Posted on 07/04/2002 9:49:26 PM PDT by Phil V.
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:40:29 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
A fossil previously mistaken for the remains of an extinct fish turns out to hold the earliest known creature to have emerged from the Earth's waters and walk on land some 350 million years ago.
This ancestor of every four-limbed, backboned animal living today -- the first creature clearly designed to walk on land, with forward-facing feet -- fills a major gap in the evidence for the evolution of vertebrates from sea to land, scientists say.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
The earth has gone from iceball to hothouse to ice-age conditions to current conditions over the last seven hundred million years. Did all the vegetation die? Is the planet sterile?
You must have either a reading incapacity or a total lack of understanding of evolution.
You could get away with the above nonsense some 150 years ago, but not now. As I keep saying Darwin has been totally disproven. The problem with the above is that in the extremely unlikely event that a good mutation arose it would not have such a large advantage. Let's remember that evolution is gradual, so a gradual change would not give a big advantage. However, there is a big problem with passing that small advantage to the rest of the species. And that is Mendelian genetics. The chances of its being passed at each generation is only 50%. Even if the gradual change gave it an advantage it would still be less than 100% chance and to take over and spread it would need more than 100% chance of being passed on. So the new mutation, so hard to come by would never be spread throught the species. It would gradually dissappear.
- the age of the earth? - the number of years of life on earth? - "creation" means that G_d worked for seven days then retired for eternity? - "creation" means that G_d worked for seven days creating a cosmic sized game of "SimCity" and is still playing. - resistant bacteria (1)adapted to or (2)evolved past vulnerability to antibiotics?
Repeating a lie. In Post # 470 I posted the challenge made in that thread. Guess what - there has not been a single attempt by any evolutionist to refute a single item in that post. Not one attempt!
One would think that if my statements had been refuted as you say that at least one of you would have had the perspicacity to cut and paste the 'decisive' refutation from the thread?
Truth of the matter is that you are lying. The whole gang of evos was massively, absolutely and decisively trounced on that thread.
Now the reason the evolutionists finally gave up was that in one post I showed, with perfectly unimpeachable sources, with a perfectly true example that the way an organism develops from conception to birth is determined by a 'program'. RWN and the rest of the evos tried to squirm out of explaining how one could favorably change a program by random mutations through some 500 posts. They finally gave up. However, since you claim that I lost in that thread, kindly post right here for all to see, to shame me totally, the post where you claim I was refuted.
Prediction - this will be another in the long list of my posts that the evolutionists will totally ignore.
Nice try, but wrong. Seems to me that with more species, more niches filled, there would be a greater struggle for survival and more reason for species to evolve. Remember, natural selection is supposedly the engine of evolution, a greater struggle would have revved up the engine even more. So actually with more niches filled, more species, more predators, there should have been more evolution but there was not.
Indeed they have to be. Can a fish procreate with an octopus? How would they go about it?????
Let's take vertebrates and worms. Now we know there were worms before the Cambrian so this is a good example. Tell us how a worm turns into a fish. Or perhaps that is too hard. We also know there were sponge like things before the Cambrian. Tell us how a sponge turns into a fish. I want to hear this one. And you can use your marvelous theory of coevolution which I am sure will win you a Nobel Prize one of these days.
More of the "provocative" part of MM's "provocative and well-written."
One would think that if my statements had been refuted as you say that at least one of you would have had the perspicacity to cut and paste the 'decisive' refutation from the thread?
We do links. Don't you wish everybody did? But you do point out an error in my post. It wasn't on this thread, but PH's fine "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense".
Anyway, if you want to relive some of the glory, click here.
Truth of the matter is that you are lying.
Serious charge. How do you back it up?
The whole gang of evos was massively, absolutely and decisively trounced on that thread.
With a delusion. That's enough of that.
Prediction - this will be another in the long list of my posts that the evolutionists will totally ignore.
Looks like you lose again. But now you're back in the penalty box as far is I'm concerned. You're on "ignore."
The problem with that quote from Morton is that he has nothing to back it up. There are no intermediate fossils between the pre-Cambrian and the Cambrian which he can point to. So the whole article is a could be, might be, perhaps, non-scientific gibberish. I would also like to see an explanation of what I asked Vade - how does a worm or a sponge turn into a fish?
The whole program is a fake. Here's why: you are saying that a 'TOBEORNOTTOBE' animal would be favored by the environment. That's fine. But a 'TXXXXXYYYYZZZ' would not be favored, because it is not yet there even though it has one of the letters in the right place. Therefore there is nothing to 'fix' the 'T', but the program does just that. The program is therefore a fake and does not emulate the evolutionary process, least of all what is needed to create a new gene.
There is plenty of proof that specialization of a species is detrimental. Take dogs, pure breads are much more fragile than mutts and live shorter lives. Take the problem of species near extinction, scientists try their darnest to find as many possible un-related members of the species as possible because they know that if they try to re-start a species with just a few members, the genetic pool will be too small for it to survive long. Take the Kings of Europe. Due to inbreeding they completely degenerated into imbecillity. Take Europe and the US. People are much taller and healthier in the US than in Europe because we are the 'melting pot' of the world and we have gathered into our country portions of the genetic pool of the entire world. So you are very wrong on this and this is any other strong disproof of evolution.
A good example of wishful evolutionist thinking which totally ignores scientific facts. Seems evolutionists cannot make their theory fit the scientific facts so they keep trying to change the facts to fit the theory.
Morton protests that the Cladorhizid ought to be a new phyla. They are a sponge but are unique in that they are carnivorous. Morton complains that the phyla are out of date. That's why I compared his claims to the Berkely collective and looked for Morton's credentials. I concluded that, although Morton certainly has an impressive education background howbeit in a different field of study, the Berkley collective would be a better authority on what should or should not be classified as a new phylum.
But even if Cladorhizid were shown as a new phylum, there would still be that troubling imbalance between the huge horizontal diversification in the 40 million years attributed to the Cambrian (50 million per Morton) and the subsequent 500 million years.
Of course other posters attribute this to "environmental niches" with the environment directing the process. I'm still having a problem with that one because it seems to me that the environment itself would be fluid, i.e. subject to whatever else was going on at the time. Or to put it another way, an environment might arise or fall away from the emergence of a new phylum, e.g. a food source.
And if Darwin had not been disproven by Mendellian genetics we would be killing the lame and the sick to make a better race.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.