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

Full story: Asheville Citizen-Times

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 ...

Comments (Page 5,254)

Showing posts 105,061 - 105,080 of132,995
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107079
Jan 11, 2013
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Ditto reply to Dan above.
The only extra thing I will add is Whales donít have lips, so they canít really suckle the milk. Instead itís almost injected into the babyís 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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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."

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107086
Jan 11, 2013
 
WHOOPS!

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

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107088
Jan 11, 2013
 
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
You have your answer, Marky.
I most certainly do.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107089
Jan 11, 2013
 
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
God says your wrong:
Genesis 2:7
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground..."
The Law of Biogenesis says that life only comes from a previous life. That life doesn't spontainiously generate. The bible says that GOD is a living GOD, thus life from life and the law of biogenesis is satisfied, and the atheist world view demands a violation of the science they work, and this demand has never been satisfied.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107090
Jan 11, 2013
 
Elohim wrote:
<quoted text>Perhaps you don't know but geologists do, 4.5 billion years.
No they don't, and you don't either. No one was there to witness it, or document it. All you have is a faith based belief based on a few of the mostly unknown peramiters.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107091
Jan 11, 2013
 
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Wiki: octalite. Cell walls have always been the issue. None disputes bio-chemical reactions being at the base of all life.
Then replicate it!!
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107092
Jan 11, 2013
 
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
His motivation was as you correctly state, personal recognition. He wanted fame for himself and glory for Great Britain. Evolution was the vehicle, not the destination.
Just as with you, being INCAPABLE of distinguishing the difference because your investment in promoting Creationism over scientific inquiry is personal, not selfless. It's all about the motivation. What is mine, you might ask? Entertainment.
He chose an evolutionary hoax because he knew, and it was obvious, they needed the help. Still do.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107093
Jan 11, 2013
 
MazHere wrote:
You prefer to be the mad woman jumping all over the place in a delusional state of confused evasion.
How can you not see yourself in this description?
MazHere wrote:
There is overwhelming evidence of cetacean traits, the best being a blow hole.
Ichthyosaurs didn't have a blowhole.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107094
Jan 11, 2013
 
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
And you don't know that the Earth is only 6000-10000 years old.
DUH! Dummy, I never said it was.
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
You weren't there to see your "god" magically poof the universe into existence.
I never said I was.
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
All you do is regurgitate the words and ideas of some bronze age, goat herders who wrote a FAIRY TALE some 2300+ years ago.
I rarely ever even mention creationism. I'm not here to promote creationism. I'm here showing the psuedoscience of the evolutionary fallasy.
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
Me personally, and I imagine for the VAST majority of people on our planet,...<snip>
It doesn't matter what you think.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107095
Jan 11, 2013
 
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
You LIE about everything else. Chances are that this is just another one of your LIES.
It doesn't matter what you think.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107096
Jan 11, 2013
 
Thomas Robertson wrote:
marksman11 wrote:
HAHAHA...you don't even know emperically that the earth is a million years old. You weren't there to observe the origin of life, and all you do is spout what other have told you, that also weren't there and don't know.
You mean Creationists were there to witness the creation of Adam and Eve?
Did I say that? Do you know the difference between faith based beliefs, and your faith in science?
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107097
Jan 11, 2013
 
MAAT wrote:
We are mutating.
Nothing to do with the fall, but simple observable evolution.
So suddenly observation matters to an evolutionists???

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107098
Jan 11, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Then replicate it!!
We can replicate life, we're looking for how it can happen without our intervention.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 105,061 - 105,080 of132,995
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••