Alceste
Vagabond
You could know if you wanted to.
Everything is right there for the learning. Watching this biology course is a great beginning to what I hope will be a long and fruitful love affair with learning the truth about the world.
-
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!
Enough Time for Evolution?
- Thread starter Shermana
- Start date
You could know if you wanted to.
Everything is right there for the learning. Watching this biology course is a great beginning to what I hope will be a long and fruitful love affair with learning the truth about the world.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
So this is out there but saying an invisible undetectable being created it all is the most likely scenario?
When a single iota of evidence is provided for an intellgent design then by all means i'll consider it. Untill then I will go by the current evidence.
There is no actual way to calculate how likely or unlikely it is for life to form. We simply don't know yet and any calculation of such is heresay. But no there is zero evidence for a designer. So even if evolution was proved false (doubt it as there is no convincing evidence against it) ID would not be correct by default.
Already told you we have NO idea how common life is in the universe. It is impossible to know the statistical chances of life forming. Even if it is rare and so long as its not impossible its not an argument against it. I mean if someone wins the lottery its really really really really rare and against a bunch of odds but is it impossible? And on that note do you have any idea how many stars are in the known universe? And how large we think the true universe is compaired to the known universe? Then ask me how improbable those odds are.
Your lack of acceptance of the evidence does not mean the evidence isn't there. I can deny that the earth goes round the sun till I'm blue in the face but it doesn't mean that the evidence isn't there or science hasn't met its burden of proof. I have provided you with hours and hours of evidence that goes in depth quite a bit and I can give you hours and hours more if you would like. The evidence is irrifutable and displays enormous amounts of convincing arguments for evolution. So much so that it is preverse to deny it.
If I can take one step every hour does that mean I can't walk a mile with enough time? Evolution made the prediction and it came true. Now logic only follows that the change continues. I only wonder what people will say in a thousand years whne these experiments become even more advanced. Though I doubt there will be any significant number of people who deny evolution in a thousand years. It flabergasts me at the number of people who can't understand it today.
I have taken cracks at it. You dismissed my points without rebuttle. You simply accused me of not knowing what I was talking about. I only commented on specific parts I did fell comfortable discussing.
I don't feel qualified to be any authority on the critique of the paper and I have searched for a "critique of the critique" so to speak and have not found anything. The paper your have provided has not been peer reviewed itself to my knowledge nor have I found a rebuttle to the critique from the original author. Because of that you have held the critique as infallable which makes it very difficult a propper discussion.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
I did exactly what you said I didn't do in thyis scenario. In the same post you simply referenced to me not knowing what I was talking about or repeating the same response that I had already responded too.
Then I had a long response that has yet to be responded to all together.
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
Message to Shermana: Please reply to my posts #200, and #201.
It is not a coincidence. It just happens that the universe is real big and it turned out that life was possible in this planet.
We, quite naturally, turned out to exist in a planet that sustained life. That is a biased sample, not a coincidence or evidence of a purpose.
You seem to believe that all those estimates are just wishful thinking or wild guesses. That is not a lot of regard that you show for the serious work of cosmologists, archeologists and other profesionals.
Is Harvard Divinity School related to Harvard? I assumed it is. Am I an ***?
It's in the bible. It is how Genesis 6:1-4 is taught by all religious institutions according to what I have heard.
Have you never read it?
Google is great, isn't it? Yes, Harvard University has a Divinity School.
Last edited:
Shermana
Heretic
Okay, feel free to elaborate how the following remotely is substantiated and acts as a rebuttal. Let's see here:
Is that the same subject that we were discussing? Are you talking about proof of incremental changes in the DNA? Have you shown any demonstrated proof of how this occured?
Okay, feel free to quote how this happened, how the flapping from the claws developed into a mechanism for flight. They can't even figure out how the Bat Wing works, surely you should be able to actually substantiate this in a way that demonstrates incremental progression of the DNA.
Quote from your link an outline of how exactly this happened in regards to the changes in the DNA structure which allowed this.
.
Ah, yes there are 4 majorly contested theories, sure would you let to get into them in a way which relates to incremental changes?
And please link to this unanswered long rebuttal you speak of.
Shermana
Heretic
Message to Agnostic: You're looking for the thread about the concept of ID as a scientifically accepted theory among mainstream (generally Atheist) scientists, please keep your issues on topic and in direct reference to the actual points in the Review, thanks.
