Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/
"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Plus some of us that wouldn't know a huge amount about evolution get to read some really interesting stuff posted by those who explain why creationism is nonsense
QFT.
I would have considered myself reasonably clued in about evolution but some of the posts here (oldrnwiser's being the most obvious examples) have been a positive eye-opener. The lack of anything even remotely resembling evidence in the posts from our mutual unfriend just nails the argument in evolutions favour.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
**Reply to post in "Is atheism a religion?" thread at Dades' request**spannerotoole wrote: »Well, there is the idea that a lot of scientist will bend their perception to fit with macro-evolution. This is not scientific and goes against the four tiered scientific method.
So I am not surprised when such psudeoscience is spoken of as truth.
Here's a fond look back at some lies taught as truth until they were debunked.
1. The piltdown man shown in 1912, believed to be real until 1953 when it was shown to be a fabrication. Why would a scientist, someone who claims to search for the truth, make this up?
2. Nebraska Man from 1922
3. Orce Man from 1892 (Skull of a donkey)
4. That one brontosaurus that was found without a head in 1879, though a matching head from an apatosaurus was found around 3 miles away.
5. 1996, Sinosauropteryx, A supposed transition between a
dinosaur and a bird. Scientists now dispute that there are
actual feathers on the back of this “feathered dinosaur”
6. 1999, Archaeoraptor, Another supposedly “Feathered
Dinosaur” published in National Geographic proven to be a
fraud.
OK, first things first. What exactly is your point here? Have there been hoaxes? Sure. However, what do any of these have to do with the veracity of evolution or the theory of natural selection. You're making a logically fallacious argument here, the fallacy of biased sample. The fact that you can find hoaxes or mistakes made by scientists in the past has no bearing on the material presently found in the textbooks. If you have any evidence of such a mistake/fraud still being taught then let's see that. Otherwise let's move on.spannerotoole wrote: »Then there is the idea that life arose from non-life, this goes against the fact that energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed, nothing can come from nothing.
If this were true, why isn't it being repeated all over the place, after all, things evolve to suit their conditions, don't they?
What has this got to do with evolution? First of all, in case nobody has explained this to you before, abiogenesis, evolution and the big bang are all different theories. They are absolutely independent of each other.
We have a fairly good understanding of the different mechanisms by which self-replicating organisms can develop from organic material, however it is unlikely that we will be able to develop a method to determine which of these mechanisms was the one responsible for the development of life on earth.spannerotoole wrote: »Lets look at Animal Homology.
What would discredit the Darwinian Evolutionary Model of
Homology?
Identical anatomical (homologous) features in animals that coincidentally appear in different evolutionary lines, you know they were not inherited from one another.
Look at the eye for example, lets look at the eye of a human, and the eye of an octopus, they are both very similar in structure, but is the octopus from the same evolutionary line as humans?
Or what about animals that fly, is there a relation between birds and bats or flying reptiles or insects, or do they have an different evolutionary line.
If limbs are similar due to Darwinian evolution, then why are there no
homologous genes that code for similar structures in supposed descendents?
Homologous features does not disprove evolution. First of all creatures which evolve in similar environments will develop similar features. This is called convergent evolution.
Now, as you suggested, let's look at the human eye versus the octopus eye.
The structures are similar but have marked differences which give us an insight into the different mechanisms involved in their evolution. At no point, however, are such similar structures detrimental to evolution. If you want to find out more, I've previously covered the eye here.
Your later implication that there no homologous genes involved in the creation of such structures is just flat wrong. Comparative genetic analysis has shown a remarkable similarity between gene expression in the human and octopus eyes.
Comparative Analysis of Gene Expression for Convergent Evolution of Camera Eye Between Octopus and Human
Oh, and, for the record we do share a common ancestor with octopi, namely this little fella, Kimberella.spannerotoole wrote: »Maybe you are aware that scientifcally, a tuna is closer to a rabbit than it is to a dogfish?
Or that a crocodiles blood is more homologous to a chicken than it is to a viper?
Only 5.6% homology with Viper, But 17.5% but with the Chicken
Because of this, there would have to be a common designer rather than a common ancestor, because of the way that the analogous limbs don't carry on throughout the descendants, but they appear to come and go, and the fact that they appear through different evolutionary lines.
If you're going to use this redundant argument against evolution, you may want to understand what the evidence actually says.
First of all, these percentages come from comparisons between α-haemoglobin amino acid sequences.
Secondly, the results indicate that the crocodile is more closely related to modern birds than to vipers. This is an expected result and one supported by fossil evidence and other molecular comparisons such as myoglobin and cytochrome c sequences.
The last common ancestor that all three species mentioned shared was a crown species of diapsid (i.e. having two pairs of temporal fenestra) about 300 million years ago. Diapsids then split between archosauromorpha and lepidosauromorpha. Lepidosaurs then split into sphenodontia and squamata. Later again, squamata diverges and gives rise to serpentes, the crown group of all serpents including vipers.
Meanwhile, archosauromorpha diverges giving rise to archosauria and avemetatarsalia. Archosauria then splits again giving rise to crocodylomorpha (the superorder to which crocodiles belong). Meanwhile, avemetatarsalia gives rise to the superorder Dinosauria from which later emerges Aves, the class of modern birds.
So as you can see, the split between vipers and crocodiles is much more distant than that between crocodiles and birds and therefore we expect there to be more similarities at a genetic level.
The "evidence" you are using to support your argument actually does the opposite, which is something we have come to expect from creationists. You may want to read what the research actually says instead of what some creationist website says about it.
Speaking of which:
Allosteric regulation of crocodilian haemoglobin
Fitting the Gene Lineage into its Species Lineage, a Parsimony Strategy Illustrated by Cladograms Constructed from Globin Sequences
Evolutionary Clock: Nonconstancy of Rate in Different Species
On the evolution of myoglobinspannerotoole wrote: »Lets quickly look at embryolgy
Anyone heard of Ernst Heinrich Haeckel and his embryos?
His ideas were universally panned as being fraudulent.
Yet it still taught at colleges to biology students?
Why is this still being taught in our schools?
It isn't still being taught in our schools. Modern biology textbooks don't use Haeckel's drawings to describe embryological development except as a historical reference. Most use micrographs these days, a lot of which have turned out to look like the drawings Haeckel originally penned. While Haeckel was a pioneer in zoology and did some remarkable work documenting embryological development, he got two things badly wrong: biogenetic law and recapitulation theory. Modern evo-devo research does not stem from Haeckel's work and yet shows that Haeckel got a lot right in his original drawings. Here, for example, is a micrograph of a human embryo.
The structures that you see in the image are pharyngeal arches which are the same structures responsible for the development of gills in fish. You can get a basic primer on this area here.
On a side note, seeing as how we've just been through comparative genomics and embryology, why is it that you think that the "common designer" argument is a better explanation than evolution, particularly if that designer is the christian God. For example, humans unlike many other animals cannot synthesise Vitamin C. This is a result of a mutation rendering the responsible gene functionless. Why would a common designer design us with broken genes which work to provide a significant benefit in other animals. Also you might explain these other points from a common design POV as well.spannerotoole wrote: »I remember hearing about the peppered moth and how it proves evolution, well it doesn't, it only proves variation within the kind, it does no prove macro-evolution, like darwins finches, the peppered moth remains a peppered moth, would you say that speckled and spotted sheep would evolve into something else, or would they create a new sheep that looks a bit different. Would that still be a sheep?
The peppered moth just shows survival of the fittest, but not evolution in progress.
There are some discrepancies in the moth studies
A) Dark moths in many unpolluted areas increased in proportion just as those in polluted areas had.
Dark moths continued to increase in proportion after pollution controls were in place and light colored camouflage returned to the trees.
C) In one area, dark colored moths began decreasing in proportion before the light colored lichen returned to the trees.
D) Staged photographs
A 2003 review of science textbooks being considered by the Texas State Board of
Education found six of eleven textbooks to contain the disproved peppered moth
doctrine as proof of Darwinian Evolution.
The peppered moth as a challenge to evolution has been pretty well shredded in the literature. It is a long and boring topic to go into in detail and I'm short on time and patience so you might want to read this primer instead.spannerotoole wrote: »Natural selection and variation within an animal kind (aka natural adaptation or ‘survival of the fittest’) ≠ Darwinian evolution
Lets have a look at horses.
Evolutionists admit the horse history is better represented as a “bush” rather
than a “tree.”
WHY?
Evolutionists admit that all but Hyracotherium were contemporary to each other!
(Existed at the same time) If all three lived contemporaneously, then they
did not evolve from one another.
Been there. Done that.spannerotoole wrote: »Variations Within an Animal Kind (i.e.,Microevolution) Do Not Prove Descent
from a Common Ancestor (Macroevolution)
And finally, if we look at the poodle, we can see it's a pedigree dog, now evolution says that the strongest genes survive to the next generation, yet the poodle as a lot of genetic degeneracy for example, lots of eye issues, retinal atrophy, glaucoma, retinal detachment, congential deafness, prone to epilepsy and narcolepsy.
But look at the Grey wolf, It stays within the grey wolf pedigree and does not suffer with these maladys, can someone explain that?
First of all, dogs are subjected to intense artificial selection from increasingly smaller gene pools such that deleterious genes are not only retained but amplified. Such a scenario has no bearing on natural selection.
Secondly, you haven't even begun to define what kind is, let alone show why microevolution and macroevolution are distinct processes. You're attempting to claim that even though you can walk 20 feet, you can't walk 20 miles. A little evidence to support your claims would be lovely.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement