What transitional form will we have this week?

reply to post by Astyanax

I'm sorry I have no time to respond to your points at the moment. I just want to say two things:-

1) My initial rebuke was pretty strong; I don't enjoy saying things like that, but if it seems necessary I generally find the response indicates whether the other person is reasonable - so apology accepted. Good stuff.

2) You responded to another participant with:

Courage!

It's fantasy versus reality, and reality always wins in the end.

We too are only interested in what actually happened in reality. I don't believe progressive evolution by mutation happens in the real world, but I see no need to belittle other people's views as fantasy.

Calling evolution reality when it is actually a theory can dampen your critical faculties: evidence that does not fit the paradigm is instantly rejected because you already 'know' the truth.

I acknowledge that we too can fall into the same trap. However as someone who used to think that creationists were bonkers I have studied and evaluated both perspectives at great length and found it a tremendously satisfying experience to break away from caring what the majority accept so I can come to whatever conclusion I believe the evidence favours.

Bear in mind it takes a very high degree of evidence-based persuasion for people like me to proclaim that we don't accept evolution happens in the real world, knowing full well some people look at you thinking 'poor fool', or as you put it:

red herrings, amusing misunderstandings of genetics and speciation, bad one-liners and incomprehensible ranting. Whence this constitutional inability to stay on topic? It arises from not having any meaningful rebuttal to make.

Nevertheless there is no need for condescention and a patronizing attitude, Astyanax. It reflects prejudice; others may read what I said and perceive that such sentiments are entirely unjustified.

I posted in brief the story of how I started to question evolution here:

www.belowtopsecret.com...

Does that strike you as fantasy? (Please take a moment to read it and see that it was a solidly rational process.) If that process strikes you as anything but rational, please tell me why!

We are no luddites, as you suggest. Conversely, those who refuse to even consider evidence that does not favour the theory of evolution might ask themselves 'why'. That real evidence exists in our favour is something I have been demonstrating here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

the specific sources being:

creationontheweb.com... (scroll down for sample articles)

and

www.answersingenesis.org... (also with sample articles)

with 24 years of previous post-grad level articles available here, in the online archive of The Journal of Creation, going back to 1984:

creationontheweb.com...

(Note: this includes material relating to the age of the earth, as well as the specifics of evolution/creation.)

So who are the Luddites? Those who have taken years to weigh up both sides of the argument with a serious, open-minded attitude, or those who refuse to take up the challenge, dissuade others from doing so, and think they strengthen their arguments by embellishing them with insults?

I'm nearing the end of a degree (in a medicine-related subject incorporating neurology, etc., and not my first degree it might be said,) so will only be able to respond to specifics very intermittently. I'm quite happy for others to respond on my behalf, should they be so inclined.

[edit on 22/4/08 by pause4thought]

(fixing links)

[edit on 22/4/08 by pause4thought]

reply to post by SlyCM (work)

Hi. I just want to quickly address one point:

I said:

Reptiles and mammals are simply not related. At all.

From the creationist perspective creatures can exhibit similar gene structures due to the ability of a perfectly skilled designer to use code efficiently. This is not offered as a proof, it is just to demonstrate how many people, like me, can claim that reptiles and mammals are not related (which also goes for millions of other creatures evolutionists believe are literally related).

Similarities in genes are only evidence of a common ancestor if you adopt evolution as the framework in which to think a priori , which is a perfect example of a circular argument.

Again, bear in mind I believe the original designs incorporated enough potential for variety to allow limited diversity to develop in distinct populations, as Darwin observed.

However accepting minor variations such as differences in colouration, body shape, etc., such as is well demonstrated by the varieties of dogs that have come from wolves is an entirely different proposition from saying a creature can somehow obtain new genetic code for new features such as the ability to bear live young or to grow wings!

I do not believe that frogs became princes.

Think about it.

I am convinced all my forbears were men and women! (Albeit of different shapes, sizes and colouration...)

Do you follow my logic, even if you don't agree?

reply to post by pause4thought


I can definitely follow your logic.

I would also agree with you whole-heartedly if science didn't have the understanding of DNA as it currently does, coupled with the fossil record, coupled with observations in labs (of speciation, not just of changing colour, etc.)

Apart from all the evidence that contradicts your assertion, it's perfect

Only problem is, it's been demonstrated, with living examples, how something can become something else. Take, for instance, the mudskipper, or a more extreme example, the aptly named land catfish. These animals clearly share all features of their proposed predecessors (ray-finned fishes) but yet they live most or, in the case of the land catfish, all, of their lives on land. Indeed, mudskippers can out pace salamanders on mud flats, and land catfish will leap out of water if thrown in.

Or, from land-to-air, take flying squirrels or paradise tree snakes. These creatures can glide between trees. We can imagine the ancestors of flying squirrels simply looking like squirrels, but with extra leg skin. The ones with the most membranous leg skin will be able to jump just a little farther (gliding), and will be given a slight advantage in escape from predators. Those that do escape will survive and breed, making flying squirrels. Then, say that another mutation produces one with more powerful chest and arm muscles, and that specimen can glide further, with the aid of perhaps some flapping. It survives and breeds. What do we have now?

A bat. Or rather, not a bat, something similar.

Which brings me to the reason that I typed "faith can never lose". If this God can create all the evidence for evolution, then I suppose that will be your eternal answer.

reply to post by SlyCM

If this God can create all the evidence for evolution, then I suppose that will be your eternal answer.

I certainly never said any such thing.

There is plenty of evidence that has been interpreted as evidence for evolution, but I submit that is because people only think within the confines of the theory.

As for mudskippers, land-catfish, etc., I regard them as inspiring examples of how creatures were designed that could cope even with the most unpredictable of environments. (Unpredictable to us, but forseen by the Maker.)

I still can't see any evidence for frogs turning into princes.

reply to post by dave420

I would also agree with you whole-heartedly if science didn't have the understanding of DNA as it currently does, coupled with the fossil record, coupled with observations in labs (of speciation, not just of changing colour, etc.)

a) understanding of DNA that is invariably bound by the confines of evolutionary theory a priori, providing circular argument

b) leaving the confines of evolutionary theory, the fossil record provides marvellous evidence of a world-wide flood, and a world that perished

Tangental comment - look up on the internet human artifacts, and even skulls that have been found encased in solid coal

c) if by 'speciation' you mean that the subjects could simply no longer interbreed, it proves only that genetic mutations cause breeding problems - nevertheless the first time they observe a 'hopeful monster', a cow whose calf has webbed feet, perhaps, (or at least a fruit fly that has glasses), let me know.

Originally posted by pause4thought
a) understanding of DNA that is invariably bound by the confines of evolutionary theory a priori, providing circular argument

...no, that's not a circular argument.

in fact, a proper circular argument is "everything is designed because it looks like it has a designer which means it has a designer that designed it"

b) leaving the confines of evolutionary theory, the fossil record provides marvellous evidence of a world-wide flood, and a world that perished

...except that it doesn't
...and that such a flood is entirely impossible.

Tangental comment - look up on the internet human artifacts, and even skulls that have been found encased in solid coal

none of which have ever been proven to exist. there hasn't been a single substantiated claim related to this, they all depend on you taking someone's word for it.

c) if by 'speciation' you mean that the subjects could simply no longer interbreed, it proves only that genetic mutations cause breeding problems - nevertheless the first time they observe a 'hopeful monster', a cow whose calf has webbed feet, perhaps, (or at least a fruit fly that has glasses), let me know.

no...
speciation:

www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...

When it comes to debating creationism versus eveloutionism, I personally think it's a ciombination of two things, one people have a hard time understnading an dbelieving in time, espeacially massive amount of time. Two,, well, it' slike kids. Life didn't start until we were around.
But aside from that viewpoint, one thing that strengthens eveloution's standpoint in my mind would be the vestigial bits on animals, not just the remarkalle similariites, but the fact that whales and snakes both have the remnants of leg bones in the bodies. Humans hav eth eremnants of a tail (s'why it's called a tailbone) , heck people are still born with tails. Check your dog's feet, if you have one. Note that it has an extra pad on it's paw, to high to really be of any use. Some dogs still prduce a claw there as well. Give it a while, and it may be gone completly. Over extrememly long periods of time, small changes make a diiference.

I also have a problem with the fact that most of the evidence for Creationism is debunked. not just by Evoloutionists, but by Creationists as well. Many of the better Creationists sites I've run across generally have a link that has a list of evidence not to use.
So i can respect Creationism as a scientific field in and of itself, even if I don't agree with it.
My problem is, a lot of the evidence that keep being put forward is listed on these sites, or is from, at best, quetionable sources.

reply to post by RuneSpider



I totaly agree. Kind of off topic, but I watched a documentry on Chernobyl. Earth worms there have begun to reproduce sexually rather than asexually to better the chance of getting a good set of genes. Other species have been going about business as usuall, and since their birth rate is so much quicker than our own, it will be interesting to see what some of the adaptations have accured in the larger, and more complicated species.

reply to post by pause4thought

Links, links and more links, with not one rechts among them.

I weary of this pointless online paperchase.

I have just started a thread of my own: Proof of ID the World is Looking For

Please go there, read the OP and see if you can come up with something appropriate to its criteria. When you can, let me know and we'll have a rational discussion. You said you like those.

reply to post by RuneSpider


Hi. Things still sound pretty bitter around here. Nice to read some down-to-earth objections with no hint of vendetta.

one thing that strengthens eveloution's standpoint in my mind would be the vestigial bits on animals, not just the remarkalle similariites, but the fact that whales and snakes both have the remnants of leg bones in the bodies.

A creationist perspective on 'vestigial bits' was put forward on the previous page. Basically they indicate LOSS of a feature, not evidence of new features, as would be required if progressive evolution occurred.

Wales having remnants of leg bones - this does not bear up to scrutiny at all:

www.answersingenesis.org...

Humans have the remnants of a tail (s'why it's called a tailbone), heck people are still born with tails.

The 'tailbone' is essential as a point of attachment for muscle, it is no remnant! The old 'people are still born with tales' is an urban myth - babies are on occasion born with a horrible tumour, that's all.

The appendix is often also mentioned in the same vein. Just not true:

www.answersingenesis.org...

Check your dog's feet, if you have one. Note that it has an extra pad on it's paw, to high to really be of any use. Some dogs still prduce a claw there as well. Give it a while, and it may be gone completly. Over extrememly long periods of time, small changes make a difference.

As before, this would be deterioration, the opposite of evolution.

reply to post by Astyanax


Stop moaning about links. The mods don't like large quotes from within or without the site, as you know.

As to your other thread I wish I had time, but I'm nearing the end of a degree, as I mentioned elsewhere, so won't be around much for a while. I do appreciate the thrust of what you are saying. For now I will just reiterate that those who want to see that level of argument can go to the archive of the Journal of Creation: creationontheweb.com...


[edit on 24/4/08 by pause4thought]

reply to post by pause4thought

Stop moaning about links. The mods don't like large quotes from within or without the site, as you know.

I am not moaning about links. I stud my own posts with plenty. I am moaning that your links don't deliver on your promises. There is nothing -- not little, nothing -- in terms of credible support for your assertions at the end of them. And kindly don't pretend to misunderstand me; the context of my post makes it perfectly clear what I meant.

As to your other thread I wish I had time...

Yes, of course, I'm sure you do. Another time, then.

As before, this would be deterioration, the opposite of evolution

No it isn't, and no it isn't.

It has been stated that evolution tends toward more complex forms, however this is not a rule, nor the "backbone" of evolutionary theory. There are certain species of, for instance, parasitic barnacles that are much simpler than their ancestors. Evolution is about natural selection, in which the prevailing forms are those more able to survive in a given environment.

I gave you a perfectly good example that perceived simplification is often an illusion - two examples, in fact, with the snakes and cave-fish.

As for mudskippers, land-catfish, etc., I regard them as inspiring examples of how creatures were designed that could cope even with the most unpredictable of environments. (Unpredictable to us, but forseen by the Maker.)

Unpredictable environments? These are, literally, fish out of water. While they are capable of surviving in their habitats, they would clearly be much better off as, say, salamanders or lizards. They are a much better example of animals adapting to the fringes, where competition from other ray-finned fish is sparse, than they are of an "all knowing creator" which is impossible anyways because something, logically, cannot be both omniscient and omnipotent.

For a creator to be able to see ahead, and know that the environments would exist in the future, signifies omniscience. So, he couldn't be omnipotent at the same time, because if he were, he would not be omniscient, being unable to predict his own actions. So, if the creator is omniscient, he would not be capable of creation, and if he is omnipotent, he would be unable to "foresee" fringe environments and create creatures adapted to them.

Furthermore, mankind is poorly adapted to many things present in our lives. Take communicating on the Internet. Well-adjusted people will "freak out" on fora or IM because their eyes do not receive the emotional signals they usually would. Another perfect example, is the fact that man is not yet fully adapted to bipedalism, which is why so many people end up with canes or bent spines.

Either way, your statement cannot be true.

[edit on 24-4-2008 by SlyCM]

Taking it Back

I am reliably informed that pause4thought does indeed have a lot on his plate at the moment -- academic assignments and coping with the aftermath of a personal tragedy -- and is therefore genuinely prevented from taking up the challenge in my thread Proof of ID the World is Looking For. This being the case, any insinuation that he is merely funking the issue, as suggested by my earlier post, is uncalled for.

The gauntlet remains on the ground, however, for any creationist who wishes to take it up. And as I said, there's probably a Nobel Prize in it.

Since there are no real transitional forms. Here's a nice example for you the Yunnanzoon.

Life did not start out simple and evolve into more complex and diverse animals; it was complex and diverse right at the beginning. This contradiction between the fossil data and the predictions of evolutionary theory falsifies the theory. The evidence from the Cambrian explosion is that evolution simply cannot be true.

personal.georgiasouthern.edu...

Oh well back to the drawing board evolutionists...

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Interesting link, and I'll give it some thought. My understanding of the explosion of life had to do with a lack of predators and adaption to surroundings giving life several oppurtunities to fan out and evolve. I know that there were simpler forms before hand, followed by the more complex ones later, so it's not exaclty life suddenly appearing.
Keep in mind to, when the dinosaurs evolved there were a myriad of forms that descended from a fairly small group of common ancestors, before branching out and forming some amazing and straight out weird creatures.
Now the entire line is extinct except for their avian descendants.
There have also been similar explosions at variouse times in the fossil period where creatures found a niche and branched off in wild directions, if you've ever seen some of the sharks that have been unearthed over the years, then you probably know what i mean.

reply to post by pause4thought


With whales, it's not a loss of genetic information, it's simply represed. Whales lost the ability to walk on land, sure. They also have the ability to stay under for a extended length of time, "see" under water with echolocation, sing songs that reach for miles as a way of communication, and are also fricken huge. SOme have specialized teeth for straining plankton, while others still actively hunt.
Checking google briefly, I searched for human tails, and found a few links that all lead to the same creationist website that admitted yes, humans are born occasionally with tails that have bones, but this is no proof because scientists say we evolved from apes, not monkeys.
Which is true, but at one point our ancestors did have tails,a nd the genes are still with us, and are occasionaly activated for whatever reason. The farther back the genes originated, the less likely they are to be expr

reply to post by RuneSpider


Now please keep in mind, this is not drilled into me by school, I've done a good amount of reading on my own time in regards to eveloution and some small bits on genetics, of which I barely grasp to be honest, but I udnerstand enough to get their point.
However, regardless of wether it actually is detereoration or not, keep in mind that it would still take a very long amount of time, much more than would be likely in a few thousand years. I say this because contemporary art from the period of the Bible show whales as whales, not creatures with legs, which would have been noticable or remarked upon by our ancestors if they changed so quickly.
But I aggree, it's nice to debate peacefully about a topic like Creationism and Evoloution. I find both sides interesting, though I subscribe to evoloution because it makes the most sense to me. I

reply to post by RuneSpider


I am aware of Evoloutionist scientists that get along just fine with Creationist scientists, with the Creationist occasionally calling of the Evoloutionists to check their findings against, or to share info that may be pertinant to the other. I don't see why we can't keep a level head as well.