The Evolution Delusion: conspiracy ?

Originally posted by nophun
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]

Well you are not a PHD? Then I would ask you to quit making suppositions as if you are a scientist. By the way, I am correct, after reading the websites YOU linked, all of them use language suggesting and infering and speculating but that is all they have. That is not proof, that is IMAGINATION and nothing more. Their is nothing they know unequivocally about that dead extinct bottom feeder we couldn't extrapolate about many sub species of carp. If it was so "perfectly" adapted , what caused it to be extinct?

Your not the pope stop saying there is a god.

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by CT Slayer

 

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

I have all the cited sources you could want but if you think I am going to read all those just to argue with an atheist stuck in "infallible science mode"

I got better things to do.

like REAL science in a real lab on REAL rats n "stuff like that"

Nite dave420

Originally posted by nophun
Your not the pope stop saying there is a god.

Hell I'm not even Catholic so stop putting words in my mouth.

Oh that's right you're not a scientist. You're just an atheist with an axe to grind and you just want to shift into "must be a fundie mode" and start mocking my religion. The one you were so presumptuous to believe is mine.


get more practice. We're done. I know where this goes from here.

Originally posted by CT Slayer


Well you are not a PHD? Then I would ask you to quit making suppositions as if you are a scientist. By the way, I am correct, after reading the websites YOU linked, all of them use language suggesting and infering and speculating but that is all they have. That is not proof, that is IMAGINATION and nothing more. Their is nothing they know unequivocally about that dead extinct bottom feeder we couldn't extrapolate about many sub species of carp. If it was so "perfectly" adapted , what caused it to be extinct?

Species go extinct all the time I heard 99.9% of all species ever on earth are now extinct. Lots of smart people (I cannot comment because I am no PHD) say every species will die off. It is a natural phenomenon. (obviously not talking about mass extinction here )

This is natural (negative) selection! if a species can no longer compete .. it dies.

You really do not seem to have any understanding on Evolution or extinction

"like REAL science in a real lab on REAL rats n "stuff like that" "

This is my new sig Way to funny haha




[edit on 1-3-2010 by nophun]

Their is nothing they know unequivocally about that dead extinct bottom feeder we couldn't extrapolate about many sub species of carp. If it was so "perfectly" adapted , what caused it to be extinct?

who says it was perfectly adapted?
Who says its extinct, perhaps it simply did adapt further and became the ancestor of living lungfish today. What you seem to miss, is that every species ever discovered is not nessesarily extinct, though many are, especially since we rocked on the scene.
Neanderthal man is considered extinct, yet there are veiws that they simply bred with cro magnan (i think) and became the ancestor of modern homo sapiens.
Point is, species do change, this is proven, what many creationist fail to accept is that individuals dont change drastically, and that species dont become totally different animals either aka fish to bird.
Incidently, not all bottom feeding fish have supportive fins. Bottom feeding fish come from differing enviroments remember.
The gist of evolution is that its driven by adaption to survive in whatever means isnesesary or it fails and dies out as a species.



Oh this is such a tired argument, for everyone I think.
At the end of the day it seems, should science explore new means to, and discover and prove the workings of life/evolution/adaption and so on, then we will be enlightened, but still no closer to answering weather or not there is an intelligent designer.
The more intricate and marvelous discoveries science makes, the more questions are created, there will never be an ultimate answer.
Infact the more incredible that which science discovers, the more likely we may be to come to the conclusion that pure random fluke can simply no longer be accepted, so creationist should not run from science, nor science
be too confident, for todays science is tomorrows archaic idea.
The first man to claim the earth was round, was likely thought a fool aswell, perhaps we will discover we are all far from the full story.
As it is, I make no ultimate conclusions but I do beleive that adaptive evolution is ongoing and self evident inliving creatures today. How this comes about I dont care to speculate, Im not that arrogant.



[edit on 1-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

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

The problem with your argument is the random superposition of how you jump back and forth between the nature of evolution and the theory of evolution. This is a problem others have too. They have to choose one or the other. When they draw upon both, then they have to make sure there is a clear distinct if something applies as in the nature of how something evolved of the theory of how something evolved.

People that are unable to make that distinction are creationist or IDers.

What is unnatural about Dinosaurs?

The theory is obviously incomplete because whatever was natural about Dinosaurs can't be described by a theory that also claims they are distinct and unable to prove what is natural or unnatural about them.

It is a code that produces a different enzyme that the one it did before.

That doesn't answer where the resources, the chemical elements, appeared to allow the existence of another enzyme. If 10 chemical elements are used to make 10 genes, ratio of 1 to 1, then there is no other chemical element to produce another enzyme.

That enzyme would have to become distinct in order for another enzyme to appear and use the resources of the previous enzyme.

All it implies is that a different enzyme is produced.

I hope you understand the contradiction in your superposition. Even if the enzyme makes a difference, with only 10 chemical elements, then the only difference it could make to produce another enzyme is to share. It divides into two enzymes. Each new enzyme has 5 chemical elements with a ratio of 1:1 of genes, and the result is 2 enzymes in a finite universe of 10 genes. Make sure this is clear about a finite amount of resources.

If that enzyme does more work than the first one, then more information is being stored.

No more information can be stored if there are new resources. No more genes can be produced to store information if there are no more chemical elements to produce those genes.

Everything is just chemical reactions, nothing is created or destroyed. Existing stuff is reused or co-opted, or stops being used.

However, you didn't apply the rules of a finite universe because of your superposition mix.

Next prediction... someone will argue with me that it takes metaphysics to create a physical chemical element... and wham... creationism again.

Originally posted by wayaboveitall


Who says its extinct, perhaps it simply did adapt and became the ancestor of living lungfish today. What you seem to miss, is that every species ever discovered is not nessesarily extinct.

The thing with this is it even if the lungfish (or humans .. that's right I said it!) is branched off of Tiktaalik it is no longer the same "species". (no matter how you are defining specie it would no longer be the same)

Originally posted by nophun
This is natural (negative) selection! if a species can no longer compete .. it dies.

One by one and we consider it a monotheistic computer.

Sadly, there can be only one.

Science of execution:

1) killing

2) thinking 'outside the box' in order not to be killed

[edit on 1-3-2010 by dzonatas]

The thing with this is it even if the lungfish (or humans .. that's right I said it!) is branched off of Tiktaalik it is no longer the same "species". (no matter how you are defining specie it would no longer be the same)

Fair call, but its still a fish, not a new animal, this was my point.

Originally posted by nophun
The thing with this is it even if the lungfish (or humans .. that's right I said it!) is branched off of Tiktaalik it is no longer the same "species".

(no matter how you are defining specie it would no longer be the same)

Some try to tell me: that's life.

And I try to tell them: no, that's half-life.

I think many of you guys are taking CT Slayer way too seriously. It is tough to convey online, but I am pretty sure that CT Slayer is just playing devil's advocate and doing it with quite a bit of sarcasm. Although I would suggest CT Slayer dial it back a bit, as it is starting to become borderline offensive to creationists.

Originally posted by DJM8507
I think many of you guys are taking CT Slayer way too seriously. It is tough to convey online, but I am pretty sure that CT Slayer is just playing devil's advocate and doing it with quite a bit of sarcasm. Although I would suggest CT Slayer dial it back a bit, as it is starting to become borderline offensive to creationists.

Why do creationists (most) feel like they have been receiving some offense? If you're comfortable with your faith and beliefs, then reading text on a message board should not make you feel like a victim, and if it does, then your own insecurities are not the fault of another (unless trolling is involved). I'm not sure what's been going on with this site the past year, but these endless threads about the validity of evolution (or the lack thereof) always turn into a playground of ignorance and misinformation. The days of well thought, researched, and written arguments seem to have been replaced with arguments on both extremes of bias and nonsensical personal opinion.

The whole creationism vs. evolution is absurd anyways. One is based on faith and the other is based on empirical evidence. It's a circular argument that will never end until the mystery of abiogenesis (not evolution) is solved. Either that, or some empirical evidence to creationism is discovered.

reply to post by DisappearCompletely


Some species calls another species the same thing as their species. Offense is taken by a species becuase they do not want to be the same thing. Freedom of choice... 'to be or not to be'

Creationism vs. evolution is only absurd if there is no transistion; that is abnormal.

Simply, some want a 'top-down' approach and some want a 'bottom-up' approach.

Half-life: 'some from me and some for you'

[edit on 1-3-2010 by dzonatas]

reply to post by CT Slayer

If it was so "perfectly" adapted , what caused it to be extinct?

No animal is perfectly adapted. Evolution is a constant process and never reaches a goal. An animal can always be better in someway or its environment changes in such a way that it is no longer adapted for it.

Originally posted by nophun
By down I thought it was clear I mean something that hurts survival chances.

Up mount improbable is obviously when a beneficial change is completed.

Half-down mount return does not seem to be fully understood.

With proper transistions there is no need to verify completion. There are these splashes found on the likeness of your rock, however.

Mayan calendar may be simply based on tidal waves, yet to figure out if the wave is complete is self-execution.

Originally posted by wayaboveitall

Originally posted by rhino
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?

They have.

Originally posted by wayaboveitall

Originally posted by rhino
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.

Mammals started to radiate because of the sudden abundance of niches. Had that not been the case, well sure they might have taken over at a later time, but that means that they would have evolved under different conditions and thus no modern species would exist as they are (life histories are very important).

[edit on 1-3-2010 by rhinoceros]

Originally posted by wayaboveitall

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.

In this case it is your argument that is flawed, if you understood the process of RANDOM mutations you would see that the concept of NEED does not come into it. in fact evolving something because of a need almost indicates direction, I'm not saying he's right or wrong, just that bringing the concept of need into evolution is a mistake alot of people make, even on the discovery channel, if species evolved certain features because they are NEEDED, that would not be random at all!!!!

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 rnaa


Hey, good info here, thanks!

i knew most of that, i wasn't actually saying that mutations cause animals to die mostly, just questioning another poster, but thanks anyway!!

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

yes that is certainly awesome, and hard to refute, I will have to do some digging because this is really interesting, thanks for the info!!!