Darwin or Design?

[Magicsilence]

How about half (or at least partially developed) legs and hips?

tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/

The link even has pictures!!!

Peace

Tim

Oh man.

Forgery at its best.

The fossil found has literally no correspondence to the “model” they created.

Look at the “Photos” section. “Images from the lab”.

I can’t believe you gave me such a poor link, this is the exact kind of false evidence I hate.

What they dug up was a head, part of a body, and some little flippers at the front.

SOMEHOW, they saw more into it and concluded that those flippers had an extension to them. If you go to the bottom right picture, then go up one, and left one and click on that picture, you can see the original fossil, and the model they made of it.

Total and utter shambles.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[jemfinch]

Even ONE transitional fossil will invalidate instant creation.

Not for those of us who accept the processes of evolution, but don’t accept it as an explanation of our origin.

Jeremy

 

[Magicsilence]

Rather than paste everything here, please allow me to direct you to a user-friendly webpage that discusses this very topic.

tinyurl.com/jte5c

I think the page above might help.

Logically, evolution makes the most possible sense. What’s more, I don’t think it goes against Genesis; many of my fellow Catholics at CA and the Pope find evolution and science to be compatible, too.

So long, I think, as we look to science to answer our “whys” and religion to answer the “hows,” I don’t think we can appreciate either as they deserve.

Pax,
Alberich

Im afraid it didn’t help much.

When my biology teacher was explaining how he concieved it possible I remember thinking, “baloney!”.

Unfortunately, the eye is so much more complex that just its component parts.

It also has the muscles that move it, the glands to secrete water to keep it moist, the nerves that connect it to the brain, the socket for it to sit in, the eyelid, and more.

Add to the fact that there are two of them,** identical** and we are left with an even bigger problem.

The development of a rudimentary retina must be coupled with the development of a nervous response to suit, and some sort of protection for the eye, also, the ability for the organism to use the (name removed by moderator)ut. If you were suddenly able to detect radio-waves, would they be of any use to you?

Did the eyes develop seperately or at the same time?

If at the same time, what kind of co-ordination must have been involved by the organism to make sense of the (name removed by moderator)ut? What benefit is light to an organism? (of course, photosynthesis, but if you are arguing that a rudimentary eye had started to become possible, we have moved away from the plant realm and into small mammals, or perhaps sea creatures, yes?)

The question of irreducible complexity stands unharmed by the attempts to refute it, purely because the part of the organism involved is normally very complex, and requires a further grasp at the impossible; that two parts of an irreducibly complex system developed simultaneously.

<<Phil Vaz
Your post gave a lovely selection of drawings, but Im STILL looking for some photographs>>

Peace and God Bless.

 

[Magicsilence]

Oh man.

Forgery at its best.

The fossil found has literally no correspondence to the “model” they created.

Look at the “Photos” section. “Images from the lab”.

I can’t believe you gave me such a poor link, this is the exact kind of false evidence I hate.

What they dug up was a head, part of a body, and some little flippers at the front.

SOMEHOW, they saw more into it and concluded that those flippers had an extension to them. If you go to the bottom right picture, then go up one, and left one and click on that picture, you can see the original fossil, and the model they made of it.

Total and utter shambles.

Peace and God Bless.

May I add to this, the strange notion that evolution is controlled by the animals themselves:

We also knew that some fish in the Middle Devonian were experimenting with the internal structure of their fins in ways that would ultimately allow for the evolution of the weight bearing structure of tetrapod limbs.

Evolutionists keep telling us it is a blind process, so why does that seem to get ignored in the literature documenting the finds?

Peace and God Bless.

 

[dcdurel]

I
Unfortunately, the eye is so much more complex that just its component parts.

It also has the muscles that move it, the glands to secrete water to keep it moist, the nerves that connect it to the brain, the socket for it to sit in, the eyelid, and more.

Add to the fact that there are two of them,** identical** and we are left with an even bigger problem.

The development of a rudimentary retina must be coupled with the development of a nervous response to suit, and some sort of protection for the eye, also, the ability for the organism to use the (name removed by moderator)ut. If you were suddenly able to detect radio-waves, would they be of any use to you?

