Barbarian chuckles:
Ahhh... a "Gish Gallop." Not much of one, but a cut-and-paste from someone who appears to have done no research on these little scams. Let's take a look...
Don't you get tired of supporting this nonsense barbarian? Can't you see how useless this is in supporting evolution? because 'professor' XYZ spouts some nonsense, do you have to believe it, and worse, tout it around on this forum?
Says the guy whose idea of evidence is what Professor Toddles was quoted as saying.
So some bacteria became resistant to antibiotics quickly. Big deal. Did any of them become amoebas or paramecia?
If they did, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble. That's not how it works.
What do they mean by 'evolve'?
Change in allele frequency over time. Everything from a minor mutation to common descent.
We're looking for something significant, not this minor nonsense.
Just pointing out that you guys often (as it proved in this case) "quote" a scientist, when it turns out he said exactly the opposite.
Barbarian continues:
Here, you've been hornswoggled by someone redefining "vestigial." A vestigial organ is one that no longer has its original function. It might have a new one, such as the appendix, which no longer serves as a fermentation chamber for vegetable matter, but still produces some white blood cells. And that's been that way since the beginning. Darwin pointed this out in his book.
So 'vestigial organs' are really not 'vestigial'
You don't seem to know what the word means. It doesn't mean "useless." It (as Darwin noted) means that it no longer has the original function.
The appendix produces white cells inter alia.
So does much of the digestive tract. Most of them come from Peyer's Patches in the small intestine,
but to a lesser degree, they can be produced by other tissue in the tract as well.
It's probably done so since Genesis 2. How do you know - since you claim to know - that it once did something else?
You see, it's a much reduced organ, which can be found in other species as a holding and fermenting area. In rabbits, for example, it forms a chamber for the digestion of cellulose and other roughage.
Here Scientific American. Shove this down your evolutionary pipe, and breathe in some of the dust you've been left behind in:
"For years, the appendix was credited with very little physiological function.
Yep. It doesn't have a digestive function any more, (which is why it's vestigial, but it still has some functions. Just not the one it has in animals where it's more developed.
Yep. As you just learned, "vestigial" doesn't mean "useless", although vestigial organs can be useless.
"Again, an organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct one: in certain fishes the swimbladder seems to be rudimentary for its proper function of giving buoyancy, but has become converted into a nascent breathing organ or lung. Many similar instances could be given."
Charles Darwin,
The Origin of Species
Surprise. Heh heh heh!
Barbarian observes:
That's wrong, too. No link, so we don't know how that story got started, but let's see what the evidence is:
Red hair may be the legacy of Neanderthal man. Oxford University scientists think the ginger gene, which is responsible for red hair, fair skin and freckles, could be up to 100,000 years old. They say their discovery points to the gene having originated in Neanderthal man, who lived in Europe for 260,000 years before the ancestors of modern man arrived from Africa about 40,000 years ago.
http://www.dhamurian.org.au/anthropo...nderthal1.html
Wowee! Evolution goes on apace! Red hair being of evolutionary significance yet! How's that for significance? Did the red-haired act as traffic lights in the jungle and savannah pathways? Gimme a break, willya?
(Evidence makes Async a little hyper)
In 2012 Proteins Actin, Tubulin and DNA found in fossils.
It's been long known that some organic molecules can be preserved for millionsof years in some conditions. What make you think they can't?
(Async doesn't know of any reason, either)
Neither does anyone else.
Dinosaur fossils found in sediment layers with birds that we see today such as Looms.
Show us that. Sounds rather unlikely. The oldest known fossil loon is about 37 million years old. Far too recent to be part of a dino assemblage. But there were some birds around before the last dinosaurs went extinct.
So birds aren't descended from dinosaurs
Not from every dinosaur. You've fallen for the "if you're alive, your uncle must be dead" scam.
But you never gave us a serious reason how the information required for flight,
You bailed out of that discussion after you learned that many dinosaurs already had the information for the movements used in flight. Would you like me to show you that, again?
the flight instincts as I call them, ever arose in reptiles which 'had feathers' which they didn't need and couldn't use.
You forgot already? The evidence shows that feathers were first used for warmth and display, as they are today. How do we know this? Because the earliest feathers were very primitive, and not suited for flight.
Or even in the pterosaurs which could fly. What were they descended from?
Thecodonts. Would you like to see the evidence for that?
Incidentally, have you found any putative ancestors of the bats yet?
Start a thread and we'll go over that, if you like. I notice you declined my offer earlier, so I'm guessing you don't really want to see it.
Supposed fish that were early ancestors that became land dwellers millions of years ago caught by fishermen today still existing.
Barbarian chuckles:
Sounds like someone confused coelacanths with another group of lobed finned fish. Tell us more about it.
(declines to tell us)
The usual.
THE EYE OF THE TRILOBITE T he trilobites that appeared in the Cambrian period all of a sudden have an extremely complex eye structure. Consisting of millions of honeycomb-shaped tiny particles and a double-lens system, this eye "has an optimal design which would require a well-trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today" in the words of David Raup, a professor of geology. This eye emerged 530 million years ago in a perfect state.
How did schizochroal eyes evolve?
Phacops rana has large, schizochroal eyes All early trilobites (Cambrian), had holochroal eyes and it would seem hard to evolve the distinctive phacopid schizochroal eye from this form. The answer is thought to lie in ontogenetic (developmental) processes on an evolutionary time scale. Paedomorphosis is the retention of ancestral juvenile characteristics into adulthood in the descendent. Paedomorphosis can occur three ways: Progenesis (early sexual maturation in an otherwise juvenile body), Neoteny (reduced rate of morphological development), and Post-displacement (delayed growth of certain structures relative to others). The development of schizochroal eyes in phacopid trilobites is a good example of post-displacement paedomorphosis. The eyes of immature holochroal Cambrian trilobites were basically miniature schizochroal eyes. In Phacopida, these were retained, via delayed growth of these immature structures (post-displacement), into the adult form.
http://www.trilobites.info/eyes.htm
No doubt, the sudden appearance of such a wondrous design cannot be explained by evolution
Surprise.
Moreover, the honeycomb eye structure of the trilobite has survived to our own day without a single change.
See above. Trilobites went from no eyes, to primitive eyes, to complex schizochroal eyes in a series of intermediate forms.
Some insects such as bees and dragon flies have the same eye structure as did the trilobite.* This situation disproves the evolutionary thesis that living things evolved progressively from the primitive to the complex.
See above. You've been suckered by people who know no more than you do about it.
As Dawkins is forced to acknowledge, the Cambrian Explosion is strong evidence for creation, because creation is the only way to explain the fully-formed emergence of life on earth.
As you just learned, complex organisms arose long before the Cambrian. They just became more complex over time, during the Cambrian.
Douglas Futuyma, a prominent evolutionist biologist admits this fact and states: "Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."
Futuyma says that the Ediacaran fauna was a complex assemblage of animals that preceded the Cambrian. You've been suckered by someone who carefully edited the statement to remove the rest.
You can either claim that God used nature to produce life as the Bible says, or you can claim that it was done magically by a "designer" who might be a "space alien" according to ID creationists.
Which do you suport, barbarian?
I'll go with the Bible. God used nature to produce living things. YE creationism is not compatible with Christian belief.
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory—is it then a science or faith?
Ignorant fellah. Science isn't about "proof."
Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation—both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."
The issue, of course, is evidence. That stuff that had you bail out of one thread after another, when you realized what the evidence was.
Oops, nearly forgot Lucy the missing link that has been proven to be just an extinct ape type along with Ramapithecus.
Well, let's take a look...
Which of these things is not like the other?
It is perfectly obvious that the chimpanzee is completely different.
Yep. Lucy was far more like humans than any other ape. True of spines, hips, knees, hands, etc.
Can you suggest a reason or reasons why an animal like this could ever become an upright bipedal human?
You've gotten confused, again. Chimps are very evolved apes. They've deviated quite a bit from our common ancestor. But of course, you see now that Lucy was far more like a modern human than like a chimp.
Barbarian chuckles:
Why were these so easy to refute? You see, these old stories are passed around on creastionist sites, and scientists are used to seeing them. So they are simple to debunk.
Do your own research, and you might have better luck next time.
That's right. You sound like a founder member of that ungodly rag, talkorigins. Are you?
Sad to see a person, claiming to be a Christian, who is offended by the idea of a person thinking for himself. Reality is not the enemy of God. And a Christian should never be afraid of the truth. Oh, and no, I was not a founder of talk.origins, although I did offer a bit of technical support on some of their stuff. None of them ever disparaged me for attributing creation to God, and some of them, like me, are Christians.
