FREE TAPATALK APP

catsmate1 · 19th October 2010, 07:02 AM

Originally Posted by Pahu

Who keeps that clock wound up?

I note from this, and subsequent postings, that you have resorted to xian apologist tactic #7: Answering Every Question With Another Question.
Was this your own idea? Or were you advised to do this?

catsmate1 · 19th October 2010, 07:21 AM

Originally Posted by Pahu

Where have transitional fossils been found? What genetic evidence are you referring to?

Evolutionists themselves long ago abandoned horse evolution as an example of transitional forms, since they no longer believe the fossil record represents anything like a straightforward progression, but instead a bush with many varying branches. As Heribert Nilsson correctly pointed out as long ago as 1954:

“The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks. In the reality provided by the results of research it is put together from three parts, of which only the last can be described as including horses. The forms of the first part are just as much little horses as the present day damans are horses. The construction of the horse is therefore a very artificial one, since it is put together from non-equivalent parts, and cannot therefore be a continuous transformation series” (pp. 551-552, emp. added).

In 1841, the earliest so-called “horse” fossil was discovered in clay around London. The scientist who unearthed it, Richard Owen, found a complete skull that looked like a fox's head with multiple back-teeth as in hoofed animals. He called it Hyracotherium. He saw no connection between it and the modern-day horse.

In 1874, another scientist, Kovalevsky, attempted to establish a link between this small fox-like creature, which he thought was 70 million years old, and the modern horse.

In 1879, an American fossil expert, O. C. Marsh, and famous evolutionist Thomas Huxley, collaborated for a public lecture which Huxley gave in New York. Marsh produced a schematic diagram which attempted to show the so-called development of the front and back feet, the legs, and the teeth of the various stages of the horse. He published his evolutionary diagram in the American Journal of Science in 1879, and it found its way into many other publications and textbooks. The scheme hasn't changed. It shows a beautiful gradational sequence in “the evolution” of the horse, unbroken by any abrupt changes. This is what we see in school textbooks.

The question is: “Is the scheme proposed by Huxley and Marsh true?”

The simple answer is “No”. While it is a clever arrangement of the fossils on an evolutionary assumption, even leading evolutionists such as George Gaylord Simpson backed away from it. He said it was misleading.

If it were true, you would expect to find the earliest horse fossils in the lowest rock strata. But you don't. In fact, bones of the supposed “earliest” horses have been found at or near the surface. Sometimes they are found right next to modern horse fossils! O.C. Marsh commented on living horses with multiple toes, and said there were cases in the American Southwest where “both fore and hind feet may each have two extra digits fairly developed, and all of nearly equal size, thus corresponding to the feet of the extinct Protohippus”.  In National Geographic (January 1981, p. 74), there is a picture of the foot of a so-called early horse, Pliohippus, and one of the modern Equus that were found at the same volcanic site in Nebraska. The writer says: “Dozens of hoofed species lived on the American plains.” Doesn't this suggest two different species, rather than the evolutionary progression of one?

There is no one site in the world where the evolutionary succession of the horse can be seen. Rather, the fossil fragments have been gathered from several continents on the assumption of evolutionary progress, and then used to support the assumption. This is circular reasoning, and does not qualify as objective science.

The theory of horse evolution has very serious genetic problems to overcome. How do we explain the variations in the numbers of ribs and lumbar vertebrae within the imagined evolutionary progression? For example, the number of ribs in the supposedly “intermediate” stages of the horse varies from 15 to 19 and then finally settles at 18. The number of lumbar vertebrae also allegedly swings from six to eight and then returns to six again.

Finally, when evolutionists assume that the horse has grown progressively in size over millions of years, what they forget is that modern horses vary enormously in size. The largest horse today is the Clydesdale; the smallest is the Fallabella, which stands at 17 inches (43 centimeters) tall. Both are members of the same species, and neither has evolved from the other.

Why do science textbooks continue to use the horse as a prime example of evolution, when the whole schema is demonstrably false? Why do they continue to teach our kids something that is not scientific? Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator of the American Museum of Natural History, has said:

“I admit that an awful lot of that (imaginary stories) has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable …”.

The horse series is often presented as proof of evolution. The number of toes in foreleg and hind leg supposedly decreased as the horse evolved, and the size supposedly increased from a small doglike horse to a large modern horse. Yet three-toed horses have been found with one-toed horses, showing they lived at the same time. And there are tiny living Fallabella horses only 17 inches ( 43 centimeters) tall.

REFERENCES

O. C. Marsh, “Recent Polydactyle Horses”, American Journal of Science 43, 1892, pp. 339-354 - as quoted in Creation Research Society Quarterly correspondence, Vol. 30, December 1993, p. 125.

Niles Eldredge, as quoted in: Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, fourth edition (revised and expanded), Master Book Publishers, Santee (California),1988, p. 78.

http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c016.html

Wow, you're seriously trying to pass of work by Marsh in the nineteenth century (1870s) before further transitional fossils were discovered? You really have no shame do you? In the unlikely event you are interested in the truth I suggest you look here for up to date information on the reality of equine evolution.

Your deceitful distortion of Simpson's work is fully answered here though, again, I doubt you'll even bother to look at it.......

Sunderland's book is merely another creationist tract full of distortions, out of context mined quotes and similar rubbish. Eldridge, who you allegedly quote from, refuted him in The Monkey Business and The Triumph of Evolution. Again books you haven't, and won't, read.

JonathanQuick · 19th October 2010, 07:21 AM

Originally Posted by Simon39759

Well, the majority of Christians are not actually, creationist.
The proportion is shamefully higher in the states, of course, due to an impressive disinformation machine... but it still not 85%...

You are terribly misinformed. You confuse "creationist" with having legitimate doubts about the 150 year old theory first formally posited by Charles Darwin, long before we knew the profound complexity of life.

Quote:

And even then, no, the majority of creationists are just victims of the propaganda, I believe, and hope, that if confronted with the evidences (some of which were presented earlier in this thread, what about addressing these rather than your cutesy sarcasm...).

You pretend that YOU have all the answers, and anyone who does not march in lockstep with you is an ignoramus, a victim of "propaganda." This is the identical hateful and condescending tactic taken by global warming fearmongers, bent on controlling everyone else. It is anti-scientific and it is shameful.

Now since you pretend to know so very much about Darwinism, let's compare notes, shall we?

Name for me the ONE SINGLE DIAGRAM inside Darwin's book The Origin of Species. What is that diagram? And what is wrong with it?

Quote:

A) Darwin is not a prophet and nobody claimed is words were the inherent truth.

Sorry but you do exactly that. Not only with Darwin, but also with Al Gore.
tsk, tsk

JonathanQuick · 19th October 2010, 07:26 AM

Originally Posted by temporalillusion

And of course anyone who had read the book knows that races in the title doesn't refer to human races, it refers to varieties of organisms. Humans are hardly mentioned at all in the book.

Black humans are specifically "mentioned" and Darwin makes racist, degrading references to them.

Quote:

Evolution is distinctly anti-racist.

Oh please, stop it.

"No decent person wants to live in a society which works according to Darwinian laws.... A Darwinian society would be a Fascist state." - Richard Dawkins, Die Presse, July 30, 2005

brenn · 19th October 2010, 07:31 AM

Originally Posted by JonathanQuick

Black humans are specifically "mentioned" and Darwin makes racist, degrading references to them.

Yes, Black humans are mentioned. Where is your page cite for those racist and degrading references?

This could not be an easier argument for you to win - you are claiming that a particular book, Origin of Species, (which is available free and instantly online) contains evidence of racism, so all you have to do is show us where to win. I was personally only able to find 2 paragraphs in the whole book referring to "negroes" and neither was racist or degrading in context.

By the way, if you are going to try to pass off the time of the writing as evidence of racism (i.e., "look, Darwin used the word 'negro'" od called Africans "savages") that would be idiotic, just to head that off before we start a whole new path.

If Origin of Species, which you claimed was racist, won't support your argument, thereby making it obvious you didn't actually know what you were talking about, then feel free to admit that and move on to Descent of Man to prove Darwin was racist.

Marduk · 19th October 2010, 07:48 AM

Originally Posted by brenn

If you are going to concede that he wrote it, maybe you would care to give a cite?

Originally Posted by chapter vi "the descent of man and selection in relation to sex", page 193

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla"

Sideroxylon · 19th October 2010, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by JonathanQuick

You are terribly misinformed. You confuse "creationist" with having legitimate doubts about the 150 year old theory first formally posited by Charles Darwin, long before we knew the profound complexity of life.

Why not tell us exactly what you believe, evolution deniers never seem to spell that out. While you are at it, how does your story better explain such observations as the fossil record, genetic record, distribution of life, or comparative anatomy. What predictions does it make? What observation would falsify it?

I know you won't do that because you cannot. You only have cheap rhetoric.

There are no legitimate doubts, evident in the fact that there is no debate about whether or not evolution happened among experts. The deniers all do so because it seems to contradict writings in their holy books.

Quote:

You pretend that YOU have all the answers, and anyone who does not march in lockstep with you is an ignoramus, a victim of "propaganda." This is the identical hateful and condescending tactic taken by global warming fearmongers, bent on controlling everyone else. It is anti-scientific and it is shameful.

Again, there is no controversy. There is nothing scientific about flood geology, young earth geology or evolution denialism. These ideas are contradicted by the evidence. The first two are patently laughable with cursory knowledge of the facts.

Quote:

Now since you pretend to know so very much about Darwinism, let's compare notes, shall we?

Name for me the ONE SINGLE DIAGRAM inside Darwin's book The Origin of Species. What is that diagram? And what is wrong with it?

Sorry but you do exactly that. Not only with Darwin, but also with Al Gore.
tsk, tsk

You've been told already that Darwin being wrong about something is not going to bring down evolution. The idea has grown beyond this man who had the insight into its mechanism, along with Wallace. Its an idea that well preceded him. Its now so well supported its considered a fact.

JonathanQuick · 19th October 2010, 08:03 AM

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

@JohnathonQuick

No, in fact I do know the title and I've read the content. I've also read The Descent of Man which is what I thought you were referring to. And I see you're making a somewhat more accurate and toned down claim than before.

Did Darwin think that Negroes were human, ape or something in between?

You don't KNOW? You said you read the book.

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly EXTERMINATE and REPLACE throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes [i.e., most human-looking, like the gorilla or chimpanzee] will no doubt be exterminated. The break [i.e., the evolutionary gap] will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state... than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." - The Descent of Man, page 201

EMPHASIS ADDED

RecoveringYuppy · 19th October 2010, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by JonathanQuick

Name for me the ONE SINGLE DIAGRAM inside Darwin's book The Origin of Species. What is that diagram? And what is wrong with it?

A hypothetical clade diagram. What of it?

Originally Posted by JonathanQuick

"No decent person wants to live in a society which works according to Darwinian laws.... A Darwinian society would be a Fascist state." - Richard Dawkins, Die Presse, July 30, 2005

Would you want a society based on Ohm's laws? Do you reject those too?

RecoveringYuppy · 19th October 2010, 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by JonathanQuick

You don't KNOW? You said you read the book.

Yeah, I know. I've already answered the question. I've also already provided a link to the quote you're now showing me.

Once you catch up, could you please answer my question? Did Darwin think that Negros are/were a race of human, a race of ape, or something in between? I know the answer. I, and others, are wondering if you do.

Dancing David · 19th October 2010, 08:13 AM

Originally Posted by Pahu

Who keeps that clock wound up?

Who says that it is?
The clock is winding down, the energy state is the one the universe came with. We do not have a good theory of what the universe came from.

Dancing David · 19th October 2010, 08:14 AM

Originally Posted by Pahu

What evidence proves evolution to be true?

Anti-biotics resistence, crop resistence, pest resistence.

Quote:

Pasteur demonstrated that all life comes from pre-existing life of the same kind and never comes from non-living matter. Doesn't that also apply to an alleged lifeless earth?

pasteur was a long time ago, that was a hypothesis, abiogenesis is note volution.

Dancing David · 19th October 2010, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by Pahu

Where is that evidence? As I have been sharing, science disproves evolution. Why not simply give up your incorrect beliefs? It's obvious you are wrong? Where is the value in sticking with an idea that is incorrect?

So far what you have shared has been wrong, you were wrong about liquifaction and teh quartz, what were you right about? You were wrong about entropy? What were you right about?

So what causes antibiotic resistence?

Dancing David · 19th October 2010, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by Pahu

You have jumped (again) to the wrong conclusion. Why should I repeat in my own words something that is explained much better in the book available for your inspection?

Because so far what you presented from the book is wrong, so what part of it is right?

brenn · 19th October 2010, 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by Marduk

I went back and edited to invite him to argue racism in Descent of Man as well, but what JonathanQuick claimed to start this whole thing was that Origin of Species was full of racism. I don't believe anything in Descent of Man is either racist or incorrect (other than in a modern "political" sense) but it doesn't change the fact that that JonathanQuick was relying on BS internet rumor, rather than Origin of Species, for his claim.

Dancing David · 19th October 2010, 08:29 AM

deleted doppo

brenn · 19th October 2010, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by JonathanQuick

You don't KNOW? You said you read the book.

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly EXTERMINATE and REPLACE throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes [i.e., most human-looking, like the gorilla or chimpanzee] will no doubt be exterminated. The break [i.e., the evolutionary gap] will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state... than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." - The Descent of Man, page 201

EMPHASIS ADDED

Even after Marduk posted it for you, it still took that much editing to get what you wanted?

Marduk · 19th October 2010, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by brenn

I went back and edited to invite him to argue racism in Descent of Man as well, but what JonathanQuick claimed to start this whole thing was that Origin of Species was full of racism. I don't believe anything in Descent of Man is either racist or incorrect (other than in a modern "political" sense) but it doesn't change the fact that that JonathanQuick was relying on BS internet rumor, rather than Origin of Species, for his claim.

i think if someone said the same things as Darwin said then, today, that it would clearly be racist, but when you take into account the political climate and common ideology of the time, its just an observation based on his surroundings

This doesn't change the fact that Caucasoids are more evolved than Negroids though does it.

Dancing David · 19th October 2010, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by JonathanQuick

You don't KNOW? You said you read the book.

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly EXTERMINATE and REPLACE throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes [i.e., most human-looking, like the gorilla or chimpanzee] will no doubt be exterminated. The break [i.e., the evolutionary gap] will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state... than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." - The Descent of Man, page 201

EMPHASIS ADDED

Page 193 not 201, and he does not conflate teh apes with the humans, you did.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Zvs...d=0CCUQ6AEwAA#

JonathanQuick · 19th October 2010, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

Why not tell us exactly what you believe, evolution deniers never seem to spell that out. While you are at it, how does your story better explain such observations as the fossil record, genetic record, distribution of life, or comparative anatomy. What predictions does it make? What observation would falsify it?

Here are just a few of your mistakes.

1. MY "story" is really quite irrelevant to neo-Darwinism. Science must stand, or fall, on its own. While it is often the case that an old theory, such as the Caloric Theory of Heat, falls to a newer one, viz. Molecular Motion, it is not necessary.

2. Neo-Darwinism is compelling in a variety of ways. It is plausible.
But so too were many other theories, such as the Steady State Universe.
Very troubling was the reaction of Albert Einstein and the entire scientific community, when Catholic Priest George LeMaitre proposed the Primordial Atom, which we now call the Big Bang.

Einsteiin's reaction, that of rejecting God, was identical to the reactions of Darwinists - deny, deny, deny. Einstein had an ax to grind. I suspect that you do as well.

Quote:

I know you won't do that because you cannot. You only have cheap rhetoric.

What a cheap shot that was. I divulged Albert Einstein's inexcusable bias against science, and you call that "cheap rhetoric." I point out Darwin's hateful racism, and you denigrate ME, pretending to be enlightened yourself.
What cheap rhetoric you display.

Quote:

There are no legitimate doubts, evident in the fact that there is no debate about whether or not evolution happened among experts. The deniers all do so because it seems to contradict writings in their holy books.

Show one link to any post I have made citing "holy books." Just one.
You see, you engage in the cheapest of cheap rhetoric - lies.

Now as to evolution, please explain the mechanism for the synthesis of human hemoglobin. State the number of amino acids in the alpha and the beta chains. Tell readers how many amino acids are used in this sequence, and state the probability of producing this formulation from random mutation, followed by natural selection.

Quote:

Again, there is no controversy. ///

There is SO "no controversy" that National Geographic magazine featured a "missing link" a few years ago on its cover. It was, like so many other "missing links," a fraud, but hey, to Darwinists, frauds are "no controversy."

And the smooth transition of millions of fossils.... nowhere to be found.
They were promised, but new finds almost always create bigger gaps instead of filling them in.

I am reminded of the words of a prominent Darwinist when a fossil supposed to be transitional between land based mammals and the whales was claimed to be "the most beautiful a Darwinist could hope for."

What does this transition to a whale look like? A crocodile.

godless dave · 19th October 2010, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by JonathanQuick

I point out Darwin's hateful racism,

You did no such thing. All you did was tell lies about what Darwin said.

Originally Posted by JonathanQuick

There is SO "no controversy" that National Geographic magazine featured a "missing link" a few years ago on its cover.

National Geographic is not a science journal.

Originally Posted by JonathanQuick

And the smooth transition of millions of fossils.... nowhere to be found.
They were promised,

No, they were never promised. Nobody expected to find a smooth transition of fossils of every species that had ever lived.

Originally Posted by JonathanQuick

I am reminded of the words of a prominent Darwinist when a fossil supposed to be transitional between land based mammals and the whales was claimed to be "the most beautiful a Darwinist could hope for."

What does this transition to a whale look like? A crocodile.

Your point? Crocodiles are semi-aquatic animals, animals that live partly on land and partly in the water. That's what you would expect of one of the ancestors of whales.

Marduk · 19th October 2010, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by JonathanQuick

And the smooth transition of millions of fossils.... nowhere to be found.

well theres this

which proves that God didn't do it eh

Originally Posted by JonathanQuick

I am reminded of the words of a prominent Darwinist when a fossil supposed to be transitional between land based mammals and the whales was claimed to be "the most beautiful a Darwinist could hope for."

What does this transition to a whale look like? A crocodile.

You are missing quite a lot of data there, are you not aware of the other transitional forms between Mesonychids and Cetaceans, theres quite a few, and none of them look like a crocodile, where did you get that from ?
source please

Jack by the hedge · 19th October 2010, 09:12 AM

Can anyone (who's not too busy axe-grinding) tell me what "Neo-Darwinism" is?

RecoveringYuppy · 19th October 2010, 09:14 AM

It's an easier to understand name for modern evolutionary theory, AKA "The Modern Synthesis". Formulated in the early 20th century IIRC to incorporate Darwin's ideas with new knowledge of genetics.

ETA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Darwinism

Jack by the hedge · 19th October 2010, 09:15 AM

Ta.

Marduk · 19th October 2010, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Can anyone (who's not too busy axe-grinding) tell me what "Neo-Darwinism" is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Darwinism

JonathanQuick · 19th October 2010, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by brenn

I went back and edited to invite him to argue racism in Descent of Man as well, but what JonathanQuick claimed to start this whole thing was that Origin of Species was full of racism. I don't believe anything in Descent of Man is either racist or incorrect (other than in a modern "political" sense) but it doesn't change the fact that that JonathanQuick was relying on BS internet rumor, rather than Origin of Species, for his claim.

How unscientific and erroneous of you to accuse ME of "relying on BS internet rumor" while you are posting on the internet.

In fact, I am citing from Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins' Case Against God, by Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker.

"One of Dawkins' fellow atheists, philosopher and Darwinist advocate Michael Ruse, has said even more harshly, "The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist...." - Ibid, page 3

"In fact the proportion of insult, ridicule, mockery, spleen, and vitriol is astounding [ in Dawkins' book]". - Philosopher Alvin Platinga

Leftists should read books contrary to their dogmas. I have read many nonsensical books by Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, Michael Ruse, and other lefties who are almost always quite hateful.

Marduk · 19th October 2010, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by JonathanQuick

There is SO "no controversy" that National Geographic magazine featured a "missing link" a few years ago on its cover. It was, like so many other "missing links," a fraud, but hey, to Darwinists, frauds are "no controversy."

thats quite funny, there already exists transitional animals between birds and lizards that aren't frauds, what Nat Geo got conned into buying into was actually a "new missing link of the same type"

It in no way disproves the already understood descent of birds from lizards
like this one, which you are either ignorant of or just decided not to mention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx
a lie by omission is still a lie, and your deceptions aren't of a level which will pass on this forum, trying being a little more honest and you'll do better

Marduk · 19th October 2010, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by JonathanQuick

How unscientific and erroneous of you to accuse ME of "relying on BS internet rumor" while you are posting on the internet.

He was asking you to substantiate your earlier claim, you still havent and moving the goalposts is a losing strategy

RecoveringYuppy · 19th October 2010, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by JonathanQuick

Now as to evolution, please explain the mechanism for the synthesis of human hemoglobin. State the number of amino acids in the alpha and the beta chains. Tell readers how many amino acids are used in this sequence, and state the probability of producing this formulation from random mutation, followed by natural selection.

The mechanism is the slow and gradual change of DNA. Even though we don't know the exact path to hemoglobin we know there is connected netowrk of DNA amongst the creatures on the planet. All creatures have a close relative somewhere (maybe in a few cases a "somewhen"). Unless you are going to deny that DNA contains the information for hemoglobin (and any other biological aspect you can think of) you can't deny there is a plausible path to get there.

Will there not be sufficient evidence to accept electrical theory until the exact path of a lightning bolt can be predicted?

JonathanQuick · 19th October 2010, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by Marduk

well theres this
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a1...d-skulls-1.jpg
which proves that God didn't do it eh

You are missing quite a lot of data there, are you not aware of the other transitional forms between Mesonychids and Cetaceans, theres quite a few, and none of them look like a crocodile, where did you get that from ?
source please

Ambulocetus natans

"Hooking Leviathian by its Past," Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994

godless dave · 19th October 2010, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by JonathanQuick

How unscientific and erroneous of you to accuse ME of "relying on BS internet rumor" while you are posting on the internet.

In fact, I am citing from Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins' Case Against God, by Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker.

"One of Dawkins' fellow atheists, philosopher and Darwinist advocate Michael Ruse, has said even more harshly, "The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist...." - Ibid, page 3

"In fact the proportion of insult, ridicule, mockery, spleen, and vitriol is astounding [ in Dawkins' book]". - Philosopher Alvin Platinga

Leftists should read books contrary to their dogmas. I have read many nonsensical books by Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, Michael Ruse, and other lefties who are almost always quite hateful.

Leftists? I thought we were talking about science and religion, not politics.

And are you seriously calling Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan hateful? I defy you to find one hateful statement by either of those men.

Marduk · 19th October 2010, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by JonathanQuick

Ambulocetus natans

"Hooking Leviathian by its Past," Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994

Crocodiles have scales,

next you'll be telling me that cats dogs and mice all look the same

RecoveringYuppy · 19th October 2010, 09:35 AM

Ambulocetus natans. LOL. So you meant vaguely shaped like a crocodile. Ambulocetus and crocodiles aren't even in the same class.

JonathanQuick · 19th October 2010, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

The mechanism is the slow and gradual change of DNA. Even though we don't know the exact path to hemoglobin we know there is connected netowrk of DNA amongst the creatures on the planet. All creatures have a close relative somewhere (maybe in a few cases a "somewhen"). Unless you are going to deny that DNA contains the information for hemoglobin (and any other biological aspect you can think of) you can't deny there is a plausible path to get there.

Will there not be sufficient evidence to accept electrical theory until the exact path of a lightning bolt can be predicted?

You're mixing lightning and polypeptides. Let's get back to living systems, shall we?

"There is a plausible path to get there" is hardly science.

Shall we simply invoke your "plausible path" to every problem in science?

How shall we cure pneumonia? Is there such a thing as an antibiotic?

"There is a plausible path to get there."

Well, all right then! Problem solved!

Back to hemoglobin.

The alpha chain is duplicated by the beta chain. This greatly simplifies the synthesis. This duplication reduces the number of amino acids in sequence to 264.

To calculate the number of ways 20 amino acids can be arranged in a sequence 264 amino acids long, multiply 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20.... a total of 264 times. Call it 10 to the 343rd power. And remember, there are only 10 to the 80th fundamental particles in the universe, to give you some perspective of large numbers.

That evolution managed to find this one unique way will of course require an almost equivalent number of intermediaries, which YOU claim are "useful" and can "be selected".

Name just 10,000 of those intermediaries, please, and explain what they were useful for.

Look like a daunting problem to you? No?
It sure does to me.

And please no more of your invoking a "holy book." We're talking science here.

godless dave · 19th October 2010, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by JonathanQuick

Ambulocetus natans

"Hooking Leviathian by its Past," Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994

Again, what's your point? That ancestor of whales looked sort of like a crocodile, as expected? So what?

Here's a link to a photo of the fossil for those interested: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._pakicetus.jpg

RecoveringYuppy · 19th October 2010, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by JonathanQuick

Well, all right then! Problem solved!

I said we didn't know the exact path to hemoglobin. That doesn't even come close to overturnmg all the evidence that all creatures are related and there are extant creatures with similar DNA for nearly all creatures on the planet.

JonathanQuick · 19th October 2010, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by godless dave

Leftists? I thought we were talking about science and religion, not politics.

And are you seriously calling Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan hateful? I defy you to find one hateful statement by either of those men.

Dave, Dave, Dave. Come on. Get a grip.

"Anyone who does not believe in evolution is either ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked." - Richard Dawkins

"The Pope is evil." - Richard Dawkins

"You are stupid." - Richard Dawkins in an e-mail to me after I found many errors in his books.

Let me give you just one silly example: "An elephant consists of about a trillion colonies of bacteria."

Sagan maliciously attacked Ronald and Nancy Reagan, but never a fellow liberal. Sagan attacked Christians, and did so ignorantly: "You can pray or you can innoculate," portraying Christians as dolts.

Evidently it did not occur to Sagan that:

A. Most all Christians do get innoculations, and
B. You CAN do both, get vaccinated AND pray at the same time.

Here is a guy who was a lifelong atheist, and whose memorial service was held in a Catholic Church in New York City, St. John the Divine.

I Am The Scum · 19th October 2010, 09:48 AM

Jonathan, you appear to have a lot to say, but you don't appear to be saying a lot. I'm trying really hard to discover what your point is. Could you spell it out for me? Disregarding your distaste for people of certain political ideologies (that's neither here nor there), what are you trying to prove? That evolution by natural selection is wrong? If so, please state your case.

Thanks.

JonathanQuick · 19th October 2010, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by godless dave

Again, what's your point? That ancestor of whales looked sort of like a crocodile, as expected? So what?

The closest living relative to whales in terms of DNA is the hippo.
You're not looking to any "point". You seek no dialogue.
You are a committed atheist, as demonstrated in your very screen name.

There is a splendid book titled The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict.

It is probably the best documented book I have ever read, with hundreds and hundreds of citations, referencing college professors, historians, archaeologists and other scholars.

If you were really interested in learning, you would read this and other books of a similar nature, which run counter to your dogma.

I do this all the time. The problem with leftists is that they have this knee-jerk reaction to anything outside their own narrow credo.

19th October 2010, 07:21 AM	#523
JonathanQuick Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 228	Originally Posted by Simon39759 Well, the majority of Christians are not actually, creationist. The proportion is shamefully higher in the states, of course, due to an impressive disinformation machine... but it still not 85%... You are terribly misinformed. You confuse "creationist" with having legitimate doubts about the 150 year old theory first formally posited by Charles Darwin, long before we knew the profound complexity of life. Quote: And even then, no, the majority of creationists are just victims of the propaganda, I believe, and hope, that if confronted with the evidences (some of which were presented earlier in this thread, what about addressing these rather than your cutesy sarcasm...). You pretend that YOU have all the answers, and anyone who does not march in lockstep with you is an ignoramus, a victim of "propaganda." This is the identical hateful and condescending tactic taken by global warming fearmongers, bent on controlling everyone else. It is anti-scientific and it is shameful. Now since you pretend to know so very much about Darwinism, let's compare notes, shall we? Name for me the ONE SINGLE DIAGRAM inside Darwin's book The Origin of Species. What is that diagram? And what is wrong with it? Quote: A) Darwin is not a prophet and nobody claimed is words were the inherent truth. Sorry but you do exactly that. Not only with Darwin, but also with Al Gore. tsk, tsk
JonathanQuick Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 228

19th October 2010, 07:26 AM	#524
JonathanQuick Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 228	Originally Posted by temporalillusion And of course anyone who had read the book knows that races in the title doesn't refer to human races, it refers to varieties of organisms. Humans are hardly mentioned at all in the book. Black humans are specifically "mentioned" and Darwin makes racist, degrading references to them. Quote: Evolution is distinctly anti-racist. Oh please, stop it. "No decent person wants to live in a society which works according to Darwinian laws.... A Darwinian society would be a Fascist state." - Richard Dawkins, Die Presse, July 30, 2005
JonathanQuick Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 228	Last edited by JonathanQuick; 19th October 2010 at 07:58 AM.

19th October 2010, 07:31 AM	#525
brenn Muse Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Kentucky Posts: 601	Originally Posted by JonathanQuick Black humans are specifically "mentioned" and Darwin makes racist, degrading references to them. Yes, Black humans are mentioned. Where is your page cite for those racist and degrading references? This could not be an easier argument for you to win - you are claiming that a particular book, Origin of Species, (which is available free and instantly online) contains evidence of racism, so all you have to do is show us where to win. I was personally only able to find 2 paragraphs in the whole book referring to "negroes" and neither was racist or degrading in context. By the way, if you are going to try to pass off the time of the writing as evidence of racism (i.e., "look, Darwin used the word 'negro'" od called Africans "savages") that would be idiotic, just to head that off before we start a whole new path. If Origin of Species, which you claimed was racist, won't support your argument, thereby making it obvious you didn't actually know what you were talking about, then feel free to admit that and move on to Descent of Man to prove Darwin was racist.
	Last edited by brenn; 19th October 2010 at 07:51 AM.

19th October 2010, 07:49 AM	#527
Sideroxylon Gavagai! Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Turkey Posts: 10,838	Originally Posted by JonathanQuick You are terribly misinformed. You confuse "creationist" with having legitimate doubts about the 150 year old theory first formally posited by Charles Darwin, long before we knew the profound complexity of life. Why not tell us exactly what you believe, evolution deniers never seem to spell that out. While you are at it, how does your story better explain such observations as the fossil record, genetic record, distribution of life, or comparative anatomy. What predictions does it make? What observation would falsify it? I know you won't do that because you cannot. You only have cheap rhetoric. There are no legitimate doubts, evident in the fact that there is no debate about whether or not evolution happened among experts. The deniers all do so because it seems to contradict writings in their holy books. Quote: You pretend that YOU have all the answers, and anyone who does not march in lockstep with you is an ignoramus, a victim of "propaganda." This is the identical hateful and condescending tactic taken by global warming fearmongers, bent on controlling everyone else. It is anti-scientific and it is shameful. Again, there is no controversy. There is nothing scientific about flood geology, young earth geology or evolution denialism. These ideas are contradicted by the evidence. The first two are patently laughable with cursory knowledge of the facts. Quote: Now since you pretend to know so very much about Darwinism, let's compare notes, shall we? Name for me the ONE SINGLE DIAGRAM inside Darwin's book The Origin of Species. What is that diagram? And what is wrong with it? Sorry but you do exactly that. Not only with Darwin, but also with Al Gore. tsk, tsk You've been told already that Darwin being wrong about something is not going to bring down evolution. The idea has grown beyond this man who had the insight into its mechanism, along with Wallace. Its an idea that well preceded him. Its now so well supported its considered a fact.
	__________________ 'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman Last edited by Sideroxylon; 19th October 2010 at 07:50 AM.

19th October 2010, 08:03 AM	#528
JonathanQuick Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 228	Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy @JohnathonQuick No, in fact I do know the title and I've read the content. I've also read The Descent of Man which is what I thought you were referring to. And I see you're making a somewhat more accurate and toned down claim than before. Did Darwin think that Negroes were human, ape or something in between? You don't KNOW? You said you read the book. "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly EXTERMINATE and REPLACE throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes [i.e., most human-looking, like the gorilla or chimpanzee] will no doubt be exterminated. The break [i.e., the evolutionary gap] will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state... than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." - The Descent of Man, page 201 EMPHASIS ADDED
JonathanQuick Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 228

19th October 2010, 07:02 AM	#521
catsmate1 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Dublin (the one in Ireland) Posts: 7,247	Originally Posted by Pahu Who keeps that clock wound up? I note from this, and subsequent postings, that you have resorted to xian apologist tactic #7: Answering Every Question With Another Question. Was this your own idea? Or were you advised to do this?

19th October 2010, 07:21 AM	#522
catsmate1 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Dublin (the one in Ireland) Posts: 7,247	Originally Posted by Pahu Where have transitional fossils been found? What genetic evidence are you referring to? Evolutionists themselves long ago abandoned horse evolution as an example of transitional forms, since they no longer believe the fossil record represents anything like a straightforward progression, but instead a bush with many varying branches. As Heribert Nilsson correctly pointed out as long ago as 1954: “The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks. In the reality provided by the results of research it is put together from three parts, of which only the last can be described as including horses. The forms of the first part are just as much little horses as the present day damans are horses. The construction of the horse is therefore a very artificial one, since it is put together from non-equivalent parts, and cannot therefore be a continuous transformation series” (pp. 551-552, emp. added). In 1841, the earliest so-called “horse” fossil was discovered in clay around London. The scientist who unearthed it, Richard Owen, found a complete skull that looked like a fox's head with multiple back-teeth as in hoofed animals. He called it Hyracotherium. He saw no connection between it and the modern-day horse. In 1874, another scientist, Kovalevsky, attempted to establish a link between this small fox-like creature, which he thought was 70 million years old, and the modern horse. In 1879, an American fossil expert, O. C. Marsh, and famous evolutionist Thomas Huxley, collaborated for a public lecture which Huxley gave in New York. Marsh produced a schematic diagram which attempted to show the so-called development of the front and back feet, the legs, and the teeth of the various stages of the horse. He published his evolutionary diagram in the American Journal of Science in 1879, and it found its way into many other publications and textbooks. The scheme hasn't changed. It shows a beautiful gradational sequence in “the evolution” of the horse, unbroken by any abrupt changes. This is what we see in school textbooks. The question is: “Is the scheme proposed by Huxley and Marsh true?” The simple answer is “No”. While it is a clever arrangement of the fossils on an evolutionary assumption, even leading evolutionists such as George Gaylord Simpson backed away from it. He said it was misleading. If it were true, you would expect to find the earliest horse fossils in the lowest rock strata. But you don't. In fact, bones of the supposed “earliest” horses have been found at or near the surface. Sometimes they are found right next to modern horse fossils! O.C. Marsh commented on living horses with multiple toes, and said there were cases in the American Southwest where “both fore and hind feet may each have two extra digits fairly developed, and all of nearly equal size, thus corresponding to the feet of the extinct Protohippus”.  In National Geographic (January 1981, p. 74), there is a picture of the foot of a so-called early horse, Pliohippus, and one of the modern Equus that were found at the same volcanic site in Nebraska. The writer says: “Dozens of hoofed species lived on the American plains.” Doesn't this suggest two different species, rather than the evolutionary progression of one? There is no one site in the world where the evolutionary succession of the horse can be seen. Rather, the fossil fragments have been gathered from several continents on the assumption of evolutionary progress, and then used to support the assumption. This is circular reasoning, and does not qualify as objective science. The theory of horse evolution has very serious genetic problems to overcome. How do we explain the variations in the numbers of ribs and lumbar vertebrae within the imagined evolutionary progression? For example, the number of ribs in the supposedly “intermediate” stages of the horse varies from 15 to 19 and then finally settles at 18. The number of lumbar vertebrae also allegedly swings from six to eight and then returns to six again. Finally, when evolutionists assume that the horse has grown progressively in size over millions of years, what they forget is that modern horses vary enormously in size. The largest horse today is the Clydesdale; the smallest is the Fallabella, which stands at 17 inches (43 centimeters) tall. Both are members of the same species, and neither has evolved from the other. Why do science textbooks continue to use the horse as a prime example of evolution, when the whole schema is demonstrably false? Why do they continue to teach our kids something that is not scientific? Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator of the American Museum of Natural History, has said: “I admit that an awful lot of that (imaginary stories) has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable …”. The horse series is often presented as proof of evolution. The number of toes in foreleg and hind leg supposedly decreased as the horse evolved, and the size supposedly increased from a small doglike horse to a large modern horse. Yet three-toed horses have been found with one-toed horses, showing they lived at the same time. And there are tiny living Fallabella horses only 17 inches ( 43 centimeters) tall. REFERENCES O. C. Marsh, “Recent Polydactyle Horses”, American Journal of Science 43, 1892, pp. 339-354 - as quoted in Creation Research Society Quarterly correspondence, Vol. 30, December 1993, p. 125. Niles Eldredge, as quoted in: Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, fourth edition (revised and expanded), Master Book Publishers, Santee (California),1988, p. 78. http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c016.html Wow, you're seriously trying to pass of work by Marsh in the nineteenth century (1870s) before further transitional fossils were discovered? You really have no shame do you? In the unlikely event you are interested in the truth I suggest you look here for up to date information on the reality of equine evolution. Your deceitful distortion of Simpson's work is fully answered here though, again, I doubt you'll even bother to look at it....... Sunderland's book is merely another creationist tract full of distortions, out of context mined quotes and similar rubbish. Eldridge, who you allegedly quote from, refuted him in The Monkey Business and The Triumph of Evolution. Again books you haven't, and won't, read.

19th October 2010, 07:48 AM	#526
Marduk Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Newbury, Berkshire Posts: 10,242	Originally Posted by brenn If you are going to concede that he wrote it, maybe you would care to give a cite? Originally Posted by chapter vi "the descent of man and selection in relation to sex", page 193 "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla"

19th October 2010, 08:05 AM	#529
RecoveringYuppy Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 3,877	Originally Posted by JonathanQuick Name for me the ONE SINGLE DIAGRAM inside Darwin's book The Origin of Species. What is that diagram? And what is wrong with it? A hypothetical clade diagram. What of it? Originally Posted by JonathanQuick "No decent person wants to live in a society which works according to Darwinian laws.... A Darwinian society would be a Fascist state." - Richard Dawkins, Die Presse, July 30, 2005 Would you want a society based on Ohm's laws? Do you reject those too?
	__________________ REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years. Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.

19th October 2010, 08:08 AM	#530
RecoveringYuppy Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 3,877	Originally Posted by JonathanQuick You don't KNOW? You said you read the book. Yeah, I know. I've already answered the question. I've also already provided a link to the quote you're now showing me. Once you catch up, could you please answer my question? Did Darwin think that Negros are/were a race of human, a race of ape, or something in between? I know the answer. I, and others, are wondering if you do.
	__________________ REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years. Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.

19th October 2010, 08:13 AM	#531
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,929	Originally Posted by Pahu Who keeps that clock wound up? Who says that it is? The clock is winding down, the energy state is the one the universe came with. We do not have a good theory of what the universe came from.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

19th October 2010, 08:14 AM	#532
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,929	Originally Posted by Pahu What evidence proves evolution to be true? Anti-biotics resistence, crop resistence, pest resistence. Quote: Pasteur demonstrated that all life comes from pre-existing life of the same kind and never comes from non-living matter. Doesn't that also apply to an alleged lifeless earth? pasteur was a long time ago, that was a hypothesis, abiogenesis is note volution.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

19th October 2010, 08:21 AM	#533
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,929	Originally Posted by Pahu Where is that evidence? As I have been sharing, science disproves evolution. Why not simply give up your incorrect beliefs? It's obvious you are wrong? Where is the value in sticking with an idea that is incorrect? So far what you have shared has been wrong, you were wrong about liquifaction and teh quartz, what were you right about? You were wrong about entropy? What were you right about? So what causes antibiotic resistence?
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

19th October 2010, 08:22 AM	#534
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,929	Originally Posted by Pahu You have jumped (again) to the wrong conclusion. Why should I repeat in my own words something that is explained much better in the book available for your inspection? Because so far what you presented from the book is wrong, so what part of it is right?
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Last edited by Dancing David; 19th October 2010 at 08:23 AM.

19th October 2010, 08:27 AM	#535
brenn Muse Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Kentucky Posts: 601	Originally Posted by Marduk I went back and edited to invite him to argue racism in Descent of Man as well, but what JonathanQuick claimed to start this whole thing was that Origin of Species was full of racism. I don't believe anything in Descent of Man is either racist or incorrect (other than in a modern "political" sense) but it doesn't change the fact that that JonathanQuick was relying on BS internet rumor, rather than Origin of Species, for his claim.

19th October 2010, 08:29 AM	#536
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,929	deleted doppo
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Last edited by Dancing David; 19th October 2010 at 08:31 AM.

19th October 2010, 08:29 AM	#537
brenn Muse Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Kentucky Posts: 601	Originally Posted by JonathanQuick You don't KNOW? You said you read the book. "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly EXTERMINATE and REPLACE throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes [i.e., most human-looking, like the gorilla or chimpanzee] will no doubt be exterminated. The break [i.e., the evolutionary gap] will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state... than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." - The Descent of Man, page 201 EMPHASIS ADDED Even after Marduk posted it for you, it still took that much editing to get what you wanted?

19th October 2010, 08:32 AM	#538
Marduk Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Newbury, Berkshire Posts: 10,242	Originally Posted by brenn I went back and edited to invite him to argue racism in Descent of Man as well, but what JonathanQuick claimed to start this whole thing was that Origin of Species was full of racism. I don't believe anything in Descent of Man is either racist or incorrect (other than in a modern "political" sense) but it doesn't change the fact that that JonathanQuick was relying on BS internet rumor, rather than Origin of Species, for his claim. i think if someone said the same things as Darwin said then, today, that it would clearly be racist, but when you take into account the political climate and common ideology of the time, its just an observation based on his surroundings This doesn't change the fact that Caucasoids are more evolved than Negroids though does it.

19th October 2010, 08:42 AM	#539
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,929	Originally Posted by JonathanQuick You don't KNOW? You said you read the book. "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly EXTERMINATE and REPLACE throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes [i.e., most human-looking, like the gorilla or chimpanzee] will no doubt be exterminated. The break [i.e., the evolutionary gap] will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state... than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." - The Descent of Man, page 201 EMPHASIS ADDED Page 193 not 201, and he does not conflate teh apes with the humans, you did. http://books.google.com/books?id=Zvs...d=0CCUQ6AEwAA#
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

19th October 2010, 09:06 AM	#540
JonathanQuick Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 228	Originally Posted by Sideroxylon Why not tell us exactly what you believe, evolution deniers never seem to spell that out. While you are at it, how does your story better explain such observations as the fossil record, genetic record, distribution of life, or comparative anatomy. What predictions does it make? What observation would falsify it? Here are just a few of your mistakes. 1. MY "story" is really quite irrelevant to neo-Darwinism. Science must stand, or fall, on its own. While it is often the case that an old theory, such as the Caloric Theory of Heat, falls to a newer one, viz. Molecular Motion, it is not necessary. 2. Neo-Darwinism is compelling in a variety of ways. It is plausible. But so too were many other theories, such as the Steady State Universe. Very troubling was the reaction of Albert Einstein and the entire scientific community, when Catholic Priest George LeMaitre proposed the Primordial Atom, which we now call the Big Bang. Einsteiin's reaction, that of rejecting God, was identical to the reactions of Darwinists - deny, deny, deny. Einstein had an ax to grind. I suspect that you do as well. Quote: I know you won't do that because you cannot. You only have cheap rhetoric. What a cheap shot that was. I divulged Albert Einstein's inexcusable bias against science, and you call that "cheap rhetoric." I point out Darwin's hateful racism, and you denigrate ME, pretending to be enlightened yourself. What cheap rhetoric you display. Quote: There are no legitimate doubts, evident in the fact that there is no debate about whether or not evolution happened among experts. The deniers all do so because it seems to contradict writings in their holy books. Show one link to any post I have made citing "holy books." Just one. You see, you engage in the cheapest of cheap rhetoric - lies. Now as to evolution, please explain the mechanism for the synthesis of human hemoglobin. State the number of amino acids in the alpha and the beta chains. Tell readers how many amino acids are used in this sequence, and state the probability of producing this formulation from random mutation, followed by natural selection. Quote: Again, there is no controversy. /// There is SO "no controversy" that National Geographic magazine featured a "missing link" a few years ago on its cover. It was, like so many other "missing links," a fraud, but hey, to Darwinists, frauds are "no controversy." And the smooth transition of millions of fossils.... nowhere to be found. They were promised, but new finds almost always create bigger gaps instead of filling them in. I am reminded of the words of a prominent Darwinist when a fossil supposed to be transitional between land based mammals and the whales was claimed to be "the most beautiful a Darwinist could hope for." What does this transition to a whale look like? A crocodile.
JonathanQuick Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 228

19th October 2010, 09:09 AM	#541
godless dave Great Dalmuti Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: St. Paul, Minnesota Posts: 6,138	Originally Posted by JonathanQuick I point out Darwin's hateful racism, You did no such thing. All you did was tell lies about what Darwin said. Originally Posted by JonathanQuick There is SO "no controversy" that National Geographic magazine featured a "missing link" a few years ago on its cover. National Geographic is not a science journal. Originally Posted by JonathanQuick And the smooth transition of millions of fossils.... nowhere to be found. They were promised, No, they were never promised. Nobody expected to find a smooth transition of fossils of every species that had ever lived. Originally Posted by JonathanQuick I am reminded of the words of a prominent Darwinist when a fossil supposed to be transitional between land based mammals and the whales was claimed to be "the most beautiful a Darwinist could hope for." What does this transition to a whale look like? A crocodile. Your point? Crocodiles are semi-aquatic animals, animals that live partly on land and partly in the water. That's what you would expect of one of the ancestors of whales.
	__________________ "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm Last edited by godless dave; 19th October 2010 at 09:12 AM.

19th October 2010, 09:10 AM	#542
Marduk Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Newbury, Berkshire Posts: 10,242	Originally Posted by JonathanQuick And the smooth transition of millions of fossils.... nowhere to be found. well theres this which proves that God didn't do it eh Originally Posted by JonathanQuick I am reminded of the words of a prominent Darwinist when a fossil supposed to be transitional between land based mammals and the whales was claimed to be "the most beautiful a Darwinist could hope for." What does this transition to a whale look like? A crocodile. You are missing quite a lot of data there, are you not aware of the other transitional forms between Mesonychids and Cetaceans, theres quite a few, and none of them look like a crocodile, where did you get that from ? source please
	Last edited by Marduk; 19th October 2010 at 09:14 AM.

19th October 2010, 09:12 AM	#543
Jack by the hedge Safely Ignored Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 5,513	Can anyone (who's not too busy axe-grinding) tell me what "Neo-Darwinism" is?

19th October 2010, 09:14 AM	#544
RecoveringYuppy Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 3,877	It's an easier to understand name for modern evolutionary theory, AKA "The Modern Synthesis". Formulated in the early 20th century IIRC to incorporate Darwin's ideas with new knowledge of genetics. ETA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Darwinism
	__________________ REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years. Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life. Last edited by RecoveringYuppy; 19th October 2010 at 09:15 AM. Reason: add link

19th October 2010, 09:15 AM	#545
Jack by the hedge Safely Ignored Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 5,513	Ta.

19th October 2010, 09:16 AM	#546
Marduk Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Newbury, Berkshire Posts: 10,242	Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge Can anyone (who's not too busy axe-grinding) tell me what "Neo-Darwinism" is? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Darwinism

19th October 2010, 09:18 AM	#547
JonathanQuick Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 228	Originally Posted by brenn I went back and edited to invite him to argue racism in Descent of Man as well, but what JonathanQuick claimed to start this whole thing was that Origin of Species was full of racism. I don't believe anything in Descent of Man is either racist or incorrect (other than in a modern "political" sense) but it doesn't change the fact that that JonathanQuick was relying on BS internet rumor, rather than Origin of Species, for his claim. How unscientific and erroneous of you to accuse ME of "relying on BS internet rumor" while you are posting on the internet. In fact, I am citing from Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins' Case Against God, by Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker. "One of Dawkins' fellow atheists, philosopher and Darwinist advocate Michael Ruse, has said even more harshly, "The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist...." - Ibid, page 3 "In fact the proportion of insult, ridicule, mockery, spleen, and vitriol is astounding [ in Dawkins' book]". - Philosopher Alvin Platinga Leftists should read books contrary to their dogmas. I have read many nonsensical books by Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, Michael Ruse, and other lefties who are almost always quite hateful.
JonathanQuick Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 228

19th October 2010, 09:20 AM	#548
Marduk Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Newbury, Berkshire Posts: 10,242	Originally Posted by JonathanQuick There is SO "no controversy" that National Geographic magazine featured a "missing link" a few years ago on its cover. It was, like so many other "missing links," a fraud, but hey, to Darwinists, frauds are "no controversy." thats quite funny, there already exists transitional animals between birds and lizards that aren't frauds, what Nat Geo got conned into buying into was actually a "new missing link of the same type" It in no way disproves the already understood descent of birds from lizards like this one, which you are either ignorant of or just decided not to mention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx a lie by omission is still a lie, and your deceptions aren't of a level which will pass on this forum, trying being a little more honest and you'll do better
	Last edited by Marduk; 19th October 2010 at 09:24 AM.

19th October 2010, 09:22 AM	#549
Marduk Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Newbury, Berkshire Posts: 10,242	Originally Posted by JonathanQuick How unscientific and erroneous of you to accuse ME of "relying on BS internet rumor" while you are posting on the internet. He was asking you to substantiate your earlier claim, you still havent and moving the goalposts is a losing strategy

19th October 2010, 09:23 AM	#550
RecoveringYuppy Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 3,877	Originally Posted by JonathanQuick Now as to evolution, please explain the mechanism for the synthesis of human hemoglobin. State the number of amino acids in the alpha and the beta chains. Tell readers how many amino acids are used in this sequence, and state the probability of producing this formulation from random mutation, followed by natural selection. The mechanism is the slow and gradual change of DNA. Even though we don't know the exact path to hemoglobin we know there is connected netowrk of DNA amongst the creatures on the planet. All creatures have a close relative somewhere (maybe in a few cases a "somewhen"). Unless you are going to deny that DNA contains the information for hemoglobin (and any other biological aspect you can think of) you can't deny there is a plausible path to get there. Will there not be sufficient evidence to accept electrical theory until the exact path of a lightning bolt can be predicted?
	__________________ REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years. Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.

19th October 2010, 09:26 AM	#551
JonathanQuick Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 228	Originally Posted by Marduk well theres this http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a1...d-skulls-1.jpg which proves that God didn't do it eh You are missing quite a lot of data there, are you not aware of the other transitional forms between Mesonychids and Cetaceans, theres quite a few, and none of them look like a crocodile, where did you get that from ? source please Ambulocetus natans "Hooking Leviathian by its Past," Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994
JonathanQuick Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 228

19th October 2010, 09:33 AM	#552
godless dave Great Dalmuti Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: St. Paul, Minnesota Posts: 6,138	Originally Posted by JonathanQuick How unscientific and erroneous of you to accuse ME of "relying on BS internet rumor" while you are posting on the internet. In fact, I am citing from Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins' Case Against God, by Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker. "One of Dawkins' fellow atheists, philosopher and Darwinist advocate Michael Ruse, has said even more harshly, "The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist...." - Ibid, page 3 "In fact the proportion of insult, ridicule, mockery, spleen, and vitriol is astounding [ in Dawkins' book]". - Philosopher Alvin Platinga Leftists should read books contrary to their dogmas. I have read many nonsensical books by Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, Michael Ruse, and other lefties who are almost always quite hateful. Leftists? I thought we were talking about science and religion, not politics. And are you seriously calling Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan hateful? I defy you to find one hateful statement by either of those men.
	__________________ "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm

19th October 2010, 09:33 AM	#553
Marduk Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Newbury, Berkshire Posts: 10,242	Originally Posted by JonathanQuick Ambulocetus natans "Hooking Leviathian by its Past," Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994 Crocodiles have scales, next you'll be telling me that cats dogs and mice all look the same
	Last edited by Marduk; 19th October 2010 at 09:49 AM.

19th October 2010, 09:35 AM	#554
RecoveringYuppy Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 3,877	Ambulocetus natans. LOL. So you meant vaguely shaped like a crocodile. Ambulocetus and crocodiles aren't even in the same class.
	__________________ REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years. Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.

19th October 2010, 09:36 AM	#555
JonathanQuick Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 228	Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy The mechanism is the slow and gradual change of DNA. Even though we don't know the exact path to hemoglobin we know there is connected netowrk of DNA amongst the creatures on the planet. All creatures have a close relative somewhere (maybe in a few cases a "somewhen"). Unless you are going to deny that DNA contains the information for hemoglobin (and any other biological aspect you can think of) you can't deny there is a plausible path to get there. Will there not be sufficient evidence to accept electrical theory until the exact path of a lightning bolt can be predicted? You're mixing lightning and polypeptides. Let's get back to living systems, shall we? "There is a plausible path to get there" is hardly science. Shall we simply invoke your "plausible path" to every problem in science? How shall we cure pneumonia? Is there such a thing as an antibiotic? "There is a plausible path to get there." Well, all right then! Problem solved! Back to hemoglobin. The alpha chain is duplicated by the beta chain. This greatly simplifies the synthesis. This duplication reduces the number of amino acids in sequence to 264. To calculate the number of ways 20 amino acids can be arranged in a sequence 264 amino acids long, multiply 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20.... a total of 264 times. Call it 10 to the 343rd power. And remember, there are only 10 to the 80th fundamental particles in the universe, to give you some perspective of large numbers. That evolution managed to find this one unique way will of course require an almost equivalent number of intermediaries, which YOU claim are "useful" and can "be selected". Name just 10,000 of those intermediaries, please, and explain what they were useful for. Look like a daunting problem to you? No? It sure does to me. And please no more of your invoking a "holy book." We're talking science here.
JonathanQuick Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 228