Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution => Topic started by: Asyncritus on 08/10/2008 10:16:45
-
As you may not know, there are about 10,000 species of birds and there are millions of individuals. They are a massively important group of animals.
Now here's the nightmare bit.
Birds are supposed to have evolved from reptiles (har de har!). Everybody knows that, even a 7-year old I heard in a pharmacy telling her mom: 'The dinosaurs became birds, you know mom' she said.
In other words, this:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kadaitcha.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2007%2F10%2Falistair.jpg&hash=f1a7c2b69139fcc96f6513509c3fef71)
came from that!!!!
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.infoukes.com%2Fucpbaott%2Fimages%2Fcrocodile.png&hash=8e5ab46962bb4be64157028fa44b10f4)
Heh heh!
A trifle unlikely, wouldn't you say?
There's a BIGGGG problem with that: the bird lung.
As you all know, when we (and every other vertebrate) breathe in, the air enters our lungs, gas exchange takes place (ie oxygen is taken up and carbon dioxide and water are given off). We then breathe OUT, and the gases go out the same way it came in.
So to emphasise, when we breathe IN, the air comes INTO the lung. When we breathe OUT, air leaves the lung. With me so far? OK.
The birds ARE EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF THAT!
When a bird breathes IN, the air DOES NOT ENTER THE LUNG. It goes into AIR SACS, which are NOT LUNGS.
When the bird breathes OUT, then the air goes into the lungs!!!!
So there's no way that a bird's lung could have evolved from a reptile which breathes like us.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.darwinismrefuted.com%2Fres%2F93.jpg&hash=900cf8f7af44285b1e4a91356ac7e289)
Theropod dinosaurs breathed using a diaphragm to force air in and out of the lung.
Guess what? Birds DON'T have a diaphragm. Where'd it go, I ask myself.
Over to you, guys!
-
How could all the bods who say that birds did evolve from dinosaurs miss that ? Surely they considered it...what is their explanation ?
-
Again you demonstrate your lack of understanding of evolution. You can no more put all the dinosaurs into one basket than you can the apes.
Peacocks or any other bird you care to mention did not evolve from crocodilians. Crocodiles, alligators and caymen evolved from the early crocodilians. Neither did they evolve from Pteranodon or Pterodactyl.
Birds evolved from Archaeopteryx, a feathered flightless (although possibly gliding) dinosaur, often referred to as the earliest bird, and Sinovenator changii, another possibly feathered dinosaur of the same period (around 130m years ago). Other feathered dinosaurs have also been found which probably also became birds.
Please don't think T Rex, Diplodocous, Stegosaurus only when thinking of dinosaurs. These are the big ones and there were many bigger. But there were far more small dinosaurs than there were giants.
Look at the Tortoise, yes there were the giants, but there were, and still are, the very much smaller Horsefield, Hermann, Marginated etc. Even the Spur Thigh has the giant African species and the very much smaller Mediterranean species.
Many dinosaurs perished in a great extinction. They do not have modern day successors. The crocodlilians and tortoises survived due to there habits. The feathered dinosaurs survived due to there feathers. Other small dinosaurs evolved into these:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.screameleons.com%2FPortals%2F_Screameleons%2Fimages%2Fdefault%2F150w_sam1501_chameleon.jpg&hash=66bfe4cec6fc6bb406d0df41e23dce93)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jdmpics.com%2Fanimals%2Ffive-lined-skink-2.jpg&hash=89bd18f2d1246037e37d79b9986f063b)
Birds came from this:
Fossil of Archeopterix
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F7%2F71%2FArcheopterix-img_0293.jpg%2F465px-Archeopterix-img_0293.jpg&hash=82708990273e33febf55893b1f47ce72)
Impression of Archeopterix based on fossils.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.naturalitersnc.it%2Fricostruzioni%2FArcheopterix1.jpg&hash=aacb776f31c8ba0f8c4415b879220a55)
As you can see the reptilian scales have aleady evolved into feathers on this 130m year old dinosaur.
-
Oh dear, how preconceptions can get in the way of doing a little basic research. Within less than a minute of doing a google search for Bird Lung Evolution, I found a paper in nature showing the evidence for the existence of a very similar breathing apparatus in dinosaurs.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7048/abs/nature03716.html
And this one from Integrative and Comparative Biology, looking at gene regulation of lung evolution:
http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/icm069v1
Furthermore, bird lungs are more efficient than mammalian lungs - so if mammals were designed instead of evolved, why wouldn't they have the more efficient system? The answer is this: They evolved, and were not designed.
