Evolution: An Objective Look

191 Comments

1. 

   Charlie said,

   January 25, 2011 at 8:06 pm

   .

   Reply
2. 

   F.Whitman said,

   February 16, 2011 at 1:35 pm

   This whole page is bullshit. No one with an ounce of common sense would address it.

   Reply
   • 

     ADParker said,

     February 17, 2011 at 2:11 am

     Hey, don’t sell Stevee short;

     This whole BLOG is bullshit.

     Reply
     • 

       stevebee92653 said,

       February 17, 2011 at 3:57 am

       This is the most intelligent comment you have made ever ADParker. Kinda negative, but very intelligent for a hyper-gullible guy like you.
     • 

       Jason Head said,

       March 6, 2018 at 12:51 am

       ADParker said, “This whole BLOG is bullshit.”

       When you have no response the best that can be done is to Poison the Well hoping people jump on the irrational bandwagon
   • 

     Challagar said,

     March 12, 2011 at 6:28 pm

     Do you mean “common sense” as in common to all evolutionist scientists or common as in sound logic and reasoning? If you mean the former then you are probably right. If you mean the latter, then you really should try practicing a bit more sound logic and reasoning instead of spouting nonsense.

     Reply
   • 

     Jason Head said,

     March 6, 2018 at 12:49 am

     F.Whitman said, “This whole page is bullshit. No one with an ounce of common sense would address it.”

     I guess since there is no response available you have to Appeal to Ridicule. Mock all you want…still doesn’t mean Evolution is possible – the article shows that.

     Reply
3. 

   professorpaul1 said,

   March 29, 2013 at 6:27 am

   If God made all animals exactly as they needed to be, why has Man been able to “create” so many domestic breeds? Surely, by your own logic, he should not be able to select the best genes & carry them forwards?

   None of your arguments stand the test of logic.

   Reply
   • 

     stevebee92653 said,

     March 29, 2013 at 8:18 pm

     You are a huge “assumer”, which is typical of all evolutionauts. You assume my argument to be God and Religion. Which it isn’t. It’s purely that evolution is bullshit believed by many, including you. It’s the greatest hoax in science history of which you are a tiny part.

     Reply
     • 

       professorpaul1 said,

       March 30, 2013 at 3:59 am

       What a shame. You devaluate your own argument by having to use profanity yourself! The only hoax is the one your tiny mind is perpetrating on you!
     • 

       stevebee92653 said,

       March 30, 2013 at 6:40 am

       Well historic bullshit describes evolution perfectly. And I bet my mind is bigger than yours.And less gullible.
     • 

       professorpaul1 said,

       March 30, 2013 at 6:45 am

       Resorting to boosting your ego proves nothing. When someone has no facts to back them up they resort to abuse as you do! What a shame you CANNOT refute my argument in any other way.

       This shows up how pathetic you are.
     • 

       professorpaul1 said,

       March 30, 2013 at 6:53 am

       By the way, isnt the statement “And I bet my mind is bigger than yours.And less gullible.” something of an assumption itself? Hunting with hounds & running with the hare, you accuse ecolutionists of assuming & then do the same yourself.

       I don’t give too much for your consistency!
     • 

       stevebee92653 said,

       March 30, 2013 at 2:54 pm

       I have no idea what you think your argument is. You obviously have no idea what my point is. I would recommend reading at least some, THEN make your comment. Your mind might look better if you do it in that order.
     • 

       professorpaul1 said,

       March 30, 2013 at 3:40 pm

       My argument is quite clear;you just choose to ignore it as
       the facts don’t suit your own.
     • 

       stevebee92653 said,

       March 30, 2013 at 8:50 pm

       Ah: Circular evo argument time.
       “I have an argument”
       What is it?
       “It’s clear what my argument is”
       Well, what is it?
       “You are overlooking my argument”
       Well……..?
       What a bunch of clones. I would swear when I communicate with evo-believers, I sometimes wonder if they aren’t all really one person with one single personality.
     • 

       professorpaul1 said,

       March 31, 2013 at 6:35 am

       OKAY

       As you dont seem to read anything others write, being lost in a miasma of your own self righteousness, & you dont seems to like to use facts unless they cant be bent to you own view, try this. If you want to launch accusations of being a clone, remember youre a clown!

       Here goes

       Answers:

       A Suggested Test for Evolution 101

       1. Discuss whether the eye evolved in one species, which then spread vision to other species. Or, did the eye evolve in numerous species all in unison, at about the same time? Detail how this actually took place.

       Neither is possible. If eyes evolved in one species, vision could not be spread to other species due to the fact that species can only procreate with their own. The odds of eye evolution occurring in any single species is astronomically remote.The odds against this unbelievably unlikely event happening in thousands of species all at about the same time is incalculable. Try to imagine time-traveling back millions of years ago when eyes were half evolved. According to Evolution, you would see a truly interesting sight: thousands of species running around with eyes that look like the concave side of ping pong balls that were cut in half. But I don’t think you would.

       Oh really. Convergent evolution takes care of this. Look at the wing, evolved independently by bird,bats & pterosaurs. Even the pectoral fin of flying fish mirrors this to some extent. Why do shrews resemble mice & why are there so many analogues of placental mammals, looking very similar, in the marsupials.? I suggest you recalculate.

       2. Vertebrate sexual reproduction is an all or none event. Did one multi-cellular animal grow an appendage over millions of years, then decided to insert it into a fold in another multi-cellular animal that didn’t possess the appendage just to see what would happen? How did perfectly matched vertebrate male and female sexual organs evolve in separate individuals of a species? Discuss the microsteps that lead to the evolution of a male and female of vertebrate species, and sexual reproduction.

       There are no possible microsteps that lead to vertebrate male-female sexual reproduction. Vertebrate sexual reproduction could not arise slowly as it is an all or none event. You could not have a “partial” sex act that would result in procreation. But if it did happen, just imagine how confused the first two animals that performed the feat must have been. (There had to be a first pair. Evolution requires it.) And imagine their shock when, a few months later, they possibly gave birth to their first set of young. For this type of evolution to occur, one set of hundreds of thousand of “male” mutations would have to “know” what the other “”female” set was mutating. That would require intelligence, which we know doesn’t exist in the world of evolution.

       Do you know much about sexual reproduction in animals? Of all the vertebrate groups only some birds & mammals procreate this way. Most have a cloaca, a multiple use opening which functions part as an anus & part as a sexual organ. As for seperate mutations, well, if you properly understood evolution you’d realise the whole point of speciation means that different mutations would lead, eventually to different species. The whole point is the passing on of beneficial mutations. I suggest you go & read the studies of Gregor Mendel before you comment further!

       3. Detail a scenario showing how arboreal bird nests evolved. Did the first nests have only two twigs, then on to three, then……? How did the earliest twigs stick? Explain in detail. At what point did birds feel confident in placing their eggs into the nest and how many years did that event take?

       Arboreal bird nests would be useless before they “evolved” to a nearly complete stage. There is no conceivable way arboreal bird nests could evolve slowly. They are all or none entities.

       What absolute twaddle. Birds nests are a perfectly natural progression from nest building practice developed by the reptiles, many of which have been shown to exhibit parental care for their young.

       4. Blood couldn’t exist until there was a heart to pump it. And, lungs would be useless to oxygenate the blood if there were no pump and vessels to get oxygenated blood to the needy cells. Which evolved first, the lung? The heart, then the lung was added? The heart, then the vessels, then the lung was added? Was the blood added after the heart or before? Did the nerve connection to the brain come after or before the heart evolved? Did they all evolve at the same time? Detail the order of evolution for the lung, the blood, the blood vessels, the heart, the nervous hookup to the brain for the lung and heart, the brain controller, and discuss your reasons for positioning each one.

       Evolution of an entire heart-lung system is not imaginable nor is it possible. Which was present first: the heart? blood? lung? vessels? nerve connection? This is as daunting as the “chicken and egg” scenario for evolution.Without blood to pump the heart would be useless. Without the vessels, the blood would be useless. Without the lung…………The whole system needs to be present at one time for useful function.

       A vast oversimplification. Many salamanders for example, have no lungs but do have hearts & blood. The fact that soft tissue does not fossilize makes ACCURATE generalisation difficult but there are sufficient intermediary stages, even in living animals, to illustrate the point. The chicken & egg scenario is not daunting at all. The egg came first. The chicken evolved later!

       5. Describe how cusps, fossas, and grooves of the maxillary teeth formed through mutations and natural selection to articulate like perfect puzzle pieces against the cusps, fossas, and grooves of the mandibular teeth. How did natural selection know which mutations to pick in one jaw so perfect articulation was achieved by mutation and natural selection in the opposing jaw.Take into consideration in your answer that the genetic pathway for the maxillary and mandibular teeth are not the same. How did the two pathway communicate so they could match tooth for tooth.

       Perfect inter-digitating maxillary teeth could not evolve against a set of mandibular teeth through mutations and natural selection. One jaw set of teeth from one genetic pathway would have to “know” what mutations were occurring in the other jaw set from the other genetic pathway so the cusps, fossae, and grooves could fit perfectly together. And “know” means intelligence. Since there was no intelligence in the origin of species, teeth had to appear by some other currently unknown method.

       Again, you miss the point. You seem to be implying that several mutation were at work when again one would be sufficient. There are no halfway houses in evolution as you seem to think. Any such mutation as you envisage would die out.

       6. Humans are the only animals on the planet who cannot survive unclothed in the wilderness. Describe the transitions that took place that removed the fur and all-weather skin from early primates when they evolved into homo sapiens. Discuss the evolutionary forces which resulted in humans “dis-evolving” their ability to survive unclothed in nature. Why did all apes retain their heavy fur covering and remain all-weather species, even those in equatorial regions, where fur would not be a necessity? What impact does this have on the concept of “survival of the fittest”.

       The transition from all-weather covering for early primates to the making and wearing of clothing would have been disastrous for homo erectus/homo sapein. It is unthinkable that early primates with all-weather outer coverings who were for some reason dis-evolving these coverings would have the intelligence and where-with-all to begin sewing clothing or to make coverings out of animal furs. The ability to make clothing would have had to precede the loss of all weather outer coverings for early man. Otherwise, the first cold snap would have killed them all off if they had migrated north or south.

       A second question arises: why didn’t modern apes also dis-evolve their all-weather covering as both species inhabited the same warm areas for hundreds of thousands (millions) of years, and both species branched off of the same ancestral predecessors?

       One of the theories is that we lost our fur as a way of dealing with the heat of the sun. It’s controversial, as most mammals use fur to protect them from the sun. But some anthropologists believe our ancestors’ unique ability to sweat, along with their upright stance, meant we could cool quicker without fur – prompting the onset of human nudity.

       They reckon that evolutionary step towards nudity had huge implications for the human race. With a souped-up cooling system, our ancestors could afford to develop ever-bigger brains – leading to culture, tools, fire, and language.

       7. If Charles Darwin were still alive, discuss what he may have expected the current fossil record to look like.

       Charles would have been horribly disappointed in the current fossil record. He would have expected that there would be thousands of fossils showing evolving (growing) body parts by now. The only “major finds”, Tiktaalic supposedly evolving into quadrupeds, a terrestrial raccoon-like creature supposedly evolving into whales, archeopteryx evolving into birds, and h. habilis into h. erectus, and h. erectus into h. sapien would have forced Charles to drop his theory. He was actually a pretty honest guy. He had many doubts about the theory himself. “The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.” (Darwin, Charles, Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1902 p. 341-342)

       Au contraire, he’d probably be gratified to see his theory vindicated. Einstein was always happy to see the evolution of his own ideas about physics evolve, most scientist look upon a new theory as the starting point. It’s only creationists that assume everything is fixed. Just because all the links haven’t been added yet it doesn’t mean they aren’t there. There’s enough evidence to indicate the trend.

       8. Discuss the evolutionary forces which prevented T Rex’s arms (or any other part of T Rex) from evolving in the three million years that it roamed the earth.

       Since T. Rex’s arms (or any other body part) didn’t evolve at all in three million years, longer than it took homo sapiens to evovle from early primates, we can assume that there were no evolutionary forces at work on T. Rex.

       Never assume. T rex is just one species of Tyrannosaur.Scientist are still speculating about their function. A more apposite question would be why did they evolve when most bipedal dinosaurs had much larger forelimbs?

       9. Discuss how primary teeth, an entire separate set from adult teeth, with perfect matching of the anatomy of the maxillary teeth with the anatomy of the mandibular teeth, evolved. Discuss the forces that would lead to the evolution of a separate set of small teeth which would fit juvenile individuals in a species. Also discuss how the permanent teeth evolved embedded in the jaws beneath the primary teeth, when they would not be “advantageous” for years.

       There is no imaginable way a set of juvenile teeth could evolve which are then replaced by adult teeth. The problems are even more daunting in the case of adult teeth. Perfect inter-digitating maxillary teeth could not evolve against a set of mandibular teeth through mutations and natural selection. The problem for evolution is even more daunting considering the fact that they come from entirely different genetic pathways. One jaw set of teeth would have to “know” what mutations were occurring in the other jaw set, and “know” means intelligence. Since there was no intelligence involved in evolution, this is not possible. Further complicating things, the adult teeth had to evolve in the bone exactly beneath the juvenile teeth, and in perfect order, so that the roots of the the juvenile teeth could be dissolved by dentin-eating cells called odontoclasts. Since there was (is) no intelligence in the origin of species, teeth had to appear by some other currently unknown method.

       Hello? Evolutionary pressure?

       10. Detail the evolution if bird flight. Using the fossil record, list some of the steps that mutations and natural selection used to produce perfectly aerodynamic wings and bird flight.

       There is currently no know way that flight could evolve, and no fossil evidence to give us a hint of how that occurred. Birds appeared suddenly in the fossil record with no known precursor.“Fossil birds appear in the rocks out of nowhere.” (National Geographic Special, “Was Darwin Wrong?” Dec. 06)

       There is increasing evidence, being shown even by molecular testing, that illustrates the close phylogentic relationship between gliding mammals such as the colugo & the many types of bat. Gliding was the first type of flight man achieved in a heavier than air machine. Then he developed powered flight but a glider uses the same basic principles as a plane. Is it really so difficult to imagine how a mammal, gliding by the use of flaps of skin, could evolve into one which makes the transition to powered flight?

       The advantages would be incalculable & again the evidence is there in many species.

       11. The eye is made up of dozens of major parts. According to evolution scientists, these evolved in 100,000 to 250,000 micro-steps. Discuss how these steps are divided and related to the different eye parts. Did the two lenses evolve with one mutational step, or did many coordinated mutations along with natural selection form the two lenses. Did three hundred mutations form the irises and their controllers or just one? What about the 120,000,000 retinal cells and their 1,200,000 attached nerve cells; did one mutation create all of the cells, or did a huge number of coordinated mutations form a million or so with each step? Discuss in detail.

       There is no imaginable way that a complete eye system could evolve. Evolutionary discussion usually goes to how a single eyeball might have evolved without taking into consideration the entire system required for vision. Two optic nerves and all of their millions of neurons, the incredibly complex neurological code that the the brain deciphers, nervous connection to the thalamus, and visual cortex and its function of deciphering code arriving from two separate locations, and two retinas and their 240 million retinal cells with attached neurons must all be present for the brain to even read “light”.

