Science Disproves Evolution [trollville]

Anonymous
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Science Disproves Evolution [trollville]

Two-Celled Life?

 

Many single-celled forms of life exist, but no known forms of animal life have 2, 3, 4, or 5 cells (a). Known forms of life with 6–20 cells are parasites, so they must have a complex animal as a host to provide such functions as respiration and digestion. If macroevolution happened, one should find many transitional forms of life with 2–20 cells—filling the gap between one-celled and many-celled organisms.

 

a. E. Lendell Cockrum and William J. McCauley, Zoology (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1965), p. 163.

 

Lynn Margulis and Karlene V. Schwartz, Five Kingdoms: An Illustrated Guide to the Phyla of Life on Earth (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1982), pp. 178–179.

 

Perhaps the simplest forms of multicellular life are the Myxozoans, which have 6–12 cells. While they are quite distinct from other multicellular life, they are even more distinct from single-celled life (kingdom Protista). [See James F. Smothers et al., “Molecular Evidence That the Myxozoan Protists are Metazoans,” Science, Vol. 265, 16 September 1994, pp. 1719–1721.] So, if they evolved from anywhere, it would most likely have been from higher, not lower, forms of life. Such a feat should be called devolution, not evolution.

Colonial forms of life are an unlikely bridge between single-celled life and multicelled life. The degree of cellular differentiation between colonial forms of life and the simplest multicellular forms of life is vast. For a further discussion, see Libbie Henrietta Hyman, The Invertebrates: Protozoa through Ctenophora, Vol. 1 (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1940), pp. 248–255.

 

Nor do Diplomonads (which have two nuclei and four flagella) bridge the gap. Diplomonads are usually parasites.

 


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Count down to shoot down...

Count down to shoot down... 5, 4, 3, 2 ,1...

Not by me, of course.  I have objections, but there's nothing sweeter than someone with some expert knowledge of the subject ripping garbage like this to shreds.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Firstly, organisms do not

Firstly, organisms do not have to have evolved from transitional forms which are currently alive. Organisms, in many cases, have evolved from transitional forms which are now extinct.

These early multicellular organisms are likely now extinct, and left no trace in the fossil record, because organisms so small could not have formed fossils.

Furthermore, colonial forms of life are the most likely "bridge in the gap." Here is the reason: colonial forms of similar cells are extremely successful in nature, so are multicellular forms of life with differentiation. Colonial forms of life with slight amounts of differentiation would have been better in some environments, like the open ocean, than forms of life with no differentiation. However, this niche would have been filled by totally differentiated, multicellular organisms after such organisms evolved. The simpler forms of life simply wouldn't have been able to compete to fill the niche. Colonial organisms like bacteria, on the other hand, are much more versatile, and lived on because they could fit many niches that multicellular organisms couldn't fit.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Even if what you cite did

Even if what you cite did disprove evolution (which I doubt), it doesn't do much for helping your God.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Doc (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Even if what

jcgadfly wrote:

Even if what you cite did disprove evolution (which I doubt), it doesn't do much for helping your God.

God doesn't need help.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
They tell us that

They tell us that
We lost our tails
Evolving up
From little snails
I say its all
Just wind in sails
Are we not men?
We are devo!

 

OK, first off, you are not using science to construct an argument. You are using rhetoric and faulty logic. When you say that diplomonads can't bridge the gap, you obviously have not bothered to find out that they are not two celled organisms but rather single cells that have two nuclei.

 

In any case, why would you need to have a two, three or any other number celled organism to prove anything? Certainly, if there is a survival advantage in two cells joining as a colony, then there would be even more survival value to larger more complex colonies.

 

Also, it bears noting that just because something has not been found just yet does not mean that it does not exist. Perhaps it does and we have not found it. Or possibly it did at one time and has since gone extinct.

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
Pahu wrote:Perhaps the

Pahu wrote:
Perhaps the simplest forms of multicellular life are the Myxozoans, which have 6–12 cells. While they are quite distinct from other multicellular life, they are even more distinct from single-celled life (kingdom Protista). [See James F. Smothers et al., “Molecular Evidence That the Myxozoan Protists are Metazoans,” Science, Vol. 265, 16 September 1994, pp. 1719–1721.] So, if they evolved from anywhere, it would most likely have been from higher, not lower, forms of life. Such a feat should be called devolution, not evolution.


Your argument alludes to a misrepresentation of the theory of evolution as predicting that the phenomenon of evolution would make organisms progressively more complex. The theory of evolution does not claim or predict such a thing. Evolution does not posit a universal directionality regarding complexity. Evolution only concerns fitness, which may entail greater simplicity or greater complexity. More complex characteristics often require more energy to grow and maintain. If it is a bad investment of energy to grow and maintain a certain trait, then natural selection will favor those that do not grow and maintain the trait, thus leading the population toward greater simplicity. This aspect of evolution explains the blindness of cave organisms whose ancestors could see, the absence of digestive tracts in tapeworms whose ancestors did have digestive tracts, and so on. Devolution never occurs. That conclusion is necessitated by the premises of the theory of evolution, as coevolutionary genetic algorithms readily demonstrate to any intellectually honest person.

Pahu wrote:
If macroevolution happened, one should find many transitional forms of life with 2–20 cells—filling the gap between one-celled and many-celled organisms.


No aspect of the theory of evolution leads to the prediction that two-celled, three-celled, etc. organisms must have existed as intermediate forms between unicellular and multicellular life, let alone that such would be found fossilized. The first requirement for multicellularity is signaling between cells for cooperative swarming. The evolution of cooperative swarming has been observed in Myxococcus xanthus.[1] It has also been experimentally proven that "transitions to higher orders of complexity are readily achievable".[2]

[1] Velicer, G. J. and Y. N. Yu. 2003. Evolution of novel cooperative swarming in the bacterium Myxococcus xanthus. Nature, 425, 75–78.
[2] Rainey, P. B. and K. Rainey. 2003. Evolution of cooperation and conflict in experimental bacterial populations. Nature, 425, 72–74.
 

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Doc wrote:jcgadfly

Doc wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Even if what you cite did disprove evolution (which I doubt), it doesn't do much for helping your God.

God doesn't need help.

Yes he does, explain sudden infant death syndrome.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sage_Override
atheistBlogger
Sage_Override's picture
Posts: 582
Joined: 2008-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Take a Pringles can.  Now,

Take a Pringles can.  Now, cut said Pringles can into four equal sections.  Take the four sections (toss the aluminum bottom piece) and cut into each of them all the way until you have an opening to flex and bend it however you want.  Hopefully, you'll end up with bracelet-type accessories.  Design them any way that you wish! 

 

What does this have to do with the OP?  Nothing.  This shit is boring.

 

"When the majority believes in what is false, the truth becomes a quest." - Me


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Doc wrote:jcgadfly

Doc wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Even if what you cite did disprove evolution (which I doubt), it doesn't do much for helping your God.

God doesn't need help.

Indeed, he screwed things up quite well on his own (assuming he exists). Of course, he exceeded all expectations at screwing up when Christians came into the mix.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Bulldog
Superfan
Bulldog's picture
Posts: 333
Joined: 2007-08-04
User is offlineOffline
As Bugs Bunny would have

As Bugs Bunny would have said; "What a maroon!"