Did the eyes develop seperately or at the same time?

So true, so true. We might add, tear ducts, muscles to focus a lens, the lens itself, the immune system for the eye, the fluid dynamics, and on and on. And just think, the same thing was happening exactly at the same time with the other eye. How convenient! How marvelous this theory that makes both eyes “evolve” at exactly the same time, and all by “chance”. Truly amazing this theory.

Darwinian evolutionists are so set on excluding God, that they constantly overlook the the major problems with Darwinian evolution or any evolution by pure chance, over and over.
The fossil record still showst that species will arise suddenly, live for millions of years with little change, then disappear, with no connection between species.

Evolution by pure chance is simply a philosophy for denying, God forced into a theory that deliberately ignores blantant facts, and then it is simply proclaimed as true, (“evolution is a fact!” they yell) only because they want it to be true.

And, since some like to muddy the waters, lets get this straight.
Any Church reference to evolution is ALWAYS evolution by the constant intervention by GOD, NOT by CHANCE.

 

[AquinaSavio]

Why don’t you do some research and find out? You might learn something.

And I will find more and more drawings, charts, and speculated timelines…

AquinaSavio, you can believe what you want. I am not playing head games. Precision is needed when discussing science.

You misinterpreted what I said. I said exactly what I meant.

 

[Orogeny]

Oh man.

Forgery at its best.

Have you examined the fossil? What are your qualifications to make such a claim?

The fossil found has literally no correspondence to the “model” they created.

Look at the “Photos” section. “Images from the lab”.

I can’t believe you gave me such a poor link, this is the exact kind of false evidence I hate.

You hate it because it does exactly what you don’t want - it illustrates perfectly a transitional fossil that was not only found but PREDICTED.

What they dug up was a head, part of a body, and some little flippers at the front.

SOMEHOW, they saw more into it and concluded that those flippers had an extension to them. If you go to the bottom right picture, then go up one, and left one and click on that picture, you can see the original fossil, and the model they made of it.

Total and utter shambles.

Peace and God Bless.

Once again, have you examined the fossil? What are your qualifications to make such a claim?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

And I will find more and more drawings, charts, and speculated timelines…

So I take it you won’t look up the references. Too bad. You might actually learn something.

Peace

Tim

 

[corvidae]

Mitochondrial DNA makes a literal Adam and Eve impossible, 100% impossible. According the genographic project all modern humans come from one woman on the African planes 150,000 years ago and one man around 60,000 years ago. Since Adam and Eve are seperated by 90,000 years it makes it pretty impossbile, yet they remain our direct lineage. Without a literal Adam and Eve our faith dies, accepted science of the day (evolution and mitchondrial DNA research) makes a literal Adam and Eve an impossiblity.
originally posted by St. Michael

My friend, look at what you are saying. If we came from a single human female 150, 000 years ago, and a male 60,000 years ago, then how on earth did we get here? How did they reproduce?
I think it is sufficient to say that we need to have at least (I am not saying there is more but) at least two first parents at the same time.
A mitochondrial DNA project in a book I believe was called the hunt for Eve took mitochondrial DNA as far as they believed it could be taken without messing up, and came up with 6 women who are the ancestors of all modern humans. Because it was such a small number, they theorized that there would have been one tiny group of humans, not many evolving at once. This seems to fit well with the story of Adam and Eve.

Best regards

A lone Raven

 

[AquinaSavio]

So I take it you won’t look up the references. Too bad. You might actually learn something.

Peace

Tim

Because I’m just so ignorant, right? Don’t bother to make any more attacks on homeschooling again. It gets old.

 

[Orogeny]

Because I’m just so ignorant, right? Don’t bother to make any more attacks on homeschooling again. It gets old.

A little touchy here, aren’t you? I didn’t mention a single thing about homeschooling, nor did I intend to. Unless you know everything, learning something new is a good thing, wouldn’t you agree?

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Rather than paste everything here, please allow me to direct you to a user-friendly webpage that discusses this very topic.

tinyurl.com/jte5c

I think the page above might help.

Logically, evolution makes the most possible sense. What’s more, I don’t think it goes against Genesis; many of my fellow Catholics at CA and the Pope find evolution and science to be compatible, too.