       There are so many impossibilities with eye evolution that there is not enough room to review them here. But, one is: Evolutionists say that eyes evolved in 100,000 to 2500,000 generations. This means that there had to be a like or similar number of mutations to form not eyes, but the entire visual system. Since eyes have a small number of parts compared to the number of mutations required for their evolution, the question here would be: How do the mutations divvy up among the eye parts. Did 20,000 mutations form the retina and it’s 120 million cells? Were the 20,000 mutations working like a team, each mutation knowing what it’s job was? What about the visual cortex and thalamus? How many mutations were required to evolve these, and did the mutation work like a team here also? Did one mutation know what the other one was doing, or where it left off?

       See above please; you’re repeating yourself again, & you obviously choose to forget that one mutation leads to another. Development of eyes would have been like an arms race, with those developing better eyes quicker surviving. It’s not a question of intelligent mutations working together, but of beneficial ones surviving & being passed on.

       12. Discuss the evolution of trilobites. Detail the evolutionary and environmental forces that prevented changes to occur over a 250 million year period.Trilobites showed almost no changes in 250 million years, so there were no evolutionary forces at work. Their eyes do show different designs.

       Explain the great variety of general amongst the trilobites.Trilobites had many life styles; some moved over the sea-bed as predators, scavengers or filter feeders and some swam, feeding on plankton. Most life styles expected of modern marine arthropods are seen in trilobites, with the possible exception of parasitism (where there are still scientific debates). Some trilobites (particularly the family Olenidae) are even thought to have evolved a symbiotic relationship with sulfur-eating bacteria from which they derived food . By your argument they should all live exactly the same way & look exactly the same. Trust me, they don’t!

       13. Discuss the evolutionary forces that allowed natural selection to “know” that two eyes were required for depth perception. Detail why natural selection chose only one nose, one mouth, but two eyes.

       It would be expected that mutations and natural selection would have first “experimented” with and evolved the simplest type of vision possible, monocular vision, and then go to a two eye “three dimensional” system, then possibly eyes in the back of the head where species are most vulnerable. One nose and one mouth on the face of species should have also produced at least some monocular species which then later may have evolved into the binocular vision of modern species.

       This answer also is complicated by the fact that since thousands (millions) of species all evolved eyes at approximately the same time, various numbers of eyes (one, two, four) should have resulted. Since virtually all species have eyes that are binocular, natural selection and mutations got pretty lucky. So, unquestionably, the evolutionary force used for unanimous binocular vision is astronomical dumb luck?

       Not all species have binocular vision. Most mammals don’t. If your uninformed stayement means biocular tehm you seem to have forgotten that many species of mollusc have more than two eyes & spiders have eight. Turn the argument around. Perhaps evolution has REDUCED the number of eyes to two as the most effective option.

       14. Discuss the evolution of the silk (web) making gland of the spider. List five uses for the intermediate steps which allowed the spider to survive. Make a drawing of what the first spider webs looked like, and discuss how evolutionary forces modified these over millions of years.

       It is impossible to imagine any use for a partially evolved spider web-making gland. Before a silk gland was functional, it might have been useful as a tumor. Single string spider webs would be nearly useless in capturing prey. My drawing of the first spider web: ________ Parent spiders who learned to construct single strand webs would eventually teach their offspring the two strand technique: ==========. Then later generations would be taught the three strand web, a new and miraculous version of the two strand web; and on and on until, in the spider world, the “modern convenience” of the rounded multi-strand web was “invented”. Or maybe it simply didn’t happen that way.

       It took 400,000,000 years. There is, once again, ample evidence to show the evolution of spiders webs from simple trip wires used to detect prey to the complex orb webs produced by many species.

       15. Tiktaalic was found in Northern Canada, and is the earliest transitional quadruped species ever discovered. Each fore “fin-leg” is composed of eight digits (fingers and toes). Tiktaalic was immediately assigned a very important branch on the Tree of Life between fish and tetrapods. Discuss the evolutionary forces that caused the dis-evolution of three digits on each fore “fin-leg” that resulted in the five digits of modern man and most modern animal species, and why Tiktaalic was not able to walk on it’s fin-legs. Discuss the anatomy of the hind fin-legs.

       The front fin-forelegs of tiktaalic were too short for the species to walk on land. The fossil hind end of tiktaalic was missing, so paleontologists have no idea what it had for posterior fins. And its rib cage was not configured to support terrestrial movement. So it only swam, and maybe scooted itself along the floor of the sea. There is no imaginable reason for the dis-evolution of two or three digits on tiktaalics fore-fin. Maybe it’s not a transitional find?

       Putative tetrapod footprints found in Poland and reported in Nature in January 2010 were “securely dated” at 10 million years older than the oldest known elpistostegids. If this is a true tetrapod record, Tiktaalik was a “late-surviving relic” rather than the original transitional form. An alternative interpretation is that the Polish trackways, which do not have digital impressions, were made by walking fish.

       16. Discuss the changes over time in the exoskeletel and boney eye-sockets and ear canals of fossils that exemplify evolution of the eye and ear systems.

       No fossils with exoskeletons displaying evolving eye sockets or ear canals have yet been located. But dedicated sincere scientists are searching, and hope to have fossil evidence soon.

       YOU ANSWERED YOUR OWN QUESTION !

       17. Archeopteryx has been assigned an important branch on the Tree of Life which connects dinosaurs and birds. Discuss the evolutionary forces that caused archeopteryx to evolve teeth, then do a 180 degree change of direction and “dis-evolve” teeth, then evolve bird beaks. Describe the important fossils that show the gradual loss of dentition and evolution of beaks over several million years.What examples are there of partial dentition/beak species?

       Archeopteryx first evolved teeth and became a vicious predator, chasing down smaller dinosaurs and tearing them limb from limb with their strong jaws and very sharp teeth. Evolutionists say that they dis-evolved teeth so that they could fly in more balanced manner as birds. M and NS sure are smart. Paleontologists are still searching for fossils that demonstrate this scenario, but as in most cases with evolution, the fossils have not yet been found.They hope to have fossil evidence soon.

       Nope. Archaeopteryx always had teeth,later birds evolved horny beaks to save weight in flight. Again, the fossil evidence is there as many species of toothed bird have been found in the fossil record.

       18. The Coelacanth is a living fish which first appeared 410 million years ago. It was thought extinct, but recently has been found live in many locations throughout the world. Coelacanth shows no sign of evolution since it first appeared, 200 times longer ago than it took man to evolve from hominids. Detail why, Detail why there was no evolution with coelacanth, and which evolutionary forces prevented that evolution.

       It does seem very strange that Coelacanth has existed for 410 million years without the evolution of legs that we see on so many other fish species and fossils. One possible reason is that Coelacanth swims at a depth of 3,000 ft. Richard Dawkins suggests that possibly sunlight doesn’t penetrate to that depth, which would prevent mutations of Coelacanth genes. The problem here for evolution science is that thousands of other species must have evolved below that depth. I really think Coelacanth is evolving legs, just very slowly so we just “can’t see it”. In a few billion years primitive legs will certainly start showing. Or maybe not.

       Or maybe the coelocanth body type has proved very suitable for it’s ecological niche. Sharks, crocodilians & turtles are just other examples of creatures that have retained the same basic body type . So trilobites would n’t need to change because you say there was no need but coelocanths should to fit your own view?

       19. Each and every step of the Kreb’s citric acid cycle is critical for the release of energy, and to allow the chemicals to recycle inasmuch as citric acid is both the first reagent and the final reactant of one complete rotation of the chemical cycle. Describe the evolution of the Kreb’s Cycle and how it would function in its early evolution when there were only one or two steps.

       The Kreb’s Cycle could not have evolved since each of the ten steps is critical so that both the starting reagents and final reactants include citric acid, and the production of energy is accomplished for every aerobic cell in existence. Scientists are working constantly to find cells with partial Kreb’s cycles, much like they have found eyes with differing degrees of complexity. One scientist feels that the Kreb’s cycle was preceded by the Shwin cycle which went from citric acid to cis-Aconitate and back. Species with the Shwin cycle have not yet been located, but a breakthrough is expected soon.

       How could it not have evolved? At some point each stage may have started but then faltered. There is no good reason to assume that the cycle would have been going from day one but again proceeded by slow steps. A good scientist never assumes.

       20. Who said: “Echo-sounding by bats is just one of the thousands of examples that I could have chosen to make the point about good design. Animals give the appearance of having been designed by a theoretically sophisticated and practically ingenious physicist or engineer………..” “The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.”

       C. Richard Dawkins in “The Blind Watchmaker”

       Rather pointless. Who said the world was 4000 years old? Archbishop Ussher.

       21. Part A: Discuss the significance of the known fossil precursors to the African elephant. Detail the timeline and describe elephantas habilis, e. erectus, and e. sapien.

       Part B: Do the same with giraffis habilis, g. erectus, and g. sapien.

       A. Above is Primelehpas, a 5 MY old version of today’s elephant. It looks like, well, and elephant. There are no fossil precursors for this model. Palaeomastodon a small “wild pig-looking” creature, was assigned the task of being an elephant precursor. In reality, there are no precursor fossils in existence for the elephant. No fossils show the evolving of trunks, tusks, and large elephant ears. Paleontologists of course, are searching to find these fossils, but none have shown up. They are still working and searching, and hope to have evidence of a precursor soon.

       B. There are no precursor fossils in existence for giraffes. Paleontologists have assigned the above species, the girrafidae that job. Note that it doesn’t resemble a giraffe at all. Obviously many species in the tree branch for giraffes are missing. No fossils show the evolving of long neck and unusual (for biology) head and body shape. Paleontologists are searching for the precursor species to giraffes, but as of yet, none have shown up. They hope to have one soon.

       According to
       http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm: Tallest of the mammals is the giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis) whose extremely long neck is a classic example of an evolutionary trait under selection. The long neck is a derived characteristic since giraffes evolved from ancestors that lacked this trait. (Oops. No giraffe precursors. So evolutionists attach giraffes to a species with a short neck.) A few hypotheses were proposed to explain the evolution of the neck (for which there is no evidence) which give insight on how the giraffe got its neck. Darwin speculated on the idea that natural selection chooses animals that are best able to feed on the highest treetops, where food is most abundant and competition minimal (Gould, 1996). Darwin noted the giraffe in Origin of Species to illustrate the mechanism of natural selection. His suggestion is consistent with the Mendelian nature of heredity, “that giraffes with fortuitously longer necks will tend to leave more surviving offspring that inherit their genetic propensity for greater height. This slow process, continued for countless generations, can lead to a steady increase in neck length, so long as local environments continue to favor animals with greater reach for those succulent top-most leaves” (Gould, 1996). However, present day evidence does not support Darwin’s explanation since during the dry season (when feeding competition should be most intense) giraffes generally feed from low shrubs (Simmons and Scheepers, 1996).This would suggest that long neck did not specifically evolve for feeding at higher levels.

       You cannot assume that all species will have the same mutations which lead to the same results. With the giraffe you are also committing the folly of assuming that ancient ecosystems were the same as they are now. With the elephant, think you’ll find there is good palaeontological evidence across several families & the putative evolutionary chain is established. Take a wider view, don’t just look at the bits of the record that suit you best.

       22. Discuss whether the heart-lung system evolved in one species, which then spread heart-lung systems to other species. Or, did the heart-lung system evolve in thousands of species all in unison, at about the same time? Detail how this actually took place.

       Neither is possible. If heart-lung systems evolved in one species, heart-lung systems could not be spread to other species due to the fact that species can only procreate with their own. Even if the population was split by geographic upheaval numerous times, causing the evolution of new species, there would still be way too many species that could not attain a heart-lung system. The odds of heart-lung system evolution occurring in any single species is astronomically remote. The odds against this unbelievably unlikely event happening in thousands (millions) of species all at the same time is incalculable. But if it did, and we could time-travel back millions of years ago when heart-lung systems were half evolved, and we could dissect some of the animals with partially evolved systems, we would see a truly interesting sight: thousands of species with partial hearts, incomplete blood vessels, and partial lungs. Anatomy would be a fascinating class.

       Back to convergent evolution again.

       23. Insects appeared 350 MYA. The earliest fossils insects were competent fliers, and had binocular vision. Birds appeared circa 160 MYA. The earliest fossils were competent fliers, and had binocular vision. Eyes evolved in chordates 525 to 475 MYA. Did birds procreate with insects to get wings? Did birds procreate with land vertebrates to get eyes, which are more similar to bird eyes than insect eyes? Did insects procreate with vertebrates to get eyes, or did they evolve eyes independently, 150 MY after chordates evolved eyes?

       I refer the gentleman to the incidences I mentioned earlier. Body structures can & do develop independantly. Why do dolphins, sharks & ichthyosaurs look so similar? Because the same structures have been found to be the most effective!

       Ummmm…………..

       Yes, given a little extra information that’s exactly what I’d expect you to say. I’m afraid you failed your own test!
     • 

       stevebee92653 said,

       March 31, 2013 at 6:57 pm

       Congratulations on your actual attempt at answering. For your attempt you get an A. For your answers you get an F. For you “clown” clone-like demeaning, another F. I will try to help you out here, but your indoctrination will prevent you from even considering what I write, or rationally analyzing your own writing. BTW, I do read every comment. I am lost in a miasma of my own self righteousness though. Just can’t help it. Oh well. You found me out.

       1. You: Oh really. Convergent evolution takes care of this. Look at the wing, evolved independently by bird,bats & pterosaurs. Even the pectoral fin of flying fish mirrors this to some extent. Why do shrews resemble mice & why are there so many analogues of placental mammals, looking very similar, in the marsupials.? I suggest you recalculate.

       Me: “Convergent evolution” is an evo-illusionists attempt to explain what is already present. It’s a figment of the originators imagination, and it becomes evidence after being used by numerous evolution writers and supporters like you. “Oh really. Convergent evolution takes care of this.” 😀 There is no evidence for it, it’s just made up stuff. There is no evidence whatsoever that let’s us know how birds evolved wings. None in the fossil record. There is no possible fantasy that is anything but absurd. Here are you choices: Thropods fell out of trees? Jumped? Ran up inclined planes? And over generations their offspring evolved those teensy forelimbs into airfoil wings? These is the absurd fables that you must and no doubt do believe. I suggest you recalculate.

       2. You: Do you know much about sexual reproduction in animals? Of all the vertebrate groups only some birds & mammals procreate this way. Most have a cloaca, a multiple use opening which functions part as an anus & part as a sexual organ. As for seperate mutations, well, if you properly understood evolution you’d realise the whole point of speciation means that different mutations would lead, eventually to different species. The whole point is the passing on of beneficial mutations. I suggest you go & read the studies of Gregor Mendel before you comment further!

       Me: Since you don’t know the difference between (1) speciation and (2) the initiation and formation of complex biological systems, this answer is only a demonstration of your indoctrination and lack of education. I suggest you actually do some study and think clearly before proffering an “answer”. This isn’t one.

       3. You: What absolute twaddle. Birds nests are a perfectly natural progression from nest building practice developed by the reptiles, many of which have been shown to exhibit parental care for their young.

       Me: This is an astounding complete non-answer. How did the first arboreal branch bird nest builder lay the first twig? Then the next? How was the first arboreal branch egg laid? You have no answer, obviously.

       4. You: A vast oversimplification. Many salamanders for example, have no lungs but do have hearts & blood. The fact that soft tissue does not fossilize makes ACCURATE 4. generalisation difficult but there are sufficient intermediary stages, even in living animals, to illustrate the point. The chicken & egg scenario is not daunting at all. The egg came first. The chicken evolved later!

