The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

doctoremma · 01-03-2013 10:03AM

J C wrote: »

... further, the eye doesn't ever vary ... except in negative ways via mutagenesis.
... and such variations (via mutagenesis) aren't found to be useful to any animal under the changing conditions of life

Except, by your own admission, the flatfish.

J C wrote: »

The flatfish eye repositioning is a result of mutagnesis ... and thus is a degeneration of the original perfect positioning. It offers them the advantage of being able to see while lying flat on the seabed ... but it is a loss of the original perfect design.

Are you prepared to retract the second statement, regarding the usefulness of mutated structures, in the first quoted post?

Zombrex · 01-03-2013 10:46AM

J C wrote: »

Some Flatfish eyes have varied in negative ways (like I have said) ... by becoming 'cock-eyed'.

Does that mean some haven't. What percentage?

J C · 02-03-2013 12:43AM

doctoremma wrote: »

Except, by your own admission, the flatfish.

Some Flatfish eyes have varied in negative ways (like I have said) ... by becoming 'cock-eyed'.

Zombrex wrote: »

Does that mean some haven't. What percentage?

The Flatfish that are descended from Ray-fish would be examples of Flatfish that have always had their eyes where they currently are

doctoremma wrote: »

Are you prepared to retract the second statement, regarding the usefulness of mutated structures, in the first quoted post?

Yes, I should have said in very limited circumstances ...
... but I would also point out that NS selecting benefits from damaged strutures is going in the wrong direction to what is required to explain the origins of the perfect structures that we routinely see in living organisms and which only direct creation accounts for.

The 'cock-eyed' Flatfish is actually an example of NS going down a selection 'cul de sac' ... followed 'hot on it's heels' by groups of over-excited Evolutionists ... clinging desperately to it as an 'example' of evolution ... whilst apparently completely unaware that it is only 'devolution' in action!!!:D
... and with pocket calculators in hand, furiously trying to work out what % of Flatfish are Rays and Stingrays ... and badgering Creation Scientists for the figure, in order to check if they have the correct answer!!:D
... you couldn't make this up ... and nobody would believe you if you did!!!

wrote:

Zombrex
Does that mean some haven't. What percentage?

maguffin · 02-03-2013 08:11AM

J C wrote: »

The Flatfish that are descended from Ray-fish would be examples of Flatfish that have always had their eyes where they currently are

Rays are not related to flat fish

....A number of resons, they are Elasmobranchii and Batoidea, not bony fish, i.e. they have no skeleton, they do not have both eye on one side of the head (like a flatfish) they have a head with one eye on each side, they have 5 to 7 gills as sharks, not one like bony fish, they do not have any swimbladder. So lots of differences even though they look a bit simmilar in shape.

You continue to 'cherry pick' without checking and then use the mis-information to support your hopeless situation....your thought processes are certainly devolving and show signs of damage...you are slowly returning to 'pond life' !!!

J C · 02-03-2013 11:59AM

maguffin wrote: »

Rays are not related to flat fish

....A number of resons, they are Elasmobranchii and Batoidea, not bony fish, i.e. they have no skeleton, they do not have both eye on one side of the head (like a flatfish) they have a head with one eye on each side, they have 5 to 7 gills as sharks, not one like bony fish, they do not have any swimbladder. So lots of differences even though they look a bit simmilar in shape.

Rays are Flatfish ... and they are an example of a Flatfish that was Created the perfect way it is now ... they aren't related to other Flatfish ... because they are a Created Kind ...

... some of the other Flatfish (just like some Dog Breeds) weren't Created the way they are today ... because they are carrying selected damaging mutations that have 'twisted' their bodies and eyes into the position they are found today ... juat like some dogs have muzzles that are also seriously 'twisted'.

maguffin wrote: »

... your thought processes are certainly devolving and show signs of damage...you are slowly returning to 'pond life' !!!

We are all degenerating from the original perfect Creation of Mankind ... but I still retain sufficient thought processes to recognise a load of Baloney when I see it ... and to recognise how something devolving is evidence in accord with the Direct Perfect Creation Hypothesis ... and not an example of 'evolution from Pondkind to Mankind' in action.:D
BTW we won't 'devolve' into Pondkind ... we just return to the dust from whence we have come.

Benny_Cake · 03-03-2013 01:38AM

J C wrote: »

Rays are Flatfish ... and they are an example of a Flatfish that was Created the perfect way it is now ... they aren't related to other Flatfish ... because they are a Created Kind

JC, do you have anything whatsoever to back this up? All I'm seeing are a collection of assertions - you've been given considerable latitude here, but you need to start to provide some sort of citation, particularly when the position you are stating (that a ray is a flatfish) is in complete contradiction of the established evidence. This looks like soapboxing to me.

J C · 03-03-2013 01:53PM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

JC, do you have anything whatsoever to back this up? All I'm seeing are a collection of assertions - you've been given considerable latitude here, but you need to start to provide some sort of citation, particularly when the position you are stating (that a ray is a flatfish) is in complete contradiction of the established evidence. This looks like soapboxing to me.

A Ray is a Flatfish as it has a 'flattened' body profile and occupies a similar ecological niche to other Flatfish. It is a sea-bottom feeder (although not as obligate in this, as other Flatfish).
I have answered the questions posed to me courteously and patiently ... and to the best of my ability ...I am therefore not soapboxing.
The kernel of the issue at hand isn't whether a Ray is a Flatfish ... it objectively is ... indeed it is the originally created Flatfish ... and pre-existed the other Flatfish that have since been apparently produced by mutagenic dimorphism within 'ordinary' fish Kinds.

The kernel of the issue is whether other Flatfish, which appear to be descended from 'ordinary' fish ... but with their bodies and eyes 'twisted' took millions of years to achieve this or only a few hundred years.
I am citing similar mutagenic dimorphism in dog breeds that we know took less than a few hundred years as proof that similar dimorphism to what has occured in some fish can occur in hundreds rather than millions of years.
... nothing more or less than that.
... people can draw their own conclusions on whether what has demonstrably occurred in hundreds of years with dogs took millions of years with fish.
My view is that it was hundreds of years ... or less, in fish as well as dogs ... but I respect your right to disagree, if you so wish.

The production of Flatfish by the mutagenic dimorphism of an existing Kind of 'ordinary' fish is also only an example of devolution ...
... the resulting flatfish is a damaged version of the original 'perfect' Kind of Fish that gave rise to these types of Flatfish ... and it therefore isn't an example of the requirement for increasing perfection that would have had to occur if Pondkind to Mankind Evolution ever occurred.

... so can we all move onto the next topic, if there is one, so that I don't have to waste any more of my precious time on something that has clearly gone as far as it can go ... and provides very supportive evidence in favour of Direct Creation and a Young Earth ... and no substantive evidence for millions of years and 'Big Picture' Evolution from uni-cells to Mankind.

Zombrex · 03-03-2013 03:54PM

J C wrote: »

A Ray is a Flatfish as it has a 'flattened' body profile and occupies a similar ecological niche to other Flatfish.

I think Benny was looking for something a bit more than it looks flat doesn't it. :rolleyes:

Not only are these different fish not similar species they are an entire different type of fish.

Rays are a form of shark (Chondrichthyes), and as such they have cartilage skeletons.

Flat fish are Osteichthyes, and have bone skeletons.

Completely. Different. Types. Of. Fish.

J C wrote: »

The kernel of the issue at hand isn't whether a Ray is a Flatfish ... it objectively is ... indeed it is the originally created Flatfish ... and pre-existed the other Flatfish that have since been produced by apparent mutagenic dimorphism within 'ordinary' fish Kinds.

And I'm sure Creationists can explain how the "perfect" cartilage skeleton of the ray was "damaged" into being the bone skeleton of the flat fish within a few generations.

Tell us again how a triceratops is a rhino ...

J C · 03-03-2013 05:27PM

Zombrex wrote: »

I think Benny was looking for something a bit more than it looks flat doesn't it. :rolleyes:

Not only are these different fish not similar species they are an entire different type of fish.

Rays are a form of shark (Chondrichthyes), and as such they have cartilage skeletons.

Flat fish are Osteichthyes, and have bone skeletons.

Completely. Different. Types. Of. Fish.

I have already said they are different Kinds of flatfish. We agree on this.
The Rays are a Cartilaginous Fish ... but this doesn't make them a Shark ... they are a separate Created Kind.
You asked for an example of a Flatfish that wasn't produced by dimorphic mutagenesis ... and I gave you the Ray precisely because it wasn't produced by the dimorphic mutagenesis of a bony fish ...
... so it is exceedingly disingenuous of you to now be complaining that the Ray is a different Kind of Flatfish ... when that is what you asked me to cite for you, in the first place.
Here is the original exchange:-

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Some Flatfish eyes have varied in negative ways (like I have said) ... by becoming 'cock-eyed'.

