Evolution is Wrong...interesting video (1 Viewer)

[Galaxiom]

Which is it, Homo Sapiens or micro organisms?

Exactly as I said, Homo Sapiens but only if you forget the microorganisms. Trouble with comprehension Mike?

It was you who said that many considered reptiles and mammals were central to the issue of evolution.

Microorganisms far outweigh all other life on the planet. They decimated us in the Black Plague and would do so now but for the temporary stay granted by antibiotics.

Once again you avoid the core issue. Come on Mike let's get back to your evidence that reptiles and modern amphibians did not descend from a common ancestor.

You won't go there becsue have absolutely nothing to offer.

 

[Mike375]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptiliomorpha

"Exactly where the border between reptile-like amphibians (non-amniote reptiliomorphs) and amniotes lies will probably never be known"

So what? That you would bother to repost to this triviality indicates you cling to irrelevancies to avoid the real issues. Not knowing the exact detail in no way serves as something to refute the basic premises of Evolution.

You never thought it was trivial first time around. You change page by page. In fact you thought there was no connection between reptile and amphibian and no issue with developmet of amniote egg

But you stick with evolution is 100% and I will stick with evolution not covering everything.

Got head to bed to get up in morning so I wll sign off for the night.

 

[Galaxiom]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptiliomorpha

"Exactly where the border between reptile-like amphibians (non-amniote reptiliomorphs) and amniotes lies will probably never be known"

Mike has become a scratched record.

For the younger reader. A now obsolete audio media (the "record") used a grooves in a plastic disk to vibrate a needle. These movements were converted to sound with transducer. When the disk was damaged with a scratch, the needle would jump to same path again and again and the short segment of audio would repeat in an endless loop.

Mike is quite similar to the Jehovah's Witnesses who revert to the Bible whenever they get out of their depth in debate. However I will say that some of the JWs I have encountered are far more intelligent and intellectually honest than Mike.

Still absolutely nothing of substance on the topic from him but do note the tenacity of the religous disposition. It is a remarkable phenomonon that demonstrates how difficult it is to expunge religious dogma and its influence on modern society.

Come on Mike, lift you game. It is rather sad that a Jehovahs's Witness seems more of an intellectual challenge. I am getting bored "shootin' fish in a barrel".

 

[Rich]

Mike has become a scratched record.

For the younger reader. A now obsolete audio media (the "record") used a grooves in a plastic disk to vibrate a needle. These movements were converted to sound with transducer. When the disk was damaged with a scratch, the needle would jump to same path again and again and the short segment of audio would repeat in an endless loop.

Mike is quite similar to the Jehovah's Witnesses who revert to the Bible whenever they get out of their depth in debate. However I will say that some of the JWs I have encountered are far more intelligent and intellectually honest than Mike.

Still absolutely nothing of substance on the topic from him but do note the tenacity of the religous disposition. It is a remarkable phenomonon that demonstrates how difficult it is to expunge religious dogma and its influence on modern society.

Come on Mike, lift you game. It is rather sad that a Jehovahs's Witness seems more of an intellectual challenge. I am getting bored "shootin' fish in a barrel".

Wait until you start correcting him on his db design

 

[Rabbie]

But you stick with evolution is 100% and I will stick with evolution not covering everything.

As both Darwin and Dawkins have said - You only need one case where you can show that Evolution does not explain what has happened to disprove the theory. The creationists(anti-evolutionists) so far have failed to do this.

There seem to be certain people on this thread who believe that Evolution is an atheist theory. This is not the case. Certainly outside the USA the mainstream christian churches accept evolution as the mechanism for explaining the variety of species.

 

[Galaxiom]

Mike's persistence with the quote about not being able to identify the divergence of the amniotes shows he is confused about the diffrence between a gap in the evidence and a gap in the theory.

While it is unlikely that we will obtain evidence for this particular diversion it in no way constitutes a gap in the theory as Mike apparently assumes.

Mike needs to understand that a theory is challenged when evidence is found that contradicts its predictions. A theory does not depend on evidence for every last piece of its predictions, especially in evolutionary biology.

Mike, you have stated that the amniote egg is too big a step for reptiles to have evolved from "amphibians". Now let's avoid semantics because as I have made it clear, Class Amphibia is ambiguous in terms of evolutionary biology due to the Reptilimorphs.

Answer me this or don't bother posting.
"Did modern amphibians and modern reptiles evolve from a common ancestor?"

This is the crux of the discussion. I think it is time you answered this because you have not yet responded to a single question even though I have provided detailed answers to your question about the processes involved in the developement of the anmiote egg and provided clear evidence that it is not an insurmountable step.

Hopefully you can do better than the bizarre claim that it is "a bigger step than a donkey evolving into a human."

 

[Galaxiom]

Rabbie:

"The best solution is the simplest one that meets all requirements."

Your signature seems very appropriate in this discussion. Darwin's solution was spectacular in its incredible simplicity. It was a remarkable insight at a time when the gene had never even been contemplated.

 

[Mike375]

As both Darwin and Dawkins have said - You only need one case where you can show that Evolution does not explain what has happened to disprove the theory. The creationists(anti-evolutionists) so far have failed to do this.

There seem to be certain people on this thread who believe that Evolution is an atheist theory. This is not the case. Certainly outside the USA the mainstream christian churches accept evolution as the mechanism for explaining the variety of species.

In Australia the catholic church was on side with evolutuon at least as early as 1963. We were taught that in the Catholic school and the condition they had was God breathed a soul into man and then he was man. But as best I can remember the catholic church was not a 100% Bible deal and that was one of the criticisms used by the other churches.

Ministers I have met from other churches seem to only believe in evolution as in peppered moth style or where there is no change in the species.

But evolution at the peppered moth level and even greater must have been acknowledged from the time man first started cross breeding animals to get a desired result.

 

[Rabbie]

In Australia the catholic church was on side with evolutuon at least as early as 1963. We were taught that in the Catholic school and the condition they had was God breathed a soul into man and then he was man. But as best I can remember the catholic church was not a 100% Bible deal and that was one of the criticisms used by the other churches.

The main churches here in the UK are evolutionist rather than literalist. So I don't feel it is helpful or accurate to say that pro-evolutionists are coming from an atheist point of view. That would seem to me to be just creationist/fundamentalist insults.

 

[Mike375]

Answer me this or don't bother posting.
"Did modern amphibians and modern reptiles evolve from a common ancestor?"

Before I answer have a look at the link and especially the last sentence.
You post that things are 100% and that is not the case.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100209183335.htm

But what is interesting is many years ago when the dinosaur (dromaeosaurids) to bird bandwagon started some paleos were saying hang on "for this to happen you need to be older than your grandfather" and archeopteryx being much older than the dinosaurs in question. In fact as you know the dino to bird got to the stage that dinosaurs were not extinct, they were still here as the bird out in the garden. But none of this is suprising given the very limited number of fossils as well it being to the advantage of paleos adopting a certain position.

But just consider what we and that is two positions that are 180 degrees apart. In fact we now have some paleos saying dromaeosaurids were not dinosaurs but were birds. So this whole area is hardly what you would call 100% spot on with the details.

So lets move on.

I believe if amphibians and reptiles had a common ancestor then it was at the microbe level. Put it this way, if there was a common ancestor it was back so far before either it would not be recognisable.

My basic belief with evolution is there are far more starting points or if you like a lot more runners at the start of the race and a huge number of evolution dead ends. In fact I think the legless lizard is an evolution dead end that has not yet become extinct. It 60 million years time it will be hard to find a fossil of it. There are about 12 legless lizards and 3000 snakes and 3000 ordinary lizards.

I don't see the move to the amniote egg as a creationist prover. Instead I see it (as well as any of the big changes) as proof that there were a lot more runners at the start of the race.

I do find the snake and lizard interesting. Years ago the snake was seen as evolving from the lizard but that has changed. Maybe because someone thought the change would be close to impossible to do, unless it could be done quickly. However, the snake is still regarded as more advanced than the lizard. But what i find interesting is the difference in the sexes.

The lizard follows the mammal where in nearly all cases the male is larger and often more colourful. But the snake is just the opposite. A big individual snake is like a record breaking white shark, both are girls.

So I suppose I could say in general that I don't see evolution so much in the light of a relay race where each runner hands the batton over.

As I have already posted I have no difficulty with going from no eyes to an eye.

In a nutshell I think the basics of evolution are correct but there are lots of missing pieces and I think those missing pieces are lots more creatures that were at the starting gate.

Intelligent Design in my opinion could only apply if early Genesis was accepted, that is. God said to Adam and Eve after they ate the fruit their crops would be full of weeds and childbirth would be a big deal etc. Otherwise if these animals were designed there were lots of poor jobs done, legless lizard for example

I think the legless lizard and probably 100s or even 1000s of animals before it do show that natural selection won't climb a big hump or hill. What the snake will have descended from meant the big hill was avoided.

For those who might read this and not be aware of the legless lizard I will add a couple of points. Firstly, they are also called glass snakes and that relates to their tail breaking off very easlily, similar to skinks and because the tail can be 2/3rds of their length it looks like they broke in half

Snakes on the other hand have very short tails, a snake is nearly all body and has a very supple feel to it. Because the legless lizard is stuck with lizard type scales (and probably the very short body) it is quite restricted in its movement. Flat ground will stop it.

It also handicapped when it eats. If you compare a snake and a legged lizard of the same weight the legged lizard is shorter and broader and bigger head, so can gulp down much more. The snake is thin but its jaws and body allow it to eat a much bigger meal than its diameter would suggest. At a rough guess I think a snake and a lizard of equal weight could eat about the same size meal.

I think if you were a legless lizard and had a time machine you would go back to your great grand parents and tell them to cancel the idea of making you look like a snake as it did not work very well

 

[Mike375]

The main churches here in the UK are evolutionist rather than literalist. So I don't feel it is helpful or accurate to say that pro-evolutionists are coming from an atheist point of view. That would seem to me to be just creationist/fundamentalist insults.

What I have said is the "religious like atheist", the zealot.

I don't know the official view of the non Catholic Christian churches, as I said I have met some of the ministers and that might be their personal view. A fellow I knew who used to be in insurance did his studies (quite long as I remember) and became a minister. He was very fundamentalist.

I find the atheist zealot and born again very similar.

 

[Mike375]

As both Darwin and Dawkins have said - You only need one case where you can show that Evolution does not explain what has happened to disprove the theory. The creationists(anti-evolutionists) so far have failed to do this.

And that will remain so because evolution in principle is correct.

In fact evolution fits the "if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and sounds like a duck it is a duck". I think that is the saying.

I find the average person, whether a non zealot atheist or non zealot Christian, believe the basics of evolution but don't think all the pieces fit the puzzle. My best shootng mate is an atheist but very far from the zealot. He half believes evolution but does not of course believe that God or a god is the answer to missing pieces.

 

[Galaxiom]

But just consider what we and that is two positions that are 180 degrees apart. In fact we now have some paleos saying dromaeosaurids were not dinosaurs but were birds. So this whole area is hardly what you would call 100% spot on with the details.

Once again you are considering a relatively minor detail. It in no way lends support to your hypothesis. I suggest you start reading on evolutionary biology and genetics and you will see you are right off the track.

I believe if amphibians and reptiles had a common ancestor then it was at the microbe level. Put it this way, if there was a common ancestor it was back so far before either it would not be recognisable.

My basic belief with evolution is there are far more starting points or if you like a lot more runners at the start of the race and a huge number of evolution dead ends.

Your theory is not even remotely supported by the evidence and conflicts sharply with the opinion of the entire body of evolutionary and biological science.


In your theory the vast number of morphological similarities among all tetrapods would have to be purely as a result of convergent evolution. That is far fetched enough but similarities the precise genetic sequences, including shared random variations that make no difference to the phenotype, make it utterly implausible.

I don't see the move to the amniote egg as a creationist prover. Instead I see it (as well as any of the big changes) as proof that there were a lot more runners at the start of the race.

The chances against so many features recurring in so many different organisms without them having a common ancestor is far, far, far less than any problems you could possibly imagine with the diversification involved in the anmniote.


As I said earlier we share large parts of our genome with worms and flies, not to mention plants and microorganisms. This is because we all share a common ancestor.

 

[Mike375]

Galaxiom,

Try and read what I write or at least remember what you read when you post.

If you read what I said about the link and especially where I said to read the last sentence then you would realise I never posted the link as evidence against evolution.

Here is the last sentence/paragraph. Note that I did not ask you to read any of the article and the reason for that is I did not post the link to shoot holes in evolution.

"Pesky new fossils...sharply at odds with conventional wisdom never seem to cease popping up," Ruben wrote in his PNAS commentary. "Given the vagaries of the fossil record, current notions of near resolution of many of the most basic questions about long-extinct forms should probably be regarded with caution."

I posted it to illustrate this whole area is not one where you can say things are 100% because they will change as they always have. In that case the evidence spins 180 degrees and then goes straight up in the air.

Just think what we have here. Initially we have birds descending from dinosaurs, specifically dromaesaurids. Now we have not only changed so as dromaesaurids descended from birds but the dromaesaurids are no longer dinosaurs. For years I read “the evidence shows etc”

You keep saying “the evidence shows” as if it is all 100%. What the evidence shows, that is, the non changing stuff, is firstly early animal forms confirm natural selection in principle. We can also safely say that 100 million years ago there were lots of reptile like animals and the average size was much bigger than today.

Check this link

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/10/30/new.analyses.dinosaur.growth.may.wipe.out.one.third.species

“In fact, Horner suggests that one-third of all named dinosaur species may never have existed, but are merely different stages in the growth of other known dinosaurs.”

As to the rest of your post commenting on me saying they had no common ancestor, read again. What I said was the ancestors would be a long way back. In other words the frog did not turn into lizard but a common ancestor would have been shared by both but well back in time.

 

[Galaxiom]

Just think what we have here. Initially we have birds descending from dinosaurs, specifically dromaesaurids. Now we have not only changed so as dromaesaurids descended from birds but the dromaesaurids are no longer dinosaurs. For years I read “the evidence shows etc”

What we have is doubt over the exact lineage of one particular small group of creatures. Like any good science the hypothesis now needs to be refined.

Like the problem encountered with Reptilimorphs and Class Amphibia these are creatures which are difficult to classify unwaveringly as either bird or reptile because they are transitional. Moreover Evolution does not have a set irreversable direction. It is very likely that lines of species did progress toward birds and untimately back toward reptilian forms again.

The dromaeosaurid might no longer be considered either as a dinosaur nor as the ancestor of birds. However note that this does not mean that birds could not have descended from dinosuars, just that they need a new candidate for the precise ancestral group becuse the hitherto leading one has been moved out of the theropods. The overwhelmiing evidence is still that birds descended from theropod dinosaurs.

You have outlandislhishly extrapolated the uncertainty to dispute the all lineages of all birds and even to the ridiculous extreme of claiming that vast numbers of tetrapods each underwent the same evolution in remarkable synchrony over hundreds of millions of years from before the rise of multicellular organisms.

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/10/30/new.analyses.dinosaur.growth.may.wipe.out.one.third.species

“In fact, Horner suggests that one-third of all named dinosaur species may never have existed, but are merely different stages in the growth of other known dinosaurs.”

Look at the up to date research and you will find that this claim is hotly disputed by other evolutionary biologists. Like any scientist, he is welcome to propose a hypothesis but he must also expose it to criticism.

What you claim as evidence for the science being wrong is nothing more than the due process in the field. Under your regime any suggestion of disagrement is tantamount to rejection of all knowledge of the field.

You simply jump on whatever story suits your prejudice. You turn disagreements and changes of prevalent wisdom on relatively minor aspects into "evidence" for ridiculously large changes in the science. There certainly is no evidence for the science being so far wrong as to support your assertions.

The debate in one area does not give open permission to disregard all other evidence nor does it provide the slightest weight to outlandish speculation like yours. You have no evidence. You have no real knowledge of the field.

As to the rest of your post commenting on me saying they had no common ancestor, read again. What I said was the ancestors would be a long way back. In other words the frog did not turn into lizard but a common ancestor would have been shared by both but well back in time.

You said that that common ancestor would be so far back as to be a microbe. This is plainly and indisputably contradictory to the evidence and quite frankly, ridiculous.

 

[Mike375]

The dromaeosaurid might no longer be considered either as a dinosaur nor as the ancestor of birds. However note that this does not mean that birds could not have descended from dinosuars, just that they need a new candidate for the precise ancestral group becuse the hitherto leading one has been moved out of the theropods. The overwhelmiing evidence is still that birds descended from theropod dinosaurs.

I said nothing about birds not descending from dinosaurs, I was specific as to the dromaeosaurid

You have outlandislhishly extrapolated the uncertainty to dispute the all lineages of all birds

Show me where.

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/10/30/new.analyses.dinosaur.growth.may.wipe.out.one.third.species


Look at the up to date research and you will find that this claim is hotly disputed by other evolutionary biologists. Like any scientist, he is welcome to propose a hypothesis but he must also expose it to criticism.

Which just further shows the "evidence" with this stuff is hardly rock solid, it is very fluid.

The debate in one area does not give open permission to disregard all other evidence nor does it provide the slightest weight to outlandish speculation like yours. You have no evidence. You have no real knowledge of the field.

You are the probaly the only person I have encountered that has supposedly followed this ancient stuff for years and who thinks it is all rock solid. The details are forever changing and how could it be any other way with limited fossils that are millions and millions old.

You said that that common ancestor would be so far back as to be a microbe. This is plainly and indisputably contradictory to the evidence and quite frankly, ridiculous.

What I said

"I believe if amphibians and reptiles had a common ancestor then it was at the microbe level. Put it this way, if there was a common ancestor it was back so far before either it would not be recognisable.

But Galaxiom I am done with this as you simply can't read. I could not have been clearer I why I posted the links. But you can't even read where I said bird/dromaeosaurid you translate as bird all dinosaurs.

Secondly, you can't present evidence that will alter my view because you don't have it. What you have is a lot of assumptions and lost of those could end up in the bin. Thirdly we are totally unable to communicate.

 

[Galaxiom]

Since you have decided to resign from the debate it would be a good time to review the outcomes. However I am not sure what position you are giving up as you have been so inconsistent. You seem to have moved a long way toward my position.

Earlier you said you believed in Evolution but only at the level of changes in relative frequency of small differences giving the peppered moth as an example. Later you say that the last common ancestor of modern amphibians and modern reptiles was as far back as a microbe which clearly is an acceptance of speciation through Evolution. I can think of no greater swing of position in any debate.

But of course you swung way too far. Once I pointed out the obvious problem with the need for many parallel, synchronised evolutionary lines you moved back to "the common ancestor .... would not be recognisable".

This statement closely matches my comment early in the debate that amphibians and reptiles descended from fish-like tetrapods.

Clearly though you have learnt something about evolutionary theory which never calimed that reptiles descended from frogs which had seemed the core of your misunderstanding. Obviously you had not previously comprehended the issue with Amphibia in paleobiology. I am pleased to have helped you understand this.

However your debating technique really does need work.

You fail to confront any of the arguments put forward by others and simply repeat the same tired, totally refuted assertions to the end.

You post a story which claims that one third of dinosaur fossils are just juveniles of other species. My counter to this position is taken as evidence to further back your claim.

I have repeatedly stated that I do not believe all the details are known, yet to the end you continue to repeat this accusation to the end. What I do take exception to is extrapolating "the details are not known" to ridiculous claims such as the development of the amniote egg being a bigger step than a donkey to a human. Contining to harp on the amniote after I thoroughly debunked the "problems" is very poor style.

I take greatest exception to your repeated assertion that my opinions were the result of "religious atheism" and I was a "born again atheist". These contributed nothing to the discussion and simply served to highlight the complete lack of substance in your arguments.

Indeed it is your attitude that exhibits distinctly religious-like attributes.

The tenents of Mikeism:

Any change in position of the theory or hypotheses by anyone in the field means all the evidence from everyone in the field is worthless, giving all hypotheses equal standing regardless of evidence.

The prevailing view in any subject is held as a religious belief. Objective measurements by tens of thousands of professional researchers publishing in peer reviewed jouranals are no match for subjective experience, ignorant speculation and intuition.

Anyway Mike as much as I have enjoyed the encounter I had better get on with my other activities. Thanks for your time.

 

[Insane_ai]

One arguement I see in this type of debate is the conflict between evolutionists and creationists.

Does anyone seriously consider it possible that both are true?

Consider for a moment that God created all life on this earth in stages that are not explained in the Bible. This would makes sense since the Bible is more about the existence of God as it pertains to human existance and his direct relationship with us through His Son, Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, the scientific proof provided by observation of evolution in process, in addition to observation of suspected evolution in history, debunks the religous argument that God created a chicken and it stayed that way.

God could very easily have designed living creatures to evolve.

 

[Galaxiom]

"Intelligent Design" is just the latest attempt to incorporate the Biblical myths into scientific theory as classical Creationism has been entirely debunked. However illconsidered suggestions of this nature still have no place in Science.

Science is concerned with evidence and there is no evidence whatsoever to support the hypothesis that any sentient being "designed" any organism.

The leading hypothesis regarding abiogenesis is the conversion of olivine into serpentine in alkaline hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor ("white smokers"). The chemical processes involved are identical to the most basic metabolic reaction shared by all organisms and occurs inside mineral pockets of similar size to simple living cells.

 

[Mike375]

One arguement I see in this type of debate is the conflict between evolutionists and creationists.

Does anyone seriously consider it possible that both are true?

As is often the case, the answer is in the middle.

Of course Galaxiom and his counterparts on the other side can't see that.