Skip to comments.
Scientific American threatens AiG : Demands immediate removal of Web rebuttal
AIG ^
| 2002/07/11
| AIG
Posted on 07/11/2002 9:44:50 AM PDT by ZGuy
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280, 281-300, 301-320 ... 1,461-1,467 next last
To: Dominic Harr
13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils—creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.
Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups.
Actually, Charles Darwin was worried that the fossil record did not show what his theory predicted:
‘Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.’13
More recently, Gould said:
‘The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.’14
But modern evolutionists, including Gould, assert that there are nevertheless some transitional forms, but they always seem to name the same handful of disputable ones, instead of the many that Darwin hoped for. It’s the same with Rennie below.
One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs.
This hardly qualifies for a fossil ‘intermediate in form’; it is more like a mosaic or chimera like the platypus. However, Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself, says:
‘Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.’15
Archaeopteryx had fully-formed flying feathers (including asymmetric vanes and ventral, reinforcing furrows as in modern flying birds), the classical elliptical wings of modern woodland birds, and a large wishbone for attachment of muscles responsible for the downstroke of the wings.16 Its brain was essentially that of a flying bird, with a large cerebellum and visual cortex. The fact that it had teeth is irrelevant to its alleged transitional status—a number of extinct birds had teeth, while many reptiles do not. Furthermore, like other birds, both its maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible (lower jaw) moved. In most vertebrates, including reptiles, only the mandible moves (see Bird Evolution flies out the window). Finally, Archaeopteryx skeletons had pneumatized vertebrae and pelvis. This indicates the presence of both a cervical and abdominal air sac, i.e. at least two of the five sacs present in modern birds. This in turn indicates that the unique avian lung design was already present in what most evolutionists claim is the earliest bird.17
A flock’s worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found.
More elephant-hurling without examples. But our Web site has documented that two famous alleged feathered dinosaurs are ‘dated’ younger than their supposed descendant Archaeopteryx and more likely to be flightless birds (Protarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx), and one famous example, Archaeoraptor, was a fake.
To: EBUCK
EBUCK, I am happy to read any source besides TalkOrigins. In the field of biology and evolution, TalkOrigins is on par with Weekly World News. It's check-out stand tabloid trash published by neurotic hyper-obsessive bigots. If you've never read them on UseNet, you should. It's like a clique of dorks and morons who have all found one thing in common: hating religion. Check it out. I'll give your other link a look-see when I get a minute. I doubt it will be legitimate scientific tests of the theory as a whole, and certainly not of the massive extrapolations from the observations of genetic variation and natural selection. Nobody doubts those are real phenomena. If I find a scientific experiment showing these phenomena actually producing something other than a small variation in a pre-existing genome, I'll be quite amazed.
To: f.Christian
Intelligence is a total LIABILITY when it comes to TRUTH--WISDOM--KNOWLEDGE/SCIENCE Congratulations, then, on your considerable aptitude for these fields.
To: That Subliminal Kid
The prediction is being tested every time scientists get an opportunity to. The same can be said of every new fossil that is found. They look it over, study it, show it to their friends ect. The best thing that could happen to a scientists carreer would be to find a direct and concrete refutation of the ToE. He/She would skyrocket to prominence and be well funded for the rest of his/her carreer. Unfortunately for most, that never happens and their name fades from the periodicals, doomed to obscurity.
EBUCK
284
posted on
07/11/2002 3:02:10 PM PDT
by
EBUCK
To: That Subliminal Kid
Right. That's been a a big argument here---that is, should creationism be allowed in the classroom. I take it you're not involved in these discussions very often...
To: f.Christian
I'm not sure what that post has to do with anything I wrote, I have not addressed 'transitional' fossils at all. I'm not going to argue with you over the age of the Earth.
I'm only interested in the fact that you *do* believe species evolve but deny that you believe in evolution.
To: JediGirl
Mormonism and Hinduism were not designed by the God of the Bible. They are religions in direct conflict with and completely incompatible with the God of the Bible. The world is full of false religions. The God of the Bible continually describes Himself as "a jealous God" who permits no false religions. The God of the Bible destroyed many civilizations because of false religion.