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
There sure are a lot of

There sure are a lot of people who obviously don't know what the theory predicts, yet make predictions.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: There

Hambydammit wrote:

There sure are a lot of people who obviously don't know what the theory predicts, yet make predictions.

Well, the predictions are more comfortable when they're made of straw.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:Hambydammit

JillSwift wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

There sure are a lot of people who obviously don't know what the theory predicts, yet make predictions.

Well, the predictions are more comfortable when they're made of straw.

Have you ever slept on straw? I much prefer my modern scientifically made mattress.

 

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
spike.barnett

spike.barnett wrote:
JillSwift wrote:
Hambydammit wrote:
There sure are a lot of people who obviously don't know what the theory predicts, yet make predictions.
Well, the predictions are more comfortable when they're made of straw.
Have you ever slept on straw? I much prefer my modern scientifically made mattress.
I have slept on straw, actually. When I was quite young and my horse was sick I slept in her stall to keep an eye on her. Given a nice wool blanket to keep the pokey ends at bay, it can be very comfy! =^_^=

 

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift

JillSwift wrote:

spike.barnett wrote:
JillSwift wrote:
Hambydammit wrote:
There sure are a lot of people who obviously don't know what the theory predicts, yet make predictions.
Well, the predictions are more comfortable when they're made of straw.
Have you ever slept on straw? I much prefer my modern scientifically made mattress.
I have slept on straw, actually. When I was quite young and my horse was sick I slept in her stall to keep an eye on her. Given a nice wool blanket to keep the pokey ends at bay, it can be very comfy! =^_^= 

You and your fancy wool blanket can go to hell!


 

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
spike.barnett wrote:You and

spike.barnett wrote:
You and your fancy wool blanket can go to hell!
There are those who claim that, yes. Sticking out tongue


 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Pahu (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Embryology 1  

Embryology 1

Evolutionists have taught for over a century that as an embryo develops, it passes through stages that mimic an evolutionary sequence. In other words, in a few weeks an unborn human repeats stages that supposedly took millions of years for mankind. A well-known example of this ridiculous teaching is that embryos of mammals have “gill slits,” because mammals supposedly evolved from fish. (Yes, that’s faulty logic.) Embryonic tissues that resemble “gill slits” have nothing to do with breathing; they are neither gills nor slits.  Instead, those embryonic tissues develop into parts of the face, bones of the middle ear, and endocrine glands.

Embryologists no longer consider the superficial similarities between a few embryos and the adult forms of simpler animals as evidence for evolution (a).

a. “This generalization was originally called the biogenetic law by Haeckel and is often stated as ‘ontogeny [the development of an embryo] recapitulates [repeats] phylogeny [evolution].’ This crude interpretation of embryological sequences will not stand close examination, however. Its shortcomings have been almost universally pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology.” Paul R. Ehrlich and Richard W. Holm, The Process of Evolution (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963), p. 66.

“It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny.”  George Gaylord Simpson and William S. Beck, Life: An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1965), p. 241.

Hitching, pp. 202–205.

“The enthusiasm of the German zoologist, Ernst Haeckel, however, led to an erroneous and unfortunate exaggeration of the information which embryology could provide. This was known as the ‘biogenetic law’ and claimed that embryology was a recapitulation of evolution, or that during its embryonic development an animal recapitulated the evolutionary history of its species.” Gavin R. deBeer, An Atlas of Evolution (New York: Nelson, 1964), p. 38.

“...the theory of recapitulation has had a great and, while it lasted, regrettable influence on the progress of embryology.”  Gavin R. deBeer, Embryos and Ancestors, revised edition (London: Oxford University Press, 1951), p. 10.

“Moreover, the biogenetic law has become so deeply rooted in biological thought that it cannot be weeded out in spite of its having been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent scholars.”  Walter J. Bock, “Evolution by Orderly Law,” Science, Vol. 164, 9 May 1969, pp. 684–685.

“...we no longer believe we can simply read in the embryonic development of a species its exact evolutionary history.” Hubert Frings and Marie Frings, Concepts of Zoology (Toronto: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1970), p. 267.


“The type of analogical thinking which leads to theories that development is based on the recapitulation of ancestral stages or the like no longer seems at all convincing or even interesting to biologists.” Conrad Hal Waddington, Principles of Embryology (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1956), p. 10.

“Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated,” American Scientist, Vol. 76, May–June 1988, p. 273.

“The biogenetic law—embryologic recapitulation—I think, was debunked back in the 1920s by embryologists.” David Raup, as taken from page 16 of an approved and verified transcript of a taped interview conducted by Luther D. Sunderland on 27 July 1979. [See also Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (San Diego: Master Book Publishers, 1984), p. 119.]

 

“The theory of recapitulation was destroyed in 1921 by Professor Walter Garstang in a famous paper. Since then no respectable biologist has ever used the theory of recapitulation, because it was utterly unsound, created by a Nazi-like preacher named Haeckel.”  Ashley Montagu, as quoted by Sunderland, p. 119.

 

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences24.html#wp1009086

[mod edit to avoid blue-on-grey eye discomfort]


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Does this count as spam yet?

Does this count as spam yet?


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
ARGH blue font on gray

ARGH blue font on gray background makes my eyes bleed!!!!!!!!!

 

MAKE IT STOP!


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:ARGH blue font

Ciarin wrote:

ARGH blue font on gray background makes my eyes bleed!!!!!!!!!

MAKE IT STOP!

Good call. Allow me.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Zymotic
Superfan
Zymotic's picture
Posts: 171
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Since you are copying and

Since you are copying and pasting this bullshit all over the internet, I thought I might copy and paste some answers for you.

 

"Perhaps you are not aware that the theory of recapitulation was
destroyed in 1921 by Professor Walter Garstang in a famous paper. Why
are you discussing a theory created 142 years ago and discredited 87
years ago?

The evidence for evolution, on the other hand, has grown every year.
Thanks to direct DNA evidence, it is now conclusive.

You should read up on retroviruses. These can mark a DNA strand, much
like putting a dent or scratch on your car. If your mom or dad's
reproductive system was marked in this way, and one of those sperms or
eggs becomes you, every cell in your body will have DNA with the same
dent or scratch - including your own eggs and sperm, which can then
pass the ding to your children, to their children, etc., forever.

Chimpanzees and humans have many of the same dents and scratches in
exactly the same places in the same chromosomes. There's too many for
it to be a coincidence - we have common ancestors."

 

From here: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_thread/thread/febdecf3b5b0c0f3?pli=1

 

My Brand New Blog - Jesu Ad Nauseum.
God of the Gaps: As knowledge approaches infinity, God approaches zero. It's introductory calculus.


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
Stop spamming.

Stop spamming.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
The real question here, in

The real question here, in my ever-so-humble opinion: Is Pahu really trying to "disprove" evolution, or is this a desperate cry for help, saying "Public school biology has failed me!"

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Sage_Override
atheistBlogger
Sage_Override's picture
Posts: 582
Joined: 2008-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Pahu looks like he might

Pahu looks like he might be a disciple of Michael Corey. 


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
I wouldn't say it's a

I wouldn't say it's a desperate cry for help, but it certainly is desperate. 


patcleaver
patcleaver's picture
Posts: 122
Joined: 2007-11-07
User is offlineOffline
Denial of objective truth

Denial of objective truth such as Holocaust denial and evolution denial is based on massive conspiracy theories that could only be accepted by a Paranoid Schizophrenic mind.

All the biologists in the world (including the Christian ones) are not in involved in a massive conspiracy to invent an unsupported theory to convince people that Geneses is wrong when it says that the world and people and all the animal species were created 10,000 years ago.  Life has been evolving for more than 4 billions years and the Bible is wrong.

All the geologists in the world (including the Christian Geologists) are not involved in a massive conspiracy to generate unsupported theories and to convince people that Geneses is wrong. The earth is 4.5 billion years old, there was no worldwide flood and the bible is false.

All the physicists in the world are not involved in a massive conspiracy to generate false theories to convince people that Geneses is false. The earth is not flat, the sun does not revolve around the earth, the Universe is 14 billion years old, the sun and earth are 4.5 billion years old, there is no evidence of a creator and the bible is false.

All the medical doctors in the world (including the Christian doctors) are not involved in a massive conspiracy to deny the power of prayer to cure diseases. Faith healing is crap and the NT is wrong about the power of prayer.

All the Mideast archeologists (including the Christian and Jewish ones) are not involved in a massive conspiracy to to hide evidence that would support the stories in the bible of the Exodus and the empire of ancient Israel. There was no Exodus, there was no conquest on Judea, there was no empire of Ancient Israel. The bible is false.

All the Western governments are not involved in a massive conspiracy to cover up the manufacture of massive amounts of evidence that 5 million Russian priosoners of war and 6 million Jews and millions of others were murdered in Nazi concentration campls. There really was a Holocaus.

when you say "faith" I think "evil lies"
when you say "god" I think "santa clause"


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Nicely put, Patcleaver.

Nicely put, Patcleaver.


patcleaver
patcleaver's picture
Posts: 122
Joined: 2007-11-07
User is offlineOffline
Embryology proves that evolution is true

Pahu wrote:

Evolutionists have taught for over a century that as an embryo develops, it passes through stages that mimic an evolutionary sequence. In other words, in a few weeks an unborn human repeats stages that supposedly took millions of years for mankind.

Please provide evidence that this has been taught for the past century. This is a distortion of what the consensus of Biologists have been teaching for the past century. I think someone is lying to you, and that your just being gullible.

Pahu wrote:
A well-known example of this ridiculous teaching is that embryos of mammals have “gill slits,” because mammals supposedly evolved from fish. (Yes, that’s faulty logic.) Embryonic tissues that resemble “gill slits” have nothing to do with breathing; they are neither gills nor slits.  Instead, those embryonic tissues develop into parts of the face, bones of the middle ear, and endocrine glands.

Please provide evidence that this has been taught for the past century. Who taught this and was there a consensus of Biologists that this was true. I think that your just spreading lies that other people have told you.

Have your parents ever lied to anyone?

has your pastor ever lied to anyone?

why do you believe people who have no reasonable evidence for what they claim?

Pahu wrote:
Embryologists no longer consider the superficial similarities between a few embryos and the adult forms of simpler animals as evidence for evolution.

This is just completely bullshit. Why are you spreading lies? This has no basis in fact. Instead of spending your time wallowing in your ignorance and spreading lies about science, why don't you try to learn something that really matters. Take some science courses and learn why the bible is false.

Normal 0

Proposed by Jack DeBaun

http://home.nctv.com/jackjan/challenge.htm

 

4. OBSERVATIONS FROM COMPARATIVE EMBRYOLOGY STUDIES

 

# As an organism develops through its various embryonic stages, it sometimes displays features that harken back to the evolutionary ancestors from which it descended. All vertebrate embryos are very similar and develop gill-like structures that eventually form gills only in fish.

 

# The early human embryo has gill-like structures, pairs of aortic arches (adult birds and mammals, being warm-blooded, have only one aortic arch instead of two as in amphibians and reptiles), a fish-like heart with a single atrium and ventricle, as well as a tail with muscles for wagging.

 

# In baleen whales (which have no teeth), certain embryonic stages have tooth buds which are resorbed at birth and never erupt through the gums. In certain of these stages, the embryo also has a coat of hair which is lost before birth. Evolutionary scientists explain this as being due to the fact that the whale retains genes, that are no longer fully expressed, that it has inherited from its evolutionary ancestors that had both hair and teeth.

 

# In a like manner, elephant embryos at certain stages of development have four rudimentary tusks, two on the upper jaw and two on the lower. The lower tusks are resorbed before birth leaving only those growing from the upper jaw in the adult. The fossil record shows that the evolutionary ancestors of elephants Eocene and Oliogocene Periods had four tusks arranged just like they are in the embryo of the elephant.

 

# In the Kollar/Fisher experiment, embryonic jaw tissue from a chicken was exposed to inducers produced by embryonic mouse molar mesenchyme. This resulted in the formation of teeth in the tissue of the chicken showing that this tissue still retains the latent ability to grow teeth as it did in the chicken’s evolutionary ancestors. See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=7352302&dopt=Abstract and http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/18/10044 for more details and further research on the subject.   See also http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=403228 for a discussion on the discovery of teeth in mutant chickens.

 

# The Hampe experiment produced Archaeopteryx-like bones in the legs of modern chicks by interfering with the diffusion of inhibitory growth substances. See http://www.univie.ac.at/morphology/proj/hampe.htm for more details.

 

# So-called Hox genes are regulatory elements that control the expression of other genes. In some cases they inhibit the expression of genes acquired from evolutionary ancestors. Disabling Hox genes can result in renewed activation of these suppressed ancestral genes. For example, disabling the Hoxa –2 gene in mice resulted in the development of a skeletal structure corresponding to reptilian upper jaw cartilage. This "reconstituted" jaw is similar to that of the therapsids which are the evolutionary link between reptiles and mammals. Similarly, disabling the Hox-4 genes resulted in the conversion of mouse occipital bones into occipital vertebrae, a situation analogous to that which occurred in aganthans – the presumed ancestors of all vertebrates. (See www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoLimb.html for more details.)

 

# During dolphin embryogenesis, a number of processes occur which are indicative of a terrestrial ancestry.  For example, hind-limb buds develop and are then reduced.  The precursors of "fingers" appear on the forelimb limb-bud and are then replaced with flippers. The nose, first located at the tip of the snout as it is in land animals, migrates backward until it is situated on the top of the head, above the eyes.  (See http://darla.neoucom.edu/DLDD/ for more details.)    

 

Please, explain, in scientific terms, how the YEC model provides at least as good an explanation for these observations as does the theory of evolution?

We know that the bible is fiction and Jesus never existed, because if the bible were history and Jesus really existed, then there should be reasonable evidence that it was true, but there is no such evidence. God is impossible because you can not explain how its possible for the immaterial to be conscious. The Greek philosophers disproved that the God that you worship thousands of years ago.

When its  discovered that there are mistakes in our theories about evolution, then we just fix them and move on, but you have not even shown us that there is anything to fix.

 

when you say "faith" I think "evil lies"
when you say "god" I think "santa clause"


MissTesla
Superfan
MissTesla's picture
Posts: 25
Joined: 2009-01-17
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:The real

JillSwift wrote:

The real question here, in my ever-so-humble opinion: Is Pahu really trying to "disprove" evolution, or is this a desperate cry for help, saying "Public school biology has failed me!"

Giggles. If i didn't knoiw better my love, I would say you went to my school.

Goldfish Memory.


Sleestack
Sleestack's picture
Posts: 172
Joined: 2008-07-07
User is offlineOffline
Ah, another 'Gapper' has

Ah, another 'Gapper' has creeped out from the woods and its name is Pahu.


Pahu (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Zymotic wrote:Since you are

Zymotic wrote:

Since you are copying and pasting this bullshit all over the internet, I thought I might copy and paste some answers for you.

 

"Perhaps you are not aware that the theory of recapitulation was 
destroyed in 1921 by Professor Walter Garstang in a famous paper. Why 
are you discussing a theory created 142 years ago and discredited 87 
years ago?

 

Just pointing out that even though it was discredited, it continued to be taught as fact until just recently, although we still hear references to it is some areas such as abortion where many women are being assured it isn’t really a baby at all, it is just a fish.

 

Quote:
The evidence for evolution, on the other hand, has grown every year. 
Thanks to direct DNA evidence, it is now conclusive.

You should read up on retroviruses. These can mark a DNA strand, much 
like putting a dent or scratch on your car. If your mom or dad's 
reproductive system was marked in this way, and one of those sperms or 
eggs becomes you, every cell in your body will have DNA with the same 
dent or scratch - including your own eggs and sperm, which can then 
pass the ding to your children, to their children, etc., forever.

 

If you look a little deeper, you will find the more science discovers, the less credible evolution becomes. DNA contains the unique information that determines what you look like, much of your personality, and how every cell in your body is to function throughout your life.

 

If all this very densely coded information from one cell of one person were written in books, it would fill a library of about 4,000 books.

 

The genetic material that controls the physical processes of life is coded information. Also coded are complex and completely different functions: the transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems, without which the genetic material would be useless, and life would cease. It seems most reasonable that the genetic code and the accompanying transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems were produced simultaneously in each living organism by an extremely high intelligence, not by random natural causes.

 

Likewise, no natural process has ever been observed to produce a program. A program is a planned sequence of steps to accomplish some goal. Computer programs are common examples. Because programs require foresight, they are not produced by chance or natural processes. The information stored in the genetic material of all life is a complex program. Therefore, it appears that an unfathomable intelligence created these genetic programs.

 

 Life contains matter, energy, and information. All isolated systems, including living organisms, have specific, but perishable, amounts of information. No isolated system has ever been shown to increase its information content significantly. Nor do natural processes increase information; they destroy it. Only outside intelligence can significantly increase the information content of an otherwise isolated system. All scientific observations are consistent with this generalization, which has three corollaries:

 

Macroevolution cannot occur.

 

Outside intelligence was involved in the creation of the universe and all forms of life.

 

Life could not result from a “big bang.”

 

Quote:
Chimpanzees and humans have many of the same dents and scratches in 
exactly the same places in the same chromosomes. There's too many for 
it to be a coincidence - we have common ancestors."

 

You are using the erroneous “similarities” argument. The differences can be even more important. If you see two identical white, round pills, you would conclude they are similar. If one is aspirin and the other is cyanide, the difference is vast and lethal.

 

Apes and humans are similar in many ways, but consider the vast difference in output. Humans are going to the moon and beyond while apes are still swinging from branches.  


Pahu (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
patcleaver wrote: Denial of

patcleaver wrote:
 

Denial of objective truth such as Holocaust denial and evolution denial is based on massive conspiracy theories that could only be accepted by a Paranoid Schizophrenic mind.

 

Could the denial of evolution be the result of scientific facts disproving it? If so, would that be considered Paranoid Schizophrenic?

 

Quote:
Life has been evolving for more than 4 billions years and the Bible is wrong.

The earth is 4.5 billion years old, there was no worldwide flood and the bible is false.

The Universe is 14 billion years old, the sun and earth are 4.5 billion years old, there is no evidence of a creator and the bible is false.

Faith healing is crap and the NT is wrong about the power of prayer. There was no Exodus, there was no conquest on Judea, there was no empire of Ancient Israel. The bible is false.

 

How do you know? Are your assertions fact or opinion?

 

Quote:
All the Western governments are not involved in a massive conspiracy to cover up the manufacture of massive amounts of evidence that 5 million Russian priosoners of war and 6 million Jews and millions of others were murdered in Nazi concentration campls. There really was a Holocaus.

 

You finally said something about which we can agree. As to your assertion that there is no evidence of a creator, let me suggest that when we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:

 

1.       The universe exists.

2.       The universe had a beginning.

3.       Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.

4.       Since there was no universe, there was nothing.

5.        Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.

6.        Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.

7.       Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.

8.       Life exists.

9.       Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).

10.       Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.

11.       Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

 

Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.

 

The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.

 

“Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes” (From In the Beginning by Walt Brown, Ph.D. page 5). [http://www.creationscience.com/]

 

Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.

 

Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.

 

The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

 

If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell.

 

[From “Reincarnation in the Bible?” http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-12387-2

 

Also, you appeal to archaeology to assert “there was no Exodus, there was no conquest on Judea, there was no empire of Ancient Israel.” If you will look a little deeper, you will find that archaeology has consistently confirmed the accuracy of Bible history and has yet to reveal one error.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Pahu, you do know that the

Pahu, you do know that the Christian god violates your argument (unless he had a supernatural creator as well). Arguing anything else is the special pleading fallacy.

As for the archeology, are you talking about the real discipline or the "Biblical" variety where the evidence is tweaked to fit the desired conclusion?

Though I wil grant you that McDowell is good for a laugh. Check out http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1196
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Pahu, Would you mind saying

Pahu,

Would you mind saying what level of education you have received in biology to speak so authoritatively on the matter?

And...do you intend to simply copy and paste responses you've already made in this forum?

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Pahu, we have a rule about

 Pahu, we have a rule about cut and pasting here.  It's fine if you want to use excerpts to illustrate or complement your points, but if you can't make the argument in your own words, you don't need to be posting it here.  We're all capable of going to other websites and reading what people have already written.

Either prove to us that you have some clue what you're talking about by writing it in your own words, or drop it.

This is an official warning.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Pahu (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
patcleaver wrote:Please

patcleaver wrote:

Please provide evidence that this has been taught for the past century. This is a distortion of what the consensus of Biologists have been teaching for the past century. I think someone is lying to you, and that your just being gullible.

 

Please provide evidence that this has been taught for the past century. Who taught this and was there a consensus of Biologists that this was true. I think that your just spreading lies that other people have told you.

 

You begin with these assertions and then proceed to contradict yourself with the quotes from the link you provide, or so it seems.

 

As to the assertions in the link, I have no doubt what is being described is accurate. The question remains: Do those facts prove evolution—the change from one species to another—or just variations within species? Also, I notice that the author mentions evolution as a fact several times indicating he already has that preconception, rather than coming to that conclusion after the evidence. Let’s take a closer look at the part on whales:

 

Conventional wisdom among evolutionists, at least at the popular level, is that whales descended from Mesonychidae, an early and diverse family of land mammals that were well adapted for running. It is hypothesized that some mesonychid species began feeding on creatures inhabiting shallow waters and that over many generations the selective pressures created by this change of diet transformed one or more of the species into an amphibious archaeocete.  The selective pressures of amphibious living in turn generated a variety of archaeocetes and eventually transformed one or more of the species into a fully marine archaeocete.  Marine existence then shaped further adaptations to produce the 75 to 77 living species of whales, porpoises, and dolphins.

 

To acknowledge, as Robert Carroll did recently, that “It is not possible to identify a sequence of mesonychids leading directly to whales,” is to understate the problem.  It is not even possible to identify a single ancestral species.  All known mesonychids are excluded from the actual chain of descent by the evolutionists’ own criteria.

 

The reason evolutionists are confident that mesonychids gave rise to archaeocetes, despite the inability to identify any species in the actual lineage, is that known mesonychids and archaeocetes have some similarities.  These similarities, however, are not sufficient to make the case for ancestry, especially in light of the vast differences.  The subjective nature of such comparisons is evident from the fact so many groups of mammals and even reptiles have been suggested as ancestral to whales.

 

Quote:
We know that the bible is fiction and Jesus never existed, because if the bible were history and Jesus really existed, then there should be reasonable evidence that it was true, but there is no such evidence.

 

Archaeology constantly supports the historical accuracy of Bible history and has yet to discover any errors. To claim Jesus never existed is to ignore mountains of evidence. The first century Jewish historian Josephus referred to the stoning of "James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ" (The Jewish Antiquities, Josephus, Book XX, sec. 200).


Tacitus, a Roman historian who lived during the latter part of the first century A.D., wrote: "Christus [Latin for "Christ"], from whom the name [Christian] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus."—The Complete Works of Tacitus (New York, 1942), "The Annals," Book15, par.44.


With reference to early non-Christian historical references to Jesus, The Encyclopedia Britannica states: "These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."—(1976), Macropaedia, Vol. 10, p.145.

There are many more references to Jesus outside of the Bible. We can be sure that Christ actually spoke the words found in the gospels.

 

If Jesus had not said such things surely His disciples would not have risked their lives for the cause of truth. If He had not said such things, those who opposed Him would have vehemently challenged such writings. However, no one during the early days of Christianity ever did. Two of the writers of the gospels were close companions of Christ. Both his disciples and his enemies heard his words openly. People in general he talked to heard his words. Yet, the letters of the gospels were never called into question. There are many historical writings about Christ from the early centuries to help substantiate his existence. During the early days when the gospel was preached publicly, no one questioned it because it was factual. Even Jesus’ close disciples died because of what Jesus taught them. If He had not actually said such things they would not have had such convictions.

 

Quote:
God is impossible because you can not explain how its possible for the immaterial to be conscious. The Greek philosophers disproved that the God that you worship thousands of years ago.

 

It would be interesting to see that Greek proof. Why would my inability to explain how the immaterial can be conscious disprove God’s existence? Is a blade of grass conscious? Does it exist?

 

Quote:
When its  discovered that there are mistakes in our theories about evolution, then we just fix them and move on, but you have not even shown us that there is anything to fix.

 

You seem to overlook the fact that the hypothesis of evolution changes regularly, like the tides, but is never fixed. Every “fix” creates more mistakes to be “fixed” creating more mistakes, etc. Instead of admitting evolution cannot be reconciled with scientific facts, evolutionists keep believing in it anyway. With NO scientific evidence, why do so many "scientists" embrace evolution?  Following are some quotes from noted evolutionists, which will shed light on this subject:

 

Arthur Keith, author of twenty books defending evolution, wrote: 

"Evolution is unproved and unproveable.  We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable."

 

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins wrote:  "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

 

H.G. Wells, author and historian, wrote: "If all animals and man evolved...then the entire historic fabric of Christianity --the story of the first sin and the reason for an atonement--  collapsed like a house of cards." 

 

The late Sir Julian Huxley, once the world's leading evolution "expert", and head of the United Nations Educational Scientific Cultural Organization (UNESCO), said he believed that the reason so many scientists, himself included, embraced the idea of evolution was "because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores."

 

Evolutionist and philosopher Bertrand Russell said that getting rid of the idea of God "freed me up to my erotic desires."

 

According to their own testimonies, the most prominent evolutionists believed and taught evolution, NOT because of any scientific evidence, but based upon their rejection of God.

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Josephus and Tacitus?<laughs

Josephus and Tacitus?

<laughs maniacally>

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Pahu (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Pahu, you do

jcgadfly wrote:

Pahu, you do know that the Christian god violates your argument (unless he had a supernatural creator as well). Arguing anything else is the special pleading fallacy.

 

How does the Christian God violate my "argument"? 

 

Quote:
As for the archeology, are you talking about the real discipline or the "Biblical" variety where the evidence is tweaked to fit the desired conclusion?

 

I am referring to the real McCoy.

 

Though I wil grant you that McDowell is good for a laugh. Check out http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/


Pahu (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:Pahu,Would

zarathustra wrote:

Pahu,

Would you mind saying what level of education you have received in biology to speak so authoritatively on the matter?

And...do you intend to simply copy and paste responses you've already made in this forum?

 

I have no formal education in biology. My information comes from those who do. I intend to continue to share with you the best information on the subject I can find. To do less would be a disservice to you, wouldn't it?


Pahu (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Pahu, we

Hambydammit wrote:

 Pahu, we have a rule about cut and pasting here.  It's fine if you want to use excerpts to illustrate or complement your points, but if you can't make the argument in your own words, you don't need to be posting it here.  We're all capable of going to other websites and reading what people have already written.

Either prove to us that you have some clue what you're talking about by writing it in your own words, or drop it.

This is an official warning.

 

So you prefer my ignorant opinions rather than scientific facts? That isn't surprising. Opinions are easier to refute than facts. I am not interested in entering into endless quibbling over the information I am sharing because I believe the information speaks for itself. If you disagree, that ‘s fine. I believe the free exchange of facts is a healthy, profitable way to discover truth, but your disagreement is with the scientists being quoted, not me.

 

The mentality of unredeemed human nature has remained unchanged since Cain murdered Abel over a disagreement. History is full of examples of people silencing those with whom they disagree:

 

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were thrown into the fiery furnace because they refused to worship the king’s idol.

 

Daniel was thrown into the lion’s den for worshipping God, contrary to the king’s decree.

 

Jesus was crucified because the religious authorities disagreed with Him.

 

His disciples were tortured and murdered because the authorities disagreed with them.

 

Thousands were murdered for disagreeing with the Roman Catholic church during the inquisition.

 

Hitler murdered six million Jews and seven million Christians because he disagreed with them.

 

Over 100,000,000 people have been murdered under atheist communism for disagreeing with them.

 

Muslims murder anyone who disagrees with them.

 

So you are definitely in the majority when you want to silence me because you disagree with the facts I am sharing that challenge your worldview.

 

The refusal to believe facts in this and other instances may run deeper than just simple fear, hatred or partisanship. Perhaps some people invest so much of themselves into a certain political, religious, philosophical or scientific viewpoint, that their identity and sense of self becomes bonded to it. The bond is so strong that any fact that disproves even a small part of their particular viewpoint is interpreted as a direct attack upon their own self-identity. This can lead to retaliation in the form of wild accusations or character attacks upon the people promoting such facts (I.E. stop the message by killing the messenger).

