Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You do know, that we often see differences in fish. Even in some that are living. We can see differences even in the human race. Yet differences and similarities do not represent evidence for evolution. And some of your leading believers in evolution today will tell you this. The fact that the fossil coelacanth shows any difference from what we see today does not strengthen any arguement for evolution. It just represents the reality of what is. And it became obvious to the believers in evolution, that their attempt to make the coelacanth a transional was flawed. And that is why they removed it from the Family Tree. Of course, now we call it the Family Bush.
Well, not surprisingly, your "argument" here is logically irrational.
"We can see differences even in the human race. Yet differences and similarities do not represent evidence for evolution."
Really? What, then, does? I know; your infamous cat-into-winged dog, overnight stuff that no-one ever suggested except thethoroughly discreditted Answers in Genesis.
External and internal differences, even in the human race, do precisely represent individual differences in that person's genotype. I know, you don't really understand that word, so here: it's the exacting and very individual-specifc genetic code sequence, one's personal genetic map, as it were.
Even you, Tom.
In order for one person, even one of the same race, to express red hair versus blonde, or blue eyes versus green, or tall versus short, etc etc on to infinity, their individual DNA map MUST, necessarily, be significantly different from the other guy's.
Adding in such vast differecnes as race (African versus Asian versus an Aussie Aboriginal versus an Inuit) all require significant genetic (read: DNA) differences that have been tracked via mtRNA (you'll just have to Google that one, which I know you won't...) across the face of the globe a few years ago.
It all came about because of genetic variability through cross-breeding, not generally amongst siblings. (When that happens, all heck breaks out for some very simple but technical reasdons, unknown to scientifically illiterate fundies who think it's all OK to breed with your sister and not expect major genetic diseases... which kill.)
The mitochondrial RNA trace study proovided very convincing genetic evidence for evolutionary changes over time and distance that continental migrations produced. Quite irrefutible. Except, of course, to you, who choose not to open your eyes.
Just more of the usual re-phrased and scientifically uneducated blather.
Well, not surprisingly, your "argument" here is logically irrational.
"We can see differences even in the human race. Yet differences and similarities do not represent evidence for evolution."
Really? What, then, does? I know; your infamous cat-into-winged dog, overnight stuff that no-one ever suggested except thethoroughly discreditted Answers in Genesis.
External and internal differences, even in the human race, do precisely represent individual differences in that person's genotype. I know, you don't really understand that word, so here: it's the exacting and very individual-specifc genetic code sequence, one's personal genetic map, as it were.
Even you, Tom.
In order for one person, even one of the same race, to express red hair versus blonde, or blue eyes versus green, or tall versus short, etc etc on to infinity, their individual DNA map MUST, necessarily, be significantly different from the other guy's.
Adding in such vast differecnes as race (African versus Asian versus an Aussie Aboriginal versus an Inuit) all require significant genetic (read: DNA) differences that have been tracked via mtRNA (you'll just have to Google that one, which I know you won't...) across the face of the globe a few years ago.
It all came about because of genetic variability through cross-breeding, not generally amongst siblings. (When that happens, all heck breaks out for some very simple but technical reasdons, unknown to scientifically illiterate fundies who think it's all OK to breed with your sister and not expect major genetic diseases... which kill.)
The mitochondrial RNA trace study proovided very convincing genetic evidence for evolutionary changes over time and distance that continental migrations produced. Quite irrefutible. Except, of course, to you, who choose not to open your eyes.
Just more of the usual re-phrased and scientifically uneducated blather.
As usual, and predictably, No Sale. LFJ.
In the words of Henry Gee. When you look at a line of fossils and claim they represent a lineage. This is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but is an assertion that carries the same validity as a (BEDTIME STORY)--amusing, perhaps even instructive, (BUT NOT SCIENTIFIC.)