Judaism is of God and was created for a certain, small group of people for the express purpose of birthing the Messiah, who would then reconcile the entire world to God. The entire Old Testament points to the coming Messiah, via the many prophesies about Him, (where He would be born, WHEN He would be presented as King of the Jews, etc).
Jesus, a Jew, is the Messiah that the entire Jewish race and religion was created by God to nurture, and give birth to, and present to the world.
287
posted on
07/11/2002 3:02:55 PM PDT
by
berned
To: balrog666
Well what was it? Mormon, yes, Mormon was the correct response.....That was a great episode!
EBUCK
288
posted on
07/11/2002 3:03:43 PM PDT
by
EBUCK
To: That Subliminal Kid
I want to see the tests that show this process from simple single to multicellular organisms to the vast array of organisms we see today. I'd really like to make you happy and start a whole new universe, just for you, and then show you how everything happens in realtime, but I'm afraid it can't be done. Instead, all we have is tons of evidence, and a very solid theory to explain how it all happened. Not satisfied with the real world? I guess that means you're sticking with the Noah's Ark theory.
To: Dominic Harr
A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus.
Again, this doesn’t hold up. Even informed evolutionists regard horse evolution as a bush rather than a sequence. But the so-called Eohippus is properly called Hyracotherium, and has little that could connect it with horses at all. The other animals in the ‘sequence’ actually show hardly any more variation between them than that within horses today. One non-horse and many varieties of the true horse kind does not a sequence make. See The Non-evolution of the horse.
Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see ‘The Mammals That Conquered the Seas,’ by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May].
If Rennie can hurl elephants throughout his article, then I can be excused for referring to my analysis of whale evolution from my PBS-Evolution rebuttal, showing the fragmentary nature of the evidence. More recently, John Woodmorappe analysed the alleged transitions and found that their various characteristics did not change in a consistent direction. Rather, they are chimeras—non-whales with a few minor cetacean ‘modules’, inconsistent with the evolutionary prediction of a nested hierarchy but consistent with a common designer.18
Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years.
Again, what does Rennie mean? One must wonder if he believes the old Ostrea/Gryphaea story, i.e. that a flat oyster evolved into more and more coiled forms till it coiled itself shut. Once this was regarded as a key proof of an evolutionary lineage in the fossil record. But now it seems that the coiling was the oyster’s built-in programming to respond to the environment, or ecophenotypic change.19 So the anti-creationist neo-catastrophist geologist Derek Ager wrote:
‘It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student, from Trueman’s Ostrea/Gryphaea to Carruthers’ Zaphrentis delanouei, have now been “debunked”. Similarly, my own experinece [sic] of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineages among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive.’20,21
Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.
First, this is covered earlier. Second, how could these alleged ‘20 or more hominids’ fill the gap if they are ‘not all our ancestors’? That is, they are out of the gap and into a side alley.
To: Right Wing Professor
Yes but the same translators translated both the Old and the New testaments, right? The issue is not one of translation. The issue is, do YOU believe the New testament, but not the Old Testament? Is the Genesis account of Creation a quaint "tall tale" but the Gospels are Truth, in YOUR opinion?
291
posted on
07/11/2002 3:06:14 PM PDT
by
berned
To: All
Some useful references:
Major Scientific Problems with Evolution
EvolUSham dot Com
EvolUSham dot Com
Many Experts Quoted on FUBAR State of Evolution
The All-Time, Ultimate Evolution Quote
"If a person doesn't think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That's how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all came from slime. When we died, you know , that was it, there is nothing..."
Jeffrey Dahmer, noted Evolutionist
Social Darwinism, Naziism, Communism, Darwinism Roots etc.
Creation and Intelligent Design Links
Evolutionist Censorship Etc.
Catastrophism
Big Bang, Electric Sun, Plasma Physics and Cosmology Etc.
Finding Cities in all the Wrong Places
Given standard theories wrt the history of our solar system and our own planet, nobody should be finding cities and villages on Mars, 2100 feet beneath the waves off Cuba, or buried under two miles of Antarctic ice.
Intelligent Versions of Biogenesis etc.
Talk.origins/Sci.Bio.Evolution Realities
Whole books online
292
posted on
07/11/2002 3:06:15 PM PDT
by
medved
To: PatrickHenry
Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds—it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group.