 

If this is true, then you can probably never prove any disagreeable facts to such people. They’ve traded introspection and reason for the security, comfort, and certainty that their viewpoints, and thus their identity, are always 100 percent correct.

 

This is my official reply!


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Pahu wrote:jcgadfly

Pahu wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Pahu, you do know that the Christian god violates your argument (unless he had a supernatural creator as well). Arguing anything else is the special pleading fallacy.

 

How does the Christian God violate my "argument"? 

 

Quote:
As for the archeology, are you talking about the real discipline or the "Biblical" variety where the evidence is tweaked to fit the desired conclusion?

 

I am referring to the real McCoy.

 

Though I wil grant you that McDowell is good for a laugh. Check out http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/

Does your God have a supernatural Creator? No? Off goes point 11

Is your God something/someone? You can't describe him except in terms of what he's not. Bye bye points 6-10.

Saying that God is outside the natural is the special pleading fallacy so the whole argument pretty much goes away. Or are you saying that God doesn't affect nature?

Real archaeology? Oh, you've found the Nazareth of the gospels?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
I'll throw the Biblical

I'll throw the Biblical examples aside as they can't be proven - the best you can preface them with is "The Bible says"

Now for some of the others - I'll make them more truthful:

Thousands were murdered (by the Roman Catholic Church) for disagreeing with the Roman Catholic church during the inquisition.

 

Hitler (another good Catholic) murdered six million Jews and seven million Christians because he disagreed with them.

 

Over 100,000,000 people have been murdered under atheist communism for disagreeing with them. (Communism isn't atheist of course and those people were because the rulers wanted more power but hey, I'm a Christian - I have no problem with lying to make my points)

 
Muslims murder anyone who disagrees with them. (Well, only the fundamentalist crazies but hey I'm a Christian so vilifying an entire religion because of a few nuts is par for the course)

Thanks for showing that theists are far more dangerous than the atheists.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Pahu (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Embryology 2

Embryology 2

 

Ernst Haeckel, by deliberately falsifying his drawings (b), originated and popularized this incorrect but widespread belief. Many modern textbooks continue to spread this false idea as evidence for evolution (c).

 

b. Haeckel, who in 1868 advanced this “biogenetic law” that was quickly adopted in textbooks and encyclopedias worldwide, distorted his data. Thompson explains:

 

“A natural law can only be established as an induction from facts. Haeckel was of course unable to do this. What he did was to arrange existing forms of animal life in a series proceeding from the simple to the complex, intercalating [inserting] imaginary entities where discontinuity existed and then giving the embryonic phases names corresponding to the stages in his so-called evolutionary series. Cases in which this parallelism did not exist were dealt with by the simple expedient of saying that the embryological development had been falsified. When the ‘convergence’ of embryos was not entirely satisfactory, Haeckel altered the illustrations of them to fit his theory. The alterations were slight but significant. The ‘biogenetic law’ as a proof of evolution is valueless.” W. R. Thompson, p. 12.

 

“To support his case he [Haeckel] began to fake evidence. Charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court at Jena, he agreed that a small percentage of his embryonic drawings were forgeries; he was merely filling in and reconstructing the missing links when the evidence was thin, and he claimed unblushingly that ‘hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge.’” Pitman, p. 120.

 

M. Bowden, Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? 2nd edition (Bromley, England: Sovereign Publications, 1981), pp. 142–143.

 

Wilbert H. Rusch, Sr., “Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 6, June 1969, pp. 27–34.

 

“...ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, meaning that in the course of its development [ontogeny] an embryo recapitulates [repeats] the evolutionary history of its species [phylogeny]. This idea was fathered by Ernst Haeckel, a German biologist who was so convinced that he had solved the riddle of life’s unfolding that he doctored and faked his drawings of embryonic stages to prove his point.” Fix, p. 285.

 

“[The German scientist Wilhelm His] accused Haeckel of shocking dishonesty in repeating the same picture several times to show the similarity among vertebrates at early embryonic stages in several plates of [Haeckel’s book].” Stephen Jay Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1977), p. 430.

 

“It looks like it’s turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology.” Michael K. Richardson, as quoted by Elizabeth Pennisi, “Haeckel’s Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered,” Science, Vol. 277, 5 September 1997, p. 1435.

 

“When we compare his [Haeckel’s] drawings of a young echidna embryo with the original, we find that he removed the limbs (see Fig. 1). This cut was selective, applying only to the young stage. It was also systematic because he did it to other species in the picture. Its intent is to make the young embryos look more alike than they do in real life.” Michael K. Richardson and Gerhard Keuck, “A Question of Intent: When Is a ‘Schematic’ Illustration a Fraud?” Nature, Vol. 410, 8 March 2001, p. 144.

 

c. “Another point to emerge from this study is the considerable inaccuracy of Haeckel’s famous figures. These drawings are still widely reproduced in textbooks and review articles, and continue to exert a significant influence on the development of ideas in this field.”   Michael K. Richardson et al., “There Is No Highly Conserved Embryonic Stage in the Vertebrates,” Anatomy and Embryology, Vol. 196, No. 2, August 1997, p. 104.

 

http://   www.   creationscience  .com/onlinebook/LifeSciences24.html#wp1009086


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
Pahu wrote:So you prefer my

Pahu wrote:
So you prefer my ignorant opinions rather than scientific facts?


Pahu, you have behaved dishonestly. Hambydammit did not say that. He said that you may make whatever arguments you want to make. You may challenge the views of any member or set of members as much as you want, but you should do so in your own words. Arguments should consist of civil exchanges, actual conversation, rather than delving into peeing contests to see who can quote the most material at one another. That is conducive to neither conversation nor argumentation. Repeatedly posting materal written by someone else or from another website is, for that reason, considered spamming, which, as you have been told, is against the forum rules. You have received an official warning from a moderator. Further attempts to spam the forum will result in either a temporary or permenant suspension of your posting privileges. Again, you may make whatever arguments you want to make to whomever you want to make them to, but you should do so in your own words.
 

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1196
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Pahu wrote:I have no formal

Pahu wrote:

I have no formal education in biology. My information comes from those who do. I intend to continue to share with you the best information on the subject I can find. To do less would be a disservice to you, wouldn't it?

I'm afraid that if you cannot think for yourself on the topic of discussion, you should not be a participant in the discussion. 

I have some formal education in biology from studying pre-med in college, but I am by no means a biologist.  If I engage in a discussion on evolution, I will only engage the discussion to the extent of my knowledge, and not beyond that. 

Or shall I just copy and paste content from biologists, and this become a contest of who can better regurgitate the work of others?  I would certainly win that contest, as the overwhelming majority of biologists accept evolutionary theory.  However, I would prefer to respond with my own material where I am able, and leave it to those more knowledgeable than I where I cannot.

The forum I linked to above, from which you've been copying posts, is up to 17 pages.

I hope we can avoid a similar result here.

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The humane genome is about 3

The humane genome is about 3 billion base-pairs. each base is one of 4 possibilities, ie 2 bits. That gives us 6Gbits. One character in english text is about 5-6 bits (ie from a set of 32 to 64 characters) taking us to about 1 billion characters. One page in a book can be about 10000 letters, so we are down to 100,000 pages. 500 pages per book would give us 200 books, somewhat less than Pahu's estimate of 4000. Poor calculation here.

On another error, as already pointed out, the OP made the assumption that the evolution from single-celled organisms to multi-cellular organisms proceeded by progressive increase in number of cells in a fully integrated multicellular organism. What is actually envisaged is that a large groups of individual single-celled organisms become progressively more closely co-operative and integrated until they became effectively one unified organism.

We see examples in current biology of many such intermediate forms, even such things as slime-molds, which at different phases behave as independent cells or come together into something which behaves and looks like a multicell organism.

The whole series of arguments presented are riddled which such errors.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
Pahu wrote:Evolutionists

Pahu wrote:
Evolutionists have taught for over a century that as an embryo develops, it passes through stages that mimic an evolutionary sequence. In other words, in a few weeks an unborn human repeats stages that supposedly took millions of years for mankind. A well-known example of this ridiculous teaching is that embryos of mammals have “gill slits,” because mammals supposedly evolved from fish. (Yes, that’s faulty logic.) Embryonic tissues that resemble “gill slits” have nothing to do with breathing; they are neither gills nor slits. Instead, those embryonic tissues develop into parts of the face, bones of the middle ear, and endocrine glands.

Embryologists no longer consider the superficial similarities between a few embryos and the adult forms of simpler animals as evidence for evolution.


Pharyngeal arches do develop into the middle ear bone, parathryoid, and so on, but not only in mammals. Species of some cladistic distance from mammals, such as reptiles and fish, also develop pharyngeal arches as fetuses. That of the reptiles develop into the lower jaws and parathyroids but not ear bones, which reptiles do not have. That of fish also develop into the lower jaws but also—guess!—gill slits. While ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny, embryological development and phylogenetic relations do exhibit correlations quite unexpected from the presumption of design but which make perfect sense from an evolutionary perspective.

Pahu wrote:
Only outside intelligence can significantly increase the information content of an otherwise isolated system.


Multiple nucleotide insertion mutations in a population acted upon by environmental pressures will result statistically favoring the elimination of detrimental changes and the preservation of beneficial changes, thus encoding information about what the environment favors. Information increases do not require an outside intelligence.

Pahu wrote:
Could the denial of evolution be the result of scientific facts disproving it? If so, would that be considered Paranoid Schizophrenic?


If you think that tens of thousands of the best minds in biology who regularly work to disprove eachother could fail to notice a disproof or have conspired to prevent people from learning about the disproof, then that would be a telling symptom of paranoid schizophrenia.

Pahu wrote:
logic:

1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.


Logic? You merely rearranged prejudices. (1) is unneeded. (2) is unsupported. (3) is unneeded. (4) combines a premise and conclusion; the conclusion is a non-sequitur; if we accept it as following, then God does not exist. (5) commits a reification fallacy. (7) is a nonsequitur becuase it contradicts (4), which is nonsequitur, and the unstated premise that supernatural entities can create without preexisting material is unsupported. (9) mischaracterizes the law of biogenesis, which speaks of near-instantaneous emergence of complex life forms, not non-instantaneous emergence of simple psuedo-life forms. (10) assigns the property of living and nonliving to matter, which partakes of the fallacy of division. (11) does not follow because it depends on (9), which is false. Overall, it was a horrendously bad argument.

Pahu wrote:
Also, you appeal to archaeology to assert “there was no Exodus, there was no conquest on Judea, there was no empire of Ancient Israel.” If you will look a little deeper, you will find that archaeology has consistently confirmed the accuracy of Bible history and has yet to reveal one error.


The geologic column, found in its entirety in North Dakota, proves definitively a worldwide flood never occured, as demonstrated by the Christian petroleum geophysicist Glenn Morton: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/

Pahu wrote:
Also, I notice that the author mentions evolution as a fact several times indicating he already has that preconception, rather than coming to that conclusion after the evidence.


Nonsequitur.

Pahu wrote:
As to the assertions in the link, I have no doubt what is being described is accurate. The question remains: Do those facts prove evolution—the change from one species to another—or just variations within species? Also, I notice that the author mentions evolution as a fact several times indicating he already has that preconception, rather than coming to that conclusion after the evidence. Let’s take a closer look at the part on whales:

Conventional wisdom among evolutionists, at least at the popular level, is that whales descended from Mesonychidae, an early and diverse family of land mammals that were well adapted for running. It is hypothesized that some mesonychid species began feeding on creatures inhabiting shallow waters and that over many generations the selective pressures created by this change of diet transformed one or more of the species into an amphibious archaeocete. The selective pressures of amphibious living in turn generated a variety of archaeocetes and eventually transformed one or more of the species into a fully marine archaeocete. Marine existence then shaped further adaptations to produce the 75 to 77 living species of whales, porpoises, and dolphins.

To acknowledge, as Robert Carroll did recently, that “It is not possible to identify a sequence of mesonychids leading directly to whales,” is to understate the problem. It is not even possible to identify a single ancestral species. All known mesonychids are excluded from the actual chain of descent by the evolutionists’ own criteria.

The reason evolutionists are confident that mesonychids gave rise to archaeocetes, despite the inability to identify any species in the actual lineage, is that known mesonychids and archaeocetes have some similarities. These similarities, however, are not sufficient to make the case for ancestry, especially in light of the vast differences. The subjective nature of such comparisons is evident from the fact so many groups of mammals and even reptiles have been suggested as ancestral to whales.


An intellectual honest investigation of the fossil series, including the apparently morphological transition and the phylogetic or cladistic relationship of the specimens, will inevitably result in the conclusion that an evolutionary morphological transition is a vastly more probable explanation for the phenomena than the idea that supernatural god manipulated radiocarbon and gave many whale species legs they couldn't use, just a few thousand years ago, with the apparent intent on deceiving us into thinking whales evolved several million years ago. You don't need to be a "rocket surgeon" to recognize the aggressive gullibility, willful ignorance, and conscientious stupidity involved in the supernatural scenario. I apologize for the harshness of my words, but reality has no obligation to appease you.

Pahu wrote:
Arthur Keith, author of twenty books defending evolution, wrote:

"Evolution is unproved and unproveable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable."


I have looked for this quote before and simply could not find it. As such, I suspect it is a figment of the imagination. If you want to demonstrate that Arthur Keith actually said that, scan the page where he wrote that, upload the scan image, then provide the web address for us to access that image. Until then, the argument demonstrates nothing.

Pahu wrote:
Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins wrote: "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."


This does not give any reason why "evolutionists" accept the modern theory of evolution. It could only be construed as such by arguing that all evolutionists are atheists. You would go nowhere fast with that line of argument, though. I grew up as a Young Earth Creationist and came to accept the theory of evolution (and thus transitioned to Old Earth Creationism) because it accorded with the facts.

Pahu wrote:
H.G. Wells, author and historian, wrote: "If all animals and man evolved...then the entire historic fabric of Christianity --the story of the first sin and the reason for an atonement-- collapsed like a house of cards."


This does not give any reason why "evolutionists" accept the modern theory of evolution. The statement quoted forgot to mention that it also does away with Heaven. One would suspect that "evolutionists" would consider themselves as having some very strong evidential reasons to accept the theory of evolution and reject the idea of Heaven. Regardless, not all "evolutionists" reject the idea of Heaven, Sin, and Atonement. Continuing to pretend otherwise will avail you nothing.

Pahu wrote:
The late Sir Julian Huxley, once the world's leading evolution "expert", and head of the United Nations Educational Scientific Cultural Organization (UNESCO), said he believed that the reason so many scientists, himself included, embraced the idea of evolution was "because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores."


That is a lie.

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/julian_huxley_lie.html

Pahu wrote:
Evolutionist and philosopher Bertrand Russell said that getting rid of the idea of God "freed me up to my erotic desires."


If you honestly think that someone as intelligent as Bertrand Russel gave up the idea of going to Heaven so he could have the occasional orgasm, then you have lost your brain.

Pahu wrote:
According to their own testimonies, the most prominent evolutionists believed and taught evolution, NOT because of any scientific evidence, but based upon their rejection of God.


Nonsequitur.

Pahu wrote:
I have no formal education in biology. My information comes from those who do.


No, it doesn't.
 

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Pahu wrote:Evolutionary

Pahu wrote:

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins wrote: "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

The more complete quote is

Quote:

An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: "I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one." I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

Which simply means that Darwin provided a highly plausible explanation for the apparent 'design' in living organisms, filling in what was possibly the biggest 'gap' in a naturalistic explanation of the world. It did not 'disprove' God or the dogmas of the Christian religion, it simply removed one of the major justifications for belief in God, namely the apparent lack of a natural explanation for the world of living organisms.

Darwin himself was a Christian when he made the early observations in the Galapagos and elsewhere, which lead him to wonder why God would create so many different creatures in basically similar environments. The more he observed, the more trouble he had fitting what he saw into the Christian creation story. The theory Pahu so vehemently rejects was originated by a thoughtful and intelligent Christian trying to understand reality.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Pahu (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Visual_Paradox wrote:The

Visual_Paradox wrote:
The geologic column, found in its entirety in North Dakota, proves definitively a worldwide flood never occured, as demonstrated by the Christian petroleum geophysicist Glenn Morton: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/

 

 The following information refuting Glen Morton is from an essay by Ian Taylor on several subjects. If interested, you can find it at this link: http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_it_02.asp

The Geologic Column
In quoting Schafersman I made the very error I am normally quite careful not to make, I quoted someone (who shall be nameless) who had taken the quote out of its context! Access to the university library is not as convenient as it used to be. Nevertheless, Schafersman did actually say he knew of no fossil out of sequence then gave a list of reasons for those instances when fossils are found out of sequence. To my mind, if those reasons are valid then the contracted quote remains his unabashed opinion and, of course, this remains the nonsense I claimed it was. There are many examples of out of place fossils both up and down the column and in the upward direction the celebrated case of Jacques Deprat (1880-1935) comes to mind. French geologist Deprat discovered trilobites in the Ordovician where the wisdom of the day said trilobites were long gone before this era. Deprat was accused of falsification and fired from his position. Since then the fossil record has been reinterpreted and Deprat was reinstated into the Societe Geologique de France in 1991, although of course this correction had to be made posthumously. (M. Millet. L’Affaire Deprat. Geochronique 1991, No.40, p.19). Out of place fossils in the downward direction such as human remains in say, the Cretaceous, are seen to be a more serious threat to the theory and the usual reaction is to totally ignore the evidence or, discredit it or its finder as quickly as possible.

With regard to all the instances of the entire geologic column being found from oil-well cores and reported by Glen Morton, I must say, common sense leaves me a little skeptical. The things of nature are never this perfect and it seems to me that this claim has all the earmarks of someone overzealously trying to confirm the theory. It would mean very little to the oil company whether the geologic column was perfectly confirmed or not but making that claim might give a lowly geologist some kudos among his peers. I don’t mean to appear overly skeptical but such things have happened before and are part of human nature. Those claims would need to be examined very closely by unbiased experts if such can be found.

The geologic column is of course based upon a fossil sequence and not upon the actual nature of the stratum itself. This has caused attention to be directed to the life forms and away from the actual rock. I appreciate that this was not done deliberately but it has shifted attention away from those evidences, such as the persistence of facies, that tend to support the many accounts of a world-wide flood.

Derek Ager’s The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record (1973 McMillan) or The New Catastrophism (1993, Cambridge University Press) give some wonderful examples of facies such as the Cretaceous chalk identified by its index fossil micraster and found as a continuous band from Northern Ireland to Russia and Australia via India. I think everyone understands the Cretaceous chalk to be a sedimentary deposit and thus laid down under water. Since it is a continuous deposit extending more than halfway around the world surely this means that the continental land surfaces involved were all under water at the same time. I find it difficult to regard this as a local flood and more reasonably think of it as good evidence for the world-wide Flood described in Genesis.

That great scholar Sir James George Frazer culled the libraries of Cambridge University and reported the accounts from 137 separate cultures of what was said to be a world-wide flood in which one man was saved in a large vessel (Folklore in the Old Testament. London: MacMillan 1918, Vol. 1, p. 104 - 361). The details of each account have local coloring although the picture remains essentially the same. Anyone familiar with Frazer’s work will know that he was not a Christian, that his writing style exceeds almost anything written today and that his documentation was exhaustive. A more complete account of Frazer’s work is given in chapter 14 of In The Minds of Men.


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
The author of that webpage

The author of that webpage apparently does not intend to engage in any research. One can verify the accuracy of the data provided for the Williston Basin in Williston, North Dakota by Glenn Morton by consulting the peer-review literature, books used by the petroleum industry, and the U.S. Geological Survey. One can verify the accuracy of his interpretation of the stratigraphic data by comparing the cited facts with known geophysical principles. The geologic column, as found in the Williston Basin, thoroughly refutes the notion of a worldwide flood.

The cretaceous chalk does not serve as evidence of a global food. One, it extended far but only covered portions of the land masses. Two, stratigraphy of other regions provides evidence of nonsubmergence. Three, the chalk developed for thousands of years over several million years ago, not for a year just a few thousand years ago. Four, humans did not live in the cretaceous. Five, such a mass drowning of organisms of all vertebrate species would reveal simultaneous population bottlenecks in genetic analyses, which doesn't exist. Six, Genesis mentions an olive tree, which could not survive submerged in saltwater for a year, clearly indicating a process of myth-making. Seven, literary parallels exist between Genesis and the Epic of Gilgamesh, which preceded it in a nearby location, thus clearly showing exaggeration of early legends. The Epic of Gilgamesh stems from a local river flooding in Shurrapak around 2700 BCE involving King Ziasudra who placed his belongings and animals on a barge. The historiographical evidence reveals cultural exaggeration across thousands of years from a local river flood to the worldwide flood of Genesis. Eight, the historiographical evidence accords with the geophysical Williston Basin and Shurrupak evidence, which both accord with the genetic evidence, while all of it contradicts the competing explanation of a worldwide flood as told in Genesis, so that could only be maintained by an aggressively gullible person.
 

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!