Trying to make a case for evolution based on similarities is more of an assertion, which has little to do with science.
rifleman, you may have a belief in evolution just as Henry Gee has one. Yet, Henry Gee is at least honest enought to tell us in his book, In Search Of Deep Time, that there is no way to know with any certainty how any fossil relates to life-forms today. He states, that most information necessary to make such a connection is now gone. So your belief of a family bush really is based on (FAITH). For the evidence that would prove such a theory simply does not exist, as clearly pointed out by the Editor of Nature Magazine, Henry Gee. You may claim my statements are simply uneducated blather. Yet, can you say the same of Henry Gee?
And it became obvious to the believers in evolution, that their attempt to make the coelacanth a transional was flawed. And that is why they removed it from the Family Tree. Of course, now we call it the Family Bush.
Rifleman responded to most of your post better than I could have, but he didn't touch on this part so I will. Just because the coelacanth is still around doesn't mean it cannot be a transitional species. There were once many different species of coelacanth, now we have only two, and they most certainly differ in various ways to their ancestors, not to mention that these two have not been found in fossilized form, but living only. However, they are also similar to some of those ancestors, though not identical:
Let me provide a current and obvious example of evolution and see how you respond (as if I couldn't guess).
An infant is born. It is incapable of the actions of an adult or even adolescent human. It grows (evolves) into another being than it was born as. If not for evolution, it would remain a helpless infant.
Proof of evolution, except for those (you) who deny it.
By the way, what a cop out to claim you don't have time. You seem to find plenty of time to do your questionable "research" and attempt to vilify anything that disagrees with you.
A child growing into an adult one could say evolves, or matures. Yet this is not the kind of evolution most of you are speaking about. You are speaking about one life form, transforming into an entirely different kind of life form, which has little to do with a human maturing.
Giving examples of what evolutionest believe is not an example of one trying to vilify the truth. It is something most kids don't hear in their classrooms, because evolution is taught with an obvious bias. So now when the truth comes out, I'm accused of trying to vilify someones belief?
Rifleman responded to most of your post better than I could have, but he didn't touch on this part so I will. Just because the coelacanth is still around doesn't mean it cannot be a transitional species. There were once many different species of coelacanth, now we have only two, and they most certainly differ in various ways to their ancestors, not to mention that these two have not been found in fossilized form, but living only. However, they are also similar to some of those ancestors, though not identical:
And there are many others which have gone extinct long ago.
Of course, the belief of transionals is based not on science, but assumption. And it is an assumption that has no evidence for it's reality.
For to long believers in evolution have been running around claiming they have science on their side, when in fact, they only had a myth they claimed was supported by science. Henery Gee of Nature magazine, who is a devout believer in evolution will tell you, that the information necessary to make the connection between past fossils, and present one's is simply(GONE).
Such a belief of transionals is based on (FAITH,) and not science.
The very thing believers in evolution accused Christians of. That Christians could only believe their Bible based on faith alone. Well, as it turns out, it is really the believers in evolution who believe their theories based on Faith alone. For as Henery Gee states, the evidence for such a connection, is (GONE). And even though I disagree with most of what he believes. He was honest enought to tell the truth dealing with the fossil record, and how it (DOES NOT RELATE) to evolution. And this is why one cannot point to evolution and the fossil record, and try to force fossils as members into some kind of family tree. The fossil record does not, and will not support such a conclusion.
In the words of Henry Gee. When you look at a line of fossils and claim they represent a lineage.
Do I? Where did I say that? The uncovered fossils are usually roughly catagorized, (including reviews of what other orgasnisms and vegetation was found right alonside them, and their position in the Geocolumn, and their isotopic dating results, all quite reliable...) and if they represent a position in time on a long lineup, their exact position is not precisely known at first. Only speculated. No-one ever pegs them as absolutes, but they must have belonged SOMEWHERE.
(Of course, with the new science of DNA genome mapping, if we can pull some sort of DNA out of a frozen sample, [never out of a rock because DNA proteins do not fossilize], we will be finally able to precisely place and date the remains. Also there's some new complex computer simulations that, once you have, say, the DNA segments for, say, three suspected relationships, the computer will predict the DNA sructure for the most likely inter-fossil "transitionals" that we should find.)
Later, when we also simulate what a specific genome codes for, we'll be able to ask the computer to show us exactly what the organism should, predictably, look like.
Won't that be fun? We predict, and then 5 years later some field biologist will find something remarkably like it, and...
Well, you can see where relentless, unbiased and ever-more elegant scientific research will lead to huh, Tom?
It's exactly like finding a single piece of a big 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle. You absolutely know "it goes in here somewhere!" and you begin to search, using the logical clues (shape, color, size) that you have available to you.
But to say that "No!!! There is no ***-saw puzzle,, no bigger picture!!!" as it slowly and relentlessly assembles into a complete picture and story, right in front of you is, as I often point out with your posts, delusional and scatter-brained. And denialistic.
This is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but is an assertion that carries the same validity as a (BEDTIME STORY)--amusing, perhaps even instructive, (BUT NOT SCIENTIFIC.)
Well, in your mind perhaps. Henry Gee is quite assertive about his belief in Evolution, which is hardly how you presented him the other day.
Been reading up since, have you? Trying to rescue yourself from your eariler rush to judgement? I do like that you have chosen as your spokesperson a tried and true, vigorous Evolutionary biologist who has taken The Discovery Institute to court for lying. LFJ again...
Good call, Tom!
Trying to make a case for evolution based on similarities is more of an assertion, which has little to do with science.
I agree. Of course, we have way more than mere "similarities". You really ought to read up on the science a bit, and I strongly suggest a book older, much older, than the 1960's stuff you keep quoting. That sort of presentation causes a lot of quiet snickering in the back of the room full of knowledgeable scientific researchers. It's so "last decade!"
rifleman, you may have a belief in evolution just as Henry Gee has one. Yet, Henry Gee is at least honest enought to tell us in his book, In Search Of Deep Time, that there is no way to know with any certainty how any fossil relates to life-forms today.
I agree, frankly. But you deny Evolution completely, based on totally illogical and unscientific reasons. Hence your argument fails on it's own merits. You cannot deflect now, and bring up irrelevancies, like "just where does this particular fossil fit?" Who cares? Who really cares? Not the point of this argument.
(As well, in a short while, we will be albe to better place these finds. What will you say when we do properly fit it into its obvious place?)
Tom, you keep trying to see this as some sort of jump-stop-jump-start-jump-stop process. Why can't you git it thru yur head that its' always a constant continuum? Thus there is no specific missing link. We're all links, Tom. But the ones that preceded us a long time ago are either permanently gone or are fossilized or buried in ice and mud. or found in edimetary rock at the 195,000 year old level. Along with long-extinct plam trees, up in the Arctic. Certainly NOT only 2500 years ago, Tom. Not possible. Not even in your mind, and you know it.
Each organism is slightly different than it's follow-on successor. I have a chronic health issue that has never been seen in any of my family on either side, ever. Wherever did it come from? I "acquired it" when I was a Christian, BTW, so perhaps God punished me for not tithing enough?
But no; it's a genetic mutation condition. Plain and simple., Happened to me, and I'll possibly pass it on to my kids, though if I lived out in the wilderness it would have killed me off a long time ago.
So. At any point in an organism's lineage, it may, or may not, outwardly show the results of some micro-genetic variation. If it's a particularly valuable asset (better night vision, better eyesight, better hearting, better coat warmth, better foot shape) of course (of course, Tom!) it will prevail.
I can guarantee you, since we know Evolution is a fact, that it fits somewhere, even if it was a terminal lineage organism. Who said we couldn't have those as well?
Gawd; your comprehension of all of this is either stupifyingly bad, or you're just being argumentative. Arguing for the Lord (catch that one, Antlered?)
But we're here, Tom, you and I, and our DNA shows exactly where we came from. Not Adam, not Eve, but from early African continent primates, then from pre-lemurs, then from forest mammals, then from ... then from...
He states, that most information necessary to make such a connection is now gone. So your belief of a family bush really is based on (FAITH).
Nope. (BTW, why don't you paste the entire text where he says this, plus his qualifying remarks. Stop relying on Aig or The Creationist Institute to do your thinking for you. I dare you, Tom; post it for us all to see, along with hss qualifying comments.)