Actually, as stated, of the few transitional forms usually touted, most are actually chimeras. No, creationists have long simply requested a sequence of creatures with certain characteristics consistently following a series, e.g. 100% leg/0% wing ® 90% leg/10% wing—…50%leg/50% wing… ® 10% leg/90% wing ® 0%leg/100% wing.
Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record.
First, this again charges creationists with believing in fixity of species, which is rather a belief held by compromisers like Hugh Ross. Instead, creationists ask for transitions between major categories, such as between non-living matter and the first living cell, single-celled and multicelled creatures, and invertebrates and vertebrates. The gaps between these groups should be enough to show that molecules-to-man evolution is without foundation. Second, this is hardly a new charge when made of fossils transitional between two phyla, for example, and it is hardly unreasonable for creationists to point out that there are still two large gaps rather than one even larger gap.22
Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the ‘molecular clock’ that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution.
Actually, despite the cute diagram in the article, the molecular clock has many problems for the evolutionist. Not only are there the anomalies and common designer arguments I mentioned above, but they actually support a creation of distinct types within ordered groups, not continuous evolution, as non-creationist microbiologist Dr Michael Denton pointed out in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (right). For example, when comparing the amino acid sequence of cytochrome C of a bacterium (a prokaryote) with such widely diverse eukaryotes as yeast, wheat, silkmoth, pigeon and horse, all of these have practically the same percentage difference with the bacterium (64–69%). There is no intermediate cytochrome between prokaryotes and eukaryotes, and no hint that the ‘higher’ organism such as a horse has diverged more than the ‘lower’ organism such as the yeast.
The same sort of pattern is observed when comparing cytochrome C of the invertebrate silkmoth with the vertebrates lamprey, carp, turtle, pigeon and horse. All the vertebrates are equally divergent from the silkmoth (27–30%). Yet again, comparing globins of a lamprey (a ‘primitive’ cyclostome or jawless fish) with a carp, frog, chicken, kangaroo and human, they are all about equidistant (73–81%). Cytochrome C’s compared between a carp and a bullfrog, turtle, chicken, rabbit and horse yield a constant difference of 13–14%. There is no trace of any transitional series of cyclostome ® fish ® amphibian ® reptile ® mammal or bird.
Another problem for evolutionists is how the molecular clock could have ticked so evenly in any given protein in so many different organisms (despite some anomalies discussed earlier which present even more problems). For this to work, there must be a constant mutation rate per unit time over most types of organism. But observations show that there is a constant mutation rate per generation, so it should be much faster for organisms with a fast generation time such as bacteria, and much slower for elephants. In insects, generation times range from weeks in flies to many years in cicadas and yet there is no evidence that flies are more diverged than cicadas. So evidence is against the theory that the observed patterns are due to mutations accumulating over time as life evolved.
To: f.Christian
Pssst:
Fossil analysis is very interesting and all, but hasn't got much to do with existence and reality of the evolution of species.
You're arguing about the age of the Earth again.
I'm more interested in the fact that you do believe species evolve but claim you do not believe in evolution.
Avoiding the point for any particular reason?
To: That Subliminal Kid
I get the impression that they take the available data and put it into readable, understandable context. I really don't care if they bash religion, means nothing to me. What I care about are the refs that I can follow to verify their data. Which they invariably do.
I'd like to see the links cause I have gotten quite fond of reading from their site.
EBUCK
295
posted on
07/11/2002 3:07:54 PM PDT
by
EBUCK
To: berned
I'm curious -- why no response?
Do you agree that species evolve to adapt to their environments?
To: berned
Is the parable of the laborers in the vineyard literally true?
To: Dominic Harr
They may. Why do you ask?
298
posted on
07/11/2002 3:10:21 PM PDT
by
berned
To: All
It appears that all the ID and Creo folks
do believe species evolve to adapt to their environments but do
not admit to believing in evolution.
Now *that* is an interesting bit of mental gymnastics.
To: Right Wing Professor
No parable is literally true. That's what distinguishes a parable.
300
posted on
07/11/2002 3:11:17 PM PDT
by
berned
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280, 281-300, 301-320 ... 1,461-1,467 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson