The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread!

[ybbor]

that would be my good firend Carlos

No, it just means that our idea of how various factors, e.g. nostril position, cranial fenstra shape etc. are interconnected, are far too simple (i.e. we assume far less direct dependency than there is). Prof. Witzel, who does that rsearch, has so far failed to produce even a SINGLE skull type that doesn't exist in reality!

 

[carlosMM]

@ybbor and tR1icKy:

ybbor, you misunderstood. A skull cannot change in one are of the bone without affecting other areas - but the shape is not genetically determined! Remember that bone is a mixture of living and dead tissue. If you change some build plan for one area, others will follow suit, simply because longer or faster groth in one place will affect them directly during embryogenesis.


All it really tells us is that skull markers have little taxonomic value compared to what is usually ascribed to them, as they are by far not as independent of each other as was thought.

 

[The Last Conformist]

For your amusement, I ran across a creationist yesterday who held that dinosaurs constitute one created kind, but humans and chimps two. I assume non-avian dinosaurs were meant (think of Noah's birds).

 

[Nobody]

He god just placed humans and animals on earth, why didn't he put any mammals or snakes on new zealand? because mammals evolved and by the time they did new zealand had moved away from all the other contients.

 

[Stile]

Where did the bible say that? Let's not stop there, let's say the lord intervenes at every single gap between tranistional fossils, and if evolutionists find a new one, then it was merely a work of god in between! I have no way to prove it wrong, but the idea is completly untestable and therefore not science.

I guess you couldn't make it past chapter 1. It's Genesis 3:14.

14The LORD God said to the serpent,
"(M)Because you have done this,
Cursed are you more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you will go,
And (N)dust you will eat
All the days of your life;

Actually, I just added that part to get your dander up in my original post. Speaking of dander...

I gave mammalian hair as an example, how does that not work?

For starters, 'all mammals have hair' is a truism like saying 'all sentences have verbs'. The real reason hair doesn't work is because it can appear independently just like other structures. I don't have many examples, but certain reptiles grew fur such as some Pterosaurs. Even if you conclude that was physically different should the fur have been merely specialized scales (inconclusive IMO), you can't argue that identical specialized hairs developed independently. An example would be spines on say echidnas and porcupines. My point is merely that if a clear line of structures is evidence of evolution and a disperse appearence of structures is evidence of evolution, then neither is evidence.

To tell you the truth I doubt I belong in this thread. I in no way want to suggest the Bible has a scientific version of how life came to be. The purpose of the Bible isn't to tell us how we came to be, but who we are and how we are to live (all that belongs in another thread). The genesis story, wrapped in an allegory, is sufficiently vague to never be proved or disproven. I don't know how science became at odds with religion. I suspect atheists used the TOE to propogate their faithlessness (or atleast creationists feared as much), so creationists tried to jump at proving intelligent design. Scientists, not wishing to be used, banned nearly all questions of the TOE in journals and in effect carved the TOE in stone. The result has been monthly sarcastic, disingenuous articles in mags like Scientific American, mainstream scientific magazines (Nature) suggesting absurdities like male nipples are vestigial as evidence, and, in general, weak arguments like those in your first post in this thread being offered as KOing Creationism. (Disclaimer: you may have said something poignant later on that I didn't read. I missed atleast a dozen pages.)

The real reason evolutionists use hyperbolic adjectives to describe the theory isn't because it explains so much or because it is so complex. It's because when the theory is compared to the real world it begs credulity. Take mammals for instance. 200 million years is a long time from the first mammal to today's diversity, but not when you consider what needed to be done or that the same diversity (actually more) existed over 45 mya. The first mammal is believed to be a 1 inch mole like creature. From this solitary creature descended horses, bears, whales (which went from the ocean to land as a reptile to a 1 inch mammal then to an 82 foot behemoth from whence it came 40mya), primates (65mya), bats, etc. The chromosome differences range from the teens to over 70. It's not that it is incomplete, it's that it is incapable. This only thing it offers is a dismal world view of utter meaninglessness. Care to give a useful reason for studying evolution? Evolutionists (not necessarily you) are fond of saying not teaching evolution in schools will result in the dumbing down of students. I see no jobs or practical applications, outside of evolution research, that require understanding it.

