The Demise of Another Evolutionary Link: Archaeopteryx Falls From Its Perch

Evolution News & Views ^ | October 26, 2009 | Casey Luskin

[RightWingNilla]

Pretty please?! ONE of you MUST certainly accept the fact that sun does not orbit the Earth.

Why do you hate Baby Jesus?

[scottdeus12]

Well I for one am a Christian and don’t believe in Geocentrism...as for e-s, that’s his own opinion.

“Dissent is OKAY. This IS a “FREE REPUBLIC,” right? : )”

Yup, I totally agree with you.

[scripter]

Placemarker

[allmendream]

I did not say YOU were idiotic. I said your assertion was idiotic.

This is also idiotic...

“In order for you to refute the concept of intelligent design you must demonstrate that the bicycle and airplane came from no where and there was no intelligent designer of the the products”

And I will explain to you why.

Only if the concept of intelligent design is that intelligent agents can design and create objects would the examples of humans making bikes and planes be evidentiary support of that concept.

If the concept of intelligent design was only that intelligent agents can design and create objects, nobody would disagree with it; as we all know that intelligent agents can design and create objects.

However the concept of I.D. is a LOT more than just the idea that intelligent agents can design and create objects. But you know that of course... don’t you?

Still no citation for you assertions that you at first tried to claim you didn’t say. What is the matter? Trouble backing up your claims? Typical.

Going to go back to claiming you never said it again?

[tongass kid]

Well, lets try again. Bicylces and airplanes do not need to have offspring in order to be an example of intelligent design. The chair you sit in or the floor you stand on are an outcome of intelligent design. These are basic concepts of intelligent design. Currently this portion of the concept of intelligent design receives wide agreement from the non ID community. They may not agree with the overall conclusion of ID but they do agree to this portion. My goal is not to support ID or refute it, it was only to point to the fact that the other person was using basic concepts of intelligent design and improperly applying them as an example to support his point. I too agree with you that he alludes to a progression of bicycle to airplane as an example. He never did articulate that was his intent but it did demonstrate that his use of intelligently design products strongly distracts from is argument. Human lead selective breed is intelligent design and is a widely held concept in the life science community. Humans I believe are intelligent and designed the breeding. Human selective breeding of dog is by definition intelligent design. Natural selection by definition does not involve intelligent design. Again, the other poster missed the point when he attempted to use intelligent design breeding to support his point of natural selection which does not involve intelligent design. I agree that the understanding of his mistake can be easily understood by a 15 year old with a little science background.It may help you understand it better if you repeat after me "natural seclection by definition is not intelligent design". You need to first understand the definition of natural selection before you can understand portions of ID.

[tongass kid]

It does not take a bright person to know when one has been called Idiotic in a back handed way. I will give you a pass this time because you appear to have moderated you response. There are many parts to the theory of evolution and those part are subject to agreement. Some parts of the theory do not receive agreement even from some that agree to validity of the entire theory. Those that agree to the validity of the entire theory must accept natural selection as a very important portion of the theory. There are many definitions of natural selection and probably the strongest is it is not intelligent design. Likewise ID has many parts and the true believer can recognize natural selection but does not place it as the overall mechanism to existence, such as an evolutist would. You inaccurately use examples of a portion of intelligent design in support of your point when you should have been using an example of natural selection. Simply, by definition natural selection is not intelligent design and by definition intelligent design is not natural selection. I agree with the other poster that a 15yo can understand these simple concept.

[whattajoke]

Okay. I think. Yes, you'll be hard-pressed to find someone who would disagree with you that bicycles, chairs, floors and airplanes were designed by intelligent human beings. Agreed.

The whole "selective breeding is intelligent design" is a bit more difficult to accept. I prefer: "Selective breeding is selective breeding." It was practiced long, LONG before we understood that selected genotypes can result in preferred phenotypes.

The problem here is that what you call "ID" (selective breeding) is mere semantics. The operating principle is the same as "natural selection," just sped up to hyper speed and via human intervention. Let's move past dog breeding (the extremes of which are reprehensible and quite damaging). What are your thoughts on Wolves, coyotes, foxes, hyenas, dholes, and dingos? How did they all come about? And for your bonus question, What the heck are these cute little guys?

[tongass kid]

We should probably agree to disagree that selective breeding is or is not intelligent design. Just because selective breed has a long history of intelligence “selecting the breeding partners in no way distracts the fact that the outcome was established by some form of intelligence. In order for natural selection to achieve the same outcome of intelligent design then one would need to demonstrate that the same out come is achievable by natural selection. To date no one has been able to do this and it is readily apparent that the mathematical odds of billions of years of natuaral selection are not in favor of achieving a natural selection outcome similar to a selective breeding intelligent design outcome. Does all of this demonstrate that I personally support ID or natural selection? No, it just means that I understand the difference.