Zombrex
Does that mean some haven't. What percentage?

J C
The Flatfish that are descended from Ray-fish would be examples of Flatfish that have always had their eyes where they currently are.

Zombrex wrote: »

And I'm sure Creationists can explain how the "perfect" cartilage skeleton of the ray was "damaged" into being the bone skeleton of the flat fish within a few generations.

I repeat, the Ray was Created as a Cartilaginous flatfish ... the other flatfish were created as 'ordinary' bony fish ... and they underwent subsequent dimorphic mutagenesis.

Zombrex wrote: »

Tell us again how a triceratops is a rhino ...

I won't ... we have been over this ad nauseum.
Believe what you will on this one.

That's why you and I have our God-given free will ... you can believe the triceratops was a reptile ... but I'm certainly entitled to point out it's mammalian characteristics.
It's also what academic freedom used to be about ... the right to hold contrary viewpoints and to pursue knowledge and evidence on that basis!!

Zombrex · 03-03-2013 05:42PM

J C wrote: »

I have already said they are different Kinds of flatfish.

Name a species of flatfish (pleuronectiformes) that has cartilage instead of bone.

J C wrote: »

You asked for an example of a Flatfish that wasn't produced by dimorphic mutagenesis ... and I gave you the Ray precisely because it wasn't produced by dimorphic mutagenesis ...

No I didn't. I asked for the ancestor of modern flatfish, that could produce the modern flatfish due to damaging of its genome.

You answered (and I quote)

"There are different types of Flatfish ... with different ancestors.
Some are descended from Ray-type fish ... and others are possibly descended from 'ordinary' fish that have suffered serious 'twisting' of their bodies ... including damage resulting in 'cock-eyed' mutations."

Name a species of flatfish that is descendant from Rays, and explain how these flatfish evolved due to "damage" to have a skeleton structure made of bone rather than cartilage within a handful of generations.

J C wrote: »

... so it is exceedingly disingenuous of you to now be complaining that the Ray is a different Kind of Flatfish ... when that is what you asked me to cite for you, in the first place.

Flatfish have bone skeletons. Rays have cartilage skeletons.

You claimed that modern flatfish descended from Rays. Please, given how much I'm sure all your views are backed up by rigorous scientific research, detail how modern flatfish damaged themselves into having a skeleton made of completely different material.

J C · 03-03-2013 05:57PM

Zombrex wrote: »

Name a species of flatfish (pleuronectiformes) that has cartilage instead of bone.

That is a leading question that presupposes that 'flatfish' are confined to the pleuronectiformes ... which, as I have already said are bony fish produced by dimorphic mutagenesis of other bony fish.
You asked for an example of flatfish that wasn't produced this way ... and I cited the Ray as a Directly Created Flatfish ... and the reason we know this is because it doesn't exhibit evidence of dimorphic mutagenesis.

Zombrex wrote: »

No I didn't. I asked for the ancestor of modern flatfish, that could produce the modern flatfish due to damaging of its genome.

You answered (and I quote)

"There are different types of Flatfish ... with different ancestors.
Some are descended from Ray-type fish ... and others are possibly descended from 'ordinary' fish that have suffered serious 'twisting' of their bodies ... including damage resulting in 'cock-eyed' mutations."

Name a species of flatfish that is descendant from Rays, and explain how these flatfish evolved due to "damage" to have a skeleton structure made of bone rather than cartilage.

There is no such fish, that I am aware of.

Zombrex wrote: »

Flatfish have bone skeletons. Rays have cartilage skeletons.

... and your point is?

Zombrex wrote: »

You claimed that modern flatfish descended from Rays. Please, given how much I'm sure all your views are backed up by rigorous scientific research, detail how modern flatfish damaged themselves into having a skeleton made of completely different material.

Please stop putting words in my mouth!!!
I have said that Rays and the Perciformes are both examples of flatfish ... with different origins ... the former don't suffer from dimorphic mutagenesis, while the latter do.

