It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

I would like to respond to the letter 'Recent letter offered no examples of Darwinian disingenuousness,' . He responds to an article with, 'He says evolution is 'so riddled with holes,' yet fails to provide a ... Full Story

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107069 Jan 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Honey, I could have posted the abstract because I sourced the link. Clearly that link speaks to the accumulation of deleterious mutations because the effectiveness of natural selection has declined.
"likely that the lack of conservation and increased rate of gene expression divergence are caused by a reduction in the effectiveness of natural selection against deleterious mutations because of the low effective population sizes of hominids."
Did you notice the word LIKELY? In actual fact researchers have no idea what the population size was at any time in the ancient past. They use what suites them. So in the end this research provides data that the homonid genome is deteriorating through the accumulation of deleterious muations and they offer an evolutionary get out of a falsification for free card by offering a possible scenarion.
The problem is I have provided multiple examples of deteriorating genomes and I can provide a plethora more....
..... AND I was talking to KAB in support.
That is not my discussion. KAB can handle you lot running around like lunatics going from one topic to another and not concluding any point. Talk to him. He wraps you lot up in foil and bakes you very easily.
If you lot cannot offer a reply then I will take the point as being established. Placental mammals are dated to 245mya and falsify the current evolutionary mess that isn't evidence for anything, and provides support for Devonian cetaceans!
You start to sound desperate.
I'm cool in comparison. The bees bee.
Do you have some trouble with landanimals going back to sea at various points in time?
Do you have great trouble with the idea of concestors and beneficial mutations >scientific and plausible< or in the ichty-case convergent evolution? So having no baring upon the whale family question as posed?

Talking to KAB means giving him 17 pages of ice measurement data, which he will approach clueless, than claims to have lost followed with the statement that nobody ever gives him REAL DATA.
So his newest claim was that he tries to weedle the best out of us.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107070 Jan 11, 2013
Population size is not relevant, though genome changes can provide a clue as to a stressed so dwindling population and thus quick adaptations to deal with the treath.
So you reason the wrong way round.

Why? It is not logical!
...darn forgot the entire flood. ;))

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#107071 Jan 11, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Let me tell you something Pal. Christianity has been around a lot longer than evolution. Christianity is an anvil that has worn out many hammers. I wouldn't even consider evolution a hammer.
Let's see Evolution has been occuring for billions of years and Christianity is a little over 2000 years old. I think you need to re-look at your data.

Now, if you were honest, you might have said that our understanding of how evolution works can be argued to be about 150 years old, but that wouldn't be accurate either. We have been using animal and plant breeding techniques for hundreds, even thousands of years. They worked in spite of our limited understanding of the mechanisms of how they worked.

If history is any guide one day Christianity will join many hundreds of other religions as footnotes in a history books. I know, it annoys you to no end, but every evangelical member of every religion that came before yours felt exactly the same way you do -- just something for you to look forward to. Which I find incredibly amusing.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#107072 Jan 11, 2013
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's see Evolution has been occuring for billions of years and Christianity is a little over 2000 years old. I think you need to re-look at your data.
Now, if you were honest, you might have said that our understanding of how evolution works can be argued to be about 150 years old, but that wouldn't be accurate either. We have been using animal and plant breeding techniques for hundreds, even thousands of years. They worked in spite of our limited understanding of the mechanisms of how they worked.
If history is any guide one day Christianity will join many hundreds of other religions as footnotes in a history books. I know, it annoys you to no end, but every evangelical member of every religion that came before yours felt exactly the same way you do -- just something for you to look forward to. Which I find incredibly amusing.
Sorry, but one word bothers me ... "re-look." lol You mean "look again," not "in regards to looking." I don't know what that one word bothered me.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107073 Jan 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
This is veering to asides. I think ichy is a mammal and that is most likely. Are you a nut? I think Ichy being a reptile is MOST UNLIKELY for the reasons outlined many times.
Evo researchers say this is a reptile. Ichy is a plethora of different varieties of who knows what. Most are single fossils that say nothing.
Stephen Jay Gould expresses the wonder of it all:
"This sea-going reptile with terrestrial ancestors converged so strongly on fishes that it actually evolved a dorsal fin and tail in just the right place and with just the right hydrological design. The evolution of these forms was all the more remarkable because they evolved from nothing the ancestral terrestrial reptile had no hump on its back or blade on its tail to act as a precursor."
You escape artists.......
Evos publish and therefore believe they exist, even though they have no idea what they are talking about!
Gould aside, we do not know what animal returned to the water.
But given viviparity i was thinking of a certain shark that eats the eggs and others while in the 'womb'.
A whaleshark is also an odd one out.
Probably the difference is not just in the majority typical reptile form present but in the development of the typical mammalian womb and lactation.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#107074 Jan 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
At least in this direction the posts are demonstrably valid.
LOL sure! DEMONstrably as in Lord of Lies.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#107075 Jan 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Since this post all I see is evotard waffle and gibberish around why I am not responding to other strolls down the garden path. That is is course apart from the fact that every ridicule has already been spoken to.
If you evotards wanted to demonstrate your whale ancestry and I kept shoving abiogenesis up your butts then you would suggest I was an evading idiot. Likewise that is what you all look like to me. Pompous evading idiots and pretenders.
So Dan and Kong finally got their act together and now because I can challenge these so called reptilian traits all you evos have once again deteriorated into babbling evotards. I love it.
This is great to see and what I expected.
Cetacea is dated 245mya in ichthyosaurus and evos cannot sustainf these mythical reptilian traits. Michagan whale fossils were found in strata dated to 290myo that were contaminated and could not reliably be carbon dated.
The other fact that appears to be coming forth and being substatiated as we speak is my claim that evolutionists are clueless.
Maz, why do you keep trying to maintain the same fabrications, even when you have been PROVEN wrong? Repeating the same gibberish over and over because you are proud of your misconceptions is nothing to be proud of.
LowellGuy

