Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Yet another icon of evolution falls.

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Yet another icon of evolution falls.
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 25, 26, 27 ... 43, 44, 45 Next

This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

pucciniphile

Joined: 23 Jun 2011

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 3:10 am Post subject:

I guess I'm biased in favor of Evolutionary theory in the sense that if Creationism were proven true, I would feel very uncomfortable. The reason I would feel uncomfortable is that I would have trouble explaining all the facts which I had regarded as evidence for Evolution. If they ever found a warren of Cambrian rabbits, I would not only have trouble understanding what I know about science; I would have trouble understanding myself and understanding other people. In short, I would suffer from cognitive dissonance. As for any religious bias, there are times when I would like to believe in the theist teachings. Last week, I was at the dentist's office where there was a frightened child. I wanted to do something for her, but I recalled the paucity of experimental evidence in favor of intercessory prayer. I certainly never rejected religion a priori. I checked out the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Seventh Day Adventists, the Christian Scientists, the Mormons, the Moonies, and the Baha'is. As for my being brainwashed, I don't see how. In all the science courses I ever took, I heard only one brief mention of the evolution from fish to amphibian. It was only through private study in psychology that I realized that Evolution made sense. When I began that private study, Evolution was the furthest thing from my mind. Nor could anyone accuse me of listening to only one side. In the earlier thread, someone asked the Evolutionists how many Evolutionist books we've read and how many Creationist books we've read. I tallied them all up and found that they came out about even. If I haven't given a fair enough hearing to satisfy Junior, I don't see what else I could do.

Junior

Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 3:59 am Post subject:

comm wrote:

pucciniphile wrote:

They have been able to produce birds with teeth.

You can call that "genetic information" if you wish.
Does it mean that God wanted birds to keep a set of teeth in storage in case they need them some time?

Fascinating!

Without evolution, no bird ancestor could have had teeth, and obviously no dog ancestors had beaks. So since we CAN activate genes to give a bird teeth, we MUST be able to activate genes that give a dog a beak for Creationism to be true!

This is a spectacular opportunity to demonstrate a prediction of Creationism! Make with the dog beaks!

haha.

you're easily fooled aren't you comm?.
Don't you know by now that pucciniphile likes to make grandiose claims but always has to retract them later when someone bothers to actually ask for evidence?

Pucciniphile: bring it on. Bring it.

Junior

Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:27 am Post subject:

Underwaterbob wrote:

Except the oldest single-celled fossils predate the oldest fully-formed animal fossils by a good 2 billion plus years. Surely the commonality of bacteria can't account for such a discrepancy.

So where are the intermediates then? You go from microbe to fish without any intermediates?
What gives you the right to ay that one came from the other, when there are no intermediates.?
And when the fish hasn't "evolved" since it was discovered?

What you're claiming is that everything evolved behind the scenes so thats why we have no evidence for it?

Secondly the rocks are "dated" by the fossils found in them. Duh! Laughing

Its called circular reasoning.

Quote:

Please don't drag out Austin's thoroughly discredited paper against radiometric dating.

"Discredited" by who? Evolutionists by any chance? What a surprise.

The theory that people are oppressed in North Korea was also discredited by members of Kim Jong Il's inner circle.

Quote:

"Just because we don't have evidence for it, doesn't mean it isn't true." while true, is certainly not evidence for anything.

That doesn't stop Evolution theory being entirely built on it though does it ?.

pucciniphile

Joined: 23 Jun 2011

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:20 am Post subject:

Junior wrote:

Pucciniphile: bring it on. Bring it.

Harris, M. P. et al. 2006. The Development of archosaurian first-generation teeth in a chicken mutant. Current Biology 16: 371�377, [February 21].

abstracted in:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-02/cp-btm021506.php
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=mutant-chicken-grows-alli

Last edited by pucciniphile on Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:31 am; edited 1 time in total

pucciniphile

Joined: 23 Jun 2011

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:27 am Post subject:

Junior wrote:

The theory that people are oppressed in North Korea was also discredited by members of Kim Jong Il's inner circle.

Oh, I get it: Forum members on the Internet have compared their adversaries to Hitler so many times that the shock value has worn off.
So you're hoping to shock us just by changing the setting.

northway

Joined: 05 Jul 2010

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:41 am Post subject:

pucciniphile wrote:

Junior wrote:

The theory that people are oppressed in North Korea was also discredited by members of Kim Jong Il's inner circle.

Oh, I get it: Forum members on the Internet have compared their adversaries to Hitler so many times that the shock value has worn off.
So you're hoping to shock us just by changing the setting.

Quote:

Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990[2] that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[2][3] In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion�regardless of topic or scope�someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis.

brento1138

Joined: 17 Nov 2004

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:54 am Post subject:

Well, Junior, I think you've just exposed how you cherry-pick whatever you can to suit your beliefs. Let me illustrate various examples.

Junior wrote:

I already explained that other lizards in the family had the same valve feature. We agree that all the lizards in the family share a common ancestor? So then that ancestor obviously had the dna for the valves.

While it�s true that one other species (G. bravoana) of another genus (Gallotia) has the cecal valves, you make it sound as if there are many lizards in this family with the same features, but this is not the case. There is no evidence that any ancestor of G. bravoana or P. sicula have any cecal valves. Sure you can just say they do. But right now, we have no evidence that says what you claim (unless you can provide a link).

But faaaaar more interesting than that is this:

It�s very interesting how you pick and choose which parts of the Theory of Evolution you accept. I guess you�ve accepted the fact that a family could lead to a sub-family which contains a genus and within that a species (see your own quote in bold above). And that another branch would have gone off in another direction leading to yet another sub-family, genus, and species. Interesting. I want to show you how you are now cherry-picking what to believe in to support your claims.

So answer me this:

You agree that the lizards in the family (Lacertidae) led to two different genera (Gallotia and Podarcis) which in turn both churned out different "cousin" species G. bravoana (on the Gallotia side) and P. sicula on the Podarcis side.

Yet, you do NOT accept that the primates in the family (Hominidae) led to two different genera (Homo and Pan) which in turn both churned out species H. Sapien (on the Homo side) and Chimpanzee (on the Pan side).

So rather than have any logical formula to go with, or accept the science / observational data, you just decide what's right. For you, 1+1 can equal 2 when you want it to, and at other times, 1+1 can equal whatever you darn well want it to. Interesting, Junior. Very, very interesting. I suppose you can pick and choose what to believe in only as long as it supports what you say.

Junior wrote:

neanderthals are well within the normal range of human variation. When you say that a neanderthal was 99% identical then that is the same difference as between any two modern humans.

Fail.

The genome is well outside the limits of modern humans. Remember that chimps are 94-98% similar and we do not include them as �humans just like us� either.

The first studies showed that the Neandertal genome had an average of 27 +/- 2.2 differences from modern humans (3.375 times the average difference between modern humans). The smallest difference between any human and the Neandertal was 22, and the largest difference between any human and the Neandertal was 36. These differences put the Neandertal genome well outside the limits of modern humans.

Further studies show more difference. In 2008, a complete mtDNA genome was extracted from a Neanderthal fossil. The scientists created a graph showing the numbers of base pair differences for humans, chimps and the Neandertal when compared against humans. Because they were able to compare across the whole genome rather than a small portion of it, the differences between humans and the Neandertal was far more striking.

Among the humans, the sequences had between 2 and 118 differences. The number of differences between the human mtDNAs and the Neandertal mtDNA varies from 201 to 234. Now there is now a sizeable gap between the human and Neandertal results. Analysis of the assembled sequence unequivocally established that the Neandertal mtDNA falls outside the variation of extant human mtDNAs, and allows an estimate of the divergence date between the two mtDNA lineages of 660,000 � 140,000 years.

You need to look at the distributions of pairwise sequence differences among Humans, the Neandertal, and Chimpanzees. It shows that the Neandertals are indeed our closest relatives, but no, they are not human beings �just like us.� Just look at the chart on the following page:

Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mtDNA.html

This chart is important because it shows how related to the Neanderthal we are (our cousins) as well as the chimps (our more distant cousins) which perfectly matches up with the Theory of Evolution which states that all hominids come from a common ancestor (which you claim is impossible, yet allow it for the Italian wall lizards).

The studies of Neandertal mtDNA do not show that Neandertals did not or could not interbreed with modern humans. But the lack of diversity in Neandertal mtDNA sequences, combined with the large differences between Neandertal and modern human mtDNA, strongly suggests that Neandertals and modern humans developed separately, and did not form part of a single large interbreeding population. However Neandertals apparently remained capable of interbreeding with humans, and did so (very rarely) with an early population of modern humans in the Middle East about 70,000 years ago.

Junior wrote:

Thats why we have the fossil record. unfortunately for you it says the opposite of what you wish it would.

That�s just plain wrong. The fossil record shows us exactly what the Theory of Evolution predicted. Look at the evolution of ape-like creatures into humans, for example. It�s a clear example of a transition between one form and another. If creationism was true, then why don�t we find modern humans alongside T-Rex (maybe with a fossilized saddle to go!)? Are the multiple methods of dating we have all wrong? If so, why do they all say the same things? Why don�t we find rabbits in the pre-Cambrian? If you can present us with rabbits in the pre-Cambrian, I would gladly reassess the Theory of Evolution. Rather, the fossil record tells us exactly what we predicted: that simple life-forms existed in the ancient past, only to get more and more complex and evolve into branching species, families, etc. Just as you accept with lizards, but not hominids!

Junior wrote:

Actually the fossil record agrees with me. How does it agree with you exactly? it doesn't. If it did then we would start seeing obviously transitional forms only a couple of feet down.

Actually, we have found many transitional fossils, which are defined as �the fossilized remains of lifeforms that exhibit characteristics typical of two distinct taxonomic groups.� We have the dino-birds, ape-men, fish-amphibians... what more do you want? What would make you happy? A croco-duck?

Now, back to our beloved Nylon bug.

Junior wrote:

Out of potentially millions of "random" wrong mutations, they find exactly the right one at exactly the right moment. Care to explain?

I will answer it with a scenario. Say there is a lottery with a jackpot of $160 million. The chances of winning it are approx 1 in 13,983,816. One person wins the lotto.

I hope I�ve answered your question. Wink

Last edited by brento1138 on Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:59 am; edited 1 time in total

Junior

Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:59 am Post subject:

pucciniphile wrote:

Junior wrote:

Pucciniphile: bring it on. Bring it.

Harris, M. P. et al. 2006. The Development of archosaurian first-generation teeth in a chicken mutant. Current Biology 16: 371�377, [February 21].

Looks like more wishful thinking to me. Lets have a look at the actual creature closely:
http://creation.com/images/fp_articles/2006/chickenteethlarge.jpg

Notice how the whole structure is deformed (The bird is a mutant and died soon after hatching).
If every deformity brought on by a mutation signals how the organisms ancestors were originally, then did all humans used to have two heads? Because some babies have been born this way.

On the lower mandible are two little shapes that superficially look teeth. In the same way that some clouds look like faces. Personally I think any resemblance is purely incidental, the entire beak is deformed and the ridiculous evos have zoomed in on two bobbles.

But even if we be extremely generous and pretend that they are indeed "teeth". Why do they have no sockets or gums? They're not exactly teeth in the real sense of the word. They are similar in fact to the avian teeth that many modern birds have today.
These evolutionist guys aren't too smart, are they? Certainly they are not ornitholgists.
If they were they would know about eg the Smew
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-[url]K8D93cg9ZI8/TXpAYmJ5sXI/AAAAAAAADNs/g4SGAeYn7Qw/s1600/KEN+10Mar11+Smew+05.jpg[/url]

Or the goosander...
http://www.avondiary.net/images/Goosander.jpg

Or hooded merganser
http://bilyreid.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/HOODED-MERGANSER-CATFISH.jpg

there are others....

Point is, the vague shapes on the chick photo do not resemble mammalian or reptilian teeth. They are not actually teeth in the typical sense of the word, they do not have sockets or enamel, roots or anything like the complex structure of a tooth.
The fact that evolutionists jump on that photo and even write a thesis to try and claim that birds evolved from crocodiles just shows how ridiculously desperate you guys have become. Seriously...ridiculous. Are you going to claim that the moon used to be a man next because you can make out the shape of a face on it?

But lets let our imaginations run totally wild for a moment. (You should be well practised at this). Even if some ancient birds formerly had full teeth. They have lost them. So its another case of genetic loss. Confirming creationism once again. Please keep posting, you're winning the debate for me. Laughing

Brento wrote:

Neat sidestep. But for that comparison to be valid, then 13,983,816 bacteria must all be mutating random mutations at exactly the same time for one of them to get lucky.

Sorry mate. Your logic is totally flawed. As usual. Mutations are rare, in any population. Your comparison pretends that all organisms mutate all the time.

Answer the question for once. How is it that many organisms show the ability to genetically engineer themselves? They come up with the exactly correct needed adjustment at exactly the right moment. hardly random is it?

Last edited by Junior on Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:11 am; edited 2 times in total

brento1138

Joined: 17 Nov 2004

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:07 am Post subject:

Junior wrote:

The fact that evolutionists jump on that photo and even write a thesis to try and claim that birds evolved from crocodiles just shows how ridiculously desperate you guys have become. Seriously...ridiculous. Are you going to claim that the moon used to be a man next because you can make out the shape of a face on it?

Straw man:

Quote:

a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

That's desperation, Junior.

Junior

Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:17 am Post subject:

brento1138 wrote:

Junior wrote:

Straw man:

Quote:

a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

That's desperation, Junior.

Clearly you didn't read Pucciniphile's link? It claims..

Quote:

The findings strongly suggest that the birds were initiating developmental programs similar to those of their reptilian ancestors

Quote:

the alligator, the closest living relative of modern birds.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-02/cp-btm021506.php

They are using the most tenuous, equivocal and exaggerated evidence to make wildly exaggerated claims. Can't you see this? This ain't science, its just pathetic..and it shows how desperate you've become!

brento1138

Joined: 17 Nov 2004

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:21 am Post subject:

Junior wrote:

I have flawed logic? *ahem*

Yeah, the Nylon bug mutation was rare. But that one mutation thrived. Then spread. (We both know lotto winners do not thrive and spread like bacteria).

The Nylon bug mutation does not require all of the bacteria to constantly be mutating. Just one in a very large sum has to have that exact mutation -- and it did. I will illustrate it further for you below.

With your interpretation, you could say that in order for a planet of 6 billion people, for one person to win that particular lotto ticket then all 6 billion would have to constantly be playing lotto tickets. But the example of 1 in 13,983,816 was only for Canadian residents. Only a small select group of those Canadian residents were playing the lotto. Every other member of the 6 billion other people on Earth were not playing that lottery. Just like how the other bacteria were not mutating whatsoever.

Yet one person still won that lottery.

Yet one bacteria still mutated.

Get it yet?

Successful mutations to adapt to a new environment is mathematics, statistics, not necessarily self-directed evolution or supernatural involvement.

Last edited by brento1138 on Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:29 am; edited 1 time in total

brento1138

Joined: 17 Nov 2004

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:23 am Post subject:

Junior wrote:

Clearly you didn't read Pucciniphile's link? It claims..

Quote:

The findings strongly suggest that the birds were initiating developmental programs similar to those of their reptilian ancestors

Quote:

the alligator, the closest living relative of modern birds.

Still a straw man, Junior. Sorry. But if you don't get the difference between the word "reptilian ancestors" and "alligator" then I don't know what I can do for you at this point.

pucciniphile

Joined: 23 Jun 2011

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:25 am Post subject:

Junior wrote:

So where are the intermediates then? You go from microbe to fish without any intermediates?

In Cambrian times, there appears the cephalochordate, or amphioxus, which possessed a flexible notochord rather than a backbone. [McGowan 1984: 74-78; Strahler 1987: 405-406; Zindler 1990]Today, all vertebrate embryos develop a notochord which later changes into a backbone (Trott 1999a, 1999b).

Incidentally, you can add the amphioxus to your list of species which don't evolve, because this species is living today.

In Ordovician times, there appeared the first bony fish, known as ostracoderms (Saladin 1988).

In Silurian times appeared the first jawed vertebrates, from which sharks, skates, rays, and chimaeras seem to be descended (Zincler 1990).

McGowan, C. 1984. In the beginning: A scientist shows why the Creationists are wrong. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.

Saladin, K. S. 1988. Saladin-Gish debate, May 10, 1988 at Auburn University, Auburn, AL: Opening statement for the negative.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ken_saladin/saladin-gish2/gish1.html

Trott, R. 1999a. Duane Gish and Creationism: Richard Trott critiques Duane Gish's presentation at Rutgers University. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-rutgers.html

_____. 1999b. Lying for Jesus: Duane Gish, InterVarsity, and Creationism at Rutgers. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-rutgers/gish-draft.txt

Zindler, F. 1990. Is Creationism science? A debate between Duane Gish and Frank Zindler. Aired during the evening of January 11, 1990 on "Night Talk."
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/frank_zindler/gish-zindler/gish-zindler.html

Junior

Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:30 am Post subject:

brento1138 wrote:

Junior wrote:

I have flawed logic? *ahem*

Yeah, the Nylon bug mutation was rare. But that one mutation thrived. Then spread. Lotto winners (I suppose) do not thrive and spread.

The Nylon bug mutation does not require all of the bacteria to constantly be mutating. Just one in a very large sum has to have that exact mutation -- and it did. I will illustrate it further for you below.

With your interpretation, you could say that in order for a planet of 6 billion people, for one person to win that particular lotto ticket then all 6 billion would have to constantly be playing lotto tickets. But the example of 1 in 13,983,816 was only for Canadian residents. Every other of the 6 billion people were not playing that lottery. Just like how the other bacteria were not mutating whatsoever.

Yet one person still won that lottery.

Yet one bacteria still mutated.

Get it yet?

But you're still relying on extremely long odds and highly improbable low chance. On a repeating, consistent basis.

its like saying that if you put a million white golf balls in a bag and 1 red one, that a blindfolded person will reach into the bag and just by sheer chance pull out the red one every time. Hundreds of times in a row.

Of all the potential mutations an organism could make (ie millions), it always makes exactly the right one, right on cue, every time. And you call this luck rather than deliberate genetic engineering?

Get it yet?

brento1138

Joined: 17 Nov 2004

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:44 am Post subject:

Junior wrote:

its like saying that if you put a million white golf balls in a bag and 1 red one, that a blindfolded person will reach into the bag and just by sheer chance pull out the red one every time. Hundreds of times in a row.

Your analogy is completely off. It's because you don't understand the stats.

Remember that TRILLIONS and ZILLIONS of bacteria never got out that red ball. They didn't even know it was around. They just went about their daily lives, not caring at all about that Nylon they kept bumping into. But eventually, after GAGILLIONS of non-mutations, BAJILLIONS of mutations that led nowhere, one tiny little lucky guy finally did pull out that red ball (ie. mutate to eat Nylon). That lucky little guy reproduced! His cute little children also could digest Nylon, and they followed daddy bacteria around and found a bunch more Nylon to eat. Yummy!!! The little children had more children. Cute, little, Nylon-eating children. Soon, all of these cute little Nylon bugs were eating Nylon like crazy. It was a Nylon party! Nylon for breakfast, Nylon for lunch, Nylon for dinner, Nylon for dessert!

Yummmm! NYLON!

It was a Nylon paradise, in fact. And since Nylon was everywhere to be found, those children were a success and kept on popping out little ones to continue the tradition of their forefathers. It's really a nice story. Kind of touching. I wonder what the family photo would look like? Or the family tree, for that matter! Shocked

And this is all because of that one little bacteria, that lucky 1 in 149,404,292,284,494,292,020,282,191,222,010,991,010 who finally got that mutation to eat Nylon down!

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 25, 26, 27 ... 43, 44, 45 Next
Page 26 of 45

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe