An open letter to Creationists, page 12

This topic is in the Origins & Creationism Conspiracy discussion forum. (rss)

An open letter to Creationists << 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 >>

reply posted on 10-12-2008 @ 09:30 AM by noobfun
Originally posted by papabryant “Archaeopteryx probably cannot tell us much about the early origin of feathers and flight in the true protobirds because Archaeopteryx was, in the modern sense, a bird” (Feduccia, Allan (1993), “Evidence from Claw Geometry Indicating Arboreal Habits of Archaeopteryx,” Science, 259:790-793, February 5.) Ummmmm, no. ummmmm yes ^_^ structurally it shares more with reptiles then birds he is referencing its behaviour which is more akin to modern birds then its therapsid ancestors as ornithologists considered it as having an arborial behaviour pattern, while palentologists orignially believed it to be primarily ground based [edit on 10/12/08 by noobfun]
copyright & usage

reply posted on 10-12-2008 @ 10:29 AM by papabryant
Originally posted by noobfun id love you to point me towards some of that peer reviewed work saying its not an intermediary species they will refer to it as a bird of reptilian charachteristics (that means transitionl) it is still considered a flying reptilian/avarian transition Dr Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself, says: “Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.” Feduccia, A.; in: V. Morell, Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms, Science 259(5096):764–65, 5 February 1993. see also Christiansen, P. and Bonde, N., Axial and appendicular pneumaticity in Archaeopteryx, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B. 267:2501–2505, 2000. Alonso, P.D., Milner, A.C., Ketcham, R.A., Cokson, M.J and Rowe, T.B., The avian nature of the brain and inner ear of Archaeopteryx, Nature 430(7000):666–669, 5 August 2004; Witmer, L.M, Inside the oldest bird brain, perspective, same issue, pp. 619–620. Witmer, L.M., Chatterjee, S., Franzosa, J. and Rowe, T., Nature 425(6961):950–953, 30 October 2003. So here are three more peer reviewed articles that dismiss you guys as charlatans that you can try to twist around to support your asinine position. Are you sure you guys aren't political operatives? But your attempts at salvaging your refuted position simply places you in good company; on September 11-15, 1984, an International Archaeopteryx Conference was held in Eichstatt, Bavaria to evaluate the official status of Archaeopteryx. In describing the consensus of the evolutionary scientists who attended the conference, Peter Dodson wrote in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology: "At the end of the three days of presentations, [Alan] Charig [chief curator of fossil amphibians, reptiles, and birds at the British Museum—BH/BT] orchestrated a concerted effort to summarize the ideas for which consensus exists. The general credo runs as follows: Archaeopteryx was a bird that could fly, but it was not necessarily the direct ancestor of modern birds.... A communiqué expressing the unanimous belief of all participants in the evolutionary origin and significance of Archaeopteryx was adopted, in order to forestall possible misuse by creationists of apparent discord among scientists." --- Dodson, Peter (1985), “International Archaeopteryx Conference,” Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 5:179, June. It is interesting, to say the least, that the scientists at the meeting felt constrained to adopt a unanimous resolution concerning the “evolutionary origin and significance of Archaeopteryx” solely because of a desire to prevent creationists from expressing what some of their own colleagues already had pointed out—that Archaeopteryx just might not be everything it has been cracked up to be. To say nothing of the fact two evolutionary scientists at Texas Tech have found two examples of a crow-like bird that predate Archie by about 75 million years. So Archie is a time traveller now? How do you get birds -- FULLY FORMED BIRDS AT THAT -- alive at the time of the earliest dinosaurs, before they could have ever started evolving on avian lines? Continued (because the next quote is too long for this post.)
copyright & usage

