Why giraffe can't come from the evolution

[abcdefg]

philp, yeah so many fossils except bat fossils show there’s no evolution of the wing. bats are “born”(to avoid the “C” word) with wings.
Philp if you want to discuss theology use that existed thread.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

ahimsaman72:

I realize that this post is straying somewhat but I couldn’t help but ask this while you good folks were here already.

As a life-long protestant I was shocked to come to the realization that Catholics could reconcile evolution with their faith. As a fundamentalist Baptist, evolution was an “evil, Satanic conception” propagated by secular atheists.

I have always been a creationist in that regard, but have no support for that belief. It was simply an expected belief based on a literal reading of Genesis. I always assumed that you couldn’t be a Christian (orthodox) and believe in “evolution”. Probably part of the problem is simply good education.

My point being - do you Catholics find it hard to reconcile your Catholic faith with scientific evidences for evolution? As a protestant the merging of evolution with Christian belief was unthinkable.

I’m not arguing for creationism or evolution. I was intrigued by reading this thread, especially considering how heated the debates can get. Forgive me if this seems like a silly request.

Peace…

As a non-scientist , I find evolution fits very nicely with inspiration, election, grace, the Blessed Trinity, the Eucharist, and a lot of other things; such as Biblical scholarship of the historical-critical kind. They all illuminate one another.​

If one believes that God is the Sole Source of all existence and existing things, this harmony makes sense - it’s just what one might expect of such a God, if He really is Real; it does wonders for one’s appreciation of God’s creativity & Providence. And it illuminates a lot of old chestnuts like the question, “Why was Jesus born so late ?”, &, “Isn’t it terribly parochial to insist that Jesus is of universal importance ?” Evolution is IMO just one more testimony to the greatness of God in nature; in that respect, it compliments the Bible and the life of the Church: for all are ways of showing forth, and of discovering, the greatness and Glory of God. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

PhilVaz:

steve << We are free to accept evolution, 6-day creation, or turtles all the way down >>

Hey that’s my line! Actually Stephen Hawking’s line about infinite turtles.

PLP << The bacterial flagellum! >>

Ah yes! forgot about that. Let’s see, abc could say using his english

Why flagellum thing can’t come from the evolution thing

First read this article from this very scientific site

http://www.contenderministries.org/evolution/irreducible.php

Then consider this:

there is a complex thing called this flagellum. don’t ask me to pronounce it. then there is this complex thing called mousetrap. mousetrap got 5 parts. base, spring, hammer, catch. i forget what 5th part is. but anyway. no way this thing can evolve since all part need be there. flagellum more complex than mousetrap. all part need be there. tank you bery much. god created mousetrap. god created flagellum thing. tank you. you evolutionist is loooosing.

abcedfg

The flagellum is idolatrous and therefore Babylonian; it is the sign of Osiris, that is, of Nimrod.​

http://www.civilization.ca/civil/egypt/images/reli31a.jpg

http://z.about.com/d/altreligion/1/0/u/T/2/crookandflail.jpg

No wonder there are so many “mysteries” in evolution ! ##

 

[abcdefg]

A more straight forward example,

1. Wings have to be large enough to enable a creature to fly or glide
2. First “birds” (or last reptiles before becoming birds) couldn’t develop usable large wings within one or a few lifespans. and had no advantage over creatures hadn’t developed wings.

thus, natural selection can’t pick out creatures on their way to develop usable wings and birds can’t come from evolution.

also ironically, this example can’t be used to refute Lamarckism

 

[thistle]

**

As abcdefg has lost the debates in all the threads he/she (don’t know which) is working his/her way through the alphabet for animals and vegetables.**

 

[PhilVaz]

abc << philp, yeah so many fossils except bat fossils show there’s no evolution of the wing. bats are “born”(to avoid the “C” word) with wings. Philp if you want to discuss theology use that existed thread. >>

Cambrian fossils between invertebrates and vertebrates: Pikaia, Yunnanozoon, Haikouella, Conodonts, Cathaymyrus, Myllokunmingia, Haikouichthys

see The Precambrian to Cambrian Fossil Record and Transitional Forms by Keith Miller
also Transitional Forms and the Evolution of Phyla by Glenn Morton

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

Fish-to-Amphibian (tetrapod) intermediate fossils: Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion, Panderichthys, Elpistostege, Obruchevichthys, Kenichthys, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, Tulerpeton, etc

BOOK: Gaining Ground: The Origin and Early Evolution of Tetrapods by Jennifer Clack (Indiana Univ Press, 2002) :

Dinosaur (Reptile)-to-Bird transitional fossils with no morphological gaps: represented by Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among others

BOOK: Dinosaurs of the Air: The Evolution and Loss of Flight in Dinosaurs and Birds by Gregory Paul (John Hopkins Univ Press, 2002)

Reptile-to-Mammal intermediates, ranging from the pelycosauria, therapsida, cynodonta, up to primitive mammalia: Paleothyris, Protoclepsydrops, Clepsydrops, Archaeothyris, Varanops, Haptodus, Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon, Biarmosuchia, Procynosuchus, Dvinia, Permocynodon, Thrinaxodon, Cynognathus, Diademodon, Probelesodon, Probainognathus, Exaeretodon, Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium, Pachygenelus, Diarthrognathus, Adelobasileus, Sinoconodon, Kuehneotherium, Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon, Peramus, Endotherium, Kielantherium, Aegialodon, Steropodon, Vincelestes, Pariadens, Kennalestes, Asioryctes, Cimolestes, Procerberus, Gypsonictops

Land Mammal-to-Whale evolution intermediates: Pakicetus, Rodhocetus, Ambulocetus, Dorudon, Basilosaurus, and modern whales

see The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence
also Philip Gingerich Whale Evolution Page
also J.G.M. Thewissen Whale Evolution Page

More Here: Reply to Sungenis Part 3 on Evolution

When do you cry “UNCLE”? When purgatory freezes over?

Phil P

 

[GoodKnight1443]

<snipped" Here is another evolutionist:

Evangelical Christian and geologist Keith Miller’s view is that “all natural processes are the personal, purposeful act of a creator God.” In an essay in the book Darwinism Defeated? (1999), Miller goes on to give his “confessional statement” on God’s creative action as follows:

– God is the creator of all things.
– All things were created through the Word who is Christ the crucified (John 1:1-3; Col 1:15-20).
– God is both transcendent over creation, and immanent in creation.
– God’s creative power is continually at work, even to the present day (Psalm 104:29-30).
– God is as active in natural events as in miraculous ones.
– God is intimately and actively involved in what we perceive as natural or law-governed processes (Amos 4:6ff).
– God is in control of random or chance events (1 Kings 22:17-38; Acts 1:21-26).
– God is revealed in the present creation (Job 38-41).
– God is active in the world, providing for the needs of its creatures (Job, Psalm 104, Matt 6:25-30).

He then concludes: “If one accepts the above theological statements, then it seems to me that a completely seamless evolutionary history of life would be entirely acceptable theologically.” (Keith B. Miller, essay “Design and Purpose within an Evolving Creation,” from Darwinism Defeated? page 111).

Let’s go with Miller over Pinker shall we?

Phil P

Of course I agree with Miller to the extent that God is present in everytihng/process etc. I just don’t buy the evolution explaination as it stands even if someone says they think God designed it that way. There are stilll great leaps between the stages of “evolution” so I’m not drinking the kool aid. Do I have the answer? no. Perhaps another scientist could use teh same fossil to explain why the specimens are NOT connected. hmmmm.

 

[zian]

abcdefg:

PhilVaz, filter those materials yourself instead of having me looking through it. it’s your job to refute me not myself.

abcdefg,
The links any of us have posted have been for your benefit, in order to help you better understand the evidence and contemporary thought regarding evolution. Based on your arguments, you seem to have a lot of misconceptions. Many of these links would answer your questions if you would take the trouble to read and study them carefully. Your flippant response to Phil seems to indicate that you are loathe to do this. They are worth taking to time to read and consider thoughtfully.

I do!

 

[tomaskovarik]

thistle:

To Hitetlen.

I don’t think abcdefg got the joke!!

Thistle man!!!
Why are you making fun of the poor abcedef? I feel so terribly bad for him and his girafes. He is trying so hard, just be nice to him. Although it is great fun to follow this thread…
But I have another question, this time about crocodiles, should I post it here?
Tomas

 

[tomaskovarik]

abcdefg:

It’s your turn, now show me a fully grown tree have leaves lower than a fully grown bush.

young trees(for example 1 year old) are shorter than fully grown bush but you should compare that with young bush and young giraffes

hahaha, you must be joking abcedef right? what does all this have to do with the issue at hand? End Evolutionists are not losing their ground, unfortunately (no pun intended).
The issues that we have discussed so far are so much more deep and fundamental than giraffes and their necks, dont you think?

 

[thistle]

tomaskovarik:

Thistle man!!!
Why are you making fun of the poor abcedef? I feel so terribly bad for him and his girafes. He is trying so hard, just be nice to him. Although it is great fun to follow this thread…
But I have another question, this time about crocodiles, should I post it here?
Tomas

Yes please. Is that the crocodile that has 6 legs due to radiation??

 

[tomaskovarik]

PhilVaz:

steve << We are free to accept evolution, 6-day creation, or turtles all the way down >>

Hey that’s my line! Actually Stephen Hawking’s line about infinite turtles.

PLP << The bacterial flagellum! >>

Ah yes! forgot about that. Let’s see, abc could say using his english

Why flagellum thing can’t come from the evolution thing

First read this article from this very scientific site

http://www.contenderministries.org/evolution/irreducible.php

Then consider this:

there is a complex thing called this flagellum. don’t ask me to pronounce it. then there is this complex thing called mousetrap. mousetrap got 5 parts. base, spring, hammer, catch. i forget what 5th part is. but anyway. no way this thing can evolve since all part need be there. flagellum more complex than mousetrap. all part need be there. tank you bery much. god created mousetrap. god created flagellum thing. tank you. you evolutionist is loooosing.

abcedfg

This argument is Michael Behe’s “irreducible complexity” argument, which is no longer valid.
Tomas

 

[tomaskovarik]

thistle:

Yes please. Is that the crocodile that has 6 legs due to radiation??

haha, OK, crocodiles disprove evolution!!!
crocodiles, as we know, cannot reach the top of any tree right? Because they have not developed long legs, I mean necks. Now, the question is why do they have 4 legs (quadrupeds), when (as thistle correctly points out), they should have 6 legs instead (due to cosmic radiation). But if they had 6 legs and no long necks, then the flagellums in their ovaries cannot really function at all. So, the conclusion is that the cannot, I repeat CANNOT have 6 legs and short necks, so they ended up with only 4 legs (quadrupeds) and short necks, which is a contradiction. So, if you followed my logic, I am sure that you see that abcdefghjiklem was right all along
Peace

 

[abcdefg]

8 replies from evolutionists and they can do nothing about the appearence of wings

a slightly edited version to include insects/dinos

A more straight forward example,

1. Wings have to be large enough to enable a creature to fly or glide
2. Creatures that don’t have wings couldn’t develop usable large wings within one or a few lifespans. and had no advantage over creatures hadn’t developed wings.

thus, natural selection can’t pick out creatures on their way to develop usable wings and wings can’t come from evolution.

 

[abcdefg]

I don’t even have to find out how high trees and bushes respectively are. btw there’re already enough picture of that.

one fact contradicts E"T", and it’s over.
wings are important to a bird, but half wings aren’t of half importance. they’re useless.

 

[steveandersen]

PhilVaz:

steve << We are free to accept evolution, 6-day creation, or turtles all the way down >>

Hey that’s my line! Actually Stephen Hawking’s line about infinite turtles…

hey, if you leave something that good just laying arround with no one watching…

 

[steveandersen]

abcdefg:

One word for you: Lamarckism

I…you…what…(insert inarticulate sounds of disbelief) ?

I know I shouldn’t ask but what, please tell me, what does Lamarck have to do with whether a process is truly random or deterministic?

abcdefg:

…This thread isn’t about whether neck evolves or not. but according to Darwinism they should evolve or not.

evolution isn’t about “should” or “would” or “could” evolve…it is about “did” evolve.

steveandersen:

we could just refrain from responding… I mean maybe

Boy, that Steve Andersen is one smart guy. Maybe we should listen to him?

 

[deb1]

steveandersen:

Boy, that Steve Andersen is one smart guy. Maybe we should listen to him?

Steve, you don’t seem to be listening to Steve, yourself. After all you are still answering.

 

[steveandersen]

Steve, you don’t seem to be listening to Steve, yourself. After all you are still answering.

Well, I don’t know about me but I’m an idiot.

 

[David_Zampino]

abcdefg:

Why giraffe can’t come from the evolution of shorter species(supposedly “samotherium”)

Actually, I thought that the evolution of the giraffe was directly influenced by Ford Prefect when he and Arthur Dent were stranded on pre-historic Earth 2 million years ago.

Guess I was wrong . . .