Zombrex · 03-03-2013 06:17PM

J C wrote: »

That is a leading question that presupposes that 'flatfish' are confined to the pleuronectiformes

Lol

So you didn't actually know what flatfish were, you thought they were just fish that were flat. Bravo JC, your ignorance knows no bounds. I guess Benny will have to take Well they are flat aren't they as your answer for why Rays are flatfish, sorry I mean "flat fish", lulz.

Perhaps you should have looked up what you were talking about before you started going on about them. I mean Wikipedia is a thing after all... :rolleyes:

J C wrote: »

... and your point is?

The same as it always has been for the last 6 years, you have absolutely no idea what the heck you are talking about and you are trolling the stuffing out of this forum.

J C · 03-03-2013 06:43PM

Zombrex wrote: »

Lol

So you didn't actually know what flatfish were, you thought they were just fish that were flat. Bravo JC, your ignorance knows no bounds. I guess Benny will have to take Well they are flat aren't they as your answer for why Rays are flatfish, sorry I mean "flat fish", lulz.

Perhaps you should have looked up what you were talking about before you started going on about them. I mean Wikipedia is a thing after all... :rolleyes:

The same as it always has been for the last 6 years, you have absolutely no idea what the heck you are talking about and you are trolling the stuffing out of this forum.

... and thus by nit picking you have tried to create a smokescreen that has drowned out the salient conclusion of the past 2 pages - that :-
1. The dimorphic mutagenesis of Perciformes is similar to the dimorphic mutagenesis of dog breeds and thus indicative of being achieved in hundreds instead of millions of years.
2. The production of Flatfish by the mutagenic dimorphism of an existing Kind of 'ordinary' fish is an example of devolution as the resulting flatfish is a damaged version of the original 'perfect' Kind of Fish that gave rise to these types of Flatfish.
3. Damage causing dimorphic mutagenesis is consistent with the Direct Creation Hypothesis ... and provides no evidential support for 'Big Picture' Evolution's requirement for increasing perfection that would have had to happen, if Pondkind to Mankind Evolution ever occurred.

Zombrex · 03-03-2013 06:50PM

J C wrote: »

... and thus by nit picking you have tried to create a smokescreen that has drowned out the salient conclusion of the past 2 pages

Nit picking? You call pointing out that you don't even know what flatfish are in a discussion where you are attempting to explain how they evolved, nitpicking?

JC Flatfish are a type of fish, they are not simply a loose collection of fish that are flat.

And Flatfish are a completely different type of fish to Rays, yet you claim that flatfish evolved from Rays. In fairness to you given that you don't have a clue what flatfish are I'm going to assume that was just one of your silly made up statements, rather than a genuine attempt to look stupid.

You apparently were unaware of any of the facts of what these fishes are or what distinguishes them (which given your general level of ignorance on practically every subject of biology should have been expected in hindsight). But you want to explain to us how they evolved. Lol

Troll harder bro, troll harder.

J C · 03-03-2013 07:31PM

Zombrex wrote: »

Troll harder bro, troll harder.

... so the the salient conclusion of the past 2 pages - stands:-
1. The dimorphic mutagenesis of Perciformes is similar to the dimorphic mutagenesis of dog breeds and thus indicative of being achieved in hundreds instead of millions of years.
2. The production of Flatfish by the mutagenic dimorphism of an existing Kind of 'ordinary' fish is an example of devolution as the resulting flatfish is a damaged version of the original 'perfect' Kind of Fish that gave rise to these types of Flatfish.
3. Damage causing dimorphic mutagenesis is consistent with the Direct Creation Hypothesis ... and provides no evidential support for 'Big Picture' Evolution's requirement for increasing perfection that would have had to happen, if Pondkind to Mankind Evolution ever occurred.

Zombrex · 03-03-2013 10:37PM

J C wrote: »

... so the the salient conclusion of the past 2 pages - stands:-

The "salient conclusion" of the past 2 pages is that you thought flatfish was just a description of fish that are flat, not an actual type of fish, which have been biologically classified.

Despite being completely ignorant of what you were actually talking about, it didn't stop you from proclaiming that these fish evolved rapidly due to damage of their genome.

Unsurprisingly when you were asked to back that up not only could you not give specifics, it emerged that you actually had no idea that a flatfish actually was, nor what its characteristics are.

Which makes it laughable that you would attempt to explain to the rest of us how they evolved.

On this thread you consistently rabbit on about biological species you clearly know nothing about, sure only a few days ok you claimed that a triceritops was a Rhino, but seemed utterly baffled by posts explaining to you what the biological characteristics of a rhino actually are, which didn't match fossils of triceritops. The best you could come up with is that it sort of looks like a rhino, you know if you ignore all the bits that don't.

But then that sums up your entire contribution to this thread, and the Creationist thread before it, you make claims about things you don't know about, and when other expose your ignorance you just retort with nonsense comments about how evolutionists are bad and we all need to find Jesus.

I don't for a minute think you are genuinely a Christian nor a Creationist. My personal view, based on your posts and your behavior, is that you are simply a troll, getting kicks from winding people up on this forum.

It would be far more amusing though if you actually know the first thing about the biology you talk about, then it would at least not be so blood obvious that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Fair summary?

J C · 03-03-2013 11:21PM

Zombrex wrote: »

The "salient conclusion" of the past 2 pages is that you thought flatfish was just a description of fish that are flat, not an actual type of fish, which have been biologically classified.

Despite being completely ignorant of what you were actually talking about, it didn't stop you from proclaiming that these fish evolved rapidly due to damage of their genome.

Unsurprisingly when you were asked to back that up not only could you not give specifics, it emerged that you actually had no idea that a flatfish actually was, nor what its characteristics are.

Which makes it laughable that you would attempt to explain to the rest of us how they evolved.

On this thread you consistently rabbit on about biological species you clearly know nothing about, sure only a few days ok you claimed that a triceritops was a Rhino, but seemed utterly baffled by posts explaining to you what the biological characteristics of a rhino actually are, which didn't match fossils of triceritops. The best you could come up with is that it sort of looks like a rhino, you know if you ignore all the bits that don't.

But then that sums up your entire contribution to this thread, and the Creationist thread before it, you make claims about things you don't know about, and when other expose your ignorance you just retort with nonsense comments about how evolutionists are bad and we all need to find Jesus.

I don't for a minute think you are genuinely a Christian nor a Creationist. My personal view, based on your posts and your behavior, is that you are simply a troll, getting kicks from winding people up on this forum.

It would be far more amusing though if you actually know the first thing about the biology you talk about, then it would at least not be so blood obvious that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Fair summary?

I note that you have not engaged on the points I made in my previous posting ... but you have just repeated an unfounded ad hominem mantra about me, which we have all heard before.

It really doesn't matter what my levels of intelligence are ... what counts are my ideas ... and whether they are valid or not ...

... so please address the following points that I have made ... and leave the personal abuse out of the equation.:-
1. The dimorphic mutagenesis of Perciformes is similar to the dimorphic mutagenesis of dog breeds and thus indicative of being achieved in hundreds instead of millions of years.
2. The production of Perciformes by the mutagenic dimorphism of an existing Kind of 'ordinary' fish is an example of devolution as the resulting flatfish is a damaged version of the original 'perfect' Kind of Fish that gave rise to these types of Flatfish.
3. Damage causing dimorphic mutagenesis is consistent with the Direct Creation Hypothesis ... and provides no evidential support for 'Big Picture' Evolution's requirement for increasing perfection that would have had to happen, if Pondkind to Mankind Evolution ever occurred.

Zombrex · 03-03-2013 11:40PM

J C wrote: »

I note that you have not engaged on the points I made in my previous posting

I notice you haven't explained why you thought Rays were flatfish.

J C wrote: »

... so please address the following points that I have made ... and leave the personal abuse out of the equation.

Admit that you didn't understand what flatfish were, and apologize for engaging in a debate were you made assertions about things you did not understand, and I will happily address every one of your posts sweetie pie.

Trust is a two way street as they say in the movies my little gum drop. You answer all my questions first, and then I will answer all of your questions. Deal my little flower blossom?

The Concrete Doctor · 04-03-2013 12:28AM

Zombrex wrote: »

I notice you haven't explained why you thought Rays were flatfish.

Admit that you didn't understand what flatfish were, and apologize for engaging in a debate were you made assertions about things you did not understand, and I will happily address every one of your posts sweetie pie.

Trust is a two way street as they say in the movies my little gum drop. You answer all my questions first, and then I will answer all of your questions. Deal my little flower blossom?

I don't know a whole lot about flatfish, except they are great to catch and lovely to eat. It seems that quite a few people on this forum do know about them. You cannot all be right, so I suspect that JC is probably not correct, but that is not really all that surprising. JC, one non-Christian flaw you seem to possess is that you never think you are wrong about anything, or you never admit you are, even when presented with overwhelming evidence of your mistaken views.
It is really interesting debating the origins of the Earth, creation v evolution etc. It becomes tedious when that debate descends into point scoring about the bone structure of fish, using terminology few people understand.

J C · 04-03-2013 01:41AM

Zombrex wrote: »

I notice you haven't explained why you thought Rays were flatfish.

Admit that you didn't understand what flatfish were, and apologize for engaging in a debate were you made assertions about things you did not understand, and I will happily address every one of your posts sweetie pie.

Trust is a two way street as they say in the movies my little gum drop. You answer all my questions first, and then I will answer all of your questions. Deal my little flower blossom?

That's not how any debating forum works ... each person should respond to questions posed by other people alternately and courteously.
I have been answering your questions ... and all I have got in return are insults!!!

The flatfish issue is a 'red herring' and you are arguing about semantics here ...
You asked for an example of a flatfish that wasn't produced through dimorphic mutagenesis ... and I cited the Ray as a Directly Created flatfish that wasn't produced through dimorphic mutagenesis.
The common name 'flatfish' is generally used for the dimorphic varieties of bony fish ... but Rays are also flatfish ... and they occupy the same ecological niche on the sea bottom as other flatfish which have dimorphic mutagenesis.
If you want to nit pick over the technicalities then let me say that an example of a Demersal Benthic groundfish that wasn't produced through dimorphic mutagenesis is the Stingray ...and an example of a Demersal Benthic groundfish that was produced through dimorphic mutagenesis is the Halibut.

Please note that I never claimed that the Perciformes are related to the Batoids ... I was answering your question in good faith about bottom dwelling flatfish that have upward facing eyes that haven't got there by dimorphic mutagenesis ... and all I have got in return from you are guffaws and insults.

Zombrex · 04-03-2013 02:23AM

J C wrote: »

That's not how any debating forum works ... each person should respond to questions posed by other people alternately and courteously.

Correct, and I'll response to your questions after you answered my questions, questions that I put to you before you asked your questions.

Take your time my little willow bud.

J C wrote: »

I have been answering your questions ... and all I have got in return are insults!!!

Insults? I couldn't be sweeter to you my little snuggly bear.

J C wrote: »

The flatfish issue is a 'red herring' and you are arguing about semantics here ...

No, I'm arguing about flatfish. Flatfish are a type of fish, which contain a set of classifying features that are required of the fish for it to be considered a member of the flatfish family. One of the features is bone skeleton.

Perhaps you would answer my original questions now, rather than pretending that it isn't important that you didn't know what flatfish were when attempting to explain to us how they evolved.

My little gum drop bear

J C wrote: »

You asked for an example of a flatfish that wasn't produced through dimorphic mutagenesis

As I have already explain to you rain drop, I didn't ask that. I asked what fish did flatfish evolve from using your "damage" process. I assumed since you seemed to confident of being able to explain how flatfish evolved that you would also know which species they evolved from.

You answered Rays, which we have already discussed is rather implausible my snookie bear since Rays have an entirely different skeleton composition than Flatfish.

You also mentioned that they evolved from "ordinary" fish as well.

Care to role the dice again and guess at a species of "ordinary" fish that Flatfish evolved from? You run the risk of picking a fish family with traits that flatfish don't have and look stupid again, but sure when has that ever stopped you.

Or if you just want to go in order, just answer the questions I've already asked you.

J C wrote: »

... and I cited the Ray as a Directly Created flatfish that wasn't produced through dimorphic mutagenesis.

And I asked you which species of flatfish evolved from Rays. You didn't answer that question, oddly enough.

J C wrote: »

The common name 'flatfish' is generally used for the dimorphic varieties of bony fish ... but Rays are also flatfish

No they aren't snookie bear. Rays are a type of shark. They are flat, but they aren't flatfish as any fisherman will tell you.

J C wrote: »

If you want to nit pick over the technicalities

You consider it a technicality that you didn't know what flatfish were?

Oh my gum drop, it was a bit more than technicality, it destroyed your entire argument.

You are now saying that Stingrays, which are a form of Rays, evolved from Rays and Flatfish evolved from Halibet, which is a type of flatfish. You have given up on the idea that flatfish evolved from rays or from "ordinary fish"

Oh dear oh dear. So rays evolved from rays and flatfish evolved from flatfish. Creationism has opened all our eyes to the wonder of rapid evolution, lol

Masteroid · 04-03-2013 05:09AM

J C wrote: »

... so the the salient conclusion of the past 2 pages - stands:-
1. The dimorphic mutagenesis of Perciformes is similar to the dimorphic mutagenesis of dog breeds and thus indicative of being achieved in hundreds instead of millions of years.

There are two salient differences between the two examples though.

Human intervention took the 'natural' out of NS and as a result many breeds that now exist could not have gained a foothold in a human-less environment. If a mutation occurred in an ancient wolf-cub that caused a poodle to be born then it would not have survived long enough to pass on its genes.

By selectively breeding, humans pervert NS.

So you should ask yourself, considering that it took at least 8000 years to 'evolve' the dog that won the Best of Breed category in last year's Cruft's dog-show and bearing in mind the amplified effects of selection pressures applied by dog-breeders, if it took thousands of years for mankind to 'grow' his own idea of an idealised dog with a mushed up nose then how long do you think it would have taken NS to 'evolve' the same dog?

What kind of Natural scientifically explainable 'genetic sledgehammer' can beat a wolf into the shape of a shih tzu within a matter of centuries?

It took mankind thousands of years of 'fiddling about' until he got it right, how long would it have taken evolution?

Or, to re-state the question, how long could we expect it to take for you to turn a 'red-herring' into a flatfish?

I'm being kind to your position here but not so kind to the flatfish which is by no means equivalent to the shih tzu in terms of evolutionary success.

And wouldn't you reasonably expect that the 'Human Selection' of 'favourable' genes would effect the breeding process to a much greater extent than NS would?

This is my second point. It took thousands of years for us to Intelligently Design dogs that can't breathe.

Humans play at being God and thusly creates an animal that is highly likely to suffer from hip problems, chronic back pain, liver problems, breathing problems, liver problems, epilepsy, the list goes on.

Perfect. A dog that needs to be protected from the family cat.

Perfect.

Whereas natural selection bungles on, randomly changing a gene here and another there without any consideration for what is favourable and what is not but even so, an animal perfectly adapted to its environment evolves.

The flatfish has no need for vetinary care due to congenital defects.

Now that's what I call perfect.

Intelligent Design versus Evolution?

Intelligent Design creates things that are broken.

Evolution creates things that work.

Perfect. :cool:

Brian Shanahan · 04-03-2013 02:08PM

The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

JC, one christian flaw you seem to possess is that you never think you are wrong about anything, or you never admit you are, even when presented with overwhelming evidence of your mistaken views.

Fixed that sentence for you. Believers in an "omnipotent god" tend to take a position that they are always right and anyone who disagrees with them is always wrong. Those of us who actually follow the scientific method (imperfectly as we do) tend to be far more questionning, to the extent that the most dogmatic scientist is more open to new ideas than the most free-thinking christian.

lmaopml · 04-03-2013 02:46PM

Modesty: The art of encouraging people to find out how wonderful you are.

Lord, where we are wrong, make us easy to change; where we are right make us easy to live with

This is a mad thread.

Brian Shanahan · 04-03-2013 02:47PM

lmaopml wrote: »

Lord, where we are wrong,

A stellar example of the inefficacy of prayer, if I do say so myself.

Oh, and I finally figured out why JC's pronunciations on flatfish "de-evolving" were so familiar. Seems he learned his biology at the feet of Brannon Braga.

Masteroid · 04-03-2013 09:09PM

J C wrote: »

2. The production of Flatfish by the mutagenic dimorphism of an existing Kind of 'ordinary' fish is an example of devolution as the resulting flatfish is a damaged version of the original 'perfect' Kind of Fish that gave rise to these types of Flatfish.

You are correct in that 'damage' to the genome of a particular organism is what gives rise to new species but you mislead yourself by referring to this process as 'devolution'.

The flatfish as it exists today is not 'broken' or 'handicapped'.

A flatfish is not a disabled halibut or some such but is instead a perfectly adapted creature that is able to exploit the ecological niche which it inhabits, which gave it an advantage over its ancestors when they were forced to the bottom of the sea.

Another way that you mislead yourself is when you classify mutations as 'improvements' or 'declination' to the engineering requirements of a living system. They are neither.

Random mutations are responsible for 'change' and it is the environment in which the changed organism lives that replies to the question of whether such a change is an advantage or not to that organism.

What I find perplexing is that on the one hand you accept that random and widespread damage to to the genome of one type of fish resulted in the creation of another, new type of fish, the 'flatfish' but on the other hand seem to refuse to even acknowledge the possibility that the random and widespread damage to the genome of a single-celled organism might result in the creation of a new 'multi-cellular' organism.

If there had been only one species of micro-organism 6000-years ago, wouldn't you expect that there would appear to be bio-diversity today, that to an observer, it would appear that there were many different kinds of micro-organisms with a common ancestry? Like dogs in relation to the wolf, for instance.

Can I try and distil your position to this - if creation is aged at 10,000-years or so then the existence of life on earth as it exists today cannot be due to the evolutionary process as biologists understand the term today.

Is that a reasonable assessment of your position at least in part?

If it could be shown that the earth was a matter of thousands rather than millions of years old then I would have to concede that there simply has not been enough time for evolution to have taken place and as a result, I would have to be open to an alternative explanation of creation which may or may not include an intelligent designer.

So let me ask you this - if it could be shown that the earth is in fact billions of years old and assuming that the creative force that brought the universe into existence 'intentionally' provided a template for just one 'perfect' micro-organism that would exist somewhere in the universe billions of years ago, would you accept that by now, because of random mutations over the last few billion years causing 'damage' to the genetic material of individual organism, ther would be a great deal of diversity of micro-organisms?

Even if 99.9% of the damage through mutations was disadvantageous to the organism would you accept that the 0.1% for whom the mutations are not disadvantaged by mutation could have improved chances of survival in a constantly changing environment.

I recognise that I move from a theistic view to a deist view here but my point is, if God created only one cell that had the capacity to reproduce itself and given the processes known to biologists that anarguably do occur at the genetic scale, would you accept that 'devolution' would necessarily result in many new life-forms given a few billion years over which to operate entirely randomly?

What I'm suggesting is that if the first living cell existed billions of years ago then it is possible that evolution is responsible for the bio-diversity we see today and if the very first organism came into existence 10,000-years ago then God did it.

Would you agree?

J C · 04-03-2013 10:26PM

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Fixed that sentence for you. Believers in an "omnipotent god" tend to take a position that they are always right and anyone who disagrees with them is always wrong.
Those of us who actually follow the scientific method (imperfectly as we do) tend to be far more questionning, to the extent that the most dogmatic scientist is more open to new ideas than the most free-thinking christian.

... and yet ye hold onto the unfounded belief that ye have spontaneously descended from Pondkind via selected mistakes ... when the only evidence available is that selected mistakes lead to damage to all complex functional specified structures ... and mistakes (selected or otherwise) have never been observed to increase perfection in living systems or processes.

J C · 04-03-2013 10:30PM

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

A stellar example of the inefficacy of prayer, if I do say so myself.

Oh, and I finally figured out why JC's pronunciations on flatfish "de-evolving" were so familiar. Seems he learned his biology at the feet of Brannon Braga.

May the Klingons be with you!!!:)

J C · 04-03-2013 11:16PM

Zombrex wrote: »

No, I'm arguing about flatfish. Flatfish are a type of fish, which contain a set of classifying features that are required of the fish for it to be considered a member of the flatfish family. One of the features is bone skeleton.

To repeat ... this flatfish issue is a 'red herring' and you are just arguing about semantics here ...
You asked for an example of a flatfish that wasn't produced through dimorphic mutagenesis ... and I cited the Ray as a Directly Created Demersal Benthic groundfish that wasn't produced through dimorphic mutagenesis.
The common name 'flatfish' is generally used to encompass the dimorphic mutagenic varieties of bony fish ... but Rays occupy the same ecological niche on the sea bottom as the bony flatfish which have suffered dimorphic mutagenesis.

The Concrete Doctor · 05-03-2013 12:22AM

J C wrote: »

... and yet ye hold onto the unfounded belief that ye have spontaneously descended from Pondkind via selected mistakes ... when the only evidence available is that selected mistakes lead to damage to all complex functional specified structures ... and mistakes (selected or otherwise) have never been observed to increase perfection in living systems or processes.

JC you know that this is an incredible simplification of a very, very long protracted process.
Your "evidence" is what, the bible???

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments