You really have no idea.
You are better to stick with your amateur (your words) theoretical physics.
On evolution, you are all over the place. Try and remember your previous postings......
Evolution is Wrong...interesting video
- Thread starter Mike375
- Start date
You really have no idea.
You are better to stick with your amateur (your words) theoretical physics.
On evolution, you are all over the place. Try and remember your previous postings......
We know about the amniote egg.....I have posted several times about it...are you really this fucking stupid........
So please explain how the reptiles get from frog etc.
Evolution Part 1 and Part 2
Part 1......reptile from amphibian
Part 2....Cancel above if things get hard
And we still have to do the fish
Because you are a "born again" atheist you see any question on evolution as "evolution is fucked".
"The amniote egg is defined by several extra layers of membranes. The development of extra membranes"....
At least try and write your own material.........
Despite your denial, you continue to claim that evolution is wrong because a member of familiy Ranidae in Class Amphibia could not have turned into a member of a completely different Class.
Reptiles did not evolve from frog-like ancestors but these creatures developed as separate lineages from early fishlike tetrapods probably diverging about 350 Million years ago.
In fact Class Amphibia in a modern sense is primarily defined by non-amniote tetrapods. It becomes problematic as a classification for creatures in the fossil record due to the Reptilimorphs which although amphibian in the common sense of the word actually included both amniote and non-amniotes. This is a common problem with the separation of Class in the fossil record not only with this distinction between Amphibians and Reptiles but also Reptiles and Birds as well as Reptiles and Mammals.
Modern classification systems have deemphasised the Class systemin favour of Clades.
Evolution Part 1 and Part 2
Part 1......reptile from amphibian
Part 2....Cancel above if things get hard
This comment is nothing more than a manifestation of your simplistic understanding of taxonomy and general ignorance of evolutionary history.
It is you that clearly has no idea. Your interpretation that I am "all over the place" is simply a reflection of your inability to understand the subject. Your intellectual inadequacy does not alter the facts.
I note that you made no attempt to comment on the post. Guess you didn't like the link I provided to the half-dog-half-lizard that you said didn't exist.
These are ridiculous claims. You have demonstrated you are incapable of comprehending even the most basic elements of evolutionary theory let alone engaging in a rational debate.
Similarly your steadfast conclusions after my lengthy explanations of Relativity and the nature of the speed of light on another thread demonstrate that you were incapable of understanding that subject. BTW, I have never attempted to become a professional physicist.
My views are the result of a lifelong interest in science and familiarity with the breadth of research. I have a good working understanding of the prevailing theory and am able to coherently work with the concepts.
Meanwhile your "theories" don't even have the most rudimentary elements to be called a hypothesis. They are nothing more than unsubstantiated assertions most certainly framed by your personal prejudices and complete ignorance of the subject.
You are entirely incapable of intellectual interaction. Whenever confronted by solid evidence that is contrary to your assertions you simply ignore it and resort to personal insults.
- Local time
- Today, 00:34
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2001
- Messages
- 28,684
Galaxiom, welcome to the world of Mike375. He gets this way every so often. Claims to have some science question, gets it answered, and blindly rejects the answer after which he refuses to acknowledge his selective blindness. Check your chain, I think he's yanking it because he's a yanker. (No, I really didn't start that with a W.)
Again, I am not an anti evolutionist.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
“In any meaningful sense evolution is a fact, but there are various theories concerning the mechanism of evolution."
And perhaps if your mind was open and not religious like in you assertion that the science of the day was 100% correct, then you might be stuck making Access, as you previously said.
For example, we have had for years now that the bird is a dinosaur and a descendent from dromaeosaurids. But now we have (I posted one of the articles on another thread) dromaeosaurids are descended from flightless birds. A slight change in thinking.
I wdon't mind debating Mike when I am in the mood for it.
I know it won't change his ignorant, bigotted assertions but I do quite enjoy making him look like an idiot which of course isn't difficult. Threads like these help demonstrate how incredibly stubborn religious belief can be and the level of self-delusion involved.
What really amuzes me is the way he starts posting smug grin icons like he thinks he is all over me in the debate. Of course anyone who cares to follow the thread can see he hasn't a clue and his core arguments are based on semantics. He never ever comes to grips with the real issues and won't respond to evidence that blows his rhetoric out of the water.
This one has particularly been fun. Responses that simply accuse me of knowing nothing about the subject, calling me an "effing idiot" show that he has no answers. I think the Cynognathus link really stumped him.
I was particularly surprised where he had a go at my Access ability. Like most of us we have our strong areas and are hear to learn as much as help and I think I do my bit. I did a quick review of his few posts outside the Water Cooler and it is clear his knowledge of database design is fairly rudimentary.
Actually I think he is basically a creationist troll. He virtually admitted to being the troll Mike they kicked out of the Atheist forum.
I know it won't change his ignorant, bigotted assertions but I do quite enjoy making him look like an idiot which of course isn't difficult. Threads like these help demonstrate how incredibly stubborn religious belief can be and the level of self-delusion involved.
What really amuzes me is the way he starts posting smug grin icons like he thinks he is all over me in the debate. Of course anyone who cares to follow the thread can see he hasn't a clue and his core arguments are based on semantics. He never ever comes to grips with the real issues and won't respond to evidence that blows his rhetoric out of the water.
This one has particularly been fun. Responses that simply accuse me of knowing nothing about the subject, calling me an "effing idiot" show that he has no answers. I think the Cynognathus link really stumped him.
I was particularly surprised where he had a go at my Access ability. Like most of us we have our strong areas and are hear to learn as much as help and I think I do my bit. I did a quick review of his few posts outside the Water Cooler and it is clear his knowledge of database design is fairly rudimentary.
Actually I think he is basically a creationist troll. He virtually admitted to being the troll Mike they kicked out of the Atheist forum.
Nobody has stated that the details are 100 percent known. Indeed the literature abounds with statements such as "the exact lineage will probably never be known".
Various theories concerning the mechanism of Evolution? Like what other than Natural Selection?
We know from your previous posts that you believe that "something out there" was responsible for creating separate lineages. Welll there is certainly no evidence for that.
This is not an example of "various theories concerning the mechanism" but changing interpretation of the fossil record due to new information. It in no way undermines the theory of Natural Selection and certainly does not provide any evidence four your speculation about multiple starts.
Which is every time I post on this general topic.
No, I didn't virtually admit to it I was 100%.
You should try and read things more accurately.But when I say things are not 100% you say just the opposite.
Your opinions are formed because of your religious like atheism and in combination with what appears to be a mind with no perpheral vision.
In you post above you said "his knowledge of database design is fairly rudimentary". It might be but it is enough to generate self employement and employment of others. If your knowledge was wider you would understand that self employment allows one to operate in very specific areas.
Given you are Australian and spell "amuses" as amuzes and you previously did "equation" as equasion I imagine you are quite young.
Galaxiom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptiliomorpha
"Exactly where the border between reptile-like amphibians (non-amniote reptiliomorphs) and amniotes lies will probably never be known"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptiliomorpha
"Exactly where the border between reptile-like amphibians (non-amniote reptiliomorphs) and amniotes lies will probably never be known"
What has that do with the move to the amniote. I think you stumped yourself.
Any evolutionist would be happy to concede that the detailed lineages of speciation are not 100% determined. However I am 100% certain that every multicelluar organism has descended from a common ancestor and "something out there" didn't individually create different types of animals.
As I stated earlier you argue with semantics and never address the issue.
Atheism has nothing to do with it. The evidence for the common ancestor is clear and any suggestion of a deity being involved is utterly superfluous and frankly quite ridiculous. You are blinded by the religious disposition instilled into you from childhood. You cannot even see this within you.
You called my database skills into question, despite it being quite irrelevant to the discussion. Along with the other personal insults, it is typical of someone who has no answer for the core of the matter.
Incidentally, the use of a database does not prove it is well designed. Indeed I have to integrate my work with a commercial database that fails on basic normalization and datatyping.
Go ahead, attack the spelling so you can avoid the real issues for which you have no answers. It in no way discounts the arguments I have presented.
The internet is global and I really don't give a sh!t how people spell any word. You will also notice I generally use normalization in my posts (if you ever read other sections). Whenever refering to properties I also use "color" because that is its name regardless of the language of the person using the term.
Personally I prefer the original Latin "color" rather than the French influenced (from "coleur") modern English spelling. Had I been around when English spelling was formalised I would have been on the side that wanted to phoneticize the language. Spell it "culla" for all I care.
Note that the American colony was set up long before the creation of the first dictionary and "color" was a common English spelling of the word at the time. Those who complain of the American influence are ignoring the French influence that ultimately prevailed in England.
Last edited:
So? The inability to determine the exact lineage does not mean that it didn't happen.
You continually suggest that lack of proof or change in a particular detail means the theory is worthless.
By that standard your assertion fails miserably. You have no proof of any part of it.
Evolutionary Denialists have shifted through Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design where they now admit Evolution is true although only for minor changes. This fundamental shift in the core of the theory far exceeds any of the refinements seen in evolutionary biology.
They made this concession because Evolution has become undeniable (even for the Pope) and were able to reinterpret the Bible such that it did not rule it out. However they cannot back down from the idea the God made all the different kinds of creatures independently of this would refute the Bible.
These premises are quite clear in your position placing you squarely in the Intelligent Design camp. The pathetic amniote argument is straight out of their manual but you don't have the knowledge to back the case. Hardly surprising since anyone with intellect capable of arguing the case would never take that position.
Last edited:
You claimed there was no half-dog-half-lizard. Did you actually follow the link?
What I originally said was that as more about the start of life is understood then there will be more starting points seen. From that you read "God created"
In your case it flavours and distorts your views.
Again you can't read or forget what you write. I called your science into question and you are the one who originally said you were stuck with Access.
It was you who commenced insulting. Go back to the other thread and speed of light etc. Then go to just before Christmas, might have been around Christmas Eve and you will see I tried to bring you off your personal attacks.
I already said getting to the amniote egg from amphibian would be one very big deal. So your response was it's easy because it did not happen that way. Now that I posted the link you are all over the place.
The amniote argument has been there at least since I was a boy when I first became interested in reptiles and dinosaurs, long before the internet and probably goes all the way to Darwin.
It is not half dog and half lizard in the same way archeopteryx is not half bird and half dinosaur. You obviously don't understand what the half lizard and half dog is about. Travel to the amniote egg is the same.
Your problem is your religious like atheism prevents you from questioning any aspect of evolution just as the born again won't question any aspect of the Bible. The scientists who are not stuck making Access continually question things.
I think clearly this is a debate that is quite fruitless, simply because instead of going with the evidence that is presented before us. You choose to put faith in the word of the bible (which is your choice).
The science is clearly there in terms of evolution, the concept, principal and even some of the evolutionary paths. To say that something was created by 'ID' is simply not science. And should not enter the debate here. If you can provide proof as to which Intelligent being directed the process, then go for it. But as far as I am concerned, science and indeed evolution is completely separate from religion and the bible.
The links between ancestors are present, as identified by hundreds of peer reviewed research projects undertaken by the scientific community (the whole scientific community is not against god, or into making up information). There will always be some things that are difficult to explain and some missing links between the evolutionary process, however this does not preclude it from occurring, just like saying you were born and now you are big, so nothing could have happened in-between. Your egg argument is the same.
Do a google search, have a look around however the most important thing about science in general is that it MUST function without bias, which is exactly the area you are coming from. I am an atheist, and have been a christian, and dabbled in Buddhism, so i should make it 100% clear my views come from the research that has been undertaken as part of the scientific community, and my views in this area are based on numerous peer reviewed conclusions. Rather than saying from the start that it is impossible for evolution to occur, or for that matter for it not to occur.
The whole scientific process relies on the ability to formulate a hypothesis, collect data, and determine based on that data if the hypothesis has been proven, if not further analysis is undertaken and the hypothesis is changed, and so on until a hypothesis matches the data, NOT the data matches the hypothesis.
In the case of evolution, the hypothesis was multiple part:
I know this is a fruitless exercise, since you bring to the table your predefined views. But if only to understand the scientific process better, and that the discoveries that are made, are and should always be made without bias should help to teach you more about evolution.
The science is clearly there in terms of evolution, the concept, principal and even some of the evolutionary paths. To say that something was created by 'ID' is simply not science. And should not enter the debate here. If you can provide proof as to which Intelligent being directed the process, then go for it. But as far as I am concerned, science and indeed evolution is completely separate from religion and the bible.
The links between ancestors are present, as identified by hundreds of peer reviewed research projects undertaken by the scientific community (the whole scientific community is not against god, or into making up information). There will always be some things that are difficult to explain and some missing links between the evolutionary process, however this does not preclude it from occurring, just like saying you were born and now you are big, so nothing could have happened in-between. Your egg argument is the same.
Do a google search, have a look around however the most important thing about science in general is that it MUST function without bias, which is exactly the area you are coming from. I am an atheist, and have been a christian, and dabbled in Buddhism, so i should make it 100% clear my views come from the research that has been undertaken as part of the scientific community, and my views in this area are based on numerous peer reviewed conclusions. Rather than saying from the start that it is impossible for evolution to occur, or for that matter for it not to occur.
The whole scientific process relies on the ability to formulate a hypothesis, collect data, and determine based on that data if the hypothesis has been proven, if not further analysis is undertaken and the hypothesis is changed, and so on until a hypothesis matches the data, NOT the data matches the hypothesis.
In the case of evolution, the hypothesis was multiple part:
- Random mutation is common throughout most if not all species.
- Selective pressures are applied to a species, which allows for a random mutation (or altered gene) to be selected for, either negatively or positively
- The selective pressure allows the new gene to thrive in a population, as this process continues over time the new gene(s) become more common, and eventually the species diverges to form a new species.
- This process continues for a significant amount of time, and results in the formation of whole new organisms.
- Bacteria undergo Random Mutation, as do most species, through environmental stresses and numerous other external and internal sources (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?aid=176184)
- When a species is exposed to an evolutionary pressure (bacteria - Antibiotic Resistance), the population that does not have the genes to allow for the resistance die off, and the population that does, indeed thrives in that condition, this results in a new population of antibiotic resistant bacteria. As time goes on and this process continues new species are formed.
- As new genes are introduced into a species, it will eventually result in the formation of a new species, essentially the new species are no longer able to interbreed with the previous species. (http://www.esp.org/books/6th-congress/facsimile/contents/6th-cong-p356-wright.pdf)
- These new species continue along an evolutionary pathway to form new families, and so on. (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v38/n2/abs/ng1729.html, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4375590)
I know this is a fruitless exercise, since you bring to the table your predefined views. But if only to understand the scientific process better, and that the discoveries that are made, are and should always be made without bias should help to teach you more about evolution.
Where I have used the Bible?
No, Galaxiom is doing that. Firstly he refuses to see a problem with getting to the amniote egg as to see a problem would be a problem for his religious like atheism. Then I show him the link "from science" etc.
But again, show me where I have used the Bible.
The exercise is fruitless because you can't describe what is required to get to the amniote egg. I have not said evolution is wrong. What I have said is there are parts that a missing. But because of your religious style atheism you can't accept that there could be any faults or things evolution is not covering. You are identical to the "born agains" and their Bible.
Here you make suppositions on what you presume will be found in the future. Science does not consider speculation as evidence. Moreover in the light of the history of the subject fulfillment of your speculation would be profoundly uncharacteristic.
In the 150 years since "Origin of the Species" not one shred of evidence has been found to contridict Darwin's central premise that species arose through Natural Selection of inheritable changes.
So what did you mean by this comment?
I cannot find the post but I recall that I said, "you sir, are a fool." That was not an insult but an objective observation.
Here were your insults which I propose are somewhat less dignified and like every claim you post, were completely unsubstantiated.
Rubbish. Here is what I said.
Meanwhile you continue to claim that it is implausible without the slightest attempt to back it up. The following utterly ridiculous assertion could only be made by someone without the slightest comprhension of evolutionary biology.
But they are small time changes as compared to getting from amphibian to amniote as evolution would have us believe. In fact that is a much bigger change then a donkey evolving to a human
I did not comment on the age of the argument only that it is straight from the Intelligent Design camp.
It was a weak argument when it was conceived and remains so. So far your argument consists of the "problems" of change to internal fertilization, a reduction in the number of eggs and the extra membranes in the egg.
None of these things need to happen concurrently. Morover except for the amniote egg they are found in some modern amphibians and even some fish.
Internal fertilization would have given far more control over the fertilzation. Retaining egg in the body is a minor change and is seen some modern amphibians.
http://amphibiaweb.org/amphibian/facts.html
A few species of frogs give birth to living young. Members of the African genus Nectophrynoides retain eggs in the oviduct and some nourish the young as they grow. These are born as miniatures of the adult. One Puerto Rican species of the genus Eleutherodactylus, now thought to be extinct (E. jasperi), also retained eggs in the oviduct and had live birth. Salamandra salamandra, S. atra and some related species either give birth to larvae or to completely metamorphosed juveniles. Many species of caecilians give birth to living young, usually fully metamorphosed at birth.
The corresponding recuction in the number of eggs would be essential. Any mutation that kept the eggs internal and didn't reduce the count would doom the mother.
It would have happened as a series of changes that retained the eggs longer and longer.
Some fish have live birth.
As I said previously.
"Each new membrane would increased the time the embroyo could stay in the egg and/or decrease the dependence on water allowing the animal to move further from the aquatic environment and progress steadily toward the embryonic stage being entirely in the egg."
Now would you like to put forward a single piece of evidence to back your assertion that the change was bigger than a donkey to a human? I will bet you don't because you can't.
Cynognthus is a member of the Synapsids, mammal like reptiles. Synapsids are the ancestors of mammals. What more do you want in a half mammal half reptile?
Once again you make an unsubstantiated assertion "its not the same". That is the beginning and end of your argument.
No. The evidence is there to back Evolution which claims that all known living organisms decended from a common ancestor. Indeed we share much of our genome with earthworms and fruit flies let alone other vertebrates.
You are claiming, despite the obvious similarities in morphology and genes, that different vertebrates arose from separate beginning.
You have not presented a single suggestion as to why such extensive similarities exist between these separately "created" beginnings. Once again you won't because you can't.
Simple denials are utterly worthless in science and are the way of religion. You are blinded by your religious prejudices.
Similar threads
