Evolution is Wrong...interesting video

[Mike375]

I did not comment on the age of the argument only that it is straight from the Intelligent Design camp.

You miss the point. Intellegent Design is a modern term that has framed the debate and in turn it limits the religious atheist and also the born again.

If we ignore any God or god involvements the intelligent design has the problem that the designs are less than perfect, as you know. On the other hand there are and always have been the issue with the transitions. Eventually that problem will be solved. But the scientists who solve it will be real scientists whose agenda is not locked in by a religious style atheism or its oposite number, the born again.

 

[Galaxiom]

Where I have used the Bible?

Although you do not quote from the Bible and even pretend to have been an atheist at time you are clearly stuck on the notion of a Designer ("something out there"). The unsubstantiated assertion that reptiles and amphibians started from seperate beginnings is straight out of the Bible whether you choose to acknowledge the source of not.

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.

I refuse to see a problem because you have not presented a shred of evidence to back your assertion that there is a problem. I have presented clear arguments that thoroughly counter the flimsy suggestions you have made.

Your link to the science simply said that the exact point where the tetrapods diverged into amniotes and non-amniotes will probably never be known because the fossilization of these soft structures is highly improbable.

However the absence of evidence is not the evidence of the absence in the context of a huge body of other supporting data.

The exercise is fruitless because you can't describe what is required to get to the amniote egg.

I have aleady described this in increasing detail. The exercise is fruitless becuse you refuse to accept the evidence and in favour of your baseless dogma. Please present detailed counter-arguments if you want to continue to use the amniote example in the debate.

I have not said evolution is wrong. What I have said is there are parts that a missing.

You have rejected evolution. What you accept is Natural Selection (as in the Peppered Moth). Evolution is about change of species. Darwin's book was called "Origin of the Species" not the "Origin of Different Markings"

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.

I will quite happily accept that there could be faults in Evolution but only if it fails to explain some aspect of observation. Evolution has been the most successful throery of all time. Not one single piece of evidence has come forward to contradict its premises. When you present evidence that Evolution is not covering some aspect then I will happily consider that possibility.

It is you who has the religious conviction and cannot accept that the separate design of creatures is not supported by the slightest evidence.

Criticising the Bible does not disguise your acceptance of its claims. As you said in another thread, "it is had to see [the Bible] was not based on some actual events".

 

[Galaxiom]

On the other hand there are and always have been the issue with the transitions.

So you say, but the evidence does not support your assertion.

 

[travisdh]

Are there missing links in this theory, of course there are. As science progresses we will look at the missing links and if required and the hypothesis no longer matches the data, then the hypothesis will need to be changed. This is not uncommon in science, or the world for that matter. After all how long did humans believe the world was flat?

You stated that i was unable to see any other view, and blinded by my religious atheism. Have a look at the above comment and read it, i have quite clearly indicated that there are missing links in the theory.

Like everyone else has stated, have a look at the evidence, it is there and if you can present evidence to support your view. Other than here is a missing link, then we will happily accept. Why not join the scientific community and publish a scientific peer reviewed paper about the flaws of Scientific design, and how it is wrong? or has missing links?

You also keep mentioning religious convictions in bias. you mention the atheist and the born again, what about your frame. Where do you sit and can you not see that you indeed present bias.

I have been a member of the religious institution, and determined based on the information at hand, i did not have enough scientific evidence to support that view. That does not make me religiously bias, infact it makes me more so neutral in my views. I am aware of all views and take those into account, however simply the data does not support your argument!.

 

[travisdh]

You miss the point. Intellegent Design is a modern term that has framed the debate and in turn it limits the religious atheist and also the born again.

If we ignore any God or god involvements the intelligent design has the problem that the designs are less than perfect, as you know. On the other hand there are and always have been the issue with the transitions. Eventually that problem will be solved. But the scientists who solve it will be real scientists whose agenda is not locked in by a religious style atheism or its oposite number, the born again.

I love that comment, it made me laugh, lets look at the phrase 'real scientists' as framed by a religious style atheism. It is some of the most influential scientists in history who are locked in by a religious style atheism who have come up with some of the most incredible discoveries. Indeed these are real scientists:

Democritus - Atomic Theory


Ivan Pavlov - Physiology


Sigmund Freud - Psychology


Jacques Monod - Gene transcription


Francis Crick - DNA


James D. Watson - DNA


Peter Higgs - Physicist


Carl Sagan - Astronomy


Richard Dawkins - Your Favorite?


Stephen Hawking

 

[Mike375]

Originally Posted by travisdh
Are there missing links in this theory, of course there are. As science progresses we will look at the missing links and if required and the hypothesis no longer matches the data, then the hypothesis will need to be changed. This is not uncommon in science, or the world for that matter. After all how long did humans believe the world was flat?

Exactly

I just noticed you are new to the forum. I am not a fundamentalist. I don't believe dinosaurs and people coexisted etc and ect. At age 12 I started collecting snakes and lizards. At 15 I bought Darwins book.

Since I was about 15 I have believed life will commence if the conditions exist. That belief kicked off because of my father as he always had an interest in this type of thing.

No one, I repeat no one, can keep reptiles at what would be regarded at an advanced level and go to bed each night and not believe in evolution. But that does not mean some things about it don't appear to be correct or perhaps that it does not cover everything.

You can't keep legless lizards and not wonder why they could not do better than drop their legs and wind up as a sad little animal. And for all I know there might have been at one stage 500 legless lizards and about 488 of them became extinct. Or maybe they realised it was bad idea and went back the other way, that is back to legs and a stouter body.

My issues with the big transitions are not "God justification exercises"

On the religious/spiritual side I believe that the universe came about by either a superior being or beings or laws that don't exist within the universe, perhaps pre Big Bang but either way the answer is supernatural meaning not covered by our laws.

 

[Mike375]

I love that comment, it made me laugh, lets look at the phrase 'real scientists' as framed by a religious style atheism. It is some of the most influential scientists in history who are locked in by a religious style atheism who have come up with some of the most incredible discoveries. Indeed these are real scientists:

By real scientists I meant those who are not like Galaxiom, who by his own admission has to do Access at some job to make his living.

Dawkins has moved somewhat in the sense he is pushing a product.

 

[Mike375]

.

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.

A bit off topic but not completely.

You assume I am rounding up prospets and making full data bases in Access. Not so. It became apparent to me very early on that making full data bases was not where the money was but rather using Access as a platform for VBA and also making some simple applications, might just be using Access to generate emails and with Word as the body etc.

Full data bases take too long, they are never finished and you tend to get reduced to an hourly rate. On the other hand I will sell one as in the person agrees to doing a full data base and then pass them onto someone else for the appropriate money split.

I don't need to learn normalisation to the degree of your knowledge, I need to learn how to refine my prospecting a bit better

 

[travisdh]

By real scientists I meant those who are not like Galaxiom, who by his own admission has to do Access at some job to make his living.

Dawkins has moved somewhat in the sense he is pushing a product.

It might interest you to know that Albert Einstein was actually not working as a full time scientist when he discovered the theory of Relativity, instead he was working as a Patent Clerk. Some of the great discoveries have been made by people who are not full time scientists. So i would not accept the theory that because people are working with databases full time, that it precludes them from having knowledge useful to the scientific community.

I personally don't accept the theory of a creator, or guiding being in the development of evolution. However i am open to being wrong. I don't yet see the research to show this, if it does become available then my view will need to change, however the reality is that this does not fit the scientific model as of yet (that is needs to be provable, supported by data)

 

[Galaxiom]

You can't keep legless lizards and not wonder why they could not do better than drop their legs and wind up as a sad little animal. And for all I know there might have been at one stage 500 legless lizards and about 488 of them became extinct. Or maybe they realised it was bad idea and went back the other way, that is back to legs and a stouter body.

Even here youl show you have not the slightest comprehension of Evolution.

Animals don't "realise it was a bad idea" and change. Those legless lizards were well adapted to their natual environment or they would not exist anymore. Undoubtedly their natural habitat involved moving more like a worm than a tetrapod and legs would have been an encumberance.

Perhaps they were "sad little animals" because you confined them in a glass box devoid of the environment they evolved to live in.

Or perhaps they didn't like their great God Mike who condemned them to hell because they didn't impress Him enough.

 

[Mike375]

It might interest you to know that Albert Einstein was actually not working as a full time scientist when he discovered the theory of Relativity, instead he was working as a Patent Clerk. Some of the great discoveries have been made by people who are not full time scientists.

Yes, I am aware of that with Einstein.

So i would not accept the theory that because people are working with databases full time, that it precludes them from having knowledge useful to the scientific community.

I guess it depends on attitude and what else they are doing.

I personally don't accept the theory of a creator, or guiding being in the development of evolution. However i am open to being wrong.

I am the same. However, if I did believe that was the case my nature and interest would still make pursue the answers.

I don't yet see the research to show this, if it does become available then my view will need to change, however the reality is that this does not fit the scientific model as of yet (that is needs to be provable, supported by data)

As I have said several times I don't see evolution mysteries as opening the door to a creator. But a creator, whether be a being/beings or laws outside our universe probaly laid down our natural laws.

Here is a Wiki picture of another early chap with long teeth at the font.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dimetrodon_skeleton.jpg

Of moden reptiles (exclude venonmous snake fangs) the crocodilian family are the only ones I can think of that have different size teeth and especially long canine type front teeth. However, it is not until crocodiles, especially Saltwater and Nile crocs, become very large that they eat differenty to lizards. lizards typically take prey that is small in relation to their size and their bit is mainly a crushing bite which might or might not kill the prey and then they swallow it whole. Except for vey large crocodiles the croc does the same.

Actually a lot of lizards have different size teeth but the teeth are the same shape and taper off to being smaller and is very noticeable with agamid lizards.

Something else I find interesting with evolution, given that unecessary things can be lost, is the lizard and its eating. Firstly, we have an animal whose food requirements are very low. However, it is an extremely efficient ambush predator and can eat a very high proprortion of its body weight in one go. In fact it is interesting to see how much a large monitor lizard can and will eat in one go as compared to an equal weight of cat or dog. In addition it also consumes the entire prey animal. In other words its catch/eating system far out strips it need for food.

 

[Mike375]

Animals don't "realise it was a bad idea" and change.

And you can't recognise a figure of speech.

Those legless lizards were well adapted to their natual environment or they would not exist anymore. Undoubtedly their natural habitat involved moving more like a worm than a tetrapod and legs would have been an encumberance.

Perhaps they were "sad little animals" because you confined them in a glass box devoid of the environment they evolved to live in.

And again you make assumptions. They were not in a glass box and in addition I was able to catch them near where I lived. I have seen them in the wild and also large enclosure, quite large as in block of land and with other reptiles.

If you were a broader thinker you would know the legless lizard is a very strong argument against Intelligent Design.

Or perhaps they didn't like their great God Mike who condemned them to hell because they didn't impress Him enough.

You simply prove again that all your opinions are framed by religion.

 

[Galaxiom]

Something else I find interesting with evolution, given that unecessary things can be lost, is the lizard and its eating.

Firstly, we have an animal whose food requirements are very low. However, it is an extremely efficient ambush predator and can eat a very high proprortion of its body weight in one go. In fact it is interesting to see how much a large monitor lizard can and will eat in one go as compared to an equal weight of cat or dog. In addition it also consumes the entire prey animal. In other words its catch/eating system far out strips it need for food.

Again you show how you completely misunderstand the principles of Natural Selection.

Unnecessary strategies only die off if they disadvantage the organism. The monitor lizard's strategy is very effective and the ability to eat enormous prey is in no way a disadvantage.

Conversely when prey is scarce, a monitor that is limited to small prey or cannot consume a huge meal is at a considerable disadvantage. Hence the gluttonous monster prevailed.

You mistake your inability to comprehend the selection forces at work as evidence that the theory is incorrect.

 

[Galaxiom]

Originally Posted by travisdh
Are there missing links in this theory, of course there are. As science progresses we will look at the missing links and if required and the hypothesis no longer matches the data, then the hypothesis will need to be changed. This is not uncommon in science, or the world for that matter. After all how long did humans believe the world was flat?

Exactly

Humans dis not believe the world was flat through science. The flat earth was the intuitive default.

The first recorded scientific experiment desiged to determine the diameter of the Earth was by Eratosthenes over 2000 years ago. It proved the Earth was not flat.

Unfortunately the ignorance of people like Mike who decided their intuition was more reliable than scientific observation held the opinion for a very long time.

The Church had a particularly persuasive argument and held back the advance of knowledge more than any other influence. "Recant or die."

Fortunately now, thanks to the Internet, profoundly bigotted, ignorant fools like Mike who harbour delusions that they are the last bastions of independent thought, are easily exposed as minions this master they don't even realise is controlling them.

 

[Mike375]

Again you show how you completely misunderstand the principles of Natural Selection.

Unnecessary strategies only die off if they disadvantage the organism. The monitor lizard's strategy is very effective and the ability to eat enormous prey is in no way a disadvantage.

Conversely when prey is scarce, a monitor that is limited to small prey or cannot consume a huge meal is at a considerable disadvantage. Hence the gluttonous monster prevailed.

You mistake your inability to comprehend the selection forces at work as evidence that the theory is incorrect.

If you were not so limited in your thinking you would see some other points but as usual everything has to be outlined for you but I wll help you a little bit as you obviously depend totally on what you read.

When conditions are harsh such as our outback in times of drought you don't see lizards that are skin and bone. The lizard's strength, apart from smaller food requirements is the ability to catch very small prey. For this it is well served by being low to the ground and the non erect legs allowing it to go into very small holes and hollows as well as the climbing ability afforded by their limb design.

Lot's of people, myself included, find it interesting that the animal that needs lots of food, the mammal, is not as well equipped as the animal, the lizard, that does not need much food. Now you will probably translate that into some sort of creationist and anti evolution stuff.

 

[Galaxiom]

Now you will probably translate that into some sort of creationist and anti evolution stuff.

Those following this thread will see that Mike has now entirely abandonned the debate on the central issue of his thread ("Evolution is Wrong") and is now focussed on portraying any comment about Evolution as some kind of distraction.

Now, having offered nothing in defence of his unsubstantiated assertions that fly in the face of the evidence and realising he is totally outclassed in the debate, his only choice is to pretend that anything I say is off topic.

Come on Mike. Let's get back on topic. Present some evidence that Reptiles and modern Amphibians (or any other organism you care to choose) did not descend from the same ancestor.

 

[Galaxiom]

Lot's of people, myself included, find it interesting that the animal that needs lots of food, the mammal, is not as well equipped as the animal, the lizard, that does not need much food.

Modern reptiles are master of survival through tough times. They are still here because of that characteristic. Slow metabolism thanks to poikiothermic temperature regulation carried them through the mass extinction of the Chixilub Event.

However survival in this kind of adversity is not the bottom line in the Holocene.

Do tell. Why do we Homo Sapiens currently prevail on this planet ? (Of course forgetting for the moment the irrepressible microorganisms have always been the dominant lifeform and always will be).

Is it because "something out there" decided we were entertaining and made sure the asteroids missed or was it just the random nature of the Universe?

You are very keen to poke holes in the things you don't understand but seem reluctant to state your own position. You don't realise it but you are nothing more than a mouthpiece for the religious indoctrination of your infancy.

It happens to many as they age and are confronted by their mortality.

 

[Mike375]

Galaxiom,

A lot of people think the mammal and reptile are very central to evolution.

Again, you can't read. If you look at the title of the thread and how it is written

Evolution is Wrong...interesting video

It is the video, get it, the video. What I have said is I don't think evolution is 100%, as in something is missing.

But I post this again for you

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"

However, your last post suggest you have the answer. That would not be a suprise since you have the answer for everything and it is always 100%...well at least for a page and even two pages of a thread.

 

[Galaxiom]

A lot of people think the mammal and reptile are very central to evolution.

Once again, clear demonstration that you have no idea. The only thing central to Evolution is Natural Selection. It applies to everything viruses upwards.

Again, you can't read. If you look at the title of the thread and how it is written

Evolution is Wrong...interesting video

It is the video, get it, the video. What I have said is I don't think evolution is 100%, as in something is missing.

Do tell. What is missing? There is zero evidence that Evolution is not the whole picture. The video is a farce that simply reiterates the tired rhetoric of the Intelligent Design camp. You only find it interesting because it reinforces your prejudice.

But I post this again for you

"Exactly where the border between reptile-like amphibians (non-amniote reptiliomorphs) and amniotes lies will probably never be known"

So what? That you would bother to repost to this triviality indicates you cling to irrelevancies to avoid the real issues. Not knowing the exact detail in no way serves as something to refute the basic premises of Evolution.

In fact it is remarkable testimony to the commitment of archaeologists and the holes they dug using a paint-brush that we have such a wealth of fossil information. I am not surprised that they have not yet been lucky enough to not only find a transitional egg but identfy its mother.

 

[Mike375]

Do tell. Why do we Homo Sapiens currently prevail on this planet ? (Of course forgetting for the moment the irrepressible microorganisms have always been the dominant lifeform and always will be).

Which is it, Homo Sapiens or micro organisms?