Barbarian
Member
- Jun 5, 2003
- 33,194
- 2,500
Boy, howdy, shotgunning time, again. Let's take a look and see where he cut and pasted from this time...
Not part of science, much less evolutionary theory. Lots of different answers from different religions. Pick one. Almost all of them are consistent with evoutionary theory, especially Christianity.
Condensation of matter from elementary particles shortly after the beginning.
Decoupling of the four forces sometime after the beginning.
It's not. You should see my desk. Seriously, what makes you think it's "perfectly organized?" Not part of evolutionary theory, of course.
See number four. Not part of evolutionary theory.
By definition, "dead" means "having died." So life couldn't originate from dead matter. Not part of evolutionary theory. The theory assumes life began, and goes from there.
Early PreCambrian. Fission. Limiting ability of membranes as size increases.
Asexual organisms don't have to reproduce with anything else.
Those that leave survivors tend don't die out. This doesn't seem like a difficult concept to me.
Favorable mutations. Would you like to learn about some of them?
If so, it's difficult to see how. The existence of homologous organs (same structure serving different purposes in different organisms) seems to support common ancestry. Of course, that's also consistent with a common creator, Who used evolution to create.
It does in a stable environment. When environments change, however, natural selection tends to produce change. This happens through recombination of existing variation in organisms, and through mutation.
Mutation and natural selection.
There are no single-celled plants. Plants are multicellular.
Scenedesmus graheinsii
There are no single-celled animals. By defintion, they are multicellular.
Late Devonian.
Early Permian, probably from Cotylosaurs, which were amphibians with many reptillian features.
Mesozoic.
Turns out that they aren't. For example, the lungs of the first birdlike creatures were reptillian. We know this, because the bones of animals like Archaeopteryx show that they could not have had a flow-through system like modern birds. Birds have a heart which is much like the heart of a crocodile, (birds and crocodiles are archosaurs, much different than most modern reptiles) Birds and dinosaurs have feathers. Archosaurs also flew, and had birdlike bones. Some dinosaurs were pretty much ostriches, including feathers.
Like all intermediates do. Archaeopteryx was intermediate between dinosaurs and birds. It did fine.
Read about it here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/libra ... 34_05.html
From pipefish. Learn about it here:
http://www.bio.tamu.edu/USERS/ajones/seahorse.html
Still uncertain. Bats unfortunately don't fossilize well.
Vertebrate eyes? Early Cambrian. From brain tissue. Seems to have been initiated by lateralization of form.
In mammals, by modification of skull bones in therapsids.
Modification of integument. Feathers, for example, seem to be a modification of scutes, specialized scales found on birds, crocodiles, and dinosaurs. One can acutually induce scutes to form feathers. Primitive "sceathers" can be found on the thecodont Longisquama.
You're assuming that the human digestive system popped out of nowhere. In fact, primitive chordate digestive systems were mere tubes, with food dissolving and being absorbed in the tube. If you want the details, start another thread and we'll go through it for you.
You think bacteria have a drive to reproduce? If not, you have your answer. If you do, explain how that could be without a nervous system.
Sacculation in the upper digestive tract. The first lungs, in fish, were primitive poutches which helped in low-oxygen water.
The only thing "perfect" about the mixture of gases, is that organisms evolved to the mix. The "perfect" mix has changed greatly over the history of the Earth.
RNA. Turns out it can self-catalyze.
Both, apparently:
A study conducted by scientists has found that endosymbiotic bacteria from termites and a genus of cockroaches, Cryptocercus, share the strongest phylogenetical similarities out of all other cockroaches. Both termites and Cryptocercus also share similar morphological and social features -- most cockroaches do not show social characteristics, but Cryptocercus takes care of its young and exhibits other social behavior. Additionally, the primitive termite Mastotermes darwiniensis exhibits numerous cockroach-like characteristics that are not shared with other termites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termite
The plants. Some plants are opportunistic uses of insects; they broadcast pollen, but they also sometimes have insects do it.
Bones. The paleontological evidence shows that bone was first used as a storage for phosphate and calcium, and then as armor, and only later as a means of locomotion.
There is no "repair system" or "hormone system" as single entities. Which of the many do you want to learn about.
