The Evolution Delusion: conspiracy ?

Originally posted by rnaa
Here's a video that explains it quite well.

Doesn't explain any evolution of:

* clock
* sex
* gender

It just assumed they existed.

There is a lot of abiogensis assumptions made in this thread that don't seem acknowledged.

When they do, maybe they'll understand pregensis. (Oh, and progenitor conspiracies... oh my!!)

Originally posted by rnaa
We are not discussing the universe.

In Theory of Evolution, nobody creates the universe nor destroys the universe.

However, if we apply the Big Bang, then the Theory of Evolution has to exclude the Big Bang.

Nor are we discussing the creation of matter.

How then to talk about the 'big elephant in the room' and not mention about any theory how matter evolved. Species is made of matter, so it must have also evolved to form species.

We are discussing the organization of matter in a finite 'relatively' closed system and its behavior with respect to the known processes of chemistry and physics.

Then you didn't understand what I said unless you tried to repeat what I said in some manner.

How so? Most mutations that result in an 'increase in information' still use the exact same number of molecules that existed before the mutation.

Not when conservation of energy is applied. If there are 10 bytes of storage units, and two are already used, and we add 8 more data information, that would fill 10 bytes worth of information. That is a vague way to understand this, so maybe it is oversimplified.

Let's say 10 bytes of information of storage and all are filled with some data. Describe how would an 'increase in information' affect these 10 bytes if that is all what exists in the finite.

reply to post by dzonatas

In Theory of Evolution, nobody creates the universe nor destroys the universe.

However, if we apply the Big Bang, then the Theory of Evolution has to exclude the Big Bang.

The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang. That is the Theory of Cosmology (which is no where near as developed as the Theory of Evolution).

How then to talk about the 'big elephant in the room' and not mention about any theory how matter evolved.

The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with matter 'evolving' or being created or anything of the sort.

Species is made of matter, so it must have also evolved to form species.

I think you meant 'life' here, not 'species'.

The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with matter becomming life. That is Abiogenesis (for which there are some very good hypotheses but has not, as far as I know been elevated to 'Theory' yet)

Then you didn't understand what I said unless you tried to repeat what I said in some manner.

I think I did understand you, but please enlighten me if you disagree.

Not when conservation of energy is applied. If there are 10 bytes of storage units, and two are already used, and we add 8 more data information, that would fill 10 bytes worth of information. That is a vague way to understand this, so maybe it is oversimplified.

Let's say 10 bytes of information of storage and all are filled with some data. Describe how would an 'increase in information' affect these 10 bytes if that is all what exists in the finite.

OK: ten bytes of information: 11111 11111 - lets say that encodes for a specific enzyme that performs a particular job.

Now a mutation occurs: 11111 11101 - that encodes for almost the same enzyme, but not quite. That new enzyme not only does the original job, but causes a side effect that makes me more attractive to the opposite sex. We haven't used any more storage, but we have 'created' more information.

Simplistic obviously, but a simple concept. Another method is 'frame shifting' explained in this link that I posted earlier:

Evolution and Information:The Nylon Bug

And besides, there are millions of 'unused' bytes in DNA and RNA that are all available, we haven't filled up the storage space by any means.

Originally posted by rnaa
The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with matter 'evolving' or being created or anything of the sort.

Ok, matter just existed with (A) no end and (B) no begin, yet you specified a finite universe. Need to clarify this because (A) + (B) = infinite.

I think you meant 'life' here, not 'species'.

We still got to make the distinction between natural life and not natural life. Dinosaurs are stated to be extinct.

Now a mutation occurs: 11111 11101

That is merely an expressed difference and nothing to do with creationism.

That new enzyme

If there were only 10 bytes in the finite then a 'new' byte implies an additional byte to make 11 bytes, and that would be creationism.

but causes a side effect

If 11 bytes didn't originally exist, how did the side effect happen to 'increase' from 10 bytes.

that makes me more attractive to the opposite sex.

That explains you didn't understand what I meant by 10 bytes only in the finite, like a finite universe that only has 10 bytes.

Notice that we haven't even applied the rule that observed can't be the observer, so that would even complicate further with only 10 bytes in an entire finite universe.

We haven't used any more storage, but we have 'created' more information.

To 'create' more information would be to increase the number of bytes available.

'unused' bytes in DNA and RNA that are all available, we haven't filled up the storage space by any means.