[whattajoke]

In order for natural selection to achieve the same outcome of intelligent design then one would need to demonstrate that the same out come is achievable by natural selection.

False conclusion.

it is readily apparent that the mathematical odds of billions of years of natuaral selection are not in favor of achieving a natural selection outcome similar to a selective breeding intelligent design outcome.

Please cite your source for this. Also, I'm curious what your answer to my previous questions in my last post to you are.

[allmendream]

Tough talk after your infantile “PE for dummies” post; or are you going to hypocritically claim that this wasn't a backhanded insult?

Still no citation for your idiotic claim that PE was offered as an explanation for non random mutation.

Without a citation after frequent requests and I can only assume that you CANNOT cite (or site if you are tongass kid or from Rio Linda) any credible source that says so.

No source, no credibility.

Are you going to now claim you didn't say it again, or are you going to provide a source?

[Agamemnon]

Evolution is to Apollo 11 as Creationism is to Apollo 13.

Correction:

Evolution is to the USSR's R-16 ICBM disater:

... as Creationism is to Apollo 8:

Somehow Darwin is just not quite so quotable nor attributable for what Borman, Lovell and Anders viewed now is he?...

Anyone rememeber how pissed off the atheists like Madelyn Murray O'Hair got when they did this?

We made a huge 10 foot blow up of this postage stamp and mounted it on a board for display at several conservative conventions in which we participated back in the late '60's and early '70's.

Though there were some, it was also at a time when fewer atheists and Darwinists were pretending to pass themselves off as conservatives.

[editor-surveyor]

"and if you have cancer that your only hope is prayer"

Well, you started out being somewhat truthful, but now you had to tell a deliberate lie.

The only way any cancer is going to be cured is to remove the cause of the cancer. Prayer is an important part of that, but feeding your body what it needs, and not feeding it the crap that caused the problem is also part of it. I'm not saying that there is no chance for miraculous healing, but counting on it is insane.

[tongass kid]

Perhaps rather then me identigfing a source that it has not been done perhaps you can identify a source that it has been. I have noticed that many folks do not identify a source for their posts yet demand that others do. Perhaps we should expect that because you made a demand that you will now provide us your source.

[tongass kid]

Your response is the classic response seen by attorneys in court whose case lacks fact and truth. They revert to pounding the table, name calling, shouting and obscuring the truth in every way possible.

[allmendream]

The truth is that you did say what you denied saying, and you cannot source it, because it isn't true.

That is my point, over and over again. You stated something that you cannot back up.

Zero credibility.

[whattajoke]

The only way any cancer is going to be cured is to remove the cause of the cancer. Prayer is an important part of that, but feeding your body what it needs, and not feeding it the crap that caused the problem is also part of it. I'm not saying that there is no chance for miraculous healing, but counting on it is insane.

I'm impressed with your attitude. And I stand corrected and apologize. You didn't say what I said you said. You said this. I'll let the others decide if they should take medical advice from a geocentrist.

Here's another interesting idea of yours. I'll give you this: Your faith is strong.

[Wacka]

E-S,
I wouldn’t be here if people had your warped ideas.I had a physical when I was four (1961) and they found my bp was that of a 30 year-old. Tests found I had a blood vessel congenitally constricted in my kidney. I had the kidney removed. If they hadn’t found that, I likely would have died of a stroke when I was a kid.

Two years ago, my mother (80 at the time) had a pain in her abdomen. She went to the hospital within hours. They ran tests and found her appendix was ready to burst. It was out by 5 PM that afternoon. The doctor said with her age she would have died from the infection if they hadn’t gotten it. Two weeks later she had a clean bill of health and was back out weeding her garden.

Ideas like you have had about medicine kill people.

[tpanther]

We made a huge 10 foot blow up of this postage stamp and mounted it on a board for display at several conservative conventions in which we participated back in the late ‘60’s and early ‘70’s.

Though there were some, it was also at a time when fewer atheists and Darwinists were pretending to pass themselves off as conservatives.

---

GREAT point.

I don’t remember how they reacted, but it’s a great point that they don’t understand NOW just how they stick out here, not so much like sore thumbs, but AMPUTATED thumbs here on FR passing themselves off as conservatives.

And that poster needs to make a come-back, wouldn’t mind having one of those myself!

[tongass kid]

Ok, I get the point that because I did not provide you a source to your liking I now have zero credibility. I accept your criticism and further note that you too have posted many times without a source reference and therefore you too have zero credibility. I have no problem with this.

[editor-surveyor]

Your belief that you can predict the future is your crutch.

The humsn body is designed to heal, not to fail. I won’t attempt to undermine your belief in the decisions that you make but I will say that there is no existant proof of your assumed outcomes. Body deformities can be corrected without surgery.

Nothing kills people like medical misadventure; its the most common cause of death in the US, but the perpetrators have the luxury of filling out the death certificates in the manner of their choice.