reply posted on 10-12-2008 @ 10:49 AM by veranda
I personally believe in God and evolution. There is overwhelming evidence that we evolved... I took an anthropology class that was extremely boring but made me look at evolution differently. However, I will also always believe in a higher power or God (at least until I die and see for myself). As for the bible and evolution I'm not touching that subject with a ten foot pole.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 10-12-2008 @ 10:55 AM by papabryant
reply to post by papabryant Until recently, many paleontologists thought that Archaeopteryx itself gave rise to opposite birds [birds whose foot bones are fused from the top down, as opposed to modern birds, whose foot bones are fused from the bottom up—BH/BT] which in turn gradually evolved into modern birds.... [Alan] Feduccia and his colleagues now challenge that view with fossils of a bird the size of a sparrow, called Liaoningornis. The specimen, unearthed by a farmer in the Yixian formation in northeastern China’s Liaoning Province, lacks a skull but includes a nearly complete skeleton with foot bones and a keeled sternum that resemble those of modern birds. Yet the Chinese scientists cite radiometric dates of 137 to 142 million years for the volcanic rock of the Yixian formation, which would make the bird almost as old as Archaeopteryx. And the same beds also yielded a magpie-sized primitive bird called Confuciusornis, which shares many traits with both Archaeopteryx and modern birds.... According to Feduccia and Martin, the discoveries imply that by the time of Archaeopteryx, birds had already diverged into two lineages and had a rich history that is missing from the fossil record. One lineage led to modern birds. Another led to Archaeopteryx and the opposite birds, which they view as sister taxa, closely related to each other but distinct from the line that led to modern birds. And both of these bird lineages must have descended from a much earlier ancestral bird. Feduccia reckons that the first bird must have lived about 76 million years before the birdlike dinosaurs of the Cretaceous—a fact that he says raises questions about the dinosaurian origins of birds (emp. added). Gibbons, Ann (1998), “Dinosaur Fossils, in Fine Feather, Show Links to Birds,” Science, 280:2051, June 26. This timeline problem is confirmed: “most theropod dinosaurs and in particular the birdlike dromaesours are all very much later (i.e., more recent—BH/BT) in the fossil record than Archaeopteryx. Gibbons, Ann (1998), “Dinosaur Fossils, in Fine Feather, Show Links to Birds,” Science, 280:2051, June 26. So where do we stand so far? Padian and Chiappe write in a side bar to their article SUPPORTING the Bird/Dino theory, that there were four problems with the theory - which just happen to b-slap your idea of physiological simularities: 1. The hands of theropod dinosaurs and birds differ in important ways. 2. Theropod wishbones differ significantly from those of birds. 3. Avian lungs are very complex and could not have evolved from theropod dinosaur lungs. 4. Theropod dinosaurs appear to have been exclusively ground dwellers; thus, flight would have had to originate from the cursorial or “ground-up” theory, which many scientists do not accept. (Padian, K. and L.M. Chiappe (1998), “The Origin of Birds and Their Flight,” Scientific American, 278[2]:38-47, February. ) NOW we can add to this the fact that Archie didn't appear in the fossil records until after his supposed descendants were already on the scene. The evidence stacks against you in the words of qualified scientists, and I still suppose you'll insist you won this debate. You guys are lightweights. The two of you are proof that skeptics (Internetus Idiotus) have evolved without any intellectual integrety or a single leg to stand on. (I guess that makes you in the same genus as the boneless chicken?) I'm through playing with you clowns. ( @ Good Wolf and NOOBfun as he walks away) [edit on 10-12-2008 by papabryant]
copyright & usage
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
reply posted on 10-12-2008 @ 10:56 AM by papabryant
Originally posted by veranda I personally believe in God and evolution. There is overwhelming evidence that we evolved... I took an anthropology class that was extremely boring but made me look at evolution differently. However, I will also always believe in a higher power or God (at least until I die and see for myself). As for the bible and evolution I'm not touching that subject with a ten foot pole. Probably a good idea my friend.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 10-12-2008 @ 01:47 PM by noobfun
Originally posted by papabryant Dr Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself, says: “Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.” Feduccia, A.; in: V. Morell, Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms, Science 259(5096):764–65, 5 February 1993. but believes they share a common ancestor with dinosauria which goes against your previous claim evolutions is a lie and one thing cant become another, but then you use evidence of a guy saying they came from a reptile ancestor of dinosaurs not dinosaurs directly so for you to accept him as right you also have to agree with evolution ... and i know you wont like that Longisquama insignis is his common ancestor of choice you are reading these papers before you just stick them up arnt you? Christiansen, P. and Bonde, N., Axial and appendicular pneumaticity in Archaeopteryx, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B. 267:2501–2505, 2000. read it i even linked it in my last but 1 reply i believe as the first paper i linked Extant non-avian reptiles* have substantially less capacity for oxygen* dinosaurs despite recent claims of unpneumatized non-axial bones in Archaeopteryx (Britt 1997). It is possible that its air-sac system was developed almost to the level of modern birds, particularly as the thoracal air sacs would probably not be detectable in a fossil. This is further corroborated by the fact that advanced theropod dinosaurs, such as dromaeosaurs, the group most frequently considered the sister group of birds (Chiappe 1995; Padian & Chiappe 1998), and tyrannosaurs, have vertebral pneumatic foramina on all presacral vertebrae. Oviraptorosaurs have pneumatization of the synsacral and proximal caudal vertebrae (Britt et al. 1998), indicating the possible presence of abdominal air sacs. Thus, osteological signs of abdominal air sacs could well be expected in Archaeopteryx as well. Postcranial pneumaticity among theropod dinosaurs, however, is at present not su¤ciently well understood to allow suggestions of a likely time of origin for the various air sacs. so they say it is still decended from dinosaurs and doesnt help your case any Alonso, P.D., Milner, A.C., Ketcham, R.A., Cokson, M.J and Rowe, T.B., The avian nature of the brain and inner ear of Archaeopteryx, Nature 430(7000):666–669, 5 August 2004; . and ive read this one Archaeopteryx, the earliest known flying bird (avialan) from the Late Jurassic period, exhibits many shared primitive characters with more basal coelurosaurian dinosaurs (the clade including all theropods more bird-like than Allosaurus), such as teeth, a long bony tail and pinnate feathers. so still showing reptillian characteristics ... not helping your case any are you Witmer, L.M, Inside the oldest bird brain, perspective, same issue, pp. 619–620 The following points are made by Lawrence M. Witmer (Nature 2004 430:619): 1) Combining the feathered wings and wishbone of birds with the toothed jaws and long bony tail of reptiles, Archaeopteryx is the near-perfect transitional form. Since its discovery shortly after the publication of Charles Darwin's _Origin of Species_ in 1859, it has been a compelling example in the case for evolution snip* But a landmark study by Dominguez Alonso et al[4] goes back to the first skeleton ever found to present data on the brain and sense organs. The results have implications for both the biology of Archaeopteryx and the evolutionary transition to birds. scienceweek.com... Witmer, L.M., Chatterjee, S., Franzosa, J. and Rowe, T., Nature 425(6961):950–953, 30 October 2003. www.nature.com... title Palaeontology: Smart-winged pterosaurs nothing to do with Archaeopteryx ... so why is this here? So here are three more peer reviewed articles that dismiss you guys as charlatans that you can try to twist around to support your asinine position. except they support it or have nothing to do with it Are you sure you guys aren't political operatives? thought i was an unqualified 14 year old? make your mind up son But your attempts at salvaging your refuted position simply places you in good company; a better position then you it seems on September 11-15, 1984, an International Archaeopteryx Conference was held in Eichstatt, Bavaria to evaluate the official status of Archaeopteryx. In describing the consensus of the evolutionary scientists who attended the conference, Peter Dodson wrote in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology: "At the end of the three days of presentations, [Alan] Charig [chief curator of fossil amphibians, reptiles, and birds at the British Museum—BH/BT] orchestrated a concerted effort to summarize the ideas for which consensus exists. The general credo runs as follows: Archaeopteryx was a bird that could fly, but it was not necessarily the direct ancestor of modern birds.... A communiqué expressing the unanimous belief of all participants in the evolutionary origin and significance of Archaeopteryx was adopted, in order to forestall possible misuse by creationists of apparent discord among scientists." --- Dodson, Peter (1985), “International Archaeopteryx Conference,” Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 5:179, June. that explains it then you often mis-used quoting of Dr Alan Feduccia It is interesting, to say the least, that the scientists at the meeting felt constrained to adopt a unanimous resolution concerning the “evolutionary origin and significance of Archaeopteryx” solely because of a desire to prevent creationists from expressing what some of their own colleagues already had pointed out—that Archaeopteryx just might not be everything it has been cracked up to be. actually the other side of the argument of is the one Dr Alan Feduccia set out that they share a common ancestor with dinosaurs but are not directy decended from and still uses evolution where as creationists butcher everything to further thier aim such as quoting Dr Alan Feduccia as proof that Archaeopteryx didnt evolve from anything when clearly he say they did, he just says an earlier reptile To say nothing of the fact two evolutionary scientists at Texas Tech have found two examples of a crow-like bird that predate Archie by about 75 million years. A. Feduccia: "Calling this the original bird is irresponsible." (our friends back look) J.H. Ostrom: "Sad to say, for all its length, little support for the claim is to be found in this paper." J. Gauthier: While some of the bones appear bird-like, they also look dinosaurian and could represent a new type of theropod dinosaur. The cervical vertebrae, which have been proposed to be unambiguously avian (Chatterjee 1991), are remarkably similar to the cervical vertebrae of the drepanosaurid Megalancosaurus (Renesto 2000) and isolated three-dimensionally preserved drepanosaurid cervical vertebrae from the Late Triassic fissure fills at Cromhall Quarry, England (Renesto & Fraser 2003).Moreover, other drepanosaurid bones are known from the Protoavis locality. Therefore, it is quite possible that parts of Protoavis, particularly the cervical vertebrae, belong to a drepanosaurid. Witmer (2001) suggested that the braincase of the holotype of Protoavis is not avian, but may be coelurosaurian, noting that the braincase of Protoavis shares the following characters with coelurosaurs: cranial pneumatic recesses, specifically the caudal tympanic recess; a large cerebellar auricular fossa; a metotic strut; and a vagal canal opening onto the occiput (Chatterjee 1991;Witmer 1997, 2001). The presence of a coelurosaur in the Bull Canyon Formation would pull the hypothetical first appearances of theropod groups such as the spinosauroids and carnosaurs into the Late Triassic and the femur (TTUP 9200) of the holotype belong to a theropod. The femur exhibits the following dinosaur and theropod characters: offset femoral head, ligament sulcus, strongly developed facies articularis antitrochanterica of the femur (from Langer 2004), anterior trochanter with strong trochanteric shelf and a small posterior trochanter. Chatterjee (1999) remarked on the absence of a fourth trochanter; however, the area where the fourth trochanter would be present is not preserved in any specimen. The proximal portion of the femur is similar to that of coelophysoids as noted by Hutchinson (2001). The astragalus retains a deep fibular facet, a character retained in basal dinosaurs and basal theropods, but lost in maniraptoran theropods socrates.berkeley.edu... hardly conclusive most palentologists think he has mishmashed various bones together accidentally from other species of dinosaur and it still has other dinosaur/reptilian charachteristis like teeth So Archie is a time traveller now? nope, you can have multipul species going for the same or different times How do you get birds -- FULLY FORMED BIRDS AT THAT -- alive at the time of the earliest dinosaurs, before they could have ever started evolving on avian lines? you dont, and neither is Protoavis texensis, even if he hasnt accidentally included bones he shouldnt have its still primarily reptillian in its features, even more so the Archaeopteryx [edit on 10/12/08 by noobfun]
copyright & usage

reply posted on 10-12-2008 @ 01:48 PM by noobfun
Originally posted by papabryant Until recently, many paleontologists thought that Archaeopteryx itself gave rise to opposite birds [birds whose foot bones are fused from the top down, as opposed to modern birds, whose foot bones are fused from the bottom up—BH/BT] which in turn gradually evolved into modern birds.... [Alan] Feduccia and his colleagues now challenge that view with fossils of a bird the size of a sparrow, called Liaoningornis. The specimen, unearthed by a farmer in the Yixian formation in northeastern China’s Liaoning Province, lacks a skull but includes a nearly complete skeleton with foot bones and a keeled sternum that resemble those of modern birds. Yet the Chinese scientists cite radiometric dates of 137 to 142 million years for the volcanic rock of the Yixian formation, which would make the bird almost as old as Archaeopteryx. And the same beds also yielded a magpie-sized primitive bird called Confuciusornis, which shares many traits with both Archaeopteryx and modern birds.... According to Feduccia and Martin, the discoveries imply that by the time of Archaeopteryx, birds had already diverged into two lineages and had a rich history that is missing from the fossil record. One lineage led to modern birds. Another led to Archaeopteryx and the opposite birds, which they view as sister taxa, closely related to each other but distinct from the line that led to modern birds. And both of these bird lineages must have descended from a much earlier ancestral bird. Feduccia reckons that the first bird must have lived about 76 million years before the birdlike dinosaurs of the Cretaceous—a fact that he says raises questions about the dinosaurian origins of birds (emp. added). Gibbons, Ann (1998), “Dinosaur Fossils, in Fine Feather, Show Links to Birds,” Science, 280:2051, June 26. and that just mean they ecolved from older reptilian ancestors like Dr Alan Feduccia suggested and STILL shows Arche to be a transition from reptile to bird even if its line died out we move the branch back a little to show our better understanding and even those early birds had reptilian like features showing common decent and it still hasnt been proven decisivley, its interesting but not proven “most theropod dinosaurs and in particular the birdlike dromaesours are all very much later (i.e., more recent—BH/BT) in the fossil record than Archaeopteryx. Gibbons, Ann (1998), “Dinosaur Fossils, in Fine Feather, Show Links to Birds,” Science, 280:2051, June 26. still doesnt disprove evolution or found reptilian charachteristics So where do we stand so far? pretty much the same place we were they still display reptilian charachteristics from reptilain ancestry 1. The hands of theropod dinosaurs and birds differ in important ways. the only differance is the bone is fused and they lost the claws in most avarians (some of them still retain them ^_^ ) 2. Theropod wishbones differ significantly from those of birds. ill be lazy and use wiki It is now known that not only do theropods have clavicles, but in many of them the clavicles have fused to form veritable furculae[3][4] . This, then, is a common anatomical feature to theropods, to Archaeopteryx, and to modern birds. ... wrong again it seems 3. Avian lungs are very complex and could not have evolved from theropod dinosaur lungs. well we know this IS WRONG 4. Theropod dinosaurs appear to have been exclusively ground dwellers; thus, flight would have had to originate from the cursorial or “ground-up” theory, which many scientists do not accept. (Padian, K. and L.M. Chiappe (1998), “The Origin of Birds and Their Flight,” Scientific American, 278[2]:38-47, February. ) shall we take a look? remember the guy from texas the one who found the full bird that really wasnt? he disagrees www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov... heres an arboreal theropod NOW we can add to this the fact that Archie didn't appear in the fossil records until after his supposed descendants were already on the scene. nope its still earlier then the chinses fossils and the one from texas at best is very risky and still partially reptilian The evidence stacks against you in the words of qualified scientists, and I still suppose you'll insist you won this debate. it stacks against nothing all you have shown is 1/2 the links you supply support my argument, the other half support an older species of reptile as the ancestor and they STILL show reptillian traits and suggested an alternate hypothesis for birds evolution that i already knew about, hardly a good way to disprove evolution You guys are lightweights. well right now the 600lb gorilla is getting tossed around by king kong ill ignore the ad-hominim it wasnt very inventive I'm through playing with you clowns. awww please stay its fun when you support my argumensts with your own evidence
copyright & usage

reply posted on 13-12-2008 @ 02:37 PM by J.Smit
reply to post by noobfun You sure you didn't miss a zero? Or replaced a number with a zero? it is pretty difficult to be so precise with that many 0's. And since it is 1:pretty much more than you can count, why not be realistic and admit it is closer to zero than to reality?
copyright & usage

reply posted on 13-12-2008 @ 02:44 PM by noobfun
reply to post by J.Smit its rounded down to make it easier to type you just need to copy paste 30+ lots 000 on the end want to know what makes it even funnier? thats just for 16 shared locator erv's we have roughly 20,000 (give or take a hundred) in common with chimpanzee's i didnt do the math that was done by a guy with a doctorate in Molecular Neuroscience who knows exactly what the odds are for each one lets face your average calculator would commit suicide trying to work the correct odds for all of them out [edit on 13/12/08 by noobfun]
copyright & usage

reply posted on 13-12-2008 @ 02:56 PM by J.Smit
Just curious: Why do people have a hang-up about global warming and rising ocean levels? Gee, if the sci-fientists are so smart, why not just engineer us some biotech-evo systems to accelerate the evillution (misspelled on purpose) process? Then mankind can merely "return to the sea" instead of drowning! ....And someday this brain is maybe gonna feed worms... I know: evolution is said to take milllllllions of years and we only have between a few decades and a few millenia to get this working. But then, those same sci-fientists say our understanding is much better now, and that is why we cannot afford a creator in the equation. So if their understanding is far enough to understand how to dismember and read DNA (you know, the book that wrote itself), what keeps them from engineering aqualungs for the next generation? ...beware those worms mutating.... Could it just maybe, be that the clever people are not that clever, and have no proof yet for evolution? Something like, say, 190 out of 200 laboratory-experiments that were successful? And, erm, a particle-accelerator that actually managed to create a new universe...? ...but then, we'd all be dead from the sudden expantion of the particle-induced unverse creation, and this conversation never took place. That's the trouble with overly clever people. They cannot understand the things we common people take for granted.... even when their test fail or remain non-existant...
copyright & usage
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
reply posted on 13-12-2008 @ 02:58 PM by J.Smit
reply to post by noobfun Round here, we use computers. And you guys?
copyright & usage

reply posted on 13-12-2008 @ 03:38 PM by noobfun
Originally posted by J.Smit Round here, we use computers. And you guys? pots and pebbles we havnt invented the abacuse yet .. any day now fingers crossed
copyright & usage

reply posted on 13-12-2008 @ 03:45 PM by The Matrix Traveller
If we desire space travel so much, dose this mean we are going to grow a fuel tang and rocket engine as part of our body. Lungs won't work out there, gills wont work out there, what will the lungs evolve into I wonder????? Hmmm no credit cards there, or BP stations out there ether, how do we know what to evolve into ..... Humankind sure has the desire to rule the Universe. I guess human kind are the most evolved in space yet they have Not evolved into space craft yet. Are we going to evolve into space craft?? After all we were meant to have crawled out of the sea you know those little fish with feet and evolve into a primate. Do we have the knowledge on how to evolve???? oops! There are some on this thread that would pretend we will over the next 1,000,000,000 years, give or take a few zero's! Or have they changed the rules so we can't. Do these people make the rules and where do the rules come from???? We forgot to evolve into birds as we did not have the instinct to see the are of aircraft.... oh well Yes what I have written it is a lot of non sense isn't it??? But that is what Evolution is about. Evolution.... Adaptation.... But Evolution definitely a
copyright & usage

reply posted on 13-12-2008 @ 04:14 PM by noobfun
Originally posted by J.Smit Just curious: Why do people have a hang-up about global warming and rising ocean levels? becuase we have already overpopulated the earth and iff sea levels rise were going to have even less land Gee, if the sci-fientists are so smart, why not just engineer us some biotech-evo systems to accelerate the evillution (misspelled on purpose) process? Then mankind can merely "return to the sea" instead of drowning! thats bioengeniering and nothing to do with the process of evolution and if your really think its that easy to bio engineer and entirely new breathing system or find the specific parts of our junk dna that are left over from when we were fish and turn them back on you should look into it more even if anypart of that dna was left chances are its been mutated so much it wont do it properly anymore like our tail atavisms they form partial tails some are motive some have vertebrate but none are what you would say was exactly how our common ancestors had as tails youd be better off trying to edit the dna directly rather then wait for evolution, but tampering in one bit can sometimes cause very strange reactions in another part and i seriously dought anyone would let scientists try even if they were insane enough to try ....And someday this brain is maybe gonna feed worms... thats almost certain we can fend off ageing and death for a little while but imortality would leave us a total genetic mess, we already acrue an average of four mutations each in our life time, imagine that life time lasting much longer multiplying the mutation rate even further I know: evolution is said to take milllllllions of years and we only have between a few decades and a few millenia to get this working. who told you that? evolution works consantly (such as the 4 new mutations per generation average) but it does take many many generations for all those little changes to add up to reresent what we find in the fossil record But then, those same sci-fientists say our understanding is much better now, it is much better depend what time scale your talking about, its massivley improved from just 15-20 years ago but its still a very yound science and that is why we cannot afford a creator in the equation. he breaks it if he interferes thats why most of the worlds religeous people including christainas see it as gods method for creating diversity, he invented evolution and let it do its thing So if their understanding is far enough to understand how to dismember and read DNA (you know, the book that wrote itself), what keeps them from engineering aqualungs for the next generation? the fact our knolwedge may not be up to that standard yet the fact they would never get approval or funding for it the fact they probabily wouldnt want to the fact it would save none of us just create mutated future generations ...beware those worms mutating.... we will be dead we wont have to worry Could it just maybe, be that the clever people are not that clever, Orgel's Second Rule and have no proof yet for evolution ummm you have read this thread? its loaded with case studies that show it Something like, say, 190 out of 200 laboratory-experiments that were successful try a few more, not to mention the many hundreds of observed instances that arnt in labs, the taxonomic, phylogenetic,dna analysis, fossil record analysis, atavistic analysis that all over lap and support each other that evolution is proven beyond reasonable dought And, erm, a particle-accelerator that actually managed to create a new universe...? ?? what?? particale accelerators are not designed or built to make new universes the chances of that happeneing are even larger then us not sharing a common ancestor with chimps the maths that predicted it a possability have been discredited i believe(not my field so dont know all the details) ...but then, we'd all be dead from the sudden expantion of the particle-induced unverse creation, and this conversation never took place. yes it would have even in the unlikley event a new universe was created it wouldnt involve time travel That's the trouble with overly clever people. They cannot understand the things we common people take for granted.... even if what you take for granted is made up illusions becasue you chose to stay a common person rather then actually learn? and dont be so conceited common person do you insist on everyone sharing your understanding to make them common people? everyone has a different level of understanding of science some people chose to be this way others dont know how to get a better education or are afraid its a poor attempt to appeal to the common man to try and belittle anyone that understands things you currently dont, well heres an idea instead of making terribly poor sly remarks actually try and understand what your talking about instead of trying to claim the majority agree with you and there fore it must be right you may chose to be willingly ignorant of science and spend your time trying to insult somthing that keeps you fed clothed healthy and improve your life in numerous other ways but dont try and pull everyone else to your level of denial so you can fein an argument from majority even when their test fail or remain non-existant... thy exist they succeed time and time again the eveidnece only grows stronger you want to discredit science? actually learn about it and really try dont just sit there doing it from ignorance becasue you dont happen to agree, and dont try and gain sympathy by playing the poor common man that ignorance your displaying now isnt from not understanding its from refusing to even try you may wish to paint everyone as willingly ignorant like your self but im not [edit on 13/12/08 by noobfun]
copyright & usage

reply posted on 13-12-2008 @ 04:29 PM by noobfun
Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller If we desire space travel so much, dose this mean we are going to grow a fuel tang and rocket engine as part of our body. Lungs won't work out there, gills wont work out there, what will the lungs evolve into I wonder????? Hmmm no credit cards there, or BP stations out there ether, how do we know what to evolve into ..... we dont thats the great thing about evolution we dont decide on any part of it Humankind sure has the desire to rule the Universe. speak for your self i just want to understand it all I guess human kind are the most evolved in space yet they have Not evolved into space craft yet. space craft tend not to be made of naturally occuring self replicating organic's Are we going to evolve into space craft?? only if evolution is wrong After all we were meant to have crawled out of the sea you know those little fish with feet and evolve into a primate. and no where does evolution say we will evolve into none biological machines Do we have the knowledge on how to evolve???? oops! radiation helps speed up mutation rates but natural selection still weeds out the crappy ones There are some on this thread that would pretend we will over the next 1,000,000,000 years, give or take a few zero's! not any of the ones that know what the theory says Or have they changed the rules so we can't. youd have to massivley change the rules to say we could Do these people make the rules and where do the rules come from???? no nature makes the rules we just learn to understand them We forgot to evolve into birds as we did not have the instinct to see the are of aircraft.... no some reptiles evolved into birds, you dont get to chose what you evolve into Yes what I have written it is a lot of non sense isn't it??? yes it really is But that is what Evolution is about. no it really isnt maybe you should speak to one of your proffessors about it Evolution.... Adaptation.... unless you can prove that ALL mutations are beneficial which would THNE AND ONLY THEN make them adaptions not mutations, downsyndrone cancer and many many other genetic diseases are most certianly not beneficial But Evolution definitely a what your describing as evolution, id agree and add a few more downs the actually thoery of evolution not a poor strawman most deffinatley lots of 's [edit on 13/12/08 by noobfun]
copyright & usage

reply posted on 13-12-2008 @ 04:39 PM by nj2day
Originally posted by J.Smit Just curious: Why do people have a hang-up about global warming and rising ocean levels? Gee, if the sci-fientists are so smart, why not just engineer us some biotech-evo systems to accelerate the evillution (misspelled on purpose) process? Then mankind can merely "return to the sea" instead of drowning! LOL wow, this paragraph shows so much misunderstanding of evolution and science it is astounding! Evillution? since evolution goes against the creation story, its evil now? Are you implying Science is evil? If you are, perhaps you should get of the internet, and go live with the amish... remember... the computer you are using, the internet you are accessing, the electricity used to power both... are all brought to you by science. Or is evolution the only "evil" science, because it goes against what you believe? Oh well, since Evolution is supported by chemistry, biology and zoology (and more)... those must all be evil too. ....And someday this brain is maybe gonna feed worms... exactly. Regardless of beliefs... this is how it is. I know: evolution is said to take milllllllions of years evolution only takes 1 generation of offspring... but it has taken billions of years to get where we are currently. Evolution doesn't have a "destination" as you seem to be implying... and we only have between a few decades and a few millenia to get this working. But then, those same sci-fientists say our understanding is much better now, Our understanding of the universe has grown exponentially over the centuries... the more we learn, the more we can study... the more we study, the more we learn... its a self feeding cycle. Sci-fientist? You really should be Amish mate... and that is why we cannot afford a creator in the equation. So if their understanding is far enough to understand how to dismember and read DNA (you know, the book that wrote itself), what keeps them from engineering aqualungs for the next generation? Scientists don't say we can't afford a creator... they simply hold the idea of "god" to the same guidelines set forth by the scientific method. Since there's no way to set up a falsifiable hypothesis regarding the subject, it is not in the realm of science. You should read up on the scientific method... I've brought this up before... but DNA evolved from RNA... RNA is nothing more than a string of amino acids that replicates itself in the presence of other proteins... not at all life... just a "chemical"... We can talk Abiogenesis if you like... but you better bring something to the table to add to the discussion... ...beware those worms mutating.... They will, and they do... Could it just maybe, be that the clever people are not that clever, and have no proof yet for evolution? Something like, say, 190 out of 200 laboratory-experiments that were successful? And, erm, a particle-accelerator that actually managed to create a new universe...? show me sources for all these claims... not religious sources... but scientific sources that state these claims you are suggesting... Evolution is Fact. It is supported by evidence, and has been observed in labratories... This evidence is solid... regardless if you "choose" to acknowledge this... you're beating a dead horse. ...but then, we'd all be dead from the sudden expantion of the particle-induced unverse creation, and this conversation never took place. What "new universe" are you talking about? again... sources. That's the trouble with overly clever people. They cannot understand the things we common people take for granted.... even when their test fail or remain non-existant... Wow.. all I can say is wow... You have proven that you misunderstand the premise of evolution in its entirety... I recommend you read the Origin of Species... or at least, get some what of a grasp on what you're talking about...
copyright & usage
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
reply posted on 13-12-2008 @ 04:49 PM by The Matrix Traveller
reply to post by noobfun we dont thats the great thing about evolution we dont decide on any part of it What does then???? No it It's a god but what does??????? Cheers...
copyright & usage

reply posted on 13-12-2008 @ 04:51 PM by nj2day
Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller reply to post by noobfun we dont thats the great thing about evolution we dont decide on any part of it What does then???? No it It's a god but what does??????? Cheers... Natural Selection and Sexual Selection pressures to put it simply.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 13-12-2008 @ 04:52 PM by angel of lightangelo
Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller What does then???? No it It's a god but what does??????? Cheers... Are you saying that god takes the time to curve every branch a special way? Does he tenderly form houseplants in the direction of sunlight? Are you trying to claim that god micromanages soooo much that everything that ever happens outside of our free will is his doing?
copyright & usage

reply posted on 13-12-2008 @ 04:55 PM by The Matrix Traveller
reply to post by nj2day But where are the rules in the structural changes that take Place???
copyright & usage