20. A suggested final exam (and answers) for Evolution 101:
The URL for my book is www.Evo-illusion.com.
The above video is about my book Evo-illusion, now available at Amazon. The page begins below.
A Suggested Test for Evolution 101 (Answers are below the test.)
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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”.
7. If Charles Darwin were still alive, discuss what he may have expected the current fossil record to look like.
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.
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.
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.
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.
12. Discuss the evolution of trilobites. Detail the evolutionary and environmental forces that prevented changes to occur over a 250 million year period.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.”
A. Adolph Hitler in “Mein Kampf”
B. Abraham Lincoln in the “Gettysburg Address”
C. Richard Dawkins in “The Blind Watchmaker”
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 giraffe habilis, g. erectus, and g. sapien , demonstrating the growth of the giraffe neck, the internal aortic valves, and the spongy reservoir over millions of years.
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.
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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)
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.
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.
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)
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”
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.
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.
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?
Ummmm…………..
Evolution: An Objective Look 
Karen R said,
January 25, 2008 at 3:07 pm
I can’t seem to find your e-mail address on the site – would you mind replying? I’m interested in discussing evolutionary theory with you – good practice, you know =)
Nemi said,
May 9, 2009 at 7:19 am
You have put a lot more thought into your site and your argumens than your detractors can appreciate. You make the point that coelacanth “should have” evolved. There is another point here. Dawkins is in raptures about natural selection as a consciousness-raiser. However, he doesn’t specify (in The God Delusion) selection OF WHAT? There has to be a succession of new forms for natural selection to work, but there is no known mechanism for producing a succession of new forms. And all the direct evidence in real time and in the fossil record isthat SPECIES DONOT CHANGE MUCH. (So-called micro-evolution is not actually evolution, because the forms can change back again when external circumstances change again.) Survival of the fittest and arrival of the fittest. Have you considered the argument that SINCE genetic mutation is going on all the time, and SINCE myriad species have not changed in tens and hundreds of millions of years, THEREFORE it appears that genetic mutation is not necessarily a source of biological change. Then where is the mechanism for speciation? I don’t think that evolutionists have anything up their sleeves as an alternative to genetic mutation as a source of biological novelty .
stevebee92653 said,
May 9, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Thanks for the great comment. So nice to get an intelligent one. Most are evo-dogma written by angry evolutionauts. Very refreshing. You are right on. Why is it so easy to see that the events that evos need to prove their science never happens, so they play pretend? And, every time there is speciation, there has to be a geographic splitting of the species. The number of times that could happen is minuscule and couldn’t account for the billion or so species that have roamed the earth. And geo-splitting rarely brings on speciation anyway. Cows from eastern Canada can mate with Oregon cows, even though they have been separated for eons. Anyway, thanks again for the visit and great comment.
Shrunk said,
May 18, 2009 at 11:08 am
Steve, do you really believe domestic cattle have existed for “eons”?
And, as seems to be your usual tactic, you make an assertion (Geographic splitting does not occur often enough to allow speciation) without providing a shred of evidence to support it. How often do you think those Orgegon and Canadian cattle meet up with one another, do you reckon?
Shrunk said,
May 18, 2009 at 11:02 am
Nemi, you’re wrong on a number of points. Natural selection does not require a “succession of new forms.” It operates against or in favour of specific genetic alleles. These will not usually be evident as radical morphological changes, but subtle variations in form and function. One need only look at the diversity of dog breeds that have resulted from feral wolves in a matter of a mere few thousand years. Although this is the result of artificial, not natural, selection, the base “material” that has allowed this diversification is nothing other than naturally occurring genetic variability and mutations.
Your claim that “the direct evidence in real time and in the fossil record isthat SPECIES DONOT CHANGE MUCH” is also erroneous If that were true, we should be able to find representatives of all currently living species, including humans, thru all geological strata. I challenge you go thru the cambiran or earlier strata and identify a single mammal, reptile, fish, or for that matter a vertebrate of any kind. In fact, you will not find a single terrrestrial organism of any sort. Yet if your belief that species are static thru time were correct, paleontologists should be finding precambrian rabbits, horses, mice, ducks, eagles, butterflies, bumblebees, birch trees, mushrooms and dentists. Where are they? It’s curious that creationists like yourself are always claiming that there are missing fossils that disprove evolutionary theory, when the fact is that the gaps in the fossil record are much greater for creationism.
stevebee92653 said,
May 18, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Your problem is you look at the fossil record and interpret it in a way that fits your belief. In reality, fossils certainly show change in species over the eons. They do NOT show change WITHIN A species. There is absolutely no single species that shows the kind of evolution that would prove the theory. Species seemed to start and stop, with new ones taking their place. That fact is a killer for evolution and common descent, but that is ignored. Species are treated as if they evolved one into another, but that doesn’t show at all. So real science should deal with that fact, instead of pretending that it looks like it needs to to prove the theory.
The strata shows starts and stops, different species in the strata with time, and minor or no changes within a species.. So deal with that, and make a new theory, or alter the one you have. I can’t think of any theory that fits that conundrum, so I leave it at “what an incredible Puzzle”.
And, you assume that I am some sort of religious creationist. Assumption is so easy for evolutionauts. You obviously didn’t read “About Me”. Don’t waste your words and time on the religio/creationist thing.
BeAfraid said,
May 19, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Nemi, the mechanism for natural selection is selection for adaptations.
If a long nose is a benefit to an animal that allows it to breed more successfully than any competitor, then noses will get longer. Mutation only plays a small role.
In programs that use evolutionary algorithms, a mutation function may be introduced, but it is not at all necessary. Simply selecting features that produce beneficial results and saving them for another generation is often enough to produce a highly successful outcome. If the new generation is not as successful in breeding with co-algorithms in a generation, then they are filtered out. Their success is measured against how well they perform in the stated eventual goal.
Now, this should in no way imply that evolution in nature has an overall goal. The GOAL of evolution is to allow life to successfully breed in the face of competition pressures.
But, as I have said elsewhere, I have no emotional attachment to this particular method (evolution). I am concerned only with its utility as a means to an end.
If another, more successful method is shown to me that allows me (and many others in the field I am studying) to produce programs that are more powerful and more quickly built, then I will be thrilled to promote that method instead.
So, what method is being proposed as a counter to evolutionary methods as a means to produce variation and selection within a group to build advantageous use of that group.
For example, Say that I want to build a program that can recognize certain physical objects. Normally, I would create a program that just randomly chose a label for objects. Those algorithms that chose correctly would then be combined with other algorithms that chose correctly, or close to correct. Eventually, I would have a final product that was capable of identifying an object from all angles and sides, and in almost any lighting condition, or even a partial view of the object.
How does Stevebee and Nemi propose that I would build such a program using methods other than evolutionary>
Shrunk said,
May 18, 2009 at 7:09 pm
I’d be very interested if you could show where I so much as hinted that you are a
“religious creationist”. My post was directed at Nemi.
Also, could you explain what you would expect the fossil record to look like if it fit your definition of demonstrating “change within a species”? Your argument seems tautological. If there are several examples of fossilized organisms that show little change, you say, “See? Species say the same.” However, if we have a progression that shows clear evidence of transitional forms, say Eusthenopteron –> Panderichthys –> Tiktaalik –> Acanthostega –> Ichthyostega, are you going to say, “Those are just separate species. I don’t believe they are related by common ancestry”? If so (and I realize this is probably a futile question) what is your evidence for this conviction?
Shrunk said,
May 18, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Sorry, I’m a little slow on the uptake. When you say this:
“In reality, fossils certainly show change in species over the eons. They do NOT show change WITHIN A species. ”
Surely you’re joking. We don’t even need to go to the fossil record to observe “change within a species.” That is, unless you’re saying you can’t tell the difference between a timber wolf and a chihuahua.
stevebee92653 said,
May 19, 2009 at 4:24 am
So, let’s see. If the species look like other species in any way, that is
evidence they evolved into those species. And if they look entirely
different in size, habit, appearance, they also evolved into the other.
(Quadrupeds (indohyus) into whales, theropods into hummingbirds and woodpeckers.) So, we can conclude that anything good for evolution or bad is all good evidence for this science.
Your list really stinks like it evolved from skunks. And, in typical evolutionaut form, you believe without a lick of skepticism or questioning. And you make a fool of yourself by presenting this fake evidence. So, here is the bad news:
Because they look kinda alike does not mean they evolved, one into the next. (Or any way you want to describe it.)
These species are geographically separated by thousands of miles, but that doesn’t matter either. This is evolution. Nothing matters. Panderichthys was found in Latvia. It’s in line with Tiktaalik that was found in far northern Canada. Eusthenopteron was nothing more than a fish that never ventured onto land, and was found in Quebec, thousands of miles from the others on the list. Acanthostega was found in East Greenland, also not near the others. Tiktaalik and Acanthostega both have eight “digits” in their fore-fins, which doesn’t match any vertebrate quadruped. Tiktaalik is claimed to be the first true quadruped, the find of the millennium! It made the finder a rich man and a hero. Oops! Except they only found the front half. The back half is missing. So what was back there? Was it like a mudskipper? That doesn’t matter though. This is evolution. Anything good or bad is good.
Get yourself some skepticism and objectivity, and quit treating evolution like a belief Do real science. It’s really much more fun.
And, you KNOW that timber wolves evolved into chihuahua”s? Really? How do you know that? Oh, because they are similar. Ah. And, in your mind, does that account for the evolution of a heart/blood/blood vessel/lung/nerve/brain-controller system? I’m sure you answer will be YES! Because you have been thoroughly indoctrinated, and you have forfeited your ability to reason to another evolutionaut. That is mandatory in this “science”.
Shrunk said,
May 19, 2009 at 10:15 am
This just gets better and better.
Tell me, where do you think chihuahuas, or any other breed of dog, came from? Is that another one of your “incredible Puzzles”?
Pacific salmon and Atlantic salmon are found in completely different oceans! Thousands of miles apart! How could they possibly be related? Another incredible Puzzle! They must have been magically poofed into existence, just like the chihuahua, by some mysterious force beyond human understanding! After all, just because things look alike, doesn’t mean they evolved from one another.
stevebee92653 said,
May 19, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Finding a fossil in eastern Greenland, and another in Latvia, and saying they evolved one into the other is laughable. Not one little neuron in you head questions that maybe they didn’t evolve one into the other? Not one? You just take it because someone said was so? What does that say for your skepticism, logic, and reasoning abilities. Not much. You are impossible to “debate” with because, as is typical of evolution, everything is proof, be is good or bad. And if you get stuck, you will demean any question asked. So my recommendation would be to stick with your belief system, and forget any kind of discussion with skeptics like me. Argue with people that believe in Noah’s Ark. You will have better luck there.
LucidFlight said,
May 19, 2009 at 10:53 am
I hope you don’t mind me commenting, Steve, but…
This is awesome! It’s like watching the O’Reilly Factor, but with Stevebee popping the shots. Fair and balanced. Absolutely! Those commie liberal evo’s just don’t get it, do they? Anyway, here’s looking forward to more of your reports and decisions about ev-illusion.
Cheers
Lucid
Atrax Robustus said,
May 19, 2009 at 11:09 am
“And, you KNOW that timber wolves evolved into chihuahua”s? Really? How do you know that? ”
Shrunk didn’t say that did he/she?
Shrunk said,
May 19, 2009 at 1:05 pm
“Shrunk didn’t say that did he/she?”
Even though I didn’t, I can in all honesty see how what I wrote could be interpreted that way. My point was that the emergence of diversity in the canine species within recorded human history contradicts Steve’s claim that “change within species” does not occur. As to how his reply is intended as a response to this, you’ll have to ask him. He seems to imply that domestic dogs arose out of thin air with no biological ancestors, but surely he’s not that stupid, is he? The question is, since he denies being a creationist, just where DOES he believe they came from?
stevebee92653 said,
May 19, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Shrunk, fine if you can show change within a species. I really don’t think you can show much, but good for you if you can. The change I am talking about, of course, has nothing to do with change in size, color, or habits. It has to do with the formation of bio-electromechanical devices. Like ARMS. or like EYES. Or LEGS. Ya know. Items that will eventually form humans, and the like. And, you don’t have that. You do have that absurd list you gave me, with species from all over the planet that in a fantasy world evolved into each other; and with fake quadrupeds. There are trillions of fish in the seas, and not one has been found to evolve legs so they can leave those pesky sharks behind. There should be millions in the process of evolving into land species. But, sadly for you, and your belief system, none are. Evolution never rears its head when it needs to. As I said, you are an evolutionaut, and ANY evidence is good enough for you; and evolution.
ADParker said,
May 19, 2009 at 11:26 am
Ha ha ha. You are one funny guy stevebee92653.
“And, you KNOW that timber wolves evolved into chihuahua”s? Really? How do you know that? Oh, because they are similar.”
If by “similar” you are referring to the fact that they are so closely related, morphologically, anatomically and most importantly; genetically, that they are the same species, not family or genus but species. Then of course we know beyond all reasonable doubt. Except of course that the current crop of chihuahuas and timber wolves actually share a common wolf ancestor. One is no more evolved from the other than you are from your brother.
I always find it amusing how creationists (and you are no different, whatever the hel you might claim to be in that regard) love to trivialise the varied methodologies of scientific biological comparison, such as comparative anatomy and genetic comparison, to things like “they look similar.” It might impress the scientifically illiterate , naive and gullible stevebee92653, but not those who have a clue!
stevebee92653 said,
May 19, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Oh, so they are alike and therefore one evolved into the other? And when species are completely and totally different, they evolved one into the other also. Doesn’t matter. Like small quadrupeds evolving into whales. What a laugh. You get it on every side. No matter what they looked like, their habitat was, their habits were, et al, you great scientists can just declare that A evolved into B. Theropod dinos evolved into hummingbirds. No doubt. Why? because you are SERIOUS SCIENCE. And no one dare challenge that, lest they look foolish. What a joke you represent. Get real. Ha Ha Ha You are a funny guy AdParker. Evo-fantasy might impress the indoctrinated naive and gullible ADParker, but not those who have a skeptical eye! Like me.
ADParker said,
May 20, 2009 at 3:22 am
“Oh, so they are alike and therefore one evolved into the other?”
Interesting, as that is precisely what I stated DID NOT happen. They share a common ancestor/. Surely you recall that term from your extensive study of the subject?
Again with the pathetic caricatures of trivialisation. No; they do not “Just declare” (that is what you do,) they actually go to the trouble of careful investigation, testing and peer-review. Or do you honestly think that someone choose for no good reason to pretend that the whale evolved from a land mammal?!
Yes; the evidence points to theropod dinosaurs evolving into birds, land mammals such as Pakicetus evolving into whales and so on. Can you actually refute these theories, or do you truly have nothing but these pathetic snide remarks and arguments from personal incredulity?!
All you have to do is present ONE prediction that the theory of evolution says must (or must not) occur, and demonstrate that it did not (or did) and there you would have it: ToE falsified.
But to date all you can offer is ridiculous arguments from ignorance.
LucidFlight said,
May 19, 2009 at 4:20 pm
So, I don’t get it. Where do dogs actually come from? Like, was there a “first dog”. How was it made? Is the intelligence that made it in this universe, like, in this galaxy or something? Do you think we will ever find the real answers, Steve?
Sincerely
Lucid
stevebee92653 said,
May 19, 2009 at 9:51 pm
No, I don’t think we will ever find the answer. But there will always be people like you that will think they have found it. And, as always, ignorance is bliss.
LucidFlight said,
May 19, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Why don’t you think we’ll ever find the answer(s), Steve?
stevebee92653 said,
May 20, 2009 at 3:33 am
Because it’s way over your head. And mine. Kind of like ants trying to figure out how the house they are in was built. And your simplistic science doesn’t come close. That’s why Lucid.
LucidFlight said,
May 20, 2009 at 9:46 am
Thanks for your honest and reasonable reply, Steve. That’s all I was after.
Shrunk said,
May 20, 2009 at 1:11 am
So let me see if I’ve got it straight, Steve:
We have one theory which is able to explain the diversity of biological forms that exist now and in the past, as evidenced by the fossil record, using nothing more than readily observed phenomena such as heritable variation, change in allele frequency over time, and differential reproduction.
We have another “theory”, if we can dignify it with that term, that depends on the exitence of an unseen, unknowable Intelligent Force that somehow created billions of species literally from nothing, yet for some reason has never actually been observed doing so. This second “theory” is also not able to explain why this Intelligent Force created these organisms with ERV’s in their genome in precisely the pattern predicted by common descent, or with vestigial functionless structures such as non-coding DNA, pelvic bones in whales, wisdom teeth and non-functioning Vitamin C genes in humans, etc. The first theory is able to explain these latter features with ease.
Now, again, which one of these do you think is based on nothing more than fantasy?
stevebee92653 said,
May 20, 2009 at 3:30 am
Answer: Your theory. Let’s see. It can explain wisdom teeth? Give me a break. It can’t explain how teeth arose, so how can it explain wisdom teeth? Oh, you mean that the design isn’t perfect, therefore it isn’t designed? That one?
“never actually been observed doing so.” We are tied here. Neither natural selection or an intelligent source have never been observed forming anything of value. I’m sure you can site lots of good stuff like nylon eating bacteria, but you really don’t have ANYTHING on your plate that natural selection formed. Lots of horrible things from mutations, but nothing good. But that’s OK. This is evolution.
So, let’s see. I see tremendous design in nature which more than hints of a designer. I have never seen a beaker full of biochemicals form anything useful on their own, like living tissue. Neither have you, or any person on the planet earth. (With the exception of a few different biochemicals and proteins.) So, I will take intelligence any day. And you will stay with your fantasy.
Shrunk said,
May 20, 2009 at 1:29 am
“The change I am talking about, of course, has nothing to do with change in size, color, or habits. It has to do with the formation of bio-electromechanical devices. Like ARMS. or like EYES. Or LEGS. Ya know. Items that will eventually form humans, and the like.”
Can you explain how evolutionary theory holds that these features arose and came to be distributed among so many diverse species? I’m not asking whether you believe this, just what the theory says. Because, from your statements, I really don’t think you have the slightest clue. You really think fish should be sprouting legs right before our eyes?
“Finding a fossil in eastern Greenland, and another in Latvia, and saying they evolved one into the other is laughable. Not one little neuron in you head questions that maybe they didn’t evolve one into the other?”
You keep harping on this like it means something. Look at how widespread tortoises are, being located in practically every region on earth besides the Arctic and Antarctic. Tortoises aren’t exactly the fastest travellers, either. Do you think each species was specially created by your Intelligent Force? Actually, never mind. For all I know, you actually think they were.
Seriously, you’re the first person I’ve ever met who could actually learn some biology from Ray Comfort.
Shrunk said,
May 20, 2009 at 1:38 am
Oh, and I’d still really love to hear where you think the “first dog” came from, Steve . Is there a reason you keep avoiding the question?
stevebee92653 said,
May 20, 2009 at 3:14 am
I don’t know where the first dog came from Shrunk. Or the first T. Rex. Or the first bird. How is that for an answer? But you know, because you have been indoctrinated to make you think you know. You think the first bird came from a multi-ton theropod dinosaur. Right? And the first whale came from a tiny quadruped that evolved from a fish over millions of years to get out of the ocean only to get itself back in and then evolve into a whale.. Right? I just love REAL science. But I will continue to acknowledge that I don’t know. But what I do know for sure is that it didn’t evolve from a fish.
ADParker said,
May 20, 2009 at 3:26 am
” But what I do know for sure is that it didn’t evolve from a fish.”
And how, pray tell, do you KNOW that stevebee92653?
ADParker said,
May 20, 2009 at 3:43 am
Let’s go right back to the blog bollocks:
“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 thousands (millions) of species all in unison, at 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 (millions) of species all at 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 so. ”
0/10 Epic Fail.
How do you know that neither is possible?
If the eye evolved in one species (which is didn’t, although the original photo-receptive cell might have) why could it not spread through subsequent generations, each evolving into the many faceted branches of the tree of life?
Simply ASSERTING this to be the case is quite insufficient.
You clearly do not understand even the fundamentals of evolution if you can’t grasp that. In fact you are spouting typical creationist drivel of “procreation of ones own ‘kind’ ” which fails to even acknowledge the very theory you seek to refute!
“The odds of eye evolution occurring in any single species is astronomically remote. ”
Further details needed. What specifically are the odds, and how dd you calculate them? Again; empty assertion is not good enough.
The theory of evolution in no way postulates eyes “occurring” in “thousands (millions) of species all at the same time” so that’s another dismal failing grade right there.
That you “don’t think so” is hardly a satisfactory answer. Arguments from personal incredulity, especially when based on such ridiculous caricatures as that given here, are not nearly good enough.
Recommend student be held back, and enrolled in a refresher course of Evolution for beginners.
stevebee92653 said,
May 20, 2009 at 4:08 am
Oh, so you KNOW biology really well. A new trait COULD spread over generations in a single species, and it could could spread to newly speciated branched generations (if that indeed did occur). And if this event did happen over and over again, the trait still couldn’t hit the vast number of species that did not have the trait at the time it formed. Because species cannot procreate with other species. So, if a complex visual system evolved in a single species, most species would be eyeless today. Sorry I have to explain this problem for evolution to you. It’s in my blog.
And the odds of an incredibly unusual and miraculous bio-electromechanical device evolving in nearly identical fashion in hundreds of thousands of species at the same time is beyond the ability of mathematics to figure out.
And you can’t explain either scenario, so you do your stupid last sentence demean, just as you are supposed to do. Good boy. “Arguments from personal incredulity, especially when based on such ridiculous caricatures” How original. Wow. Barf bucket time. Can’t you be more original than that? Must you use trite evo-phrases? Ugh. You are an embarrassment to Dawkins and evolution. On the other hand nothing embarrasses either, so forget that notion.. Go back and read your answer and see if you even came remotely close to answering my challenge. You didn’t. So give it up. Try something else.
ADParker said,
May 20, 2009 at 7:07 am
Hmm, interesting that you immediately twist it to MY understanding of evolution. When it is your’s under investigation here. And more importantly; your reasoning skills in general. You are the one making the claim here, that it is impossible.
“A new trait COULD spread over generations in a single species”
Yes it could.
“and it could could spread to newly speciated branched generations (if that indeed did occur).”
Yes of course it could. And “newly speciated branched generations” or “speciation” does of course occur, as it has been observed directly a number of times.
“And if this event did happen over and over again, the trait still couldn’t hit the vast number of species that did not have the trait at the time it formed.”
It couldn’t?! And how do you know that? Where’s your data, your evidence? It’s just empty assertion after assertion with you.
Who on earth claims that such a trait would cross to initially existing species anyway? What a bizarre non-evolutionary concept! (Except of course through Horizontal gene transfer obviously.)
“So, if a complex visual system evolved in a single species, most species would be eyeless today.”
What utter confused rubbish!
1. According to the evidence “complex visual systems” (nice shifting of the goal posts by the way) have evolved independently (although most likely from a distant common ancestor photo-receptive cell bearing ancestor, probably unicellular) at least 40 times.
2. Your assertion ignores the evidence, and mainstay of the theory itself that all species today evolved from a single original ancestor. If the original evolution to the basic eye plans were early enough there is no reason at all why they could not have spread precisely as far as they have.
3. For instance; complex eyes existed in the time of the “Cambrian explosion.” All fish, insects, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals are derived from them, so one would expect eyes to be widespread in all of those vastly diverse groups. As is the case.
4. The exact same genes, such as the PAX6 gene, which control eye development, exist in creatures from man to mice to fruit flies. In fact that gene has been extracted from mice and placed in fruit flies, causing them to develop perfectly functional (fly) eyes. Strong evidence that they both obtained the same gene from a common distant ancestor. As innumerable other genetic connections confirm.
Strange that the experts in the relevant fields have no problem with this at all. Why have we not seen this imagined problem of yours in the scientific literature? Oh that’s right; it’s all a big conspiracy isn’t it? For some odd reason you seem to assume that people desperately want the ToE to be held as true, so badly that they are willing to forgo the fame that comes with theory over turning discoveries, to maintain the status quo.
The fundamental nature of the scientific method and the scientific community flushes such a naive assertion down the toilet.
“And the odds of an incredibly unusual and miraculous bio-electromechanical device evolving in nearly identical fashion in hundreds of thousands of species at the same time is beyond the ability of mathematics to figure out.”
So you don’t know the odds. And you clearly do not understand the theorised progressions, but feel confidant enough to assert it’s impossibility anyway?!
You do realise that this tired old Arguing from bogus imagined statistics is just another of the bullshit tactics of Intelligent design creationism don’t you? It’s a joke.
“And you can’t explain either scenario,”
Another scenario than “It’s impossible I tells ya”?! That’s not a scenario, its a trite empty assertion.
There is no need to explain any scenario (although the ToE is doing just fine, thank you very much) because your assertion laden arguments fail on basic reasoning grounds. Can you or can you not falsify the ToE? Merely asserting that certain things could have evolved, while displaying a lcomplete ack of understanding on how the theory actually predicts it did, it rationally and scientifically worthless.
“so you do your stupid last sentence demean, just as you are supposed to do. Good boy.”
SIgh.
“Arguments from personal incredulity, especially when based on such ridiculous caricatures” How original. Wow. Barf bucket time.”
There’s that petulant child again. “Barf bucket time” What are you, eight?!
“Can’t you be more original than that?”
I am not surprised that you find it unoriginal. No doubt you have had your blather described as such many many times before. Ever think there might be a reason for that? That perhaps it might just be that Arguments from Ignorance is all YOU have presented, time and time again?
You want me to describe your arguments differently? Try making your arguments different then.
“Must you use trite evo-phrases?”
Actually it’s a variation of a FORMAL LOGIC phrase. Has nothing to do with evolution or any theory in science, but simply of critical thinking.
Specifically The argument from Personal Incredulity is an aspect of what is known professionally as “The Argument from Ignorance”: The primary grounding of ALL of your assertions here, and a well known LOGICAL FALLACY; a fundamental error in reasoning.
But I promise to stop labeling your arguments as logically fallacious in that manner, the minute they stop being so. Okay?
Shrunk said,
May 20, 2009 at 10:17 am
“And if this event did happen over and over again, the trait still couldn’t hit the vast number of species that did not have the trait at the time it formed. Because species cannot procreate with other species. So, if a complex visual system evolved in a single species, most species would be eyeless today. ”
ADParker has already said pretty much all that needs to be said, but I just can’t help expressing my incredulity that someone whose grasp of basic evolutionary theory is so laughably inadequate that he could actually say the above has the temerity to lecture all the world’s biologists on how wrong he thinks they are. Read a book, already.
Shrunk said,
May 20, 2009 at 10:32 am
Actually, I have to backtrack again. On rereading that passage I quoted above, it’s actually accurate; a newly evolved feature WOULDN’T be passed on to other species that existed at the time. It would only be passed on to descendents. So, since you know this, why does ADParker have to spell out your error to you? Your problem is not in knowledge, it’s in applying that knowledge. You are so invested in your belief that evolution is wrong that you can’t apply the simple logical skill that you must possess. You go from an accurate assertion (Newly evolved features cannot be passed on except by descent,* ) to a fallacious conclusion (The eye would have to evolve identically in thousands of species simultaneously) not at all related to the opening assertion. In fact, it is specifially contradicted by that assertion; The obvious conclusion that someone using rational reasoning skills is that identical eyes were inheritied from a common ancestor.
So the question is, why is it so important to you that evolution be wrong that you abandon those reasoning skills? Despite your protestations, you’re acting an awfully lot like those “religious creationists” you so deride.
* Leaving aside the complicating factor of horizontal gene transfer.
Shrunk said,
May 20, 2009 at 10:10 am
“I don’t know where the first dog came from Shrunk. ”
Just to be clear, because this discussion started with chihuahuas, are you saying you don’t know the origin of the “first” domestic dog? i.e. do you think it has an origin separate from that of wolves?
Shrunk said,
May 20, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Just to concisely reiterate where you have a problem, Steve. In your own words:
“A new trait COULD spread over generations in a single species, and it could spread to newly speciated branched generations (if that indeed did occur).”
This is correct, and is in fact exactly what evolutionary theory says occurred.
“The odds of eye 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. ”
The second sentence here is also correct. Yet the events described therein (eyes suddenly arising simultaneously in millions of unrelated species,) is exactly what you claim occurred.
So how can you doubt the occurence of something you admit is possible, while believing in something for which the odds against are, as you say yourself “incalculable”?
stevebee92653 said,
May 20, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Shrunk, use your head and figure it out. It’s just so tiring explaining over and over why this one fact is a D. evolution killer, when it’s simple common sense. Those hundreds of thousands of species that existed at the time of eye formation would all have to have been common ancestors for future generations, all with their own “branches”. And, for all of the species that have all of the nearly identical organs that they have today, they would all have had to evolve eyes, and kidneys, and livers, and multi-chambered hearts, and hearing systems, ………..and, all independently. Not one species would “know” what another was evolving. But they did it without a blueprint, in identical fashion. Now, for just a minute, get rid of your preconceived indoctrinated notions, and try to imagine and figure out how all of that could have evolved from random then selected genetic changes. Think. Pretend like some teacher is just now teaching you this stuff, and you are skeptical. You don’t accept it yet. Drop the evolution filter, and just think for yourself. And, if you can’t, any further discussion is really senseless.
Shrunk said,
May 20, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Once again, you display your complete inability to understand how evolution is supposed to work. We’re not even at the level of being able to discuss the evidence that supports the theory, because you don’t even have the faintest clue of what the theory actually states.
Why on earth would a model of common ancestry require thousands of separate species evolving in synchrony?
I’ll try to make it simple for you: A new feature, lets say an eye, arises in a single species. This new feature presents an obvious survival advantage so members of the species that possess it eventually outnumber those who don’t, until only members who possess the feature exist. Over time, this species becomes more widespread and diverges into other species, all of whom will also possess the genes for the eye that their common ancestor possessed. Changes in the genomes of these now-separated species will continue to evolve so that there will be differences in the specificsof each species’ eye. However, the basic eye need only to have evolved once. It becomes “spread” to other other species thru descent.
Perhaps another hypothetical example will help. Suppose there was an organism, called Charlie, in the distant past that developed a mutation that it passed on to its offspring. If Charlie was fortunate enough happen to have a large number of children, about half of them would have that mutation. It could then happen that the mutation, over many generations, could become so widespread that it becomes “fixed” in the population i.e. every single individual in the species has it. This could, again, just happen thru chance. However, if the gene provides a selective advantage, it is more likely to happen. (This is simple population genetics, BTW, and does not have to involve evolution. Even a believer in Adam and Eve has to accept this.)
Now lets continue forward millions of years into the future. The species that Charlie belonged to is now extinct. However, his species has branched into over a thousand other species, every individual of which can be traced back to Charlie, who is a common ancestor to them all. And every single one of these species possesses a version of the gene that originated with Charlie. There could well be billions of individuals that possess that gene, but every single copy could traced back to a specific individual, i.e. Charlie.
Now, do you understand this? Again, I’m not asking if you accept that this has actually happened. I’m just asking if you understand the model of how a trait can come to exist in thousands of different species without having to evolve separately thousands of different times.
stevebee92653 said,
May 20, 2009 at 4:59 pm
To ADParker:
Re: “So you don’t know the odds. And you clearly do not understand the theorised progressions, but feel confidant enough to assert it’s impossibility anyway?!
You do realise that this tired old Arguing from bogus imagined statistics is just another of the bullshit tactics of Intelligent design creationism don’t you? It’s a joke”.
Thanks for writing so much nonsense. Your reply oozes indoctrination. You have no ability to question or think independent of what you have had jammed down your throat and sheepishly accepted. Evolution hates math because it kills the theory. So odds, reason, common sense, logic, and math are out the window for this absurd “science”.
I will go no further than your comment regarding the odds of nearly identical functionally, anatomically, positioned, and histologically identical bio-electromechanical devices evolving in hundreds of thousands of different species all at about the same time. The odds of only one item evolving by random then selected genetic changes in thousands of species is beyond astronomical. The odds of all of the major organs forming in identical fashion in thousands of species, independent of each other, all at about the same time is not even worth words. Impossible doesn’t describe the possibilities. It’s less than impossible. Yours is an “argument from complete gullibility”. You have lost your ability to rationally analyze.
And the really funny thing is you are angry with me for not believing this completely absurd scenario. What a laugh. Well, go on believeing the absurd. And accepting. Discussing this topic with someone like you is like discussing whether Noah could build a wooden ark and put all the animals two by two on board. You thoroughly believe the absurd which ends all reasonable communication. So don’t waste any more of your time on it.
Bye
Shrunk said,
May 20, 2009 at 6:27 pm
“The odds of all of the major organs forming in identical fashion in thousands of species, independent of each other, all at about the same time is not even worth words. Impossible doesn’t describe the possibilities. It’s less than impossible.”
And yet, this is what you think happened. Not just organs, but entire organisms, complete with legs, arms, brains, hearts, lungs, kidneys, just suddenly appeared out of nowhere by some magical process. This is what you believe. Do you deny it?
stevebee92653 said,
May 20, 2009 at 6:53 pm
You still don’t get it. You are filtering. What about the branches of the hundreds of thousands of species that didn’t evolve eyes? How did they “get” eyes? If your “could have’s” were true, 99% of mc species would be eyeless today. And, you have no trouble isolating eyes in the equation. What about hearts, livers, pancreas, hearing systems, et al. You describe it as if eyes were the only thing evolving. You problems become exponentially more troubling.
Your idea that I think a magical process happened is silly, since you advocate that a slow non-guided process did the exact same thing. No blueprint, no plan, just random changes being selected by non-intelligent random death/life battles. Yours is just as silly as you think mine is. And, I really don’t advocate any MO for the appearance of species. I have no idea how it happened, so your problem gets deeper. But I do advocate going by what the evidence and fossil record shows, which is the “rapid” appearance and disappearance of species over time with little intra-species changes. The evidence is that, and the theory should follow that evidence until more or different evidence is found. Making up stories about what is not there isn’t science.
Shrunk said,
May 20, 2009 at 9:44 pm
(*Sigh*)
OK, let’s try one more time, a bit more slowly. Try pay attention, now.
Steve, you have eyes, right? A heart, lungs, kidneys, all those things? You do. Now, do your children? Good. Did they get them from you, or did they have to evolve them on their own? What about your grand children, or great grand children, or great great great etc. etc. grand children. Will any of them ever have to evolve those organs all over again from scratch? The correct answer is “No.” They will all be born with those organs, because they inherited from you the genes that control the growth and development of those organs.
With me so far? Good.
Now, let’s go back to those fish to tetrapod transitionals I mentioned way back. One of those early tetrapods, likely not Ichthyostega but someone who looked a lot like him, is the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all tetrapods. That means that every single bird, reptile, amphibian and mammal that has ever lived, and ever WILL live, is descended directly from him. And guess what? Just like you, that MRCA already had eyes, a heart, lungs, legs, an excretory system. etc. (How he came to have these is another issue, but that’s not what we’re discussing here at the moment. We’re just trying to disavow you of one major misconception that you’re labouring under.) So just like you and all your descendents, all his descendents already had eyes, hearts, lungs, etc. None of them will ever have to evolve these organs from scratch, because they have already inherited them from him. In, fact you’re one of those descendents. That’s right! He passed on the genes that allow you to develop these organs just as you have, and will, to all your descendents.
So, you see, there is no need for any of the other thousands of species re “re-evolve” or “co-evolve” anything. Any trait need only evolve once, and then is passed on to descendents. Any other species alive at the time the trait first appears will not obtain it, and never will.
So the model you seem to have in mind, which as far as I can tell is that thousands of species of birds, reptiles and mammals come into existence without eyes, and then had to evolve eyes on their own, separately, is just wrong. Eyes had already been existence for eons before any of those species came to be, and they just inherited them from their ancestors.
NOW do you get it?
Shrunk said,
May 21, 2009 at 1:16 am
Oh, and I neglected to comment on this part of your post, Steve:
“Your idea that I think a magical process happened is silly, since you advocate that a slow non-guided process did the exact same thing. No blueprint, no plan, just random changes being selected by non-intelligent random death/life battles. Yours is just as silly as you think mine is. And, I really don’t advocate any MO for the appearance of species. I have no idea how it happened, so your problem gets deeper. But I do advocate going by what the evidence and fossil record shows, which is the ‘rapid’ appearance and disappearance of species over time with little intra-species changes.”
Well, whether or not you like to use the term “magic” for the unknown process which you are sure has occurred, but cannot describe or define in any way whatsoever is irrelevent. If you don’t believe that all species are related thru common descent, then the only alternative that I can see is that some species arose fully formed and in possession of those organs that you repeatedly insist could never have just formed by themselves. So all those arguments you make about “eyes couldn’t possible arise thousands of times in different species” are only undercutting your own positiion. It doesn’t refute evolution in any way, because evolutionary theory does not say that is what happened and, in fact, offers the only explanation for how such structures could come to exist.
ADParker said,
May 21, 2009 at 3:50 am
“Thanks for writing so much nonsense.”
You’re welcome. Funnily enough coming from you “nonsense” does not feel at all like an insult. “If stevebee92653 thinks it’s nonsense, it almost has to have some merit!”
“Your reply oozes indoctrination.”
Yes, thank you. We are all quite aware that you love to dismiss anything that doesn’t fit into your blinkered worldview as indoctrination. The level of projection is palpable!
“You have no ability to question or think independent of what you have had jammed down your throat and sheepishly accepted.”
Interesting that you presume to know so much about me, but then presuming to know things that you clearly have little to no understanding or appreciation of seems to be your thing.
You for example have no clue of how I came to my current (limited) understanding of evolution, science or philosophy. (Actually I have recently been marvelling how much of my understanding and appreciation of science, but esp. evolution and cosmology, have stemmed largely from conversations with creationists and the like!) Especially when coupled with a prior (although always ongoing) education in Critical thinking and logic – No, before you ask, none of which even included the merest mention of evolution or much science at all. It wasn’t even something I had much interest or understanding in at all at that point, I am now saddened to admit.)
“Evolution hates math because it kills the theory. So odds, reason, common sense, logic, and math are out the window for this absurd “science”.”
That is interesting; just a few days ago I saw an interview with Richard Dawkins who explained that one could not get far at all in evolutionary biology anymore, without mathematics. (And that Charles Darwin would almost certainly not get a grant on that basis.)
As it happens I studied both statistics (odds and maths) and philosophy (specializing in reason and formal logic) before becoming interested in and learning about evolutionary biology and the “hard” sciences. Which are of course absolutely founded on Reason.
“Common Sense” of course is well recognised as being notoriously unreliable and prone to personal bias. It is for instance why a certain “designer species”, one that due to it’s evolutionary path; is a natural pattern seeker and designer, “sees” design, and then sees an immediate gut reaction implication of a designer, in it’s surroundings. It’s actually a fascinating psychological phenomenon.
Reason (uncommon sense) when applied on top of naive “common sense” is what allows one to recognise that design can be “emergent” and thus designerless, and in fact that the most significant , less restricted, freer (and earliest) design is actually emergent design. Daniel Dennett’s ‘Darwin’s Dangerous Idea’ (which I have already suggested to you before) gives a good description of this as relating to organic evolution.
“I will go no further than your comment regarding the odds of nearly identical functionally, anatomically, positioned, and histologically identical bio-electromechanical devices evolving in hundreds of thousands of different species all at about the same time.”
No, best not to actually address my comments eh? Just dismiss them all out of hand, most reasonable of you, I’m sure.
It’s all based on your ridiculous Straw Man of eye evolution anyway, so what’s the point?
“The odds of only one item evolving by random then selected genetic changes in thousands of species is beyond astronomical.”
Yes, Evolution is a far better explanation than that Straw Man, I agree. Which of course predicts common ancestry for the some features, and variation to be present in separate evolutionary paths. Including convergent evolution, which makes interesting predictions of it’s own, that to date have always been borne out.
“The odds of all of the major organs forming in identical fashion in thousands of species, independent of each other, all at about the same time is not even worth words.”
Again I must agree. Good thing the Theory of Evolution doesn’t say that then; it would be scrapped in an (evolved) heartbeat, if that were the case.
“Impossible doesn’t describe the possibilities. It’s less than impossible.”
Less than Impossible?! Must have missed that one in my Statistical Studies.
How would that be expressed? p=-0.02?
“Yours is an “argument from complete gullibility”. You have lost your ability to rationally analyze.”
Thanks! I am fairly well known as something of a logician and clear critical thinker. But there is always room for improvement, it’s an ongoing lifelong project.
(See what I did there?)
“And the really funny thing is you are angry with me for not believing this completely absurd scenario. What a laugh.”
Ah yes the all too typical Emotional projection response. This is a common one folks, when one’s belief system is actually based on emotion and imagination, not reason. Sad really.
I’m not angry at you stevebee92653. In all honesty; go and believe that there are fairies at the bottom of your garden for all I care. But I do both enjoy and feel that it is important to defend Reason and science when it is abused like this. In order to hopefully help a few who otherwise might be bamboozled by the kind of confused flim-flam foolishness that you have been spewing all over your blog.
The odd comment denoting some success in this, as I and others (on RDF forum) on occasion receive makes it all worth the effort. (Although many of us would keep on trying regardless.)
“Well, go on believing the absurd. And accepting. Discussing this topic with someone like you is like discussing whether Noah could build a wooden ark and put all the animals two by two on board. You thoroughly believe the absurd which ends all reasonable communication. So don’t waste any more of your time on it.
Bye”
Ha ha ha. Thanks for the unintentional compliments (From one such as yourself I take them as such.) I love the way people like yourself run away from ‘the heat’; by inane accusations and bluster. Even more hilarious given the ‘venue’ this time.
Couldn’t muster enough to actually argue the points huh? Oh well.
stevebee92653 said,
May 21, 2009 at 8:36 am
Now you can go back to Dawkins and let them know how you did battle with me and won an overwhelming victory, get cheered by your fellow evolutonauts, and be a hero. Honestly, you make up incredible stories. There was only one species that had eyes, because they ate all of the other species? Why are there mc blind ones today. They must have skipped the holocaust. And you took logic? Sorry I can’t accept yours and you peers fantasies. And, no matter what question I bring up, you have a fantasy to match.
So I release you to Dawkins. Maybe they will have a parade for you. I must say you are skilled at thinking up stories. Very talented. Don’t forget to tell them what an IDiot I am. And no quote mining now.
ADParker said,
May 21, 2009 at 10:01 am
“Now you can go back to Dawkins”
I have barely ever spoken to the man. A couple of basic comments, and one minor disagreement over something about reading fantasy, and that’s about it. He doesn’t spend much time on the forum actually,
“and let them know how you did battle with me and won an overwhelming victory, get cheered by your fellow evolutonauts, and be a hero.”
Who gives a damn?
None of my time here or on RDF has ever been about ‘winning’ arguments. It is not (for me at least) a game.
Some are however, as it happens, watching on with amusement.
I don’t know what an evolutionaut is, but whatever.
You are reminding me of the homeowner trying to usher their no longer wanted guest out of the house, without trying to make it obvious that they are the ones feeling the pressure and wanting them to go
Feeling a bit pressured and overtaxed are we?! Want the big scary Reasonists to leave you alone with your comfortable little fantasy do we? Can’t handle the pressure of people actually challenging and critically assessing your drivel eh?
“Honestly, you make up incredible stories. There was only one species that had eyes, because they ate all of the other species?”
You do realise that people CAN look back at the previous posts don’t you? And that they could therefore easily find that it was YOU who made up that inane “ate them all” story, not me.
“Why are there mc blind ones today.”
Sorry, what?
“They must have skipped the holocaust.”
Holocaust?! What are you on about? Has something snapped?
“And you took logic?”
Yes I did. Topped the class and all, as it happens. Not that it matters.
“Sorry I can’t accept yours and you peers fantasies.”
As odd as it might seem to you; YOUR personal approval doesn’t amount to a hill of beans as far as I am concerned.
“And, no matter what question I bring up, you have a fantasy to match.”
The question I have is why are all of your assertions about evolution being impossible, set as questions? Where are your answers?
But then that is what you get when your entire line of ‘arguing’ is the repeated commission of the Argument from Ignorance.
“So I release you to Dawkins.”
Oh the size of that ego! You “release” me?! Who do you think you are? What do you think I am?!
I don’t know Richard Dawkins, I am no more his property than I am yours!
“Maybe they will have a parade for you. I must say you are skilled at thinking up stories. Very talented. Don’t forget to tell them what an IDiot I am. And no quote mining now.”
Oh no need for that. Simply pointing people to this blog of yours will be quite enough for those of sufficient mental capacity to get the joke.
RaspK said,
May 21, 2009 at 12:12 am
I might as well inform Steve here of an answer to his repeated questions about what happened to the hundreds of thousands of species that did not have eyes.
Have you ever heard of bacteria, Steve? You don’t seem to have!
We know there are species with “eyespots;” there is no arcane nature to this fact, nothing occult and obscure about it: unicellular lifeforms with rudimentary means allowing them to certify where the most light is there are plainly evident.
P.S.: And, yes, do you really not know that dogs were bred from grey wolves?
stevebee92653 said,
May 21, 2009 at 3:08 am
So you think that a light sensitive spot in a single celled species (really an electromagnetic radiation sensitive spot) evolved into a complex visual system consisting of eyeballs, et al, optic nerves, visual cortex, and biochemical code? And you act demeaning to me? So a small spot IN a cell evolved into comparatively immense devices MADE OF cells. That seem logical. At least in the fantasy world of evolution.
P.S.: And, yes, do you really not know that dogs were bred from grey wolves?
No I don’t know, and you don’t either. But you think you know, so congratulations.
ADParker said,
May 21, 2009 at 5:07 am
“P.S.: And, yes, do you really not know that dogs were bred from grey wolves?
No I don’t know, and you don’t either. But you think you know, so congratulations”
Oh brother. Come on stevebee92653!
The Grey Wolf and all breeds of dog ARE THE EXACT SAME SPECIES!
The genetic testing has been done, the evidence is in, its a done deal and a fact!
Forget the broader theory of evolution, this is basic animal husbandry. Our ancestors (oh 10 to 15 thousand years ago) began selectively breeding wolves for their benefit, as companions, hunting aids and protectors.
Shrunk said,
May 21, 2009 at 10:21 am
“:P.S.: And, yes, do you really not know that dogs were bred from grey wolves?
No I don’t know, and you don’t either. But you think you know, so congratulations.”
(*blink*)
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!! (gasp for breath) AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf-dog_hybrid
Mumtrader said,
May 21, 2009 at 12:27 am
Steve I think the bit you are neglecting here is that of advantage confered by natural selection.
You are labouring under the belief that not only do all species continue to be equally likely to survive to reproduce, but that even deeper than that, all members within a species do.
Does it not make sense to you that the mutation responsible for the first photo receptor cell (for example) would confer an advantage to the organism which would see it MORE LIKELY to survive to reproduce AND that those within the gene pool who do not possess this mutation become LESS LIKELY to survive to reproduce by default?
And that this is how such ‘mutations’ become entrenched in a genome?
And that hence the genome shifts over time to include ONLY organisms that possess this trait which confers added survivability?
With respect to your assertion about the probabilities, you are simply falling for the inability that most humans have for comprehending enormous numbers and just how likely things are. The sheer weight of the number of genetic ‘mutations’, encompassed in an incomprehesible number of generations across goodness knows how many species over millions of years, would rather indicate that the least likely outcome would be life, once it got started, NOT evolving in the manner it has.
stevebee92653 said,
May 21, 2009 at 2:57 am
You have several problems with your scenario. One is that you are isolating a single item (vision) when a plethora of different items were forming. Multi-chambered hearts, livers, limbs, hearing…..and on and on. So, how did a partially evolved liver trump a mostly blind species? What a mess.
The mutation you talk about has never been observed anyway. They all happened millions of years ago when no one could see them forming. There are none today. Why? If they don’t occur today, they didn’t 500MYA. (nylon eating bacteria, wings changing color don’t count.) If the mutations you discuss were happening all over the place today, evolution would sure look better, and have many more proponents, including me. But it just isn’t there.
With regard to the odds: the odds of something routinely happening millions of years ago that never happens today is not worth discussion. And the odds of the same exact mutations happening in every species at the same time, forming the same organs designed in the same fashion without a blueprint is astronomically against. You can gloss that over if you like. I can’t.
Mumtrader said,
May 21, 2009 at 4:12 am
Nope. OK. You still don’t see where your primary error is do you. Siiigh.
stevebee92653 said,
May 21, 2009 at 3:25 am
Shrunk:
Re: “So, you see, there is no need for any of the other thousands of species re “re-evolve” or “co-evolve” anything. Any trait need only evolve once, and then is passed on to descendents”.
So what happened to all of those poor descendants of all of those other species that didn’t have eyes? Shame. They must be blind today.
Re: “Just like you, that MRCA already had eyes, a heart, lungs, legs, an excretory system. etc. (How he came to have these is another issue, but that’s not what we’re discussing here at the moment.)”
So we’ll just skip how all of those organs and bio-electromechanical devices formed? We’ll skip WHAT WE DISCUSSING for the purposes of your simpleton and condescending discussion?
Give it up, and go back to Dawkins.net and let them know how smart you are, and how you really outfoxed me. You are way too indoctrinated, and you just spout evo-dogma without any thought whatsoever.
ADParker said,
May 21, 2009 at 5:01 am
“So what happened to all of those poor descendants of all of those other species that didn’t have eyes? Shame. They must be blind today.”
Yup. Poor old blind bacteria, fungi and plants. Boo hoo, how DO they cope?! The rest of them? What little there probably where (seeing as the beginnings of vision began in unicellular organisms before the Cambrian explosion (when complex eyes are known to have been already present); THEY DIED, it’s been over 600,000,000 years, and they were outmatched by their sighted ‘cousins.’
If thre were blind species that you describe as “poor descendants” thus disadvantaged by having been unfortunate enough to miss out on getting eyes, then THINK ABOUT IT: What do you suppose the Theory of Evolution has to say about the thusly disadvantaged?! It’s right there in the most basic fundamentals of the theory (which you CLAIM to understand.)
But okay, fine. Lets look back:
We know that mammals, reptiles, amphibians and fish have eyes. What about earlier ancestors? Where did it begin?
Why it seems that we can go all the way back to our Kingdom: Animalia, with even the various branches (phyla etc.) spawning off organisms with eyes. It seems that the original eye evolution was very early indeed. But of course we know this due to unicellular photoreceptor cell evidence.
So all we need do then is realise that all eyed species, perhaps all multicellular species (or maybe excluding plants and fungi, although….) came from one single very ancient eye bearing ancestor. Where are all the blind species then? What blind species? The ancestors of them either died out or are with us today ans bacteria, fungi and plants.
You seem to be fixated on some naive and baseless assumption that there MUST have been some (many it seems) complex multicellular organisms with no eyes, and that there descendants must have survived to today. Why would one assume such a thing?
stevebee92653 said,
May 21, 2009 at 8:15 am
So the species that could see dark and light ate all of the other species, leaving ONLY them? I wonder, what about the ones that could hear and not see? Or the ones that could filter their blood but were deaf and blind? What a slaughter that must have been! Actually chordates evolved eyes about 500 MYO. Didn’t you know? Check with PZ on his site. And there were many chordates at the time. And many other species. So, it doesn’t quite fit your story. But that’s OK. You are an evolutionaut. You can make up new ones.
I wonder how eyes got handed off to flies?
Your last paragraph is a complete misunderstanding of what I was saying. Try rereading and reloading.
ADParker said,
May 21, 2009 at 9:36 am
“So the species that could see dark and light ate all of the other species, leaving ONLY them?”
Um what?! If you aren’t a creationist, you certainly think like one! The overly simplistic naivety of it all! Where did you study evolution, Liberty University?!
Ate them all? Doubtful, they fared better in various ways for sure, and thus out competed them in passing their genes to future generations. As time passed their “eye” genes came to dominate the population. Why? Simply because it worked better than the alternatives available
“I wonder, what about the ones that could hear and not see?”
Sigh. It’s always like this isn’t it? Can’t get past imagining something akin to living organisms missing a component. Can never look at the picture the right bloody way around. No wonder you are so confused.
Hearing? I don’t know. If hearing developed earlier then the organism with the slight visual advantage would also have the same hearing capacity as it’s siblings, and would thus be equal except for that slight advantage. With my basic grasp of evolution I really can’t see the problem you are imagining. It seems based on nothing but a ridiculous unstated caricature of evolution you have in your head for some reason.
“Or the ones that could filter their blood but were deaf and blind?”
Same as above. It’s not like all possible combinations of these were all contemporaries of one another.
“What a slaughter that must have been!”
And “slaughter” is hardly the only way for one “body plan” to supersede another. No more than you having to kill off all rivals to get your patents anyway.
“Actually chordates evolved eyes about 500 MYO. Didn’t you know? Check with PZ on his site.”
Did they really? No I didn’t know that. I don’t pretend to have (anywhere near) all the answers.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/evolution_of_vertebrate_eyes.php
Interesting. Of course he states that photoreceptors evolved in Precambrian times and before Chordates, as they (we) have two kinds of photoreceptors while Non-Chordates like the octopus (of the Phylum Mollusca not Chordata, but both of the Kingdom Animalia; precisely as I stated.) have only the one. Thanks for the reference though.
“And there were many chordates at the time. And many other species. So, it doesn’t quite fit your story. But that’s OK. You are an evolutionaut. You can make up new ones.”
Chordata isn’t a species of course. But as the article YOU pointed me to explains that the apparatus for eyes, including at least one kind of photoreceptor, was present BEFORE the emergence of chordates, ALL of the varied clades of chordates you speak of would have had the beginnings of eyes to begin with. And the Phyla Mollusca had some as well. So where’s the problem?
What story is that then?
What you think that ALL of those species (not of the phyla Chordata or Mollusca, or what other phyla at the time also shared the older ancestor with eye apparatus) managed to leave offspring to this very day?! Surviving through all of those mass extinction events?! Other than all of those organisms today that don’t have eyes that is?
“I wonder how eyes got handed off to flies?”
WTF?! Flies (Diptera) don’t seem to have arrived on the scene until a couple of hundred million years after the evolution of the eye (Triassic.)
Or is this silly quip from you due to your inability to comprehend what Dr. Myers was saying about eye evolution and chordates? He clearly states that the photoreceptors evolved before the chordate split. There eyes are different of course, clearly took a different path. But also contains some of the same starting genes which evolved earlier. All it means is that we can add the Phyla Arthropoda to the list that received at least some of the “eye evolution” developments. Which is plausible as apparently the beginnings of that phyla occurred around the same time; ~543-550 million years ago.
Reading further, it seems that Arthropods too have Rhabdomeric photoreceptors but not Ciliary photoreceptors (just like the mollusks.) So perhaps our common ancestor had the one, but not the latter. We share a number of genes etc. As PZ states:
“Common features of metazoan eyes
Molecular, developmental, and morphological studies have revealed some common ground in the eyes of virtually all multicellular animals. Their formation is regulated by a common homeobox gene, a pax6 homolog. All photoreceptors use a light-sensitive pigment derived from vitamin A, and this pigment is bound to a protein called opsin. Light activates opsin by causing a conformation change in the photopigment, and opsin then binds to a G-protein, a common and versatile molecule used in many signal transduction cascades. These similarities suggest that all eyes have a common evolutionary ancestor.”
The differences begin to occur with the two types of photoreceptors.
All interesting stuff to be sure. BUT all we are doing here is narrowing down WHEN (at the latest) certain aspects of the evolution of the eye originated. Not a hint of falsifying that evolution, as far as I can tell.
hackenslash said,
May 21, 2009 at 4:22 am
Big up to the RDF massive!
Perhaps you missed this article. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3679313.stm
Maybe you should keep up with actual science, especially the actual science that pertains to your purported field. Hmmm.
stevebee92653 said,
May 21, 2009 at 7:56 am
Oh boy. Well I guess that answers all the questions! They will have healthy teeth in two years? Just like forming life in the lab. They are “almost there” too! How exciting. And if they do? That proves what for evolution? Nada. Sorry.
Shrunk said,
May 21, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Yayyy! Steve finally said something right! I knew it would happen eventually.
“Just like forming life in the lab. They are “almost there” too! How exciting. And if they do? That proves what for evolution? Nada. Sorry.”
Precisely. Abiogenesis is a completely different topic than evolution. Evolution only deals with what happened after life arose. It has nothing to say about how life arose in the first place.
Newmark said,
May 21, 2009 at 5:28 am
stevebee92653
Re: So what happened to all of those poor descendants of all of those other species that didn’t have eyes? Shame. They must be blind today.
They died. They did not have descendants. They became extinct. Like most of the species that ever existed. Because someone else was better at finding food/mating/escaping predators. That is all natural selection is. Competition can be a bitch.
stevebee92653 said,
May 21, 2009 at 7:52 am
Gee. What a shame. What a lot of pressure on that one species. What if it went extinct? We’d all be blind! BUT, what if they were carrying the mutations for HEARING? My gawd, are we lucky that the one species that survived had ears too. Or we’d all be deaf. But, what if they were carrying livers? I guess that one species had it all. Every major organ so it could pass it on to us.
So the one chordate that developed eyes 500 MYA was the only chordate to survive, and ALL the rest died. I never cease to be amazed.
ADParker said,
May 21, 2009 at 8:37 am
“What if it went extinct? We’d all be blind! ”
You really have no clue do you?!
No WE would not be blind; it’s our ancestor, we would not be – period. Not if it went extinct without leaving any progeny.
“So the one chordate that developed eyes 500 MYA was the only chordate to survive, and ALL the rest died. I never cease to be amazed.”
Except that the evidence shows that eyes (or at least the rudiments of eyes) evolved before the chordates arrived. And no not all eyeless species died, there are innumerable organism species alive today that have none. Once again” Plants, Fungi, Bacteria.
And yes (of course) stevebee92653; if any single one of your ancestors, in the entire ~4,000,000,000 year history of life on this planet died without producing offspring, you would not be here today! What are the odds!
Pretty damn slim if (like the ID crowd love to do) you look at it backwards. BUT if you look at it the other way around, the way it actually occurred, not bad at all.
It IS amazing, but not extraordinary. You imply that it was all just dumb luck. But how hard is this to get: That ancestor who had the first glimmer of a light detector, and all subsequent ancestors that had better and better visual apparatus survived…not by chance, not by dumb random luck…but by the basic function of Natural Selection; they survived because they had “the right stuff.” That improvement in visual acuity gave them a certain survival advantage.
Simply put; thy survived and thrived because THEY WERE BETTER AT IT.
Eyes, hearts, lungs… evolved because they (at every stage of their evolutionary development) offered a survival advantage over it’s predecessors and rivals. Evolution 101.
Shrunk said,
May 21, 2009 at 10:44 am
Hiya, Steve. I know there are a lot of posts coming at you. but I notice you seem to have dropped the topic we were discussing. Is this because you finally realize your claim that evolutionary theory requires that identical traits evolve separately in different species is wrong?
Also, I would like it if you would confirm whether you believe that new species appeared on earth, complete and in possession of all those complex biomechanical structures you keep tallking about, without having arisen from an ancestor of any sort. I’m not interested in whether you have any knowledge of the process of how this occurred. I’m just interested in whether this is what you believe the evidence shows.
BTW, thanks for finally answering the question about the dogs. That really brightened my day! You’re real biological scientist, you are.
stevebee92653 said,
May 21, 2009 at 4:10 pm
#1. no
#2 I don’t know how they appeared. What you need to do is look at the REAL fossil record, and make a theory from that instead of following and making fantasy.
3# I’m glad you know things that no other person on earth knows. Must be a fantastic feeling. Congrats.
Shrunk said,
May 21, 2009 at 4:27 pm
#1
OK, so what are you still failing to understand about the theory? Remember, for the I-don’t-know-how-manyth time, we are not talking about whether you accept the theory. We are dealing with what the theory says. There are several people here who are quite well-versed in the theory, and we are all saying that you are misunderstanding it.
#2
Again, I’m not asking if you know HOW they appeared. I’m just asking WHETHER you BELIEVE they appeared. You do not accept that species arose thru common ancestry with earlier forms. In fact, your repeatedly say this is “impossible.” Fine. Then the only alternative I can see is that these species arose by themselves by some other process that does not involve common ancestry. This would mean that they suddenly appeared full formed, since you (correctly) believe that it is virtually impossible for different lines to have developed complex organs that are almost identical side by side in separate processes.
So you are left with two options, as I see it:
1) You accept that evolution by common descent is a possibility.
2) You accept that complex organisms can only have appeared fully formed with no ancestors.
Which is it , Steve?
#3
So the fact that domestic dogs can be commonly cross bred with grey wolves doesn’t at least hint to you that they might, maybe, perhaps, be related in some way? Hmmm?
stevebee92653 said,
May 21, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Regarding your “which do you believe:
Read page one paragraph #4. I really don’t want to rewrite the blog for you that I already wrote. Here is how it works best: Read the blog, THEN challenge instead of just shooting from the hip.
Mumtrader said,
May 21, 2009 at 10:50 am
Quote ADParker – “And yes (of course) stevebee92653; if any single one of your ancestors, in the entire ~4,000,000,000 year history of life on this planet died without producing offspring, you would not be here today! What are the odds!
Pretty damn slim if (like the ID crowd love to do) you look at it backwards. BUT if you look at it the other way around, the way it actually occurred, not bad at all.”
I KNOW, the retro-stats are precious aren’t they! I thought it too obvious to make the point earlier that any of this stuff only need to have happened once for it’s likelihood of happening again to be closer to one than zero. A bit like GFC’s!! I think a bit of reading on randomness is in order for our friend here. Try some Taleb to get you started, Steve.
I honestly don’t know what is so hard to imagine with all this: we know life started (not sure how), we know genes mutate, we know mutations are hereditary too, so: billions of years x billions of mutations x billions of pieces of genetic code x billions of generations. . .mix in some natural selection and voila! It’d be a freakin miracle if it didn’t happen.
stevebee92653 said,
May 21, 2009 at 4:05 pm
I’m glad you believe that without hesitation, or skepticism. You are a devoted evolutionaut, and Richard is proud. NOT a scientist, but an evolutionaut.
Shrunk said,
May 21, 2009 at 4:31 pm
So which of Mumtraders points do you dispute?
That life started?
That genes mutate?
That mutations can be inherited?
That life has existed for billions of years?
That natural selection (which merely means that some individuals are more likely to pass on their genes than others) occurs?
C’mon, Steve. For once, at least try to make an argument, rather than just relying on name-calling and empty bluster.
Mumtrader said,
May 22, 2009 at 3:48 am
Yes, nice side-step there Steve. Demonstrate to me where I am wrong, or do you need me to give you a refresher in probabilities first?
You take a myopic view of a theory you patently do not fully understand via a branch of science that is far from the entire story behind said theory & reckon you can bring the whole lot down with an internet blog. LULZ. Your hubris knows no bounds really does it, even when the last vestiges of your common sense must tell you that IF you are right there’s probably a Nobel prize in it for you. I’m sure an unemployed scientist like you can get a position at a reasonable college and make a real name for yourself.
Answer me this. What possible investment could I have in this being true do you think? Why would I be emotionally attached to ToENS?
Mr.Samsa said,
May 21, 2009 at 11:36 am
Oh no… there’s been a terrible, terrible mix up. This confusion has caused a lot of wasted time, all because of one simple mistake. Steve, you seem to have confused the theory of evolution with some wacky idea that you’ve just made up off the top of your head.
I’ve made a similar mistake before so don’t feel bad. Once I posted on a forum vehemently claiming that the theory of gravity couldn’t possibly happen the way scientists suggest. Turns out, gravity doesn’t claim that psychic mole people use their mental powers to drag objects towards them. Very embarrassing..
So yeah, just read up on what evolution actually is and you’ll find your answers. I recommend starting with wikipedia so you can grasp the basics before moving on to anything more complicated.
stevebee92653 said,
May 21, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Please don’t insult gravity by comparing it to the fantasy of evolution. You argued gravity? That’s all I need to know. Thanks for the heads up.
Shrunk said,
May 21, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Umm, Steve. I think he was joking. Once again, your complete gullibility and lack of critical thinking abilities betray you.
Mr.Samsa said,
May 22, 2009 at 4:22 am
Shrunk is correct, I was being facetious. However, since you’ve taken it seriously I’ll continue with it.
Evolution has a lot more evidence in support of it than gravity. Seriously, read a few journal articles one day. Does this not worry you? The scientific community has created this world wide hoax, indoctrinating children into believing in “gravity”.
Doesn’t gravity seem a bit weak to you? I mean, gravity pulls a pin down to the earth, yet with a simple fridge magnet I can overpower gravity. My fridge magnet produces a greater force than gravity…
Quick, you need to build a blog debunking gravity! I’ll help if you want, I can read (since reading and/or comprehending doesn’t seem to be your forte).
Mr.Samsa said,
May 23, 2009 at 5:56 am
Steve said: “As was I. (being facetious). This comment goes in the top ten stupid
comments department. Congrats. No link to reply, so email is my only choice.
Quit wasting your time and mine. It isn’t ever close to being original.” (In reply to my gravity and evolution comparison).
I wasn’t trying to be original. I was just pointing out that the theory of gravity has way more questions surrounding it than evolution. Yet you focus on evolution, why is that? Is it because you’re basing your opinion of it on your magic book instead of logic and reason?
That would explain why you can’t see how terrible your arguments are.
Shrunk said,
May 23, 2009 at 11:11 am
There’s also the question of why Dr. Steve, the Super Genius Inventor, can’t seem to figure out the “reply” function on his own blog.
Shrunk said,
May 21, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Well, I had a look at that paragraph you suggested, but it didn’t answer my question at all.
Here’s the corner I think you’ve painted yourself into. As far as I can see, there are three hypothetical scenarios that could explain how life on earth has arisen:
1) From a single universal common ancestor thru evolution and natural selection.
2) Each species started out separately as a simple life form and ech developed complex organs and structures such as eyes, hearts, lungs, etc. in separate parallel processes.
3) All species arrived on earth already fully formed and in possession of these complex stuctures, and have only undergone minor changes and adaptations since.
Your problem is that you have already rejected (1) and (2) as impossible, so unless you can come up with a fourth scenario, you are forced to accept (3), which is essentially the Biblical Creation model.
Or, you can just ignore this and call me an “evolutionaut” if that works better for you.
stevebee92653 said,
May 21, 2009 at 7:32 pm
So you, the fully indoctrinated Shrunk, have the POWER to give me the choices of how life arose and what I believe? Who gave you that power? Dawkins? And why the hell would you care? Why would you spend so much of your time here unless what I wrote had an intelligent and emotional effect on you and your beliefs. If my stuff is so ridiculous as you claim, why waste your time here? Again, try reading my stuff, which answers just about everything you have asked.
Shrunk said,
May 22, 2009 at 1:30 am
And Steve evades the question yet again. Probably just as well. Whenever you try to do anything other than insult or evade, you just say something else stupid. You obviously realize you’ve backed yourself into a corner and there’s no way to address my question without losing face.
Sorry, not going. I know you’d just love to have no one posting here but your fawning acolytes, rather than us nasty “evolutionauts” who keep exposing the depths of your ignorance and stupidity, but I’m having fun for the time being. You can always ban us and erase the thread, thereby removing all evidence of the epic pwnage you’ve suffered here.
stevebee92653 said,
May 22, 2009 at 1:42 am
Gawd do you live in a dream world. What question? Chihuahuas? How I think things happened. Want me to copy-paste my first couple of pages for you? Can’t you read. In your fantasy world you are victorious! Well a fantasy congratulations to you. You are tiring, that is why I can’t waste much time on you. You are severely indoctrinated, you have no skepticism.And I have talked to you and the like so many times. Same old fantasies. So, if you have any questions on my blog information, of which there is tons, I will be happy to respond. Otherwise you are getting to be a fly.
Shrunk said,
May 22, 2009 at 10:46 am
“What question? Chihuahuas? How I think things happened. ”
Yes, those questions, among many others. They are not answered anywhere in your blog, that I can see.
Regarding the origins of life, all you say is that the evidence is too complex for you to understand. However, it’s not too complex for you to reject those first two options I listed above. Instead, you strongly suggest you think the evidence supports option #3 of the ones I listed. As you said to me yourself earlier in this thread:
“In reality, fossils certainly show change in species over the eons. They do NOT show change WITHIN A species. There is absolutely no single species that shows the kind of evolution that would prove the theory. Species seemed to start and stop, with new ones taking their place.”
If that’s the case, why are you so reluctant to come right out and say you agrre with #3? I suspect the reason is that you realize this places you in the logically untenable position of claiming that it is impossible for an eye to gradually evolve in incremental steps over millions of year, yet it is possible for an entire animal (eyes included) to suddenly pop out of thin air. But that’s just my guess. You can feel free to correct me. And I’m not forcing you to choose between those three options. As I said, you’re free to come up with a fourth one that I couldn’t think of. But if you can’t, then you’re committing yourself to agreeing with #3, since this is the only one you haven’t explicitly stated is “impossible.”
There, that’s a question related to your blog entries. What excuse are you going to come up with to avoid answering this time?
stevebee92653 said,
May 22, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Try reading the blog. The first two pages will be better answers than I can give in a minute. But I will give you a quick answer if it will help you.
#.1. no
#2. no
#3. Don’t know. Do know not by NS or religious god going shazam. Do not know any more than why or how life began, why or how the BB occurred.
There, now rag away.
You have spent so much time trying to make me look bad because I don’t hold the same scientific belief as you, so I am very puzzled as to why you spend so much time here. And going back to Dawkins and ragging on me there makes you look pretty bad. Particularly when you are not truthful. You have no respect here. But, that was as predicted. You are a hero there. Right? So, now you can take these answers back and rag some more. But I could care less, so rag away, and make yourself look smart.
Shrunk said,
May 22, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Well if #1 and #2 are “No”, and there’s no #4, how can #3 just be “I don’t know”? This is the only choice you’re left with.
Anyway, thanks for the answer, even though getting it was like pulling teeth (if you’ll pardon the bad pun). I think the logical impossibility of your position is now clearly evident, and even if you don’t realize it, any objective reader will.
stevebee92653 said,
May 22, 2009 at 10:32 pm
Shrunk
All of the answers to your questions werer right on my blog which unfortunately you didn’t take a few minutes to read. Just about every thought I have on this subject is there, if you have any more questions. OK, I have some questions for you:
1. Why did the BIG BANG occur?
2. Why did it occur when it did? Why did the BB occur 13.7BYA, instead of 5 YA or 100MYA?
3. Why did life form on earth when no life would have been the easiest rout?
4. Why does anything exist when nothing would be far easier?
5. How did life occur. Oh, I know, I know. Chemicals came together, fell to the ocean floor, formed R/DNA, got into fat cells, and CAME ALIVE! Right??
Shrunk said,
May 23, 2009 at 2:28 am
1. No idea .
2. Cosmology isn’t really my thing. But my understanding is that time itself starts with the BB, so you question is meaningless. There was no 100 MYA, and the reason the BB occurred 13.7 BYA is because we’re having this discussion 13.7 billion years after the BBB.
3. What is the basis for your belief that no life is “easier” than life? If we consider the number of planets in the universe, and the fact that we have no idea of all the conditions that make some form of life possible, it could be argued that a lifeless universe is much less likely than one with life.
4. Again, I don’t accept the premise of the question. Do you know the conditions that allowed the BB to happen? If not, how can you determine whether or not they were likely? How do you know that it is even possible for nothing to exist? “Nothing exists.” The very statement seems self-contradictory. How can something that isn’t, be?
5. Perhaps a magical fairy flitted across the once-lifeless earth, and everywhere she touched her wand, new species of life magically appeared. At least, you seem to believe this is a plausible scenario.
ADParker said,
May 23, 2009 at 4:07 am
“1. Why did the BIG BANG occur?”
Come on stevebee92653, at least try to pretend.
Only creationists go on about Cosmology when the subject is evolution!
Why? No one knows.
“2. Why did it occur when it did? Why did the BB occur 13.7BYA, instead of 5 YA or 100MYA?”
That (again irrelevant to evolution) is a bizzare questin to ask!
Why was Charles Darwin born in 1809 (on the exact same day as Abraham Lincoln even!) instead of 1806 or 1742? WTF?!
It is simply what the evidence is pointing to. It still could have been anywhere between 10 and 20 BYA, but the various calculation techniques are clearly converging around 13.7 at the moment.
Try this for a start:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html
“3. Why did life form on earth when no life would have been the easiest rout?”
“route” right?
This, of course raises the question, based on your “Complex question” (Logical fallacy, look it up);
How do you know that “no life” was the easiest route? What does “the easiest route” even mean in this context?!
BTW: This is a question about abiogenesis (chemistry) not evolution (biology.) Just as your previous two were on cosmology (physics, not biology!)
“4. Why does anything exist when nothing would be far easier?”
Another Complex question. How do you know that?!
Actually some smart people (Physicists, astro and quantum) have offered compelling models that suggest that in fact “something” is what “nothing” would naturally “collapse” to.
To quote Frank Wilczek’s (physicist) pithy reply:
“The answer to the ancient question ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ would then be that ‘nothing’ is unstable.”
Again physics (and cosmology) not evolutionary biology.
“5. How did life occur. Oh, I know, I know. Chemicals came together, fell to the ocean floor, formed R/DNA, got into fat cells, and CAME ALIVE! Right??”
Nice little caricature. This one (chemistry and biochemistry again, not evolution) is, as we all know, something being worked on at t he moment.
There is a good little YouTube video on it however:
(somewhat unfortunately; the good stuff doesn’t start until a good couple of minutes in.)
Why all those questions quite beyond the scope of evolution?! I thoughyt only ignorant creotards did that!
Shrunk said,
May 23, 2009 at 11:08 am
“Why all those questions quite beyond the scope of evolution?! I thoughyt only ignorant creotards did that!”
My guess is he was counting on all those questions stumping us, which would then allow him to posit his Intelligent Creative Force (i.e. magical fairy) as the only possible explanation. Just a guess.
stevebee92653 said,
May 23, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Shrunk and ADParker
Actually, I was showing that you evolutionauts don’t know much, but you SURE know how the complex life we have today formed. And you are both condescending and rude. Shrunk, I find it hard to believe you could come here an act so rude, then tattle on me on Dawkins because I said you were full of chihuahua terds, a reference to the inane discussion you were trying to “get me” with. Oh, and if I watch that vid, I will know how life formed? Wow. Well I have seen it and all of those fantasy videos, and they are just that. Fantasies. So thanks for the fantasy.
ADParker said,
May 24, 2009 at 1:06 am
“Actually, I was showing that you evolutionauts don’t know much,”
We already knew that though. And why on earth would anyone expect one who accepts the theory of evolution for the robustly supported bit of (biological) science that it is, to also KNOW about th finer points of astrophysics, quantum mechanics (and the combination of the two no less!) , chemistry AND biochemistry?!
Once again this is the kind of confused nonsense we get from ignorant, scientifically illiterate creationists all the time!
When I go to you, as a dentist, should I rag on you as an inadequate dentist because you can’t explain to me the finer points of podiatry?!
“but you SURE know how the complex life we have today formed.”
No, I have some understanding (far from complete) and appreciation of the strength of the scientific theory that attempts to explain how life as we got it came to be here. AT least withing the biological domain (far less on that which comes before that, which are the domains of other theories etc. anyway.)
It IS a theory, not a doctrine, and a dynamic one, constantly being adjusted, almost always nowadays in its finer details, as new data and discoveries emerge. (That always sounds like they just appear before us; no, of course they are the result of the dedication of scientists putting in the hard work to uncover them.)
“And you are both condescending and rude.”
Thanks. How so? I mean a couple of little remarks from me about you making the exact same mistakes as creationist apologists (with their overriding agenda) so often do. But other than that I answered your questions as fairly as possible. I simply feel that it is important to explain to you (and anyone reading along) the errors and reason you made on the way. The hope (almost always in vain I realise) is that you can take away from that a greater ability to reason and argue, by noticing yourself, and thus avoiding/fixing such errors in future.
That is why I would really appreciate it that when you next claim that I made some error, or was rude or anything, that you actually put in the tiny little bit of effort to let me know specifically what and where that error was made. How else can I correct and improve my arguing and reasoning techniques and abilities?! Vague generalisations help no one.
“Shrunk, I find it hard to believe you could come here an act so rude, then tattle on me on Dawkins because I said you were full of chihuahua terds, a reference to the inane discussion you were trying to “get me” with.”
Oh get over that already. You were given a formal warning (your second) on the RichardDawkins forum because you BROKE THE FORUM RULES. I would have reported you myself, but the report had already been made by teh time I had read it.
That rules clearly states no personal attacks. YOU calling someone BOTH a “chihuahua terd” and “you fool” (that was the biggie you realise) quite clearly broke that rule, which, in registering there, you agreed to abide by.
Formal warning issued, case closed.
“Oh, and if I watch that vid, I will know how life formed? Wow. Well I have seen it and all of those fantasy videos, and they are just that. Fantasies. So thanks for the fantasy.”
Sigh; just dismissing out of hand anything that disagrees with your confused and cherished little belief system again are we?
If you HAD watched the video and actually taken it all in (understanding how personal bias can close ones mind to contradictory incoming data and all) you wold have noted a couple of things:
1. No; it does not claim to be the final answer to abiogenesis (the origin of life) but a description of how much of the story has to date been uncovered. Certain steps are now understood to a great degree. A fair amount more needs to be done, before there is even a solid theory of abiogenesis. So don’t act like a typical Faith-head and dismiss something as a failed doctrine when it is not a doctrine at all but a scientific investigation leading hopefully to a theory, which itself will ALWAYS remain far more (or less; depending on how you look at it) than a fixed stagnant doctrine.
2. How each of the steps described in the video are NOT mere conjecture and fantasy (As you love to imply – gotta love those clobber words) but have all been verified in the lab.
And no; thank YOU, for once again revealing your closed minded bias, through simply dismissing, out of hand, the entirety of the science of abiogenesis research as “fantasy.”
Just crying “Fantasy” offers NOTHING. It is truly pathetic.
stevebee92653 said,
May 24, 2009 at 4:05 am
The point is that you (and I) have no idea how or why the BB and life occurred, but for you to say you are SURE you know how life and it’s diversity formed is absurd. The idea that you believe in is simplistic, and can’t possible account for much in nature, like hearts, eyes, alimentary canals, kidneys, brains, consciousness. And for me to argue that with you is ridiculous. Why do you believe that mutations that NEVER have been demonstrated did the job millions of years ago when no one could observe. WHY? I don’t understand.
If I wrote the things you write to me on my blog you would be warned on Dawkins. You are condescending and insulting, but I let you write. I find it hard to believe you and Shrunk reported me for nothing but a semi-humorous (non?) description that was related to our discussion on my blog: chihuahuas. wow. You are very sensitive guys.
A sample of you condescension.
Once again this is the kind of confused nonsense we (is “we” the other cult members? Would you say “we” if it was astronomy, or math?) get from ignorant, scientifically illiterate creationists all the time! The overly simplistic naivety of it all! Where did you study evolution, Liberty University?! No wonder you are so confused.Or is this silly quip from you due to your inability to comprehend what Dr. Myers was saying about eye evolution and chordates?
Not the stuff of good discussion. AD you are a true believer. You have no doubts, which means you are fully indoctrinated. But you don’t know it. Which is typical of brainwashing. The brainwashed don’t think they are. Look at your writing. You NEVER discuss anything as if there may be a problem here or there for evolution. Everything is proof, and if it isn’t proof, it’s still proof. That dissertation you wrote for me on Dawkiins was truly amazing. I sit back and read this stuff in disbelief. HOW CAN YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. Your answer to my question about mutations was just amazing. And, instead of saying “that certainly is a problem for evolution. That does bother me, but I like this or that other evidence”, you make up a huge story to counter my challenge. You can’t see that? WHY? That is the biggest puzzle. WHY. I will never figure that out.
Shrunk said,
May 24, 2009 at 11:16 am
“If I wrote the things you write to me on my blog you would be warned on Dawkins. You are condescending and insulting, but I let you write. I find it hard to believe you and Shrunk reported me for nothing but a semi-humorous (non?) description that was related to our discussion on my blog: chihuahuas. wow. You are very sensitive guys. ”
I don’t want to get too diverted by this digression on our conduct on the respective boards. I would only ask that anyone who is interested (I doubt many) can go thru the above posts and see whether yours have been any less “condescending and insulting” than those of the “evolutionauts”. This is your blog, you set the tone of the discourse.
And once again, “chihuahua terds (sic)” was not the expletive I reported you on. It was “you fool.” Personally, I don’t care what you think of me, but I do care that the rules of decorum be observed on the board where I participate. If you feel you have been similarly personally insulted, you can feel free to notify the moderators. I know from experience that they will take the appropriate actions even if it is a proponent of evolution insulting a creationist. (In fact, you can see for yourself that someone was warned for insulting you.)
Oh, and I’m still waiting to hear whether you still have any doubts about common ancestry between dogs and wolves.
stevebee92653 said,
May 24, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Since you have all of the answers, what difference would it make to you if I agree or disagree? Why do you care what I think? Just refer to your own embarrassing hahahah comment where you refer to a present day dog-wolf cross, which proves nothing about the origin of dogs. But from this you absolutely know what happened 15,000 years ago? So, you have the answer. Also, it has nothing to do with the evolution of teeth, complex visual systems, hearts, livers. But, as usual, this is big stuff for you. You are an evolutionaut. In the wash, it doesn’t prove your belief. So, I’d get off that topic.
Shrunk said,
May 24, 2009 at 6:03 pm
So you believe it is possible for dogs and wolves to be able to cross breed and yet not be related to each other? Very interesting. So do you think maybe it’s possible for, say, dogs and chickens to cross breed, too? How about monkeys and carrots? After all, according to your beliefs they are no more closely related than a dog and a wolf. How about a human-rock hybrid? I mean, you do say you believe rocks are alive elsewhere on your blog, so why couldn’t that be possible?
Just when I thought you couldn’t get any more absurd, you surprise me yet again.
Shrunk said,
May 24, 2009 at 6:09 pm
“…according to your beliefs they are no more closely related than a dog and a wolf”.
Obviously, this was supposed to say “they are no LESS closely related than a dog and a wolf.”
stevebee92653 said,
May 24, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Since I could give a shit what you think about anything, the correction wasn’t necessary. Do you have a dog-wolf obsession? You look very stupid remaining focused on that. Have you no idea how insignificant that is? Go home Shrunk.
Shrunk said,
May 24, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Nice respectful reply, Steve.
I agree, in terms of the evidence for evolution, the ancestry of wolf and dogs is of little relevance. Even the stupidest creationists, people like Ray Comfort, Kent Hovind and VenomfangX, have no trouble understanding and accepting common ancestry between dogs and wolves.
However, as a demonstration of your complete incompetence and incomprehension of even the most basic biology, and of your inability modify your beliefs even an iota in response to evidence, it is very significant.
Mumtrader said,
May 25, 2009 at 2:26 am
quote stevebee – ” Do you have a dog-wolf obsession? You look very stupid remaining focused on that. Have you no idea how insignificant that is? “.
With all the respect I can muster Steve, it is actually you who have no idea actually how significant the point Shrunk is making actually IS. Sexual reproduction is the corner-stone. Perhaps the stork delivered your children?
Shrunk said,
May 26, 2009 at 10:48 am
Well, it seems Steve’s now started to censor posts that refute his positiion:
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=81464&start=1000#p2023457
A sure admission that he can’t defend his beliefs.
(Let’s see if this one gets thru.)
stevebee92653 said,
May 26, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Well, Shrunk, you and your evo friends spend hours and pages deriding me, saying I am full of shit, I am a liar about my patents. Funny, but over 150 of you have found my patents.. (I wrote a blog with vids and patents. 150 of your fellow evos have found it as I can read the visitors.) Of course, they have kept their mouths and keyboards shut, like good little Dawkins boys and girls. The rest are too stupid to find them, and keep ragging about how I am lying. Funny. And I have been blocked at Dawkins.net. And you say I am censoring? You lie here and haven’t been blocked, even though you deserve it for chronic lying. Well, in the next few months, they will tire of ad hom attacks on me. But, I never cease to be amazed at this phony science. And it’s love of censorship. And it;s complaints that it is being censored. Funny. Very funny.
Shrunk said,
May 26, 2009 at 5:40 pm
The post I linked above has been moved to a new location on RD.net, after the original thread was “rolled over” having exceeded the 40 pg maximum. Here is the new URL:
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=83134#p2023457
ADParker said,
May 27, 2009 at 2:43 am
I only recall one person here making feces references actually, but no matter; your clams, assertions and arguments – here, on RD net and YouTube have been laughable rubbish. Some so bad that I don’t know where to start.
Personally I don’t give a rats… about your patents;
The issue (for some) was about the misrepresentation, not the patents per se.
They have nothing to do with, and rely on no understanding of, the various topics at hand (as like all creationists and creationist spawn, you can’t stick to just evolution) and are therefore irrelevant.
150 you say? And somehow you can tell that they were all “evos” and apparently as your words imply; evos connected to us in some way.
Look; okay sure you have a patent or two, who cares?! It changes nothing. Get over it.
Nice that you call people who can’t be bothered to look for some dental patents (of what relevance?) and/or are not concerned with that aspect of your claim anyway, as being “too stupid.” It is telling that your usage of Ad homs has increased dramatically; it is all too often the last desperate gasp of the true Faith head apologist, when reason fails (or as in this case abuses of it do not work on the audience) then resort to insults and the like.
As Shrunk said; You have not been “blocked” the thread was simply split.
A minor correction however; The limit is actually ~1000 posts. Threads get bloated if thy get any bigger and can cause slow downs, so the thread gets split to keep things running smoothly. There was a link at the end of the first thread to lead you there, if you had bothered to check.
But I must admit that I am not at all surprised at your reaction, not anymore; your critical thinking and comprehension skills seem to be decidedly lacking. If your patents and dental credentials are real (too much dishonesty to be sure of anything about you any longer) then you should have sufficient mental capacity at least; a serious course in critical thinking is in order I think. That and divesting yourself of some dogmatic mindsets that might well be subduing it. (Or you could just dismiss this as a condescending insult and go on in blissful ignorance; your choice.)
I did mention that one of my posts here disappeared. Others noted the same, and attributed that to you deliberately deleting them. I would not go as far to make that leap. As small as it is given some of your revealed history. It might be a problem with the structure of the blog (like the missing “Reply” options,) or incompetence on your part in some way. Dishonest tactics are only one very real possibility. Lying is something I have never done here, so don’t try to paste that one on me!
Well YOUR dismissal of so much in science as “phony” is somewhat amusing, but only as long as it remains with you.
stevebee92653 said,
May 27, 2009 at 3:22 am
You cared lots until you found out I did have patents. Now you don’t care? What a phony you are. Laughable. You have nothing of interest to say. It’s so easy to demean the questions. The tough thing is to respond, which you can’t do. You are copy-paste evo junk. So go back home to Dawkins, and pat your fellow indoctrinates on the back. And, stay indoctrinated.
ADParker said,
May 27, 2009 at 3:36 am
Nice hissy fit.
I’m sorry if pasting actual professional scientific literature on the topics is not good enough for you. But then it has become abundantly clear that nothing ever would be.
Your efforts here (and elsewhere) are a joke stevebee92653, nothing but a joke.
stevebee92653 said,
May 27, 2009 at 3:45 am
Brilliant. You would get an A on any science paper with that scribble. Be sure and get it peer reviewed by your fellow zealots.
Here is what is funny Ad. Why are you here? Why would you waste your time here if I am nothing but a joke? Want me to tell you? Because you can’t deal with me. You can’t answer my challenges. I expose what a hoax your evolution is. If I was just a joke, you would be gone long ago. You wouldn’t give me a minutes thought. But you write and write.
ADParker said,
May 27, 2009 at 4:42 am
>Brilliant. You would get an A on any science paper with that scribble. Be sure and get it peer reviewed by your fellow zealots.
>Here is what is funny Ad. Why are you here? Why would you waste your time here if I am nothing but a joke?
I like jokes, perhaps?
Nah; it’s because as much as it saddens me, I realise that there are many (too many) people that can be sucked in by this kind of nonsense. Generally due to their own indoctrinated beliefs of course. As the few positive responses you have received on this blog attest; no actual understanding from them ,just empty praise and acceptance of your assumed and implied authority. Which is nothing but smoke and mirrors.
>Want me to tell you?
Not really. Why would I want YOU to tell ME what I think?!
> Because you can’t deal with me.
Ha ha ha.
>You can’t answer my challenges.
What challenges? I see nothing but empty, logical fallacy ridden blather. The only reason I do more than simply laugh it off, is that there are those that, if they see it unopposed, will take it for granted as true and reasonable, especially if it fits in with their religious beliefs.
>I expose what a hoax your evolution is.
Oh, you certainly TRY. But you fail miserably. You have nothing. And your every attempt merely exposes your near complete ignorance on that which you speak, as anyone with even a hint of the appropriate scientific literacy can see. It’s just a shame that you and a large body of others out there do not have that rudimentary level of literacy, undermined as it is by various fundamentalist religious dogmas (and not a few educational systems that are in need of an overhaul, I should add.)
> If I was just a joke, you would be gone long ago. You wouldn’t give me a minutes thought. But you write and write.
This is a tired old canard, heard often on the RD forum. Not at all coincidentally usually when the theistic apologist comes to sink to the same levels as you have here. Desperate little ploys stevebee92653, and ones I am quite used to.
Do I have to spell it out for you?
THE ‘JOKE”, while laughable to some, IS A DANGEROUS ONE, LIABLE TO SPREAD AS “TRUTH” IF LEFT UNCHECKED. As a memetic virus. And science, and reason itself, will be it’s victims.
stevebee92653 said,
May 27, 2009 at 5:15 am
No Ad you are here because I am a challenge to you. Admit it. There are thousands of blogs on this subject, and you pick me, the name liar and joke. You can’t and still don’t respond with any kind of intelligent writing.
“I see nothing but empty, logical fallacy ridden blather.” This and the rest of your whining is an insult to your own intelligence. You have nothing to say, so you do the copy/paste-gloss-over-insult thing. If you can’t rag on my patents, you rag on my name. When you run out of that, you rag on my stuff without saying a single thing. You evos are simply amazing. You write the exact same nonsense as your friends, without saying anything at all. Your are zombies, marching and thinking in lock step. There isn’t a rational individual among you. Same stuff over and over and over. Personal attacks are more important to you than science. And that is what you cry about the most. And you are still here with long winded tiresome comments. My favorite is how dangerous it is for me to actually think. To reason, and to come up with evolution being a fake. So you and your fellow evos are the dangerous ones. Freedom of thought, be it right or wrong, and freedom of expression is far more important than how someone believes a concept or doesn’t. So, if you are honest to yourself, and I am what you say I am, you would go away.
ADParker said,
May 27, 2009 at 5:47 am
>No Ad you are here because I am a challenge to you. Admit it.
On you go right ahead and assert MY reasons for coming here. It is most amusing.
>There are thousands of blogs on this subject, and you pick me, the name liar and joke.
Oh please stevebee92653, do get over yourself! You know full well the history that led to me, and the others, coming here.
Someone came TO US, and copy & pasted some of your nonsense,. Then when come of us actually dared respond ( I was one, the posts of which you completely ignored) he ran back here to beg you to feed him his lines.
One or two of us checked out the obvious plagiarism, found this atrocious apologetics blog, and the games began. (I wonder what the casual searcher will think when he finds this particular blog entry now? Will he/she be so impressed?)
> You can’t and still don’t respond with any kind of intelligent writing.
“I see nothing but empty, logical fallacy ridden blather.” This and the rest of your whining is an insult to your own intelligence. You have nothing to say, so you do the copy/paste-gloss-over-insult thing. If you can’t rag on my patents, you rag on my name. When you run out of that, you rag on my stuff without saying a single thing.
Oh grow the hel up, seriously!
And for the last time: I don’t care a whit about your silly name and patent rubbish. You are bitching at the wrong person.
There is a reason why I don’t comment directly on your blog entries:
I tried, remember? Went back and addressed the first one here. Your responses quickly brought it back down to this level. Making it perfectly clear to me that you have no honest interest in discussing anything, your mind is made up, and that’s all there is to it. Well fine, but hopefully our comments here might protect a few ‘wayward souls’ from falling for your drivel.
>You evos are simply amazing. You write the exact same nonsense as your friends, without saying anything at all. Your are zombies, marching and thinking in lock step. There isn’t a rational individual among you. Same stuff over and over and over.
Wah wah wah. Bitch, moan, fling insults. Is this all you are reduced to? And you wonder why I don’t bother arguing the issues, the one you feel no inclination to bring up yourself?
Even when someone tries, all you do is cry “It’s all in my blog, why should I go over that again for your sake?” It’s kind of difficult to have a proper argument (informal debate) with someone so unwilling to actually engage.
>Personal attacks are more important to you than science.
Hello pot, this is kettle.
By the way; you accused us (again vaguely without reference) of using Ad Homs against to n the RD forum; did you Report any of them? As one should, as has been done to you? As we ask you do do, for the good of the discussion and forum?!
No you did not (Easy to check actually, even for a non-moderator/admin.) And ,except for one, which did recieve a warning, as is proper, I recall no such behavior. But then again this might be another example of your inability to grasp what such terms mean.
I did see that attempt of yours at claiming something from you was a quote mine on YouTube; hilarious, you don’ t have a clue do you?!
As for Science. What you perhaps noted, and as usual misconstrued, is my very foundation; I am concerned with Reason, the rational value of the arguments made. All of your arguments for example can be dismissed as flawed, on simply logical grounds, they are just poor arguments. The science (or which you attack) need not even be discussed, because your rubbish falls long before that is necessary.
> And that is what you cry about the most. And you are still here with long winded tiresome comments. My favorite is how dangerous it is for me to actually think. To reason, and to come up with evolution being a fake. So you and your fellow evos are the dangerous ones.
Impressive; once again you so beautifully demonstrate your abysmal comprehension skills! The way that addled mind of yours twists things! It is truly a wonder to behold!
>Freedom of thought, be it right or wrong, and freedom of expression is far more important than how someone believes a concept or doesn’t. So, if you are honest to yourself, and I am what you say I am, you would go away.
Is that supposed to make some kind of sense?
Apparently YOU should be free to express your opinions, but I should not be to express mine about yours.
Sounds a little too much like “Respect my Religion” to me.
Shrunk said,
May 27, 2009 at 10:25 am
As usual, you reveal more of yourself than you intend with this statement. Obviously, I have no objection to freedom of expression (I”m certainly making abundant use of it here!). But we’re supposed to be discussing SCIENCE here. Is this your idea of the scientific method? Some unfettered expression of what “someone believes” without regard for how or why they come to hold those beliefs, i.e. EVIDENCE? Do you really believe that, in science, it doesn’t matter whether one is “right of wrong’? I know you’ll say you don’t believe those things, and I’m twisting your words. But the proof is in the pudding. Your entire blog, as well as all your posts here and on RD.net, are based on your personal beliefs without a jot of supporting evidence, or even of understanding of the theory you are trying to disprove.
Shrunk said,
May 27, 2009 at 10:26 am
D’OH!
This is the statement I am referring to in the above post:
“Freedom of thought, be it right or wrong, and freedom of expression is far more important than how someone believes a concept or doesn’t. So, if you are honest to yourself, and I am what you say I am, you would go away.”
stevebee92653 said,
May 27, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Are a kidding? We are discussing me personally, not science. Science is on the blog. You can’t touch it, you are afraid to even try. You are doing your usual ad homs that you hugely bitch about when it’s done to you. Every one of you dawks has attacked me personally, and that’s all you got. I don’t blame you.
Shrunk said,
May 27, 2009 at 4:42 pm
The so-called “science” on your blog has not only been touched, it has been systematically obliterated, as well as any shred of credibility you may have possessed prior to this discussion.
Do you still believe dogs and wolves can interbreed, yet not be related by common descent?
Do you still believe Northern Canada and Latvia were too far from each other during the Devonian to allow fossils from the regions to be found there today?
Do you still believe that evolution states that complex organs evolved identically in several species at once?
Do you still believe fruit exists solely for the benefit of other organisms?
Those are just some of your howlers I can recall off the top of my head. Actually, it’s not possible to open a page of your blog without coming across yet more of some of the most ridiculously incompetent creationist blatherings on the internet, and believe me the competition is pretty stiff for that.
Shrunk said,
May 27, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Oh, and one more thing: Could you please show where in my message I engaged in an ad hominem attack? Please be specific. Because that’s just one other concept that you seem not to understand.
stevebee92653 said,
May 27, 2009 at 7:52 pm
I must be a very important guy to you Shrunk. You are still here? Tell Cali I responded to his essay on the wonders of me on page 33. In fact, copy paste it there so your fellow evolutionauts can read it. And, your questions are of no significance. You can’t see that? All species are biologically connected, some closer than others. If you think that proves common descent, good for you.
Shrunk said,
May 28, 2009 at 1:21 am
You’re still not making any sense. “All species are biologically connected, some closer than others.” I have no idea what that’s supposed to mean, and I honestly don’t think that because I’m missing anything. I think it’s because the statement is meaningless.
If I say I am “more closely connected biologically” to my father than to the Queen of England, what does that mean? Does it mean some magical creative force created me, my father and the Queen of England, all out of clay or magical pixie dust or something, and just decided to use more of the same genetic material for me and my dad than for HRH? Or is it because I’m closer to my father by ancestry than I am to the Queen?
You may think my questions are insignificant, but I beg to differ. It cuts to the very heart of your view of biology, if something so incoherent and internally inconsistent can be called a “view”. You don’t seem to realize that when you make claims such as that two groups of animals can interbreed yet not be related by descent, it literally makes as much sense as Mr. Samsa’s “Psychic Mole People” theory of gravity. In order for you to hold such a belief, you have to not just disregard evolution. You have to jettison the very ideas of genetics and sexual reproduction themselves. Do you really think biologists have incorrectly answered the question, “Where do babie come from?” Because that’s the logical conclusion of the views you are putting forth here.
stevebee92653 said,
May 28, 2009 at 2:57 am
Shrunk, you need to learn how to communicate with people without being irritating. All of your “magic fairies” stuff is the best way to get ignored.
Learn not to tell people what they “have to do”. That is irritating. When I say that all species are connected biologically what I mean is obvious.All species match a certain amount of genetic material. Flower DNA is 30% of human DNA. Apes 98%. Need I say more? All vertebrates have similar bone structures, and are similar by design. Dogs and wolves may have been the same species 10,000. But you and I can only guess. No one knows for sure. And what does that have to do with the evolution of hearts, eyes, livers, alimentary canals? That is why it isn’t significant. It’s minor. I have a page on (P. 7)The Evidence FOR Evolution”. So why don’t you give that a look so I don’t have to rewrite my blog for you. There is lots of stuff you can take back to dawkins.net and say “stevie believes in evolution!” Hey, maybe another feeding frenzy!
Shrunk said,
May 28, 2009 at 10:15 am
“Dogs and wolves may have been the same species 10,000. But you and I can only guess. No one knows for sure. ”
So I’m still trying to figure out what your explanation is for the fact that dogs and wolves can interbreed today. The only rational expanation I can think of is that they are of the same species, which means they are all related by common descent. You seem to think otherwise. So what alternative is there? The only alternative I can see is that dogs and wolves originated by some unknown process (I’ll avoid references to “magic” at your request) and thru an incalculably improbable series of coincidences ended up being sexually and reproductively compatible. The problem is, you yourself say (correctly) that this is for all intents impossible, in question #2 above. (You are, of course incorrect when you say this is a problem for evolution. See this article by PZ Myers:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/elephantine_errors_from_ray_co.php)
An even less likely scenario is that dogs and wolves suddenly, but separately, sprang into being already reproductively infertile. You don’t like me talking about “magic”, but I really can’t see a better word to describe something like that happening.
Shrunk said,
May 28, 2009 at 10:17 am
Sorry. A wayward parnethesis inactivated the PZ Myers link above. Here is the corrected version:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/elephantine_errors_from_ray_co.php
stevebee92653 said,
May 28, 2009 at 10:32 am
You are so focused on dogs and wolves. Why not birds and theropod dinosaurs?
Shrunk said,
May 28, 2009 at 10:43 am
“You are so focused on dogs and wolves. Why not birds and theropod dinosaurs?”
Because common ancestry between dogs and wolves is far, far simpler. If you can’t understand that, there’s no hope your being able to understand the theropod/ bird lineage. And make no mistake, the issue here is your understanding of the evidence, not the evidence itself. So you must first grasp this fundamental concept before we can even begin to address all the other issues you keep accusing us of avoiding, such as the evolution of complex organs. You still don’t understand how genetic traitsare transmitted to subsequent generations and, thereby, to subsequent species. And without that understanding on your part there is no way to have a productive discussion of these other issues. As I said before, this is not even dealing directly with evolution. This is basic population genetics.
So try to get over your preconception that that nothing an “evolutionaut” says can possibly be true, and reread some of the posts above, such as mine from #15, and really try to understand what we’re saying. Not necessarily agree, just understand.
LucidFlight said,
June 12, 2009 at 6:30 am
stevebee92653 said,
June 12, 2009 at 8:32 pm
?
Shrunk said,
June 12, 2009 at 9:13 pm
LucidFlight attempted to post an image here, but was unable, hence the blank post. He’s left a message on RD.net asking if you know how he could do it. Maybe you can help him out.
ADParker said,
June 13, 2009 at 1:21 am
He doesn’t even know how it is the links appear, so I wouldn’t hold my breath.
stevebee92653 said,
May 27, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Re: “I wonder what the casual searcher will think when he finds this particular blog entry now? Will he/she be so impressed?” He will see what a bunch of nutcases evolutionauts are. Fine with me. Keep it up.
Re:”I don’t care a whit about your silly name and patent rubbish”. What a phony you are. You LOVED my patents when you thought I was lying about them. When you found out your were wrong, you didn’t have the manners to apologize. Not one of you fine people. You skipped on to my pen name, and blew that up completely out of proportion. You’re a fake. And you think you look good here? What a laugh.
I did engage on Dawk. I posted concrete questions and got the same non-answers. Cali told me to “Go read the 1300 “peer reviewed” papers I recommend” HAR HAR HAR He didn’t know, so he sent me out to the “encyclopedia de evolution paper junk”. I asked your hero Cali to let me know where in his huge essays and copy-paste bunk where he was letting me know how teeth evolved. He of course failed. He didn’t know because nobody knows, including you.
Re: “did you Report any of them?” I am not a chickenshit crybaby like so many of you are.
Re: “because your rubbish falls long before that is necessary.” So easy to SAY. The entire Darwinian evolution thing is rubbish, believed by many gullible people, like yourself. But see how easy that was for me to SAY. But I back it up with evidence all over this blog. I don’t just “say it”. Like you and virtually all of you evolutionauts do. I write specifics. And your science just demeans the specifics. That is your defense. Summation of answers from you evolutionauts: “What Stevie writes is BAD BAD BAD”.
Re: “Sounds a little too much like “Respect my Religion” to me.” No I don’t respect your religion because you jam the nonsense down kids throats in schools. And yours IS a religion. The Bible is “Origin”, your prophet is Darwin, disciples are Dawkins, Miller, et al, you god is RM and NS. You believe in miracles (theropods to hummingbirds, little quadruped to whale, heart invention and evolution from nothing, sight invention and evolution from nothing,………) So don’t be smug and give me the bullshit that you aren’t. You are no different than any other phony religion.
ADParker said,
May 28, 2009 at 4:45 am
>Re:”I don’t care a whit about your silly name and patent rubbish”. What a phony you are. You LOVED my patents when you thought I was lying about them. When you found out your were wrong, you didn’t have the manners to apologize. Not one of you fine people. You skipped on to my pen name, and blew that up completely out of proportion. You’re a fake. And you think you look good here? What a laugh.I did engage on Dawk. I posted concrete questions and got the same non-answers. Cali told me to “Go read the 1300 “peer reviewed” papers I recommend” HAR HAR HAR He didn’t know, so he sent me out to the “encyclopedia de evolution paper junk”. I asked your hero Cali to let me know where in his huge essays and copy-paste bunk where he was letting me know how teeth evolved. He of course failed. He didn’t know because nobody knows, including you.Re: “did you Report any of them?” I am not a chickenshit crybaby like so many of you are.Re: “because your rubbish falls long before that is necessary.” So easy to SAY. The entire Darwinian evolution thing is rubbish, believed by many gullible people, like yourself. But see how easy that was for me to SAY. But I back it up with evidence all over this blog. I don’t just “say it”. Like you and virtually all of you evolutionauts do. I write specifics. And your science just demeans the specifics. That is your defense. Summation of answers from you evolutionauts: “What Stevie writes is BAD BAD BAD”.
How childish can you get?
You might believe that that rot you have written is evidence, but it is not. But after my last attempt I have given up trying to open an actual discussion on your many and varied pitiful claims.
If you ever bring up the courage to actually have any of that rot critically argued over, then feel free to pop over to the RD forum, start a new thread with an opening post laying it all out ( a copy & paste would be fine for an opening) and we can go from there. Perhaps I will even join in myself if I come across it and find it interesting enough.
>Re: “Sounds a little too much like “Respect my Religion” to me.” No I don’t respect your religion because you jam the nonsense down kids throats in schools.
Basic comprehension issues again stevebee92653?
And I don’t teach evolution in schools, what ever gave you that idea?!
>And yours IS a religion. The Bible is “Origin”, your prophet is Darwin, disciples are Dawkins, Miller, et al, you god is RM and NS. You believe in miracles (theropods to hummingbirds, little quadruped to whale, heart invention and evolution from nothing, sight invention and evolution from nothing,………) So don’t be smug and give me the bullshit that you aren’t. You are no different than any other phony religion.
Oh brother, has the trolley come completely of the rails now stevebee92653? Oh dear!
Shrunk said,
May 26, 2009 at 5:04 pm
1) No one is disputing whether “you” have any patents. The issue is whether “Dr. Stephen B. Lyndon” has any, and the evidence is conclusively that “he” does not. The question then arises whether it is dishonest of you to make a claim that a fictional alias has patents. Personally, to be truthful, I’m not sure whether it is dishonest. But I think it’s at least a debatable point.
2) You have not been “blocked” at RD.net. You have been (justifiably) formally warned about repeatedly making personal insults, in violation of the agreement you made when registering to the site. But you can still make posts there if you wish, and even if you are suspended or banned for continuing to violate the rules, your posts will remain there.
3) Please provide specific evidence that I have lied about anything, either here or on RD.net.
4) You have completely ignored the main point of my post, which is that you are now censoring posts that don’t conform to your anti-evolution doctrine. (Of course, my message got thru, so maybe there is another explanation? A malfunctioning filter or something?)
JayBay44 said,
May 26, 2009 at 6:15 pm
> And I have been blocked at Dawkins.net.
He hasn’t been blocked at richarddawkins.net. He hasn’t even been suspended. He’s just suffering from hurt feelings because he’s violated two of the forum rules against attacking others with personal insults. We’ve reached the conclusion that he really doesn’t understand very basic things like it’s quite hypocritical to complain vigorously about a particular behavior while at the same time engaging in the same behavior.
Steve’s been caught out as a liar about his identity on this blog, and is employing two defense mechanisms: first, he’s using the “Tu Quoque” logical fallacy by calling you (Shrunk) and me liars, even though we have not posted anything that’s a lie at all. Second, he’s considerably upset, and is fabricating a situation at rd.net (that he has been blocked) which is absolutely not true, but he’s hoping he won’t get called out on that. Too late, I’m afraid.
> And you say I am censoring?
Absolutely, and I can establish it. I have screen shots of posts which I made to this blog, containing challenges to your credibility, which have subsequently been removed. That’s a textbook definition of censoring. I can demonstrate that claim with evidence (the screen shot images), while we can also pretty much provide evidence that you’re not blocked at rd.net at all.
Mumtrader said,
May 26, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Honeslty Steve/Stephen, the jigs up mate.
We all know what your ‘real’ name is. I mean the one under which you practice dentistry and filed your patents. I am the person who found your oninventing blog by doing a simple search on the machine you first invented (and then allowed to be shelved by a bunch of highway robbers b/c of your very poor nose for business, but whatever.)
The farcical thing here is that you created this ‘pen name’ for the sake of keeping your family ‘safe from nasty people on the internet’, but left a trail of breadcrumbs to who you really are that could be seen from the far reaches of space. You just look, well, silly. Or duplicitous.
Then because of your claims of being a tenured biologist in your YT vids, going by yet another name (Andres Lyndon), I tend to lean towards the duplicitous end of the scale. You see, as has been pointed out, no matter what else, there isn’t a real scientist alive who would use an assumed name (whilst trying to rest on the laurels of his real credentials) to make scientific claims that he thought deserved to be taken seriously.
Frankly this whole thing is a bit kooky & I wonder very much about your psychological well-being.
The other thing is this – you have not been blocked at RDF. I know you aren’t very technically minded but if you read the last post of the thread you will see the link to Part 2 of the thread. This is an administrative norm which occurs once a thread hits 40 pages, for the sake of easy managment. It is completely transparent & self explanatory with only a small amount of reading.
stevebee92653 said,
May 27, 2009 at 1:35 am
Sincerely, I think you people are certifiably nuts. You are all part of sci-fi cult. I could care less what you think of my pseudonym. Not one of you geniuses is able to answer any of the questions I pose. Cali failed miserably, but he was cheered by the zombies as if he did great! Amazing.. There must be hundreds of hours spent ragging on my pen name by you evolutionauts, and calling me a liar because you don’t think I own patents. What a joke. Has one of you apologized when you found that you were very wrong? Of course not. Go somewhere else, please. Every comment from you dawkinites is spent on my pen name. That is the stupidest MO I could imagine. Don’t any of you have better things to do? BTW, is your real name mumtrader? Oh. Well, if you want to write, I want your real name and address.
Funny that you represent a fake science that is based on lies. You can’t find those, but spend your time here ragging away. Lies? “Good mutations” that produce healthy tissue is a lie. That is the basis for your sic-fi cult. But you can’t find that lie. What’s wrong with you?
ADParker said,
May 27, 2009 at 3:29 am
>Sincerely, I think you people are certifiably nuts. You are all part of sci-fi cult.
Well we are in good company at least; the vast vast majority of the scientific community for a start.
You little back handed insults and attempts at the Genetic Fallacy don’t impress anyone; your tired little arguments throughout this entire blog, RD net and Youtube all Fail, and fail bad. No amount of insults toward our characters will change that.
> I could care less what you think of my pseudonym. Not one of you geniuses is able to answer any of the questions I pose.
They are all silly misguided attacks disguised (poorly) as questions, based on your ignorant Straw Man caricature of a presumption of what the theory of evolution really is. There is no real need to answer them, they are petty irrelevances to the actual science.
Perhaps you could have gotten somewhere if, as suggested, you had made ONE of your arguments/questions on the RD net FORUM, a place dedicated and set up for proper discussion, unlike a blog comment space. But you made NO effort in that direction at all.
> Cali failed miserably,
And therein lies the real problem here;
You set up the problem,
You pose the question, based on your own caricature misunderstanding,
You include in that, rather blatantly, the assertion that it can’t be answered ,
Then YOU act as the sole judge of the offered answers and responses.
It’s a set up from the start.
It is quite clear to us all (esp after seeing a YouTube Video and your response yesterday!) that, like the creationists you deny being connected to (again,) you come at this with your chosen conclusion fixed and unshakable. There never was any way of answering your questions, not to your closed-minded satisfaction, except of course with “Oh yes you are so right Dr. Steve!”
(Not at all) Sorry to disappoint.
>but he was cheered by the zombies as if he did great! Amazing.. There must be hundreds of hours spent ragging on my pen name by you evolutionauts, and calling me a liar because you don’t think I own patents. What a joke.
A joke indeed. “Cali” posted some interesting stuff. I tend to go another way myself, but I often find nuggets of interesting things that I did not know before from him. You however seem so eager to puff that up to some kind of inane hero worship or something; it’s all in you head man.
“Hundreds of hours”? Man you love to exaggerate. Although one could spend probably Thousands on all the drivel you have blogged here. But what’s the point?
And agan with the constant complaints about comments of your name and patents; ALWAYS missing the mark of what they were REALLY talking about in their regard.
Again you demonstrate a lack of basic critical thinking skills, and a tendency to fixate on a conclusion as unshakable FACT as soon as you first make it. No matter how much people try to correct you. In this case you have DECIDED that they were claiming that you (whatever your name is) made the patents, and them explaining that that was NOT the concern, over and over won’t make you change that dogmatic assumption.
>Has one of you apologized when you found that you were very wrong? Of course not.
I wasn’t, so no need. am happy to admit my errors, but I value honesty too much to apologise for things I have not done. (Not that one need apologise anyway, simply admitting they were wrong is all that should be needed.)
>Go somewhere else, please.
Trying to shoo us away again? Apparently you would rather have you inane notions unchallenged and critically tested. How unscientific of you.
>Every comment from you dawkinites is spent on my pen name.
“dawkinite”?! Always with the silly slurs. This one implying a subservience to the man who just happens to be the founder of a forum we frequent, nothing more. Petty petty stuff stevebee92653.
And I have made no comments on it at all, except in response to YOUR complaints on the subject.
>That is the stupidest MO I could imagine. Don’t any of you have better things to do? BTW, is your real name mumtrader? Oh. Well, if you want to write, I want your real name and address.
And that there is the most ridiculous retort, and again displays a childish pettiness on your part.
Shall we all drop this Name/Patent rubbish now guys? It only hampers what little hope of actually relevant discussion their might be. Although how much of that there is is in serious doubt.
>Funny that you represent a fake science that is based on lies.
Such blinkered dogmatic assertion, based on such blatant ignorance of that which you so deride!
>You can’t find those, but spend your time here ragging away. Lies? “Good mutations” that produce healthy tissue is a lie. That is the basis for your sic-fi cult. But you can’t find that lie. What’s wrong with you?
We have been indoctrinated too heavily into the cult of reality based reasoning I’m afraid. Can’t see the fairies for the trees. We are beyond saving I guess.
Mumtrader said,
May 27, 2009 at 3:20 am
Yes, we were wrong to such an extent about your duplicity that you have changed your intro page to better reflect the truth. That speaks volumes Steve about who owes who an apology.
Personally I have no issue with you setting yourself up as having some kind of authority on this stuff. Just do it honestly, if in fact you can. There is no reason to use a pen name (no real scientist would), and even though you do (for privacy reasons you say) you are still very very easy to find b/c of that naff photoshopped picture you have on your intro page here & the description you supply of your inventions. Any internet goon will tell you Steve that if it’s Anon you want, then stay off teh interweebz.
As for your assertions that any scientific information put forward to you is fraudulent & you don’t accept it, well, you have to tell us WHY – asides from you can’t get your head around it. I’ve read this blog almost from go to woah. It is a massive exercise in argument from personal incredulity. You dismiss the science wholus bolus on the grounds you ‘don’t believe it’ but give no plausible reason why this extraordinary conspiracy would/could be executed. You say that it is accepted as a matter of faith, without question, despite the literally millions of expriments done under the guidance of the scientific method showing that if nothing else this Theory has been questioned more than any other in the history of mankind. (pro-tip: thats how it got to be declared a Theory). Frankly, you just sound insane.
On what grounds to you read the science and say ‘rubbish, didn’t happen.”? (Your misinterpretation of some pictures in a book perhaps?)
On what evidence do you say that thousands of scientists checking eachothers work repeatedly & building upon the body of knowledge all the time, are engaged in a global conspiracy & you alone enjoy the privellege of having a proper interpretation of the facts, despite having conducted zero reproducable research of your own (as the discipline demands if you are to be taken seriously) and having presented for the world to see a deeply flawed interpretation of even the pop-science presentation of the Theory?
Why won’t you do some actual lab research and demonstrate your correctness to the world under your real name & step up to collect your Nobel Prize when it inevitably comes (b/c I assure you it would)?
Who exactly is Andres Lyndon by the way and why do you also claim that is who you are & that you are a tenured academic within a biology department? Why can’t Stephen T Blume stand on his own two feet with this stuff?
Demonstrate what the lies are in the science & make sure that the scientists involved are brought to justice in an arena that actually matters, rather than trash talk on the internet.
Do what nobody has been able to do in 150 years (including biologists with access to labs & who subscribe to biblical doctrine) and tear down this scientific house of cards if it is so bloody obvious.
Honestly Steve, we understand how embarassed you have to be about all of this, but do try to step outside yourself for a minute & see how the way you conduct yourself impacts on your credibility before you even put forward an argument b/c as an engineer you must understand that you can not build anything on a house of cards & that you would try is deeply suspicious.
Marnie Simpson
stevebee92653 said,
May 27, 2009 at 3:39 am
Do yourself a favor. Don’t give advice unless asked. Didn’t anyone ever tell you that?
I fully realize I didn’t go to all lengths to hide my patents and name. And that was on purpose. My patents have been on YouTube for two years with my real name under steverbee92653. So, any half-wit could have found them. People on D.net were incapable, and called me a liar. What was really funny, was that many realized I did have the patents because they did a little research, while other slow thinkers were still ragging about what a liar I was. A laugh riot.
“Honestly Steve, we understand how embarrassed you are” Dream on. I am not in the least. So give that up. Your fake science is made up of lies and stories, and you rag on me for using a pen name for very good reason? On D.net all I get is ad hom attacks, much worse than the ones that you evos complain constantly about. The two faces of evolutions. And you keep saying “we”? Are you in a cult of some kind? I love how evos always say “we” instead of “I”. You are in a cult, you are indoctrinated, and you don’t know it.
“On what evidence do you say that thousands of scientists checking each others work repeatedly & building upon the body of knowledge all the time, are engaged in a global conspiracy.” Why would you ask me here in the comments when I have a huge blog with the information you ask for. Want me to redo my blog here for you? Do I have to spoon feed you?
Tell your friends to give up on the name bullshit. It’s just a waste of their time. It doesn’t bother me a bit. Know why? You guys are evolutionauts. That’s what you do. Never answer a rational question, and find ways to rag on the questioner. And that is your pattern here. So, if you can’t respond to my challenges, go away. The name of the questioner is completely insignificant. The question is. Bye.
Jim Beam said,
May 27, 2009 at 6:48 am
Any Stevebee supporters should check out RichardDawkins.net/forum to see how Dr. Stevie Wonder chickened out. Also see how many questions he avoided.
gene said,
June 12, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Steve, I recently started to read your pages.This adparker (and his shrunk buddy )didn’t give one straight answer yet but oh boy ,they are good at personal attacks.They don’t even understand the questions….how can they give answers
stevebee92653 said,
June 12, 2009 at 8:45 pm
They were actually amazed that I left the comments on, as they thought I would be embarrassed at how badly I did discussing with them. I leave them as a trophy to show the thinking of these people….or lack thereof. I left five questions on their site, and the answers were dumbfounding. They acted like they answered them, but the huge amount of writing never addressed any of the questions. They spouted evo-dogma. like a kid pushing a button on a DVD player. “Whatever question is asked, this is the answer”.Fun to watch. Jim Beam (above) thought I was a chickenshit for leaving! What a joke. Anyway, thanks for reading, and the comment. I will have an analysis of my “discussions” with http://www.richarddawkins.net on next week if you are interested.
ADParker said,
June 13, 2009 at 1:24 am
For some reason THIS post wouldn’t go through on the other page. So I post it here for you stevebee92653
>I’m just communicating to you the way your hero Cali communicates with me. And, just wondering: a rather innocent Christian type, christjesusisking, came on your site with a challenge or two, and was called a “fucktard”, told to “fuck off” by your hero the blue butterfly. He is the moderator there. I was censored for saying Shrunk is a fool. Why didn’t anyone have the class to tell cali he is out of line? Or to censor himself? Not ONE of you did. Pretty astounding. A real testament to the class of people there. They celebrated another great cali victory instead of telling him what he needed to be told. He is a bag of wind, but a hero there all the same. Sure I know what quote mining is: quoting any evolutionaut. THAT is quote mining. You, ADParker, know nothing about teeth, but you have no problem proselytizing about how they formed from nothing. This is a quote mine from me to you: “both the jaw, teeth, and the entire organism, evolved from ancestor organisms, all with different but quite functional eating apparatus. There is no big deal there at all! I see no problem with imagining the Primate jaw and tooth structure evolving slowly from ancestral origins, none”. ADParker, May 2009. All I can say is HAR HAR HAR. BTW. I’m glad you CAN imagine “it”, with all of that knowledge you have on the subject.You are qualified to say my skepticism regarding the evolution of archeopteryx teeth then the dis-evolution is “inane”. And what gives you that power? Since there is absolutely nothing but conjecture on the subject. You must think your indoctrination is better than my skepticism I guess. Better in your uneducated mind.Hey, and thanks for the peer reviewed sci fi papers. And, next time when you are out in nature, and see a woodpecker or hummingbird, just remember, those are really theropods! Run for your life! My question: why would a mature and supposedly intelligent adult believe that story? Why? Without skepticism? I don’t get it. Sorry.I brought questions over to dawk, and they weren’t answered. Not even close. But the congregation cheered the non-answers, and claimed victory. What a laugh. Fun to watch. And when y’all couldn’t answer my challenges, y’all did the evo-thing. Reverted to personal attacks. This is really sad for what is supposed to be a science. My challenges are still there, just sitting, unanswered. No point in bringing more. They won’t be answered. I am writing a detailed analysis of your answers, in case you or any of your buddies are curious. It will post in a week or so. Be sure and read what failures cali, you ,and your other buddies are. Excuse me, the blue butterfly.I love how you call arguments that you can’t answer “rubbish”. Did you get that from cali?You: “…each of the things to have brought up (and horribly misconstrued), but on the simply atrociously poor quality of your rhetoric. Such that even if you were right, what you have written would not even come close to validating that”.
Ya know what proves you wrong? That you guys keep coming back for more. If I was so idiotic, you wouldn’t spend a minute on me. But you and your fellow evolutionauts spent well over fifty pages ragging on me, and a couple of hundred comments here. THAT is truth. Your deeds trump your dialogue.10,000 years ago), that the Thylacine is of the same “kind” as the wolf (because it is called the Tasmanian wolf.) and so on. Plus such gems as Polar Bears being white because of being scared!
It’s basically a two pronged thing:
1. There is that faint (long gone now in your case, I assure you) that you might actually be open to reason.
2. That our responses might help others to see how weak your arguments and claims truly are.
Well perhaps a touch of a third prong:
3. Some hilarity often ensues. Perhaps even potential FSTDT material!
>I don’t know how your comment posted with all of those links. It may dissolve.<
It's called HTML (Hyper Text Mark-up Language); your blog (and most web pages actually) uses it, allowing it to immediately recognise certain text strings as links (etc.) and marking them as such in the text. -Just write the web page address down and it becomes a link.
Or perhaps it's just MAGIC. heh.
That was quite a long post Steve; given that you didn't actually address anything I said in it at all, not really.
jan said,
October 15, 2009 at 5:05 am
Parker, do you realize how stupid you are???????? Apparenly you have really bought into the last several decades of speculation presented as science in (what seems to be) an attempt to justify your philosophical preferences and wishes….. and replaced (if you really had one in the first place) a scientific disposition for some sort of personal vendeta against some other philosophical belief system……. Go home and retire you (old age or not) worn out bastard. Let REAL SCIENCE MOVE FORWARD………..
ADParker said,
October 15, 2009 at 7:12 am
You’re funny jan.
And how you love to commit that genetic fallacy.
Something you might want to consider: Personal attacks, insults, add nothing to an argument, they only make you look petty and incapable of actual debate.
jan said,
October 17, 2009 at 6:46 am
“ADParker said,
June 13, 2009 at 1:21 am
He doesn’t even know how it is the links appear, so I wouldn’t hold my breath.”
Parker,
So the f what?????
You sound like some sort of evolutionary “SOAP OPERA” TV Star…….What a dumb f……..
Besides all of that….. Because I believe that to be irrelevant….. please start to describe your, apparently excellent scientific results in the demonstration of the effectiveness the variable selection processess that certainly must have manifested possitive results in the development of chemicals to living ecosystems that, have allowed us to have the capablility of observing the ecosystems that we can describe now………….good luck pop-culture phenom……… pull your head out of your wishfull thinking ass and take a good look at reality you friggin idiot………
jan said,
October 17, 2009 at 6:52 am
Parker,
Dont you realize that your beloved position in life and your life style has absolutely nothing to do with reality on these issues? YOu have the time and resources that allow you to sit back and bark out your philosophical preferences as if they are fact…….to anybody that will pay attention……. Shit…. I hope you have no authority over anybody except your dog…… who obviously wont understand any of the shit you spew…………. But if you cant accept some sort of responsibility to be impartial and objective in these matters in the way your express them to people that see you as an authority figure, then you are far more than “pathetic” you are vermin, you asshole…………..
jan said,
October 19, 2009 at 5:00 am
“Because common ancestry between dogs and wolves is far, far simpler. If you can’t understand that, there’s no hope your being able to understand the theropod/ bird lineage.”
Shrunk, your name must be describing your brain, since you accepted as fact, the speculations that evolutionary (oh, it sounds so scientific) “biology” has some how successfully (what a joke, to associate “evolution” with real science) convinced you that it’s “science” and has some how scientifically DEMONSTRATED what it’s assertions are…..You must be making a living off of this shit….. or maybe you have some sort of philosophical preference that uses it as a tool………
A part of your problem is that, what you state above, the concept of common ancestry between dogs and wolves is WAY TOO SIMPLE TO BE ANY KIND OF COMPREHENSIVE ANALOGY OF WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE……..
“Evolution” CLAIMS THAT THERE IS A “BOTTOM UP” DEVELOPMENT OF MOLECULES to present living forms…….That is fine….. but then, logically and scientifically,
“evolutionary science” NEEDS TO QUANTITATIVELY, ADEQUATELY, DEMONSTRATE SCIENTIFICALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIMS……. AND, IN MY OPINION, THAT HAS NOT EVEN COME CLOSE TO HAVE HAPPENED…….You have a lot of work to do, my friend………..
jan said,
October 21, 2009 at 4:15 am
“Discuss the microsteps that lead to the evolution of a male and female of vertebrate species, and sexual reproduction.”
Steve, please, don’t spoil the party with such questions, ya gotta just accept the fact that, the faster lion will beat out the slower lion in achieving access to the prey……Stop being such an “idiot”…….don’t you understand yet that “clear observable fitness values” must absolutely scientifically describe ALL LEVELS OF FITNESS VALUE REQUIREMENTS FROM CHEMICALS TO ECOSYSTEMS……shame on you Steve……. I really feel sorry for you and your offspring……god knows what will happen to you……richard dawkass would be ashamed of you…… that should make you tremble with fear and REPENT, YOU UNBELIEVER, REPENT BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
jan said,
December 12, 2009 at 7:00 am
Shrunk said,
May 28, 2009 at 10:15 am
“Dogs and wolves may have been the same species 10,000. But you and I can only guess. No one knows for sure. ”
So I’m still trying to figure out what your explanation is for the fact that dogs and wolves can interbreed today. The only rational expanation I can think of is that they are of the same species, which means they are all related by common descent. You seem to think otherwise. So what alternative is there? The only alternative I can see is that dogs and wolves originated by some unknown process (I’ll avoid references to “magic” at your request) and thru an incalculably improbable series of coincidences ended up being sexually and reproductively compatible. The problem is, you yourself say (correctly) that this is for all intents impossible, in question #2 above. (You are, of course incorrect when you say this is a problem for evolution. See this article by PZ Myers:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/elephantine_errors_from_ray_co.php)”
jan said in response: Oh, gee whiz, those assertions are beyond any doubt, that with those assertions, you have mitigated all reasonable counter reasoning to which may have equivalent explanatory relevance to explanations for what you vastly unsubstantiated claims can really scientifically support. And, by the way, “see the article by pz meyers” who the fuck is that? some fucking asshole who hates religion.,… correct? well what the fuck does real science have to do with some fuck head who hates religion? Shit, there are tens of thousands of suffering individuals in the world who pray to God, that the available resources GIVEN to science will be directed to the alleviation of they and their families sufferings…..can not you asshole somewhat identify with this??????? you fucking prick.; pz meyers, what a hero………you dumb asses, what the fuck are you thinking? your philosophical preferences are ABSOLUTELY FUCKING DETRIMENTAL TO REAL SUFFERING OF LIVING INDIVIDUALS WHO NEED RESOURCES TO ALLEVIATE THE SUFFERINGS THEY LIVE WITH.
ADParker said,
December 12, 2009 at 10:43 am
PZ Myers is an associate professor of biology at the University of Minnesota Morris, with a PhD in biology and studies in the exciting and relatively new field of evolutionary developmental biology (also known as Evo-devo.)
Religion? What does that have to do with anything? Isn’t this blog about science, specifically evolution?
It’s not a bad little article actually:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/elephantine_errors_from_ray_co.php
jan said,
December 13, 2009 at 5:57 am
“This is not a trait that evolved recently — it’s an ancient property inherited for generation after generation” (Oh yah meyers, you can scientifically fully in any adequate form, demonstrate this)
Parker, this is a quote from your philosophical guru you mention above. From something you say “It’s not a bad little article actually:” How scientific!!!!!!
(you subscribe to the following “we assume large scale evolution is true, therefore, “ancient properties” must have “evolved”)
Both of you have a non-scientific agenda. You are delusional if you actually believe your socially sanctioned philosophical preferences (passed off as “evolutionary sciences” really stand up to the hard cruel realities (LAWS of chemistry and physics, and with the leap of a scientifically non-demonstrable quantum jump-(what real science observes and labels BIOCHEMISTRY) confronting the assertions and presuppositions necessary to “scientifically” adequately support the myriad of developmental requirements necessary from chemicals to living systems. Meyers, it seems to me, is one (among so many) that may have became interested in evolutionary “science” (philosophy) because, for some reason(s) he has a hair up his rectum regarding “religion”. And I suspect you may have similar motivations. (Look at Dawkins, and he is making a financial “killing” ie. the god delusion) And of course you will say you are no fan of
Dawkins, even though his philosophical rants over the decades has contibuted to your ill founded conclusions more that you will probably ever know.
Well, there are a lot of us who don’t give a crap about your philosophical preferences. It is time for “science” to discern and eliminate non productive components (THE PHILOSOPHY OF LARGE SCALE EVOLUTION) from its systemic approaches to the goal of benefiting life, and particulary, human life on this planet. (even though we all agree that the ecosystems we are a part of are co-dependent) The resources seem to be less available. We need the money to go to REAL SCIENCES to combat cancer, starvation, aids, socially sanctioned murder, political brutality, etc etc etc………
“Life requires life sustaining properties to continue.” “Philosophy is merely a function of the qualities of life.” Humanity must discern meet the challenge of allocating resources to the mostly irrelevant and the crucial” (parker, you prick)
jan said,
December 13, 2009 at 7:00 am
Humanity must discern meet the challenge of allocating resources to the mostly irrelevant and the crucial”
Correction, the most “relevant”…………
jan said,
December 13, 2009 at 7:53 am
Parker said:
“Religion? What does that have to do with anything? Isn’t this blog about science, specifically evolution?”
Jan said, in response:
Religion, per se, may have little to do with “anything” (whatever that means). But when some apparently prominent “figure” in the name of “science” feels compelled to attack “religion” as, in part, a basis for some sort of “scientific” support for demonstrating significantly unsubstantiated “science”….This is where a lot of thinking individuals have to call “bullshit”.
When you say that “isn’t this blog about science, specifically evolution?” you have a lot of demonstrations to perform that HAVE NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY PERFORMED, AND PROBABLY NEVER WILL BE, to substantiate the claim that “evolution” (in it’s currently pop-culturally understood form) is science, and not some sort of philosphical SERIES OF ASSERTIONS!!!!! (prove me wrong asshole)
Look, Parker, go back to the pandas thumb or meyer’s blog and nurse your wounds with the sympathetic idiots who are desperately trying to hold on to the status quo, in the name of “science”. Many of them have had their way in the classrooms with asserting their unsubstantiated promulgations to ignorant children in the name of science. And not only that, they have made terrific financial livings with great retirement benefits off of the shit they push down the throats of the innocent, who have absolutely no incentive to question the hugely unsubstantiated crap that is espoused in their venue. It has been a “slam dunk” “gang rape” and most of these assholes, if they would accept the concept of “critical thinking” would come to the same conclusion.
But, of course, they wont. They are too infatuated with the benevolence “society” has bestowed on them, for their pet philosophies, and there is absolutely no financial (psuedo-science for psuedo-science sake, BUT MONEY FOR GOD’S SAKE) incentive for these assholes to realistically consider the scope of requirements necessary to really support the depth of their assertions. Let alone, them actually developing a scientific QUANTITATIVE MODEL that would legitimatize a scalor and scientific representation of requirements needed for the physical necessities inherent in the assertions………
PARKER, turn to hollywood and watch your favorite “movie”. the concepts inherent there will, i am sure, support your philosophical predispositions, just like your friends in the “evolutionary philosophical community” (you prick).
ADParker said,
December 13, 2009 at 9:07 am
Jan wrote:
” “This is not a trait that evolved recently — it’s an ancient property inherited for generation after generation” (Oh yah meyers, you can scientifically fully in any adequate form, demonstrate this)”
Sure he could, but for you it would take a while, as he would have to go waaaay back before the most basic university biology paper courses that he teaches, to bring you up to speed. ALL biological evidence puts the emergence of sexual reproduction way way before the emergence of modern elephants, in fact before the emergence of ANY mammals, reptiles and amphibians.
But you go on believing that this feature was created multiple times independently in all manner of creatures as cases of “Special Creation” if that brings you some measure of comfort. I am sure all kinds of early (and pre-) 19th century thinking may be appealing to some.
Jan wrote:
“Parker, this is a quote from your philosophical guru you mention above. From something you say “It’s not a bad little article actually:” How scientific!!!!!!”
PZ Myers? Hardly know much about the man to be perfectly honest, don’t follow his blog or anything like that. And if my study of philosophy taught me anything; it is not to hold anyone as a “philosophical guru.”
Jan wrote:
“Both of you have a non-scientific agenda.”
Interesting assertion from one who has revealed their own agenda so vividly.
I do not at all take “philosophical agenda” as an insult at all. I am indeed a philosopher in the broadest sense; a lover of Wisdom.
Far better a philosophical (dedicated to reason) agenda than a Religious (doctrine and dogma based on imagination and emotion alone) based one.
Jan wrote:
“You are delusional if you actually believe your socially sanctioned philosophical preferences (passed off as “evolutionary sciences” really stand up to the hard cruel realities (LAWS of chemistry and physics, and with the leap of a scientifically non-demonstrable quantum jump-(what real science observes and labels BIOCHEMISTRY) confronting the assertions and presuppositions necessary to “scientifically” adequately support the myriad of developmental requirements necessary from chemicals to living systems.”
You just can’t get past that ABIOGENESIS stuff can you jan? I understand that creationists (including Intelligent Design creationists) think that this Argument from Ignorance is some kind of trump card, so feel the need to try to drag every evolution argument back to that (and cosmology as well), but it really isn’t, nothing based on a Logical Fallacy ever could be.
Jan wrote:
” Meyers, it seems to me, is one (among so many) that may have became interested in evolutionary “science” (philosophy) because, for some reason(s) he has a hair up his rectum regarding “religion”. And I suspect you may have similar motivations. [/quote]
I have no idea of PZ Myers original motives. I do very much doubt that he would have gotten as far as he has in his chosen field if that was it. There is a reason what those who get scientific qualifications, for no reason other than to further religious goals, so further preconceived agendas, tend to quickly end up preaching from places like The Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis, rather than doing real science.
My interest in such science began as a theist actually. And both my interests in “natural science” (and ontology in general) and my progression to my non-theism where quite separate. Some (Like Richard Dawkins, whom you mention) attest that evolutionary science played a part in their atheism, that was not at all the case with me. Only creationists have brought the two somewhat together to certain degrees for me.
I wonder what you think people like Kenneth Miller’s motives are.
Jan wrote:
” (Look at Dawkins, and he is making a financial “killing” ie. the god delusion) And of course you will say you are no fan of
Dawkins, even though his philosophical rants over the decades has contibuted to your ill founded conclusions more that you will probably ever know.”
Oh, on the contrary: I am definitely a fan of Professor Dawkins. His first (1976) book “The Selfish Gene” was brilliant (They even wrote a book “Richard Dawkins: How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think” based largely on that work, it represented a significant paradigm shift) as was his follow-up book “The extended Phenotype” and the later “The Ancestor’s Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution”.
*I understand that “The Greatest Show on Earth” is also good, as it directly addresses the evidence for evolution. I have it on my shelf, but have yet to read it.
And yes; he HAS made a great deal (sold a lot of copies at least) on “The God Delusion” hasn’t he? Many many people have brought it (As well as other “atheist” books.) An interesting phenomenon , no?
Jan wrote:
“We need the money to go to REAL SCIENCES to combat cancer, starvation, aids, socially sanctioned murder, political brutality, etc etc etc………”
Sure we need money for such research – I don’t see how the financial gains Prof. Dawkins has gained from the general book purchasing public has ANYTHING to do with that however – They are important as well, most important. We could also do with Religious ‘interest groups’ from sticking their ignorant beaks in those areas as well, could we not?
Jan wrote:
” “Philosophy is merely a function of the qualities of life.” ”
Um no. “Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning subjects such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language” (Wikipedia from Jenny Teichmann and Katherine C. Evans, Philosophy: A Beginner’s Guide & A.C. Grayling, Philosophy 1: A Guide through the Subject)
An important subset, and progression of, that is known as “Science.”
Jan wrote:
” (parker, you prick)”
Always a pleasure to talk to you too jan.
jan said,
December 13, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Jan wrote:
” “This is not a trait that evolved recently — it’s an ancient property inherited for generation after generation” (Oh yah meyers, you can scientifically fully in any adequate form, demonstrate this)”
Parker responded:
Sure he could, but for you it would take a while, as he would have to go waaaay back before the most basic university biology paper courses that he teaches, to bring you up to speed.
jan said:
No, Parker, he sure could not. I will say that unless someone is NOT sold on the vast amounts of what is really “conjecture” supported by little more assumptions that have been passed off as fact, you are going have a very difficult time properly discerning. People that believe that “large scale” evolution has been adequately in significant quantitative fashion demonstrated by the “science” (philosopy) of evolution have apparently lost some fundamental abilities regarding the issue. Critical thinking and critical reading are two of those things…
parker said:
“But you go on believing that this feature was created multiple times independently in all manner of creatures as cases of “Special Creation” if that brings you some measure of comfort. I am sure all kinds of early (and pre-) 19th century thinking may be appealing to some.”
jan responded:
I can’t answer that parker. You can’t either. I don’t mind saying that i just don’t know………
parker said:
“Oh, on the contrary: I am definitely a fan of Professor Dawkins. His first (1976) book “The Selfish Gene” was brilliant ”
jan responded:
This is very telling parker. You know, I think dawkins may have missed his calling as a great writer of fiction. (although he apparently is very happy where he is at) He is a master at taking what good science finds out with legitimate research, chemistry, biochemistry, physics, genetics etc, and spinning it well beyond legitimate scientific boundaries. He can tell and sell a whale of a tale. Yes, very telling indeed. He is no doubt one of the best semi-fiction writers in terms of the suckers he has buying, what is in significant part, insufficiently substantiated conjecture.
parker said:
“Sure we need money for such research – I don’t see how the financial gains Prof. Dawkins has gained from the general book purchasing public has ANYTHING to do with that however – They are important as well, most important. We could also do with Religious ‘interest groups’ from sticking their ignorant beaks in those areas as well, could we not?”
jan said in response:
I wasn’t talking about money from books. I am talking about funding from public tax dollars.
I suppose that i could get behind publicly funding the suspect evolutionary studies if it were treated in the schools for what it largely is, and that is a philosophy.
parker said:
“You just can’t get past that ABIOGENESIS stuff can you jan?”
jan responded:
I guess you think “science” has figured all that out and supported it with sufficient quantitative data. I have done some reading and listening regarding current research delving into the rybozyme theory of the origins of life situation. You get into in a little detail and what you come up with is a sense that purely chemical and physical processes would present absolutely devastating barriers to the vast requirements of development.
One mostly comes away with a large respect for the vast resources of intelligence and facilities required to nurture and guide the components and reactions necessary. Such dedication by the intellects involved. This to produce one or two nucleotides…..
Well, I guess ya pull out the old ace up the sleave. “Given enough time” eh parker. ”
An intelligent question would be: at what point do we consider human involvement in the process illegitimate interference?
parker, i would continue, but i am just flat out of time. bonehead.
jan said,
December 25, 2009 at 3:03 am
parker, you seem so assured of your conjectures. I won’t argue, if you could just put adequately supported evidence for your assertions “on the table” for us all to observe………By the way, what do you think is “adequate” to support any kind of scientific demonstration of requirements that are necessary to support this: Adequately demonstrable progressions from chemical and physically “understood” phenomena to “living ecosystem”. Some people may say, “we can and will not know” and “we believe “science” can’t give sufficient quantitative evidence to come to the conclusions purported. But, of course, these realities of critical thinking do not support your preferred philosophical preferencial positions regarding these topics…..so you will continue to meander around in your preferred “zones” of philosophical preferences………..
ADParker said,
December 26, 2009 at 12:21 am
There’s no point is there jan?
I mean you (and people like you) insist on defining what my (and ‘our’) conjectures are. For example this “from chemical and physically “understood” phenomena to “living ecosystem” ” stuff, which as I have explained innumerable times; is both abiogenesis (the stuff of chemistry and biochemistry) and evolutionary biology – but not just any evolution but from the earliest examples all the way to fully formed “ecosystems”!
It’s like saying that history can be deemed false until one provides in detail EVERYTHING that happened from the start to the present!
What do you really want jan? Oh what’s the use, what you want is to continue to dismiss ‘EVILuotion” (or “ev-illusion”) because it challenges your existing world-view, isn’t it?
If you really want to understand what the theory of evolution actually is – accepting it our not, just gaining an understanding of what it is – then read a book. Try Richard Dawkins’ latest: The Greatest Show on Earth. It goes through it in a gentle step by step manner.
At the very least, after reading it, you will have a clearer idea of exactly what it is you are arguing against.
jan said,
December 26, 2009 at 12:49 am
Parker said:
“It’s like saying that history can be deemed false until one provides in detail EVERYTHING that happened from the start to the present!”
Jan responds: The current theory of evolution could never be falsified. “slight successive modifications” will always be a possibility in the naive imaginations of most people. People who are not motivated to pursue the realistically required depths of critical analysis necessarty to appreciate the insufficientcies of the current body of speculation ( “evolutionary” “science”) will never approach an understanding or sense of the inadequacies ……
And no, Parker. NOT “EVERYTHING” in detail. Just SCIENTIFICALLY SUFFICIENT detail would do.
jan said,
December 26, 2009 at 3:50 am
Parker said:
“What do you really want jan? Oh what’s the use, what you want is to continue to dismiss ‘EVILuotion” (or “ev-illusion”) because it challenges your existing world-view, isn’t it?”
Jan responded: Please, for REAL science sake, don’t start talking about “world views”in such a disingenuous way. If you want to do REAL SCIENCE, you got to leave that stuff at the door step. Then venture into a very serious arena that needs serious security measures at the “door”. This to eliminate any non-scientific “world view” propaganda (regardless of the real world funding realities) from contaminating a vital enterprise. If this enterprise is to continue to be a legitimate socially funded venture, it must “clean up its act” or go down in history as one of the most one sided WORLD VIEW oriented propositions in the history of mankind. And I seriously doubt that this is even possible at this point in history…………..
jan said,
December 26, 2009 at 3:56 am
CORRECTION:
JAN SAID:
“If this enterprise is to continue to be a legitimate socially funded venture”
I should have said: If this enterprise (evolutionary science) is to ACTUALLY ESTABLISH itself to be a legitimate scientific venture, REGARDLESS of the funding (but deserving of public funding)….then (refer above to my last post)
jan said,
December 26, 2009 at 4:13 am
CORRECTION:
JAN SAID:
“If this enterprise is to continue to be a legitimate socially funded venture”
I should have said: If this enterprise (evolutionary science) is to ACTUALLY ESTABLISH itself to be a legitimate scientific venture, REGARDLESS of the funding (but deserving of public funding)….then (refer above to my last post)
So what is your “world view” Parker. A hate for religion? I believe this world view has NO LEGITIMATE PLACE WHATSOEVER IN THE REALM OF SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSIONS!
jan said,
January 4, 2010 at 3:36 am
“Perhaps a magical fairy flitted across the once-lifeless earth, and everywhere she touched her wand, new species of life magically appeared. At least, you seem to believe this is a plausible scenario.”
Shrunk,
what the fuck are your talking about? What you are trying to do here is so fucking obvious that, even most sympathetic assholes of your ilk must have come to similar conclusions.
Your childish philosophically preferred preferences are interfering with real “scientific” reasoning. No one thinks that there is a “magical” “fairy” that………(fill in the blanks asshole)
What many people think now, after ALL OF THE YEARS OF unmitigated preferential funding of (what now must certainly on scientific grounds be considered as evolutionary “speculations”) the status quo is now resorting to demeaning “religion” instead of addressing the absurdly insufficient assertions regarding this: “We hate religion” or “we don’t know, but I hate to admit the insufficiencies of my “FUNDED” FUCKING POSITIONS OVER THE LAST DECADE(S). SO I WILL KEEP (in a totally unscientific fashion) continue to promote this shit for PERSONAL REASONS….. (you fucking asshole(s)………
Shrunk, you son of a bitch. you and your sympatriouts are squeezing the resources from LEGITIMATE SCIENCES THAT SO DESPERATELY NEED THE FUNDING TO FIND WAYS TO CURE THE HOPELESS AND SICK THAT ARE STRUGGLING TO SURVIVE IN THE FUCKING HERE AND NOW….. YOU FUCKING SPECULATIVE MURDERER…….
scienceisgreat said,
August 20, 2010 at 8:04 am
steve, you have another man on this planet that agrees with you, but you are under some misconseption about the evolutionats evolutionary theory. You keep saying how can millions of different animals all evolve eyes at the same time. This is not something that evolutionists belive. See the first fish had eyes lungs and everything it needed, then it evolved into a new species somewhat differtn that still had eyes lungs and everthing that the fish had, then this species evolved into another species, i guess by isolation and grew legs, then this species evolved into another species and passed on its eyes lungs and whatever it had to the next, The evolvement of all these organs in seperate species never had to happen because one species evolved into the next and passed all those on, i know that is complete bullshit but this is the theory, so i dont understand why you keep saying they had to evolve in thousands of species at the same time, you are making all your had work look stupid.
stevebee92653 said,
August 20, 2010 at 8:40 pm
You sound evolutionaut. But either way, you are not thinking this out. You are just regurgitating without thought.
How many species of fish (or whatever aquatic species first evolved eyes) were there 500+ MYA? Let’s guess 1,000? Or 100? Did they ALL evolve eyes at the same time? Not possible. So one did? Four, all at about the same time? How did the few/one species that first evolved eyes spread those to other species? So, evolution is instantly stuck. Couldn’t happen.
Now add in hearing. Add in gastro-intestinal tracts. Add in livers. Add in…….They all had to evolve in all species, all at about the same time, because none of these bio-systems could migrate from species to species.
For your “common ancestor to all animals” notion to be true, that would mean that there was only one animal species on earth that evolved all bio-systems, then evolved and branched those systems to all of the eye’d species today. And liver’ed, GI tract’ed, hearing, pancreas’ed, thyroid’ed……..Which do evolutionauts believe? All in one, or all in many, then spread. Neither is possible. Your single species notion is dead meat. There couldn’t have been natural selection, of course. No other species competing to make the selection needed to produce all of those fine systems.
My hard work looks stupid? If I can see an answer to this riddle, I will pull down whatever material I have on the subject. But I haven’t received a plausible or intelligent answer to date. Except, “oh that happened by common ancestry”. That answer IS stupid.
scienceisgreat said,
August 21, 2010 at 7:59 am
How many species of fish (or whatever aquatic species first evolved eyes) were there 500+ MYA?
According to evolution, there would only have to be one species of fish in existence that had these, then branched off. If there were other species , they could not have spread them to other species. So all evolutionats must agree that there was only one species of fish in existence witch then branched off into newer species, if this is not the case then blatantly evolution is fuckeed with it isss…….. by the way thanks for clearing that up
stevebee92653 said,
August 21, 2010 at 6:56 pm
Glad you got it.
Thursty said,
October 29, 2010 at 3:53 am
My background is similar to yours. I do have to say though that I can’t understand how anybody can become a dentist and study as much biology as you must have done and then not realize that “species” is both singular and plural. Reading this and constantly coming across coin money (specie) is annoying beyond words.
stevebee92653 said,
October 29, 2010 at 10:05 pm
Oooh, that’s a bit scary. Too many brews the night I typed that one. Lucky “speceiz” wasn’t on the dental school spelling test.
Charlie said,
January 25, 2011 at 8:05 pm
You KNOW you should believe in evolution, don’t you?
You KNOW you should believe in evolution, don’t you?
You KNOW you should believe in evolution, don’t you?
{repeat over and over again until it becomes effective}
You believe in evolution now, don’t you? Good boy.
Ahh… bliss.