Did we re-evolve after the comet that killed all the dinosaurs?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
One Eyed Jack
New member
griffinsavard said:
Emanresu56 said:
One Eyed Jack said:
Then I ask you again -- how is looking at bird DNA going to tell you that they evolved from dinosaurs?
One Eyed Jack
New member
Thanks.
from the article said:
For some reason, I just don't find that very convincing.
I'll try to find more about it, if you're interested.
One Eyed Jack
New member
For the T-Rex, yes.
One Eyed Jack
New member
Sure -- go for it.
One Eyed Jack
New member
At least you're being intellectually honest.
griffinsavard
New member
I always try to be.
I will be back soon to reply to what you said. Kids and school and swimming stuff going on right now. :box:
One Eyed Jack
New member
Thanks, but it looks like they're all saying pretty much the same thing as the article that was posted earlier.
Pretty much, but there may be some minor details missing from other articles.
Alrighty then.
One Eyed Jack
New member
Of the four, I found the first to be the most informative. Of course, I can understand why they wouldn't want to go into much detail with the others.
griffinsavard
New member
evolution deceptions
evolution deceptions
First, complexity does come through design. If you walked into a car dealer and said wow, what a complex piece of machinery and then said I bet the car just evolved you would be looked at like an idiot. You are trying to say the same thing about evolution. The world is filled with design. Everything from the foods we eat to the sexual side of life. If you are going to tell me that chance mutations produced the complex bodily organs for reproduction I will have to call you an idiot.
Second, the Creator did come to this earth. But seeing we don't like our little deceptive theories to be unmasked we crucified him.
Third, God communicates to us through complexity and simplicity. God uses many ways to communicate to us so your argument is not sufficient.
Too bad the science textbooks dont make the distinction between theory and fact. Anyways to say that an asteroid hit the earth is no great discovery. To say that it killed the dinosaurs and from this event dinosaurs became birds is not testable.
Its called free agency
Maybe the truth?
You started with mutations which is micro-evolution and then went into cross species which is macro-evolution. At least that is the way I understood it. Its best to define what evolution you are talking about when your not brainwashing the school children with it. A few of us on here do not fall for ambiguity in words.
"Darwin made a mistake sufficiently serious to undermine his theory. And that mistake has only recently been recognized as such . . One organism may indeed be `fitter' than another . . This, of course, is not something which helps create the organism, . . It is clear, I think that there was something very, very wrong with such an idea." "As I see it the conclusion is pretty staggering: Darwin's theory, I believe, is on the verge of collapse." *Tom Bethell, "Darwin's Mistake," Harper, February 1976, pp. 72, 75.
"Evolution cannot be described as a process of adaptation because all organisms are already adapted. . Adaptation leads to natural selection, natural selection does not necessarily lead to greater adaptation." *Richard Lewontin, "Adaptation," in Scientific American, September, 1978.
"Natural selection operates essentially to enable the organisms to maintain their state of adaptation rather than to improve it." "Natural selection over the long run does not seem to improve a species' chances of survival, but simply enables it to 'track,' or keep up with, the constantly changing environment." *Ibid.
"The Darwin-Wallace theory of natural selection assumed 'useful' variations would become established in a population, while all others would be eliminated. But some naturalists insisted that many traits in plants and animals had no demonstrable positive or negative advantagethey were non-adaptive or 'neutral.' . ."The 20th-century synthesis of Darwinism with Mendelian genetics renewed interest in the possibility of neutral traits, especially among population geneticists. By 1932, geneticist J.B.S. Haldane had concluded 'that innumerable characters [of animals and plants] show no sign of possessing selective value, and moreover, these are exactly the characters that enable a taxonomist to distinguish one species from another [appearance factors]. " *R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), pp. 325-326.
Well I highly doubt it but to make it in a lab requires? Did I hear you say intelligence?
I will rebound the question. But this being theory than to predict that the mutations were around the same they are now would be reasonable. Again for mass mutations wouldn't you need a lot of transitional fossils? Wouldn't these fossils show 'big' change? The evidence suggest about the same amount of mutations have occured.
Here we go the Messiah of evolution: Time
What is amazing is that you think all these amazing creatures came from nothing. Now, that is amazinggggggggggg.
We have gathered bones from everywhere in the earth. Our collection of them is extensive. Are there the many transitional fossils needed? NO
You need transitional fossils because of the mutations, I thought you said you studied this? :banned:
Because you call it science and put it in the school books. Just because you evolutionists want to jump like monkeys from one branch to the other in micro and macro evolution doesn't mean that you can dismiss the origins of your theory. From the very definitions of mutations and natural randomness you gave me above you need transitional fossils. You are talking about cross-species. If you say that dinosaurs became birds and then you say why do you expect transitional fossils. You fall into the same trap that the leap of faith Christians fall into...:down:
I don't even know what you mean by that statement. :shut:
evolution deceptions
First, complexity does come through design. If you walked into a car dealer and said wow, what a complex piece of machinery and then said I bet the car just evolved you would be looked at like an idiot. You are trying to say the same thing about evolution. The world is filled with design. Everything from the foods we eat to the sexual side of life. If you are going to tell me that chance mutations produced the complex bodily organs for reproduction I will have to call you an idiot.
