Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,649 Year: 4,906/9,624 Month: 254/427 Week: 0/64 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Let us reason together.
edge
Member (Idle past 1793 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 136 of 152 (34938)
03-22-2003 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Zephan
03-21-2003 1:53 PM


quote:
Unlike evolution, we can demonstrate the properties of electrons in real time.
And we can demonstrate the effects of evolution in the fossil record. Unless you have an alternative that you'd like to discuss, that is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Zephan, posted 03-21-2003 1:53 PM Zephan has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2256 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 137 of 152 (34946)
03-22-2003 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Quetzal
03-21-2003 9:39 AM


I kinda wanted to point out to Drummachine that he has had this information all along. Thank you very much for putting it up here, Q.
Now, Drum, what parts of Q's explanation of evolution are you having trouble with? It's OK if it's confusing. We can help you understand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Quetzal, posted 03-21-2003 9:39 AM Quetzal has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2256 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 138 of 152 (34948)
03-22-2003 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Zephan
03-21-2003 1:53 PM


Electrons exist because we have inferred their existence although we have never directly observed them.
We HAVE observed evolution directly, so there is even better, more direct evidence for evolution happening than for the existence of electrons.
quote:
Unlike evolution, we can demonstrate the properties of electrons in real time.
Wrong. We can observe the evolution of bacteria, plants, and some vertebrates in real time.
Read "The Beak of the Finch".
quote:
The fact that we can predict the future behavior manifested by electrons on a rather consistent basis may have even contributed to the developement of the electron microscope (ya think?),
Irrelevant.
My point was that YOU made the claim that because we have never observed macroevolution directly, it doesn't happen.
I then pointed out that we have never directly observed electrons, and if we follow your logic, you must not believe that electrons can exist.
You say that the point is noted, yet then go on your merry way without changing your argument. Like illogic, do you?
So, do you still think that meteorology isn't a science because it cannot predict if it will be sunny or rainy a year from today? This is the lack of prescision you fault Biology for, yet I doubt you hold any other science to the same standard, because it sounds silly and unreasonable when you do that, right?
quote:
which of course, like all other advancements in science, evolution had nothing to do with at all.
Also irrelevant to the discussion, but if evolution has nothing to do with scientific advancement, then why can we (very successfully and accurately) use animals such as rats to do research which applies to humans? Why do we do AIDS research on Chimpanzees if they weren't so genetically close to humans?
quote:
Same thing with nuclear physics. Unlike evolution, we can demonstrate and predict (in real time) the behavior manifested by atoms under certain conditions.
So, what about the retrodictions I talked about? No comment?
The ToE has predicted that we would find certain trends in the fossil recors, and those predictions have largely been shown to be correct.
quote:
Perhaps you've heard of the superconducter? And surely Hiroshima and Nagasaki haven't been forgotten? So, to put ToE on par with the electronic microscope, the superconducter, and the atom bomb is quite the non-sequitur, non?
Irrelevant. You do have a difficult time staying on topic, don't you?
quote:
Unless the point was to prove the irrelevancy of ToE to real science...
Perhaps you would like to list the tennets of science and explain how the ToE violates any of them?
quote:
In summary, then, things like gravity, electrons, and the properties of atoms can be demonstrated in real time WHEREAS ToE cannot.
Wrong, as explained above.
quote:
Turn a fruitfly into a bee or grasshopper and ToE may be able to place itself on par with the other discoveries of science able to be demonstrated and observed in real time.
Your insistance that macroevolution be observed in a human's lifetime (it takes much longer than that) is a silly, artificial demand, as I have pointed out. You completely ignore the fossil record.
We have never directly observed an electron in real time, we have only inferred it by the tracks it made.
To remain consistent, you must deny that electrons exist because we have never observed it directly.
If you disallow the argument for Biology that macroevolution takes longer than a human lifetime, so must you disallow the argument that we cannot directly observe electrons because the human eye cannot see things that small.
Sorry, you aren't allowed to belive electrons exist.
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-22-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Zephan, posted 03-21-2003 1:53 PM Zephan has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2256 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 139 of 152 (34950)
03-22-2003 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by drummachine
03-21-2003 9:33 PM


Here are photos and descriptions of the series of horse transitionals:
Page Not Found | Department of Chemistry
Please understand that, as is true in most evolutionary histories, many of these different species lived at the same time; they didn't progress one after the other.
From the site:
"How can you explain the sequence of horse fossils? Even if you 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?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by drummachine, posted 03-21-2003 9:33 PM drummachine has not replied

drummachine
Inactive Member


Message 140 of 152 (34972)
03-22-2003 6:45 PM


Schrafinator,
I just have a couple of questions about your horse link.
1)How did you get those dates of millions of years?
2)How is that evolution when all you have are bones of horses? They still look like horses. That looks like natural selection. Not evolution. So a scientist/archaeologist just puts together a skeleton of a horse and you believe that is evolution? Thats not science. Thats your belief.
And about your page. Like I stated before your ultimately saying man determines truth. There was no designer. Thats the conclusion. Were here by chance. You say evolution takes place. The only thing that happens is natural selection. A splitting of the gene pool. There is not new information. There is a decrease. And about millions of years. We were not there. You cannot accurately age date the earth. Thats a belief. Not science. There are no transitional forms. One animal has never 'evolved' into another. Thats why evolution is a belief(religion). The origins of life clearly fit with the bible. Theres my sermon! I'll probably get hammered for this!

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Coragyps, posted 03-22-2003 6:57 PM drummachine has not replied
 Message 143 by nator, posted 03-23-2003 7:59 AM drummachine has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 821 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 141 of 152 (34973)
03-22-2003 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by drummachine
03-22-2003 6:45 PM


How is that evolution when all you have are bones of horses? They still look like horses.
They're 18 inches tall, with three or four toes on their feet and browsing-style teeth, and they look "like horses" to you? You aren't looking very closely, I think. Or even looking at all?
[This message has been edited by Coragyps, 03-22-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by drummachine, posted 03-22-2003 6:45 PM drummachine has not replied

drummachine
Inactive Member


Message 142 of 152 (34980)
03-22-2003 9:47 PM


Its still close to that kind. Just because you have the bones of the creatures does not mean one evolved into the other. There bones. There are babies and there are full grown.
[This message has been edited by drummachine, 03-22-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by nator, posted 03-23-2003 8:02 AM drummachine has not replied
 Message 146 by Coragyps, posted 03-23-2003 9:52 AM drummachine has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2256 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 143 of 152 (34990)
03-23-2003 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by drummachine
03-22-2003 6:45 PM


quote:
1)How did you get those dates of millions of years?
The dates are probably determined with several methods, several forms of radiometric dating being the most probable. The Geologists here could give you better info than me.
quote:
2)How is that evolution when all you have are bones of horses? They still look like horses.
LOL! Hyracotherium is no larger than a medium-sized dog, had numerous toes (no hooves), and did not have broad grinding molars, yet you think it looks like a horse!
Very good, Drum. You are starting to get it.
quote:
That looks like natural selection. Not evolution. So a scientist/archaeologist just puts together a skeleton of a horse and you believe that is evolution? Thats not science. Thats your belief.
You are arguing again.
You cannot learn when you are arguing.
quote:
And about your page. Like I stated before your ultimately saying man determines truth. There was no designer. Thats the conclusion. Were here by chance. You say evolution takes place. The only thing that happens is natural selection. A splitting of the gene pool. There is not new information. There is a decrease. And about millions of years. We were not there. You cannot accurately age date the earth. Thats a belief. Not science. There are no transitional forms. One animal has never 'evolved' into another. Thats why evolution is a belief(religion). The origins of life clearly fit with the bible. Theres my sermon! I'll probably get hammered for this!
No, you are going to be ignored.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by drummachine, posted 03-22-2003 6:45 PM drummachine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by nator, posted 03-23-2003 8:12 AM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2256 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 144 of 152 (34991)
03-23-2003 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by drummachine
03-22-2003 9:47 PM


quote:
Its still close to that kind.
Define "kind". How can I tell one kind from another?
quote:
Just because you have the bones of the creatures does not mean one evolved into the other. There bones. There are babies and there are full grown.
So, "baby horses" have four toes on the front legs and three toes on the hind lega, and are born without hooves?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by drummachine, posted 03-22-2003 9:47 PM drummachine has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2256 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 145 of 152 (34995)
03-23-2003 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by nator
03-23-2003 7:59 AM


Drum
Look at this page, which shows the history of the evolution of horse hind feet. It shows the gradual change from multiple toes to a single toe/hoof.
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/...say/creation/horse_series.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by nator, posted 03-23-2003 7:59 AM nator has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 821 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 146 of 152 (35001)
03-23-2003 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by drummachine
03-22-2003 9:47 PM


Drum, you might also want to look at
http://muextension.missouri.edu/...agguides/ansci/g02742.htm,
or Google up some other hits on "cannon bone" or "splints" and "horse." Modern horses have these two little skinny bones, the 2nd and 4th metacarpals, alongside the main bone above the hoof. These bones taper off to nothing 2/3 of the way down this cannon bone (third metacarpal) - they don't connect to anything. As a horse ages, ligament between them and the cannon bone turns to bone and fuses them together - older horses don't have splint bones.
Contrast this with fossil horses which had three functional toes. Remember that approximate age at burial of a fossil can be determined by tooth wear - like the expression "don't look a gift horse in the mouth". Why do you think our modern horses have these little bones which appear to serve no purpose other than to cause terribly sore feet? Is that due to The Fall, or is it a little more parsimonious to think that it's because Equus had three-toed ancestors?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by drummachine, posted 03-22-2003 9:47 PM drummachine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by nator, posted 03-24-2003 8:21 AM Coragyps has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2256 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 147 of 152 (35064)
03-24-2003 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Coragyps
03-23-2003 9:52 AM


I would also add that occasionally a horse is born today with little vestigial toes sticking out from either side of it's legs.
Oh, to be absolutely clear, the splint bones actually do articulate with the knee joint, then taper down to nothing 3/4 of the length of the cannon bone. This is futhther evidence that it is a vestigial structure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Coragyps, posted 03-23-2003 9:52 AM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Coragyps, posted 03-24-2003 10:21 AM nator has not replied
 Message 149 by greyline, posted 03-24-2003 4:30 PM nator has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 821 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 148 of 152 (35082)
03-24-2003 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by nator
03-24-2003 8:21 AM


Oops!
Oh, to be absolutely clear, the splint bones actually do articulate with the knee joint, then taper down to nothing 3/4 of the length of the cannon bone.
Thanks - that's what I meant to say...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by nator, posted 03-24-2003 8:21 AM nator has not replied

greyline
Inactive Member


Message 149 of 152 (35150)
03-24-2003 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by nator
03-24-2003 8:21 AM


I don't know if this is really the topic of the thread, but vestigial organs in general - especially those that appear as throwbacks in only some individuals of a species - are a huge argument against creationism. Much of nature can be "explained away" with creationism and a dose of doublethink, once you accept a supernatural origin of life, but why do some whales have vestigial hind limbs? Why do baleen whale fetus grow normal tooth buds which are then reabsorbed before birth?
------------------
o--greyline--o

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by nator, posted 03-24-2003 8:21 AM nator has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 150 of 152 (35170)
03-25-2003 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Admin
03-18-2003 8:02 AM


Back in message 106
Admin said:
quote:
Is there a central topic to this discussion?
I'm not remotely up to reviewing the entire string, but in the beginning is was a "Faith and Belief" topic.
As I often do, I wonder if some good discussion on various subjects are getting buried here. Maybe time to lay this topic to rest?
Thinking strongly about closing this topic.
Adminnemooseus
------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Admin, posted 03-18-2003 8:02 AM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Quetzal, posted 03-25-2003 1:37 AM Adminnemooseus 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