United States

#107076 Jan 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You sound desperately confused! I can't even work out what you are talking about? Do you know? A blow hole is the signature of cetacea. I'd say that shared traits are a sign of the one designer particularly when evolutionists cannot get their fossil evidence for major morphological change to have some credibility.
Ichy is a mammal because it has the hallmark of cetacean mammals, a blow hole. That is accompanied by warm bloodedness and life birth and it looks like a dolphin. It does not have the hallmark of a reptile as stated because some Ichy varieties have a single fenetra found in cetacean mammals.
Now I have said that for about the 10th time. How about you take those evogoggles off and learn the art of reading and research and stop confusing yourself.
Are pandas bears?
LowellGuy

United States

#107077 Jan 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
"May be". That means may not be? Hey, they're not dead yet!
It seems you shot from the hip. You may want to check your own foot!
The tentative language of science should not be mistaken for the ridiculous being just as likely as the reasonable.
LowellGuy

United States

#107078 Jan 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
This is veering to asides. I think ichy is a mammal and that is most likely. Are you a nut? I think Ichy being a reptile is MOST UNLIKELY for the reasons outlined many times.
Evo researchers say this is a reptile. Ichy is a plethora of different varieties of who knows what. Most are single fossils that say nothing.
Stephen Jay Gould expresses the wonder of it all:
"This sea-going reptile with terrestrial ancestors converged so strongly on fishes that it actually evolved a dorsal fin and tail in just the right place and with just the right hydrological design. The evolution of these forms was all the more remarkable because they evolved from nothing the ancestral terrestrial reptile had no hump on its back or blade on its tail to act as a precursor."
You escape artists.......
Evos publish and therefore believe they exist, even though they have no idea what they are talking about!
Are pandas bears?

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#107079 Jan 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Ditto reply to Dan above.
The only extra thing I will add is Whales dont have lips, so they cant really suckle the milk. Instead its almost injected into the babys mouth.
Dan's said much the same thing with less words. But, yes, if I miss a considered post then do prompt me. After all there are so many silly replies that it is very easy to miss the ones that are appropriate.
Still I maintain that Ichthyosaurus is evidence in support of cetacea being here around 250mya, modern aves are dated to 212mya, evos evidence for cetacea is a mesrepresentation and creos predicted non coding dna would have function.
So you have heard how the fossil evidence aligns with my view in aves and cetacia. You know why I don't think evos have evidence. What are the facts?
The fact here is that cetacean traits have popped up 250 years ago according to current dating methods. Is that a fact we both agree on?
Which side of the debate does this FACT better align with? I say creationism because I do not need to speak to convergent evolution. For me these triats should have been around all the way back close to the Devonian.
How does this FACT align with evolutionism?
Convergent evolution explains it and here is how. Similar environments would put the same selective pressure onto different organisms to drive the evolution of similar characters. Eyes have evolved at least 13 different times over history. We know this based on how developed these different eyes are, how they are constructed, and the origin of the tissues involved. Human eyes do a good job of capturing images but they are poorly constructed. A squid has much better constructed eyes. Light entering a human eye has to go through blood vessels and nerves before the image hits the retina. All this has to be dealt with. Light entering a squid eye does not have to go through nerves and blood vessels and there is no blind spot to deal with either (another flaw of our eyes). Both eyes evolved seperately to serve the same function. Thus they look roughly alike, because evolution can only with with what it is given under the conditions that exist.