Like I said, I know it's asking a lot for people to not get into a general debate about evolution and ID, but if you could kindly not change the subject, as requested in the OP, your cooperation would be appreciated.
Otherwise, if you aren't able to actually discuss the topic of the OP, there's nothing wrong with silently spectating, it's much better than showing your unwillingness to debate the subject with substantiated, sourced counter-arguments that don't get into a series of generalities.
Last edited:
Shermana
Heretic
Reposting in case anyone wants to discuss this Evolutionist professor explaining that the Creationists are right to be skeptical about the idea of incremental changes.
[youtube]QKT3Qv-0Klc[/youtube]
EVOLUTIONIST ADMITS CURRENT EVOLUTION TEACHING IS BASICALLY BOGUS - YouTube
Note: again this is NOT a Creationist.
[youtube]QKT3Qv-0Klc[/youtube]
EVOLUTIONIST ADMITS CURRENT EVOLUTION TEACHING IS BASICALLY BOGUS - YouTube
Note: again this is NOT a Creationist.
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
Shermana said:
I just watched the video. Who is the evolutionist who is speaking? It is not appropriate to mention a source without mentioning his name.
He did not endorse creationism, and he did not claim that common descent did not happen. All that he objected to was the claim by some evolutionists that all evolutionary changes are incremental. He said that physics has adequate explanations for other evolutionary mechanisms.
A blogger at that link said:
"That Darwin advocated phyletic gradualism only is a common myth. On p91 of On the Origin of Species Darwin argues that rapid rates of speciation are possible. Eldredge & Gould confirmed this in 1993 with their work on Punctuated Equilibria."
Consider the following:
Phyletic gradualism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia said:
Are you implying that common descent is not true?
Last edited:
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
I shall
Did you read the links? Are you intrested in a scientific explination or are you wanting me to summon a bird magically here and evolve it in front of you? I have presented the evidence for all my claims ALWAYS in these debates and you brush off the eivdence as if it didn't exist.
Also again proof doesn't exist in science. You mean evidence and YES I GAVE IT TO YOU!
The above was almost all of it. I doubt the quote would do you any good but here is a good study done on the timeframe of evolution in birds specifically. Here is a link to it and if you can understand any of itthen you would do well to understand why evolution works. If not then I fear it is above your pay grade so to speak. So my specific quotes won't make any sense to you.
Rates of nuclear DNA evolution in pheasant-like birds: evidence from restriction maps
But if you insist here are some of the findings they have. I also cannot copy past parts of the PDF for some reason. But go to page 692 and it discusses this in part.
.
I have already linked you several times to places that have the fossil record dipicting the changes.
also as a rebuttle to your bat article.
Molecular Biology Fills Gaps In Knowledge Of Bat Evolution
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
The fossil record shows the incrimental changes of the birds. The 4 theories. I"ll copy past for you since you have a problem with links.
Pouncing Proavis model[edit]
A theory of a pouncing proavis was first proposed by Garner, Taylor, and Thomas in 1999:
We propose that birds evolved from predators that specialized in ambush from elevated sites, using their raptorial hindlimbs in a leaping attack. Drag–based, and later lift-based, mechanisms evolved under selection for improved control of body position and locomotion during the aerial part of the attack. Selection for enhanced lift-based control led to improved lift coefficients, incidentally turning a pounce into a swoop as lift production increased. Selection for greater swooping range would finally lead to the origin of true flight.
The authors believed that this theory had four main virtues:
- It predicts the observed sequence of character acquisition in avian evolution.
- It predicts an Archaeopteryx-like animal, with a skeleton more or less identical to terrestrial theropods, with few adaptations to flapping, but very advanced aerodynamic asymmetrical feathers.
- It explains that primitive pouncers (perhaps like Microraptor) could coexist with more advanced fliers (like Confuciusornis or Sapeornis) since they did not compete for flying niches.
- It explains that the evolution of elongated rachis-bearing feathers began with simple forms that produced a benefit by increasing drag. Later, more refined feather shapes could begin to also provide lift.
A cursorial, or "running" model was originally proposed by Samuel Wendell Williston in 1879. This theory states that "flight evolved in running bipeds through a series of short jumps". As the length of the jumps extended, the wings were used not only for thrust but also for stability, and eventually eliminated the gliding intermediate. However, this theory was modified in the 1970s by John Ostrom to describe the use of wings as an insect-foraging mechanism which then evolved into a wing stroke. Research was conducted by comparing the amount of energy expended by each hunting method with the amount of food gathered. The potential hunting volume doubles by running and jumping. To gather the same volume of food, Archaeopteryx would expend less energy by running and jumping than by running alone. Therefore, the cost/benefit ratio would be more favorable for this model. Due to Archaeopteryx long and erect leg, supporters of this model say the species was a terrestrial bird. This characteristic allows for more strength and stability in the hindlimbs. Thrust produced by the wings coupled with propulsion in the legs generates the minimum velocity required to achieve flight. Thus, through these mechanisms, Archaeopteryx was able to achieve flight from the ground up.
Although the evidence in favor of this model is scientifically plausible, the evidence against it is substantial. For instance, a cursorial flight model would be energetically less favorable when compared to the alternative hypotheses. In order to achieve liftoff, Archaeopteryx would have to run faster than modern birds by a factor of three, due to its weight. Furthermore, the mass of Archaeopteryx versus the distance needed for minimum velocity to obtain liftoff speed being proportional, therefore, as mass increases, the energy required for takeoff increases. Other research has shown that the physics involved in cursorial flight would not make this a likely answer to the origin of avian flight. Once flight speed is obtained and Archaeopteryx is in the air, drag would cause the velocity to instantaneously decrease. In addition, balance could not be maintained due to this immediate reduction in velocity. Hence, Archaeopteryx would have a very short and ineffective flight. In contrast to Ostrom’s theory regarding flight as a hunting mechanism, physics again does not support this model. In order to effectively trap insects with the wings, Archaeopteryx would require a mechanism such as holes in the wings to reduce air resistance. Without this mechanism, the cost/benefit ratio would not be feasible.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Wing-assisted incline running[edit]
The WAIR hypothesis, a version of the "cursorial model" of the evolution of avian flight, in which birds' wings originated from forelimb modifications that provided downforce, enabling the proto-birds to run up extremely steep slopes such as the trunks of trees, was prompted by observation of young chukar chicks, and proposes that wings developed their aerodynamic functions as a result of the need to run quickly up very steep slopes such as tree trunks, for example to escape from predators. Note that in this scenario birds need downforce to give their feet increased grip.[2][3] It has been argued that early birds, including Archaeopteryx, lacked the shoulder mechanism by which modern birds' wings produce swift, powerful upstrokes; since the downforce on which WAIR depends is generated by upstrokes, it seems that early birds were incapable of WAIR.[4] However, a study that found lift generated from wings to be the primary factor for successfully accelerating a body toward a substrate during WAIR indicated the onset of flight ability was constrained by neuromuscular control or power output rather than by external wing morphology itself and that partially developed wings not yet capable of flight could indeed provide useful lift during WAIR.[5] Additionally, examination of the work and power requirements for extant bird pectoralis contractile behavior during WAIR at different angles of substrate incline demonstrated incremental increases in these requirements, both as WAIR angles increased and in the transition from WAIR to flapping flight, thus providing a model for an evolutionary transition from terrestrial to aerial locomotion as transitional forms incrementally adapted to meet the work and power requirements to scale steeper and steeper inclines using WAIR and the incremental increases from WAIR to flight.[6]
Arboreal model[edit]
This model was originally proposed in 1880 by Othniel C. Marsh. The theory states Archaeopteryx was a reptilian bird that soared from tree to tree. After the leap, Archaeopteryx would then use its wings as a balancing mechanism. According to this model, Archaeopteryx developed a gliding method to conserve energy. Even though an arboreal Archaeopteryx exerts energy climbing the tree, an arboreal Archaeopteryx is able to achieve higher velocities and cover greater distances during the gliding phase, which conserves more energy in the long run than a cursorial bipedal runner. Conserving energy during the gliding phase makes this a more energy-efficient model. Therefore, the benefits gained by gliding outweigh the energy used in climbing the tree. A modern behavior model to compare against would be that of the Flying squirrel. In addition to energy conservation, arboreality is generally associated positively with survivability, at least in mammals.[7]
The evolutionary path between arboreality and flight has been proposed through a number of hypotheses. For example, Dudley and Yanoviak proposed that animals that live in trees generally end up high enough that a fall, purposeful or otherwise, would generate enough speed for aerodynamic forces to have an affect on the body. Many animals, even those who do not fly, demonstrate the ability to right themselves and face the ground ventrally, then exhibiting behaviors that act against aerodynamic forces to slow their rate of descent in a process known as parachuting.[7] Arboreal animals that were forced by predators or simply fell from trees that exhibited these kinds of behaviors would have been in a better position to eventually evolve capabilities that were more akin to flight as we know them today.
