Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against Evolution

I'm afraid we still aren't insync on this very initial point. It might be an idea to see if we can sort it out before you go off onto an oodle of other topics.Milton had TWO points, you are mixing them up.His first point was that the two animals were "virtually identical" such that it takes an expert zoologist to tell them apart. (we don't have any other way of telling what "virtually identical" means). However, they are similar in form they are not nearly as identical as Milton says they are.Note this part of the Milton quote: "This is no mere general similarity of anatomical detail, but an almost perfect duplication of distinctive species..."His second point is talking about how unlikely mutations would be that produce this result. They are unlikely indeed, if they were the same mutations. You were asked about what this means for the genetic make up of the two animals and a comparison between them. You have ignored this point. The mutations are not the same. The whole improbability point is void because of this. The creatures do not have duplicated (a very unlikely event indeed) genetic mutations. Milton is wrong on this point too.Milton didn't say that similar animals are unlikely. He said "virtually identical" ones are. (though I don't know on what basis).Milton's point about probability was directed at mutations. You were asked what this meant. You ignored that. I certainly agree that duplicated mutations would be very improbable in not terribly closely related species. However, they are not duplicated.His points are only valid if the animals are identical and are very telling if the mutations are identical. Neither case is true.Go back to the quote you posted. Read exactly what he said. What he said isn't true. If you want to waffle and drop the zoologists part and turn "virtually identical" in to "similar" you may. But by the time you do that there isn't any big mystery to explain.

---

Common sense isn't

Why use Milton's drawings when we were given a site with pictures of the skulls side by side and from all angles. They are not identical as noted when that was first brought up. This is especially true from below.I don't remember seeing a reference to Milton's drawings. If they are identical and the actual skulls pictures are not that needs to be explained.Note that we were discussing what Milton had to say. He said "virtually identical" and needing a zoologist to distinguish. From the pictures (not drawings that he made to support his view) and my experience (me not being a zoologist and not having the skulls in hand) he is wrong.If you want to say yourself that they are "similar" (at the skull level) I agree. You are more accurate than Milton which, since you don't claim any expertise, tells us something about Milton as a source. But it appears that all you're taking as the evidence is Milton's own drawings not actual pictures of the skulls. (Of course, having the skulls at hand would be the best). I can't actually tell about this. That is why I asked a series of questions about what his references to mutations and probabilities meant. There is some hint that he is suggesting the improbability of it because, of course, duplicated mutations would be wildly improbable.If he is only suggesting the improbability of the "similarity" of the overall appearance and form of the two animals then he isn't saying anything much at all. He is then only arguing from his own incredulity with no evidence that things are in anyway improbable.

---

Common sense isn't

Welcome to our friendly little discussion.You may find this thread interesting: The Roman Catholic Church and Evolution

---

Common sense isn't

And I was wondering if post 124 does. Even a link to the drawings might be helpful. Since they are all the evidence you apparently have and we haven't seen then yet.

---

Common sense isn't

You, I believe, said that only atheist "believe" in evolution. Theists who agree that evolution has occured and occured in the way biologists have learned it does are a complete rebuttal of that statement. That is how it is relevant.

---

Common sense isn't

Thanks WT but I think that it is still best to examine what evidence you can if you can. If Asgara and I were expert at the anatomy of skulls then it might be less of a problem to take our opinions. We could describe in detail the differences from a technical perspective. (Experts do seem to call them "similar" btw).Go to this specific link http://www.naturalworlds.org/...ll/wolf_thylacine_skulls.htmor from the home there is a button with skull comparison on it. Under "an examination of thylacine skull"

---

Common sense isn't

That is one way to take it. A very simple way. However, perhaps God is a creature who takes more entertaining than that. Maybe he doesn't want a universe that trundles along in extremely predictable tracks like a little toy railroad.Instead, he establishs something much more complex with rules that allow the emergance of surprising, even to him, properties. Like a ultra play of Conway's life. This God can set a universe up that will in the end result in organisms capable of recognizing him and joining him. But not necessarily any very specific form of such organisms. That would be, basically, boring. And of all possibilities the only thing I can see a god fearing is boredom.

---

Common sense isn't

We seem to be back to the Bible. Did you have any real, scientific evidence? It seems you are going to go on making unsupported assertions.This thread isn't concerned with God's existance or lack thereof. It is supposed to be an opportunity for you to show how evolution is wrong with good, solid, verifiable, independent, scientific evidence. What it has done instead is show that you have none.

---

Common sense isn't

We are after scientific evidence that is, things we can look at and test. Things that explain all the facts that we have. It is amazing that this didn't make CNN.Additionally you might want to read this site that Answers in Genesis references.
Has anyone discovered Noah's Ark? - ChristianAnswers.Netand I quote:

quote:

---

Due to a popular Hollywood movie released in theaters in 1976 ("In Search of Noah's Ark"), many people remain under the impression that Noah's Ark has definitely been found. Particularly memorable to many people was a fuzzy telephoto photograph of what some thought might be the Ark. Later expeditions proved that the object was simply a large rock formation.

​

In the 1980s and 90s, many were misled by network news stories and newspaper articles that claimed the Ark had been found at a completely different location. Reports were of a ship-shaped structure 15 miles from Mt. Ararat. Unfortunately, various exaggerated claims about this site were spread. This location is often referred to as the Durupinar Site. It was internationally promoted by an American nurse anesthetist named Ron Wyatt, known for making inaccurate claims. Geologic surveys, subsurface radar and core-drilling data later confirmed beyond any doubt that this odd formation is not the Ark. It is merely a geologic feature common throughout the Ararat region. [More Information]

---

[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-03-2004]

---

Common sense isn't

I suggest you do a bit of investigation at some of the creationist sites to see what they tell you about Wyatt. It seems he may not have been exactly truthful, according them anyway.

---

Common sense isn't

I presume this is your own idea? It is so, uh, 'unusual' that I imagine only you would hold such an idea.Could you explain why in the world you would thing such a thing because, as you say, it does sound silly?

---

Common sense isn't

But even many creationist groups don't think that the same 'kind' can necessarily successfully breed. The set the kind at the level of genus or even family. So the breeding thing is not an issue.from the institute for creation research:

quote:

---

Man’s attempt to classify plants and animals is admittedly arbitrary. Therefore, the original kinds may have been in some cases what we now arbitrarily define as species, in others as genera. In many cases, in view of the high probability of rapid variation after the Flood, it may well have been what we now call the families (dogs, cats, horses, bears, etc.).

---

This suggest that my housecat and a tiger are the same 'kind'. I don't expect them to be breeding even if they have lunch together. So not all of the same 'kind' can breed successfully.

How is the exodus "scientific evidence against evolution"?Adminnemooseus makes that:How is the exodus "scientific evidence against evolution"?

​

FORUM RULE 1 - PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC FOR A THREAD!!!

​

IF SOMEONE GOES THAT BADLY OFF-TOPIC - DON'T RESPOND!!![This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-07-2004]

Note that the yelling is not by me. I had some big time help there.(and AMoose, I am trying to control my number of posts, believe it or not).

Just exactly what convoluted chain of so-called logic would allow you to make the above statement?There are two parts to it:
1)There is some special genius in the building of the pyraminds. If you wish to show that this is true you should open a new thread because I suspect it will go on for awhile.2)That the egyptians were smart somehow sinks evolution. This one you can do here if you can show it is actually scientific evidence against evolution. For this thread we will take the egyptians as being as smart as we are, though clearly not as knowledgable.