 

[SolarKnight]

How about microbiology? and studying viruses, the flu virus evolves all the time for example

 

[CurtSibling]

For your amusement, I ran across a creationist yesterday who held that dinosaurs constitute one created kind, but humans and chimps two. I assume non-avian dinosaurs were meant (think of Noah's birds).

And I'll bet he didn't offer any proof beyond a holy book, written by humans!

 

[tR1cKy]

@Carlos: thx

Evolutionists (not necessarily you) are fond of saying not teaching evolution in schools will result in the dumbing down of students. I see no jobs or practical applications, outside of evolution research, that require understanding it.

Uh! This is the 1st time i hear someone saying that the Theory of Evolution is useless. Well, knowning how viruses and bacteria evolve is indeed a useful thing, supposing we want to actually find a cure for the plagues they spread... But even if that theory would be useless, knowledge is always better than ignorance... or not?

Oh, wait... weren't you the one who reported about a dinosaur that was still alive 140 years ago?

 

[Perfection]

I guess you couldn't make it past chapter 1. It's Genesis 3:14.

It's been awhile since I've read it, yeah I forgot. Anywho, why eactly would that be a punishment? Snakes work excellently without legs.

Actually, I just added that part to get your dander up in my original post. Speaking of dander...

For starters, 'all mammals have hair' is a truism like saying 'all sentences have verbs'. The real reason hair doesn't work is because it can appear independently just like other structures. I don't have many examples, but certain reptiles grew fur such as some Pterosaurs. Even if you conclude that was physically different should the fur have been merely specialized scales (inconclusive IMO),

I've seen no eviedence that indicates pterosaur hair is the same as mammalian

you can't argue that identical specialized hairs developed independently. An example would be spines on say echidnas and porcupines.

How do you know the devloped independantly? They are, after all, on mammals

My point is merely that if a clear line of structures is evidence of evolution and a disperse appearence of structures is evidence of evolution, then neither is evidence.

I don't argue the diverse appearence of the same structure only that of functional and shape-similar structures.

Well, off to school!

 

[Perfection]

To tell you the truth I doubt I belong in this thread. I in no way want to suggest the Bible has a scientific version of how life came to be.

You contend that evolution is not scientific, that is one of the two points I'm arguing in this thread, so you do belong here. I'm curious what do you believe? And do you believe your view is scientific?

The purpose of the Bible isn't to tell us how we came to be, but who we are and how we are to live (all that belongs in another thread). The genesis story, wrapped in an allegory, is sufficiently vague to never be proved or disproven. I don't know how science became at odds with religion. I suspect atheists used the TOE to propogate their faithlessness (or atleast creationists feared as much), so creationists tried to jump at proving intelligent design.

That's true there is an element of reactionary response when evolution was used in the arguement for materialism. However, I don't think you can offhandedly judge it as the source of bias which keep evolution in line, after all there are plenty of Christian evolutionists.

Scientists, not wishing to be used, banned nearly all questions of the TOE in journals and in effect carved the TOE in stone.

Pfft! Do you know how intensely evolution has been debated by the scientific community? The advent of Darwinism resulted in a very hot debate among scientists, and even though his main ideas are now accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community his subtler points are still contested.

The result has been monthly sarcastic, disingenuous articles in mags like Scientific American, mainstream scientific magazines (Nature) suggesting absurdities like male nipples are vestigial as evidence,

Where was it that male nipples were offered as vestigial structures? And what makes it disinegenuous? Assuming that the most basic principles in biology are true (and yes evolution does qualify)? Science mags don't need to reprove every theory mentioned in its pages, so why should you expect it to?

and, in general, weak arguments like those in your first post in this thread being offered as KOing Creationism. (Disclaimer: you may have said something poignant later on that I didn't read. I missed atleast a dozen pages.)

Actually, I don't say that my little post KOs creationism, because it's in no way a complete arguement, what they are springboards to provide a basic summery of evidence. Don't call that a complete arguement. And, I've yet to see the evidence that anything outside of the mammalian lineage has fur in the same structure as mammals, or address my paleogeography arguement.

The real reason evolutionists use hyperbolic adjectives to describe the theory isn't because it explains so much or because it is so complex. It's because when the theory is compared to the real world it begs credulity.

Not this evolutionist

Take mammals for instance. 200 million years is a long time from the first mammal to today's diversity, but not when you consider what needed to be done or that the same diversity (actually more) existed over 45 mya. The first mammal is believed to be a 1 inch mole like creature. From this solitary creature descended horses, bears, whales (which went from the ocean to land as a reptile to a 1 inch mammal then to an 82 foot behemoth from whence it came 40mya), primates (65mya), bats, etc.

Yeah, it accounts for a lot what makes it wrong?

The chromosome differences range from the teens to over 70. It's not that it is incomplete, it's that it is incapable.

Not really, A mutant rat has been discovered with twice it's normal genetic complement, it has 102 instead of 51 chromosomes, and similar effects are seen occasionally in other animals and all the time in plants, your arguement hholds no water!

This only thing it offers is a dismal world view of utter meaninglessness.

Sheesh, and you claim evolutionists are biased! I have no problem finding meaning in life.

Care to give a useful reason for studying evolution?

Well, it is, extensively used in biological and medical research as a tool for understanding how things works, and has lead to revolutions in fields such as genetics. This isn't why we study it though we do it because we find it fascinating!

Evolutionists (not necessarily you) are fond of saying not teaching evolution in schools will result in the dumbing down of students. I see no jobs or practical applications, outside of evolution research, that require understanding it.

Well, some jobs (the biological and medical fields) do require it, but the main point is to expose kids to science and if we're going to teach biology we're going to have to present this central unifying theme that biology holds so dear.

 

[ybbor]

@ybbor and tR1icKy:

ybbor, you misunderstood. A skull cannot change in one are of the bone without affecting other areas - but the shape is not genetically determined! Remember that bone is a mixture of living and dead tissue. If you change some build plan for one area, others will follow suit, simply because longer or faster groth in one place will affect them directly during embryogenesis.


All it really tells us is that skull markers have little taxonomic value compared to what is usually ascribed to them, as they are by far not as independent of each other as was thought.

wait, i have to admit that i'm not the most informed about how genetics would affect that sort of thing, but may i ask why then all humans, no matter the climate create the same skull shape? is it just generally determined and then various other forces influence changes from the genetic 'template'?

 

[Perfection]

wait, i have to admit that i'm not the most informed about how genetics would affect that sort of thing, but may i ask why then all humans, no matter the climate create the same skull shape? is it just generally determined and then various other forces influence changes from the genetic 'template'?

Well the basic idea is the fact that they are connected developmentally means that when one changes the rest change as well, and we end up needing a lot less mutations then one may expect.

 

[Stile]

Where was it that male nipples were offered as vestigial structures? And what makes it disinegenuous? Assuming that the most basic principles in biology are true (and yes evolution does qualify)? Science mags don't need to reprove every theory mentioned in its pages, so why should you expect it to?

My apologies to Nature for implying it was them. It was actually in the Nov. 2004 issue of National Geographic. Here is the teaser. I thought placing on the cover of the magazine "Was Darwin Wrong?", then on the page of the article placing in huge full page letters "NO" was disingenuous because it implied there was going to some sort of point - counterpoint. They don't have to reprove every theory, but as I said this was an article on the evidence for the theory. The evidence similar to yours left room for much doubt, IMO, but that didn't stop the author from insulting anyone who might disagree. Below is the vestigial excerpt:

Vestigial characteristics are still another form of morphological evidence, illuminating to contemplate because they show that the living world is full of small, tolerable imperfections. Why do male mammals (including human males) have nipples? Why do some snakes (notably boa constrictors) carry the rudiments of a pelvis and tiny legs buried inside their sleek profiles?