Researchers in support of this model have suggested that Archaeopteryx possessed skeletal features similar to those of modern birds. The first such feature to be noted was the supposed similarity between the foot of Archaeopteryx and that of modern perching birds. The hallux, or modified of the first digit of the foot, was long thought to have pointed posterior to the remaining digits, as in perching birds. Therefore, researchers once concluded that Archaeopteryx used the hallux as a balancing mechanism on tree limbs. However, study of the Thermopolis specimen of Archeopteryx, which has the most complete foot of any known, showed that the hallux was not in fact reversed, limiting the creature's ability to perch on branches and implying a terrestrial or trunk-climbing lifestyle.[8]
Another skeletal feature that is similar in Archaeopteryx and modern birds is the curvature of the claws. Archaeopteryx possessed the same claw curvature of the foot to that of perching birds. However, the claw curvature of the hand in Archaeopteryx was similar to that in basal birds. Based upon the comparisons of modern birds to Archaeopteryx, perching characteristics were present, signifying an arboreal habitat. The ability for takeoff and flight was originally thought to require a supracoracoideus pulley system (SC). This system consists of a tendon joining the humerus and coracoid process of the scapula allowing rotation of the humerus during the upstroke. However, this system is lacking in Archaeopteryx. Based on experiments performed by M. Sy in 1936,[9] it was proven that the SC pulley system was not required for flight from an elevated position but necessary for cursorial takeoff.
The WAIR hypothesis, a version of the "cursorial model" of the evolution of avian flight, in which birds' wings originated from forelimb modifications that provided downforce, enabling the proto-birds to run up extremely steep slopes such as the trunks of trees, was prompted by observation of young chukar chicks, and proposes that wings developed their aerodynamic functions as a result of the need to run quickly up very steep slopes such as tree trunks, for example to escape from predators. Note that in this scenario birds need downforce to give their feet increased grip.[2][3] It has been argued that early birds, including Archaeopteryx, lacked the shoulder mechanism by which modern birds' wings produce swift, powerful upstrokes; since the downforce on which WAIR depends is generated by upstrokes, it seems that early birds were incapable of WAIR.[4] However, a study that found lift generated from wings to be the primary factor for successfully accelerating a body toward a substrate during WAIR indicated the onset of flight ability was constrained by neuromuscular control or power output rather than by external wing morphology itself and that partially developed wings not yet capable of flight could indeed provide useful lift during WAIR.[5] Additionally, examination of the work and power requirements for extant bird pectoralis contractile behavior during WAIR at different angles of substrate incline demonstrated incremental increases in these requirements, both as WAIR angles increased and in the transition from WAIR to flapping flight, thus providing a model for an evolutionary transition from terrestrial to aerial locomotion as transitional forms incrementally adapted to meet the work and power requirements to scale steeper and steeper inclines using WAIR and the incremental increases from WAIR to flight.[6]
Arboreal model[edit]
This model was originally proposed in 1880 by Othniel C. Marsh. The theory states Archaeopteryx was a reptilian bird that soared from tree to tree. After the leap, Archaeopteryx would then use its wings as a balancing mechanism. According to this model, Archaeopteryx developed a gliding method to conserve energy. Even though an arboreal Archaeopteryx exerts energy climbing the tree, an arboreal Archaeopteryx is able to achieve higher velocities and cover greater distances during the gliding phase, which conserves more energy in the long run than a cursorial bipedal runner. Conserving energy during the gliding phase makes this a more energy-efficient model. Therefore, the benefits gained by gliding outweigh the energy used in climbing the tree. A modern behavior model to compare against would be that of the Flying squirrel. In addition to energy conservation, arboreality is generally associated positively with survivability, at least in mammals.[7]
The evolutionary path between arboreality and flight has been proposed through a number of hypotheses. For example, Dudley and Yanoviak proposed that animals that live in trees generally end up high enough that a fall, purposeful or otherwise, would generate enough speed for aerodynamic forces to have an affect on the body. Many animals, even those who do not fly, demonstrate the ability to right themselves and face the ground ventrally, then exhibiting behaviors that act against aerodynamic forces to slow their rate of descent in a process known as parachuting.[7] Arboreal animals that were forced by predators or simply fell from trees that exhibited these kinds of behaviors would have been in a better position to eventually evolve capabilities that were more akin to flight as we know them today.
Researchers in support of this model have suggested that Archaeopteryx possessed skeletal features similar to those of modern birds. The first such feature to be noted was the supposed similarity between the foot of Archaeopteryx and that of modern perching birds. The hallux, or modified of the first digit of the foot, was long thought to have pointed posterior to the remaining digits, as in perching birds. Therefore, researchers once concluded that Archaeopteryx used the hallux as a balancing mechanism on tree limbs. However, study of the Thermopolis specimen of Archeopteryx, which has the most complete foot of any known, showed that the hallux was not in fact reversed, limiting the creature's ability to perch on branches and implying a terrestrial or trunk-climbing lifestyle.[8]
Another skeletal feature that is similar in Archaeopteryx and modern birds is the curvature of the claws. Archaeopteryx possessed the same claw curvature of the foot to that of perching birds. However, the claw curvature of the hand in Archaeopteryx was similar to that in basal birds. Based upon the comparisons of modern birds to Archaeopteryx, perching characteristics were present, signifying an arboreal habitat. The ability for takeoff and flight was originally thought to require a supracoracoideus pulley system (SC). This system consists of a tendon joining the humerus and coracoid process of the scapula allowing rotation of the humerus during the upstroke. However, this system is lacking in Archaeopteryx. Based on experiments performed by M. Sy in 1936,[9] it was proven that the SC pulley system was not required for flight from an elevated position but necessary for cursorial takeoff.
Shermana
Heretic
Well if this is about the fossil record being a guaranteed demonstration of "evidence" that it happened in incremental changes, then we're going to have to just agree to disagree because that's for another thread. And perhaps you'd like to watch the link I provided above about how incremental changes is NOT a solid theory anymore by any stretch, but it may shatter your view so I caution before you watch.
Now with that said, I was hoping your quote would actually discuss the gene changes involved and not the speculation of how the bones worked in general.
Now with that said, I was hoping your quote would actually discuss the gene changes involved and not the speculation of how the bones worked in general.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
The cambrian explosion is not evidence against evolution.
Are you wanting DNA from fossils? I think you need to study this a little more before you can claim that such a thing is required for presentable evidence.
Shermana
Heretic
You misunderstood the point of that quote. We have no evidence of recent transitions. None. At all. You want me to go over that quote and others line by line with you?
That's not at all what I said.
Try again.
But if you want to go down that road.....
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090501-oldest-dinosaur-proteins.html
That's not at all what I said.
Try again.
But if you want to go down that road.....
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090501-oldest-dinosaur-proteins.html
The funny thing about it is this to believe in evolution is to believe in coincidence. Right conditions. Right building blocks. Right stamina. Right duplication and on and on many times. Too many to count.
Now we see a similarity in the structure of two very different organisms. It cannot be a coincidence. Surely the only reason they share a similar trait is because they have the same beginning.
Now we see a similarity in the structure of two very different organisms. It cannot be a coincidence. Surely the only reason they share a similar trait is because they have the same beginning.
Shermana
Heretic
At least they're honest that they want us to believe in a series of extremely, EXTREMELY unlikely coincidences. And they accuse religious people of having blind faith. I'd have better odds of going to Vegas and getting Royal Flushes on every hand.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Recent transitions? Are you serious? We know MORE about recent transitions than we do of ones made long ago. I have studied quite a bit of the human evolution inparticular. That is very very recent. Unless your definition of recent is the last 50 thousand years. In which case there isn't enough time for macro changes to have been made.
You said that you wanted an argument from DNA. I presented the DNA evidence and you scoffed at it. Are you wanting to see the specific DNA differences between an ancestor and the current forms? What type of DNA evidence are you asking for? Be very very very specific now.