Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   evolution vs. creationism: evolution wins
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 271 of 310 (180509)
01-25-2005 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by xevolutionist
01-25-2005 3:56 PM


still cantering on misconceptions
A real horse ancestor would be a horse, of course. Evolution didn't take place or there would be real, not speculative, evidence.
So why all the "pre-horses"? and where did the "real horses" come from?
I think Kathleen Hunt put it well:
Creationists who wish to deny the evidence of horse evolution should careful consider this: how else can you explain the sequence of horse fossils? Even if creationists insist on ignoring the transitional fossils (many of which have been found), again, how can the unmistakable sequence of these fossils be explained? Did God create Hyracotherium, then kill off Hyracotherium and create some Hyracotherium-Orohippus intermediates, then kill off the intermediates and create Orohippus, then kill off Orohippus and create Epihippus, then allow Epihippus to "microevolve" into Duchesnehippus, then kill off Duchesnehippus and create Mesohippus, then create some Mesohippus-Miohippus intermediates, then create Miohippus, then kill off Mesohippus, etc.....each species coincidentally similar to the species that came just before and came just after?
From Horse Evolution

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by xevolutionist, posted 01-25-2005 3:56 PM xevolutionist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by xevolutionist, posted 01-25-2005 4:13 PM pink sasquatch has replied

xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 6923 days)
Posts: 189
From: Salem, Oregon, US
Joined: 01-13-2005


Message 272 of 310 (180510)
01-25-2005 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by crashfrog
01-25-2005 4:00 PM


semantics
Exactly my point. You accept the idea that sub species that will not or cannot interbreed is a new species, when clearly a finch is a finch and a salamander is a salamander. If anything, genetic diversity is lost.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by crashfrog, posted 01-25-2005 4:00 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by pink sasquatch, posted 01-25-2005 4:19 PM xevolutionist has replied
 Message 277 by NosyNed, posted 01-25-2005 4:25 PM xevolutionist has not replied
 Message 278 by crashfrog, posted 01-25-2005 4:25 PM xevolutionist has not replied
 Message 280 by Loudmouth, posted 01-25-2005 5:21 PM xevolutionist has replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 273 of 310 (180512)
01-25-2005 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by xevolutionist
01-25-2005 3:53 PM


science revisions
If you evolutionists redefine terms every time there is a new development that exposes your past errors, it's hard for anyone to keep up.
Yep. Real science admits mistakes and discards or revises hypotheses and theories, and sometimes it is hard to keep up.
Why exactly are you criticising science for revisions? Especially since it was a lack of change in science that you were complaining about a few pages back?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by xevolutionist, posted 01-25-2005 3:53 PM xevolutionist has not replied

xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 6923 days)
Posts: 189
From: Salem, Oregon, US
Joined: 01-13-2005


Message 274 of 310 (180513)
01-25-2005 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by pink sasquatch
01-25-2005 4:09 PM


Re: still cantering on misconceptions
How about evolutionists that disagree?
) Some animals used in the sequence have differing numbers of ribs and lumbar vertebrae, indicating that various species have been used to compile the series, but this is ignored as this contradicts the theory. Most of these fossil animals have been found in America. Yet the first fossils of modern horses they are supposed to lead up to are found in Europe. (Present American horses are a recent introduction). Two evolutionists - Prof. George Gaylord Simpson said "It never happened in nature" and Charles Deperet called it "a deceitful illusion"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by pink sasquatch, posted 01-25-2005 4:09 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by PaulK, posted 01-25-2005 4:21 PM xevolutionist has not replied
 Message 279 by pink sasquatch, posted 01-25-2005 4:46 PM xevolutionist has replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 275 of 310 (180515)
01-25-2005 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by xevolutionist
01-25-2005 4:10 PM


Re: semantics
You accept the idea that sub species that will not or cannot interbreed is a new species, when clearly a finch is a finch and a salamander is a salamander.
A clarification: Are you stating that there is a single "finch species" and a single "salamander species"?
Here's a nice page on salamander diversity to peruse while you think about it.
If anything, genetic diversity is lost.
Loss of genetic diversity does not impact the validity of theories of speciation or evolution.
Do you think that it does somehow? If so, explain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by xevolutionist, posted 01-25-2005 4:10 PM xevolutionist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by xevolutionist, posted 01-25-2005 5:22 PM pink sasquatch has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 276 of 310 (180516)
01-25-2005 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by xevolutionist
01-25-2005 4:13 PM


Re: still cantering on misconceptions
Please explain how the number of ribs and lumbar vertebrae contradict the theory. Remember to show that what is contradicted really IS part of the theory.
And you do realise that most criticisms are not directed at the idea of horse evolution but at early attempts to work out the relationships between fossil horses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by xevolutionist, posted 01-25-2005 4:13 PM xevolutionist has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 277 of 310 (180517)
01-25-2005 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by xevolutionist
01-25-2005 4:10 PM


Definition of species
Exactly my point. You accept the idea that sub species that will not or cannot interbreed is a new species, when clearly a finch is a finch and a salamander is a salamander. If anything, genetic diversity is lost.
It is very clear that you are not using the biological definition of species. Since you are choosing to construct your own definition will you please specify what that is so we may continue the discussion?
Without the terms being clear the sentences being posted can not possibly make sense to both sides.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-25-2005 16:26 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by xevolutionist, posted 01-25-2005 4:10 PM xevolutionist has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 278 of 310 (180518)
01-25-2005 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by xevolutionist
01-25-2005 4:10 PM


You accept the idea that sub species that will not or cannot interbreed is a new species, when clearly a finch is a finch and a salamander is a salamander.
How would you tell if a bird is a finch or not? How would you tell if an amphibian was a salamander or not?
You don't seem to get it yet - species essentialism is dead. Do you understand what I mean when I say that? You don't appear to, which is why I'm asking you these questions.
If anything, genetic diversity is lost.
Lost through selection and speciation, yes. Gained through mutation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by xevolutionist, posted 01-25-2005 4:10 PM xevolutionist has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 279 of 310 (180524)
01-25-2005 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by xevolutionist
01-25-2005 4:13 PM


PLAGIARISM!
xevolutionist -
Your entire post save six words can be found word-for-word at this site and others.
You are violating forum guidelines, and as many in this thread suspected, are simply parroting Creationist websites.
Grow up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by xevolutionist, posted 01-25-2005 4:13 PM xevolutionist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by xevolutionist, posted 01-25-2005 5:34 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 280 of 310 (180535)
01-25-2005 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by xevolutionist
01-25-2005 4:10 PM


Re: semantics
quote:
Exactly my point. You accept the idea that sub species that will not or cannot interbreed is a new species, when clearly a finch is a finch and a salamander is a salamander. If anything, genetic diversity is lost.
With the discovery of DNA, the genetic material involved in heredity, our views of what a species is had to change. A species is a group of isolated DNA, a population that only breeds within itself. It is not a question of if they CAN interbreed, but if they DO interbreed. Even if two species are interfertile (ie they can produce fertile offspring) they are still considered separate species if they DON'T interbreed. Species and speciation is about isolating genes to one gene pool, not differences in morphology.
Species has been defined in this fashion because of mutation. If two gene pools are isolated from one another different mutations will accumulate in the different gene pools leading to different morphology overtime. This is why speciation is the root cause of the changes seen in the fossil record, it isolates mutations away from each other resulting in different morphological outcomes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by xevolutionist, posted 01-25-2005 4:10 PM xevolutionist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by xevolutionist, posted 01-25-2005 5:27 PM Loudmouth has replied

xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 6923 days)
Posts: 189
From: Salem, Oregon, US
Joined: 01-13-2005


Message 281 of 310 (180536)
01-25-2005 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by pink sasquatch
01-25-2005 4:19 PM


Re: semantics
Yes, I am stating that the variations of finches are sub species, in that they are all recognizable in form as finches. The species will never produce a woodpecker for example. There are many variations of many domesticated animals but a cat is still a cat, and a dog is still a dog. After all, doesn't the theory of evolution require totally new species to appear, as in the wolf whale, actually becoming a whale?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by pink sasquatch, posted 01-25-2005 4:19 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by crashfrog, posted 01-25-2005 5:26 PM xevolutionist has not replied
 Message 287 by pink sasquatch, posted 01-25-2005 5:34 PM xevolutionist has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 282 of 310 (180538)
01-25-2005 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by xevolutionist
01-25-2005 5:22 PM


Yes, I am stating that the variations of finches are sub species, in that they are all recognizable in form as finches.
So, if their form changed enough through mutation, they would no longer be considered finches? Why are you so sure this is an outcome that would never occur?
There are many variations of many domesticated animals but a cat is still a cat, and a dog is still a dog.
And a mammal is still a mammal, and a vertebrate is still a vertebrate, and an animal is still an animal, and an organism is still an organism. I guess everything is just subspecies of one big species of "living thing."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by xevolutionist, posted 01-25-2005 5:22 PM xevolutionist has not replied

xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 6923 days)
Posts: 189
From: Salem, Oregon, US
Joined: 01-13-2005


Message 283 of 310 (180539)
01-25-2005 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Loudmouth
01-25-2005 5:21 PM


Re: semantics
Different morphological outcomes that can never be more complex than the ancestors. Observed mutations always impact negatively. There is a limit to the results you can obtain from selective breeding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Loudmouth, posted 01-25-2005 5:21 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by crashfrog, posted 01-25-2005 5:32 PM xevolutionist has not replied
 Message 285 by Loudmouth, posted 01-25-2005 5:33 PM xevolutionist has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 284 of 310 (180542)
01-25-2005 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by xevolutionist
01-25-2005 5:27 PM


Observed mutations always impact negatively.
Oh, except for lactose tolerance in humans; or resistance to atherosclerosis; or immunity to HIV; or all those examples of antibiotic resistance in bacteria.
Except for those and countless other examples, all mutations impact negatively. Oh, oops, except for those that don't impact at all, which I guess is most of them. Other than that, you're right. Every single mutation is negative. Except for most of them.
Sheesh.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by xevolutionist, posted 01-25-2005 5:27 PM xevolutionist has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 285 of 310 (180545)
01-25-2005 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by xevolutionist
01-25-2005 5:27 PM


Re: semantics
quote:
Different morphological outcomes that can never be more complex than the ancestors. Observed mutations always impact negatively. There is a limit to the results you can obtain from selective breeding.
If I look at the feet of the horse lineage I see two things. I see the dissapearance of three phalanges and the appearance of a hoof. So while the horse lost toes it gained a more complex hoof. The evolution of the horse shows that you are wrong.
As to selective breeding, how long has man bred animals and plants? Maybe 5-8 thousand years? This is not enough time for mutations to produce completely new featurs to be selected for. Remember, evolution is MUTATION and selection. Man is only able to do one of those, select. Man is not able, until very recently with genetic manipulation, to produce new features to select from. Selective breeding, or artificial selection, over such a short span can not be used to extrapolate to evolutionary changes that have spanned millions of years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by xevolutionist, posted 01-25-2005 5:27 PM xevolutionist has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024