 

[Perfection]

Yeah, National Geographic can't always be trusted with its science (most popular magazines (even ones with a scientific focus) should be read with a bit more skepticism because they're often reporters reporting on a advance not the actual scientists), while the boa constrictor limb buds are great evidence for vestigial structures, the male nipple isn't considered evidence in the same respect because it's really just a dimminished female sexual trait.

But the "no" certainly was correct

 

[The Last Conformist]

Not really, A mutant rat has been discovered with twice it's normal genetic complement, it has 102 instead of 51 chromosomes, and similar effects are seen occasionally in other animals and all the time in plants, your arguement hholds no water!

It might be mentioned that the human chromosome 2 looks for all the world like a merger of two chimp chromosomes.

 

[carlosMM]

For starters, 'all mammals have hair' is a truism like saying 'all sentences have verbs'. The real reason hair doesn't work is because it can appear independently just like other structures. I don't have many examples, but certain reptiles grew fur such as some Pterosaurs.

oops, stile messed up - pterosairs had SUPERFICIALLY hairLIKE structures. See where creationists get their arguments: by MISUNDERSTANDING things

Even if you conclude that was physically different should the fur have been merely specialized scales (inconclusive IMO), you can't argue that identical specialized hairs developed independently.

uh, first, there is massive conclusive evidence, e.g. from embryology, that feathers are scales, while hair is a very different specialisation of the skin.
second, identicalLOOKING specialized hair can evolve independently - you're just ignoring FUNCTION and ADAPTIVE PRESSURE again. It is a bit tiring to argue with someone who just ignores what I say

An example would be spines on say echidnas and porcupines. My point is merely that if a clear line of structures is evidence of evolution and a disperse appearence of structures is evidence of evolution, then neither is evidence.

Yes, ignore all otehr circumstances and then draw conclusions

If a judge treated you that way you'd scream bloddy murder!

 

[carlosMM]

wait, i have to admit that i'm not the most informed about how genetics would affect that sort of thing, but may i ask why then all humans, no matter the climate create the same skull shape? is it just generally determined and then various other forces influence changes from the genetic 'template'?

basically: if you want to have certain features (i.e. natural forces, including mating preferences select for them), you also get others.

the MOST IMPORTANT force here is muscle forces for food processing. Add to that that the eyes must point forward, that the ears are places laterally (so you can hear stuff 360°) and a certain minimum size for the skull - and behold, you get Great Ape skulls.

Now deselect those with big brow ridges and a 'snout' - and there's e.g. your bony nose, there's the relatively high cheekbones OR a very vertical profile etc.
There are, basically, mechanical constraints on what's a good construction and what isn't. You see no difference - I am somewhat surprised how different humans look all over the world, simply based on the bony skull!

 

[Stile]

oops, stile messed up - pterosairs had SUPERFICIALLY hairLIKE structures. See where creationists get their arguments: by MISUNDERSTANDING things

uh, first, there is massive conclusive evidence, e.g. from embryology, that feathers are scales, while hair is a very different specialisation of the skin.
second, identicalLOOKING specialized hair can evolve independently - you're just ignoring FUNCTION and ADAPTIVE PRESSURE again. It is a bit tiring to argue with someone who just ignores what I say

Yes, ignore all otehr circumstances and then draw conclusions

If a judge treated you that way you'd scream bloddy murder!

Ouch! Please don't veil your contempt. I understand that the fur on pterosaurs is subject of ungoing dispute which I stated in my post. I know pterosaurs are assumed to be reptiles, but that powered flight and fur imply homeothermy, which would make them very unique among reptiles. Reptilian skin is made of keratin, which also makes mammalian hair. There's no way to detect hair follicles so anything else is just conjecture.

I'm not ignoring function and adaptive pressure. Why are you so certain hair could only evolve once, but that specialized hairs like spines could evolve independently. You're the one not making sense. Hair might be a decent example of homologous structures, but my point is homologous structures are not good evidence since if there were non-mammalian hair it would fall under your 'evolved independently' group. Thus it's impossible to test, because it's always capable of being explained away.

My contention since my first post is that most evidence for evolution is poor, and the attitude exhibited by many evolutionists like yourself has placed the ToE as unquestionable dogma, just like the religious type you profess to detest.

 

[carlosMM]

Ouch! Please don't veil your contempt. I understand that the fur on pterosaurs is subject of ungoing dispute which I stated in my post.

good thing you can take this in the spirit it was posted in - I hate having to add a to everything that's supposed to be read with a chuckle...

I know pterosaurs are assumed to be reptiles, but that powered flight and fur imply homeothermy, which would make them very unique among reptiles. Reptilian skin is made of keratin, which also makes mammalian hair. There's no way to detect hair follicles so anything else is just conjecture.

Well, not quite.

Pterosaurs are archosaurs (forget the label 'reptile' - it is useless for this discussion if you use it for a monophyletic group, as you have to push it awefully far back, and it is useless as a polyphyletic label by definition). There are today two living groups of archosaurs, brids and crocodiles.
Interestingly, it is quite probable that the last common ancestor of birds (and thus dinosaurs), crocs and pterosaurs was 'warm-blooded' (not in a mammalian sense though, and not quite like in recent birds). If you want the evidence I'll be glad to post it. Thus pterosaurs are NOT very unique among archosaurs.

Reptilian skin is rather plesiomorphic, and mammalian skin is kinda like a derivate of it.
Feathers are clearly developments from reptilian skin, which is also true for pterosaur 'hair'. Mammalian hair is a seperate, 'new' development. Both feathers (and pterosaur 'hair', which is homologus in origin, analogus in structure) and mammalian hair had the same basic function: insulation. This is a nice case of parallel development by evolution.

Contour feathers and flight feathers are highly complex structures, but based on the very same organs and basic developmental path as downs and even the very simple hair-like (but hollow) first dinosaur 'hairs'. This is a case where different evolutionary pressures (in this case on different parts of one animal) have led to different development of identical (and thus related) sturctures.

I'm not ignoring function and adaptive pressure. Why are you so certain hair could only evolve once, but that specialized hairs like spines could evolve independently.

no, you misundertstood: hair could develop several times independently. A lot of surface structures develop again and again.
It is just VERY improbable that a highly complex structure develops several times with exactly the same Bauplan (sontruction plan).
[qote] You're the one not making sense. Hair might be a decent example of homologous structures, but my point is homologous structures are not good evidence since if there were non-mammalian hair it would fall under your 'evolved independently' group. [/quote]uh, so you admit here that you are changing the paramenters within the test?

EITHER we compare within one taxon, and address the Q os 'same or parallel', OR we do that within a higher taxon. but NOT compare within one, then demand the same answer to be true within a larger group!

You are doing something that's akin to comapring skin color in humans, finding it never to be green - then suddenly comparing to chameleons! Certainly your finding is now untrue - but only because you changed the test!

Thus it's impossible to test, because it's always capable of being explained away.

No, different tests can include different mechanisms - so you EXPECT answers to differ.

My contention since my first post is that most evidence for evolution is poor, and the attitude exhibited by many evolutionists like yourself has placed the ToE as unquestionable dogma, just like the religious type you profess to detest.

Well, you're wrong, and that has to do with your methology: you try to apply parts of the ToE to things these parts do not attempt to explain, or you try to reduce several possible methods to one, then demand this is universal - obviously, no theory ever can stand THAT test.

Imagine I demand that the Theory of Gravity suddenly ALSO explain electrcity - nocando!

 

[tR1cKy]

wait, i have to admit that i'm not the most informed about how genetics would affect that sort of thing, but may i ask why then all humans, no matter the climate create the same skull shape? is it just generally determined and then various other forces influence changes from the genetic 'template'?

ybbor, the answer is simple: time. The human race has existed for too few time to differentiate between climates. Probably a few million years would have done the job.