We tried to keep it simple with only 10 bytes and that is it. There is no 11th 'unused' byte in the example finite universe of only 10 bytes.

If it is not proven random then it is not natural.

Say you.

That does not mean random events are not apart of nature as the mere act of nature may be the use of randomness.

Self contradictory freind.

At molecular level the very first thing I'd improve is the Calvin cycle. It's so far from perfect. Any 2nd year biochemistry student ought to come up with much more efficient design(s) for carbon fixation.

So why havent they? why havent you?

Who says so? Everybody who has a clue I guess. Mammals started to radiate (in greater scale) only after the dinosaurs were gone. Here's a question for you. Why did mammals start to radiate only after the dinosaurs were gone? If you can't answer this you clearly have absolutely no idea how evolution (in theory) works.

Never the less, they were already begun long before. The climate changed (you can except the extinction event) became less suitable (atmosphere) for dino's and more suitable for mammals. Lack of dinos obviously changed things much, but you assume what? that mammals would have become extinct had not the dinos?
It may have just taken longer for them to become more prominant. Your argument is based on supposition, infact the entire time line is based on supposition and the fossil record, carbon dating etc.

If we exclude organic cancer, then AIDS and cancerous cells are the same thing, and that answers your question why there is detectable radiation.

Maybe I should save my breath on why this happens.

How is this relevant to the quote you posted?

I mean how could a fish evolve from having gills to lungs without dying?
to go from taking oxygen from water to air,

Look at salamandas and axylotals, both systems are apparent.

Those who believe in ever 'increase in information' should realize that something needs to store that information, which means physical resources are used to store that information, which mean there is a constant take over of the physical universe from natural resources to resources that are only used to store information.

Dont genes store information? What is instinct?

look im not saying it didn't happen and i feel that evolution through mutations does take place almost surely, but my research of late has led me to believe that these mutations may not in fact be so random, and may not occur over such long periods,,,,

You may be correct. Physical change via gene mutation (adaptive) has been documented in Red belly black snakes (P.porphriacus) in australia since the introduction of cane toads just 70 years ago.
See links below

www.owlnet.rice.edu...

www.canetoadsinoz.com...

www.abc.net.au...

[edit on 28-2-2010 by wayaboveitall]

reply to post by nophun


# Evolution is just a theory not fact.
Theory
1.
a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Fact

–noun
1.
something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2.
something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3.
a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.

Let us also define what evolution is based upon what is being discussed here

one organism changing into another such as a lizard into a chicken, not adaptation or variation which does occur, such as small dogs large dogs, cherry tomatoes or early girl.

Evolution has never shown one piece of evidence as proof that anything has changed only speculation that a certain fossil is the grandfather of a different kind of animal then what he was fossils are not evidence.


# Carbon dating is wrong.

The flawed science of carbon dating is based upon assumptions right from the start of the experiment every time, what? you say, that the rate at which the carbon 14 atom decays has been constant since the dawn of time.

Deny many will but what I stated is true unless some one has recorded the decay rates ages ago and we can compare those rates today to see if they are the same. There is no evidence that solar flares, magnetic decay, volcanic activity, meteors, moisture, ect have not had an effect upon the decay rates.

biblicalgeology.net...
www.pathlights.com...


# There is no evidence of Evolution.

Already stated above


# The gaps, the gaps!

That would be fossils do not prove evolution as dead bones are only proof that something lived and died no proof that it even had offspring.


# Cambrian explosion.
library.thinkquest.org...

If approximately 70% of the rocks on earth are sedimentary rock then it is highly possible that the earth was completely flooded as in Noah's day. Which then account for the smaller slower organisms being on the bottom of the pile with the larger faster on top that could have escaped the flood longer. The vast fields of fossils of the same kinds are evidence of such a thing just as the vast coal fields. Fossilization is not an every day process it is a process that requires the right conditions. Just look at the millions of buffalo that were killed and where are all the fossils.
Also Polystrate fossils alone disprove the geologic column as nothing organic is going to surrive millions of years to be covered and fossilized.

# Crocoduck has STILL not been found.

Not even worth discussion

# Proof of Dinosaurs and humans walking side by side. (foot prints)

and cave paintings, Egyptian hieroglyphics, Iran hieroglyphics, Inca Stones, China and Japan drawings

Unlike many today these people did not make up these things from imagination as they drew them fairly accurate.


# fossils do not show ancestry.

A fossil is a dead organism that lived and died. But I guess like the Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man ( Complete Man and his wife made from the fragment of a pigs tooth) So science doesn't mind making up stories to propagate the religion of evolution.




# The second law of thermodynamics.

If you can see that everything is winding down and wearing out and nothing is getter better with out added energy for a short time then there is a blindness that is truly self inflicted.

reply to post by wayaboveitall


Dont genes store information? What is instinct?

Corn has been mutated in every direction possible...........end result corn

Evolution has never shown one piece of evidence as proof that anything has changed only speculation that a certain fossil is the grandfather of a different kind of animal then what he was fossils are not evidence.

Im sorry to ruin your party freind....

news.discovery.com...

www.owlnet.rice.edu...

www.canetoadsinoz.com...

www.abc.net.au...

Corn has been mutated in every direction possible...........end result corn

Whats your point here? What need has corn to physically change appearance via mutation? None, so ofcourse its still corn. Your observations/arguments are irrelevent, flawed and ignorant.

Also Polystrate fossils alone disprove the geologic column as nothing organic is going to surrive millions of years to be covered and fossilized.

They prove no such thing.

Polystrate fossils of a single organism (such as a tree trunk) extend through more than one geological stratum. Entire "fossil forests" have been discovered.[1] They are found worldwide and are common[2] in the Eastern United States, Eastern Canada, England, France, Germany, and Australia, especially in areas where coal seams are present. Within Carboniferous coal-bearing strata, it is also very common to find what are called Stigmaria (root stocks) within the same stratum. Stigmaria are completely absent in post-Carboniferous strata, which contain either coal, polystrate trees, or both.

en.wikipedia.org...

The word polystrate is not a standard geological term, and is found most often in creationist materials.[3]

What a surprise eh!


[edit on 1-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

[edit on 1-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

reply to post by ACTS 2:38

# Proof of Dinosaurs and humans walking side by side. (foot prints) and cave paintings, Egyptian hieroglyphics, Iran hieroglyphics, Inca Stones, China and Japan drawings Unlike many today these people did not make up these things from imagination as they drew them fairly accurate.

Who do you need to thank for your knowledge of what dinosaurs looked like? Yup, it's the same scientists that are constantly adding evidence to the Theory of Evolution. There isn't a shred of evidence that dinosaurs and homo sapiens sapiens 'walked side by side.'

reply to post by dzonatas



Originally posted by rnaa
The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with matter 'evolving' or being created or anything of the sort.

Ok, matter just existed with (A) no end and (B) no begin, yet you specified a finite universe. Need to clarify this because (A) + (B) = infinite.

No I didn't. I said we are talking about the Earth. We only know about evolution on earth.

We still got to make the distinction between natural life and not natural life. Dinosaurs are stated to be extinct.

What is unnatural about Dinosaurs?

That is merely an expressed difference and nothing to do with creationism.

It is a code that produces a different enzyme that the one it did before. The different enzyme does more work than the original. If the mutation gives rise to new function, it must have added new information. And yes, it has nothing to do with creationism.

If there were only 10 bytes in the finite then a 'new' byte implies an additional byte to make 11 bytes, and that would be creationism.

No it doesn't. All it implies is that a different enzyme is produced. If that enzyme does more work than the first one, then more information is being stored.

If 11 bytes didn't originally exist, how did the side effect happen to 'increase' from 10 bytes.

That explains you didn't understand what I meant by 10 bytes only in the finite, like a finite universe that only has 10 bytes.

Notice that we haven't even applied the rule that observed can't be the observer, so that would even complicate further with only 10 bytes in an entire finite universe.

We haven't used any more storage, but we have 'created' more information.


To 'create' more information would be to increase the number of bytes available.

'unused' bytes in DNA and RNA that are all available, we haven't filled up the storage space by any means.


We tried to keep it simple with only 10 bytes and that is it. There is no 11th 'unused' byte in the example finite universe of only 10 bytes.

OK. I see where you have gone astray.

The 10 bytes of DNA information that you have are not 'the whole story'. They are codes that identify the a process.

Suppose they are post office boxes. 11111 11111 contains a letter. 11111 11101 contains several letters, perhaps including the same one in 11111 11111.

That is how DNA works, sort of. A specific DNA sequence encodes for the production of a specific set of proteins, enzymes, whatever, that do specific jobs. Change the DNA sequence slightly and you may produce a slightly different protein that does almost but not quite the same thing, or even turn off the protein all together. That change may have a big impact or no impact on the organism.

"Adding information" to the DNA encoding is not violating any laws of thermodynamics, or adding bytes, it is just changing the molecules that get produced.

Everything is just chemical reactions, nothing is created or destroyed. Existing stuff is reused or co-opted, or stops being used. No magic.

Originally posted by Zenithar


one thin ki haven't come across is how exactly the first land animals arose and came out of the water? I mean i dont get how mutations over so many years can create legs and arms from fish, or am I wrong?

I mean how could a fish evolve from having gills to lungs without dying?
to go from taking oxygen from water to air,

just putting it out there!!

hi and zenithar , my timeline I posted in another thread covers both changes you asked. In short.

They developed legs while still in the water they may have used them as a escape method

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/53e3b61fb993.jpg[/atsimg]
Tiktaalik
his legs are not good enough to walk around but he could probably prop himself out of the water to gtfo of the way of some predator

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/282f8664cdd5.jpg[/atsimg]
Acanthostega
This guy is his relative he was one of the first known to fully be capable of coming onto land!

Tiktaalik like some other ancient fish had .. you guessed it lungs!

This is awesome stuff IMO

reply to post by ACTS 2:38


Dude, your just quoting creationist sites
I am just going to ignore you and post ..

www.talkorigins.org

Your arguments are really bad Take a day and research yourself what is wrong with what you are saying.

I refuse to debate with someone that just copy and pasted 80% of askgenisis

ps
At least you never asked me "Were you there?" .. referring to the time of the dinosaurs. haha silly people are silly


[edit on 1-3-2010 by nophun]

Originally posted by davesidious
I think it's a safe bet to say that much closer to 100% of all biologists agree that the theory of evolution accurately describes the phenomenon of evolution. Most people who argue that the ToE is false do so from ignorance, not because there are holes in the theory (which is about as water-tight as possible).

I don't think creationists understand that to disprove the ToE, they have to disprove every single discovery and piece of evidence that backs it up. Including DNA.

But anyway, I'm sure this thread will be a rousing success, filled with creationists saying how piltdown man disproves everything or, as you said, hiding in the gaps, and people with even a rudimentary biology education fruitlessly trying to teach them.

Here we go again!

No, there YOU go again.

Unfortunately, readers of ATS may remain unaware of this intellectual ferment because the debate about evolution continues to assume the quality of an abstract and philosophical "dialogue of the deaf" between Creationists and Darwinists.

Although our knowledge of the molecular details of biological organization is undergoing a revolutionary expansion, open-minded discussions of the impact of these discoveries are all too rare. The possibility of a non-Darwinian, scientific theory of evolution is virtually never considered much less debated. No wonder their is so much concensus science going on. In Fact the tactics I see being used in this thread are so typical of those I had seen at Richard Dawkins forum where their was always this underlying distaste for anything that wasn't Darwin and when EVER it wasn't Darwinian, it was summarily ridiculed as "creationist garbage" when the most modern research and findings regarding DNA are giving creationist and ID, something they can now sink their teeth into. Something that is turning the ToE on it's arrogant head and hopefully give it a lesson in humility because the hubris coming from the halls of academia is the kind that still has the global warming camp, thinking we just need more education on AGW when the FACT is, they need more education on how to SELL IT. That is the reason most of our math and science is suffering so in this country and the neo darwinists have been one of the reasons science has become so dogmatic. If you don't agree, then you are not a Scientist because it is a common discussion and NO dave, the 100% you say agree, are about 50% who are too afraid to disagree.

Genome Organization. Our current ideas of genome organization are completely different from the "beads on a string" view that dominated genetics in the 1940s and 1950s. At that time genes were "units" which corresponded to individual organismal traits, and the "one gene-one enzyme" hypothesis told us that the essential business of each gene was to encode a specific protein molecule linked to a particular phenotype. We have now deconstructed each genetic locus into a modular assembly of regulatory and coding motifs.

How all of this modularity, complexity, and integration arose and changed during the history of life on earth is a central evolutionary question. Localized random mutation, selection operating "one gene at a time" (John Maynard Smith's formulation), and gradual modification of individual functions are unable to provide satisfactory explanations for the molecular data, no matter how much time for change is assumed. There are simply too many potential degrees of freedom for random variability and too many interconnections to account for.

Genetic Molecular Biologist James Shapiro:

So presumptuous and so completely wrong about everything you said. My oh my just who am I in the presence of with such infallible science?


100% eh? Gee that's a pretty bold statement there Professor. You ARE a Scientist are you not? I mean when you say "most people who argue the ToE is false do so from ignorance."

I take it then you are too busy arguing with "Most" of them as if I thought their were any you argued with that you thought DIDN'T argue from ignorance.

I can already tell by the tone and your "know it all" statements using such "scientific" methods of proving your point. I think MOST darwinists argue this same way, and MOST think they have a lock on the very word "science" The ToE is the ONLY theory taught is it not?

Do you know how many times the "ToE" has been given an entire re-vamp? Got any idea?

Take a guess.

To say that the ToE is water tight is about as un-science a statement a Professor "at your level" can make, don't you agree Doc?

"During embryonic development, cells make decisions about differentiation based on multiple molecular signals picked up from their environment and from their neighbors by means of surface receptors. These receptors are linked to intercellular molecular cascades called "signal transduction pathways" which integrate the inputs from the receptors to generate appropriate patterns of differential gene expression and morphogenesis of specialized cell structures.

Signal transduction is not limited to multicellular development. We are learning that virtually every aspect of cellular function is influenced by chemical messages detected, transmitted, and interpreted by molecular relays. To a remarkable extent, therefore, contemporary biology has become a science of sensitivity, inter- and intra-cellular communication, and control.

Given the enormous complexity of living cells and the need to coordinate literally millions of biochemical events, it would be surprising if powerful cellular capacities for information processing did not manifest themselves. In an important way, then, biology has returned to questions debated during the mechanism-vitalism controversy earlier this century."http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/02/third-way.html

Is there any guiding intelligence at work in the origin of species displaying exquisite adaptations that range from lambda prophage repression and the Krebs cycle through the mitotic apparatus and the eye to the immune system, mimicry, and social organization?

Some questions being asked by Scientists who are more peer reviewed and more intelligent than Richard Dawkins who are secular biologists but are so angry at the draconian and pathetically archaic ToE are now stepping up to smack down the Darwinian paradigm.

We can speculate what some of these more manageable questions might be:

Shapiro offers the following:

1) How can molecular control circuits be combined to direct the expression of novel traits?

2) Do genomes display characteristic system architectures that allow us to predict phenotypic consequences when we rearrange DNA sequence components?

3) Do signal transduction networks contribute functional information as they regulate the action of natural genetic engineering hardware?

He concludes with what many in the field of Biology and Medicine have used to begin the process of finally getting our status in science from stuck to un-stuck in dimwitted darwinian dogma. I will not respond to your rebuttal as It is as predictable as it is a waste of time.

Yeah I know the type "Professor"

"Questions like those above will certainly prove to be naive because we are just on the threshold of a new way of thinking about living organisms and their variations. Nonetheless, these questions serve to illustrate the potential for addressing the deep issues of evolution from a radically different scientific perspective. Novel ways of looking at longstanding problems have historically been the chief motors of scientific progress. However, the potential for new science is hard to find in the Creationist-Darwinist debate. Both sides appear to have a common interest in presenting a static view of the scientific enterprise. This is to be expected from the Creationists, who naturally refuse to recognize science's remarkable record of making more and more seemingly miraculous aspects of our world comprehensible to our understanding and accessible to our technology. But the neo-Darwinian advocates claim to be scientists, and we can legitimately expect of them a more open spirit of inquiry. Instead, they assume a defensive posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth, which only serves to validate the Creationists' criticism that Darwinism has become more of a faith "than a science.[/evolutionlist.blogspot.com...]



[edit on 1-3-2010 by CT Slayer]

Originally posted by nophun

Originally posted by Zenithar


one thin ki haven't come across is how exactly the first land animals arose and came out of the water? I mean i dont get how mutations over so many years can create legs and arms from fish, or am I wrong?

I mean how could a fish evolve from having gills to lungs without dying?
to go from taking oxygen from water to air,

just putting it out there!!

hi and zenithar , my timeline I posted in another thread covers both changes you asked. In short.

They developed legs while still in the water

they may have used them as a escape method

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/53e3b61fb993.jpg[/atsimg]
Tiktaalik
his legs are not good enough to walk around but he could probably prop himself out of the water to gtfo of the way of some predator

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/282f8664cdd5.jpg[/atsimg]
Acanthostega
This guy is his relative

he was one of the first known to fully be capable of coming onto land!

Tiktaalik like some other ancient fish had .. you guessed it lungs!

This is awesome stuff IMO

Lungs eh? ha ha is THAT what you believe? Tell me Doc, how much of the fossil had the soft tissue we could examine as the DNA expression for a Lung? Perhaps it was Balast? I mean this was a bottom feeder was it not?

No no you go on thinking just the way you are and by the way, the creationist site that refutes what YOU think it is, does so because Atheists won't argue and won't look at the evidence to suggest anything other than their own worldview. You want to find out what the truth?

Or is this old tiktalaak canard a fixed opinion with no room for facts? The fact is, they have a fish and that is REALLY all they have but it doesn't serve as evidence of anything OTHER than a dead fish.

You might think this is too hard to believe but if YOU were going to design a bottom feeder, wouldn't it be wise to give it a little more support using,, ohhh say some quasi fin foot kind of appendage?

Sure looks like a wise designer created a bottom feeder using that kind of conventional wisdom. But if you want to believe those are fins turning into legs and later it will be coming out on to land another million years or so later, that would be what I would expect from a forum warrior but DO try to consider what I just said. Most fish are the way they are because we KNOW DNA no longer needs the ToE to design ANY living thing.

Evolution simply isn't required to bring all the species about.

[edit on 1-3-2010 by CT Slayer]

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by ACTS 2:38

 

# Proof of Dinosaurs and humans walking side by side. (foot prints) and cave paintings, Egyptian hieroglyphics, Iran hieroglyphics, Inca Stones, China and Japan drawings Unlike many today these people did not make up these things from imagination as they drew them fairly accurate.

Who do you need to thank for your knowledge of what dinosaurs looked like? Yup, it's the same scientists that are constantly adding evidence to the Theory of Evolution. There isn't a shred of evidence that dinosaurs and homo sapiens sapiens 'walked side by side.'

What if I could show you a fossil that had a full grown man in its jaws ? Oh something like a T-rex? and homo-erectus? That suffice?

Originally posted by CT Slayer

Lungs eh? ha ha is THAT what you believe? Tell me Doc, how much of the fossil had the soft tissue we could examine as the DNA expression for a Lung? Perhaps it was Balast? I mean this was a bottom feeder was it not?

Are you joking ? I hope you are joking .. please ?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/52a34842b985.jpg[/atsimg]
Skull showing spiracle holes above the eyes

Spiracles are small openings on the surface of some animals that usually lead to respiratory systems.

All that if from the wiki .. can we take 2 minutes to research before we make asses of ourselves next time.

edit ..
and WTF is so hard to believe about a fish with lungs ? You never even read this thread Kad (I think) already showed a living fish with lungs ..

named yup the lungfish

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 1-3-2010 by nophun]

Originally posted by nophun

Originally posted by CT Slayer

Lungs eh? ha ha is THAT what you believe? Tell me Doc, how much of the fossil had the soft tissue we could examine as the DNA expression for a Lung? Perhaps it was Balast? I mean this was a bottom feeder was it not?

Are you joking ? I hope you are joking .. please ?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/52a34842b985.jpg[/atsimg]
Skull showing spiracle holes above the eyes

Spiracles are small openings on the surface of some animals that usually lead to respiratory systems.

All that if from the wiki .. can we take 2 minutes to research before we make asses of ourselves next time.

Sorry I never use wikki, too easy to edit but you go ahead if you like to use that. Oh and no Professor, I wasn't joking.

I also don't get it about he "spiral" . Tell me Doc what is it you think I should have had such a mind altering epiphany over ?

There are fish with lungs today !

Here you dont trust wiki.
What about the university of Chicago ?

tiktaalik.uchicago.edu...

OR!

www.newton.dep.anl.gov...
www.csupomona.edu...
serendip.brynmawr.edu...

Edit.

Quit calling me Doc, creationist fool.



[edit on 1-3-2010 by nophun]

reply to post by CT Slayer


Don't believe the wiki article itself, but read the cited sources. That's how an encyclopaedia works.

about the spiral.
Lungfish living today work under the same idea.
en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 1-3-2010 by nophun]