sickmusic Posted October 21, 2005 Posted October 21, 2005 fiction.. fossil records?? From my limited understanding of the earths history Dinosaurs existed before man? Then how comes there have been over 30 T-rex fossil discoveries, but not one 'reliable' species that suggests man and ape share the same ancestors? surely they would be higher up in the earths crust?
john5746 Posted October 21, 2005 Posted October 21, 2005 fiction.. fossil records?? From my limited understanding of the earths history Dinosaurs existed before man? Then how comes there have been over 30 T-rex fossil discoveries' date=' but not one 'reliable' species that suggests man and ape share the same ancestors? surely they would be higher up in the earths crust?[/quote'] Your definition of 'reliable' is the problem. Modern chimps are good enough for me, but they have found many ancestors that make the suggestion. DNA evidence helps also.
bascule Posted October 21, 2005 Posted October 21, 2005 Then how comes there have been over 30 T-rex fossil discoveries, but not one 'reliable' species that suggests man and ape share the same ancestors? First, this is completely irrelevant. We don't need fossils to demonstrate the common ancestry of man and apes, because we have an immaculately preserved history in the form of our genes. You'll want to take a look at this thread for a detailed analysis of human common ancestry as evidenced by genetic similarities: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=9484 Secondly, there are a large number of fossils which allow us to trace the evolution of man. I suggest you pick up Richard Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale if you'd like to read a detailed account of these. They are too numerous for me to look up and list here (although I'm sure upon request, someone will if you continue to question their existence) They show an overall trend of an increase in brain size, starting at the size of our common ancestor with chimps and gradually growing to its present size (or larger, in the case of Neanderthals) We also see changes in the shape of skulls that show a gradual transition from an ape-like to a man-like configuration. Just because you've never bothered to research these fossils doesn't mean they don't exist. They most certainly do, they are numerous, and they fully corroborate evolution.
sickmusic Posted October 26, 2005 Author Posted October 26, 2005 First, this is completely irrelevant. We don't need fossils to demonstrate the common ancestry of man and apes, because we have an immaculately preserved history in the form of our genes. You'll want to take a look at this thread for a detailed analysis of human common ancestry as evidenced by genetic similarities: of course you need fossils.. not only are there lack of fossils of transional forms regarding man and ape, there hasn't really been any 'reliable' discoveries of transitional forms of any other species.. again, my limited understanding.. this time of the genetic similarities argument for evolution..? - i fail to grasp how it proves they have common ancestors? you don't have to go to the genetic level to state man and ape share characteristics.. is it not apparant just by looking at them..? we both have two eyes, we taste, smell.. etc etc? genetic coding are mere programming elements for functions the species can perform?.. it makes sense from a creationists/programmers point of view to re-use code.. hence is a standard practice amongst OO programmers. hey we might as well go into the atomic level and say a man has hydrogen atoms in his body, so has the sun.. therefore they share the same ancestors. Secondly, there are a large number of fossils which allow us to trace the evolution of man. I suggest you pick up Richard Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale if you'd like to read a detailed account of these. They are too numerous for me to look up and list here (although I'm sure upon request, someone will if you continue to question their existence) I've not managed to pick it up yet.. but a few examples that i've managed to find of the web have been put forward by dawkins as unreliable evidences, obviously we can discuss each one of them in its own debate.. but the fact that massive assumptions have been made on the legitimacy of the fossils used to support dawkins theory negate 'The ancestors tale' as proof of evolution. They show an overall trend of an increase in brain size, starting at the size of our common ancestor with chimps and gradually growing to its present size (or larger, in the case of Neanderthals) We also see changes in the shape of skulls that show a gradual transition from an ape-like to a man-like configuration. hmm.. for more than a century now, evolutionists have been claiming that there was an increase in brain volume during the imaginary human evolution process.. they also relate the myth that during this fictitious process human beings acquired the intellect and powers of creativity and speech they possess in parallel to the growth in brain volume. absolutely none of these tales is of any scientific value.. with the discovery of H. floresiensis, the myth that human intelligence emerged together with increase in brain volume has become even less credible than ever.. That is because H. floresiensis, with a brain volume no larger than that of a chimpanzee, exhibits behaviour no different to that of a large-brained human being, thus proving that human intelligence and mental ability are not proportional to brain volume.. Regarding the neanderthal, Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis ) were human beings who suddenly appeared 100,000 years ago in Europe, and who disappeared, or were assimilated by mixing with other races, quietly but quickly 35,000 years ago. Their only difference from modern man is that their skeletons are more robust and their cranial capacity slightly bigger. neanderthals were a human race,.. a fact which is admitted by almost everybody today.. Evolutionists have tried very hard to present them as a "primitive species," yet all the findings indicate that they were no different from a "robust" man walking on the street today.. A prominent authority on the subject, Erik Trinkaus, a paleoanthropologist from New Mexico University, writes: Detailed comparisons of Neanderthal skeletal remains with those of modern humans have shown that there is nothing in Neanderthal anatomy that conclusively indicates locomotor, manipulative, intellectual, or linguistic abilities inferior to those of modern humans. Erik Trinkaus, "Hard Times Among the Neanderthals" Just because you've never bothered to research these fossils doesn't mean they don't exist. They most certainly do, they are numerous, and they fully corroborate evolution. Do they? Thats the problem amongst the evolutionarist's they rely too much on assumptions. Okay admittedly I'm no expert, but ur wrong in assuming i've not researched it..
sickmusic Posted October 26, 2005 Author Posted October 26, 2005 Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun. -- Richard Dawkins' date=' The Selfish Gene[/i'] "It may just be more difficult to learn altruism than it would be if we were genetically programmed to be altruistic." -- Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, p. 3 dawkins speaks constantly of creatures being programmed and analyzes their behavior based on this idea.. but he can't answer questions about who did the programming, how creatures were programmed and what the purpose of this programming is.. according to dawkins, there is a program of which the programmer is unknown. if someone asked Dawkins, and those who share his mindset, who created the program?, they would probably reply-to perpetuate the darwinist spell-that it's a "miracle of nature.".. ho ho ho
In My Memory Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 "It may just be more difficult to learn altruism than it would be if we were genetically programmed to be altruistic."-- Dawkins' date=' The Selfish Gene, p. 3 dawkins speaks constantly of creatures being programmed and analyzes their behavior based on this idea.. but he can't answer questions about who did the programming, how creatures were programmed and what the purpose of this programming is.. according to dawkins, there is a program of which the programmer is unknown. if someone asked Dawkins, and those who share his mindset, who created the program?, they would probably reply-to perpetuate the darwinist spell-that it's a "miracle of nature.".. ho ho ho [/quote'] Naturally selection is the "programmer". Satisfied? However, consider this: "genetically programmed" is an equivalent phrase to "genetically predisposed" which is also equivalent to the phrase "genetically determined", you agree with that much dont you? Now, when you overliteralize the phrase "programmed" to deduce that there must be a "programmer", you cannot overliteralize the phrase "predisposed" to deduce a similarly equivalent "predisposer" without sounding silly (likewise, you cannot use "determined" to deduce a "determiner"). So, given that the phrases are equivalent but you cant treat them equivalently reveals a problem: either the phrases are not equivalent in the first place, or perhaps the overliteralized account of the phrases effectively takes them out of a context? I think we both might agree on the latter.
swansont Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 Don't anthropomorphize nature. She hates that.
sickmusic Posted October 26, 2005 Author Posted October 26, 2005 Naturally selection is the "programmer". Satisfied? However' date=' consider this: "genetically programmed" is an equivalent phrase to "genetically predisposed" which is also equivalent to the phrase "genetically determined", you agree with that much dont you? Now, when you overliteralize the phrase "programmed" to deduce that there must be a "programmer", you cannot overliteralize the phrase "predisposed" to deduce a similarly equivalent "predisposer" without sounding silly (likewise, you cannot use "determined" to deduce a "determiner"). So, given that the phrases are equivalent but you cant treat them equivalently reveals a problem: either the phrases are not equivalent in the first place, or perhaps the overliteralized account of the phrases effectively takes them out of a context? I think we both might agree on the latter.[/quote'] lol,, thanks for that.. okay without getting into a debate on english.. ur more clued up on dawkins work than me, ill accept your point regarding the context.. except for the naturally selection to be the programmer??.. hmm.. so now its survival of the fittest? but doesn't the theory of a species surviving by keeping the desirable genetic qualities and losing the undesirable ones happen as they go along.. or can genes/or an invisible force called natural selection see into the future to predetermine whats going to be desirable and whats not? sorry my limited understanding again.. i need to clear this in my head.. and also for something to be predetermined.. im trying not to overliteralize, but predetermined by what? or predisposed by what? if by nothing.. and it happens to happen by chance, then it is not predetermined, predisposed or programmed? is it?
In My Memory Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 Sickmusic, except for the naturally selection to be the programmer??.. hmm.. so now its survival of the fittest? but doesn't the theory of a species surviving by keeping the desirable genetic qualities and losing the undesirable ones happen as they go along.. or can genes/or an invisible force called natural selection see into the future to predetermine whats going to be desirable and whats not? No, natural selection is not clairvoyant. sorry my limited understanding again.. i need to clear this in my head.. and also for something to be predetermined.. im trying not to overliteralize, but predetermined by what? or predisposed by what? if by nothing.. and it happens to happen by chance, then it is not predetermined, predisposed or programmed? is it? I'm not really sure if there is a way to answer your question, because essentially you're question has more to do with a nuance of language rather than an issue that has to do with evolution itself. Here is an example of our awkward English language for comparison: imagine that you tell your friend that you had just "fallen deeply in love", your friend looks at you confused and says "impossible! You can fall in mud, but you cant fall into 'love'! And if you are so 'deep' in love, tell me how deep in centimeters please, and tell me what shape the love was that you 'fell' in" - naturally, your friend has taken the nuances of language to seriously and pulled some rather absurd conclusions out of it.
sickmusic Posted October 26, 2005 Author Posted October 26, 2005 therefore natural selection cannot be the programmer? determiner?.. so what does genetically programmed in dawkins context actually mean? u know what forget it.. :-|.. ur right.. its nothing to do with evolution.. dawkins just got his words muddled up..?
bascule Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 Ugh, sickmusic, I don't exactly feel up to deconstructing your FUD filled post right now. Maybe one of the biologists here would care to... they're certainly more qualified than me. However... I'll take a few quickies to point out the most obvious flaws in your thinking. of course you need fossils.. They are extremely helpful but not required. You can demonstrate evolution using changes in allele frequencies over time using only DNA evidence from modern lifeforms. it makes sense from a creationists/programmers point of view to re-use code.. hence is a standard practice amongst OO programmers. What we see isn't exactly demonstrative of "code resuse," it's structures which served one function being dramatically and somewhat non-sensically retooled into an entirely different purpose. For example, three jawbones present in reptiles shrank dramatically in mammals and turned into the bones of the inner ear. Why would a "intelligent designer" try to repurpose bones into an entirely different, unrelated problem domain? From a programmer's perspective that would be like trying to write a word processor starting with the codebase of a spreadsheet, the problem domains are completely different so code reuse doesn't make sense, and you'll spend a lot of time frustrated trying to force code which was designed to do one thing to do something completely different and unrelated. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever, unless the process doing the "designing" is mechanical, unintelligent, and has all the time in the world. but [Dawkins] can't answer questions about who did the programming, how creatures were programmed and what the purpose of this programming is.. He wrote an entire book dedicated to answering this question. Pick up a copy of The Blind Watchmaker...
Mokele Posted October 27, 2005 Posted October 27, 2005 of course you need fossils.. not only are there lack of fossils of transional forms regarding man and ape, there hasn't really been any 'reliable' discoveries of transitional forms of any other species.. False. See other thread, and actually try doing some real research. again, my limited understanding.. this time of the genetic similarities argument for evolution..? - i fail to grasp how it proves they have common ancestors? you don't have to go to the genetic level to state man and ape share characteristics.. is it not apparant just by looking at them..? we both have two eyes, we taste, smell.. etc etc? genetic coding are mere programming elements for functions the species can perform?.. it makes sense from a creationists/programmers point of view to re-use code.. hence is a standard practice amongst OO programmers. Do programmers re-use bad code? Do they copy every error precisely, or do they fix it? Humans and chimps not only share the same genes, we share the same *mutations* in the genes. We share the same broken genes that no longer work. We share the same remants of faulty viri which got incorporated into our genetic code. Why would any programmer mindlessly duplicate code that has errors, repeatedly use code that has no purpose or function, and deliberately tranfer corrupted data? I've not managed to pick it up yet.. but a few examples that i've managed to find of the web have been put forward by dawkins as unreliable evidences, obviously we can discuss each one of them in its own debate.. but the fact that massive assumptions have been made on the legitimacy of the fossils used to support dawkins theory negate 'The ancestors tale' as proof of evolution. Try actually discussing the point, then. Offer a *single* credible arguement against the validity of Australiopithecus (any species). hmm.. for more than a century now, evolutionists have been claiming that there was an increase in brain volume during the imaginary human evolution process.. they also relate the myth that during this fictitious process human beings acquired the intellect and powers of creativity and speech they possess in parallel to the growth in brain volume. absolutely none of these tales is of any scientific value.. It is a *fact* that brain volume generally tends to increase along the hominin lineage. While brain volume does not *absolutely* correlate to mental capacity, we happen to find that more sophisticated artifacts (tools, fire, even jewlery) appear and increase in sophistication with increasing hominin brain size. with the discovery of H. floresiensis, the myth that human intelligence emerged together with increase in brain volume has become even less credible than ever.. That is because H. floresiensis, with a brain volume no larger than that of a chimpanzee, exhibits behaviour no different to that of a large-brained human being, thus proving that human intelligence and mental ability are not proportional to brain volume.. Wrong. First, H. floresiensis is atypical due to being confined to an island. Weird things happen on islands. Note that HF lived alongside 10 foot lizards, giant rats and tiny elephants. Also, HF's behavior can only be inferred. It used advanced tools and fire, but it might have simply retained these from it's ancestral form via cultural transmission, as opposed to genetic. I'm not seeing how one obscure oddity, far removed from the mainline of human evolution, in any way invalidates evolution as a whole of human ancestry in particular. Okay admittedly I'm no expert, but ur wrong in assuming i've not researched it.. If you had done any research worth speaking of, you'd've noticed the *thousands* of transitional forms in the fossil record. Google triadobatrachus and tell me that's not a transition between a salamander and a frog. And that's just one of *thousands* of examples. Stop blowing hot air and *actually* research. Using *real* sites, not Answers in Genesis. except for the naturally selection to be the programmer??.. hmm.. so now its survival of the fittest? but doesn't the theory of a species surviving by keeping the desirable genetic qualities and losing the undesirable ones happen as they go along.. or can genes/or an invisible force called natural selection see into the future to predetermine whats going to be desirable and whats not? Species vary in behavior just like they do in physical traits. These variations are the result of mutations. Should individuals expressing one form of behavior survive more often or reproduce more, they'll be proportionately over-represented next generation, and even more the next, until they're the only game in town. As for seeing into the future, evolution doesn't, but merely adapts to the local environment. There's a tree in Australia which has HUGE fruit. Like "Kill a person it falls on", 50 lbs huge. But there is no way for this fruit to disperse, nothing can eat it, so it just rots and the seedlings die. How did this situation come to be? It can be easily explained by the fact that evolution *doesn't* have foresight. The tree evolved when Australia had numerous very large land herbivores, such as giant wombats, who could and would eat the fruit and poop out the seeds some distance away, thereby distributing the seeds in a ready-made pile of fertilizer. Then, the Aborigines arrived and killed off the giant herbivores. Because the plant (and evolution)couldn't forsee this (or anything), it was trapped in an evolutionary situation that effectively doomed it, and it's been becoming rarer ever since. so what does genetically programmed in dawkins context actually mean? u know what forget it.. :-|.. ur right.. its nothing to do with evolution.. dawkins just got his words muddled up..? A good example is snakes, since they're so highly instinctual (and I study them). Scientists have found that if you present a Q-tip soaked in the scent of various potential food items to a snake immediately upon hatching, snakes will strike most quickly and frequently at those Q-tips that smell of their natural prey. Some species are specialists, like the Queen snake, which eats only crayfish, and the young display the same exclusivity. Other species, however, like the garter snake, are less picky, though they have preferences. They're also very wide-ranging, and different populations of the same species may face very different prey. Obviously, it's advantageous to be attracted to eating the local prey, so any variation that resulting in increased preference for local prey items would increase via evolution. The typical example of this is a pair of populations in california, one of which has access to yummy (to a snake) Bannana slugs, and the other doesn't. The difference in preferences that evolution predicts is not only found, but is found immediately upon birth (they're born live). The mechanism behind this is probably simply the number of chemoreceptors for particular prey scent molecules (snakes have a sense of smell that puts bloodhounds to shame), as well as their connections to parts of the brain. Mokele
imasmartgirl Posted October 27, 2005 Posted October 27, 2005 except for the naturally selection to be the programmer??.. hmm.. so now its survival of the fittest? but doesn't the theory of a species surviving by keeping the desirable genetic qualities and losing the undesirable ones happen as they go along.. or can genes/or an invisible force called natural selection see into the future to predetermine whats going to be desirable and whats not? do you know what natural selection is? Say you were walking down the street and you came across two women. One really sexy girl and one very ugly girl. who would you sleep with? And then she gets pregnant. thats natural selection. You chose which one to pass on your genetics. Another example: two rabbits were running from a fox, rabbit1 has a gene that gives it shorter legs than rabbit2. The fox eats rabbit1 cause its slower than rabbit2. Rabbit2 lives and makes babies. It can't see into the future, its just who survives and makes babies.
Mokele Posted October 27, 2005 Posted October 27, 2005 Another example: two rabbits were running from a fox, rabbit1 has a gene that gives it shorter legs than rabbit2. The fox eats rabbit1 cause its slower than rabbit2. Rabbit2 lives and makes babies. Precisely. It's amazing how much of natural selection can be comedicly explained by "You don't have to run faster than the bear; you just have to run faster than your friend." Mokele
rising moon Posted December 9, 2005 Posted December 9, 2005 I cannot reliable only to my senses now. I realize that my experience beyond physic cannot been trusted anymore. It is real except it cannot been understand by logic and senses acceptance. The only solution,,,overall are comeback to religion. The religion that very keen to read every secret real truth behind nature are I search for.. this is what I search in my life
Mokele Posted December 9, 2005 Posted December 9, 2005 Ok, now how about a post that makes some sort of gramatical sense?
silkworm Posted December 10, 2005 Posted December 10, 2005 John5746 Modern chimps are good enough for me, but they have found many ancestors that make the suggestion. DNA evidence helps also. I definitely know what you mean here John, and I'd also like to draw your attention to the bonobo if you haven't experienced them yet. They're closer genetically to us than chimps and act more like us. They're also very horny. sickmusic of course you need fossils.. not only are there lack of fossils of transional forms regarding man and ape, there hasn't really been any 'reliable' discoveries of transitional forms of any other species.. You know, I have a similar problem. This whole Great Wall of China thing. I mean, how do they know it was there? Thank you, come again, but only after you've earned your right to an opinion by investigating the fossil record first. And please, use one published by science and not a religious publication, they tend to edit things to make them sound better (which is sort of funny if you know where liars go). imasmartgirl do you know what natural selection is? Say you were walking down the street and you came across two women. One really sexy girl and one very ugly girl. who would you sleep with? And then she gets pregnant. thats natural selection. You chose which one to pass on your genetics.Another example: two rabbits were running from a fox, rabbit1 has a gene that gives it shorter legs than rabbit2. The fox eats rabbit1 cause its slower than rabbit2. Rabbit2 lives and makes babies. It can't see into the future, its just who survives and makes babies. A woman after my own heart. I love using simple explainations like these in situations like this. I think a lot of evangelicals feel threatened by evolution because it all goes back to a woman's right to choose. Ever heard of the irish elk?
ecoli Posted December 10, 2005 Posted December 10, 2005 any problems disappear if you like at the bible metaphrically... that way, God is still perfect.
sickmusic Posted December 12, 2005 Author Posted December 12, 2005 sorry I have been busy 'programming' recently so havent had a chance to read your replies.. just catching up on someof the replies.. as there have been so many i will try to answer as many as i can, and come back to answer the rest as I've really gotta get this bit of programming done.. Fossils They are extremely helpful but not required. You can demonstrate evolution using changes in allele frequencies over time using only DNA evidence from modern lifeforms. of course they are required as being used as 'one of the' 'evidences' by evolutionaries.. What we see isn't exactly demonstrative of "code resuse," it's structures which served one function being dramatically and somewhat non-sensically retooled into an entirely different purpose. For example, three jawbones present in reptiles shrank dramatically in mammals and turned into the bones of the inner ear. Why would a "intelligent designer" try to repurpose bones into an entirely different, unrelated problem domain? From a programmer's perspective that would be like trying to write a word processor starting with the codebase of a spreadsheet, the problem domains are completely different so code reuse doesn't make sense, and you'll spend a lot of time frustrated trying to force code which was designed to do one thing to do something completely different and unrelated. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever, unless the process doing the "designing" is mechanical, unintelligent, and has all the time in the world. 'Assuming' that, the structures share similar DNA - as originally the theory was put forward from observations of Therapsida... I believe you have answered your questions yourself. The reptile Jaw and Mammal ear theory is a classic one used by evolutionaries. I think it was in the National Academy of Sciences booklet that stated this theory. I believe it was under the chapter called 'Common Structures'. Since they look the same, then from an OO programmers point of view code re-use would be the most efficient way of programming. Your argument on it being 'unintelligent' unfortunatly does not fit very well. A divine being to reuse code at that level demonstrates how powerful He is. nevertheless, the alleged evolution of reptiles into mammals is a matter that contains several major difficulties for evolutionists. the fact that two mammal bones resemble certain bones in reptiles does not resolve the issue. many questions remain unanswered. for example, - how did jaw bones "migrate" to such an irreducibly complex organ as the ear, as a result of mutations? - how did these mutations manage to shrink the two jaw bones, cause them to have them the ideal shape and dimensions, and form muscles around them? - how did random changes build a perfect balance in the middle ear? And, finally, how did the animal manage to hear and eat while all this was going on? All of these questions remain unanswered. Evolutionists are unable to answer them, because any one of them is sufficient to undermine the myth of the evolution of reptiles into mammals. fossils of creatures belonging to the order Therapsida cannot substantiate the evolutionists' claims. first and foremost, therapsid fossils do not appear in the fossil record in the sequence expected by Darwinism... for the evolutionists' claims to be true, therapsid fossils would need to appear in order in the strata from the most reptile-like to the most mammal-like, with respect to jaw features. yet, this order does not appear in the fossil record.. in his book Darwin On Trial, the famous critic of Darwinism Phillip Johnson makes this comment on the subject: An artificial line of descent [between reptiles and mammals] can be constructed, but only by arbitrarily mixing specimens from different subgroups, and by arranging them out of their actual chronological sequence.
bascule Posted December 12, 2005 Posted December 12, 2005 Since they look the same, then from an OO programmers point of view code re-use would be the most efficient way of programming. Your argument on it being 'unintelligent' unfortunatly does not fit very well. A divine being to reuse code at that level demonstrates how powerful He is. Uhh, that makes about as much sense as taking code for processing CORBA datagrams and trying to make it into code for audio processing and transformation. Maybe when the function is completely different you should... start over rather than trying to convert something into that which it is not? many questions remain unanswered. for example, - how did jaw bones "migrate" to such an irreducibly complex organ as the ear, as a result of mutations? Like this: - how did these mutations manage to shrink the two jaw bones, cause them to have them the ideal shape and dimensions, and form muscles around them? Because this configuration aided the survival of those who possessed it, just as each transitional step was accompanied with improved survival rates over the last. - how did random changes build a perfect balance in the middle ear? And, finally, how did the animal manage to hear and eat while all this was going on? Each one of those transitional stages is still a viable configuration for an animal which can eat and hear. There's a lot of ways to make animals that can eat and hear. All of these questions remain unanswered. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html Evolutionists are unable to answer them, because any one of them is sufficient to undermine the myth of the evolution of reptiles into mammals. For not having done even the most basic research, you like to make grandiose claims about "evolutionists" Sounds like you've been fed FUD by some kind of brainwasher...
sickmusic Posted December 12, 2005 Author Posted December 12, 2005 leave out the brainwash insults, is there any need to make it personal? I could say the same about the silly theories fed into you.. There is no need must dash though, and will address the cartoons, and everybody elses points I have not managed to answer very soon. peace.
bascule Posted December 12, 2005 Posted December 12, 2005 leave out the brainwash insults, is there any need to make it personal? Well, strawmen like... Evolutionists are unable to answer them, because any one of them is sufficient to undermine the myth of the evolution of reptiles into mammals. ...are you coming up with these on your own, or are you regurgitating them from somewhere? I'm assuming the latter. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
sickmusic Posted December 12, 2005 Author Posted December 12, 2005 nope not on my own nope I do not have a brainwasher I look into religion and science, and use a variety of sources.. I like reading, I like thinking, simple as. chat soon.
the tree Posted December 12, 2005 Posted December 12, 2005 If you like to read then take a flick through these pages. If your going to use a variety of sources (wich is good) then at least check them for validity first. If a source says that someone doesn't provide an awnser then why not Google to see if they have?
swansont Posted December 12, 2005 Posted December 12, 2005 The reptile Jaw and Mammal ear theory is a classic one used by evolutionaries. I think it was in the National Academy of Sciences booklet that stated this theory. I believe it was under the chapter called 'Common Structures'. Since they look the same' date=' then from an OO programmers point of view code re-use would be the most efficient way of programming. Your argument on it being 'unintelligent' unfortunatly does not fit very well. A divine being to reuse code at that level demonstrates how powerful He is.[/quote'] The problem being that when "code" isn't reused (e.g. the Panda's "thumb"), there's a pat answer to that, too. Since you can't a priori tell when the "code" will be reused or not, the study can't be done scientifically. - how did jaw bones "migrate" to such an irreducibly complex organ as the ear' date=' as a result of mutations? [/quote'] I'm sorry - I missed where you conclusively demonstrated that the ear is irreducibly complex. Could you point me to it?
Recommended Posts