Whatever happened to that kid?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Challenge to Evolutionsts
- Thread starter supersport
- Start date
Whatever happened to that kid?
supersport
Member
just a duplication/emphasizing of what was already there...(muslces etc.) Nothing new....no modifications, no novelty, no additions...nothing except more of the same....but more of the same could never evolve mice to men.
supersport
Member
just for example....bats have sonar systems...but the animals they supposdly evolved from probably did not....(the bacteria floating in the primordial swamp surely had no sonar system.) So at some point the machinery for this sonar had to be created....but if no mutation can create beneficial novelities, then this machinery would be impossible to create with the given darwinian mechanisms....(or any known mechanism for that matter.) I have seen no such example of a mutation that can create anything new in the way of morphology.
Runt
Well-Known Member
Mutations don't create random "new" things. They modify old things. Over time, such modifications can result in organisms which are drastically different than their original forms.
Example: Imagine someone with six toes having kids with an albino. One or more of the kids could be six-toed albinos. Then maybe one of th six-toed albino kids has kids with the myostatin boy. Now you could (potentially) have ridiculously strong, six-toed, albino kids. Then maybe one of the the strong, six-toed albino kids has kids with someone who is color blind. Now you've got strong, six-toed, color-blind, albino kids. Then the albino kids have kids with really short people. Short, strong, six-toed, color-blind albino kids. And so on and so forth.
Now yes, this is a dramatization. Mutations are not passed on in such a simplistic and sure manner. But genetic changes DO accumulate over time. So no, you're not going to get ONE gene which causes a creature to suddenly develop a new, never-before-seen sensory organ or something like that. But you will see a gradual accumulation of mutations over time which give rise to modifications of old structures so significant that, and the end, the resulting structure may bear little or no resemblance ot the old one and so be considered something different. (Brain vs. mere cephilization, for example).
Runt
Well-Known Member
No idea. I can find no recent articles on him at all.
Runt
Well-Known Member
The animals they evolved from probably had echolocation or something similar. It may have been slightly different, but it was probably similar.
As for sensory features arising from bacteria... some bacteria have eyespots (I think that's what they're called) which allow them to sense where light is. It is commonly believed that mutations in these, and other sensory characteristics, gradually give rise to more "modern" structures (like eyes).
I don't think you're understanding what the theory of evolution proposes. No spontaneously arising new characteristics... just gradual changes to existing structures so that, eventually lead to radically altered structures.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
untrue. Scientists love island populations for evolutionary studies.
Speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse for instance.
What do you consider "new morphology"?
And by what meccanism do single cells choose to alter thier own DNA?
FYI. Not all bats have eccolocation. the Megabats (such as flying foxes) do not have this ability. Some bats have better eccolocation than others, some have hardly any at all.
wa:do
ps. just a fun fact... did you know that mice 'sing' in ultra-high frequncies?
camanintx
Well-Known Member
Echolocation is not all that different from the hearing we all have. Haven't you ever heard a noise and instinctively turned toward the source? The mechanism is the same so how does this meet your definition of new morphology?
Genes were discovered just over 100 years ago, DNA about 50 years ago, and the human genome was only mapped about 5 years ago, yet you think that because we cannot explain exactly how echolocation evolved in bats, it somehow disproves the theory of evolution. Do you realize how tenuous your "God of the gaps" theology is?
It's obvious you are too incompetent to be taken seriously.
supersport
Member
that's really not a necessary debate tactic..... how about this...how about you show me a scientifically-verified example of natural selection.
supersport
Member
there's only one problem with your little explanation of how mutations work -- gradualism such as the kind you're referring to does not appear in the fossil record. This is why Gould and all the rest of the PEs tried to figure out a way evolution could happen without gradualism -- because things don't change, and never have changed gradually. Your explanation fails in another way too.....humans, for example are not just modified worms or snakes or bacteria. You cannot just add on to a bacteria and eventually get a reptile or a human. It's a completely different body plan...completely new organs, tissues, layout, and funtion. Your statement that evolution doesn't need mutations to create novelty is simply false. ToE not only needs new information, but it needs new novelty....yet mutations can't do it.
camanintx
Well-Known Member
- (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
- (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
- (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
- (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
- (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
- (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
- (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
- (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
- (I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
- (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
- (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
- (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
- (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
- (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern
supersport
Member
"The fundamental reason why a lot of paleontologists don't care much for gradualism is because the fossil record doesn't show gradual change and every paleontologist has know that ever since Cuvier. If you want to get around that you have to invoke the imperfection of the fossil record. Every paleontologist knows that most species, most species, don't change. That's bothersome if you are trained to believe that evolution ought to be gradual. In fact it virtually precludes your studying the very process you went into the school to study. Again, because you don't see it, that brings terrible distress." (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould)
Nothing Gould says precludes punctuated equilibrium, which is what Gould argued for -- not creationism.
supersport
Member
Camanintx....all you have done with these skulls is artificially arrange them in an order that looks pretty on paper (or on the screen). I could do the same thing with dog skulls. I could take a chihuahua skull...then next to that put a cocker spaniel skull...then next that a terrier skull...then a beagle skull...then a collie skull...then a lab skull...then a great dane skull...then say "Voila...Evolution!"
The reality is you can no more prove or show any evidence what-so-ever that any of these skulls is ancestral to another any more than you can prove a terrier is ancestral to a chihuahua. Everything is a wild guess. As proof I would challenge you to show me any actual evidence that any of these creatures is ancestral to the other. Not guessing -- evidence.
Not only that, but evolutionists simply cannot be trusted with bones. All these skulls are locked away in areas where no one can view and/or measure them. There is rampant "artistic license" when it comes to skull reconstruction. If you don't believe me then check out a book called "Buried Alive" by Jack Cuozzo, an orthodontist who found his way into some of these secure places and did measurements and analysis on Neanderthals skulls and found that they were fraudulently reconstructed, making them appear more "apelike" than they should have.
Finally -- if you were to put the skeletons of each of these creatures in the picture (not that they're necessarily available) it would become quite clear which creature is human and which are not. This picture is only telling a small part of the story. Let's see the whole organism....and then let's decide.
The reality is you can no more prove or show any evidence what-so-ever that any of these skulls is ancestral to another any more than you can prove a terrier is ancestral to a chihuahua. Everything is a wild guess. As proof I would challenge you to show me any actual evidence that any of these creatures is ancestral to the other. Not guessing -- evidence.
Not only that, but evolutionists simply cannot be trusted with bones. All these skulls are locked away in areas where no one can view and/or measure them. There is rampant "artistic license" when it comes to skull reconstruction. If you don't believe me then check out a book called "Buried Alive" by Jack Cuozzo, an orthodontist who found his way into some of these secure places and did measurements and analysis on Neanderthals skulls and found that they were fraudulently reconstructed, making them appear more "apelike" than they should have.
Finally -- if you were to put the skeletons of each of these creatures in the picture (not that they're necessarily available) it would become quite clear which creature is human and which are not. This picture is only telling a small part of the story. Let's see the whole organism....and then let's decide.
supersport
Member
I didn't say gould was a creationist, I said he denied gradualism existed in the fossil record...which was the topic at hand.
So many unsupported claims, so little time. Why do you guys keep wasting your time with this person?
This is bunk. You can indeed provide compelling evidence of the chronological sequence of the fossils. It's been done. To say it hasn't betrays great ignorance.
I seriously doubt that you know anything about the trustworthiness of the scientific community. This is beginning to sound like a crackpot conspiracy theory.
Utterly false! Graduate students and scientists view and measure fossils all the time. Anyone willing to get an advanced education in the evolutionary sciences and establish competency in the field has access to the materials.
Are you seriously suggesting that there is a conspiracy to distort the fossil record -- which only a certain dentist has penetrated? Can you prove there's a conspiracy or is this just some crackpot notion you've heard?
Why don't you keep raising the bar? Wait! You just did. That's the classic way creationists get out of acknowledging evidence that doesn't support their notions of what should be there.
So, are you willing to admit that punctuated equilibrium is a valid competing theory to gradualism?