Edit:
Reptiles breathe using a diaphragm to force air in and out of the lung.
Guess what? Birds DON'T have a diaphragm. Where'd it go, I ask myself.
Most reptiles, with the exception of crocodilians, don't have a diaphragm. They ventilate by moving the ribs. So where'd it go? It was never there.
-
Reptiles breathe using a diaphragm to force air in and out of the lung.
Not true.
The Tortoise is a reptile, but it does not have a diaphragm.
From Reptiles.net
One of the biggest problems with growing an immovable and impenetrable shell is that breathing can be a big problem. Since their is no movable flesh to allow for expansion of the lungs nor a diaphragm to expand them. So chelonians had to find a new way of handling this problem.
When this was first being considered, researchers thought that, like amphibians, chelonians achieved respiration by gular pumping. That is they thought that the constant throat pumping movements seen in these animals was used to force air into the lungs. This has turned out to be false and gular pumping in chelonians is now known to be of olfactory (smelling) signifigance.
So how do they breathe?
Breathing is accomplished by the creation of a negative pressure differential (i.e. the air outside has a higher pressure than the air inside, so through the process of diffusion, the air will enter this "negative air space" and fill the lungs). ........It has already been established that they don't use gular pumping for the purpose of inhalation, they don't have diaphragms and the ribs now form a part of the shell, so intercostal breathing is out as well. Chelonians had to find another way.
This negative pressure differential (NPD) is partly achieved via the shell. In tortoises breathing is accomplished by the use of the rigid shell and the toroise's musculature. The muscles used for breathing expand into the limb pockets at the borders of the shell and serve to modify the internal pressure within a chelonian's body. So when the tortoise moves it is expelling air in one movement and taking in air with another. This would also explain why resting turtle's and tortoise's forelimbs move in and out.
So you see evolution deals with different problems in different species in different ways according to that particular species needs.
-
Asyncritus, I assume you are a Christian, Jew or Muslim and believe in God, the Creation & the Bible.
I was born into Christianity and taught to believe in God and the Bible. But from a very early age (about 10 yrs) I began to question these teachings. Paleontology and archeology seemed to have something concrete I could look at, feel and understand. I became an agnostic. Over the subsequent years I have turned to atheism, because I can see no logic in the Bible's explanation of creation and, like so many people, even believers, I question how the great creator would allow one of his creations to begin the systematic destruction of all the others. Why does he allow the suffering of the innocent? Why does he not punish the wrong doers? There are a thousand questions I could ask, and get no answer, save those of theologians, who can show me no evidence.
Is Christianity right? Is Islam right? Is Judaism right? Are Jews the chosen ones? Why did God allow the Indian ocean tsunami? Did He in fact create it? Why?
For me there are no answers to such questions from religion.
The answers come from nature and from man himself, or the question remains unanswered.
I am comfortable with my view of life, the universe and everything else. I reached MY OWN decisions on such matters. Nobody encouraged or brainwashed me.
I am happy that you are comfortable with your views. I respect your views and would not seek to force you into abandoning your faith. So please stop questioning mine.
We will never agree, and must be contented with that fact.
-
Don
I presume you have some interest in science, which is why you're here.
I am presenting a scientific fact, as opposed to Ben V and the others who are presenting guesses galore.
We, as reasonable human beings, with scientific inclinations of one sort or another, have a fact before us on the one hand, and some claims on the other.
We are attempting to explain how black could be white, how a bird lung which has air entering the lung on EXHALATION, could possibly have evolved from a reptile whose air enters on INHALATION. And how a bird which has no diaphragm could have evolved from a reptile with a diaphragm. (The theropod ancestors of the birds had diaphragms as Ruben said very clearly).
Where did the diaphragm go, and how could ANY reptile survive with a great hole in the bottom of the lung just emerged?
We're discussing science, not theology.
-
Ben your points have no validity.
The theropods (alleged bird ancestors) had a diaphragm:
"The theropod dinosaurs seem to have had a diaphragm (like crocodiles do), but birds do not have diaphragms, and there is no evidence that they ever did have them. Rather, birds have a unique respiratory system. Ruben et al. (1997) claim that the differences in the theropod and bird respiratory systems "pose fundamental problems" for a direct relationship."http://www.mandley.com/advdemo/mod10/adv10300.htm
"The evidence that the theropod dinosaurs possessed crocodile-like lungs is reinforced by skeletal analysis suggestive of a liver-diaphragm lung ventilation mechanism in these dinosaurs. Crocodiles have a non-muscular diaphragm, powered by muscles which attach to the liver and the pubic bones of the hip. It pulls the large liver backwards to inflate the lungs, and is associated with a distinctive hip structure.
"The theropod dinosaurs, which were the supposed ancestors of the birds, included such prominent species as the Tyrannosaurus rex and Velociraptor," Jones said. "In them we see a marked similarity between the hip structure of theropod dinosaurs and crocodiles."
"This, along with the discovery of new evidence of a non-muscular diaphragm in two specimens of Sinosauropteryx, the recently discovered theropod from China, leads to the conclusion that theropod dinosaurs, like crocodilians, used a liver-diaphragm mechanism to ventilate their lungs.
The skeletal structure of the earliest birds indicates they also possessed a simple reptile-like lung, consistent with their being cold-blooded. But unlike the theropod dinosaurs, they lacked a diaphragm mechanism with which to fill their lungs" http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/1997/November97/nodinobird.htm
You really should check your references a bit more thoroughly, Ben.
-
How could all the bods who say that birds did evolve from dinosaurs miss that ? Surely they considered it...what is their explanation ?
They didn't miss it, but they can't explain it. Have a look on google and you'll see the guesses.
Tough luck, guys.
-
LOL...even if we agreed with you you'd probably disagree !
-
Furthermore, bird lungs are more efficient than mammalian lungs - so if mammals were designed instead of evolved, why wouldn't they have the more efficient system? The answer is this: They evolved, and were not designed.
The reason for the difference is very obvious. Birds use up a huge amount of energy in flight. That's why they need the extra efficiency.
Most reptiles, with the exception of crocodilians, don't have a diaphragm. They ventilate by moving the ribs. So where'd it go? It was never there.
See above.
-
The Anapsidas (approx 300m yrs ago) pumped air by buccal breathing. Their only surviving modern day form, the Testudines (Tortoise and turtle) evolved a new way of pumping air into the lungs, as I have shown above.
As I have said you cannot accept that evolution means change, adapting, improving.
OK, you say you are not talking theology, so you tell me in a word, where did birds come from if not through evolution?
-
Actually, the source you quoted there is nearly a decade older than the papers I referenced. Science moves on as it finds more evidence. You should really check your references better.
Furthermore, bird lungs are more efficient than mammalian lungs - so if mammals were designed instead of evolved, why wouldn't they have the more efficient system? The answer is this: They evolved, and were not designed.
The reason for the difference is very obvious. Birds use up a huge amount of energy in flight. That's why they need the extra efficiency.
So your designer intentionally built in inefficiencies? What nonsense.
-
Easy. God made them.
-
Actually, the source you quoted there is nearly a decade older than the papers I referenced. Science moves on as it finds more evidence. You should really check your references better.
Furthermore, bird lungs are more efficient than mammalian lungs - so if mammals were designed instead of evolved, why wouldn't they have the more efficient system? The answer is this: They evolved, and were not designed.
The reason for the difference is very obvious. Birds use up a huge amount of energy in flight. That's why they need the extra efficiency.
So your designer intentionally built in inefficiencies? What nonsense.
The birds lungs haven't changed since they were first described, yonks ago. So don't tell me about that.
And I don't imagine we would do very well with bird lungs - our life spans would be reduced enormously.
What I'm asking for, is: How did a bellows lung ever produce a unidirectional arrangement.
More air sacs in theropod bones don't make a unidirectional system, just as more cul-de-sacs don't make a one way ring road.
And, of course, if it did, we have to account for the how and why of it's doing so:
Reptile A (bellows) -----X-----> Reptile B (unidirectional).
What happened in the middle at X?
-
Easy. God made them.
Badly.
Not really worth getting up on a Sunday morning to worship Him then.
BTW, who made God?
-
Asyncritus, is there any evidence we could present that would satisfy you? You're clearly able to look things up yourself, so why bother us about it?
If, as I suspect, there is no evidence that anyone could present that would get you out of the fantasy that your imaginary friend created everything, then your posting on this forum is either i. a crusade, or ii. trolling. Neither of these are acceptable on this forum.
If you are unwilling to accept the evidence, then why not discuss this on a creationist forum with like minded individuals? You must bear in mind that although you may think evolution does not occur, many people on this forum don't believe in the existence of your god. This means that your suggestion of how species arise is laughable (to me at least), and you may as well be saying that all life on earth was forged by faeries in a pit in the magic forest.
Evolution has been well studied, we've seen it in action in labs and in the wild and we understand how it works. As with all science, there are gaps to be filled, but these gaps don't in any way suggest that evolution is incorrect.
Please tell us what evidence will sway your thinking, or go elsewhere.
-
Asyncritus, is there any evidence we could present that would satisfy you? You're clearly able to look things up yourself, so why bother us about it?
This is a science forum.
Scientists disagree, sometime fiercely.
Is that a reason to close down discussion, saying go publish elsewhere? What would you think if Nature or Scientific American acted like that?
But they effectively have - no creationist or ID person is published in their pages, at least, not being able to say what they really believe? Are you going the same way?
Is this forum a mutual backslapping society, or is it a place when someone comes along who disagrees vigorously and in evidenced fashion, we can all look at pros and cons?
Do you want your readership to never know about the objections to evolution, so that when they do encounter someone who knows a bit about the subject, they get kicked in the teeth?
Science is supposed to be a free for all, where as long as evidence can be presented, the presenter is listened to, rather than shouted down. The church did a lot of this in the Middle Ages - and we all, myself included,think that their behaviour was appalling.
So are you going to follow in their footsteps, or act in a more enlightened manner?
What evidence will sway my thinking?
1 Some verifiable evidence of the way in which the great instincts and complexities I have presented could have evolved.
2 Some evidence that mutations can possibly account for the vast number of species today
3 Some serious evidence that life just happened in the pre-biotic soup
4 Some really undisputed transitionals between the major phyla, like the angiosperms, fish, reptiles, mammals.
5 Some serious accounting for the evidence of design in organs like the human eye, the rock lobster's eye, the mammalian ear.
6 Some explanations (evidenced) of the way a four chambered heart could possily have evolved from the one-chambered heart of the lower animals.
-
no creationist or ID person is published in their pages, at least, not being able to say what they really believe? Are you going the same way?
Just as no person claiming that life was created by faeries has been published. Your ideas are based on a flawed assumption, and so journals wouldn't publish them.
Is this forum a mutual backslapping society, or is it a place when someone comes along who disagrees vigorously and in evidenced fashion, we can all look at pros and cons?
The issue is that you are unwilling to engage in discussion, you merely tell us we are wrong and your imaginary friend did it. You ignore the evidence we present, and although some of your objections are evinced, your alternative is based on fantasy.
1 Some verifiable evidence of the way in which the great instincts and complexities I have presented could have evolved.
2 Some evidence that mutations can possibly account for the vast number of species today
3 Some serious evidence that life just happened in the pre-biotic soup
4 Some really undisputed transitionals between the major phyla, like the angiosperms, fish, reptiles, mammals.
5 Some serious accounting for the evidence of design in organs like the human eye, the rock lobster's eye, the mammalian ear.
6 Some explanations (evidenced) of the way a four chambered heart could possily have evolved from the one-chambered heart of the lower animals.
The vast majority of evidence for evolution is available online, yet you expect us to collect it for you and serve it on a plate for you to ignore. You keep saying 'serious evidence' or 'undisputed evidence' but you ignore or dispute all the evidence you are presented with. You are now claiming that there is 'evidence of design', so please supply it.
I'm too busy to read and collate all of the evidence you seem to require, and I know that if I were to supply it you would again shift the goal posts and demand more.
So lets try a different tac - There is plenty of evidence for evolution and the mechanisms are well understood, even if specific examples need further elucidation. Please can you supply some evidence that:
i. God exists, and some evidence of what created him
ii. God created everything (this will involve you demonstrating something that can not have possibly evolved - it will need to be non-genetically controlled, counter to the reproductive success of the individual and species)
You cannot hold god and evolution up to different standards of evidence.
-
Hmmm...not sure why, but some of this reminds me of a good quote...
"He can compress the most words into the smallest idea of any man I know." - Abraham Lincoln
-
"Science is supposed to be a free for all, where as long as evidence can be presented, the presenter is listened to, rather than shouted down."
So, present some evidence.
-
no creationist or ID person is published in their pages, at least, not being able to say what they really believe? Are you going the same way?
Just as no person claiming that life was created by faeries has been published. Your ideas are based on a flawed assumption, and so journals wouldn't publish them.
Ben this is tripe, and you don't know it. If you look back at the transactions of the Royal Society, and many of the major journals of the 1800's you will find God mentioned there abundantly.
Let me remind you that Sir Isaac Newton, a founder of the Royal Society of London, and possibly the greatest scientist who ever lived was one of the staunchest Christians you could name. You're smarter than he was, I assume. If not, then for goodness sake go read some of what he said, before listening to people like Dawkins. Then let's go from there.
-
"Science is supposed to be a free for all, where as long as evidence can be presented, the presenter is listened to, rather than shouted down."
So, present some evidence.
See above.
-
The issue is that you are unwilling to engage in discussion, you merely tell us we are wrong and your imaginary friend did it. You ignore the evidence we present, and although some of your objections are evinced, your alternative is based on fantasy.
This is again pure nonsense. There are numerous scientists today who are devout believers - like John Polkinghorne who is a Fellow of the Royal Society. Ernst Chain holds a Nobel Prize and FRS; WR Thompson was FRS and so the list goes on.
Unless you are prepared to call them all a bunch of loonies, then your remark is quite false.
The issue is that you are unwilling to engage in discussion, you merely tell us we are wrong and your imaginary friend did it. You ignore the evidence we present, and although some of your objections are evinced, your alternative is based on fantasy.
Let's set up some discussion rules.
I've presented a lot of material. Let's start with the avian lung.
Reread the case, make comments, and I'll comment on your comments. When that runs out of steam, we'll take another topic, like the eye of the rock lobster.
All personal slanging is to be avoided.
Let's have a moderator who will tell us to get back on topic, or see that a question is not being answered, and demand that it be answered.
'I don't know' or 'I have no explanation' are acceptable answers, even if weakening to the case.
That's fair, isn't it?
-
Hmmm...not sure why, but some of this reminds me of a good quote...
"He can compress the most words into the smallest idea of any man I know." - Abraham Lincoln
Iwouldn't talk about Ben like that Evie!
-
Yes, you're right, Newton was a christian, and did some great science. I'll point out the major problem with your above post though...
and many of the major journals of the 1800's you will find God mentioned there abundantly.
The world has moved on, and atheism is now far more acceptable. We know more about the world and we know that there is no evidence for god, and so it would be wrong to publish scientific papers that suggest god as a mechanism.
I'd point out that some of the very first scientists believed in Zeus, and they would be laughing at you for suggesting that life was made by your god, rather than the many gods they believed in.
"Science is supposed to be a free for all, where as long as evidence can be presented, the presenter is listened to, rather than shouted down."
So, present some evidence.
See above.
Bored Chemist and I have asked you for evidence for creation, not just an example you feel can't have evolved. You have not done so.
Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, as I explained on another thread they stem from different paradigms, but none of the religious scientists you have mentioned would attempt to publish something describing god as a biological mechanism - they would be ridiculed, and rightly so. Either way, my remark was about your conduct on this forum, in that we provide evidence and mechanisms, and you ignore them and claim that 'god did it'. Thus, my remark is not at all false.
With regards your discussion rules...
You have presented a lot of material, yes, but are unwilling to listen to the replies it receives. I've read it, and realised that instead of starting from "what are the possible explanations for the existence of x" you have started from "how can I attempt to show that x didn't evolve".
You have presented your case against, we have presented our evidence in favour. I acknowledge that there are areas where the exact details of evolution remain to be elucidated, but the mechanism is proven and sound. You yourself appreciate that natural selection causes changes in the genes of a population, yet refuse to follow that to it's logical conclusion. It is now your turn to provide evidence for your alternative explanation, otherwise the current explanation will remain the accepted one.
I feel I should point out that I am, in fact, a moderator on this forum.
-
Easy. God made them.
This is the answer I expected. It's why man made Gods, anything you can't explain or understand is attributed to the them. The easy answer to any question.
-
The world has moved on, and atheism is now far more acceptable. We know more about the world and we know that there is no evidence for god, and so it would be wrong to publish scientific papers that suggest god as a mechanism.
You're quite right - the world has moved on.
If you define 'scientific' as things that are observable and measurable, then of course God cannot be a scientific explanation of anything. But then, neither can evolution be observed or measured. And before anybody leaps forth yelling 'what about bacterial resistance' let me say, I accept that micro-evolution takes place.
The problem arises when we seek evidence of evolution above or at family level. There isn't any.
The world has moved on, and atheism is now far more acceptable. We know more about the world and we know that there is no evidence for god, and so it would be wrong to publish scientific papers that suggest god as a mechanism.
It may be more acceptable, but that doesn't mean that it is correct.
Paul Davies published a book not so long ago called the Mind of God. I haven't read it, but it does seem an extraordinary title coming from a very modern physicist. And knowing some of the things he has said about the anthropic principle and the evidence for it, I think this is a serious departure for modern science.
Reading Denton creates the inescapable conclusion that there is far more to science than atoms and DNA molecules. I can't scan his material in, but I do recommend that you have a careful read of Nature's Destiny. He is not a creationist, but the evidence he presents, particularly in his own field of molecular biology is absolutely mind boggling, and far beyond Darwinism and natural selection.
Well let's have a debate, regulated by another moderator. If you are a participant you cannot reasonably moderate as well.
What about it?
-
I am an atheist, myself, yet I am amazed that so many self-confessed atheists are so passionate in their non belief. This thread is so littered with little-endian and big-endian nonsense that it is hard to find any genuine attention to real Science.
Christians / people of religion and atheists should be able to have a perfectly good conversation involving evidence and what it infers without childishly getting at each other's throats. Grow up chaps and have a proper discussion.
-
neither can evolution be observed or measured. And before anybody leaps forth yelling 'what about bacterial resistance' let me say, I accept that micro-evolution takes place.
The problem arises when we seek evidence of evolution above or at family level. There isn't any.
This is equivalent to saying that kilometres cannot arise from the addition of millimetres! The distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution is nonsense! There is a continuum! "Micro" evolution is just "macro" evolution in a much shorter time frame.
You still have not presented any positive evidence for design. Even if evolution as currently known was completely falsified, it would STILL not lend any credence to creationism! You can try to refute evolution as much as you want, but since creationism is devoid of evidence and reason, it is not an explanation for ANYTHING!
Sophie, when people such as Asyncritus pursue ridiculous arguments based on creationism and ignore the actual science, of course the discussion will fall back to criticism of the religious ideologies!
-
Sophie, when people such as Asyncritus pursue ridiculous arguments based on creationism and ignore the actual science, of course the discussion will fall back to criticism of the religious ideologies!
but there's no point in taking it personally (or appearing to).
If you don't want to keep your argument 'sensible' then back out. There's no way you will persuade a fanatic by frontal argument, in any case.
People may change their opinions sometimes but not in the middle of a steaming argument with someone who they think is barmy. You and I appear that way to some people (many of my friends, for a start).
Basically, you have no proof, as such - just a strong inference from a lot of evidence. That's good enough for me but is of little value against 'faith'.
People have real difficulty with very small and very big numbers. The time for the juxtaposition of changing conditions and a suitable evolutionary change is too long for most people to comprehend. It is the equivalent of a Royal Flush several times in a row (and more) and you need to use Maths to help you through some of these ideas associated with probability and numbers. Anyone who just doesn't want to believe it just won't.
To my mind, the greatest indicator of the Evolution system is the DNA. There is an amazing amount of common DNA in all living things and we can produce all sorts of changes by genetic manipulation and 'artificial selection'. Given plenty of time, anything, viable, could evolve - even religion.
-
"But then, neither can evolution be observed or measured. "
False- look at the differences we (acting as selective pressure) have brought about in dogs and pigeons, Also consider the fate of the 2 subspecies of peppered moths.
I note that Asyncritus has still failed to explain God's origin.
-
I lol'd
-
Sophie,
I agree with you 100%. Both sides of the "discussion" have been snarky with one another and that's no way to make a good point on either front.
The time scale issue is what gets most creationists. They profess that because you can't see creatures changing into new species all around us, evolution must not exist! In my first geology class in college, my professor did a wonderful illustration for us of the geologic time scale. He took us out in the parking lot and stretched out a VERY long tape measure. he said, if this is the age of the universe, than THIS much is the age of the earth (placing a mark a little less than half way), and so on, ending with a tiny dot at the very end of the tape to indicate the amount of time humans have been around. It was very useful and I always think of that when I'm feeling a bit superior. [;)]
-
The problem arises when we seek evidence of evolution above or at family level. There isn't any.
This is equivalent to saying that kilometres cannot arise from the addition of millimetres!
This shows a certain in depth understanding of Biology!
Because we can see dark moths being selected out because the tree barks are light, and because we can see bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics, we can also see a land mammal becoming a whale which dives to 2 miles depth!
Wow!
-
Sophie, you're quite right, I'm allowing this to get to me.
Asyncritus, I decline your offer of a debate, for the reasons I have stated above, and due to the fact that I do not have the time to do the research for you. I appreciate you will not accept evolution, despite the evidence, and I'm afraid that you must come to terms with that I will not accept your ideas.
Everyone else, sorry if I offended or frustrated you, and fair enough if I have amused you. I should learn to ignore creationists, rather than letting them get to me.
-
Anybody else fancy picking up the gauntlet?
Come on you guys. If evolution is all it's cracked up to be, then here's a marvellous opportunity to showcase the virtues of the theory, and discredit one of the lower life forms (that's me) and creationism as a whole.
-
Asyncritus, go and read some scientific literature with an open mind and leave us alone. If you actually made an effort to understand how evolution works then you wouldn't need to dispute it this way. Put down your Harun Yahya rubbish and read some real science.
-
"Because we can see dark moths being selected out because the tree barks are light, and because we can see bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics, we can also see a land mammal becoming a whale which dives to 2 miles depth!"
Yes, we can.
Can't you?
"Anybody else fancy picking up the gauntlet?
Come on you guys. If evolution is all it's cracked up to be, then here's a marvellous opportunity to showcase the virtues of the theory, and discredit one of the lower life forms (that's me) and creationism as a whole."
Don't flatter yourself. Picking holes in your ideas isn't one of evolution's major achievements.
-
You want to take up the challenge then?
-
Are you even reading our posts? Do you read anything of substance at all?
-
Creationists have a way of shooting themselves in the foot when they produce pictures and model tableaux of happy human kids playing with Dinosaurs. Is there any evidence at all of fossils of humans being found right next to fossils of dinosaurs?
There is very strong evidence about the timescales involved. This is conveniently ignored. But if you don't want to understand then you won't.
In any case, is there any evidence at all (of the Scientific kind) to support Creationism?
-
Creationists have a way of shooting themselves in the foot when they produce pictures and model tableaux of happy human kids playing with Dinosaurs. Is there any evidence at all of fossils of humans being found right next to fossils of dinosaurs?
There is very strong evidence about the timescales involved. This is conveniently ignored. But if you don't want to understand then you won't.
In any case, is there any evidence at all (of the Scientific kind) to support Creationism?
I'm not really sure what you're looking for Sophie.
We only have 2 alternatives:
1 Evolution did it
2 God did it.
As I've shown, evolution didn't do it. So what's left?
-
Are you even reading our posts? Do you read anything of substance at all?
Do you want to take up the challenge? If so, let's get on with it. If not, then perhaps you'd like to stay out of this?
-
If you had read my posts, you would know that your second last post is wrong:
"You still have not presented any positive evidence for design. Even if evolution as currently known was completely falsified, it would STILL not lend any credence to creationism! You can try to refute evolution as much as you want, but since creationism is devoid of evidence and reason, it is not an explanation for ANYTHING!"
Please STOP posting about creationism vs evolution until you make a POSITIVE case for a creator and creation. A mechanistic explanation for creation would also be nice.
Evolution has earned its position over 150 years and by a massive amount of evidence, as the correct explanation for life on Earth. Creationism has not. Your rantings are worthless unless you provide evidence for your alternative explanation.
-
Okay, I'm going to put my moderators hat on now.
This thread is at an impasse, and has nowhere to go but down.
Asyncritus, you have been asked for evidence that you will not, and can not, present. You have acknowledged before that 'god did it' is not a valid scientific explanation for life on Earth, and consistently refuse to put up a scientific alternative to evolution. Furthermore, it seems that you ignore others posts in response to your own, often refuting the ideas you present.
Everyone else (myself included) - we should be respectful of people's religious beliefs, even if they are not being respectful of science - I am more guilty of insulting Asyncritus' faith than most, but this the level I fear we will descend to if this thread continues.
As such, this thread will only descend into arguments and name calling, so henceforth, consider it locked.