So long, I think, as we look to science to answer our “whys” and religion to answer the “hows,” I don’t think we can appreciate either as they deserve.

Pax,
Alberich

Ahhh, but the Pope in his recent speech that caused all the flap stated we cannot separate faith and reason. He said reason cannot be abandoned to material science.

 

[Ender]

I am willing to go on the record that the fossil record is adequate but still lacking. Therefore, research continues. Are you willing to give evidence to the contrary?

Actually, the fossil record is considerably poorer than most people think. Among paleontologists it is recognized that the discovery of unbroken series of species changing gradually into descending species is very rare. The Cambrian record is most notably a problem as almost all of these phyla [animal] appeared seemingly full-fledged in the late Precambrian and early Cambrian. No fossils intermediate between them have been found and no living intermediates are in existence.

Alberich:

Additionally, merely showing long odds (and I’ve always heard this as 1 in 10^113…) is no argument.

You are mistaken to discount probability. Something that has a probability of 10^113 is virtually impossible, virtual impossibility arising around … oh - 10^70. You would be better off attacking the calculation that arrived at 10^113 than claiming it is no argument. It would be a very powerful argument.

PhilVaz:

OK, I left out the chart but we all know which one it is (#135)

I have trouble understanding these charts. Notice the difference between the charts of horses and those of whales. The first is a true tree while the second is called cladistics. It is worth noting that paleontologists have moved away from trees to cladistics because of uncertainties about whether any particular species was actually the ancestor of another.

For example, did pakycetus evolve from the mesonychids? The chart shows that they split from a common line; there is no line from pakycetus to any specific ancestor. Did ambulocetus evolve from pakycetus? The chart shows they evolved from a common ancestor (unnamed), not that one evolved from the other. If anything, cladistics highlights the real problem with the fossil record - where are the common ancestors at the branch points?

Ender

 

[PhilVaz]

Ender << appeared seemingly full-fledged in the late Precambrian and early Cambrian. No fossils intermediate between them have been found and no living intermediates are in existence… >>

Wrong, there are precambrian fossils, but like all fossils they are rare. But we have some intermediates even there…

Cambrian fossils between invertebrate and vertebrate

Precambrian Transitional Fossils by Keith Miller

Transitional Forms and the Evolution of Phyla by Glenn Morton

BTW, Miller and Morton are evangelical Christians. Here is more:

From the book On the Origin of Phyla by James W. Valentine (Univ of Chicago Press, 2004) :

“The title of this book, modeled on that of the greatest biological work ever written, is in homage to the greatest biologist who has ever lived. Darwin puzzled over but could not cover the ground that is reviewed here, simply because the relevant fossils, genes, and their molecules, and even the body-plans of many of the phyla, were quite unknown in his day. Nevertheless, the evidence from these many additional sources of data simply confirm that Darwin was correct in his conclusions that all living things have descended from a common ancestor and can be placed within a tree of life, and that the principle process guiding their descent has been natural selection. And he was correct in so much more.” (Valentine, On the Origin of Phyla, preface page xxiii)

Even the Intelligent Design group ARN recommends this book.

Look people, if a diagram accurately represents the original fossil, that’s all we need. There are plenty of transitionals. Thank you. I’m now on my way to meet Behe, Wells, and thousands of creationists with their Jack Chick tracts and King James Bibles. And I got my digital recorder ready to give you a report.

Phil P

 

[Ender]

Ender << appeared seemingly full-fledged in the late Precambrian and early Cambrian. No fossils intermediate between them have been found and no living intermediates are in existence… >>

Wrong, there are precambrian fossils, but like all fossils they are rare. But we have some intermediates even there…

Let me re-phrase my comment: Ernst Mayr (referred to by Stephen Jay Gould as “The world’s greatest living evolutionary biologist”) What Evolution Is p.51 “Almost all of these phyla [animal] appeared seemingly full-fledged in the late Precambrian and early Cambrian, ca. 565-530 mya. No fossils intermediate between them have been found and no living intermediates are in existence.”

Mayr didn’t say there were no fossils but that there were no fossil intermediates. I personally wouldn’t know. Your dispute is not with me but with the world’s greatest living evolutionary biologist. The book was published in 2001.

Ender

 

[AquinaSavio]

A little touchy here, aren’t you? I didn’t mention a single thing about homeschooling, nor did I intend to. Unless you know everything, learning something new is a good thing, wouldn’t you agree?

No, not a bit touchy…I just know how our conversations typically run.

Of course I don’t know everything. I asked you for photographic evidence of transitional forms. All you gave me was an extremely lengthy article. It seems that you are struggling to find some evidence.

 

[Orogeny]

Of course I don’t know everything. I asked you for photographic evidence of transitional forms. All you gave me was an extremely lengthy article. It seems that you are struggling to find some evidence.

I’m not struggling in the least. That was a good resource for you. You don’t have to quickly review it and give your opinion. Take your time and do some research. Read the links I gave you and check out their references. If you have questions based on those, let me know and I will do my best to help you. I am not a paleontologist, but paleontology was my favorite subject while in college.

Regarding photographic evidence, do you want photos of the fossils or of the actual animals? If it is of the fossils, you might want to check out the references as you might find photos, but honestly, photographs are not the best way to illustrate a fossil. If you are asking for photos of the actual animal, well…

Of course, if you already have your mind made up, you can skip the research part. Just let me know so I don’t waste my time replying to you with links.

Peace

Tim

 

[Magicsilence]

Have you examined the fossil? What are your qualifications to make such a claim?You hate it because it does exactly what you don’t want - it illustrates perfectly a transitional fossil that was not only found but PREDICTED.Once again, have you examined the fossil? What are your qualifications to make such a claim?

Peace

Tim

Why do you ask If I have examined the actual fossil, have you??

I have only the link you gave me, and after studying the pictures I related my honest opinion.

I don’t hate it because I don’t want it to be there. I hate it cause its bad science.

There is no front leg on the fossil, just an ickle flipper!!

The difference between the fossil, and the evolutionist model of the fossil is evolution indeed!!

Peace and God Bless.

 

[Magicsilence]

Regarding photographic evidence, do you want photos of the fossils or of the actual animals? If it is of the fossils, you might want to check out the references as you might find photos, but honestly, photographs are not the best way to illustrate a fossil. If you are asking for photos of the actual animal, well…

Tim

I am curious, other than seeing the real thing, what is better than photographs?

 

[Magicsilence]

Ender << appeared seemingly full-fledged in the late Precambrian and early Cambrian. No fossils intermediate between them have been found and no living intermediates are in existence… >>

Wrong, there are precambrian fossils, but like all fossils they are rare. But we have some intermediates even there…

Cambrian fossils between invertebrate and vertebrate

Precambrian Transitional Fossils by Keith Miller

Transitional Forms and the Evolution of Phyla by Glenn Morton

BTW, Miller and Morton are evangelical Christians. Here is more:

From the book On the Origin of Phyla by James W. Valentine (Univ of Chicago Press, 2004) :

“The title of this book, modeled on that of the greatest biological work ever written, is in homage to the greatest biologist who has ever lived. Darwin puzzled over but could not cover the ground that is reviewed here, simply because the relevant fossils, genes, and their molecules, and even the body-plans of many of the phyla, were quite unknown in his day. Nevertheless, the evidence from these many additional sources of data simply confirm that Darwin was correct in his conclusions that all living things have descended from a common ancestor and can be placed within a tree of life, and that the principle process guiding their descent has been natural selection. And he was correct in so much more.” (Valentine, On the Origin of Phyla, preface page xxiii)

Even the Intelligent Design group ARN recommends this book.

Look people, if a diagram accurately represents the original fossil, that’s all we need. There are plenty of transitionals. Thank you. I’m now on my way to meet Behe, Wells, and thousands of creationists with their Jack Chick tracts and King James Bibles. And I got my digital recorder ready to give you a report.

Phil P

Just curious.

Taking a photograph takes about 1 second.

Drawing a diagram takes hours.

What possible benefit is there for not showing the photograph next to the diagram?

Would you settle for a diagram of the heavens when discussing planetary movement, or would you say “come on, just let me see the photograph!!”.

Peace and God Bless.