Evolution discussion

[carolinajazz]

Legless lizards exist today same as snakes with atavistic legs. Same as amphibians with no legs. You are being ridiculous with arguments about "retarded" animals taken from cartoon.
Question for you, what is this animal, snake or lizard?

....it's a lizard....the difference being not that it doesn't have legs, but that it has eyelids that allow it to blink, whereas NO snakes have eyelids that allow it to blink! However, it is still a reptile and will always be a reptile! It will always be cold blooded! Consider: Birds are warm-blooded, reptiles cold; birds incubate their eggs, reptiles don’t; birds have feathers, reptiles scales; birds have hollow bones, reptiles solid; birds have air-cooled engines, reptiles don’t; birds have four-chambered hearts, reptiles three-chambered; birds have a syrinx for singing, reptiles don’t. Plus much more. So a snake "evolving" into a legless lizard is a stingy step compared to the quantum leap from reptile to bird!

Also to be considered is when we let the fossil record speak, its testimony is not evolution-oriented. Instead, the testimony of the fossil record is creation-oriented. It shows that many different kinds of living things suddenly appeared. While there was great variety within each kind, these had no links to evolutionary ancestors before them. Nor did they have any evolutionary links to different kinds of living things that came after them. Various kinds of living things persisted with little change for long periods of time before some of them became extinct, while others survive down to this day.

So while breeding within a specific "kind" can and does occur to produce slight variations in size, height, color, etc.....the Bible's Genesis account that God created things "according to there kinds" is indisputable because the genetic code stops a plant or an animal from moving too far from the average. There can be great variety (as can be seen, for example, among humans, cats or dogs) but not so much that one living thing could change into another. Every experiment ever conducted with mutations proves this.

 

[PearlWatson]

....it's a lizard....the difference being not that it doesn't have legs, but that it has eyelids that allow it to blink, whereas NO snakes have eyelids that allow it to blink! However, it is still a reptile and will always be a reptile! It will always be cold blooded! Consider: Birds are warm-blooded, reptiles cold; birds incubate their eggs, reptiles don’t; birds have feathers, reptiles scales; birds have hollow bones, reptiles solid; birds have air-cooled engines, reptiles don’t; birds have four-chambered hearts, reptiles three-chambered; birds have a syrinx for singing, reptiles don’t. Plus much more. So a snake "evolving" into a legless lizard is a stingy step compared to the quantum leap from reptile to bird!

Also to be considered is when we let the fossil record speak, its testimony is not evolution-oriented. Instead, the testimony of the fossil record is creation-oriented. It shows that many different kinds of living things suddenly appeared. While there was great variety within each kind, these had no links to evolutionary ancestors before them. Nor did they have any evolutionary links to different kinds of living things that came after them. Various kinds of living things persisted with little change for long periods of time before some of them became extinct, while others survive down to this day.

So while breeding within a specific "kind" can and does occur to produce slight variations in size, height, color, etc.....the Bible's Genesis account that God created things "according to there kinds" is indisputable because the genetic code stops a plant or an animal from moving too far from the average. There can be great variety (as can be seen, for example, among humans, cats or dogs) but not so much that one living thing could change into another. Every experiment ever conducted with mutations proves this.

Good of you to join the discussion with some solid details.

 

[PearlWatson]

Damn you to natural selection hell!

 

[carolinajazz]

I just love the Darwin fish to human story:

Assume a fish swimming around in the water. (we don't need to explain how the fish got there since we know fish exist duh)
Then a couple of fish have a retard baby.
And the retard baby was different so he got to live.
The retard fish goes on to have more retard babies.
One day retard baby fish crawled out of the ocean with its mutant fish hands.
It has butt sex with a squirel or something and makes a retard frog squirel.
That then had a retard baby which was a monkey fish frog.
Then this monkey fish frog had sex with a different type of monkey.
Then that monkey had a mutant retard baby with another...

oh just look at our fake evolution chart to figure out the details

....that chart sure hood-winked a whole generation of kids.....and is still used today to hood-wink billions more!

 

[carolinajazz]

Good of you to join the discussion with some solid details.

....unlike the evolutions and "creationists" we deal in FACTS....not theories, assumptions, hypotheses and outright lies and deception!

 

[One Brow]

....it's a lizard....the difference being not that it doesn't have legs, but that it has eyelids that allow it to blink, whereas NO snakes have eyelids that allow it to blink! However, it is still a reptile and will always be a reptile! It will always be cold blooded! Consider: Birds are warm-blooded, reptiles cold; birds incubate their eggs, reptiles don’t; birds have feathers, reptiles scales; birds have hollow bones, reptiles solid; birds have air-cooled engines, reptiles don’t; birds have four-chambered hearts, reptiles three-chambered; birds have a syrinx for singing, reptiles don’t. Plus much more. So a snake "evolving" into a legless lizard is a stingy step compared to the quantum leap from reptile to bird!

You do realize that "quantum" means small, right?

Of course, no evolutionist would argue that a snake would give birth to a bird, just as no roofer would climb a ladder with one rung to the top of a two-story house.

Also to be considered is when we let the fossil record speak, its testimony is not evolution-oriented. Instead, the testimony of the fossil record is creation-oriented. It shows that many different kinds of living things suddenly appeared.

Before you make that statement, you need to give a precise definition of what a "kind" is.

While there was great variety within each kind, these had no links to evolutionary ancestors before them.

Incorrect. Links to former populations are well-documented for a huge array of species.

Nor did they have any evolutionary links to different kinds of living things that came after them.

Ditto.

Various kinds of living things persisted with little change for long periods of time before some of them became extinct, while others survive down to this day.

Incorrect. Every population has changed.

So while breeding within a specific "kind" can and does occur to produce slight variations in size, height, color, etc.....the Bible's Genesis account that God created things "according to there kinds" is indisputable because the genetic code stops a plant or an animal from moving too far from the average.

Please provide a link to how the genetic code does this. The scientist who can actually present this finding will win a Nobel prize.

There can be great variety (as can be seen, for example, among humans, cats or dogs) but not so much that one living thing could change into another. Every experiment ever conducted with mutations proves this.

Again, since you haven't defined what a kind is, this is meaningless. I could just say that you and I are of the fish kind, so our kids can't be anything other than fish.

 

[carolinajazz]

Of course, no evolutionist would argue that a snake would give birth to a bird, just as no roofer would climb a ladder with one rung to the top of a two-story house.

Before you make that statement, you need to give a precise definition of what a "kind" is.

Science magazine said this: “Species do indeed have a capacity to undergo minor modifications in their physical and other characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it is reflected in an oscillation about a mean [average].” So, then, what is inherited by living things is not the possibility of continued change but instead (1)*stability and (2)*limited ranges of variation.
Thus, the book Molecules to Living Cells states: “The cells from a carrot or from the liver of a mouse consistently retain their respective tissue and organism identities after countless cycles of reproduction.” And Symbiosis in Cell Evolution says: “All life .*.*. reproduces with incredible fidelity.” Scientific American also observes: “Living things are enormously diverse in form, but form is remarkably constant within any given line of descent: pigs remain pigs and oak trees remain oak trees generation after generation.” And a science writer commented: “Rose bushes always blossom into roses, never into camellias. And goats give birth to kids, never to lambs.” He concluded that mutations “cannot account for overall evolution—why there are fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals.”

Now those were quotes from "educated" evolutionists!

The matter of variation within a kind explains something that influenced Darwin’s original thinking about evolution. When he was on the Galápagos Islands he observed a type of bird called a finch. These birds were the same type as their parent kind on the South American continent, from where they apparently had migrated. But there were curious differences, such as in the shape of their beaks. Darwin interpreted this as evolution in progress. But actually it was nothing more than another example of variety within a kind, allowed for by a creature’s genetic makeup. The finches were still finches. They were not turning into something else, and they never would.

Thus, what Genesis says is in full harmony with scientific fact. When you plant seeds, they produce only “according to their kinds,” so you can plant a garden with confidence in the dependability of that law. When cats give birth, their offspring are always cats. When humans become parents, their children are always humans. There is variation in color, size and shape, but always within the limits of the kind. Have you ever personally seen a case that was otherwise? Neither has anyone else.

 

[PearlWatson]

PW: Undirected contingencies don't account for much of anything...maybe tumors.
OB: There is an entire field of evolutionary design and programming that contradicts this. You set up a few conditions that determine success and some basic starting point. You repeatedly generate a couple of thousand designs with small, random changes (random variation) and then pick out the ones the best fit the criteria (natural selection). You keep repeating this until you get the behavior you want. Among other things, I recall there was an antenna designed by this process, one that looked nothing like any previous antenna designed by humans, that worked better than a human-designed antenna.
By the way, tumors are also very sophisticated forms of life. Some have existed for generations, being passed on from animal to animal (or in the case of Hela cultures, Petri dish to Petri dish)​

Not contradictory at all. You know that part "you set up a few conditions" and "You repeatedly generate" and "You keep repeating"...that's the intelligent design part.
Okay, lets throw out tumors as possible candidates and we are left with nothing.
***************************************

PW: Dembski has no desire to deny that rocks can be eroded to look like a face, but then again if you claim the faces on Mount Mushmore are merely a product of erosion, it is then he will have a problem with your claim.
OB: So would I. However, the reason is that, unlike the Man in the Mountain, Mt. Rushmore exhibits simplicity in it's design. Its faces are smooth, its lines are straight, its curves are steady. That's why it looks designed. That's why Complex Specified Information is an unworkable concept -- specifications are simplifications, thematically opposed to complexity.​

Think of specified as useful patterns. The sculpted rocks of Mt. Rushmore may not have a use besides tourism, but the faces they were copied from do. We have 2 asymetric eyes on the front of our face so we can have depth perception as we move about on 2 feet.
Under your random/accidental system there is no reason to expect that the first place our eyes appeared were on the front of our faces. Why don't we have ancestors with eyes at the end of each boob or knee? or on the back of their heads? The existence of clunkers like that would really lend some credibility to your crazy *** theory.
*************************************

PW: The problem for Darwiniacs is that most, if not all, of our biological systems look like "Mount Rushmore."
OB: Mt. Rushmore has no dangling parts, jury-rigged systems, useless baggage, etc. (By contrast, the man in the Mountain does have many extraneous features). Our biological systems show all kinds of complexities, but that puts them in opposition to Mt. Rushmore.​

If they had sculpted the entire bodies there would be 4 sets of dangling parts to admire.
But seriously, you seem to be implying that any existence of "flaws" in the system negates intelligent design. The only thing "flaws" negate are purity/perfection in the design/useful pattern.
You need to change that "does" to "did."
**************

PW: Formula (*) asserts that the information in both A and B jointly is the information in A plus the information in B that is not in A. Its point, therefore, is to spell out how much additional information B contributes to A. As such, this formula places tight constraints on the generation of new information. Does, for instance, a computer program, call it A, by outputting some data, call the data B, generate new information? Computer programs are fully deterministic, and so B is fully determined by A. It follows that P(B|A) = 1, and thus I(B|A) = 0 (the logarithm of 1 is always 0). From Formula (*) it therefore follows that I(A&B) = I(A), and therefore that the amount of information in A and B jointly is no more than the amount of information in A by itself.
Dembski's formula accounts for A & B when the two are "probablistically independent" so your book could be divided into the 1st half and the second half. There is no more information in the second half than in the first half.
OB: I take it you are responding to my point that, when you join the two copies of a book together end-to-end, the result has more information than the original book. To be clear, I agree that there is no more information in the second half of the book than in the first half. It is also true that the joining of the two copies together has more information than either half does, often significantly more.​

That was an interesting conflation of a point you never made and a point I did.
Either way. If you have 2 seperate books with the same story or if there are two copies of the story in one book the formula accounts for both.
*****************

PW: Okay, I read more thoroughly and found where Dembski addresses chance (random mutation) paired with necessity (natural selection):
Because information presupposes contingency, necessity is by definition incapable of producing information, much less complex specified information. For there to be information there must be a multiplicity of live possibilities, one of which is actualized, and the rest of which are excluded. This is contingency.
Whenever chance and necessity work together, the respective contributions of chance and necessity can be arranged sequentially. But by arranging the respective contributions of chance and necessity sequentially, it becomes clear that at no point in the sequence is CSI generated.
OB: First, I'm going to replace "CSI" with "useful information". Second, this is a reductionist fallacy. You can produce something by a sequences of steps even when no one step is responsible for producing the result. One example is the division algorithm (aka long division). Subtraction is not division, and multiplication is not division, comparing the size of two numbers is not division, but by using subtractions, multiplications, and comparison in the right order, you perform division. Similarly, by combining chance and necessity, you produce useful information, even though no individual step produces it.​

That's a good replacement, making CSI very understandable.
You notice how you had to add an intelligent force into the equation ("you") in order to produce useful information. Same thing holds true for all of our biological parts/systems.
***********************

PW: As I mentioned above the book could be divided into 2 halves as they would be "probablistically independent" in that way.
OB: I think you mean "dependent", not "independent". I agree, they are dependent. Yet, the two copies laid end-to-end still has more information.​

I meant independent, and your conclusion hasn't been backed up with logic.
***************

PW: If that useless pile of rocks that collapsed 10 years ago was capable of disagreeing with me I could see it's significance.
OB: You don't think it looked like a man? Or do yo think that it was sculpted by human?​

I don't think it was useful...even the two blobs of fat on the front of females provide endless enjoyment for males and babies alike.
***************

PW: I haven't read your new responses yet but I just realized that I am either being punked or you just unwittingly provided the perfect example of Complex Specified Information with intelligent causes (language) ...
Dembski uses language as an example himself so I understand it perfectly.
Intelligent causes act by making a choice. How then do we recognize that an intelligent cause has made a choice? A bottle of ink spills accidentally onto a sheet of paper; someone takes a fountain pen and writes a message on a sheet of paper. In both instances ink is applied to paper. In both instances one among an almost infinite set of possibilities is realized. In both instances a contingency is actualized and others are ruled out. Yet in one instance we infer design, in the other chance.
OB: The most common languages and alphabets were not designed. They evolved. Today we design languages that imitate the products of evolution.​

That is one of the most bizarre answers I've ever seen...it is like a 50 ft. wookie.
Yes human language changed over time but it originates from an intelligence source...the human mind...are you really going to deny that humans are intelligent beings?
*******************

PW: Human teeth have different wear patterns based on human adaption. The appendix "would have" changed if development occurred over millions of years, but the changes can already be accounted for over the span of hundreds or thousands of years, so there is no need to make huge million year leaps.
OB: There is no million-year leap, just evidence of millions of years. However, By the way, do you know you are invoking super-evolution? No evolutionist would accept the huge changes in the structure of humans had occurred in hundreds or thousands of years; that would be much too fast a time for evolution to operate to that degree on a species that had a generation every fifteen/twenty years. You downplay what evolution can do, and then invoke a much stronger version of it.​

I ain't invoking "super-evolution," Sherlock. I don't even recognize the existence of your version of "evolution," so of course "super-evolution" is out of the damn question.
Let me make my point in a more understandable way.
The appendix was more useful hundreds of years ago when we weren't city dwellers.
Its usefulness diminished slightly over a short time period, not a million.
Wisdom teeth were useful as replacement teeth back when we didn't have tootpaste and toothbrushes and our teeth rotted out. They didn't need millions of years to become less and less useless. The Mormon pioneers had a use for them buggers in the 1800s. The Brits have a use for them now.

So in conclusion all your "vestigial" arguments are as useless as your stories about bears falling into the ocean and becoming whales.

 

[PearlWatson]

I hope I made that huge *** response more readable for you, one brow.

 

[MVP]

There are no such thing as advanced features. Different features are better adapted for different environments.

The hagfish and coelacanth of today are as different from their tens-of-millions-of-years-ago ancestors as is any other fish descended from those same ancestors.

Well you can call it different but to me they are advanced.
Hagfish of today is basically the same as 300 mil years ago. There is a reason they are called living fossils.

They are the only known living animals that have a skull but not a vertebral column. Along with lampreys, hagfish are jawless and are living fossils; hagfish are basal to vertebrates, and living hagfish remain similar to hagfish 300 million years ago.

 

[MVP]

Consider: Birds are warm-blooded, reptiles cold; birds incubate their eggs, reptiles don’t; birds have feathers, reptiles scales; birds have hollow bones, reptiles solid; birds have air-cooled engines, reptiles don’t; birds have four-chambered hearts, reptiles three-chambered; birds have a syrinx for singing, reptiles don’t. Plus much more. So a snake "evolving" into a legless lizard is a stingy step compared to the quantum leap from reptile to bird!
.

Birds have scales. Have you not seen it? Some dinosaurs are known to have feathers.

Flightless birds like penguins and ostriches have only solid bones, further evidencing the link between flight and the adaptation of hollow bones

Birds have no air cooled engines ( or any engines for that matter) lol.

Birds have uncinate processes on the ribs. These are hooked extensions of bone which help to strengthen the rib cage by overlapping with the rib behind them. This feature is also found in the tuatara Sphenodon. They also have a greatly elongate tetradiate pelvis as in some reptiles. The hindlimb has an intra-tarsal joint found also in some reptiles. There is extensive fusion of the trunk vertebrae as well as fusion with the pectoral girdle. They have a diapsid skull as in reptiles with a pre-lachrymal fossa (present in some reptiles).


There is so many overhelming features which prove that birds are evolved from reptiles that I am just amazed at any person in 21st century still trying to argue that. Seriously, where I am? In middle of Amazon jungle talking to some primitive tribemen?

 

[MVP]

....unlike the evolutions and "creationists" we deal in FACTS....not theories, assumptions, hypotheses and outright lies and deception!

what are you calling facts? Collection of myths and legends written thousands years ago by some uneducated shepherds? Seriously?

 

[MVP]

....
Also to be considered is when we let the fossil record speak, its testimony is not evolution-oriented. Instead, the testimony of the fossil record is creation-oriented. It shows that many different kinds of living things suddenly appeared. .

No, it shows that many kinds of different things evolved gradually from most primitive life forms to life forms we have today. All creationists would need to do is to find a single more advanced fossil dating back to the period of time where there was only primitive creatures to shatter evolution theory. From millions of fossils not a single one? Don't you thing we would have come to one by now?

 

[carolinajazz]

Birds have scales. Have you not seen it? Some dinosaurs are known to have feathers.

Flightless birds like penguins and ostriches have only solid bones, further evidencing the link between flight and the adaptation of hollow bones

Birds have no air cooled engines ( or any engines for that matter) lol.

Birds have uncinate processes on the ribs. These are hooked extensions of bone which help to strengthen the rib cage by overlapping with the rib behind them. This feature is also found in the tuatara Sphenodon. They also have a greatly elongate tetradiate pelvis as in some reptiles. The hindlimb has an intra-tarsal joint found also in some reptiles. There is extensive fusion of the trunk vertebrae as well as fusion with the pectoral girdle. They have a diapsid skull as in reptiles with a pre-lachrymal fossa (present in some reptiles).


There is so many overhelming features which prove that birds are evolved from reptiles that I am just amazed at any person in 21st century still trying to argue that. Seriously, where I am? In middle of Amazon jungle talking to some primitive tribemen?

....just because some creatures have similar features as other do, does NOT prove in anyway, shape or form......that they "evolved" from each other! You would still have to come up with, demonstrate, show, or answer: "If this animal "evolved" how did it happen?" No theories, concepts, experiments have ever held water when you ask those questions of any kind of life in the animal kingdom! Your continuing to just brow beat us with "given enough time" anything can happen....does not cut the mustard! Nor is your assertion that only the ignorant refuse to believe it while educators and scientists believe that evolution is a fact, proves this preposterous hoax!

 

[scootsy]

Just curious. We have already seen evolution take place (what was that like white moth species whose habitat was blackened due to coal being burnt and they slowly became black to not stand out so much to predators ((white creatures on black surfaces, hard to hide)), do you think humans have reached the pinnacle point of their evolutionary progression? What stressors would bring about a genetic change in our lax, kush lifestyles? Would it be possible, considering the vast diversity of geographic location of humans to make any biological change to be evident in all humans?

 

[MVP]

....just because some creatures have similar features as other do, does NOT prove in anyway, shape or form......that they "evolved" from each other! You would still have to come up with, demonstrate, show, or answer: "If this animal "evolved" how did it happen?" No theories, concepts, experiments have ever held water when you ask those questions of any kind of life in the animal kingdom!

There is overhelming evidence of that happening within millions of years. Have you ever heard of so called "transitional species"? Obviously it is personal choice to believe scientific data and evidence proving that or believe religious literature written thousands of years ago. I see lancelets, bichirs, mudskippers, amphiumas, sirens and have no questions about evolution - it is right infront of your eyes! I do not even need to go deep into DNA similarities or metabolism or physiology to understand that we all had common ancestry.
Tell me who created London underground mosquito and nylon eating bacteria. How they appeared in our life?

 

[MVP]

.... You would still have to come up with, demonstrate, show, or answer: "If this animal "evolved" how did it happen?" No theories, concepts, experiments have ever held water when you ask those questions of any kind of life in the animal kingdom!

In 2004, three American palaeontologists, Neil Shubin, Edward Daeschler and Farish Jenkins, came across a group of Tikataalik roseae fossils. Tikataalik roseae is a transition species between primitive fishand the earliest amphibians, which lived in the Devonian period. Jenny Clack (another palaeontologist who specialises in fishevolution) said, ―the fossil combines features of fish and tetrapods such that it fits perfectly between the two…this is another gap closed that a deity no longer needs to fill.

Learning begins when you do not know the answer. Learn my friend. Study. Understand.

 

[PearlWatson]

Just curious. We have already seen evolution take place (what was that like white moth species whose habitat was blackened due to coal being burnt and they slowly became black to not stand out so much to predators ((white creatures on black surfaces, hard to hide)), do you think humans have reached the pinnacle point of their evolutionary progression? What stressors would bring about a genetic change in our lax, kush lifestyles? Would it be possible, considering the vast diversity of geographic location of humans to make any biological change to be evident in all humans?

You are probably trolling for the Peppered moth "experiment."

These Darwiniacs glued black and white moths to blackened trees to show how black moths in a polluted England were "more fit" then light moths against being eaten by birds.
The problem was that the moths only came out at night and so had no need to hide from birds while they rested on the undersides of branches, but those little factual details didn't seem to matter to the Darwiniacs who "set up" the test, or the ones who continue to include the "experiment" in government school text books as proof of natural selection.

Speculating that black moths are "more fit" than white moths during times of pollution, and then setting up a fraudulent experiment to prove this speculation, obviously doesn't support the story that all life shares a common ancestory or that natural selection was involved in that process.

 

[scootsy]

You are probably trolling for the Peppered moth "experiment."

These Darwiniacs glued black and white moths to blackened trees to show how black moths in a polluted England were "more fit" then light moths against being eaten by birds.
The problem was that the moths only came out at night and so had no need to hide from birds while they rested on the undersides of branches, but those little factual details didn't seem to matter to the Darwiniacs who "set up" the test, or the ones who continue to include the "experiment" in government school text books as proof of natural selection.

Links for proof?

Just curious, which version of the experiment are you referring to? Kettlewell and Ford, or Majerus (whose experiment validated the original results)?

Lastly, I did not say this was evidence of natural selection, but of evolution, which even Creationists agree upon. They simply claim that microevolution within a species is not the same as macroevolution to a new species altogether.

 

[PearlWatson]

Links for proof?

Just curious, which version of the experiment are you referring to? Kettlewell and Ford, or Majerus (whose experiment validated the original results)?

Lastly, I did not say this was evidence of natural selection, but of evolution, which even Creationists agree upon. They simply claim that microevolution within a species is not the same as macroevolution to a new species altogether.

Ford and Kettlewell.

https://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/25/books/the-moth-that-failed.html

The only thing anyone managed to validate was that both black and white moths exist. Woopdeedoo!

Natural selection is supposedly what brings about "evolution"

Yes, Darwiniac's have managed to confuse a lot of people, as to what Darwin's theory actually is, by labeling small differences in populations "micro-evolution."