Schonborn attacks evolutionary biology again

  • Thread starter Thread starter hecd2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Part 2

– past history of vestiges / atavisms

Why do legless snakes such as pythons carry vestigial pelvises hidden beneath their skin? Why do some lizards carry rudimentary, nonfunctional legs underneath their skin? Why do many blind cave-dwelling animals, such as the Mexican fish tetra, the salamander species Typhlotriton spelaeus and Proteus anguinus, have rudimentary vestigial eyes? Why do dandelions reproduce without reproduction yet retain flowers and produce pollen? Why are there flightless beetles which retain perfectly formed wings housed underneath fused wing covers? Why do over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars which are often malformed, impacted, causing significant pain, increased risk for injury, but are useful for chewing and grinding plant material?

Why do we find rare mutant whales that occasionally develop atavistic hindlimbs, or some whales with femurs, tibia, fibulae, and some include feet with complete digits? Why are there rare formation of extra toes in horses? Why are there atavistic thigh muscles in birds and sparrows? Hyoid muscles and atavistic dew claws in many dogs? Wings in normally wingless earwigs? Atavistic reduced fibulae in birds? Extra toes in guinea pigs and salamanders? Atavisms in humans, such as very rare true human tails some which are complex structures that have muscle, blood vessels, occasional vertebrae, cartilage, can move and contract, and are occasionally inherited?

Why does the gene that is required for Vitamin C synthesis, a pseudogene that is incapable of functioning, found in humans and guinea pigs, and in other primates? Why are there multiple odorant receptor genes? The RT6 protein gene? The galactosyl transferase gene? The tyrosinase-related gene (TYRL) ? Why do we share these vestigial genes, and the mutations that made these genes nonfunctional, with other primates?

– evidence from embryology

Why from embryological studies are there two bones of a developing reptile that eventually form the quadrate and the articular bones in the hinge of the adult reptilian jaw? Why is there a very complete series of fossil intermediates in which these structures are clearly modified from the reptilian jaw to the mammalian ear? Why do mammalian embryos, early in development, temporarily have pharyngeal pouches, which are morphologically indistinguishable from aquatic vertebrate gill pouches? Why do many species of snakes and legless lizards initially develop limb buds in their embryonic development, only to reabsorb them before hatching? Why do modern adult whales, dolphins, and porpoises who today have no hind legs, temporarily show various leg bones, nerves, and blood vessels in the cetacean fetus?

Why do later placental mammals (like humans and dogs) not have the egg-tooth and caruncle (and eggshell) but monotremes, such as the platypus and echidna, have both an egg-tooth and a caruncle? Why during marsupial development, an eggshell forms transiently and then is reabsorbed before live birth? Why do several marsupial newborns (such as baby Brushtail possums, koalas, and bandicoots) retain a vestigial caruncle like an oviparous reptile? Why does the chicken epithelium secrete dental enamel and direct the adjacent mesenchyme to form teeth when transplanted with a small piece of mammalian mesenchymal tissue?

– biogeography and global distribution of species

Why do marsupials (kangaroos, etc) only inhabit Australia? Why are placental mammals virtually absent on Australia, despite the fact that many would flourish there? Why do the southern reaches of South America and Africa and all of Australia share lungfishes, ostrich-like birds (ratite birds), and leptodactylid frogs, all of which occur nowhere else? Why do alligators, some related species of giant salamander, and magnolias only occur in Eastern North America and East Asia? Why does the indigenous Cacti plant only inhabit the Americas, while Saharan and Australian vegetation is very distantly related? Why do members of the closely related pineapple family inhabit many diverse habitats (such as rainforest, alpine, and desert areas), but only in the American tropics, not African or Asian tropics?

Why do we find marsupial fossils on both South America and on Antarctica, since there are none there now? Why is every single one of the fossil ancestors of the modern horse found on the North American continent? Why do we find early hominid fossils on the African continent, and why are numerous transitional fossils between humans and the great apes found in southern and eastern Africa, but not elsewhere?

continued in Part 3
 
Part 3

– anatomical and molecular paralogy / analogy

Why are the same bones in the same relative positions used in primate hands, bat wings, bird wings, pterosaur wings, whale and penguin flippers, horse legs, the digging forelimbs of moles, and webbed amphibian legs? Why does the fossil record show a general chronological progression of intermediate forms between theropod dinosaurs and modern birds, in which theropod structures were modified into modern bird structures?

Why do many proteins of very different function have strikingly similar amino acid sequences and three-dimensional structures, such as lysozyme and a-lactalbumin? Why does the analogy of the vertebrate eye and the cephalopod eye explain the structures of its predicted ancestors? Why do American and Saharan desert plants, which use different structures for the same functions, live in dry, arid regions?

– molecular sequence evidence

Why is a full 45% of our genome composed of transposons, which serve no known function for the individual except to cause a significant fraction of genetic illnesses and cancers? Why are 21% of the human genome pseudogenes which serve no function? Why in humans is there one functional GDPH gene, but there are at least twenty GDPH pseudogenes? Why in mice are there approximately 200 GDPH pseudogenes, none of which are necessary?

Why do humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence, when the chance occurrence of this is conservatively less than 1 out of 10^93 ? Why do human and chimpanzee cytochrome c proteins differ by only about 10 amino acids from all other mammals, when the chance occurrence of this in the absence of a hereditary mechanism is less than 1 out of 10^29 ? Why is bat cytochrome c much more similar to human cytochrome c than to hummingbird cytochrome c? Why is porpoise cytochrome c much more similar to human cytochrome c than to shark cytochrome c? Why does the phylogenetic tree data constructed from the cytochrome c data exactly recapitulate the relationships of major taxa as determined by the completely independent morphological data?

Why are the cytochrome c proteins in chimps and humans exactly identical? Why do the two DNA sequences that code for cytochrome c in humans and chimps differ by only one base, a 0.3% difference, even though there are 10^49 different sequences that could code for this protein?

Why are there very many examples of shared pseudogenes between primates and humans, with one hemoglobin, the ψη-globin pseudogene shared among the primates only, in the exact chromosomal location, with the same mutations that render it nonfunctional? Why do chimps and humans both share the same eight bp deletion in the steroid 21-hydroxylase pseudogene that renders it nonfunctional?

Macroevolution has answers to these questions, six-day “creationism” does not. “In the beginning God created…” does not answer these scientific questions on “how” God created. All the evidence clearly points to our evolutionary ancestry and “common descent” as the best scientific explanation of the facts of natural history, biology, paleontology, genetics, and the related sciences.

Phil P
 
40.png
seabird3579:
Got a question, Tim. Are you a scientist? If not, what do you do for a living, may I ask?

Peace,
Brenda
Yes I am. I am a geologist.

Now that I have answered your question, would you like to answer any of mine?

Peace

Tim
 
Tim << Now that I have answered your question, would you like to answer any of mine? >>

Yeah, and my 2000 questions. 😃 “God did it” is one answer, but then I have to ask creationists, how did God do it? He did it by evolution, and that’s what the scientific evidence shows. It is called Evolutionary creation or Theistic evolution.

So many evolution threads, so little time. :eek:

Phil P
 
40.png
steveandersen:
So you object to scientists defining what science is
What is science. I may ask?

If science is all about thing that can be scientifically proved, then I’m buying none of that science. no one can now prove historical/real Jesus is God. why you’re still accepting He is God?

adjust science to suit theology not vice versa.
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
Tim << Now that I have answered your question, would you like to answer any of mine? >>

Yeah, and my 2000 questions. 😃 “God did it” is one answer, but then I have to ask creationists, how did God do it? He did it by evolution, and that’s what the scientific evidence shows.
Your “evidence” asked a lot of questions but didn’t answer many.

A lot of the things you claim as “evidence” are disputed as to whether or not they are factual.

There have been several documentaries pointing out how Evolutionists have falsified records to “proove” their theory.

I suppose you don’t want to get into that, though.

Peace and Happy New Year!

Brenda
 
40.png
abcdefg:
If science is all about thing that can be scientifically proved, then I’m buying none of that science. no one can now prove historical/real Jesus is God. why you’re still accepting He is God?
I am speaking for myself, but I think Phil will agree. We accept Jesus as God based on our faith. We do not need science for that. In fact, science is limited to the natural world. Since God is supernatural, science can’t even go there.
adjust science to suit theology not vice versa.
Huh?:confused: Where do you think technology comes from?

Peace

Tim
 
**The Eighth Wonder of the World ** is **the ** almighty
Code:
**?**
😃
 
seabird << A lot of the things you claim as “evidence” are disputed as to whether or not they are factual. There have been several documentaries pointing out how Evolutionists have falsified records to “proove” their theory. I suppose you don’t want to get into that, though. >>

No no no, please, go into that. I am very interested. We can keep this simple. Do you think Ambulocetus natans (the whale with legs) or the other transitional fossils demonstrating whale evolution is a false record? I’ve already posted on that so I can just dig up my old posts. Or do you mean something like Piltdown or Nebraska man? Or perhaps Haeckel’s Embryos is more your thing? Documentaries? You mean like Well’s video or book Icons Of Evolution? Don’t worry, I have that covered as well. 😃

Yes, I am very tried of these evolution threads. Same dumb old creationist objections, same tired old answers, same evolution evidence I and others post year after year going on 3 years now. But I guess there are always new people showing up so they have an excuse. They haven’t seen the 4.5 billion answers to posts since May 2004 already given. 😃

Phil P
 
You guys have done a remarkable job. :clapping: Anyone know where the sea is? 😃

Phil, you have the patience of a saint. No wonder, your birthday is the same as my mums. :yup:

May the tides bring everyone tranquility and rejuvenation.
 
40.png
abcdefg:
What is science. I may ask?

If science is all about thing that can be scientifically proved, then I’m buying none of that science. no one can now prove historical/real Jesus is God. why you’re still accepting He is God?

adjust science to suit theology not vice versa.
If you adjust science to fit theology, it ceases to be science. Why do you naturally assume science is an enemy? It helps explain natural phenomona. Evolution would be a an example of natural phenomona.

Jesus being God doesn’t fall within nature. It is supernatural, and therefore science can’t explain and doesn’t claim to be able to.

What is killing me is that there isn’t so much of a debate on these forums on whether evolution is right or not, so much as it’s people who have some basic science knowledge getting a massive laugh at some of the tactics used by people who will ignore common sense and be deaf to reason, all because they don’t want something to be right.

Also what is amazing is that even a mesage from the Pope won’t silence these people. I have absolutely no idea what will aside from God coming down and telling them straightly how He created Earth. It’s both infuriating and spellbinding to see some of the weakest and flawed arguments I have ever seen.
 
Tim << We accept Jesus as God based on our faith. We do not need science for that. >>

I accept the William Lane Craig philosophical arguments. They are very persuasive. He argues from a historical standpoint that the Gospels are reliable, they give us enough reliable historical information where we can conclude: “God raised Jesus from the dead” is the best explanation of the empty tomb, the appearances of Jesus alive after his death, and the origin of the Christian faith. It is a very “scientific” approach to the faith. It only requires one presupposition: that God exists. And Craig deals with that in his cosmological arguments for God.

Send now for your free “Best of PhilVaz” CDs, volumes 1, 2, and 3 for more. 😃

While I don’t necessarily accept ARN’s intelligent design material, they do put out some good videos. Two new debates I am getting are a 2005 Craig debate on the existence of God, and the Habermas-Flew debate on the resurrection. I am way into these kinds of debates.

BUT, as I’ve quoted several times from Darrel Falk’s book:

“The fact is that Christianity has core beliefs that are not accessible to the scientific method…The resurrection, existence of the Holy Spirit and immortality are all beyond the realm of scientific testability. Even testing the power of prayer will probably not bring scientists to their knees. The history of life on earth, however, is in a much different category. It has been possible to explore this using scientific methods…For the past century and a half, thousands of scientists from disciplines as diverse as physics, geology, astronomy and biology have amassed a tremendous mass of data, and the answer is absolutely clear and equally certain. The earth is not young, and the life forms did not appear in six twenty-four-hour days. God created gradually…We now know more about the nature of divine action. We now know a little about how God created life, and any time we understand something new about the activity of God, it brings us one step closer to God.” (Darrel Falk, Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology, page 213, 214)

Why that is so hard for creationists to understand I do not know. They just have to start reading the right books and stay away from the wrong creationist web sites. A little ARN is perhaps OK. 👍

Phil P
 
40.png
Orogeny:
I am speaking for myself, but I think Phil will agree. We accept Jesus as God based on our faith. We do not need science for that. In fact, science is limited to the natural world.

Since God is supernatural, science can’t even go there.
You think God takes no part in the origin of man? if not, how can your reasoning concerning where man come from excludes God’s active role?
All kinds of evolution theory comes from the assumption the formation of man’s body is a natural process.so you believe you can solve it using science(by your defination) am I right here?
40.png
Orogeny:
Huh?:confused: Where do you think technology comes from?