The immune system. As pathogens became prevalent, the immune system co-evolved.
Name one, if you would. I've never seen one like that.
Evidence. That's what counts in science.
Animals that look vaguely like other, dangerous or poisonous animals tend to live more often. Those that resemble a little more are even more successful. And so on.
None of the above. Natural selection.
They already existed before we evolved.
Sounds like a testable assertion. Show me the evidence.
In plants? From endosymbiosis with bluegreen algae.
Thoughts don't evolve. Populations evolve.
Natural selection.
Amborell trichopoda, or something very close.
The placement of Amborella as sister to all other angiosperms is supported by nearly all multigene analyses of basal angiosperms, including evidence from all three plant genomes (e.g., P. Soltis et al., 1999; Qiu et al., 1999; Mathews and Donoghue, 1999, 2000; Parkinson et al., 1999; Graham and Olmstead, 2000; Graham et al., 2000; D. Soltis et al., 2000; Magallon and Sanderson, 2002; Zanis et al., 2002; see also Nickerson and Drouin, 2004). A few studies have found alternative rootings, using either different genes or different methods of analysis. For example, Amborella + Nymphaeaceae (e.g. Barkman et al., 2000; P. Soltis et al., 2000; Kim et al., 2004a) or Nymphaeaceae alone (e.g., Parkinson et al., 1999; Graham and Olmstead, 2000, with partial sampling of Nymphaeaceae; Mathews and Donoghue, 2000) have occasionally been reported as sister to all other angiosperms. However, statistical analyses of these alternative rootings using a data set of up to 11 genes generally favor the tree with Amborella as sister to the rest, although the Amborella + Nymphaeaceae tree could not always be rejected (Zanis et al., 2002).
http://www.tolweb.org/angiosperms
Hmm...only one theory of evolution exists today, although there's some disagreement about the details. What kinds of evolutionist do you think there are?
"Cool. How did you get it to live in such low pressure." Coelacanths have been known a lot longer than that. BTW, the coelacanths living today are quite different from the ones that lived hundreds of millions of years ago.
Random mutation and natural selection cause speciation.
Whales evolved from ungulates
Birds evolved from dinosaurs.
Snakes once had legs
Mammals evolved from reptiles
Natural selection will prevent evolution in a stable environment with well-adapted organisms
Many more.
You think that's what the theory says? No wonder you hate evolution. If I thought it was about that, I'd hate it, too.
So God says. I think I'll go with His word on this. Nothing personal.
I'd be pleased to go over any points in detail, if you'd like.
No faith is required in science. Just evidence. You've confused ID, a religion, with science.
I know He created (not designed) the universe. We differ mostly in that I accept the way He did it.
Faith. Religion depends on faith. Science depends on evidence. Confuse the two and you end up with atheism or creationism.
Yes. A Christian should never fear the truth.
Hmm... looking at the behavior of biologists and their families, one would anticipate lower crime, better education, higher income, and less violence.
That pretty much follows studies that show violence and crime are strongly correlated with lower income and low educational level.
Nope. At least I have never seen anyone like that.
Should you continue using drugs and beating your wife?
:wink:
Debunked by evolutionists. No one teaches Piltdown as anything but a fraud.
No one teaches recapitulation.
Archaeopteryx is a fact.
Lucy is a rather well-preserved specimen of A. afarensis.
Homo erectus is known from many, many specimens.
There are thousands of specimens of Neandertals.
Would you be willing to go with me through one line of horse evolution, and see how gradually they changed?
There are many vestigial organs. One of the earliest noted were perfectly-formed wings permanently sealed under wing covers in some species of beetle.
No. They may, if they wish, withdraw their children from public schools, but they do not have a right to impose their religious beliefs on others.
Not much. Being wrong happens in science. They change the theory. And God doesn't care what you think of evolution. It's not a salvation issue.
For the same reason people don't want Wicca or Islam taught. It's against the law to teach religion in public school, and it isn't science. It is possible to introduce it in a comparative religion class, as long as it's not claimed to be the right religion.
Evolutionary theory is a science based on evidence.
Sorry, that one's been tried. No one bought the story.
You'd have to ask a creationist. I'm a Christian.
It certainly is. Would you like to learn why Christianity is true, and why Genesis rules out YE creationism?
Nothing personal, but it appears you don't know very much about the Bible.
[/url]
Not part of science, much less evolutionary theory. Lots of different answers from different religions. Pick one. Almost all of them are consistent with evoutionary theory, especially Christianity.
Condensation of matter from elementary particles shortly after the beginning.
Decoupling of the four forces sometime after the beginning.
It's not. You should see my desk. Seriously, what makes you think it's "perfectly organized?" Not part of evolutionary theory, of course.
See number four. Not part of evolutionary theory.
By definition, "dead" means "having died." So life couldn't originate from dead matter. Not part of evolutionary theory. The theory assumes life began, and goes from there.
Early PreCambrian. Fission. Limiting ability of membranes as size increases.
Asexual organisms don't have to reproduce with anything else.
Those that leave survivors tend don't die out. This doesn't seem like a difficult concept to me.
Favorable mutations. Would you like to learn about some of them?
If so, it's difficult to see how. The existence of homologous organs (same structure serving different purposes in different organisms) seems to support common ancestry. Of course, that's also consistent with a common creator, Who used evolution to create.
It does in a stable environment. When environments change, however, natural selection tends to produce change. This happens through recombination of existing variation in organisms, and through mutation.
Mutation and natural selection.
There are no single-celled plants. Plants are multicellular.
Scenedesmus graheinsii
There are no single-celled animals. By defintion, they are multicellular.
Late Devonian.
Early Permian, probably from Cotylosaurs, which were amphibians with many reptillian features.
Mesozoic.
Turns out that they aren't. For example, the lungs of the first birdlike creatures were reptillian. We know this, because the bones of animals like Archaeopteryx show that they could not have had a flow-through system like modern birds. Birds have a heart which is much like the heart of a crocodile, (birds and crocodiles are archosaurs, much different than most modern reptiles) Birds and dinosaurs have feathers. Archosaurs also flew, and had birdlike bones. Some dinosaurs were pretty much ostriches, including feathers.
Like all intermediates do. Archaeopteryx was intermediate between dinosaurs and birds. It did fine.
Read about it here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/libra ... 34_05.html
From pipefish. Learn about it here:
http://www.bio.tamu.edu/USERS/ajones/seahorse.html
Still uncertain. Bats unfortunately don't fossilize well.
Vertebrate eyes? Early Cambrian. From brain tissue. Seems to have been initiated by lateralization of form.
In mammals, by modification of skull bones in therapsids.
Modification of integument. Feathers, for example, seem to be a modification of scutes, specialized scales found on birds, crocodiles, and dinosaurs. One can acutually induce scutes to form feathers. Primitive "sceathers" can be found on the thecodont Longisquama.
You're assuming that the human digestive system popped out of nowhere. In fact, primitive chordate digestive systems were mere tubes, with food dissolving and being absorbed in the tube. If you want the details, start another thread and we'll go through it for you.
You think bacteria have a drive to reproduce? If not, you have your answer. If you do, explain how that could be without a nervous system.
Sacculation in the upper digestive tract. The first lungs, in fish, were primitive poutches which helped in low-oxygen water.
The only thing "perfect" about the mixture of gases, is that organisms evolved to the mix. The "perfect" mix has changed greatly over the history of the Earth.
RNA. Turns out it can self-catalyze.
Both, apparently:
A study conducted by scientists has found that endosymbiotic bacteria from termites and a genus of cockroaches, Cryptocercus, share the strongest phylogenetical similarities out of all other cockroaches. Both termites and Cryptocercus also share similar morphological and social features -- most cockroaches do not show social characteristics, but Cryptocercus takes care of its young and exhibits other social behavior. Additionally, the primitive termite Mastotermes darwiniensis exhibits numerous cockroach-like characteristics that are not shared with other termites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termite
The plants. Some plants are opportunistic uses of insects; they broadcast pollen, but they also sometimes have insects do it.
Bones. The paleontological evidence shows that bone was first used as a storage for phosphate and calcium, and then as armor, and only later as a means of locomotion.
There is no "repair system" or "hormone system" as single entities. Which of the many do you want to learn about.
The immune system. As pathogens became prevalent, the immune system co-evolved.
Name one, if you would. I've never seen one like that.
Evidence. That's what counts in science.
Animals that look vaguely like other, dangerous or poisonous animals tend to live more often. Those that resemble a little more are even more successful. And so on.
None of the above. Natural selection.
They already existed before we evolved.
Sounds like a testable assertion. Show me the evidence.
In plants? From endosymbiosis with bluegreen algae.
Thoughts don't evolve. Populations evolve.
Natural selection.
Amborell trichopoda, or something very close.
The placement of Amborella as sister to all other angiosperms is supported by nearly all multigene analyses of basal angiosperms, including evidence from all three plant genomes (e.g., P. Soltis et al., 1999; Qiu et al., 1999; Mathews and Donoghue, 1999, 2000; Parkinson et al., 1999; Graham and Olmstead, 2000; Graham et al., 2000; D. Soltis et al., 2000; Magallon and Sanderson, 2002; Zanis et al., 2002; see also Nickerson and Drouin, 2004). A few studies have found alternative rootings, using either different genes or different methods of analysis. For example, Amborella + Nymphaeaceae (e.g. Barkman et al., 2000; P. Soltis et al., 2000; Kim et al., 2004a) or Nymphaeaceae alone (e.g., Parkinson et al., 1999; Graham and Olmstead, 2000, with partial sampling of Nymphaeaceae; Mathews and Donoghue, 2000) have occasionally been reported as sister to all other angiosperms. However, statistical analyses of these alternative rootings using a data set of up to 11 genes generally favor the tree with Amborella as sister to the rest, although the Amborella + Nymphaeaceae tree could not always be rejected (Zanis et al., 2002).
http://www.tolweb.org/angiosperms
Hmm...only one theory of evolution exists today, although there's some disagreement about the details. What kinds of evolutionist do you think there are?
"Cool. How did you get it to live in such low pressure." Coelacanths have been known a lot longer than that. BTW, the coelacanths living today are quite different from the ones that lived hundreds of millions of years ago.
Random mutation and natural selection cause speciation.
Whales evolved from ungulates
Birds evolved from dinosaurs.
Snakes once had legs
Mammals evolved from reptiles
Natural selection will prevent evolution in a stable environment with well-adapted organisms
Many more.
You think that's what the theory says? No wonder you hate evolution. If I thought it was about that, I'd hate it, too.
So God says. I think I'll go with His word on this. Nothing personal.
I'd be pleased to go over any points in detail, if you'd like.
No faith is required in science. Just evidence. You've confused ID, a religion, with science.
I know He created (not designed) the universe. We differ mostly in that I accept the way He did it.
Faith. Religion depends on faith. Science depends on evidence. Confuse the two and you end up with atheism or creationism.
Yes. A Christian should never fear the truth.
Hmm... looking at the behavior of biologists and their families, one would anticipate lower crime, better education, higher income, and less violence.
That pretty much follows studies that show violence and crime are strongly correlated with lower income and low educational level.
Nope. At least I have never seen anyone like that.
Should you continue using drugs and beating your wife?
:wink:
Debunked by evolutionists. No one teaches Piltdown as anything but a fraud.
No one teaches recapitulation.
Archaeopteryx is a fact.
Lucy is a rather well-preserved specimen of A. afarensis.
Homo erectus is known from many, many specimens.
There are thousands of specimens of Neandertals.
Would you be willing to go with me through one line of horse evolution, and see how gradually they changed?
There are many vestigial organs. One of the earliest noted were perfectly-formed wings permanently sealed under wing covers in some species of beetle.
No. They may, if they wish, withdraw their children from public schools, but they do not have a right to impose their religious beliefs on others.
Not much. Being wrong happens in science. They change the theory. And God doesn't care what you think of evolution. It's not a salvation issue.
For the same reason people don't want Wicca or Islam taught. It's against the law to teach religion in public school, and it isn't science. It is possible to introduce it in a comparative religion class, as long as it's not claimed to be the right religion.
Evolutionary theory is a science based on evidence.
Sorry, that one's been tried. No one bought the story.
You'd have to ask a creationist. I'm a Christian.
It certainly is. Would you like to learn why Christianity is true, and why Genesis rules out YE creationism?
Nothing personal, but it appears you don't know very much about the Bible.
[/url]
: 
: