Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Expelled? Go to the movies!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by laughsoutloud View Post
    Of course, we see evolution all the time - just because you don't believe in it, doesn't mean it is not real.

    Yes, please show us. Maybe something from the fossil record? That would be great!
    http://prolifeprofiles.com/

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Shimei View Post
      Yes, please show us. Maybe something from the fossil record? That would be great!
      Here you go - evolution in action.

      And from the fossil record, A Firm Step From Water to Land.

      Sorry for the long quote, but it is worth reading, as is the entire article
      It has long been clear that limbed vertebrates (tetrapods) evolved from osteolepiform lobefinned fishes3, but until recently the morphological gap between the two groups remained frustratingly wide. The gap was bounded at the top by primitive Devonian tetrapods such as Ichthyostega and Acanthostega from Greenland, and at the bottom by Panderichthys, a tetrapod-like predatory fish from the latest Middle Devonian of Latvia (Fig. 1). Ichthyostega4 and Acanthostega5 retain true fish tails with fin rays but are nevertheless unambiguous tetrapods with limbs that bear digits6.

      Panderichthys7 is vaguely crocodile-shaped and, unlike the rather conventional osteolepiform fishes farther down the tree, looks like a fish–tetrapod transitional form. The shape of the pectoral fin skeleton and shoulder girdle are intermediate between those of osteolepiforms and tetrapods, suggesting that Panderichthys was beginning to ‘walk’, but perhaps in shallow water rather than on land8. Panderichthys lived about 385 million years ago at the end of the Middle Devonian; Ichthyostega and Acanthostega lived about 365 million years ago during the Late Devonian. However, the earliest fragmentary tetrapods from Scotland9,10 and Latvia9 date back to perhaps 376 million years ago, so the morphological gap between fish and tetrapod corresponds to a time gap of under 10 million years.

      Into this gap drops Tiktaalik. The fossils are earliest Late Devonian in age, making them at most 2 million or 3 million years younger than Panderichthys. With its crocodile-shaped skull, and paired fins with fin rays but strong internal limb skeletons, Tiktaalik also resembles Panderichthys quite closely. The closest match, however, is not to Panderichthys but to another animal, Elpistostege, from the early Late Devonian of Canada. Elpistostege is known only from two partial skulls and a length backbone, but it has long been recognized as fish– tetrapod intermediate11,12, probably closer to tetrapods than is Panderichthys. This impression is now confirmed: the authors1,2 demonstrate convincingly that Elpistostege and Tiktaalik fall between Panderichthys and the earliest tetrapods on the phylogenetic tree.
      When a person needs to motivate folks to believe things that are not true (in the religious, political or economic realm), you'll find them attacking science.

      Comment


      • #93
        And one more example of evolution in action - pretty cool:

        Still Just a lizard

        Now here's something really cool, though: these lizards have evolved cecal valves. What those are are muscular ridges in the gut that allow the animal to close off sections of the tube to slow the progress of food through them, and to act as fermentation chambers where plant material can be broken down by commensal organisms like bacteria and nematodes — and the guts of Pod Mrcaru P. sicula are swarming with nematodes not found in the guts of their Pod Kopiste cousins.
        When a person needs to motivate folks to believe things that are not true (in the religious, political or economic realm), you'll find them attacking science.

        Comment


        • #94
          And here is a whole book on speciation...
          When a person needs to motivate folks to believe things that are not true (in the religious, political or economic realm), you'll find them attacking science.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by laughsoutloud View Post
            And here is a whole book on speciation...
            Did you say, "speculation?"
            sigpic

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
              Did you say, "speculation?"
              You are pretty clever. Can you respond to the arguments themselves?

              Evolution is an every day activity. It is pretty powerful, even according to creationists, if evolution generated the diversity we see around us from a few thousand "kinds" on the ark! Think about it - from 2500 bc to the time writers began cataloging the world around us (say 1,000 years?) all the diversity we see - in fact,this is a speed and power of evolution that far exceeds anything the mainstream scientific community believes it is capable of. Of course, there is no actual evidence that anything of the sort happened - but it is odd that on the one hand, creationists believe evolution is so much more powerful that the science supports - and yet won't admit that evolution actually acciomplished the much more modest tasks attributed to it by science.

              And in the links I gave you, creation of novel features, fossil evidence of multiple transitional fossils - no response except an attempt at humor?
              When a person needs to motivate folks to believe things that are not true (in the religious, political or economic realm), you'll find them attacking science.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by laughsoutloud View Post
                You are pretty clever. Can you respond to the arguments themselves?

                Evolution is an every day activity. It is pretty powerful, even according to creationists, if evolution generated the diversity we see around us from a few thousand "kinds" on the ark! Think about it - from 2500 bc to the time writers began cataloging the world around us (say 1,000 years?) all the diversity we see - in fact,this is a speed and power of evolution that far exceeds anything the mainstream scientific community believes it is capable of. Of course, there is no actual evidence that anything of the sort happened - but it is odd that on the one hand, creationists believe evolution is so much more powerful that the science supports - and yet won't admit that evolution actually acciomplished the much more modest tasks attributed to it by science.

                And in the links I gave you, creation of novel features, fossil evidence of multiple transitional fossils - no response except an attempt at humor?
                FYI, I believe in adaptation. All created, living things, were designed to adapt to their environments.
                sigpic

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
                  FYI, I believe in adaptation. All created, living things, were designed to adapt to their environments.
                  So that would be no, you won't respond to the arguments. Evolution has been demonstrated (both what you call micro and macro) in the lab and in the fossil record (multiple transitionals in tetrapod evolution, for example). The adaptations driven by evolution are robust, but no where robust enough to support the kind of speciation and diversity creationists claim occurred after the Flood. So snearing dismissal of what scientists demonstrate evolution does all the time, and credulous pretending that evolution accomplished things after the Flood that simply could not have happened.

                  Willful ignorance, masked as piety, is still ignorance - and it is also dangerous, because in order to succeed, you have to paint the search for truth as a bad thing, and the people who search for truth as liars and deceivers.
                  When a person needs to motivate folks to believe things that are not true (in the religious, political or economic realm), you'll find them attacking science.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by laughsoutloud View Post
                    Willful ignorance, masked as piety, is still ignorance - and it is also dangerous, because in order to succeed, you have to paint the search for truth as a bad thing, and the people who search for truth as liars and deceivers.
                    Oh the irony.
                    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Knight View Post
                      Oh the irony.
                      Kinight, I have seen NO evidence for the flood, special creation or a 6,000 year old earth. None.

                      I have seen a lot of apologetics, explaining how a certain subset of the data could be made to fit certain interpretations of the Bible.

                      I have seen lots of criticisms of science (but criticisms of science do not establish the YEC perspective - only a coherent theory that fits the evidence could do that).

                      I see lots of people pretending that science speaks with a unified voice, and has to defend a dogmatic position. It just does not work that way.

                      In the last few hundred years, we've gone from thinking that maggots spontaneously generate from rotting meat to studying the elementary particles of the universe. Along the way, we've come up with lots of ideas to explain what we see. Some of those we call laws (they are really just explanations of how things work that no-one doubts), some we call theories (pretty much universal acceptance, but still subject to revision as we learn more), some are hypothesis (explanations for observations that have not yet gained widespread acceptance).

                      Everything we know in science is stuff we thought up - because books like the Bible ended up not being very helpful when it came to the sciences. This is a fairly new thought - only some hundreds of years old. But one thing we can be sure of, so far, things in the natural world that can be measured or studied have had natural causes (so for example, no storehouses of snow, in spite of what it says in Job).

                      Does that mean that the world cannot be 6,000 years old? That all species couldn't have been created, pretty much as they are a few days later? That there was no global flood some 3,500 years ago?

                      Yes, pretty much. We can never go back there, unless we want to ignore the clear evidence of the natural world. This is what creationism boils down to - a return to ignorance in the name of piety. I am not going there, and I hope you don't go there either.
                      Last edited by laughsoutloud; May 2nd, 2008, 05:37 PM. Reason: spelling, corrected creationist date for Flood
                      When a person needs to motivate folks to believe things that are not true (in the religious, political or economic realm), you'll find them attacking science.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by laughsoutloud View Post
                        sigpic

                        Comment


                        • I can see why so many are swayed by the sound scientific and logical argument made by creationism.

                          This is sarcasm.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Pekkle View Post
                            I can see why so many are swayed by the sound scientific and logical argument made by evolution.

                            This is sarcasm.
                            There. I fixed it for you.
                            sigpic

                            Comment


                            • Expelled the movie? You gotta be kidding me. If that is not a piece of creationist propaganda, Michael Moore's the second coming.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by joeyknuccione View Post
                                Expelled the movie? You gotta be kidding me. If that is not a piece of creationist propaganda, Michael Moore's the second coming.
                                If the evolutionists can use the public school system as their propaganda machine, Ben Stein can use a movie screen.

                                And if Michael Moore's the second coming, Messiah has really let Himself go.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X