Peace

Tim
all physics laws are made by God, however He can overrides them whenever he see fit. if you ignore this, you’ll trace back to the wrong origin
things in water appears to be shallower than they actually are, without proper understanding of lights deflection, you’ll think they’re in a position they’re actually not in.
 
Virgin Mary’s empty tomb can be scientifically explained as someone had stolen the corpse.
Any Catholic believes in this?
 
40.png
abcdefg:
You think God takes no part in the origin of man? if not, how can your reasoning concerning where man come from excludes God’s active role?
Where did you get that from? Certainly not my post.
All kinds of evolution theory comes from the assumption the formation of man’s body is a natural process.so you believe you can solve it using science(by your defination) am I right here?
Yes, science can describe natural processes. Since a human body is a natural thing, science can describe it. Science cannot, however, describe a soul because it is not a natural thing.
all physics laws are made by God, however He can overrides them whenever he see fit. if you ignore this, you’ll trace back to the wrong origin
Once again, where did you get the idea that I don’t agree with that?
things in water appears to be shallower than they actually are, without proper understanding of lights deflection, you’ll think they’re in a position they’re actually not in.
Thank you for the reminder. Not sure what that has to do with evolution, but I do appreciate it.

Peace

Tim
 
wild << Phil, you have the patience of a saint. No wonder, your birthday is the same as my mums. >>

Why thank you, if you check past posts though I do tend to be a bit obnoxious. :eek: But I haven’t been reprimanded yet by the moderators. Only once for giving out my private information.

My birthday is the same as the Blessed Mother as well.

Phil P
 
40.png
Orogeny:
Where did you get that from? Certainly not my post.
You said
  1. thing happened supernaturally can’t be explained by science and things happened naturally can.
  2. origin of human body can be explained by science
what’s the conclusion?
40.png
Orogeny:
Yes, science can describe natural processes. Since a human body is a natural thing, science can describe it. Science cannot, however, describe a soul because it is not a natural thing.
Once again, where did you get the idea that I don’t agree with that?
human body isn’t that natural. remember miracle cures officially recognized by the Church? Do you think they have any scientific explanation or are totally fabricated?
origin of human body is a much less “natural” process since all laws regarding the body hasn’t been made.
40.png
Orogeny:
Thank you for the reminder. Not sure what that has to do with evolution, but I do appreciate it.

Peace

Tim
denying God’s role in the formation of human body lead to wrong conclusion
 
40.png
abcdefg:
You said
  1. thing happened supernaturally can’t be explained by science and things happened naturally can.
  2. origin of human body can be explained by science
what’s the conclusion?
Those are from two separate posts, the second was posted in the same post you are replying to!

What is the conclusion? Science cannot describe or explain God nor can it use God as an answer to a problem. Once God is invoked, it becomes theology.
human body isn’t that natural. remember miracle cures officially recognized by the Church? Do you think they have any scientific explanation or are totally fabricated?
You are wrong. The body is completely natural.
origin of human body is a much less “natural” process since all laws regarding the body hasn’t been made.
What are you talking about? If the laws regarding the body haven’t been made, how do you know there are more to come?
denying God’s role in the formation of human body lead to wrong conclusion
Boy, is this getting old. Where do you get that from my posts? Ok, ok. Let’s make this real clear since you want to make a lot of assumptions about me that are false.

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Does that sound familiar? I accept every word of that. Now can you stop with the inferences about my faith?

Peace

Tim
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
A little ARN is perhaps OK. 👍
Phil P
I’m definately againt Intelligent Design or ‘design’ in nature. Want to be shunned and dragged through the trenches on the ARN board? Be a Catholic! If you want to learn how to debate creationists and fundamentalists then watch the scientists or engineers do it there or here. 😃 DuncG dances rings around them on the ARN board as do many others. 😃 DuncG has style. 👍 Dunc is a first class act. 👍
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
wild << Phil, you have the patience of a saint. No wonder, your birthday is the same as my mums. >>

Why thank you, if you check past posts though I do tend to be a bit obnoxious. :eek: But I haven’t been reprimanded yet by the moderators. Only once for giving out my private information.

My birthday is the same as the Blessed Mother as well.

Phil P
Yes, I know. Well, you are one holy dude with a ticket to heaven! :yup: I’m sure St. Michael the Archangel has been keeping his eye on you from the get go. You must be one of the ‘chosen’ ones! :bowdown:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top