We have lots of proof, not to mention the simple, logical logic of it all, that multiple paths to other species can and do occur simultaneously. Why do you insist on a linear, single-branch model? Evolutionists abandoned this stasrk vision about 45 years ago. Still reading the old stuff, huh?
Hint: post and quote NOTHING older than 2008. It'll save you a lot of embarassment. Like that 1947 flyover on Mt. Ararat. Really, Tom...
Are you an accomplished, well-read evolutionary biologst or geneticist, prepared to take your thoughts to a vigorous conference environment?
I thought not.
For the evidence that would prove such a theory simply does not exist, as clearly pointed out by the Editor of Nature Magazine, Henry Gee. You may claim my statements are simply uneducated blather. Yet, can you say the same of Henry Gee?
Not what he said or thinks, but again, you deflect or prevaricate.
It wouldn't matter if God himself, an alien who started a global experiment here on Earth, using evolution to develop species, dropped by and told you it now. You, still clinging to Acambara and Noah, are, obviously, incapable of independant logical thought on this subject, and would argue with Him.
Ta Ta.
Last edited by rifleman; 08-27-2009 at 10:38 PM..
Reason: typoz, lotz of em!
Henery Gee of Nature magazine, who is a devout believer in evolution will tell you, that the information necessary to make the connection between past fossils, and present one's is simply(GONE).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
For as Henery Gee states, the evidence for such a connection, is (GONE). And even though I disagree with most of what he believes. He was honest enought to tell the truth dealing with the fossil record, and how it (DOES NOT RELATE) to evolution. And this is why one cannot point to evolution and the fossil record, and try to force fossils as members into some kind of family tree. The fossil record does not, and will not support such a conclusion.
Please do quote Henry Gee for me, instead of just telling me what he says. And I want to see an entire quote, not just part of a paragraph that has been drastically taken out of context (like what you posted earlier in this thread which was handily knocked out by another member).
In the words of Henry Gee. When you look at a line of fossils and claim they represent a lineage. This is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but is an assertion that carries the same validity as a (BEDTIME STORY)--amusing, perhaps even instructive, (BUT NOT SCIENTIFIC.)
Trying to make a case for evolution based on similarities is more of an assertion, which has little to do with science.
rifleman, you may have a belief in evolution just as Henry Gee has one. Yet, Henry Gee is at least honest enought to tell us in his book, In Search Of Deep Time, that there is no way to know with any certainty how any fossil relates to life-forms today. He states, that most information necessary to make such a connection is now gone. So your belief of a family bush really is based on (FAITH). For the evidence that would prove such a theory simply does not exist, as clearly pointed out by the Editor of Nature Magazine, Henry Gee. You may claim my statements are simply uneducated blather. Yet, can you say the same of Henry Gee?
Have you even bothered to read the rebuttal of your new masters statements that you misquote? Or do you just latch on to something and decide that it is fact for all time (as if we didn't know the answer to that one)?
A child growing into an adult one could say evolves, or matures. Yet this is not the kind of evolution most of you are speaking about. You are speaking about one life form, transforming into an entirely different kind of life form, which has little to do with a human maturing.
So you say evolution is incorrect, yet this is an acceptable kind of evolution? Are you exactly the same as the day you were born? I suspect that you have indeed changed (evolved) whether you admit it or not. You just cannot admit that your basic belief system is flawed.
Quote:
Giving examples of what evolutionist believe is not an example of one trying to vilify the truth. It is something most kids don't hear in their classrooms, because evolution is taught with an obvious bias. So now when the truth comes out, I'm accused of trying to vilify someones belief?
No, you are attempting to give examples of what you believe evolutionists believe, and being selective in your choices. You have been shown time and time again evidence to repudiate your version, which you continue to ignore. Apparantly because you think you know best or speak for your gawd. You continue to insist that your buybull contains the only truth and anything else must be repudiated. That is vilifying something that you personally don't agree with.
At least attempt to be honest with yourself if not with others.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Aaannndd... I'm outa here.
