to many, if not all, phyla, and possibly also not to many classes within the phyla."

Biology and Philosophy, "The Concept of Monophyly: A Speculative Essay," by Malcolm S., Gordon, 1999, p., 335.

I showed earlier that some scientists have said the the 'tree of life' had been chopped down , and that he sceintists really know that.

in 2009 an article in New Scientist magazine quoted evolutionary scientist Eric Bapteste as saying: "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality." The same article quotes evolutionary biologist Michael Rose as saying: "The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that. What's less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change."

New Scientist, January, 24, 2009, pp., 37,, 39.

 

[australopithecus]

I think the scientist would be light years a head of where they are now, if they recognized the creator

Evidence for a creator?

 

[nasher168]

I know you meant well when you said this is speculation. But that what the scientists do.

No. This has been explained to you time and time again.

You are starting with a animal that is already there with many of it's parts, it's heredity. . So the question is how did it get it' parts.
If you talk about the spine, it's not just the bones and nerves you also have a whole system of parts. For example, you need a brain . muscles, nerves blood,etc.
So what part of this system came first?

Many would have arisen at the same time as one another. Others would have arisen afterwards, making use of previous adaptations. If we use those examples of yours: blood was probably a very early development, but it might not have been pumped around by anything. It might have just been a fluid that bathed the cells of the animal.

If you start with a cell, and it lives on rock dust. The earth would be filled with rock dust. why would it change at all?

Because the Earth changed. And there wouldn't be enough "rock dust" (actually, they would probably have originally "eaten" molecules dissolved in the water) to go around. Eventually there would be too many cells and not enough food. So the ones that can survive by eating less food would reproduce. As would the ones that can kill other cells.

So the first cells just divided,made copies of itself. But at some point inside this cell some how a nerve started to form. And at the same time a bone material started to form. So How did the cell know how to make these materials?

Inside the cell? No. By this point, multicellularity would have evolved.
Do you even understand how proteins are made? A mutation in the DNA would make some cells in the animal produce a different protein. This protein would make those cells slightly tougher.

Also how did it know where to place this material? Also would this bone kill it's host? This would be a irritant in a cell. This would also have to affect the DNA so that when it divided it would past it on.

It wouldn't "know" anything. The eventual location of the proteins would be determined by physics and chemistry.

Also if bone material is just made,how does it know to protect the nerves and leave holes in itself, to allow the nerve to past through it?

Bones are made out of cells. The hardened cells would not be nerve cells. Since the hard cell and pre-existing nerve cells cannot be in the same place at the same time, there would be holes in the bones where the nerves would come out.

The point to this is that 'evolution' needs something already with these parts in it, and functioning, already designed. and built.
That why the scientists have no idea how life came about.

No. It needs something with some parts in it that can be changed.

But even if you started at a functioning animal. There is no planning in 'evolution' . So an extra fin may happen but the placement would be already taken.So it may come out at the same spot as the other fin, two fins together. So the next time it might just come out a little higher , maybe on the back.the next time it might move backwards on the host. And so on. But the scientists say here is one fish and you can see how the fin moved down the body, to make another fish. But there would be many mistakes before that happened. These should be in the fossil record. But they are not .

Fossilisation is a rare occurrence. Very rare. Sometimes, we will find these mistakes. Perhaps we have already found some but not realised that is what they were! But they do not pass on their genes because they would die, whilst their brothers and sisters without a bad mutation would have children.

With the nerve example, what tells the bone to leave holes just at the correct spot.

The fact that the nerves are in the way.

With out millions of tries and errors?

There were millions of trials and errors. Trillions, in fact. Uncountable lives were cruelly cut short by such errors.

If you have an extra fin, and it moves somewhere else, the spine also has to make new holes for the nerves to come out of.

No. The lengths of the bones would just have to change by a very small, barely noticeable amount each generation as the fin does the same.

There are no transitional fossils.

Incorrect. Here are a very, very few examples: http://www.transitionalfossils.com/

That is the same for the life we see today.

You don't think there are transitional species today?

This is not a finished product:

Nor is this:

Nor, crucially, is this:

 

[nasher168]

I was expecting better from you Squawk.

You take offence at use of the word "fuck"?

Grow up.

 

[deluxe]

Evidence for a creator?

1 life comes from life
2 humans have humans as offspring
3 there is design in the life we see.

 

[nasher168]

1 life comes from life
2 humans have humans as offspring
3 there is design in the life we see.

Many people have taken this apart, myself included.