       Me: OK, move the question down to salamanders. Which came first, the salamander heart, or it’s blood. The egg came first? What a laugh. You gotta be kidding.

       5. You: Again, you miss the point. You seem to be implying that several mutation were at work when again one would be sufficient. There are no halfway houses in evolution as you seem to think. Any such mutation as you envisage would die out.

       Me: One mutation made all maxillary and mandibular teeth, and primary teeth? And matched them together like perfect puzzle pieces? My gawd. You don’t know your own fake science.

       6. You: One of the theories is that we lost our fur as a way of dealing with the heat of the sun. It’s controversial, as most mammals use fur to protect them from the sun. But some anthropologists believe our ancestors’ unique ability to sweat, along with their upright stance, meant we could cool quicker without fur – prompting the onset of human nudity.

       Me: This is a joke, right?

       7. You: Au contraire, he’d probably be gratified to see his theory vindicated. Einstein was always happy to see the evolution of his own ideas about physics evolve, most scientist look upon a new theory as the starting point. It’s only creationists that assume everything is fixed. Just because all the links haven’t been added yet it doesn’t mean they aren’t there. There’s enough evidence to indicate the trend.

       Me: Charles would have cashed it in with the discovery of DNA, its coding, and protein synthesis.

       8. Me: T. Rex body type is actually over 60 million years old. So 60 million with zero evolution, and you still believe. What does it take to make you realize how fooled you are?

       9. “Hello? evolutionary pressure”=Nothing

       10. Nothing

       11. How can you believe your own stuff? Get a book on the physiology of vision. Also realize that light, color, and visual images don’t exist in reality. Evolution would have had to “know” if it made all that equipment, it would then be able to evolve the visual cortex to perceive light color and visual images in the totally dark visual cortex, which evolution also had to invent. Vision isn’t like opening the shade in a dark room and letting light in.

       12. 300 million years, and trilobites are trilobites
       500 million years and nautilus is still nautilus
       410 million years, and coelacanth is still coelacanth
       3.5 billion years and bacteria are still bacteria.
       540 million years, and worms are…

       All this proves is you will accept anything.

       13. Read the question again. “Some animals don’t have…” is no more an answer than “some people don’t have computers” being an answer for how computers were invented.

       14. Spiders: made up stuff.

       15. “An alternative interpretation…”=made up stuff

       16. “Hope” is all evolution is made up of.

       17. “Many species?” Sorry, no. No beaks in the throes of evolving, no wings in the throes of evolving, not airsac lungs in the throes of evolving. Nothing for you here.

       18. “We see so many so many fish evolving legs”? Sorry, not so. When you do find legs evolving, THEN make a goddam theory. Until then, the theory is pure made up bullshit.Just like this answer is.

       19. Krebs=death knell for evolution.

       20. Sorry, your quotes don’t connect.

       21. Find giraffe precursors, THEN make the theory. You are fairytale-ing here, as you are in most answers.

       22. Back to a fable. Convergent evolution=fable.

       23. Nonsense. No body structures organs or biological systems have been shown in the process of evolving. Not now. Not in the fossil record.

       Grade F
       But thanks for actually trying. I assume you are intelligent. A professor? Whatever you are, I am always astounded that intelligent people can believe this stuff without question. Why do you? The only answer is indoctrination trumps intelligence.
     • 

       professorpaul1 said,

       April 1, 2013 at 6:39 am

       You havent actually come up with any constructive rebutall of my points You have a completely closed & what is more narrow mind. My replies to you stand as an attempt to answer you. Yours to me stand as an attempt to bluster your way out of the corner you’ve painted yourself in.

       I dont see any point in attempting to debate with you, you’re obviously so indoctrinated by yourr own deluded self beleifs that theres no point. I just hope you never get on a jury, you’d ignore the evidence because it doesnt fit your own pet theory!
     • 

       stevebee92653 said,

       April 1, 2013 at 4:58 pm

       You are too indoctrinated to realize there was not one single answer in your entire 23. Not one. You flunked. You simply relay dogma that was passed on to you by some other indoctrinate. Why don’t you have the where-with-all to realize that? Evolution is a form of mental illness, nothing more. And you have it. Sorry.
     • 

       professorpaul1 said,

       April 1, 2013 at 6:48 pm

       Back to your pitiful abuse again. You dont debate, you defamate. Definitely a case of the evolution of monocular vision.

       Suggest you look up dogma & read your own replies to me. Not once have you rebutted what I put forwards, you only denied it.

       Perhaps you are sufferings from delusions of adequacy. Certainly by inferring mental illness you are showing how crass & boorish you are.

       Not convincing anyone by such “arguments”.
   • 

     Jason Head said,

     March 6, 2018 at 12:54 am

     @professorpau1…dogs are still dogs, cattle are still cattle. And then there is the little Laws of Heredity – where there are Laws and order there is prima facie evidence for a Lawgiver.

     Reply
4. 

   professorpaul1 said,

   April 1, 2013 at 6:50 pm

   BTW, thats the final expenditure of effort I intend to make on you. I look forwards to your proof that the Earth is flat & the Royal family are in fact lizard humanoids. Seems to be your limit!

   Reply
   • 

     stevebee92653 said,

     April 1, 2013 at 8:58 pm

     Oh gee. Well, your’re so interesting and fascinating. I will sure miss having you here. People that can say “evolution diddit” over and over are really fun to discuss the origin of life and species with. Don’t you think it’s amazing how evolution has bestowed you with the power to tell me how all of those bio-systems came to be? I sure wish I had that power. But I just don’t. Oh well. Bye

     Reply
   • 

     stevebee92653 said,

     April 2, 2013 at 3:35 am

     One final thought: After checking out your blog, you seem like a pretty good and reasonable person. Subtracting what evolution has done to that phase of your being, of course. Too bad you got bipolar and arthritis so young. Not fun to deal with, specially in the cold of jolly old England. Anyway, thanks for the front page feature. Bye again.

     Reply
   • 

     Jason Head said,

     March 6, 2018 at 12:58 am

     professorpaul1 said, ” I look forwards to your proof that the Earth is flat & the Royal family are in fact lizard humanoids.”

     That is an Appeal to Extremes fallacy. You are erroneously attempting to make a reasonable argument into an absurd one, by taking the argument to the extremes.

     Reply

• Pages

  • My Three Books on the Subject of Evolution: (All three books are now on Kindle.)
  • 1a: About Me: How I Got Here
  • 1b: Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins Discuss Evolution
  • 2. How I Came to the Conclusion that Darwin was Dreaming
    • 2a: More About Me
  • 3a. Evo-illusion and Irreducible Complexity Revisited
  • 3b. Evo-Illusion and Irreducible Complexity
  • 4a. Ten Impossibilities of Evolution
  • 4b: Ten Impossibilities of Evolution (con’t)
  • 5. I Peer Review Mountains of Peer-Reviewed Papers
  • 6. My Scenario for the Evolution of Hearts and Eyes
  • 7. Evidence FOR Evolution
  • 8. National Geographics Special, “Was Darwin Wrong?
  • 9. What Fossils and Current Species Should Look Like
  • 10. Sight and Sound: A Daunting Task for Evolution
  • 11. Abiogenesis Made Difficult
  • 12. What Should be Taught in Schools
  • 13. Species and Organs That Suddenly “Appear” in the Fossil Record
  • 14. Einstein, Hawking, Darwin, and Flew: Their Thoughts
  • 15. How the Smithsonian and NatGeo Fake their Hominids
  • 16. Kitzmiller vs. the Dover Board of Education, a review
  • 17. Richard Dawkins Stumped, ID Proponent, Fooler of Kids
  • 18. I Read “The Blind Watchmaker”
  • 19. How the “Raccoon” Became a Whale
  • 20. A suggested final exam (and answers) for Evolution 101:
  • 21. “Natural Selection Made Easy”, a Scientific Review
  • 22. More Stumbling Blocks for Evolution
  • 23. I Debate Ph.D. Evo-illusionists
    • B. I Respond to Evolution Lecturer at UCI 04/25/07
    • F: I Debate with a PhD Molecular Biologist 3/20/09
    • G. I Debate A University Biology Instructor Who Is In a PhD Program
      • (1) Round Two with EvoBiologist
    • M: I Debate Cdk007 and ExtantFrodoM
    • O: Arguing with Another PHD Biologist
    • (Q) A Scathing attack on me by another website
    • (R) John Torday PhD, the Head Evo-Biologist at UCLA, and I Discuss Evolution
    • S. I Discuss with a University of Washington Evolutionary Biology Professor
  • 31. Muscles of the Eye and Blind Cave Dwellers
  • 32. 20 Reasons Why I Say You Are Indoctrinated
  • 33: The Population Paradox
    • 33a: Population Doubling Explanation
  • 34: Evolution Explodes, Gets Hung on a Phylogenetic Tree
  • 35. Algorithms and Evolution
  • 36. Ingenious Invention an Design:
  • 38: Entities That Had To Exist Before Life: Were They Designed, or Just Dumb Luck?
  • 39: My Criteria for Design
  • 40: My Videos Part 1 (See next page for more)
  • 41: My Videos Pt. 2
  • 42. Do Richard Dawkins and Hemoglobin Destroy Evolution?
  • 43: The DNA Code and its Codons
  • 47. Cosmos and Neil de Grasse Tyson: Evo-illusion at its Best
  • 48. A test for You: Which One Required More Intelligence?
  • 49. The Fate of Humanity
  • 50.Evolution Personality Disorder Test:
  • 51: Homo naledi: The Real Story
  • 52. How to Tell Ape from Human Bones
  • 53. I Answer a Challenge to my “the Smithsonian Cheats” Allegation
  • 54. Tiktaalik roseae-the Grand Daddy of All Land Animals
  • 55. Did Man Migrate Out of Africa and All Over the Earth Starting 60,000 Years Ago?
  • 56: The Denisovans… Another Evolution Fraud.
  • 57: Is Evolution Still a Theory?
  • 58: Evolution Didn’t Start with Darwin…

• Archives

  • June 2023
  • January 2023
  • July 2010
  • August 2009

• Categories

  • abiogenesis
  • anti-darwin
  • anti-evolution
  • Darwin
  • evolution
  • intelligent design
  • irreducible complexity
  • natural selection
  • Uncategorized

• Search

• Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • RSS Feed

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.