Second, the Creator did come to this earth. But seeing we don't like our little deceptive theories to be unmasked we crucified him.
Third, God communicates to us through complexity and simplicity. God uses many ways to communicate to us so your argument is not sufficient.
Too bad the science textbooks dont make the distinction between theory and fact. Anyways to say that an asteroid hit the earth is no great discovery. To say that it killed the dinosaurs and from this event dinosaurs became birds is not testable.
Its called free agency
Maybe the truth?
You started with mutations which is micro-evolution and then went into cross species which is macro-evolution. At least that is the way I understood it. Its best to define what evolution you are talking about when your not brainwashing the school children with it. A few of us on here do not fall for ambiguity in words.
"Darwin made a mistake sufficiently serious to undermine his theory. And that mistake has only recently been recognized as such . . One organism may indeed be `fitter' than another . . This, of course, is not something which helps create the organism, . . It is clear, I think that there was something very, very wrong with such an idea." "As I see it the conclusion is pretty staggering: Darwin's theory, I believe, is on the verge of collapse." *Tom Bethell, "Darwin's Mistake," Harper, February 1976, pp. 72, 75.
"Evolution cannot be described as a process of adaptation because all organisms are already adapted. . Adaptation leads to natural selection, natural selection does not necessarily lead to greater adaptation." *Richard Lewontin, "Adaptation," in Scientific American, September, 1978.
"Natural selection operates essentially to enable the organisms to maintain their state of adaptation rather than to improve it." "Natural selection over the long run does not seem to improve a species' chances of survival, but simply enables it to 'track,' or keep up with, the constantly changing environment." *Ibid.
"The Darwin-Wallace theory of natural selection assumed 'useful' variations would become established in a population, while all others would be eliminated. But some naturalists insisted that many traits in plants and animals had no demonstrable positive or negative advantagethey were non-adaptive or 'neutral.' . ."The 20th-century synthesis of Darwinism with Mendelian genetics renewed interest in the possibility of neutral traits, especially among population geneticists. By 1932, geneticist J.B.S. Haldane had concluded 'that innumerable characters [of animals and plants] show no sign of possessing selective value, and moreover, these are exactly the characters that enable a taxonomist to distinguish one species from another [appearance factors]. " *R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), pp. 325-326.
Well I highly doubt it but to make it in a lab requires? Did I hear you say intelligence?
I will rebound the question. But this being theory than to predict that the mutations were around the same they are now would be reasonable. Again for mass mutations wouldn't you need a lot of transitional fossils? Wouldn't these fossils show 'big' change? The evidence suggest about the same amount of mutations have occured.
Here we go the Messiah of evolution: Time
What is amazing is that you think all these amazing creatures came from nothing. Now, that is amazinggggggggggg.
We have gathered bones from everywhere in the earth. Our collection of them is extensive. Are there the many transitional fossils needed? NO
You need transitional fossils because of the mutations, I thought you said you studied this? :banned:
Because you call it science and put it in the school books. Just because you evolutionists want to jump like monkeys from one branch to the other in micro and macro evolution doesn't mean that you can dismiss the origins of your theory. From the very definitions of mutations and natural randomness you gave me above you need transitional fossils. You are talking about cross-species. If you say that dinosaurs became birds and then you say why do you expect transitional fossils. You fall into the same trap that the leap of faith Christians fall into...:down:
I don't even know what you mean by that statement. :shut:
griffinsavard
New member
Another one of your theories without sufficient evidence to prove it. :bang:
The natural world is not filled with design, but the artificial world is. For one, the natural world is composed mostly of organic, self-replicating molecules. The accumulation of organic, self-replicating molecules are what we call "organisms" and these organisms are subject to natural selection. If, for instance, you said "this plant is artificial!", someone would look at you like you're crazy. Clearly, the plant is organic. Thus, there must have been some natural cause for the rise of things organic.
How do you know God uses many ways to communicate?
They certainly do make the distinction. My science textbook does.
Agency is relative to capability.
The truth does not arise out of conflict, it arises from awareness.
I am not "brainwashing the school children with it". Evolution is not, as Creationists would like to believe, the center of education.
That was in 1976. I wonder why Darwin's theory has not collapsed, and scientists like Richard Dawkins are still supporting it?
Did I say it was a process of adaptation?
So? This is stating a fact about natural selection.
No problem for evolution if natural selection cannot be described as a process of adaptation, as you already stated.
First, you ask for an experiment. Then, you say it requires intelligence. Am I hearing this right?
No, you would not need a lot of transitional fossils. There is no connection between the number of mutations and the amount of fossils.
No, I think creatures came from already-existent self-replicating organic molecules. :angel:
I did study this. And nowhere does it say you need transitional fossils because of mutations.
I ask "why do you expect the fossil record to be complete?"
Every time I mention the limitations on the devastation an asteroid might have you promote the story that an asteroid might wipe out all the dinosaurs.
Every time I point out how if all the dinosaurs were wiped out it would require an event that would wipe out everything else as well you promote the story that an asteroid would not wipe out everything.
You don't think it is a problem to have multiple theories in order to explain the disappearance of the dinosaurs so how about you just put forth your ideas. They should agree with my statements that an asteroid cannot be solely responsible for wiping out the dinosaurs.