An analogy might be if numerous teams of people were asked to construct a machine to do a specific task. All teams work independently, under the same conditions. They have to use the raw materials and supplies available to them in their respective areas. Since the available material may differ somewhat, this difference isn't likely to be very large and since the goal is the same for all, the result is likely to be very similar in appearance though there may be striking differences. We could even go further and classify or group the resultant machines based on shared characters. For instance if over half the group got external casing and some internal parts from the same supplier, it would drive the designs that subgroup came up with and be the basis to conclude a relationship.

However, shared characters are not the end all of it. It is the nature of the character, its origin and plasticity among other things that will determine its value in classification. By your methodology we could classify ichthyosaurs and cetaceans as fish just as easily as classifying them as each other.

It is convergent evolution based on a selection for the same environment by organisms with two different aged and points of origin.

Your classification Maz, leaves out the fact that whales don't have a reptilian ear. If it can't explain that, it can't hold up. The explanation that best fits the evidence is reptilian origin for ichthyosaurs and mammalian origin for cetaceans with similarity in some characters due to convergence.

Maz, did you know that whale ear bones are completely unique amongst mammals. That is a dead give away for paleontologists when they find them amongst fossils in the field.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#107080 Jan 11, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Are pandas bears?
Marsupials!

Please let me be correct, it would be so cool to remember such a small detail now.
LowellGuy

United States

#107081 Jan 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What?! No confirming data!?(Actually, no data at all). Why am I not surprised since you seem to thrive in a fairy tale world? Hmm, where have I seen that declaration before?
We've already demonstrated why such a flood with such a boat for such a time would not be survivable. Just tell us which species of pine trees can survive complete submersion beneath a mile of salt water. Or, how about just one. Can you name even one? Any evidence that at least supports survivability would be interesting. Empirical evidence of this alleged flood would be globally significant. Even you said that, based on the empirical evidence, this flood story is nothing more than just that.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#107082 Jan 11, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Are pandas bears?
Erm, I know! I know!

As much as koalas are - or bearcats (binturong)...
LowellGuy

United States

#107083 Jan 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You nailed it! Overwhelmingly most are not inclined to pay for what they don't want to know (2 Timothy 4:3,4; Matthew 7:13,14)
It's spelled "hear," not "know."

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#107084 Jan 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You sound desperately confused! I can't even work out what you are talking about? Do you know? A blow hole is the signature of cetacea. I'd say that shared traits are a sign of the one designer particularly when evolutionists cannot get their fossil evidence for major morphological change to have some credibility.
Ichy is a mammal because it has the hallmark of cetacean mammals, a blow hole. That is accompanied by warm bloodedness and life birth and it looks like a dolphin. It does not have the hallmark of a reptile as stated because some Ichy varieties have a single fenetra found in cetacean mammals.
Now I have said that for about the 10th time. How about you take those evogoggles off and learn the art of reading and research and stop confusing yourself.
Obviuosly a blow hole is not the signature of Cetecea since reptiles had if first. You are giving far too much weight to it as a character, while limited in its presence to a small number of organisms, which is not unique to only one group. It is an aquatic adaptation to move the nostrils to the top of the head. Since both ichthyosaurs and cetaceans are marine animals it isn't surprising they possess similar features. You still can't get away from the reptilian ear. Even if some species may have had ears similar to cetaceans, and I don't know this to be true, that isn't strong evidence to move them across classes. Live birth as I stated is a character shared across numerous classes of vertebrates and addresses the adaptation ot a marine environment. Warm bloodness is another adaptation to cold that would have been encountered in marine environments. The ichtyosaur is a reptile that evolved to live in a marine environment. Whales and dolphins are mammals that evolved to live in a marine environment. It is not a shocking surprise that they would employee similar traits to achieve this.

It may be your best try yet, but it is not convincing evidence to move ichthyosaurs across classes to Mammalia and move whale evolution back 200 million years.

I agree, they had one designer for both these groups of organisms and that same designer for life over the entire earth. That designer is natural selection.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#107085 Jan 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You sound desperately confused! I can't even work out what you are talking about? Do you know? A blow hole is the signature of cetacea. I'd say that shared traits are a sign of the one designer particularly when evolutionists cannot get their fossil evidence for major morphological change to have some credibility.
Ichy is a mammal because it has the hallmark of cetacean mammals, a blow hole. That is accompanied by warm bloodedness and life birth and it looks like a dolphin. It does not have the hallmark of a reptile as stated because some Ichy varieties have a single fenetra found in cetacean mammals.
Now I have said that for about the 10th time. How about you take those evogoggles off and learn the art of reading and research and stop confusing yourself.
I'll give this to you, Maz: You certainly do have an extremely high opinion of yourself!

Ichthy's NOSTRILS (NOT "blowhole") were located between the eyes and base of the snout, not the top of the head.

Ichthy DOES have some features that they share with present-day Cetacea, but these characteristics are simply examples of covergent evolution.

Although Ichthy was viviporous, there are several other examples of reptile species that also have live birth, including several species of snakes, lizards and amphibians.

Yes, Ichthy was warm-blooded. So were dinosaurs.

Ichthy clearly had a diapsid skull, and Diapsids are reptiles.

It was also presented here (forgot the poster -- sorry) that Icthy had both reptilian ears and lower jaw features.

Ichthy was described as a reptile in "A History of British Fossils, Volume 2"

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/books/britfossils/p...

which was published in 1949, a full decade before Darwin's "On the Origin of Species", so there was no philosophical axe to grind in callng Ichthy a reptile rather than a mammal.

Your pronouncement that "Ichthyosaurs are Mammals!" is based upon your ignorance, nothing more. You are not a Paleontologist, and your opinion about this subject -- presumably among many other subjects -- is meaningless.

If you wish to have Ichthy reclassified, you're going to have to do much better than what you've presented here.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#107086 Jan 11, 2013
WHOOPS!

"A History of British Fossils, Volume 2" was published in **1849**, not 1949,

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#107087 Jan 11, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll give this to you, Maz: You certainly do have an extremely high opinion of yourself!
Ichthy's NOSTRILS (NOT "blowhole") were located between the eyes and base of the snout, not the top of the head.
Ichthy DOES have some features that they share with present-day Cetacea, but these characteristics are simply examples of covergent evolution.
Although Ichthy was viviporous, there are several other examples of reptile species that also have live birth, including several species of snakes, lizards and amphibians.
Yes, Ichthy was warm-blooded. So were dinosaurs.
Ichthy clearly had a diapsid skull, and Diapsids are reptiles.
It was also presented here (forgot the poster -- sorry) that Icthy had both reptilian ears and lower jaw features.
Ichthy was described as a reptile in "A History of British Fossils, Volume 2"
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/books/britfossils/p...
which was published in 1949, a full decade before Darwin's "On the Origin of Species", so there was no philosophical axe to grind in callng Ichthy a reptile rather than a mammal.
Your pronouncement that "Ichthyosaurs are Mammals!" is based upon your ignorance, nothing more. You are not a Paleontologist, and your opinion about this subject -- presumably among many other subjects -- is meaningless.
If you wish to have Ichthy reclassified, you're going to have to do much better than what you've presented here.
Nice work. You give an even better description of nostril placement in ichthyosaurs than I have. I just said on top of the head, but clearly it that is too braod a description and you have found what I couldn't. So they are just nostrils. I wondered. I have until now been left with Maz's contention to base my arguement around. So not a true blow hole in the sense of whales. More like crocodilian nostrils except at the base of the snout rather than the tip.

Well done.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#107088 Jan 11, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
You have your answer, Marky.
I most certainly do.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 8 min deutscher Nationa... 134,259
Science News (Sep '13) 16 min Hatti_Hollerand 2,948
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 5 hr DanFromSmithville 13,630
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 8 hr Dogen 718
How would creationists explain... 16 hr Chimney1 439
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 19 hr DanFromSmithville 507
Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with... Dec 20 nobody 7
More from around the web